125: Durp-drops keep Snarking in my Thread

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I chuckle when I hear someone say, "I have tried eating less. Many times!! But trust me on this, cutting back on calories does not work for me! I gain weight regardless of how much I cut back!"

If that were true, it means your body obeys some unknown laws of physics. And if that were true, scientists would be hounding you nonstop and offering large amounts of money to study you in the hope of getting a Nobel Prize.

Nothing dentured, nothing gained.

[Someone]

New Year, new rules.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=887711

Let the complaining begin

[Someone]

Huh, actually seems pretty reasonable. Therefore the wailing and gnashing of teeth is likely to be strenuous and prolonged.

[Someone]

I'm waiting for Tuba's state of the derp announcement and the list of new mods. I thought it would be today.

The confusion begins.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=887716

[Someone]

New rules look great to me.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

New rules look great to me.

That's just because you're not a Trumpkin Troll.

[Someone]

I'm glad to see the "tired topics" list.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

A rat smells her own cheese first.

Gotta cut it before you smell it

[Someone]

A topic to kick off the new decade for yo' ass!
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...8#post22056648
If you're worried about sodium with your canned veggies, you can rinse them off, it's easy. Canned asparagus sucks pretty hard.

If I was signed up at SDMB, I'd jump in with a comment about how awesome/shitty canned broccoli is, but only the Food Lion® store brand...

If I remember correctly—& why wouldn't I, even tho' it's been a minnit?—canned tamales are pretty good...

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I'm glad to see the "tired topics" list.

I asked JC to add moon landing hoaxers to the tired topics list. Moon landing deniers are all full of crap. They're right up there with the 9/11 nutters.

[Someone]

What the fuck, Tim?

Originally Posted by Someone

Who does the SDMB mandate that I be offended by?

Johnathan Chance wrote in New Rules for Great Debates and Elections – January 2020 that "Posters do not have the right to remain unoffended by other posters statements and opinions."

Since board policy now specifies that I lack the right to remain unoffended, would you please clarify the circumstances under which you intend to mandate that posters become offended?

Also, did you really intend to end that sentence with "...posters' statements and opinions.", "posters, statements and opinions.", or "posters, statements, and opinions."?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...38&postcount=1

What's unclear about the concept?

[Someone]

The language, as written, was pretty bad. The concept is that you're not protected from feeling insulted on the derp. I can think of many ways to write that without the need for a Derp to English translator.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Right? I'm stone cold sober, though I did eat a one-pound porterhouse so perhaps I'm just in a meat stupor.

Truly, you are a trencher[wo]man of regional note!

[Someone]

New rules are only going to work when they're backed up by new mods. JC and tommy&debbie are both too long in the tooth and too shit at the job for new rules to matter while they're still the only ones doing the modding.

[Someone]

Not to mention that in this election year the politics fora are going to be a giant shitshow and busy AF so those two are gonna have to put rockets on their walkers to be able to get around to all the tsuris going on.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

What the fuck, Tim?
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...38&postcount=1

What's unclear about the concept?

He never pinged my radar before, but that post mandates (heh) that I put him on my list. Definitely 'drooling moron' material, right there.

ETA: Yeah, that sentence wasn't exactly a model of clarity, so a half-wit might have a little trouble parsing it, but it takes a special kind of stupid to go from 'you don't have a right to remain shit-free' to 'you will be given a mandatory load of shit'.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Really. The people who gained weight are most likely eating more than they admit to, misguided about portion sizes, committing common whoopsies like thinking a salad is healthy even when it's loaded with cheese and fried chicken and dressing or that "fat free" packaged foods are healthy when they're really loaded with sugar and other schmoo to make them taste like something.

What I got out of that thread was to focus on eating healthily, instead of fad dieting which is unsustainable in the long run for most people.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

What I got out of that thread was to focus on eating healthily, instead of fad dieting which is unsustainable in the long run for most people.

That's what I got, too. Her point isn't that reducing calories doesn't work, but that it's not sustainable in the long-term.

