Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 181 of 451 (469803)
06-07-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
06-07-2008 9:00 AM


Re: The Pima Indians: What Taubes Really Says
Percy it seems that you won't accept any criticims of your arguments.
You argue that we must accpet that there is a confiunding factor in the case of the Mexican Pima. But when it comes to the U.S. diet your evaluation is based on official advice rather than actual consumption and don't even consider the possibility of confounding factors. (e.g. reduced exercise - British children are kept in more than I was as a child and video games and other sedentary entertainments are more common. Mayber there is something similar in the U.S.).
Your Message 173 aside from the emotional appeal ignores factors that you are clearly aware of - because you have mentioned them in this thread - to "justify" the exclusion of fructose. Did you really consider everything carefully ?
It seems quite obvious that your bias in favour of Taubes' claims is affecting your posts. I strongly suggest that you take a step back and critically examine what you are saying.
As I say I find it reasonable that meat might be better for controling appetite. It seems plausible and at least your anecdotal experience backs it up. The rest of the claims seem very dubious, at least in so far as I can evaluate them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 06-07-2008 9:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 06-07-2008 7:38 PM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 182 of 451 (469812)
06-07-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
06-07-2008 6:16 PM


Re: The Pima Indians: What Taubes Really Says
What would be the point of discussion if everyone did what you're doing? For example, what if I were to respond like this:
PaulK writes:
Percy it seems that you won't accept any criticism of your arguments.
It seems that you can't accept that your half-baked complaints do not constitute legitimate criticism.
I could do the same for the rest of your post, responding to each paragraph by simply echoing your approach and tone back to you. Should we go on in this way? Or would you like to have a meaningful and constructive discussion?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2008 6:16 PM PaulK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 451 (469829)
06-07-2008 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Hyroglyphx
06-07-2008 5:25 PM


Re: Why Most Modern Diet Advice is Wrong
NJ writes:
If you don't want to be fat, then don't be fat.
Hi Nemesis. Great to have you back!
1. Many obese folks tend to blame genetics when in fact families tend toward similar diets of their parents and forbears. This likely affects the genes over a long period but on the short haul, not likely, imo.
2. Advocates of no breakfast usually practice a 2 meal regime, the first in late AM and the other in early PM. The science underlying this is that the long fast between the previous PM early supper/dinner and the late AM breakfast allows for the body to burn toxins and cleanse the system before taking on more food. This regime works only for folks who are disciplined on good diet and overeating.
Energy would be a greater problem when this regime is first implemented due to the toxin cleansing of the system. Once this is effected obese folks would get plenty of energy from the fat they burn and everyone using it get energy by more efficient and complete assimilation of the food still in the digestive system.
3. Eating frequently would work only when restricting bad carbs and fats as well as allowing at least 2 1/2 hours between meals for the food to digest. Imo obese folks would tend toward too many carbs for these snacks since wholesome meals including protein, vegie salads etc require more time and work.
4. One way to improve on any diet regardless of quality is to have a good natural herbal colon cleanse to keep elimination regular. This would be a great starter for any sick, weak or obese person. I use an herbal powder regularly. I've learned just how much to use each night before bed to keep things moving as desired.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2008 5:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 184 of 451 (469877)
06-08-2008 7:46 AM


The Role of Fructose
In my message Message 173 about carbohydrate laden food like bread being just as bad sugar I briefly mentioned fructose. PaulK's Message 181 made it clear that I phrased things in a way that made it seem that fructose's contribution to health isn't important, when the reality is that it is very important. So here is what Taubes says about fructose.
Most carbohydrate sources that do not contain sucrose (table sugar) and are not fruit contain very little fructose. Bread, pasta, most vegetables, they all contain little to no fructose. But sugar is 50% fructose (the other 50% is glucose), and today many concoctions like candy and soda are sweetened with a type of sugar that uses high fructose corn syrup, which is 55% fructose, enabling manufacturers to save money by using less sweetener, since fructose is sweeter than glucose.
