anonemouse

And before anyone overreacts, I'm not trying to be mean here. It just really gets my goat when people profess to disbelieve a scientific theory/law, but show a basic misunderstanding of what science actually is. To be quite honest, I don't respect those opinions. Now if, on the other hand, someone is well-educated about what they are disagreeing with and still disagree with it, I respect that. Take Gadgetlady, for instance. I completely respect her stance on evolution. I don't agree with it, but I do respect it. She has done her homework. I don't agree with the conclusions she's come to, but I respect the fact that she bothered to find out exactly what she is disagreeing with. She knows the many of the scientific arguments, and she understands them. I respect that. To me, that's a discussion worth having. To me, when the opponent has absolutely no idea what they are actually disagreeing with (i.e., they've never done the research for themselves, as evidenced by their basic misunderstanding of science), it's not worth even discussing the issue.

Seriously, though! You? It really is laughable, considering the quality of the rest of your posts. I can say with utmost confidence that I know more about biology than you. Now, if you were someone with an actual degree in the sciences or even someone who could put up a good pretense of knowing what they were talking about, it would be different. As it is, it's like someone who doesn't know how a fuel-injection engine works telling a mechanic how to do his job. Think about it. What do you do for a living? What would your reaction be if someone who obviously knew zip about what you do started telling you that you didn't know what you were doing? At first, you would probably be offended. After you cooled down, though, you would probably get quite a kick out of it.

You know, I can't get over 396power trying to teach me about biological theory. Seriously, I'm rolling over here! :clap2:

I think my surgeon requires a two-week low-fat/low-carb diet. So, I have another week or so before I have to start it. I'll find out more next Wednesday, when I meet with her.

Which do you want to know? The separate DNA or the separate person? Those are two different things. Logically, the creation of a separate person would entail that the two people are entirely separate (i.e., they can live apart from each other and one does not depend on the other for life).

Yeah, but I've also been trying to get approved since late October. It seemed like it was never going to happen. I kept having problems with the surgeon's office getting all my tests and records, then had to change surgeons because my insurance didn't cover the original one (which I didn't find out until they had submitted everything to insurance), then had lots more problems with the new surgeon's office getting everything and sending my stuff to the correct fax number at the insurance company. I was originally trying to have surgery before the end of last year. Then that changed to before my classes (I'm a grad student) started again in January. And then it changed to having it during Spring Break. Then before the end of the semester. Eventually, I was just hoping to have it done before the end of this summer. I really thought I was not going to be able to do it, though, since my surgeon was supposed to go on maternity leave. Plus, I was having to fight with the surgeon's office to get the surgery scheduled before my insurance policy was going to change (which is on August 2). Luckily, they FINALLY came through. I'm starting to get a tad nervous, but it's so much less stress now that I know it will actually be happening.

As a scientist, I respectfully disagree. Science does NOT point to a creator. And as a scientist, I've learned to disregard the opinions of people who say "evolution is just a theory." It shows that they know nothing about science and probably nothing about evolutionary theory. Let me let you in on a little secret: A scientific "theory" and a common-language "theory" aren't the same thing. A scientific theory is backed up by lots and lots of evidence. Otherwise, it would be called a hypothesis. A common-language "theory" has basically the same definition as "idea." It's a possible solution, with little or no evidence supporting it. A common-language "theory" is the same as the scientific "hypothesis." Evolution isn't called "the hypothesis of evolution." It's called "the theory of evolution."

The daughter/sister of the surgeons is a member of OH, and she says that there is at least one lap-band episode coming up.

I disagree with you. And I think that the scientists that I am around on a daily basis would disagree with you, also. Scientists are unified about when the potential for future life begins. Obviously, that would be when a sperm penetrates an egg. They aren't unified on when that life begins, though. Because that's a part of life. We decide another person's value all the time. Civil suits, criminal cases, media, etc. It is decided all the time. Yeah, it would be nice if the world wasn't like it is, if people weren't like they are. But it is, and they are.

And your wording of "completely separate being" is actually key to a point I would like to make. Is a being really "completely separate" when it has to be incubated by another being to survive? If a fetus were truly a "completely separate being," it would be able to survive outside its mother's womb. It can't, therefore, it isn't.

Apparently not, since a lot of scientists can't agree about when life begins. It's NOT very clear when life begins, otherwise, there wouldn't be a huge controversy over abortion.

