Re: Cycling and vegetarianism

DRS said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements. You made
factual error after factual error on a subject you know sod-all about and
you're still desperately trying to make me out to be the bad guy because I
kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk, buddy.

"I know you are but what am I?" Do you realize how you sound?

I'm not making you out to be anything. You're making yourself out to be a
malcontent and rude and angry.

I made a few simple assertions. #1 - That there was a general consensus
amongst the medical community on what constitutes a healthy diet and that
those are the guidelines I follow. You asked for "proof" of this, which,
as I said earlier, I wasn't going to take the time to provide. I don't
have to. It's not my job. I read the news. I read magazines. These
articles and studies float by in mass numbers all the time. They've been
written into textbooks since I was a child. They were the bedrock of the
biology classes I took in college. So I don't really care to site anything
to "disprove" you. Not my job.

#2 - I made the assertion that what really makes low fat diets
unsuccessful is that people eat "poor quality carbs". You nit-picked this
and took me to task for using that phrase when everyone with half a brain
knows what I meant. And if they don't they can ask me what I mean rather
than picking a fight like you did. I meant simple carbs, sugars, things
that in a regularly daily diet weren't really good carbs for you to take
in. You wanted to nit pick at terminology and claim that this shows I
don't know science. It just shows that... well... you're a jerk. I'm
talking about the food I eat, not presentation a dissertation on nutrition
for your approval. Thus my use of a term that maybe isn't 100%
scientifically accurate isn't a mistake or ignorance. The way you react to
it, though, shows your personality and your inability to relate to people
in any way other than arguing with them and beating them over the head
until they give up. This makes you a bully too, incidentally.

There are others. But basically what we have here is one person (me) just
trying to talk about his diet and another person (you) who likes to pick
apart language to start fights and win arguments. You hide behind your
supposed amazing knowledge of science and all these articles you can site
when the real problem is that you have the communication skills of
drunken, pcp-addled neanderthal.

Preston

"Preston Crawford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

DRS said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements.
You made factual error after factual error on a subject you know
sod-all about and you're still desperately trying to make me out to
be the bad guy because I kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk,
buddy.

"I know you are but what am I?" Do you realize how you sound?

I'm not making you out to be anything. You're making yourself out to
be a malcontent and rude and angry.

No, I'm not. You keep projecting your pathetic fantasies onto me and I'm
not going to let you get away with it.

Quoted message said:

I made a few simple assertions. #1 - That there was a general
consensus amongst the medical community on what constitutes a healthy
diet and that those are the guidelines I follow. You asked for
"proof" of this, which, as I said earlier, I wasn't going to take the
time to provide. I don't have to. It's not my job. I read the news. I
read magazines. These articles and studies float by in mass numbers
all the time. They've been written into textbooks since I was a
child. They were the bedrock of the biology classes I took in
college. So I don't really care to site anything to "disprove" you.
Not my job.

Yes, it is. When you make claims in a public forum and someone provides
actual science contradicting you, simply dismissing it out of hand as you
did is not a legitimate response.

Quoted message said:

#2 - I made the assertion that what really makes low fat diets
unsuccessful is that people eat "poor quality carbs". You nit-picked
this and took me to task for using that phrase when everyone with
half a brain knows what I meant.

You said far more than that and I took issue with each statement you made
that was wrong, not just that one. Your attempts to portray me as
nit-picking when in fact I took you to task for making substantive errors of
fact are wrong and disingenuous.

Quoted message said:

And if they don't they can ask me
what I mean rather than picking a fight like you did. I meant simple
carbs, sugars, things that in a regularly daily diet weren't really
good carbs for you to take in. You wanted to nit pick at terminology
and claim that this shows I don't know science. It just shows that...
well... you're a jerk.

It shows nothing of the sort. Time and again you dishonestly misrepresent
the facts - like you did just then - and then try to pretend I'm the bad guy
for not accepting your rubbish as gospel. When you persistently make claims
of fact that are wrong when they're been shown to be wrong then you are the
jerk.