An aside about high fructose corn syrup. One might be led to believe by the name that corn must contain fructose, but it doesn't. Corn is just the most available and least expensive source of glucose, which through a relatively simple manufacturing process is transformed into fructose.
Briefly addressing glucose first, the most significant fact with regard to the carbohydrate hypothesis is that pancreas cells are sensitive to glucose levels and respond by producing insulin. Consistent exposure to glucose causes insulin resistance in body tissues, which means they become less responsive to the presence of insulin which is key to the absorption of glucose, with the result that body tissues absorb glucose more slowly.
The reduced uptake rate of glucose by body tissues causes glucose levels to remain elevated, and so the pancreas produces more insulin, and this is the cause of hyperinsulemia, which is chronically elevated insulin levels (hyperinsulemia is one of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome, obesity being another). Elevated insulin levels encourage the uptake of fat by fat issues, so it is continual intake of glucose producing food (high carbohydrate food) that is one of the significant components of chronic obesity. Those with elevated insulin levels will find losing weight exceptionally difficult as the body will store fat at the expense of other body tissues and available energy.
But enough about glucose, what about fructose?
Fructose is contained in small amounts in fruit, about 8% by weight in grapes. Even though grapes are one of the fruits very high in sugar content, a cup of grapes contains only 2 grams of fructose.
Soda, on the other hand (using Dr. Pepper as my example), contains 40 grams of sugar per 12 ounce can, of which 55% is fructose, so one can of soda contains 22 grams of fructose. A 1.5 ounce Hershey bar contains 12 grams of fructose. Soda and candy are extremely high sources of fructose, unnaturally high, and our bodies were not designed to deal with such elevated fructose levels. About this Taubes says on page 144:
Taubes on page 144 writes:
In thie sense, all of the abnormalities of metabolic syndrome and the accompanying chronic diseases of civilization can be viewed as the dysregulation of homeostasis caused by the repercussions throughout the body of the blood-sugar, insulin, and fructose-induced changes in regulatory systems.
One interesting point I should make for those who rely upon the glycemic index for guidance is that the glycemic index doesn't include fructose. It is because table sugar is 50% fructose that it has a lower glycemic index than flour or starches. So just forget using the glycemic index to compare anything with sugar to anything without.
Fructose is handled by a completely different pathway than glucose because it can only be metabolized by the liver and so contributes almost nothing to blood sugar levels, which is why it doesn't affect a food's glycemic index. What does the liver do with fructose? As Taubes explains on page 200, "The liver responds by converting it to triglycerides—fat—and then shipping it out on lipoproteins for storage. The more fructose in the diet, the higher the subsequent triglyceride levels in the blood."
So what we have in sugared foods that combine glucose/fructose is a metabolic double whammy for obesity. Fructose elevates fat levels in the bloodstream, while glucose elevates insulin levels that encourage the uptake of fat by fatty tissue (technically, adipose tissue). In other words, if you're trying to lose weight, you should not, cannot, must not, consume anything with sugar. Not candy, not soda, not pastry, not cake, not pie.
But it gets even worse. Elevated triglyceride levels, which can be caused by fructose, are implicated in heart disease.
Taubes gets into much more detail that is too complicated for me to relate here. For those who are interested, Taubes devotes an entire chapter to sugar. It's chapter 12 and begins on page 195.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Clarify fourth paragraph.
Edited by Percy, : Grammer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2008 4:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 185 of 451 (469926)
06-08-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
06-08-2008 7:46 AM


Re: The Role of Fructose
Well I'm glad that my statements have had some impact, but you don't seem to acknowledge the issues.
This is from you Message 173
While M&M candy is highest in both calories and carbs, today the sugar in candy is usually 55% fructose and 45% glucose (it's made with high fructose corn syrup), and fructose is metabolized via different metabolic pathways than glucose. We really want to look at only the glucose component, both because this is what is thought to more directly contribute to obesity and diabetes and because we want to compare apples to apples,...