AK84 (I thought he'd been banned?) obviously reads and maybe posts here:

So moderation will become even more arbitrary and capricious than it already was?

Third post. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=887713

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

What I got out of that thread was to focus on eating healthily, instead of fad dieting which is unsustainable in the long run for most people.

Originally Posted by Someone

That's what I got, too. Her point isn't that reducing calories doesn't work, but that it's not sustainable in the long-term.

I know. I'm not saying that Zyada is wrong about that (though the snotty, patronizing tone of the OP makes me want to kabong her with a kettlebell)

But the statement "I ate less and exercised more and actually gained weight!!!" violates the laws of thermodynamics. That's why I claim that those people are either fibbing about what they eat or making poor choices.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

But the statement "I ate less and exercised more and actually gained weight!!!" violates the laws of thermodynamics. That's why I claim that those people are either fibbing about what they eat or making poor choices.

Yes, I completely agree with that! Some of it has to do with ignorance and not realizing just how little they should be eating, however. I also have to defend Zyada a bit. She hasn't come across too well in that thread, but she's a good person. She's a lot like me in posting what first comes to mind without checking for tone, then ends up explaining and apologizing in subsequent posts. She handled MMM pretty well.

[Someone]

JC clarifies everything, agreeing that he really twisted a dragon's tail in his wording of the commandment about not being unoffended or something.

Argh.

I have - literally - millions of published words in dozens of publications. But I’ve always said I need a good editor. Where were YOU two weeks ago?

I phrased that very carefully. It comes about through observation of post reports we receive where the poster reporting it relies solely on their being offended to try to get us to sanction another poster.

Millions, plural? Millions...

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...1&postcount=16

[Someone]

And this is why I said I wasn't going to twist Zyada's words to make them sound sane.

That [chorus]"To be faaaaaiiiir... "[/chorus] nonsense is just a distraction from the fact someone said something idiotic.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Huh, actually seems pretty reasonable. Therefore the wailing and gnashing of teeth is likely to be strenuous and prolonged.

Not to mention an endless source of amusement.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

What I got out of that thread was to focus on eating healthily, instead of fad dieting which is unsustainable in the long run for most people.

Yeah. Good message, shitty delivery. Eating healthy is how I dropped from a 'Dunlops Disease' 165lbs to a decent 150lb. And I maintained that for a decade with no effort at all. I started to eat the good veggies I actually like. I only departed from that by getting cancer, and it went in the other (wrong) direction.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Yes, I completely agree with that! Some of it has to do with ignorance and not realizing just how little they should be eating, however. I also have to defend Zyada a bit. She hasn't come across too well in that thread, but she's a good person. She's a lot like me in posting what first comes to mind without checking for tone, then ends up explaining and apologizing in subsequent posts. She handled MMM pretty well.

Ah, well, I fall on the other end of the spectrum: endless revision and pondering and expounding and checking for tone, and I normally end up mis-expressing myself anyway

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

That's what I got, too. Her point isn't that reducing calories doesn't work, but that it's not sustainable in the long-term.

That wasn't the problem. The problem was that she outright stated that it's possible to violate the laws of physics [Eat less calories than you use and you'll lose weight. Oh yeah? I know people who did that, and they gained! Then they violated the laws of physics, so you're full of shit.], which naturally got the Durps all up-in-arms. She is a fucking moron, denying reality in that thread, but so are her detractors. Just like every other weight-loss thread on the durp, it's a shit-show, that goes to show the stupidity of the 'community' that doesn't actually exist, there. Poor Tuba. She's never going to get it through her head that the 'community' she has in her mind never actually existed.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I know. I'm not saying that Zyada is wrong about that (though the snotty, patronizing tone of the OP makes me want to kabong her with a kettlebell)

But the statement "I ate less and exercised more and actually gained weight!!!" violates the laws of thermodynamics. That's why I claim that those people are either fibbing about what they eat or making poor choices.

I've known people who ate better, worked out more, lost fat and gained muscle -their weight increased overall, but that's only because muscle is heavier than fat.