Quoted message said:

I'm talking about the food I eat, not
presentation a dissertation on nutrition for your approval. Thus my
use of a term that maybe isn't 100% scientifically accurate isn't a
mistake or ignorance. The way you react to it, though, shows your
personality and your inability to relate to people in any way other
than arguing with them and beating them over the head until they give
up. This makes you a bully too, incidentally.

You desperately need to get out more. I'm not a bully. I just won't roll
over and let jerks like you get away with making pig ignorant statements on
subjects you know nothing substantive about.

Quoted message said:

There are others. But basically what we have here is one person (me)
just trying to talk about his diet and another person (you) who likes
to pick apart language to start fights and win arguments.

[censored]. What we have here is one person - you - who is so pathologically
dishonest you not only repeat substantive errors of fact that have been
proven wrong but you desperately persist in trying to portray your opponents
as deranged instead of simply admitting you were wrong.

Quoted message said:

You hide
behind your supposed amazing knowledge of science and all these
articles you can site when the real problem is that you have the
communication skills of drunken, pcp-addled neanderthal.

I hide behind nothing. Unlike you I back up my statements. You're just a
miserable whiner who can't cope with being proven wrong on matters of fact.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS said:

"Preston Crawford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

DRS said:

> Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
> you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements.
You made factual error after factual error on a subject you know
sod-all about and you're still desperately trying to make me out to
be the bad guy because I kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk,
buddy.

"I know you are but what am I?" Do you realize how you sound?

I'm not making you out to be anything. You're making yourself out to
be a malcontent and rude and angry.

No, I'm not. You keep projecting your pathetic fantasies onto me and I'm
not going to let you get away with it.

What are you going to do? Come beat me up? Take away my lunch money? Your
words speak for themselves. You bully people verbally.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I made a few simple assertions. #1 - That there was a general
consensus amongst the medical community on what constitutes a healthy
diet and that those are the guidelines I follow. You asked for
"proof" of this, which, as I said earlier, I wasn't going to take the
time to provide. I don't have to. It's not my job. I read the news. I
read magazines. These articles and studies float by in mass numbers
all the time. They've been written into textbooks since I was a
child. They were the bedrock of the biology classes I took in
college. So I don't really care to site anything to "disprove" you.
Not my job.

Yes, it is. When you make claims in a public forum and someone provides
actual science contradicting you, simply dismissing it out of hand as you
did is not a legitimate response.

Once again, I'm not presenting a dissertation nor am I trying to prove you
wrong. I simply stated there's a general consensus on how to eat right and
that I'm following it. That requires no proof in this case. If I were
presenting a paper, or publishing an article in a journal or trying to
sell something that might be a different story. But I thought we were
having a civil discussion on the Internet (which we were until you came
along) about protein. Nothing more. When you discuss current events with
your friends around the dinner table or while playing cards or whatever do
you bring along reams of data in order to back up every single word you
utter? Because that is essentially what you're asking me to do. You're
asking me to scientifically prove something I don't have to. Do you do
this every time you talk to people in real life? Or only on the Internet?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

#2 - I made the assertion that what really makes low fat diets
unsuccessful is that people eat "poor quality carbs". You nit-picked
this and took me to task for using that phrase when everyone with
half a brain knows what I meant.

You said far more than that and I took issue with each statement you made
that was wrong, not just that one. Your attempts to portray me as

Yes, you nit-pipcked many things I said. Picking them apart word for word
as if you were my college professor and not just some dude on the
Internet.

Quoted message said:

nit-picking when in fact I took you to task for making substantive errors of
fact are wrong and disingenuous.

What does that mean, though? One man's "substansive errors of fact that
are wrong and disingenuous" are nother man's "using plain english to state
something that doesn't necessarily require a scientific explaination in a
given setting". Did I miss something? Am I in college all of a sudden? Are
we at a scientific nutrition symposium or is this alt.bicycles.misc? I
think your inflated sense of self-importance is the problem. And it's the
reason why you nit-pick. It makes you feel intelligent and important.
Great for you, but sucks for me.

