Hunger is a good thing.

On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

Going to bed with hunger cramps at night.

Starvation and hunger are two different things. In your circumstances, I
see why you fear hunger.


On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

When I got older though. I overate emotionally. Maybe to make up for it all? I
don't know.

Most don't.

I had to train myself. To where I could really feel hunger. Like stomach
growling. Saying feed me, feed me!! And put the emotions aside of the
starvation. It was hard work for sure. I did it I believe. I can tell when I am
hungry now. I no longer keep eating and eating. I no longer stand in front of
the fridge in the middle of the night, nonstop eating. Regardless if I am full,
had enough and all.

Good for you. This does bring up an interesting point that is missed in a
lot of the discussions about overconsumption and the ability to curb it
(and your weight).

Folks who have a psychological issue(s) which are the root of their
overeating, they can begin any diet (including the 2PDiet) and reasonably
assume they will fail. How many overfats need this counseling as Step One?
I don't know but the researchers tell me that it is majority. What I don't
know is how many of this majority have severe issues as opposed to, say,
not getting asked to the church dance.

I'm writing a book about this whole dieting phenomenon (yes, Andrew, I know
I have missed the deadline by about one or two years?) and many times I
stop to think if it is all for little purpose. How many folks can I
actually assist with diet/exercise problems if the majority need to address
the emotional and psychological dilemmas as the foremost step. I am no
psychologist so I cannot put anything on paper, other than to repeat what
is told to me, of which I have personal knowledge. And if the majority need
that, and the majority of failures stem from these psych issues, then the
majority of folks (who rarely seek and are assisted with by counseling) are
screwed from the get-go.

Many on the diet newsgroups dislike the discussions of religion
particularly Chung's and mine on Christianity. But I tell you that, as in
all things involving human turmoil, the root of these answers must be found
outside of the human condition, the human existence. Psychology fails the
overfats, or they fail it; the majority, then, are doomed to fail. Is there
no solace for these poor folks?

If there is no God, then yes, there is no solace. Dismissing discussions on
supernatural aid, Christ and Christianity, makes no sense at all.

I hear all those minds clicking out there saying "Well, Mu, what about the
Jews, the Buddhists, the fill in?" Fine. Let those discussions happen as
well. At least in doing so, there *is* discussion, recognition that many of
the basic answers to this overfat populace of ours do not, nor ever will,
be found outside of supernatural intervention.

If those supernatural assistances are not discussed, then the value of
these various Usenet groups is severely diminished.

On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

Going to bed with hunger cramps at night.

Starvation and hunger are two different things. In your circumstances, I
see why you fear hunger.


On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

When I got older though. I overate emotionally. Maybe to make up for it all? I
don't know.

Most don't.

I had to train myself. To where I could really feel hunger. Like stomach
growling. Saying feed me, feed me!! And put the emotions aside of the
starvation. It was hard work for sure. I did it I believe. I can tell when I am
hungry now. I no longer keep eating and eating. I no longer stand in front of
the fridge in the middle of the night, nonstop eating. Regardless if I am full,
had enough and all.

Good for you. This does bring up an interesting point that is missed in a
lot of the discussions about overconsumption and the ability to curb it
(and your weight).

Folks who have a psychological issue(s) which are the root of their
overeating, they can begin any diet (including the 2PDiet) and reasonably
assume they will fail. How many overfats need this counseling as Step One?
I don't know but the researchers tell me that it is majority. What I don't
know is how many of this majority have severe issues as opposed to, say,
not getting asked to the church dance.

I'm writing a book about this whole dieting phenomenon (yes, Andrew, I know
I have missed the deadline by about one or two years?) and many times I
stop to think if it is all for little purpose. How many folks can I
actually assist with diet/exercise problems if the majority need to address
the emotional and psychological dilemmas as the foremost step. I am no
psychologist so I cannot put anything on paper, other than to repeat what
is told to me, of which I have personal knowledge. And if the majority need
that, and the majority of failures stem from these psych issues, then the
majority of folks (who rarely seek and are assisted with by counseling) are
screwed from the get-go.

Many on the diet newsgroups dislike the discussions of religion
particularly Chung's and mine on Christianity. But I tell you that, as in
all things involving human turmoil, the root of these answers must be found
outside of the human condition, the human existence. Psychology fails the
overfats, or they fail it; the majority, then, are doomed to fail. Is there
no solace for these poor folks?

If there is no God, then yes, there is no solace. Dismissing discussions on
supernatural aid, Christ and Christianity, makes no sense at all.

I hear all those minds clicking out there saying "Well, Mu, what about the
Jews, the Buddhists, the fill in?" Fine. Let those discussions happen as
well. At least in doing so, there *is* discussion, recognition that many of
the basic answers to this overfat populace of ours do not, nor ever will,
be found outside of supernatural intervention.

If those supernatural assistances are not discussed, then the value of
these various Usenet groups is severely diminished.

This was a very fine post U. I am in agreement with this as I've been
down nearly every rout with my dieting but ya know, it is my own
spituality which gives me te best stength of all.I ALWAYS grasp the
strength which stays close to me.

Thanks again for this post.

glo

"MU" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

Going to bed with hunger cramps at night.

