New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 15 Aug 2006 19:53 On 15 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> On 14 Aug 2006 17:56:13 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >A couple of years ago, when I was more active, I did get down to 74 kgm >> >-163 lbs - pretty much what I weighed in my early twenties - which put >> >my BMI around 23 - the same as yours - which is low for a resident of >> >the U.S.A. >> >> Two europeans in this ng have recently generalized that Americans are >> overweight. And both of them admit to being overweight. > >Check out the facts - about 60% of Americans are overweight (BMI over >25) and half of them are obese (BMI over 30) > >http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/Obesity_Minority_Pop.shtml > >Europe isn't as bad > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png > >I don't think that my BMI of 25.3 - back to 25.12 today - is a >significant counter-example. So your being overweight is somehow mitigated by other europeans being thinner than the average American? This somehow makes you not a "lardass"? My apologies, but I don't follow that logic; this carries nationalism (or is it europeanism?) to lengths I just don't understand. Are you less likely to have a stroke or a heart attack because you live near thin people? I control my weight because it's healthy and it makes me feel and think better. I don't do it out of nationalism, and I don't judge my ideal weight relative the the residents of any continent. John
From: joseph2k on 15 Aug 2006 22:21 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 06:50:30 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>Phat Bytestard wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:31:26 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: >>> >>> >Do you have a real name? >>> >>> Well, I am not a bot, if that is what you are getting at. >> >>You might as well be. >> > > Funny that I knew you would respond that way. So, by your own > definition, I could easily say the same thing about you. By track record you have. CurseBot. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: bill.sloman on 15 Aug 2006 23:04 John Larkin wrote: > On 15 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 14 Aug 2006 17:56:13 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >A couple of years ago, when I was more active, I did get down to 74 kgm > >> >-163 lbs - pretty much what I weighed in my early twenties - which put > >> >my BMI around 23 - the same as yours - which is low for a resident of > >> >the U.S.A. > >> > >> Two europeans in this ng have recently generalized that Americans are > >> overweight. And both of them admit to being overweight. > > > >Check out the facts - about 60% of Americans are overweight (BMI over > >25) and half of them are obese (BMI over 30) > > > >http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/Obesity_Minority_Pop.shtml > > > >Europe isn't as bad > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png > > > >I don't think that my BMI of 25.3 - back to 25.12 today - is a > >significant counter-example. > > So your being overweight is somehow mitigated by other europeans being > thinner than the average American? This somehow makes you not a > "lardass"? It makes Eurosheep less suitable for finding landmines tuned for American lardasses. > My apologies, but I don't follow that logic; this carries > nationalism (or is it europeanism?) to lengths I just don't > understand. Sicne you have just devised an ad hominum argument - a well known logical fallacy - it isn't altogether surprising that you can't follow the logic, that you have disingenuously set up. >Are you less likely to have a stroke or a heart attack > because you live near thin people? I'm unlikely to have a stroke or a heart attack because my blood pressure is controlled by the usual cocktail of ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers and a statin. My BMI is higher than I like, but since my waist circumference is fine, the BMI doesn't indicate any threat to my cardio-vascular health. I was supposed to go out to the first of this seasons field-hockey practice sessions last night, but it poured with rain - I'm tolerably fanatical about going to practice, but not that fanatical. The nine that did go out managed to get in an hour of very damp practice before the pitch got too wet to be playable. > I control my weight because it's healthy and it makes me feel and > think better. I don't do it out of nationalism, and I don't judge my > ideal weight relative the the residents of any continent. Very sensible of you. My problem for wieight control is my wife's emminent scientist life-style, which involves a certain amount of compulsory social eating. These events are usually good for an instant kilo of weight gain, which it takes me at least a week to get rid of .... Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Michael A. Terrell on 15 Aug 2006 23:04 Eeyore wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > > I worked two full time jobs for years, and spent up to 16 hours a day > > on my feet. Later, I owned an industrial electronics repair business > > where I spent a lot of time on ladders, bending conduit, and pulling > > wire. I got mad one day when I was in my early 20s and picked up a > > Pontiac 389 CID short block. At that time I could carry a large color > > console TV up three flights of stairs without help. > > Not quite the same but I did carry a short ( head not fitted ) Ford 1500 'Essex' > engine down 3 flights of stairs myself. The flywheel was on btw - it gave something > useful to grip. I'd rebuilt it in my flat. Very nicely done too if I say so myself. > > Graham That 389 went into my '66 GTO. Lets just say it wasn't quite a "Stock" engine when I finished. ;-) -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: bill.sloman on 15 Aug 2006 23:10
Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On 9 Aug 2006 17:02:27 -0700, the renowned bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >Jim Yanik wrote: > >> John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:00XLxlD+aX2EFwv6(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > >> > >> > In message <1155077708.010870.213940(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated > >> > Tue, 8 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > >> > > >> >>The odds are very good that your strategic arsenal will be made totally > >> >>obsolete before it is ever used. > >> > > >> > I expect most Americans, even the most barking that post here, hope that > >> > is true. They have much more to lose than Third World people, a small > >> > percentage of which are probably the only ones likely to survive a > >> > nuclear war. > >> > >> Look at today's Japan;they survived two nuclear detonations,and today are a > >> prosperous,free nation. > > > >Probably not indicative of the aftermath of a nuclear exchange with > >today's nuclear weapons - the two bombs dropped on Japan were 15 and 20 > >kiloton devices. > > > >Fusion bombs are a couple of orders of magnitude more powerful, and few > >attackers are going to limit themselves to two bombs. > > > >Do a google search on "nuclear winter". > > Well, it would put an end to global warming. Depopulating the North > American continent and a good part of Asia would leave a lot more > resources for the survivors. I think the Russians can still deliver a > nuclear hit on every population center over 25,000, and I'm sure the > US can do far worse. What survivors? Asteroid impacts that have had the same sort of consequences tend to kill off all the big, slow-breeding land animals - everything heavier than a few kilograms. It takes a few million years before the small, fast-breeding stuff evolves variants to fiill all the empty niches. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |