anonemouse

It's a form of gastric bypass.

It really is useful, especially if you do buy a lot of stuff.

That burns me. I'd be tempted to have the CEO write a letter to her boss, detailing the offensive email and then going through every. single. item. that you guys did for them that you didn't have to do. And then I'd sum it up by telling them to take their business elsewhere after this order is finished, that you no longer need it.

I actually fully agree with you. :guess

Yep, those are the ones! Just wanted to add that from many of the accounts that I've heard, Dr. Woodman's a bit of an ass. Definitely a good surgeon, but an ass. I've met former patients of his in the waiting room at my doc's office (Dr. Weaver is my doc), and they've switched docs because he's been downright nasty when they've gone in for checkups after surgery. Apparently, he frequently makes patients cry, so if you're a sensitive person, I wouldn't necessarily go with him.

I'm sorry, but someone only has to check out the life after band removal forum and the complications forum to know that this isn't an "only good things said" board. In the year that I've been a member here (I was a member for 9 months before I was banded), I have seen many, many posts from people that weren't happy with their bands, that'd had complications, that had their bands removed, that couldn't physically tolerate the band for one reason or another, and that refuse to take advice. Quite frankly, I think if someone HASN'T seen those posts, they've just not looked for them.

Ha! I love it!

You and me both! Something along the line of "An Analysis of Online Interaction Among Members of a Weightloss Support Website?" Hey, find the right professor, and I'm sure you could make a convincing pitch for it. I've seen research papers that had less to work with. Hell, I saw someone's mock-up for a poster presentation on sex and the presentation of women in media. If they could do that, surely this site would be fair game. Hell, I'd read it. But then again, I read ornithological research journals for fun, too. :madgrin:

ITA. People vote for the wrong reasons every day. Hell, many people that vote just vote party-line, and don't even look to see if they agree with the candidate. That's not any better than voting just because you like a celebrity.

They don't bother me at all. My old roommate converted to LDS to be with her boyfriend (who she subsequently married and then divorced - the day before the 1st anniversary). I mean, I don't get the religion (hell, I don't get ANY religion), but they're generally better than a lot of folks. They usually leave you alone when asked (individual ones do, anyway), which is more than I can say about the Southern Baptists in my area. My roomie and her boyfriend/hubby/ex/whatever were really, really tolerant about my Atheism, to the point of honestly wanting to know more about what I believed and why I believed it. Never tried to convert me once, just honest conversation. EDITED TO ADD: I've heard many people of other faiths (usually other Christians) call the LDS a cult, but hey, from my POV, they aren't any more or less cult-like than any other religion.

Of course, science and scientists aren't infallible. But they measure the success/failure of their experiments by the standards of science. Those standards are always changing, and hypotheses and theories fall by the way-side every day. That's the point of science. We TRY to prove ourselves wrong. And yes, I'm sure that I don't care whether someone believes in science. But I do care WHY they do or don't believe. If they are using a bastardization of scientific theory to support their disbelief, I'll definitely challenge them to defend their stance. If someone is going to use so-called scientific theory to support their stance, they should use REAL scientific theory, not a bastardization of it. If someone wants to say, "this is what I believe, and I believe it because I believe it," that's perfectly reasonable to me. If someone, on the other hand, says, "this is what I believe, and I believe it because I don't think the scientific evidence fits the warped definition I have of 'evidence,'" I don't really think their opinions hold water.

I wish! :biggrin1: I'd much rather have had that than look at that website. :phanvan

Thank you! I've got pretty toes now, btw. I got them done in a funky irridescent aqua. It was SO relaxing to get a pedicure after the last week. And I REALLY needed it. My toenails were icky. EDIT: I just realized that you weren't the one I was discussing my pedicure-as-reward plans with. Oh well.

Yes, but Microsoft was trying to design a consumer-friendly product. Scientists really don't care whether the rest of the world believes their theories or not, all they care about is the research and the process of learning. As such, they should be the only ones defining their terminology. It really doesn't matter to me whether someone believes in evolution or creationism. But a creationist better not take MY words and terminology, change the definition, and then claim that the evidence I have doesn't meet their changed definition.

I think you have to look at what's accepted by the mainstream establishment, to be honest. Are those Creation scientists picking and choosing what their evidence is? Are they using mainstream definitions for that evidence or are they twisting the definition out of mainstream use? The fact is, many creation scientists have degrees in religion or theology, not true science. And many of the ones that DO have science degrees don't have degrees in biology or evolutionary ecology. And honestly? A physicist telling me, "Oh, biologists are wrong, wrong, wrong!" doesn't hold a lot of water, IMO. A tiny, teensy-weensy number of scientists (biologists) are creationists, when compared to the number of biologists that believe in evolution. And what are they basing their belief on? Their personal religious beliefs or actual evidence?

All scientific experiments can, in theory, be disproven. But again, get that million-year experiment funded, and our descendents will be able to make the determination. Right now, from the evidence that we have, it's a very valid scientific theory. It's not like we, as scientists, are holding up a single organism and saying, "HERE, HERE is the evidence for evolution!" There's LOTS of fossil evidence out there, if people are willing to open their eyes and look and use scientific definitions for scientific terms.

Hey, fund a million-year study and we'll see the results in a million years. The fact is, current evidence points to the accuracy of the theory. If at some time, a million-year study takes place, and the theory is proven wrong, it's no skin off my back. That's science. But right now, the evidence that we have indicates that the theory is correct. I'm all for someone attempting to disprove it, but shouldn't that be done to the standards of science, not the standards of creationism? And in science, you need to follow science's interpretations and definitions used by that science, not the interpretations and definitions used by creationists.

Oh yeah, I'm not meaning that in a hateful way or trying to make you think someone's beliefs aren't important. But the fact is, scientists should be the only people defining scientific theories and words, not lay-people, just like in other fields. For example, when you are talking about a fishery, a lake and a reservoir are very similar concepts, but have very different definitions. A lay-person may call both a "lake" and may define them the same way if asked, but that doesn't mean that a "lake" and a "reservoir" are the same thing, when you get right down to it.

Yes, it is. But you can't expect scientists to repeat a million-year process in a month or even a year, can you? I'm sure if we could do a million-year experiment, we could repeat it. The fact is, we don't have the time. Fund a million-year experiment, and I'm sure it would be proven.

Bumpity-bump.

Well, science says that those are transitional forms. And really, when it comes to science, who's better qualified to to say whether or not something fits a scientific definition, scientists or people that have a vested interest in not believing it? Of course they haven't shown transition in a laboratory. Transition takes thousands, millions of years. It doesn't happen overnight.

Exactly. Everyone does it. I know that when I'm around people in my home town, my Southern accent comes out. When I'm giving a presentation to the faculty and grad students of my university, though, I refine the way I talk. It's automatic, to a certain extent.

Essentially, yes. Think about it: Do believers in God let Atheists define words in their scriptures? Do engineers let chefs define words in common engineering usage? Do computer programmers let beauticians define their language? No, they don't.

From TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy Science considers those to be transitional forms. Whether creationists do or not is irrelevant.

Ditto all of that. Great post, Wheetsin!