anonemouse

That's definitely true, but some statements should be seen as mean, vicious attacks, even if we do think that they're right on. Sometimes, an unfounded attack is an unfounded attack, and shouldn't be tolerated. I'll be among the first to admit that the majority of the people on both sides that are heavily involved in this thread have made some attacks that really weren't necessary. Everyone involved in this thread is very passionate about the topic, and passionate people can easily become offensive, whether consciously or unconsciously. I'll admit that for a while, I was consciously baiting Ron. That doesn't mean I didn't believe every word I said, but I was so offended by his views that I took every word he said very personally. It became my misssion to piss him off and make him lose his cool and show everyone the wolf I thought was hiding under the sheep's clothing of Christianity. After cooling off for a while, I have come to the conclusion that Ron is probably a pretty nice guy, as a whole. Do I agree with his views? No. Will we ever see eye to eye on most issues? Heck, no. Do I think we can discuss issues in a relatively civil manner? I think so, in most cases.

That's why I asked. I didn't want to pass judgement and make a possibly regretable remark without knowing what you were disgusted by. I have to agree with Carlene. No one is forcing anyone to read threads at this board. If anyone doesn't want to read a certain thread or get involved in political or religious discussion, they don't have to. We aren't standing behind anyone with a whip at their computer saying, "You MUST read this! Or else!" To imply that this single thread makes the entire site unsupportive is simply illogical.

I am going to be honests in this reply, and I don't want you to think I am trying to attack you, because I honestly am not trying to. That said, to be honest, I am not sure why people, especially Christians, react with disgust towards this thread. This is one thread out of hundreds on this board. Letting one thread out of hundreds run you (generic you, not anyone in particular) off indicates a need to grow up and get a thicker skin, in my opinion. Religion seems to be one area where a lot of people think criticism is off limits, but only for their religion. In other words, they like to be critical of the beliefs of others', but when someone brings up their beliefs, they say, "Whoa, now. No need for this to get personal." I also have to ask whether you are disgusted by everyone that has taken part in this thread, or just those of us who objected to Ron.

I would personally rather have surgery in a hospital. Surgery centers are supposed to be cleaner, though, with less risk of infection. Still, I think I would prefer to be operated on in a hospital, where I know that there are lots of people with different expertises on call if there should be an emergency.

My God, yes. All of these things bug me, too, which is another reason I tend to take over the editing role in group projects. You wouldn't believe some of the crap that people write. I don't want their horrid grammar and spelling to lower my grade. I simply don't want to put my name on something with those mistakes, especially since they are fairly easily caught.

Some doctors will refuse to band you if you have a hiatal hernia.

Actually Ron, anyone who owns a ministry or participates in a ministry is a minister. They aren't necessarily ordained ministers that are sanctioned by a church, but they are ministers.

That's pretty much what I thought, too. That, or those keys were hit accidentally.

I just called the new surgeon's office, and they did receive my packet that I mailed a couple of weeks ago. I got the go-ahead to have my old surgeon's office fax them my file with all my clearances and everything. Hopefully this means that they will be able to send my stuff off to insurance soon!

I don't know why you think people should automatically be able to decipher your words, Ron. I wasn't sure what you meant by eD, so I just skipped over it and read the rest of your sentence. Ron, you are going way too far. You don't have the right to tell someone else to stay away. Why don't you try answering her questions? People generally won't ask a question that they don't want the answer to. Many of us have picked up on the same habit of yours that she mentioned. You evade questions and then complain that you are being attacked when we stay after you for an answer. We generally ask questions because we want you to go into more detail or to explain why you made a comment. That isn't attacking you, and it doesn't mean that we are automatically harassing you. We just want you to explain your comments and what your intent behind them is. Personal attacks like the one you just made aren't getting anyone anywhere, except possibly getting you banned. And you can be assured that if you do get banned, it isn't because you have a point of view we disagree with, it's because you are personally attacking people!

I feel stupid. That'll teach me to slow down when I read questions.

I was just about to say basically the same thing, TOM. People can find "evidence" of whatever they believe, whether it is Bigfoot, aliens, or a global flood. But at the end of the day, someone is right and someone is wrong, and the only evidence that truly matters is the evidence that can be scientifically proven. And the fact is, there is no scientific evidence of a flood that covered the entire world.