Given that sugar is 50% fructose, and you clearly believe that fructose is dangerous shouldn't you be saying that the M&M's are MORE like sugar - not removing the fructose from consideration ? What's the justification ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 06-08-2008 7:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 186 of 451 (470190)
06-09-2008 9:39 PM


Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
The title is not mine but is actually just the first sentence of a paper that appeared in last November's issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, A Call for Higher Standards of Evidence for Dietary Guidelines. Here's the entire first paragraph:
Marantz, Bird & Alderman writes:
Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based. While some public health decisions can and should be made in the face of inconclusive data, many should not. The need for restraint may be especially salient when considering dietary guidelines. Dietary fat recommendations are a case in point, as they may have led to significant and harmful unintended consequences.
This is the same premise as Taubes' book. An earlier column written by Taubes, The soft science of dietary fat, appeared in the prestigious journal Science for which Taubes has been a regular contributor, and the column is referenced by this paper (the link I provided to Taubes' article is at the National Association of Science Writer's website - it can also be found at the journal Science's website (The Soft Science of Dietary Fat), but that's a pay site).
I much prefer to let arguments stand or fall on their own merits without any authoritorial appeal, and so up till now I haven't said much about Taubes' credentials, and I'm not going to say much now. Anyone can be wrong, no matter how greatly respected or accomplished, and this most certainly includes Taubes, but he is a science writer of significant accomplishment, and he deserves far better than having his position casually dismissed as a strawman or as dubious or of being called a lying SOB, which is what has happened in this thread with an enthusiasm and determination that would do Ann Coulter proud.
In this paper, Marantz, Bird and Alderman review the history and evidence for dietary recommendations and their potential for harm using the example of the dietary fat hypothesis, the same hypothesis as Taubes. Making the point that firm recommendations with ambiguous support are not good practice, it's worth a read.
There's a rebuttal at Do Dietary Guidelines Explain the Obesity Epidemic?, and a response at The Authors Respond. I was wondering if the responding authors would pick up on the distortion of their position concerning causality, and upon the inappropriate comparison of their position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking, and in reading the response I found they did. It seems that when the evidence is on your side you argue the evidence, and when it's not you pound the table.
AbE: The lead author of the paper, Paul Marantz, is interviewed in the February 13, 2008, podcast of Scientic American's Science Talk: Fat Chance: Do Dietary Guidelines Actually Contribute to Obesity?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add mention of podcast.

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 2:19 PM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 187 of 451 (470282)
06-10-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Percy
06-09-2008 9:39 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
There's a rebuttal at Do Dietary Guidelines Explain the Obesity Epidemic?, and a response at The Authors Respond. I was wondering if the responding authors would pick up on the distortion of their position concerning causality, and upon the inappropriate comparison of their position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking, and in reading the response I found they did. It seems that when the evidence is on your side you argue the evidence, and when it's not you pound the table.
No link was provided to the original paper, but on reading the rebuttal and response, I find that neither is of any help to the argument based on dietary recommendations I've seen in this thread (e.g. Message 172).
The point the rebuttal makes on smoking - and other hazards is on the question of paternalism. It is pointed out that all health and safety advice can be seen as paternalistic. Marantz et al. do not point out any clear misrepresentation or even fully address the point. They argue that there is a difference between providing information and advice but it seems a very fine point and not one that is brought out. (Is putting mandatory health warnings on cigarette packets purely informational ? We have not gone that far on dietary fat, even now. And where would a ban on tobacco advertising or heavy taxation to encourage giving up smoking fall ?)
It is on the question of causation, though, where Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread. The conclusion that carbohydrates are responsible for obesity etc. is stronger than the hypothesis that the advice was a cause (because it proposes a specific cause). Marantz et al assert that even the weaker conclusion is only as well supported as the original recommendations. And they propose an alternative explanation that there was too much emphasis on fat, resulting in people eating too many calories on the assumption that they were safe if they avoided fat. So even the weaker conclusion, without considering possible confounding factors (such as the substitution for sugar for fat in processed food).
