Wheetsin

You've been missed! It's always nice to disagree (or agree) with a voice of reason.

Yes, I snap at that one too. When someone says, "I couldn't care less", it's like -- "Cool, then you agree with me!" Here are some that have come up recently (though maybe I've already mentioned them, can't remember) Insure is to protect against loss, as in "your policy will insure against damages." Ensure means to make certain of, as in "Please ensure the reports are done by Friday." I constantly see them used in reverse, even in publications. And I also see references to things that are wreckless - wreckless behavior, wreckless actions, etc. None of things can be "without wreck". It's RECKLESS. Accept means to take or receive, except means without. You don't except an invitation, and you don't like all vegetables accept broccoli. And a super biggun for me -- affect vs. effect. Affect refers to things that act upon something else, things are impacted, e.g. you have a chest cold is affecting your lungs. Affect can also refer to things of an emotional nature, such as the affective domain, or having a flat affect, or an affective response. Affect can also be used similar to "pretend" -- you could affect disgust. Effect has much broader application -- bringing something about, a consequence, an appearance, etc. Wars affect everyone, and their destructive effects last for generations.

Slightly different instances. Nascar, Hillary Clinton, country music and man love never beat, tortured, raped, or killed anyone. Comparatively they are very benign social facets. Were the people provoked? Sure. The Brits new that going in or there wouldn't have been the antecedent dialogue. Does that justify physical attack? Never.

I've read about that and it makes me a little uneasy. I can imagine sitting there, drinking some tea... my husband gets home from work, hits the remote to raise his garage door, and all of a sudden I'm restricted...

They would have to fight me to get my band. IF, for some reason, I wanted my band gone when I hit goal - well, I can't even suppose, because it would never happen. So let me say it this way: If I for some reason didn't want restriction anymore, I would see about getting an unfill. I would definitely want the peace of mind that would come with knowing my band was there, and could be filled back up if I needed it. There's nothing about my band that bothers me enough to give up the peace of mind it brings, or to be worth another elective surgery. See, I've been at my goal before, I could just never stay there. While on one hand I KNOW I would never let myself get up to almost 400 lbs again, I also don't fully trust myself to keep all of the weight off, and I simply would not accept something in between.

Just stick with it, it's well worth it considering the potential consequences. My liquid diet wasn't that long, but each surgeon has his own specifications. Branch out your food options as much as possible - SF Jell-O, popsicles, juices, broths, broth-based soups that have been strained, etc.

He was my surgeon and I think that he and Billy (his nurse) are amazing. I have not had the best experiences with all of the office staff, but I would still go to him again if I had to do it over.

Can I ask - do you think much of it stems from people wanting "proof" that it happened? Are those the types of messages you're receiving? I would imagine you were given some very personal stories. And people, without having "proof" that there actually was a prize, may now be feeling that they did it as part of a trick, or a joke - sent in these stories for some reason, when there was no free lap-band. I'm NOT NOT NOT saying that's what this was, I'm just putting on the other pair of shoes for a minute and imagining some of the things that could be going through their minds to elicit the response you said you have received. It's a tough spot for you to be in, if that's the case -- the demand for proof versus the requirement for anonymity. And it is absolutely unfair, if that is the position you're in, because I'm sure that's not something you would have anticipated nor hoped to "earn" through your generosity. Perhaps if anyone who left you a negative message is reading this, they will see that there are much more constructive ways to get their message across. And as I've said before, don't leave the forum because of a few people. Never give someone else that much power over you.

No, I would not. I would tell you that I am a highly visual learner, and perceive information through the written word quite well pending no distractions and a logical order. If there is something in writing that is not clicking with me, it's most frequently due to the logic behind its structure. While random, I do not process randomness effectively. And I would also tell you that I read things fairly literally, so when someone types something that doesn't make sense to me, or when someone is not a strong writer in general, I often struggle to "find the meaning", because I am not good at filling in the blanks -- though it can, on occasion, happen. (Which is part of why, with situations like "eD", I'm absolutely in the dark about its meaning). I'm not nearly interpersonally intuitive enough to be good at it, though. And had you offered to draw a diagram, I would have thought, "Cool! Maybe someone else knows this stuff too!" and started a dialogue.