True, but knowing something is bad doesn't stop anyone from still doing it. We all knew that eating the way we used to would make us fat, which would then make us more likely to have diabetes, heart disease, etc. We still did it. This is a one-time thing. I've never done it before and I'll probably not do it again, but I really feel like I have little choice about it. I burn whenever I tan outside (not to mention, I usually get truckdriver/farmer tans). I turn orange when I use fake tanners. Right now, I am very pale. I am not someone that looks attractive when I'm pale, and I would like to look attractive in my brother's wedding pictures.

Very true. I don't know how many people with obvious piercings and wildly colored hair would apply to somewhere like the Ritz-Carlton, though. This is one of the situations where I go back and forth. On one hand, I think that companies should hire the best-qualified person to do the job, regardless of what they look like. On the other, what makes these people different is something they can easily change. It isn't something completely intrinsic to them that is being rejected. So I can see where it wouldn't be considered discrimination.

It was absolutely the worst thing I've ever gone through. I'd had small ingrown hair abcesses (maybe dime-sized, at most) there before, but nothing like what I had this time. It's something that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. And I'm being completely honest there, not facetious.

Last I heard, he was taking time off to be with his wife. I'm hoping that that's all it is, and that something didn't happen to him. I think he hasn't been on since sometime in February or so. I really am starting to worry, though.

Hey guys, I just thought I'd let you know that my surgery got scheduled for July 3rd! I meet with the surgeon next week and have to go to two nutrition classes. I just can't believe that my surgery is less than a month away.

Gadget, you forget, we're agreeing with you. We also agree that any laws concerning abortion should be made by the scientific consensus of when life begins. The problem is that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. So which is it? Should laws be based on what YOU consider to be life? Or should laws be based on what SCIENTISTS consider to be life?

I am feeling wonderfully now. A couple of weekends ago? Not so much. WAY not so much.

I'm sure it was a horrendous experience, watching your father go through that and watching him be disrespected like that. To me, it's simple. Do people want their families to suffer endless pain, let them be hooked up to machines that breath for them, feed them, keep their hearts beating? Or do they want to give their family members a dignified death that is of their own choosing, on their own terms, without pain? What really gets me is that so many people that apparently believe in God and all his powers also think that it is horrible to remove someone from life support, that it's murder. Don't they understand that their God wanted them to die? God isn't the one keeping their loved one alive.

That's not discrimination. Now, if they were refusing to cast a black woman for the role, that's different. And I would actually be all for casting men in women's roles. It would be nice to get over the latent homophobia in Hollywood. It's legal, but it shouldn't be, IMO. Pink hair and nose rings don't necessarily change how a person can do a job. If someone can do a job well, they should be hired, whether they're black, white, latino, gay, straight, or have pink hair.

Yeah, I don't think I am going to eat "light" anything after this surgery, if I can help it. I am sick of always dieting. I plan on eating what I want, just a whole lot less of it. I think the full-fat, full-sugar, full-flavor foods are fine, as long as they are eaten or drunk in moderation. And with the band, I'll finally be able to experience moderation!

BJean, I think you should have sued that doctor. And the hospital. And everyone who stood in the way of your legal right to allow your father to die in peace.

To me, that's refusing to serve someone based on their behavior, not based on who they are. Again, based on behavior. And on health codes, actually. Not on the actual person. I do think that's discrimination. If someone's weight prevents them from doing their job, firing them isn't discriminating against them. Again, I think that's discrimination. They would, if men had vaginas and could give birth.

Exactly, and that's the point people have been trying to make. Scientists can't come to a conclusion about when life begins. Some think life begins at conception. Some think life begins at implantation. Some think life begins when the organs form and start working. Some think life begins when those organs are able to work on their own, without support by the mother's body. Why is it YOUR definition of when life begins that should be followed?

My brother's ex-girlfriend works as his nutritionist. I'm not sure how many bands he's done. He seems to do mainly RNY, from the way she talked. Since you are looking for someone in Memphis, have you checked out Dr. Virginia McGrath-Weaver over at St. Francis? That's who will be doing my surgery. I asked her office manager about how many bands she's done, and she said that Dr. McGrath-Weaver's done well over 100 of them, since she did a bariatric fellowship. Her center's also the only Center of Excellence for bariatric surgery in Memphis.