|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9221 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,792 Year: 1,114/6,935 Month: 395/719 Week: 37/146 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Chat/Comment thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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, : AbeThe above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1794 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
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 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.
What surprises me is that he is not embarrassed by how he looks. 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?
People die because fatties, smokers and drinkers can't control themselves. 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Obsesity is massive factor for health and there is no way that guy could have any level of fitness.
Obesity - Wikipedia But if you are going to call me an asshole you can fuck offThe above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
rbp writes: You can do multiplayer though (in Rage), on the PC version atleast. 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... ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
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, : SubtitleFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1794 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Obsesity is massive factor for health It's not, actually. Take it from the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine:
quote: 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.
there is no way that guy could have any level of fitness. Oh, and you know that just by looking? Because you're a doctor? LOL!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I never played to Borderlands co op. I heard horror stories of modded cheaters buggering up saves.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4556 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Larni writes: I would get sick of the force users (specifically the Jedi) being an order of magnitude better than non-force users in the films and the RPG. 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).
Mary Sue is a term for perfect characters who seems to gain powers on demand (the EU is rife with this). I know who mary sue is.
Jedi, to me seem holier than thou 'lawful stupids' who stamped out other force traditions through out the 20,000 yrs of modern history. 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.
Abe: just realised that I'm ranting. I did not think Star Wars meant so much to me, lol. Who isn’t?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I would get sick of the force users (specifically the Jedi) being an order of magnitude better than non-force users in the films and the RPG. 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.
Mary Sue is a term for perfect characters who seems to gain powers on demand (the EU is rife with this). Jedi, to me seem holier than thou 'lawful stupids' who stamped out other force traditions through out the 20,000 yrs of modern history. It would be great if this was not the case is SWOTOR. 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.
Abe: just realised that I'm ranting. I did not think Star Wars meant so much to me, lol. Drop that pussy and bring back the Boba Fett avatar, for fucks sake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 166 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you mean retired General Wesley Clark; the pompous ass who's only talent was kissing higher up asses?
Who is "us"?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
rbp writes: I wont be playing D3 though, Francis explains why: 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... ![]()
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025