Well, abstract of an article, anyway. Here is a link to it. It compares results of all the major surgeries. I thought you guys might be interested. It may require you to register, but it's free. If you do have to register, it should take you directly to the article afterwards. The authors reviewed all reports published in English journals up until September 2005 that had at least 3 years of follow-up data. It shows that Lap-Band and RNY were statistically equal in the mid-term (>3 years). There weren't any long-term results (>10 years) for the lap-band procedure, but the authors did note this: "Mean %EWL for standard RYGBP (RNY) was higher than for LAGB (lap-band) at years 1 and 2 (67 vs 42; 67 vs 53) but not different at 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years (62 vs 55; 58 vs 55; 58 vs 55; 53 vs 50; and 55 vs 51). There was 59 %EWL for LAGB at 8 years, and 52 %EWL for RYGBP at 10 years. Both the BPD+/-DS (biliopancreatic diversion with or without duodenal switch) and the Banded RYGBP (banded bypass) appeared to show better weight loss than standard RYGBP and LAGB, but with statistically significant differences present at year 5 alone. The LL-RYGBP (longlimb bypass) was not associated with improved %EWL."

I have basically the same problem in a lot of store. The averages are too long, but the petites are too short, in many cases. Unless I am in Lane Bryant, where the petites are too long, also. I have the opposite problem with the waist/hips issue. If I can find jeans that fit my waist, they are too baggy in the hips and butt. If they fit my hips and butt, they are too small for my waist. I also have the "B" shaped stomach, but since I am on the short side, the low rise pants actually look half-way decent on me. Of course, they don't look like low-rise, since they come up to my waist! That's the one time I can actually find jeans that fit both my hips/butt and waist. I wish that manufacturers would make women's pants like they do men's. You know, where you can get different inseam lengths with different waist measurements. But no, they want to make women feel bad because they have to buy crappy-fitting pants.

Ron, go here. This is a list of creationists' claims and the rebuttals to them. I noted several instances of your so-called "evidence" being rebutted. The flood section is CH400-CH599. This is a nice page, too, that summarizes much of the problems noted with a world-wide flood.

Just remember that most of the food (especially fast food) that is advertised on TV doesn't really taste very good. If you start craving it, just imagine a nice scoop of lard slapped on a bun or on a pizza crust, because that is basically what you would be eating. It makes it a whole lot easier to avoid.

Ron, that page that you linked doesn't list proof of a world-wide flood.

I really envy those of you who have experienced being thin. Like I said in my earlier post, I was average until I hit puberty. The problem was that I hit puberty early enough that I wasn't really aware of my body before then. I have no idea what I'll look like when I lose this weight. I think it is a little easier for people who have experienced being a normal weight as an adult. They know what to look forward to and expect. They have that extra bit of motivation because they want to get back to that point. Those of us who have been heavy since childhood don't have that motivating factor. I mean, sure it would be nice to be thin, but what does thin feel like? It's almost like an abstract idea because we have never experienced it before.

You forget that they aren't writing laws to make it legal. They are writing them to make it illegal. It isn't so it can't be overturned on a state level, it's because there is a law in place that states that marriages recognized by one state must be recognized by another. In other words, if you got married in Nevada, you would still be married if you moved to Kansas.

ANd in much of these cases, these are recent developments. Again, if it was already illegal, they didn't need constitutional amendments or to change their laws.

Yes, homosexual acts were illegal (although sodomy is not necessarily homosexual), but the fight over same sex marriage is one of convention. In many cases, they've had to change the wording on marriage licenses because it didn't limit it to "one man and one woman". That is really the basis of a lot of the legal challenges, because homosexual marriage wasn't explicitly denied. Otherwise, the challenges wouldn't have gotten anywhere. A lot of the fight is over whether something that is not explicitly denied is permitted. In other words, the legal-ese. Again, unless something is specifically denied, it isn't necessarily illegal.

No one tried to marry another person of the same sex until recent times, which is why there hasn't been a law banning homosexual marriage before. Homosexual marriage was not illegal in most cases, just so far outside the norm that no one thought to ban it before now. The fact remains that there is no need for a constitutional amendment to ban something that is already illegal. So either lawmakers are tying to amend the constitution because they know that gay marriage isn't illegal, or they are wasting their time because it is already illegal. Either way, they're idiots.

Actually, it hasn't. Otherwise, there wouldn't be this rush to push through laws specifically banning homosexual marriage. You don't need to ban something that is already against the law.

Ron, I have been informed by several people on this site that God considers all sin to be equal. If that is true, then all things considered "sinful" in the Bible would be against the law if we allowed our laws to be made based on biblical standards. Pus, if that were true, you would have to punish all sins equally. Which basically means that a murderer and an adulterer would receive the same punishment.

"Strange flesh" could easily mean bestiality or even adultery.