In contrast, the rebuttal to the original paper points to more recent and stronger evidence of harm from fat, which is it alleged that Marantz et al. ignored. There is no response to this point, even though it would seem to be more damaging than the issues that are addressed.
In short, these links are both damaging to the case against carbohydrates as it has been presented here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 06-09-2008 9:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 06-10-2008 3:29 PM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 188 of 451 (470301)
06-10-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by PaulK
06-10-2008 2:19 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
No link was provided to the original paper...
It's there, right in the first paragraph, Message 186.
Rebutting a paper without reading it? In the very same Message 186 where I was harshly critical of just such practices?
I don't know what to say, I'm speechless. I guess I'll just say thanks for making my case that the other side isn't engaging in any sincere and informed criticism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 2:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 3:44 PM Percy has replied
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 4:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 189 of 451 (470303)
06-10-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
06-10-2008 3:29 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
Rebutting a paper without reading it? In the very same Message 186 where I was harshly critical of just such practices?
Eh ? I didn't even try to rebut the paper. I just commented on the rebuttal and the response with regard to a specific argument raised in this thread.
quote:
I don't know what to say, I'm speechless. I guess I'll just say thanks for making my case that the other side isn't engaging in any sincere and informed criticism.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 06-10-2008 3:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 06-10-2008 4:26 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 190 of 451 (470309)
06-10-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
06-10-2008 3:29 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
Having now read the paper, I have to ask if you have. The only major point of agreement with Taubes is the idea that the dietary guidelines may have contributed to obesity. But it does not support the idea that fat is somehow better than carbohydrates, rather it calls such a conclusion into question.
As I noted earlier the argument you used refers only to the guidelines and not the actual change in diet. This paper does not make that mistake:
The major contributor to reductions in the percent of calories from fat was not a reduction in the numerator (absolute fat intake), but an increase in the denominator (total caloric intake)
According to this paper, women's consumption of fat even increased in absolute terms.
Quite frankly, I find it hard to see what it is that I am supposed to be rebutting in this paper. The point discussed above clearly supports my position and damages yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 06-10-2008 3:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 191 of 451 (470313)
06-10-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by PaulK
06-10-2008 3:44 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
Eh ? I didn't even try to rebut the paper.
Yes, how convenient when formulating your rebuttal not to have to deal with or even be aware of the original arguments except as they were characterized by dissenters.
PaulK writes:
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
This is what constitutes informed discussion for you? Someone who ironically couldn't find the link to the paper even though it was in the opening paragraph? Again, interesting.
You seem determined to participate in this thread, so instead of screwing it further why don't you pick out something specific that Taubes actually said or that I described him as having said and we'll focus on that. Okay?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 3:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 4:46 PM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 192 of 451 (470319)
06-10-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
06-10-2008 4:26 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
Yes, how convenient when formulating your rebuttal not to have to deal with or even be aware of the original arguments except as they were characterized by dissenters.
Let me repeat. I didn't even try to rebut the paper.
quote:
This is what constitutes informed discussion for you? Someone who ironically couldn't find the link to the paper even though it was in the opening paragraph? Again, interesting.
No, I'm just pointing out that you obviously didn't read my post before replying. Hence your false claim that I tried to rebut the original paper. Obviously you still haven't read it.
quote:
This is what constitutes informed discussion for you? Someone who ironically couldn't find the link to the paper even though it was in the opening paragraph? Again, interesting.
And you couldn't even be bothered to read my post.. As I said, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 06-10-2008 4:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 06-10-2008 10:45 PM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 193 of 451 (470386)
06-10-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by PaulK
06-10-2008 4:46 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
I have to get back to the ballgame, but real quick:
PaulK writes:
As I said, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Well, I guess this is just your style and you can't be dissuaded from it. Challenge a position, discuss through a couple rounds of rebuttal, then if your opponent hasn't already surrendered begin the mudslinging.
Let me repeat. I didn't even try to rebut the paper.