Starvation and hunger are two different things. In your circumstances, I
see why you fear hunger.


On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

When I got older though. I overate emotionally. Maybe to make up for it
all? I
don't know.

Most don't.

I had to train myself. To where I could really feel hunger. Like stomach
growling. Saying feed me, feed me!! And put the emotions aside of the
starvation. It was hard work for sure. I did it I believe. I can tell
when I am
hungry now. I no longer keep eating and eating. I no longer stand in
front of
the fridge in the middle of the night, nonstop eating. Regardless if I
am full,
had enough and all.

Good for you. This does bring up an interesting point that is missed in a
lot of the discussions about overconsumption and the ability to curb it
(and your weight).

Folks who have a psychological issue(s) which are the root of their
overeating, they can begin any diet (including the 2PDiet) and reasonably
assume they will fail. How many overfats need this counseling as Step One?
I don't know but the researchers tell me that it is majority. What I don't
know is how many of this majority have severe issues as opposed to, say,
not getting asked to the church dance.

I'm writing a book about this whole dieting phenomenon (yes, Andrew, I
know
I have missed the deadline by about one or two years?) and many times I
stop to think if it is all for little purpose. How many folks can I
actually assist with diet/exercise problems if the majority need to
address
the emotional and psychological dilemmas as the foremost step. I am no
psychologist so I cannot put anything on paper, other than to repeat what
is told to me, of which I have personal knowledge. And if the majority
need
that, and the majority of failures stem from these psych issues, then the
majority of folks (who rarely seek and are assisted with by counseling)
are
screwed from the get-go.

Many on the diet newsgroups dislike the discussions of religion
particularly Chung's and mine on Christianity. But I tell you that, as in
all things involving human turmoil, the root of these answers must be
found
outside of the human condition, the human existence. Psychology fails the
overfats, or they fail it; the majority, then, are doomed to fail. Is
there
no solace for these poor folks?

If there is no God, then yes, there is no solace. Dismissing discussions
on
supernatural aid, Christ and Christianity, makes no sense at all.

I disagree. As a happy secular humanist/agnostic, I find solace in many
things - my kids, a beautiful sunrise, the beauty of athletics as
represented at the Olympics, the feeling of the wind blowing over my arms as
I ride my bike, etc., etc., etc.

If believing in something that can't be seen or felt or heard or measured
makes someone feel better about themselves, I have no problem with that.
But, rest assured that many people lead lives filled with joy, beauty, and
meaning without having to have "faith" in the unseen.


I hear all those minds clicking out there saying "Well, Mu, what about the
Jews, the Buddhists, the fill in?" Fine. Let those discussions happen as
well. At least in doing so, there *is* discussion, recognition that many
of
the basic answers to this overfat populace of ours do not, nor ever will,
be found outside of supernatural intervention.

If those supernatural assistances are not discussed, then the value of
these various Usenet groups is severely diminished.

GG

"MU" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

Going to bed with hunger cramps at night.

Starvation and hunger are two different things. In your circumstances, I
see why you fear hunger.


On 24 Aug 2004 06:22:18 GMT, Sunshyne wrote:

When I got older though. I overate emotionally. Maybe to make up for it
all? I
don't know.

Most don't.

I had to train myself. To where I could really feel hunger. Like stomach
growling. Saying feed me, feed me!! And put the emotions aside of the
starvation. It was hard work for sure. I did it I believe. I can tell
when I am
hungry now. I no longer keep eating and eating. I no longer stand in
front of
the fridge in the middle of the night, nonstop eating. Regardless if I
am full,
had enough and all.

Good for you. This does bring up an interesting point that is missed in a
lot of the discussions about overconsumption and the ability to curb it
(and your weight).

Folks who have a psychological issue(s) which are the root of their
overeating, they can begin any diet (including the 2PDiet) and reasonably
assume they will fail. How many overfats need this counseling as Step One?
I don't know but the researchers tell me that it is majority. What I don't
know is how many of this majority have severe issues as opposed to, say,
not getting asked to the church dance.

I'm writing a book about this whole dieting phenomenon (yes, Andrew, I
know
I have missed the deadline by about one or two years?) and many times I
stop to think if it is all for little purpose. How many folks can I
actually assist with diet/exercise problems if the majority need to
address
the emotional and psychological dilemmas as the foremost step. I am no
psychologist so I cannot put anything on paper, other than to repeat what
is told to me, of which I have personal knowledge. And if the majority
need
that, and the majority of failures stem from these psych issues, then the
majority of folks (who rarely seek and are assisted with by counseling)
are
screwed from the get-go.

Many on the diet newsgroups dislike the discussions of religion
particularly Chung's and mine on Christianity. But I tell you that, as in
all things involving human turmoil, the root of these answers must be
found
outside of the human condition, the human existence. Psychology fails the
overfats, or they fail it; the majority, then, are doomed to fail. Is
there
no solace for these poor folks?

If there is no God, then yes, there is no solace. Dismissing discussions
on
supernatural aid, Christ and Christianity, makes no sense at all.