Maybe they were lying too. I mean they looked a hell of a lot better, sleeker, but the scales did go up a bit.

ETA though, now that I think about it, it's not like I've been in the bathroom with them, checking the scales....

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I asked JC to add moon landing hoaxers to the tired topics list. Moon landing deniers are all full of crap. They're right up there with the 9/11 nutters.

I'd like to see a ban on conspiracy theory threads in general—JFK, flat earth, Shakespeare, Sandy Hook, etc. It probably wouldn't happen, though.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

What the fuck, Tim?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...38&postcount=1

What's unclear about the concept?

He's (without naming names) specifically referring to BPC (the kiddie rapist with the broney fixation) who, according to a mod-friend of mine said that BPC reported like 4x more posts than the next highest person, all of which boiled down to "I don't like his opinion. HATE SPEECH! Ban him! Whaaah!". And I'm not talking about stuff like "Blacks are less evolved than whites, but more than monkeys...sorta" type crap where, yeah, there is no other alternative than "Hate Speech" or "Trolling" or "Too Dumb To Post Here". We're talking a hot-button topic where reasonable people can disagree...fer instance "Regardless of all the other crap that Trump did, moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem was a good/bad idea"* Disagreeing with whatever BPC's opinion might have been is not hate speech, but he'd keep reporting it as such. And he'd report every instance of it
Person a: I think X and agree with BPC
Person b: I think Y and disagree with BPC.
BPC: REPORTED Hate Speech!
Person a: I disagree with you because X1
Person b: I think point X1 is wrong because Z
BPC: REPORTED! Hate Speech!
Repeat every time person b responded.





*DO NOT DEBATE THIS HERE! PPR if you must. It was just the first example that came to mind.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I'd like to see a ban on conspiracy theory threads in general—JFK, flat earth, Shakespeare, Sandy Hook, etc. It probably wouldn't happen, though.

But...but...I loves me some good conspiracy theory. Sandy Hook sucks, but the other examples are fun. And think of Seethruart who's blurry but SUPER SPECIAL moon photos have pixelation that proves that either we didnt go to the moon or that there were Bee-Women on the Moon (I forget what he actually believed, other than his silly, badly pixelated NASA moon photos proved whatever it was)

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

This a thousand times.

I chuckle when I hear someone say, "I have tried eating less. Many times!! But trust me on this, cutting back on calories does not work for me! I gain weight regardless of how much I cut back!"

If that were true, it means your body obeys some unknown laws of physics. And if that were true, scientists would be hounding you nonstop and offering large amounts of money to study you in the hope of getting a Nobel Prize.

I'm a special case that proves you wrong. I didn't like that I was gaining a crapton of weight so I made a chart, followed a fairly regimented Weight Watchers diet last year (and I got a digital scale) and I followed it rigously. I still jumped from about 250 to about 330 in like 2-3 months. It was to the point where I had to order "fat pants" type sweat pants to go outside.

Ok...in my case it turns out there was a kidney problem and it was all water weight (they actually poked a hole in my belly and let about 7 liters out and made me come back to do it like 3 more times. The problem has been resolved, btw) but it's not 100% impossible to eat a lot less (the Weight Watchers plan I was on was supposed to lose you 2 lbs a week, give or take a lb).

I'll admit I'm in the minority with this.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

according to a mod-friend of mine said that BPC BPC: REPORTED Hate ...

There's only one possible person that could be.

[Someone]

And so it was later...

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I'll admit I'm in the minority with this.

It is also true that some folks just use calories more efficiently than others, without any medical condition.

[Someone]

I'm about ready to give you guys some calorie intake but I'm unsure of the metabolic absorption rates when administered through your eye socket.

[Someone]

Oh gosh. Call the waaaaaahmbulance.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I'd like to see a ban on conspiracy theory threads in general—JFK, flat earth, Shakespeare, Sandy Hook, etc. It probably wouldn't happen, though.

I don't mind new conspiracy theories, they can be entertaining enough and an exercise in logic. Up until they aren't. Rectangular Fields Guy was entertaining enough - until he turned out to be just another Hancock nutter.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

AK84 (I thought he'd been banned?) obviously reads and maybe posts here:

Third post. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=887713

Clear case of copyright infringement! Have the legal team assemble at once. Get an injunction served and request treble damages.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I've known people who ate better, worked out more, lost fat and gained muscle -their weight increased overall, but that's only because muscle is heavier than fat.

You know, I debated with myself about including something along the lines of "barring a gain in weight due to increased muscle mass" but then I decided not to muddy the waters. Fuck it. From now on, I'm just bringing all the mud.

Fenris, edema due to problems with your giblets isn't the same as the issue in Zyada's thread, which I'm officially renaming "I know people who ate less, exercised more, and still had an increase in their fat mass."

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I don't mind new conspiracy theories, they can be entertaining enough and an exercise in logic. Up until they aren't. Rectangular Fields Guy was entertaining enough - until he turned out to be just another Hancock nutter.

What, pray tell, is a "Hancock nutter"?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

What, pray tell, is a "Hancock nutter"?

I'm pretty sure it's something that prevents pregnancy.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

What, pray tell, is a "Hancock nutter"?

Someone who buys into Graham Hancock's woo bullshit about a global prehistoric civilization.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Ok...in my case it turns out there was a kidney problem and it was all water weight (they actually poked a hole in my belly and let about 7 liters out and made me come back to do it like 3 more times.

Holy shit. You must have been really mad at your brother.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I asked JC to add moon landing hoaxers to the tired topics list. Moon landing deniers are all full of crap. They're right up there with the 9/11 nutters.

I asked him to add anti-vaxxers to the list.

[Someone]

Trump is a third party candidate amirite?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Trump is a third party candidate amirite?

Posted by Jim Peabrain. Surprise, surprise.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Trump is a third party candidate amirite?

The purest example of something I've seen multiple times before: "Both parties are the same, therefore vote Republican." It makes absolutely no sense, even on its own terms, and is laughably wrong once you do the Demon-RAT thing and bring facts into the picture, but it makes the idiots of the world feel just a little bit smarter so it will continue to be used.

It's also a useful little tactic to employ once Trump crashes and burns: "Trump was never a real Republican, he was a third party unto himself, therefore the Republicans are completely clean now stop noticing how the Republicans defended him at every turn."

[Someone]

Whoa, it looks like the Michael Minkler of the physics world has found a thread about him. And he's boiling over with NERDRAEG!!!

Starts here.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

The purest example of something I've seen multiple times before: "Both parties are the same, therefore vote Republican." It makes absolutely no sense, even on its own terms, and is laughably wrong once you do the Demon-RAT thing and bring facts into the picture, but it makes the idiots of the world feel just a little bit smarter so it will continue to be used.

It's also a useful little tactic to employ once Trump crashes and burns: "Trump was never a real Republican, he was a third party unto himself, therefore the Republicans are completely clean now stop noticing how the Republicans defended him at every turn."

Well, he's not, actually. Before he ran, himself, he always contributed to center-left Democrats, and while he was running, he'd make conservative-sounding noises which were actually the noises the conservative strawman/stereotype that reflexive, unthinking center-left people (who don't actually pay attention to the other side's positions) have in their heads. A continual occurrence during his campaign was him spouting a position on something, which was at odds with actual conservative positions, and a campaign spokesclown would come back 2 hours later and 'clarify what he really meant' to a more mainstream conservative position. I was surprised that so many people who call themselves conservative actually swallowed that bullshit. It got to the point where they, themselves would do the editing on 'what he really meant' in discussions with other people. I could only conclude that they were idiots. Humpy, formerly of the durp, now here at the gweeb, is a good example. The only positive thing you can say for the guy from an actual conservative perspective is that he's at least making some attempt to stay on the side that voted for him, rather than governing as the center-lefty he actually is by temperament. He's failing at it, of course, since he's his own strawman of a conservative, but at least he's making the attempt.

[Someone]

The center-left pose was constructed simply to do business in New York. Trump is an authoritarian right-winger to the bone.