Though you carefully noted that you were addressing the rebuttal and response, the reality is that you were attempting to rebut the position of a paper you had never read. You haven't read Taubes' book, either, yet you're attempting to rebut that. At least you're consistent.
As I said before, since you seem determined to participate in this thread, instead of widening your swathe of ad hominem why don't you pick out something specific that Taubes actually said or that I described him as having said and we'll focus on that. Okay?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 4:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 1:29 AM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 194 of 451 (470393)
06-11-2008 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
06-10-2008 10:45 PM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
quote:
Well, I guess this is just your style and you can't be dissuaded from it. Challenge a position, discuss through a couple rounds of rebuttal, then if your opponent hasn't already surrendered begin the mudslinging.
Percy, you are falsely accusing me of attempting to rebut a paper I haven't read instead of addressing the substantive comments in my post. That's mudslinging. The comment you dislike is an offer to call things even, although the stubborn way you cling to your falsehood has rather tilted the balance against you.
quote:
Though you carefully noted that you were addressing the rebuttal and response, the reality is that you were attempting to rebut the position of a paper you had never read. You haven't read Taubes' book, either, yet you're attempting to rebut that. At least you're consistent.
The reality is that I did not try to rebut the paper. The reality is that the paper supports my position. I am not even trying to rebut Taubes' books. I have made it quite clear that I am commenting on arguments put forward in this thread. That's reality.
quote:
As I said before, since you seem determined to participate in this thread, instead of widening your swathe of ad hominem why don't you pick out something specific that Taubes actually said or that I described him as having said and we'll focus on that. Okay?
I did that. And rather than address it you prefer to make false accusations. You've even added a new one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 06-10-2008 10:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 06-11-2008 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 195 of 451 (470401)
06-11-2008 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by PaulK
06-11-2008 1:29 AM


Re: Many public health recommendations are not truly evidence-based
PaulK writes:
Percy, you are falsely accusing me of attempting to rebut a paper I haven't read instead of addressing the substantive comments in my post.
I accurately accused you of attempting to rebut the position of a paper based only upon information from dissenters and the author's one page response. Without ever having seen the paper, you argued in favor of likening the paper's position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking was valid. And without ever having seen the paper you claimed that "Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread." There's no way to hide such reckless scholarship. You were even so sloppy as to somehow miss the link to the paper in the first paragraph, so don't expect it to be convincing that your attention to detail suddenly improved.
That's mudslinging.
No, I'm accurately describing what you're doing, while what you're doing is mudslinging because when the first few exchanges didn't result in concessions you broke off from critisizing positions and instead took up attacking the person arguing those positions, and that's ad hominem.
The comment you dislike is an offer to call things even, although the stubborn way you cling to your falsehood has rather tilted the balance against you.
The only falsehoods being uttered are yours. I stand ready to discuss the topic anytime you're ready. Anyone who reads this thread beginning from when you joined will see my many attempts to get you to focus on the topic, and to stop accusing me of positions I never stated, but you wouldn't stop and then you began throwing mud, accusing Taubes or me of contriving strawman repeatedly (Message 167 and Message 171), accused me of attacking and scoffing when I never did any such thing, and then just started throwing out unsupported accusations with no argument at all, like that I won't accept criticism, or that I'm making emotional appeals, or that I'm biased, or that the claims are dubious.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the topic of this thread. Please focus on the topic.
I have made it quite clear that I am commenting on arguments put forward in this thread.
And I have made it quite clear that you are either misconstruing or mischaracterizing the arguments in this thread. Then while I was still attempting to make the issues more clear you began your series of posts that grew increasingly personal.
I did that. And rather than address it you prefer to make false accusations. You've even added a new one.
Everything I've said about you is true. You appear to be the type of person who thinks ill of those who disagree with him, and even worse, you're also apparently the type of person willing to give voice to those feelings.
I stand ready to discuss the topic any time you're ready.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Minor edit.
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 1:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2008 2:38 AM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024