Hmm, already replied to this, though I can't find it now. So if this does end up being a duplicate, my apologies. I don't remember saying that in the last month and a half, but that certainly doesn't mean it couldn't happen. And since no one wants to go and look, let's just call it even and say yeah, sure, that's exactly what I said. In which case, it still shows nothing. I am an atheist, and not teething. That doesn't mean I have never teethed.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the first part of what you said, so if it has impact on my reply, don't hold it against me. But yes - I'm sure your time is stretched. I've never questioned that. But if you question whether or not something happens, and you're told it has in other threads, then sometimes the onus is on you to check it out of you doubt the message.

No, not at all. You obviously are not acquainted with any of the "what do you do for a living" threads, or any of the countless other threads where I have shared (including one BJean had up not that long ago). A large part of what I do professionaly is to understand the different ways that people assimilate and process knowledge and information. Part of this is understanding that not everyone communicates or learns in the same way. For example, some people learn visually and cannot process information without some visual stimulation, whereas others might process kinestheticaly, and could find visuals distracting. Of course it goes much deeper than that, but that's another thread. I had said the same thing something like 4 or 5 times, if not more, and you were not understanding it. Hence, the possibility that you do not assimilate well through the written word, and that something graphic, associative, contratative, etc. might better get the message across.

Wow, it's a big deal for you that I'm wrong, eh? Will I own up to it? Is this about proving me wrong? Because that sounds very much like a challenge. Why make it that way? Why "us v them"? I have no problem owning up to it when I am wrong. If that's something you're craving, just spend some time persuing different threads and you'll find plenty of instances. More than enough to satisfy whateever it is you're after, I'm sure. And yes, I accidentally misrepresented what you had said. You said you were in christian ministry, and over the month and a half that passed since I read that post, I remembered it as you were a minister. That is my bad. But you may have missed my point. Your words to me were "I said I was in ministry, which is not the same as claiming to be a ministry". And I never made the claim that you were a ministry.

Have you ever wondered why you would assume I don't have a background in biblical studies? You're, again, making a lot of assumptions about my intentions. I have said things like 4 or 5 times now, and you still don't seem to get it. What else should I do? Are you a visual learner? Is there a better means of communication for you other than the written word, e.g., diagrams?

Umm no, see post #1809 where I stated very clearly: truly am sorry that you have physical challenges in being able to type, or other challenges in being able to spell. (And BTW, keep in mind that not everyone reads every post. It would be easy for someone to have not seen your posts re: arthritis, but you should not be so angry toward them for doing so). So again, you're wrong. But when I'm wrong, it's a matter of whether or not I will own up to it (and if you'd read beyond this read, you would have seen me owning up to it several times). I never said you were a ministry. :)

Thank you! I was asking seriously, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide (finally) an explanation. But where is it safe to go from there? Some of your explanation doesn't make sense. If I question it to gain deeper understanding, I'm tearing it apart. And if I don't question it, I either make assumptions about what the answers are (which does not further my understanding), or I just walk away as confused as ever, which has no gain for me. So in your opinion, what's the right course of action here? So do I understand correctly, that it frustrates you for people not to take what you say as the face value truth, and instead try to analyze it and gain a deeper understanding?

Yes! You weren't ignoring me after all! Ron Cusano, how do you KNOW that? What amazing abilities of mind reading could possibly let you know what I do or do not know? The same ones that let you know what I had or hadn't researched a page or two back? I will say it again. For the third or fourth time. I truly am sorry that you have physical challenges in being able to type, or other challenges in being able to spell. But when you type something that I literally cannot understand, what would you prefer I do? Ask to clarify, so I can be sure of what you're trying to say, or make assumptions? BTW, "3D" would not have been an assumption. Not in a million years. I honestly thought that, if anything, you were trying to say an "-ed" word, such as "blasted" or "truncated", but accidentally deleted everything except the suffix. Others have told you they would not have guessed "3d", so why won't you believe what I'm saying?

Oops just noticed this one! So if the fact that I am an atheist, who questions you about your religious beliefs despite already having my mind made up, makes me closed minded and a provoker, then... ...what does it make you to have questioned my atheism, after announcing that you were a minister?

TIVO rocks except when I have to watch TV without one. I get frustrated at not being able to fast forward.

I hope you will keep in mind the number of people who tried to help you, offer you advice and suggestions around your decision. And not lump us all into a few who have been nasty to you.

