anonemouse

By the way, there was a study that got published recently that basically stated that RNY and Lap-band were statistically equal in medium-term weight loss. There wasn't enough data available to analyze long-term weight loss at the time, but the way the numbers looked, Lap-band would probably be superior to RNY for long-term weight loss. The 8-year loss from Lap-band was statistically equal to the 10-year loss from RNY, which leads to the suspicion that 10-year loss from Lap-band would be statistically superior to 10-year loss from RNY. So with that, I chose to have Lap-band because of the following reasons: Ease of reversal Low mortality rate Low severe complication rate No malabsorption Adjustability Good long-term weight loss prospects Not as many "no" foods No dumping syndrome No smelly BMs or gas Healthier weight loss (slow = better chance at keeping it off) No "skeleton look"

RNY is reversible, but it is a much, much more complicated prodedure than removing a lap-band would be. The RNY reversal itself is likely to have complications, since the surgeon would be trying to stitch or staple everything back where it originally was. With a lap-band removal, all they have to do is go in and take off the band. No stitching parts together or anything.

You know, if you don't like the thread, there is a little arrow pointing backwards at the top of the page. No one is forcing you to reply. You may not be excusing them, but you sure aren't accusing them of treason, either. The point is to discuss. You know, that thing people usually do on message boards. This also means that you should see exactly what the man is being accused of. Of course, his webpage is going to fawn all over him. That's why multiple sources are usually used when people are trying to make a decision about something. That's why I posted the Wikipedia link. It's a good polar opposite to the man's show webpage. I'm not saying that you should take everything you see there as gospel, but you should weigh it against what his personal page said.

Here is the entire Wikipedia article.

Back to Michael Savage, this is something I found on Wikipedia: The man's disgusting.

And we still call bin Laden a murderer for ordering the 9/11 attacks, don't we? Even though he didn't actually fly one of the planes, he is still responsible for the deaths. Then I have to ask why you used the term "treasonous" instead of "libelous" or "slanderous" in the first place, since you know it has no bearing at all. I'm not saying that writers and commentators on the left can't be offensive, but we aren't accusing people of treason or advocating their imprisonment or death. That would be the commentators on the right. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? At least, that's what you probably tell your kids. Essentially saying, "Well, the people on the left do it, so we are automatically excused" doesn't fly. People should be morally obligated to object when they hear something that is outragous and morally offensive no matter what side the person saying it or writing it is on.

And that has bearing how? This is what you said: My statements still stand. I don't see how anyone can literally advocate that people be put in prison or be executed just for speaking their minds. And that is what you were doing when you accused them of treason. I can see that people might be offended by their comments, but to accuse them of committing treason is going way too far. In the context of the paragraph, your statement about having opinions and not trying to masquerade them as fact implies that it is a fault of only the left, and that it is one reason that you despise them. That is why I wondered if you listen to the commentators on the right at all, since they do that, too. Shouldn't you be despising them just as much? And I characterize you as someone despising the left, since you have accused them of treason. Being offended by someone is one thing. Going to the extent of accusing them of treason is another.

Like someone said in a book I read recently, "You don't have to call someone a nigger to treat him like one."

That's because it isn't meant to be humorous. What else would you call him? He sent thousands of US citizens to their deaths, all the while lying to us about the true mission. In my experience, anyone who's actions (which were knowingly misdirected) result in the deaths of other people is a murderer, or at the very least, guilty of manslaughter. And further, anyone who tells a lie is a liar. There are many different levels of "liar", though, but I'd say that someone whose lies result in the deaths of thousands of people is pretty despicable. See, there's that word again. There's the difference between the left and the right. The right says that people should be sentenced to long prison sentences or even death for using their right to free speech. The left doesn't. I may think that what you say is completely wrong, but I'd never advocate that you be sentenced to prison or death. It's funny that you add this, especially since you are implying that this is one reason you disagree with commentators from the left. Don't you listen to your your own side?

I just spent the last 8 hours on a class field trip, doing stream sampling for my analysis of aquatic ecosystems class. We went to four different sections of a local stream and got to do fish sampling by electroshock, macroinvertebrate sampling, seining, habitat analysis, etc. So now I am tired, sunburned, and quite wet and dirty (I waded into the stream in my pants and shoes, instead of wearing hip waders or rubber boots). It was lots of fun, but I am so tired at the moment. Here are some pictures that show basically what we were doing. Neither of these are of me or my class, just pics that I found online. The first is electroshocking fish and the second is using a kicknet seine to do macroinvertebrate sampling.

I don't know what to say, TOM. First of all, I am really hoping that everything turns out okay. Second, I think that if you do decide to tell Tina, you should wait until she is back in Florida, and not tell her over the phone. IMO, I think you should tell her that the doctors did find something when they did your MRI, but that they don't know yet whether it is serious or not. If you do tell her about it, though, make sure that you emphasize the fact that it probably not anything to really worry about. I think she deserves to know that there might be something wrong with you, but I don't think you should worry her too much at this point, when they don't even know the severity of it.

See, I don't see it as that. Instead of placing the blame for the Holocaust squarely where it belongs, with Hitler and the Nazis, he is essentially blaming the victims. To me, it doesn't matter that they may or may not have stood up for their rights. People have a responsibility to society to protect the weakest members, whether or not they were made weaker by their own doing. Instead of ranting about how people not standing up for their rights got themselves killed, he should be trying to figure out a way to keep the same situation from happening, to keep the people that would take away those rights from coming into power. That's a responsibility of the society as a whole, not just the groups that would be most adversely affected. And let's not forget that the people he is preaching to are the ones with the least to fear. In fact, I would argue that they are the group to be feared when it comes to stripping the rights of certain groups away.

