I done it!

[wafflycat]

Blue, I'm not slagging. Knowing loads about law does indeed mean diddly-squat when it comes to science. Just as being an expert in quantum physics means diddly-squat when it comes to understanding the intricaies of say, criminal law.. Being an expert in one field does not qualify a person as an expert in another unrelated field. That is what I meant, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Blue]

Blue, I'm not slagging. Knowing loads about law does indeed mean diddly-squat when it comes to science. .

I won't return to the subject of the thread. However, I have to make a point about this issue as it's personal.

I mentioned that I have extensive qualifications. I mentioned that I was a successful teacher of Law and Business Studies. My qualifications related to more that the subjects that I taught. I have passed academic papers in both general science and medical science at third level.

It was your narrow assumption that my retort attacked.

On a personal basis I don't have any problem with you, or anyone else. If people would read what I say instead of attacking it you would see that I applauded the efforts of all those who fight the good fight with regard to lifestyle - that includes you. For dear sake, I am in the same boat, as I have said.

I have enjoyed the debate and hope that we can part friends on this and maybe find subjects where we agree in the future.

All the best to you - enjoy your cycling.

 

[Blue]

sorry, i need to reply to Blue.
I think you may be a little delicate for Forums Blue, if you post an opinion and folk dis-agree and you are unhappy with what they say then first off, make sure you are right.

Steve, It was others who spat the dummies out just because I disagreed with one word in a comment about the obese. Read my first contribution. Read the early comments by WC, they indicated that she was touchy on the subject of obesity and she obviously meant that. That said, I wasn't trying to provoke. I only disagreed with one word for goodness sake!!

My opinions on all things are indeed simplistic - I would never dispute that. Simple doesn't mean wrong. While others contemplate their navels (the complexities of everything) I will watch the problem get steadily worse.

 

[Twenty Inch]

sorry, i need to reply to Blue.
I think you may be a little delicate for Forums Blue, if you post an opinion and folk dis-agree and you are unhappy with what they say then first off, make sure you are right.

Steve, It was others who spat the dummies out just because I disagreed with one word in a comment about the obese. Read my first contribution. Read the early comments by WC, they indicated that she was touchy on the subject of obesity and she obviously meant that. That said, I wasn't trying to provoke. I only disagreed with one word for goodness sake!!

My opinions on all things are indeed simplistic - I would never dispute that. Simple doesn't mean wrong. While others contemplate their navels (the complexities of everything) I will watch the problem get steadily worse.[/QUOTE]

Funny that someone with so many qualifications doesn't know the difference between "simplistic" and "simple".

Simplistic: overly simplified, not including all the factors that may contribute to the problem.

Simple: having few parts, not complicated.

Well done Blue. You've obviously spent a long time fighting your own (genetic? socially adaptive?) tendency to fight your over weight. As indeed I have.

But you display your simplistic attitudes to almost every other issue in your responses. Town planning is an issue in obesity. When BUPA and the WHO recognise addiction as a multi-faceted illness, then I don't see how a business lecturer can say it's not. And so on, ad nauseum.

 

[wafflycat]

That said, I wasn't trying to provoke. I only disagreed with one word for goodness sake!![/B]

My opinions on all things are indeed simplistic - I would never dispute that. Simple doesn't mean wrong. While others contemplate their navels (the complexities of everything) I will watch the problem get steadily worse.

To which the response was "Perhaps you need to be looking at some up-to-date research on the underlying causes of obesity." which is hardly a throwing the toys out of the pram-type response... YMMV

 

[Blue]

Twenty inch - I withdraw the apology I offered last week as your arrogance continues to astound.

 

[Steve Austin]

Blue, your stance is that weight loss is 'simply' less calories, more exercise will result in weight loss. Which is NOT true in all cases.

Your first couple of contributions to this thread were neither informative nor helpful, but they were confrontational and argumentative. So if you feel folk are being arrogant, i suggest you look at what provoked them.

Without meaning to insult your obvious knowledge, do you think that your statements may come across as arrogant and dismissive?

i do

 

[Blue]

Steve, I don't know why I have to keep repeating that I never held that my simplistic attitude held true in every case - to be arrogant about it; are you all thick?? (written in jest to get my point home via the shock, in case you don't understand!!)

Let's not beat around the bush. There is another thread in this section started by BFTB who proudly announced a weight loss via extra exercise and better eating - you and the others who are arguing with me have all simply congratulated him and some posters have repeated comments similar to my own.

When you show some consistency I will pay heed to what you have to say.

 

[fossyant]

Is it safe to come out yet !