Hmm, first - no I didn't know what you meant. I'm sorry you can't type or spell well, whatever be the case, but an inability to decipher is not our (or my) issue. There's no reason to get defensive because someone literally cannot understand what you're trying to say. If I wanted to "nit-pick", I would have called out all the times you said raceist, or weather, any of the other misspells. But I didn't. I asked you to clarify meaning. If "everything I wrote is completely true", then I hate my parents because they are christians, and atheists hate christians. And franky, that's not only an inappropriate thing for you to suggest, but it's also, flat out, stone cold, black and white, wrong. I have? You're the one who brought up the entire topic of religion, after claiming to be a minister. Yet I'm the provoker? And how can I have done it "since day one" when for a long time, I wasn't even involved in this thread? Now that's desperation if I've ever seen it. You have not given an insightful answer to my questions, you've evaded them or gone on the defense. Or answered one little tiny piece of a larger question, or answered anything BUT what you were asked.

No, I actually had no idea. That's why I asked. I wanted to be able to understand what it was you were trying to say. How could I have known that "eD wording" meant 3D?? So I guess what we're really seeing is an example of your wrong assumptions, and volatile nature. Ok, you're probably going to attribute this to more nit-picking, but I've tried re-reading this statement a few different times and I really cannot understand what you're trying to say. Could you perhaps reword it? description what what was said is withing the context And no, I'm not looking for geometric descriptions. Nor am I trying to provoke an argument, but again with the wrong assumptions. I am trying to get an answer to my question. If the bible is to be taken literally, and the bible calls the earth a circle, is the earth a circle? Why not just answer the question? So scripture is literal, except for where it is not literal. If I understand correctly. And where it is not literal, subjective context rules the meaning. As I've said many times now, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, as it's definitely a bit divergent from the customary. I'm not a scriptural scholar, nor have I ever pretended to be. I have read the words, but I would never assume that how I take them is correct. So I have to ask. Only by asking can I understand what others think. I am serious. I think most people reading this thread would also say that I'm serious. I want to know. When I don't know something, I ask questions. It's strange, that when I've questioned Gadget or Lisa or Carlene or - well - any other christians, they've understood that my questions were questions, have taken them at face value, and have been happy to give me answers. Why are you so defensive when questioned? And what makes you believe I am close-minded? That I don't agree with your perspectives? Really? And if you want to try and call foul about how someone is acting, or how you believe you're being treated, or whatever else you perceive to be happening, RnR is not the place to do it. It's kind of the nature of the beast -- "if you can't take the heat don't go in the kitchen" kind of thing. I think you were reminded about this earlier, too. At least once. And hence you have proven the "Predictable Cycle of Ron Cusano behavior" absolutely correct. You get backed into a corner you can't rhetoric or evade your way out of, or someone shows that you are wrong, or you start to stutter over your own words. Adn then you try and make it person by attacking people's beliefs or, in the case of heathens like me with no beliefs, personalities. And when that doesn't work, you "quit". Either quitting specific conversations, or dramatically quitting the entire thread(s) (only to later come back). And no, this forum was around loooong before I was. But nice try. Unfortunately your insults have about as much impact as your logic. Aww, you give up so easily... I'm disappointed. Ok, that visual is about as creepy as you calling me darling.

First, what's "eD" wording? Second, you're talking about scripture. I'm an atheist. Scripture is all Peter Pan to me. So why on earth would I have a preference for the wording? Third, it is not "nit-picking" when you say that something should be taken literally, but then do not take it literally. That's a total paradigm shift. Everyone knows that context changes meaning, just like punctuation can. And if the meaning of something can be changed, it cannot be taken literally, because it is inherently subjective to its audience. So I truly, from the core of my curiosity, would like to know how you can have both "take it literally" and "don't take it literally" at the same time. My questions were serious, and you evaded them. Perhaps you believed for some reason that they were not serious, but then - what you believe isn't always right. It's only right to you. And hence we come very close to full circle. Yes, I deny that. I breeze past most of what you say. If you look back at this thread, you'll notice I've disregarded many more posts than what I have replied to. And I would also deny any "great lengths" to find fault with "everything" you say. For a few reasons. First being that when I have found fault with something you have said, it has been obvious. It doesn't take great lengths for me to see that the shirt I have on is brown, just as it doesn't take great lengths to see that something you have said is faulty. Second being that I don't pay attention to "everything" you say. There's no way I could even pretend to have read everything you've posted, let alone given them any regard or attention. So... yep. I would pretty much have to deny what you've asked. Consolidated for coherence. My responses are in black:

11/11 And somehow that indicates "Your Projected Love Life: Your Love Life may bloom soon".

My bad, I misread. I thought you had said that *you* had asked me, and I didn't want to have missed it.