Again, no, it's not, and I never implied that. What I AM saying is that the Jews fighting back as a group would not have made a damn bit of difference in the Holocaust. Hitler was focused on exterminating them, and he would have done it even if they had fought back. I am NOT saying that people should just give up and die without a protest. I am saying that it is incredibly naive (not to mention, counter to everything history has taught us) to think that the Jews fighting back would have prevented the Holocaust from happening. It's also incredibly offensive to effectively place the blame of the Holocaust on the folks that didn't fight (or weren't successful at fighting).

What is your favorite comfort food? It doesn't have to be healthy or bandter-friendly, but simply the food you think of as the ultimate comfort food. I have a few. French onion soup, homemade mashed potatoes, brocolli casserole.

Yes, I believe people have the right to speak about whatever they want to. But again, that doesn't mean that I have to agree with what they say. People seem to think that someone advocating for someone else's right to free speech means that we agree with what they say. It doesn't. All it means is that we think they have the right to say whatever is on their minds. It doesn't mean that we like what they say, or agree with it, or don't think the person is a hate-filled piece of scum. Again, I think the guy has every right to say what he wants, I just don't understand people agreeing with him.

No, I'm not. But that is basically what Savage said they did, marching quietly to their deaths. My opinion is that it wouldn't have mattered whether or not they faught back. If someone is crazy enough to want to kill an entire ethic or religious group, they are going to do it whether or not someone tries to fight it. I disagreed with what Savage said because he basically said that if the Jews had fought back against Hitler and his minions, the Holocaust would not have happened. I think it's bull because if you look at just about every other instance of genocide in history, people frequently HAVE fought back, and it didn't make a damn bit of difference. I agree, which is why I am not trying to force the guy off the air or create laws banning the crap he spews. But that doesn't mean that I can't speak about my absolute disgust for him and his following.

To me, there is a difference between someone not being politically correct and someone who just spews hatred. And I do. I can usually only listen to a couple of minutes at a time before I get so pissed off that I can't stand it any more. What I don't understand is other people actually listening to him enough that he stays on the air. I am a firm believer in free speech. I think he should be allowed to say what he wants. I just don't understand people actually listening to him and agreeing with him. When I was listening to him for a few minutes yesterday, he actually implied that the Jews were at fault for dying in the Holocaust, simply because they didn't fight back. He was also spouting off about what he called the "Homosexual Mafia." Again, I think he should be able to say whatever he wants, I just don't get people actually agreeing with him and being loyal listeners.

I would not be at all surprised. Although, the Anne Coulter thing is sort of funny, seeing as I consider her to be the female version of Savage.

Someone being a non-WASP doesn't necessarily mean they don't hate other non-WASPs.

I failed to find mine until they worked themselves out of my pant's leg when I was walking to class one day. Like many college students, I re-wore pants that weren't worn to the point of being dirty. Apparently, I forgot to check them for the previous day's undies. To be honest, I didn't even know they were mine, until I recognized them when I was walking back to my car. I was in a hurry when I apparently lost them, and I just remember kicking them, looking down, and thinking, "What slob left their panties in the middle of the sidewalk?" Apparently, that would be me. Luckily, no one was around at the time that I apparently lost them. I would have picked them up when I recognized them, but there were too many people around on my way back to my car. You can bet that if I do re-wear pants now, I always check them to make sure that there aren't any panties in them.

I am actually on the verge of being approved by insurance. I had to get screened for drugs/alcohol (don't ask me why) and have an upper GI done before insurance would approve. I got the screening done yesterday and have the upper GI scheduled for next Wednesday. After that, though, I should be approved. The major thing that postponing the surgery is that I had to switch surgeons. My information had already been submitted to insurance before we found out that the original surgeon wasn't in network for my insurance. So, I had to find one that was. No problem, right? Wrong. There are only two bariatric surgeons in my state that are in network. I decided to use the most experienced one, but she's very busy. Plus, she's going on maternity leave this summer, leaving me with a surgery date of late July, at the earliest.

Damn. I would love to go, but between surgery this summer (still not sure how much it will cost or when it will be) and my thesis work, I just won't have the time or money. But I REALLY wanna!

I don't think you should. You aren't keeping your DH from being his friend. He can go spend as much time with them as he wants without you. To be honest, I think your DH is putting a guilt trip on you. I think he knows that what Mr. P has done and is doing is wrong, but he doesn't want to face it. It seems to me that he is trying to get you (by reverse psychology, maybe) to put your foot down about it, just so he won't have to really face what his friend is.

Anyone else ever listened to this asshole? He (Savage) runs a conservative talk radio show. I catch bits of it occasionally on my 3 1/2 hour drive home, since it is one of only a couple of stations that come in. I don't understand how someone with so much obvious hate for anyone who isn't a heterosexual WASP can actually get enough listeners to keep his show from being cancelled. He's horrible. I have never been so disgusted by a person in my life, and I'm most disturbed by the fact that he passes himself off as a faithful Christian. It's utterly mind-boggling to me.

Why is it that you always get either hungry or thirsty when you can't have anything after midnight?