Chat/Comment thread

You can't be serious that Jabba the Hutt there is in any way as healthy as he would be if he was not carrying all that pork around.I did put in time of Res 5 but I also put time in at the gym. What surprises me is that he is not embarrassed by how he looks.But now I'm worried that I'm starting to sound like a US conservative moaning about people not spending money on health insurance.Abe: over here any one who drinks, eats too much or smokes puts a disproportionate pressure on the nhs. People die because fatties, smokers and drinkers can't control themselves. Edited by Larni, : Abe

Yeah, people die because they are not immortal. It is the healthy ones that lay around in long term care facilities taking for ever to expire.This arguement is the worst part of public health care. The insidious erosion of your personal freedoms for the sake of economy.

I suppose it must be different in countries where you personally pay for your own medical treatment. I can't argue with free choice to be morbidly obese but I think it should be discouraged in the same way that smoking is discouraged.What's the real difference?

I don't know if he's healthy or not, Larni, and the point is - neither do you, because weight is not a proxy for health. I mean the science on this couldn't be more clear.For all we know, he jogs 5 miles a day and does weights, has the heart and lung capacity of a racehorse, eats 1000 calories a day and is still fat. Genetics, not lifestyle, is the overwhelming determinant of weight. Why should he be? Because you hate fatties? It's one thing to come on here and smear a guy because of his weight, but demanding that he also smear himself in accordance with your own personal aesthetic is a bit fucking much, don't you think? Well, we've been shaming fat people, now, for about (oh, I don't know) 200 fucking years. Has it helped any fat people muster up enough "self-control"? No, of course not, because there's not enough self-control in the world to deal with a body and brain that are responding to weight loss by entering a programmed starvation response that makes you obsessed with fatty foods and causes changes in your muscles so that exercising burns 50% less calories.Mass-balance nutrition is dead. If people can't keep weight off with an 800 calorie-a-day diet and hours a day of regular exercise, the problem isn't "self-control", the problem is a body that is so determined to stay fat that it's prepared to override the will of its occupant. Nobody bats an eye at the notion that someone with a brain tumor in this or that part of their brain might do things for which they cannot meaningfully be said to be responsible. Well, we're now finding out that trying to lose weight has a similar effect on the brain if you have a certain gene. I think that throws all notions of obesity being a "self-control" problem right out the fucking window, but don't let that get in the way of your little English hate-the-fatties parade. (But guess what, asshole, I've been to your little island and seen the statistics on the English obesity rate, and you're all about ten years away from looking like Kansas Fucking City.)

Obsesity is massive factor for health and there is no way that guy could have any level of fitness.Obesity - WikipediaBut if you are going to call me an asshole you can fuck off

Yes, you're right. But I think it's limited? From what I can tell there's the main 1-player story line, and then a separate, smaller 2-player co-op campaign.In Borderlands, it's the same main story-line. You can run it solo or multiplayer, it doesn't matter. Kind of like Diablo 2 style questing.
Well... if you can even call it a "story-line" in Borderlands. Let's just say that Gearbox focused their efforts on gameplay in Borderlands...

This thread seems to be a waste of board resources. If people want to talk about obesity or anything else I think they should start a topic on that topic.Just having a thread about anything seems to be counter to the purpose and history of this site. I did not just give a thumbs down because I knew I would be accused of randomly attacking chuckie(I am sure I will still be accused of it).This thread again shows Chuckies unfitness for moderator as he is missing the whole purpose of the site.Maybe the majority disagrees with me and if so so be it. I think if people want to just chat they should start an IRC channel. I am sure it will attract a few people, even myself.Edited by Theodoric, : Subtitle

It's not, actually. Take it from the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine:

quote:

---

Given the enormous social pressure to lose weight, one might suppose there is clear and overwhelming evidence of the risks of obesity and the benefits of weight loss. Unfortunately, the data linking overweight and death, as well as the data showing the beneficial effects of weight loss, are limited, fragmentary, and often ambiguous. Most of the evidence is either indirect or derived from observational epidemiologic studies, many of which have serious methodologic flaws. Many studies fail toconsider confounding variables, which are extremely difficult to assess and control for in this type of study. For example, mortality among obese people may be misleadingly high because overweight people are more likely to be sedentary and of low socioeconomic status....

​

The usual measure of leanness or fatness is the body-mass index, calculated by dividing the weight in kilograms by the square of the height in meters, and the optimal body-mass index is usually considered to be about 21.0. Above that level, the risk of death increases little until a body-mass index of about 27 or 28 is reached. Translated into familiar terms, a body-mass index of 27 to 28 corresponds to a weight of 162 to 168 lb (74 to 76 kg) for a 5'5" (165 cm) woman and 188 to 195 lb (85 to 89 kg) for a 5'10" (178 cm) man. Only for those with a body-mass index well above 28 does the relative risk of death reach 2.0. Furthermore, the association is highly age-dependent, as shown by Stevens et al. elsewhere in this issue of the Journal. It declines steadily with age until about 74 years, after which there appears to be no correlation between body-mass index and mortality.