<< junk snipped >>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm talking about the food I eat, not
presentation a dissertation on nutrition for your approval. Thus my
use of a term that maybe isn't 100% scientifically accurate isn't a
mistake or ignorance. The way you react to it, though, shows your
personality and your inability to relate to people in any way other
than arguing with them and beating them over the head until they give
up. This makes you a bully too, incidentally.

You desperately need to get out more. I'm not a bully. I just won't roll

Actually, judging by your ability to rapidly respond to any post I would
say you need to get out more. And yes, you are a bully.

Quoted message said:

over and let jerks like you get away with making pig ignorant statements on
subjects you know nothing substantive about.

What does that mean, though? So your the science police for the Internet?
The whole Usenet is your classroom and you're the Dean? Who apppointed you
to this position of amazing self-importance?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are others. But basically what we have here is one person (me)
just trying to talk about his diet and another person (you) who likes
to pick apart language to start fights and win arguments.

[censored]. What we have here is one person - you - who is so pathologically
dishonest you not only repeat substantive errors of fact that have been
proven wrong but you desperately persist in trying to portray your opponents
as deranged instead of simply admitting you were wrong.

That's a lie. I'm not dishonest. I just don't care enough to refute your
deluge of scientific information when the foundation upon which I'm basing
my statements is commonly held beliefs about diet and nutrition. And
frankly, I don't care if I'm wrong or right. What I care about is not
letting myself get bullied like you are trying to do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You hide
behind your supposed amazing knowledge of science and all these
articles you can site when the real problem is that you have the
communication skills of drunken, pcp-addled neanderthal.

I hide behind nothing. Unlike you I back up my statements. You're just a
miserable whiner who can't cope with being proven wrong on matters of fact.

YOU DON'T GET IT!!! You keep talking about backing up statements, but to
what end? That's why you're a bully. That's why you look like you sorely
lack communication skills. Because you're talking about backing up
statements to refute things I say that I really don't care about proving
right or wrong because they're matters of public record. There's a food
pyramid, there are generally accepted ideas about how to eat right. I
follow those. I don't need to provide proof to refute you. I don't need to
back it up. It's out there. It's the general consensus of the medical and
nutritional community. If you have a bone to pick, pick it with them. But
leave me alone and quit trying to bully me.

Preston

"Preston Crawford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

On 2004-09-03, DRS <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, it is. When you make claims in a public forum and someone
provides actual science contradicting you, simply dismissing it out
of hand as you did is not a legitimate response.

Once again, I'm not presenting a dissertation nor am I trying to
prove you wrong. I simply stated there's a general consensus on how
to eat right

Is there? I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

and that I'm following it. That requires no proof in
this case. If I were presenting a paper, or publishing an article in
a journal or trying to sell something that might be a different
story. But I thought we were having a civil discussion on the
Internet (which we were until you came along) about protein.

There you go again. I was having a civil discussion - one I've had in here
before - until *you* came along making up nonsensical [censored] and claiming the
support of the entire scientific, medical and for all I know every other
possible "establishment" in the known universe.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Yes, you nit-pipcked many things I said. Picking them apart word for
word as if you were my college professor and not just some dude on the
Internet.

I nit-picked nothing. I took you to task on several substantive errors in
fact. Your attempts to make me out to be the bad guy for showing you up are
wrong and disingenuous.

Quoted message said:

What does that mean, though? One man's "substansive errors of fact
that are wrong and disingenuous" are nother man's "using plain
english to state something that doesn't necessarily require a
scientific explaination in a given setting". Did I miss something? Am
I in college all of a sudden? Are we at a scientific nutrition
symposium or is this alt.bicycles.misc?

We were discussing nutrition and diet. You talked utter [censored]. You got
proved wrong.

Quoted message said:

I think your inflated sense
of self-importance is the problem. And it's the reason why you
nit-pick. It makes you feel intelligent and important. Great for you,
but sucks for me.

I nit-picked nothing. I took you to task on several substantive errors in
fact. Your attempts to make me out to be the bad guy for showing you up are
wrong and disingenuous.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Actually, judging by your ability to rapidly respond to any post I
would say you need to get out more. And yes, you are a bully.

[censored]. I'm just not a patsy.

Quoted message said:

What does that mean, though? So your the science police for the
Internet? The whole Usenet is your classroom and you're the Dean? Who
apppointed you to this position of amazing self-importance?

That's called a strawman and you are particularly good at them (it's not
something to be proud of). First you invent some [censored] like that up out of
whole cloth and then you proceed to make yourself feel better by blowing it
down. The problem for you is that I have never once pretended to anything
like your metaphorical silliness.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored]. What we have here is one person - you - who is so
pathologically dishonest you not only repeat substantive errors of
fact that have been proven wrong but you desperately persist in
trying to portray your opponents as deranged instead of simply
admitting you were wrong.

That's a lie. I'm not dishonest.

You are pathologically dishonest.

Quoted message said:

I just don't care enough to refute
your deluge of scientific information when the foundation upon which
I'm basing my statements is commonly held beliefs about diet and
nutrition. And frankly, I don't care if I'm wrong or right.

You're being dishonest again. If you truly didn't care you wouldn't still
be trying to make me out to be the bad guy for proving you wrong. What a
jerk you are.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hide behind nothing. Unlike you I back up my statements. You're
just a miserable whiner who can't cope with being proven wrong on
matters of fact.

YOU DON'T GET IT!!! You keep talking about backing up statements, but
to what end?

Knowledge. If you want to do things like diet successfully you need to
understand how things like your metabolism work. You don't but you're too
damn insecure to acknowledge that. Instead you are *still* trying to defend
your pig ignorant nonsense.

Quoted message said:

That's why you're a bully. That's why you look like you
sorely lack communication skills. Because you're talking about
backing up statements to refute things I say that I really don't care
about proving right or wrong because they're matters of public
record. There's a food pyramid, there are generally accepted ideas
about how to eat right.

The food pyramid is widely regarded as retarded, including by most of those
self-same nutritionists whose opinions you claim to value so highly. That's
why it's being radically overhauled.

Quoted message said:

I follow those. I don't need to provide proof
to refute you. I don't need to back it up. It's out there. It's the
general consensus of the medical and nutritional community.

Is it? I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

If you
have a bone to pick, pick it with them. But leave me alone and quit
trying to bully me.

I'm not bullying you, jerk. I'm just not letting you get away with utter
[censored]. Welcome to Usenet.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS said:

"Preston Crawford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

On 2004-09-03, DRS <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, it is. When you make claims in a public forum and someone
provides actual science contradicting you, simply dismissing it out
of hand as you did is not a legitimate response.

Once again, I'm not presenting a dissertation nor am I trying to
prove you wrong. I simply stated there's a general consensus on how
to eat right

Is there? I don't think so.

I think there is. You just disagree with the establishment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and that I'm following it. That requires no proof in
this case. If I were presenting a paper, or publishing an article in
a journal or trying to sell something that might be a different
story. But I thought we were having a civil discussion on the
Internet (which we were until you came along) about protein.

There you go again. I was having a civil discussion - one I've had in here
before - until *you* came along making up nonsensical [censored] and claiming the
support of the entire scientific, medical and for all I know every other
possible "establishment" in the known universe.

?????? Yes. That's what I said, every establishment in the known
universe. That's exactly what I said. Talk about making things up.

Secondly, this line strikes me as the heart of the issue here.

"There you go again. I was having a civil discussion - one I've had in
here before - until *you* came along making up nonsensical [censored] and claiming
the"

You act like my claiming that there was a reasonable consensus on what
constituted a healthy balanced diet was somehow rude and that you just
*HAD* to refute it. Do you understand how silly that makes you look?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, you nit-pipcked many things I said. Picking them apart word for
word as if you were my college professor and not just some dude on the
Internet.

I nit-picked nothing. I took you to task on several substantive errors in
fact. Your attempts to make me out to be the bad guy for showing you up are
wrong and disingenuous.

Continue telling yourself that if it makes you feel right. I don't care.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does that mean, though? One man's "substansive errors of fact
that are wrong and disingenuous" are nother man's "using plain
english to state something that doesn't necessarily require a
scientific explaination in a given setting". Did I miss something? Am
I in college all of a sudden? Are we at a scientific nutrition
symposium or is this alt.bicycles.misc?

