On Apr 19, 2:21*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:
On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote:

To review further,
first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic.

So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it?

That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger.

Om said
that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we
aren't apprised of
. Second, I
have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to
back what Doug claimed up. *

Lack of evidence isn't proof.

You can't be real. *You've been here a fraction of the time that
Susan
or I have. *

Seniority makes you right??

You really do have a comprehension problem. I never said or
implied that. What I said was that while Susan and I have been
here a lot longer, you've been here long enough to see Doug
caught spinning crap with nothing to back it up.



But you still have been here long enough to know that
Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never
backs them up.

What are you talking about? Nearly nobody posts here. In the couple of
years I've watched this site I've never noticed anyone but Susan who was
rude to the readers and Doug.

I guess a lot gets by you.


There are times when clever people are
wrong,

Yes there are. But honest ones then admit it. Honest ones provide
references when challenged and don't tell everyone else to go
look up what Atkins said.


but when you ask a question, you are so buried in B.S. that you
can't see the sky. That's how I feel.

That must be because you're paying too much attention to Doug.



This is what he said this time:

*"Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with
diabetes."

"It was Doctor Atkin's stance. *He wanted any low carbing diabetic to
work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. *Anyone
can
feel free to look it up. *Look for diabetes in the index of any
edition
of his book. "

As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and
looked in the index and found nothing close to the above. *

How about diabetes 273-287, Atkins Nutritional Approach to 228-229,
dangers associated with, 277, or just diet and 274, 275, 277-278.

Now, like Doug, instead of addressing the specific issue, you are
trying to cover up or squirm away. I did not say DIABETES was not in
the index or that Atkins did not warn about the dangers of DIABETES.
Nor did Susan. What we challenged was Doug's assertion that
Atkins said unsupervised ketosis was counterindicated for anyone
with diabetes and that he wanted diabetics to be monitored by
their doctor while doing Atkins.

Show us where THAT is contained Atkins books. And BTW,
it would be a good idea to include the edition, because I have
the 2002 soft edition of DANDR and while the topics you cite are
in the index, the page numbers do not correspond. I've looked
through the pages in my addition that you reference and
what Doug claimed is NOT there.

And when you find it, fair use allows some short excerpts, so
just post where Atkins said it.



Now Billy,

You can call me, Mister Rose. I don't know how it works where you come from. *But in my world
it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other
way around.

Except you took exception with what was said. You didn't say it doesn't
go like that. It goes like this. You haven't shown reason to to believe
you, except for Susan going nuttso over Doug. Shouldn't the person
making the claim to back it up?



You really aren't very well grounded in logic, are you? Let's say
someone
claimed that Jack LaLane said excercise is dangerous for people with
diabetes. According to you, anyone that knows about LaLane and
has doubts that he said it, is the one that has to prove that he did
not
say it? Did you ever hear about the difficulty of proving a
negative?




Third, Doug, as many of us here
know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming
it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a
single reference to support it.

Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now?

If you paid attention you'd know the history here. *Susan has seen it,
I have seen it. * Funny how you demand citations and examples from
us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged.


Long Taubes quote excerpted, because that is what Taubes said, not
what Doug says. But it does show that you apparently understand
that fair use allows for some brief excerpts. We'd think by now, if
Atkins really said what Doug claimed, we'd have that posted here
which would have ended the discussion long ago.





That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference.

Om didn't ask him for one, but again, you are the one who said he is
wrong. Where's your proof? Shouldn't the person making the claim back it
up?

You really need to get grounded in logic and critical thinking.





Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion

Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like
Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie.

Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of
bile.

Quite the contrary, it's based on fact.

Not in evidence.



I provided you with links to both the NY Times and MSNBC, both
of which clearly show spending on Health and Human Services
on the order of $1tril, far exceeding defense.



Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget
in graphical terms even you may be able to understand:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/

It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland
Security *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

and the
Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order
of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to
be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want
to count Social Security, that is another $818bil.

Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion

column right-hand side

The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit
anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and
*Medicaid payments which are the vast *MAJORITY of spending
on Health and Human Services. * This is another new trick, along
*the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try
to fool people who don't know any better. * In your case, it
obviously worked.

Anyone, at anytime can look at the site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Are you so lame as to suggest that I'm so desperate to look smart in
front of an idiot like you, that I would doctor a web site? Are you
stark raving insane?



I did not say you doctored Wikipedia, only that it's an open
forum and anyone can edit what's posted there. In other words,
it would not be my first choice as a credible reference for anything.
There are folks who want to distort things for their own purposes
because their arguments won't stand on their own. In the case
in point, this is done by taking only DISCRETIONARY spending
on Health and Human Services and leaving out the biggest part,
Medicare and Medicaid. Then you try to compare it to the
defense budget, with is a totally bogus comparison.








I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block
diagrams. *And the Health and Human services block sure
ain't your ridiculous 78bil. *It's closer to $1tril, significantly
larger than the defense budget. * Don't believe MSNBC?
* Here's the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...0119-budget/in...

Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to
defense. *Still want to lie that it's only 78bil?

and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from
withholdings on your wages.

Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social
security withholdings, *it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget..
* Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. * Social
security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending.

Because the retirement money went into the general fund.
I don't have time to help you read.

Oh, OK, so in your world, social security revenue counts when it
comes into the federal budget, but not when it goes out. Figures.
You explain to us how if social security is not included in the
budget how the budget for 2012 is $3.7 tril


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
We are 5% of the worlds population. We don't need to spend half of the
worlds military budget while supporting over a 1000 bases around the
world. The biggest threat that we have to our democracy is here in
America. The country is dying. We need jobs, and we need to get the
blood sucking leaches off of us.


If you want to have that discussion, then you need to be honest and
not
start off with gross distortions. You tried to claim that spending on
defense is 10X what it is on Health and Human Services. You did
that by leaving out the biggest part of health spending, which is
Medicare and Medicaid. When you include them, as any reasonable
person would, then you find that spending on HHS is about 1.5X
what it is on defense.

If I were to similarly distort things, it would be like talking about
defense
spending and leaving out the Navy and AirForce.