​

Even granting the existence of an association between increasing body weight and higher mortality, at least for younger people, it does not follow that losing weight will reduce the risk. We simply do not know whether a person who loses 20 lb will thereby acquire the same reduced risk as a person who started out 20 lb lighter. The few studies of mortality among people who voluntarily lost weight produced inconsistent results; some even suggested that weight loss increased mortality.

---

Now, its true that neither of the authors of that article are specialists in obesity, but they are doctors which is a bit more than can be said of the completely anonymous authors of your Wikipedia article. And that article was written in 1998, which just goes to show how impermeable society has been to the scientific finding that weight is not a proxy for health. Oh, and you know that just by looking? Because you're a doctor? LOL!

I never played to Borderlands co op. I heard horror stories of modded cheaters buggering up saves.

SAGA rules RPG? I beg to differ. Multiclass in the that system was the key. And If the Jedi are that distasteful then you can always play in a era without them (the Rebellion era), or play when they are less important (Yuuzhan Vong War era). I know who mary sue is. If they were lawful stupid, then they would never break away and join the dark side. Conflict is the essence of the characters, and so is the temptation of the dark side. Besides I don’t think many of them are that lawful. They do happen to be mindful of the Force. Who isn’t?

Oh, well, they're not! If anything, the Sith are more powerful. They've done a good job of balancing the game. The Trooper is actually really damn powerful as far as DD goes. The Sniper class can hide behind cover. The Jedi are pretty limited, at least in the beginning. I feel ya. They certainly didn't screw this one up. As AE pointed out, almost everyone has joined the dark side (not me), so being a Jedi doesn't have that Mary Sue feel to it. Drop that pussy and bring back the Boba Fett avatar, for fucks sake.

Do you mean retired General Wesley Clark; the pompous ass who's only talent was kissing higher up asses?Who is "us"?

Your points are well taken and I don't want to think I'm dismissing them.But in thi one instance, can you honestly say that guy is healthy looking? If I'm any judge his BMI is at least 30.But chances are you are correct that I was being a bit of an asshole in characterising him as a fat bastard.You could be right that he is actually healthy.I just can't see it.Abe: can you believe 'Man vs Food' has just come on tele.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

When I said lawful stupid I meant that the Old Republic Jedi did not teach people about how to handle the dark side.It's like not giving kids sex ed to reduce teen pregnancies.I've ran a few games of SAGA but most of my SWRPG comes from the RCR system where every one played guardians.

I haven't watched the video yet (at work). But I'll take a guess at what he's whining about:1. Doesn't like the idea that he "puts in work" to get good gear and some punk-ass kid "can just buy gear" to be as good as he is.
2. Diablo 1 and 2 didn't have RMAH.
3. Blizzard is just doing the RMAH for extra money.
4. Always online means he can't play solo wherever/whenever he wants.
5. Always online means he can't do LAN with his buddies (LAN = no lag, online = some amount of LAG).My rebuttles as to why he's just dumb (and will probably buy the game anyway):1 & 2. Diablo 1 and 2 certainly did have RMAH. All games have a RMAH where anyone "can just buy gear" to be as good as anyone else. It's just done by 3rd party outside people that have a 50% chance of rippings folks off. D3 is just going to move the RMAH that already exists into the actual game so that there's 0% chance of folks getting ripped off when they do it. And, of course, it's not mandatory, there will be an "in game gold-only AH" as well. In fact, if you play Hardcore mode (one death and your character is deleted)... there's no RMAH at all, only in game gold-only.3. Yeah, Blizzard's taking a cut off the RMAH. But, well, anyone (the 3rd party companies) who ran all the previous RMAH's always took a cut... why shouldn't Blizzard? This just doesn't bother me and I don't see an issue. Besides, each player is given a few free auctions each week (there's a small charge to put an auction up in the first place otherwise). So, I just see this as better than letting the 3rd party companies have their way with it again.4. I find this to be a legitimate gripe. Just not with me, I tend to have an internet connection whenever I want to play anyway, so I personally have no issue. And the ease Blizzard will have with making updates and combatting dupes/controlling their economies will be vastly improved because of the online-always requirement. Therefore the downside (none for me) is hugely outweighed by the upside (massive for me) on this issue. I am all for the always-online requirement. To me, it will only make a better playing experience and should be done.5. Again, if you're into this kind of thing, I find this to be a legitimate issue. But, again, I'm not into this sort of thing so it doesn't bother me at all and I am still very happy that the game will be online-only because of the huge bots/dupes issues it will correct (or at least make a lot better).Um... yeah... so I've been following D3's development for the last 3 years...