We were discussing nutrition and diet. You talked utter [censored]. You got
proved wrong.

It's "prove*n*" Professor, and I didn't get proven wrong. I didn't try to
prove anything in fact. That's all in your amazingly fertile imagination.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think your inflated sense
of self-importance is the problem. And it's the reason why you
nit-pick. It makes you feel intelligent and important. Great for you,
but sucks for me.

I nit-picked nothing. I took you to task on several substantive errors in
fact. Your attempts to make me out to be the bad guy for showing you up are
wrong and disingenuous.

Keep repeating it and eventually it will come true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, judging by your ability to rapidly respond to any post I
would say you need to get out more. And yes, you are a bully.

[censored]. I'm just not a patsy.

No, you're a bully. There's a huge difference.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does that mean, though? So your the science police for the
Internet? The whole Usenet is your classroom and you're the Dean? Who
apppointed you to this position of amazing self-importance?

That's called a strawman and you are particularly good at them (it's not
something to be proud of). First you invent some [censored] like that up out of

Actually, it's called a joke. Perhaps you've heard of them. A metaphor.
Trying to point out that you're taking something very small (my assertion
that the medical establishment has fairly well understood guidelines on a
healthy diet) and taken it to such an extreme that you've become a
charicture of a man. Thus the only way to try to make you see the utter
insanity of the path you're on is to try to pull out a couple metaphors to
show you the ridiculousness of your behavior.

Quoted message said:

whole cloth and then you proceed to make yourself feel better by blowing it
down. The problem for you is that I have never once pretended to anything
like your metaphorical silliness.

No. Running around telling people they need to scientifically prove
everything they say comes nowhere close to my metaphor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored]. What we have here is one person - you - who is so
pathologically dishonest you not only repeat substantive errors of
fact that have been proven wrong but you desperately persist in
trying to portray your opponents as deranged instead of simply
admitting you were wrong.

That's a lie. I'm not dishonest.

You are pathologically dishonest.

Once again, keep repeating it and you'll believe it's true. If that makes
you feel better then good for you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hide behind nothing. Unlike you I back up my statements. You're
just a miserable whiner who can't cope with being proven wrong on
matters of fact.

YOU DON'T GET IT!!! You keep talking about backing up statements, but
to what end?

Knowledge. If you want to do things like diet successfully you need to
understand how things like your metabolism work. You don't but you're too
damn insecure to acknowledge that. Instead you are *still* trying to defend
your pig ignorant nonsense.

Do you know how stupid that sounds? I have two choices here.

A) Take the advice of my doctor, nutritionist, ever doctor I've ever come
across, every book journal and textbook I've ever read not to mention the
anecdotal evidence that I lost 160lbs. eating this way and was quite
healthy in doing it or...

B) Wipe out everything and follow you to the path of enlightenment.

I wonder which path towards "knowledge" I'll take.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's why you're a bully. That's why you look like you
sorely lack communication skills. Because you're talking about
backing up statements to refute things I say that I really don't care
about proving right or wrong because they're matters of public
record. There's a food pyramid, there are generally accepted ideas
about how to eat right.

The food pyramid is widely regarded as retarded, including by most of those
self-same nutritionists whose opinions you claim to value so highly. That's
why it's being radically overhauled.

They think it's "retarded". Not completely accurate, maybe. But
"retarded"? I've never met a nutritionist who thought that. Most I've met
thought it was more or less fine, but needed some tweaking and some nuance
(i.e. quality carbs vs. poor quality carbs).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I follow those. I don't need to provide proof
to refute you. I don't need to back it up. It's out there. It's the
general consensus of the medical and nutritional community.

Is it? I don't think so.

Just because you say so, right?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you
have a bone to pick, pick it with them. But leave me alone and quit
trying to bully me.

I'm not bullying you, jerk. I'm just not letting you get away with utter
[censored]. Welcome to Usenet.

You are a bully. Refusing to let me say something and beating me over the
head with your supposed "knowledge" again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again....

That makes you a bully.

Preston

"Preston Crawford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

On 2004-09-03, DRS <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Secondly, this line strikes me as the heart of the issue here.

"There you go again. I was having a civil discussion - one I've had
in here before - until *you* came along making up nonsensical [censored]
and claiming the"

You act like my claiming that there was a reasonable consensus on what
constituted a healthy balanced diet was somehow rude and that you just
*HAD* to refute it. Do you understand how silly that makes you look?

You went *way* beyond that. I don't look silly at all.

[...]

Quoted message said:

No, you're a bully. There's a huge difference.

I'm on the other side of the world from you. If you think I'm bullying you
then you have severe personality problems. Stop trying to project them onto
me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does that mean, though? So your the science police for the
Internet? The whole Usenet is your classroom and you're the Dean?
Who apppointed you to this position of amazing self-importance?

That's called a strawman and you are particularly good at them (it's
not something to be proud of). First you invent some [censored] like that
up out of

Actually, it's called a joke. Perhaps you've heard of them.

Yes, I have. Jokes are funny. You're not.

[...]

Quoted message said:

No. Running around telling people they need to scientifically prove
everything they say comes nowhere close to my metaphor.

You're being dishonest again. I don't and didn't do anything of the sort.
*You* claimed scientific support for your [censored]. *You* opened that door.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are pathologically dishonest.

Once again, keep repeating it and you'll believe it's true. If that
makes you feel better then good for you.

I say it because it's true.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

YOU DON'T GET IT!!! You keep talking about backing up statements,
but to what end?

Knowledge. If you want to do things like diet successfully you need
to understand how things like your metabolism work. You don't but
you're too damn insecure to acknowledge that. Instead you are
*still* trying to defend your pig ignorant nonsense.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

It's not stupid at all to people who care about things like their health.

Quoted message said:

I have two choices here.

You have more than two.

Quoted message said:

A) Take the advice of my doctor, nutritionist, ever doctor I've ever
come across, every book journal and textbook I've ever read not to
mention the anecdotal evidence that I lost 160lbs. eating this way
and was quite healthy in doing it or...

You're being dishonest again. There is no such uniformity of opinion in the
"establishment".

Quoted message said:

B) Wipe out everything and follow you to the path of enlightenment.

I wonder which path towards "knowledge" I'll take.

There's always another option. You could try examining the evidence.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The food pyramid is widely regarded as retarded, including by most
of those self-same nutritionists whose opinions you claim to value
so highly. That's why it's being radically overhauled.

They think it's "retarded". Not completely accurate, maybe. But
"retarded"? I've never met a nutritionist who thought that. Most I've
met thought it was more or less fine,

You need to talk to more nutritionists.

Quoted message said:

but needed some tweaking and
some nuance (i.e. quality carbs vs. poor quality carbs).

There are no such things. There are simple and complex carbs. Each can be
useful. And the original food pyramid needed far more than mere tweaking.
That's why it's being radically overhauled.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not bullying you, jerk. I'm just not letting you get away with
utter [censored]. Welcome to Usenet.

You are a bully. Refusing to let me say something and beating me over
the head with your supposed "knowledge" again and again and again and

There's nothing the least supposed about my knowledge. I can cite the
references for my statements. You can't.

Quoted message said:

again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and
again and again and again and again and again and again....

That makes you a bully.

Nope. It just means I'm not letting you get away with trying to pretend
your pig ignorant [censored] has any connection with reality. Welcome to
Usenet.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Preston Crawford said:

On 2004-09-03, DRS <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...snip...]

Don't argue with it, Preston. It has absolutely nothing better to
do with its time, and as you've observed, it has a monomaniacal need
to "be right."

--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "allspammersmustdie" before responding.)
[email hidden]
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.

"Chris BeHanna" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Preston Crawford said:

On 2004-09-03, DRS <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...snip...]

Don't argue with it, Preston. It has absolutely nothing better to
do with its time, and as you've observed, it has a monomaniacal need
to "be right."

You are full of [censored]. Crawford was wrong but can't deal with it. That
doesn't make me the bad guy. It just makes him wrong.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?