I disagree. As a happy secular humanist/agnostic, I find solace in many
things - my kids, a beautiful sunrise, the beauty of athletics as
represented at the Olympics, the feeling of the wind blowing over my arms as
I ride my bike, etc., etc., etc.

If believing in something that can't be seen or felt or heard or measured
makes someone feel better about themselves, I have no problem with that.
But, rest assured that many people lead lives filled with joy, beauty, and
meaning without having to have "faith" in the unseen.


I hear all those minds clicking out there saying "Well, Mu, what about the
Jews, the Buddhists, the fill in?" Fine. Let those discussions happen as
well. At least in doing so, there *is* discussion, recognition that many
of
the basic answers to this overfat populace of ours do not, nor ever will,
be found outside of supernatural intervention.

If those supernatural assistances are not discussed, then the value of
these various Usenet groups is severely diminished.

GG

MU wrote:
Many on the diet newsgroups dislike the discussions of religion
particularly Chung's and mine on Christianity. But I tell you that,
as in all things involving human turmoil, the root of these answers
must be found outside of the human condition, the human existence.

See, here's where you are simply full of ****. Espousing a general
premise for all "human turmoil" as being your wacko brand of smugly
exclusive "Christianity" is flawed in principle. It is precisely the
sort of insanity you promote that is at base one of the significant
causes of "human turmoil."

Psychology fails the overfats, or they fail it; the majority, then,
are doomed to fail. Is there no solace for these poor folks?

If there is no God, then yes, there is no solace.

The utter superficiality of this understanding is enough cause to
dismiss everything you say. You are of the silly opinion that there is
only one thing that can be an aid, a comfort, a support for *everyone*.

Simply, you are wrong. People find successful solace and reinforcement
from many, many sources.

Dismissing discussions on supernatural aid, Christ and
Christianity, makes no sense at all.

To a limited-capacity, rigid-thinking, self-satisfied lightweight like
you. Your peculiar desire to proselytize online marks you as nothing
more than a close-minded, eye-bugging fanatic. Easy to reject for the
extremism of the stunted ideas you offer, especially after seeing how
self-serving they are.

I hear all those minds clicking out there saying "Well, Mu, what
about the Jews, the Buddhists, the fill in?" Fine. Let those
discussions happen as well. At least in doing so, there *is*
discussion, recognition that many of the basic answers to this
overfat populace of ours do not, nor ever will, be found outside of
supernatural intervention.

Once again, you want to force your values on everyone else. That you
cannot see any alternatives is all the proof of your unfitness to
discuss it at all.

If those supernatural assistances are not discussed, then the value
of these various Usenet groups is severely diminished.

Nah. Discussion is rather a different creature than your
blunt-instrument insistence of having the *only* way to think. Couple
that with insane Chung and his insolent ranting, and any value is
instantly gone. Rather than sponsor discussion, it's all monologue
and diatribe, complete with smugness and condemnation, as though you
could speak for God.

And the two of you are pussies who want your big brother to fight your
battles for you. You can't muster enough substance and convincing
ideas, so you say "Jesus will get you" and try to hide behind him as
though he were concerned about your pettiness and selfish willfulness.
YOu hide so far back that you're afraid to even say who you are.
A pair of children who threaten others with damnation and eternal
punishment as though you were actually doing the judging. "Oh, waaah,
you said something I don't like, God will get you for that..."

Don't write checks with your mouth that your ass can't cash.

Bob

MU wrote:
Many on the diet newsgroups dislike the discussions of religion
particularly Chung's and mine on Christianity. But I tell you that,
as in all things involving human turmoil, the root of these answers
must be found outside of the human condition, the human existence.

See, here's where you are simply full of ****. Espousing a general
premise for all "human turmoil" as being your wacko brand of smugly
exclusive "Christianity" is flawed in principle. It is precisely the
sort of insanity you promote that is at base one of the significant
causes of "human turmoil."

Psychology fails the overfats, or they fail it; the majority, then,
are doomed to fail. Is there no solace for these poor folks?

If there is no God, then yes, there is no solace.

The utter superficiality of this understanding is enough cause to
dismiss everything you say. You are of the silly opinion that there is
only one thing that can be an aid, a comfort, a support for *everyone*.

Simply, you are wrong. People find successful solace and reinforcement
from many, many sources.

Dismissing discussions on supernatural aid, Christ and
Christianity, makes no sense at all.

To a limited-capacity, rigid-thinking, self-satisfied lightweight like
you. Your peculiar desire to proselytize online marks you as nothing
more than a close-minded, eye-bugging fanatic. Easy to reject for the
extremism of the stunted ideas you offer, especially after seeing how
self-serving they are.

I hear all those minds clicking out there saying "Well, Mu, what
about the Jews, the Buddhists, the fill in?" Fine. Let those
discussions happen as well. At least in doing so, there *is*
discussion, recognition that many of the basic answers to this
overfat populace of ours do not, nor ever will, be found outside of
supernatural intervention.

Once again, you want to force your values on everyone else. That you
cannot see any alternatives is all the proof of your unfitness to
discuss it at all.

If those supernatural assistances are not discussed, then the value
of these various Usenet groups is severely diminished.

Nah. Discussion is rather a different creature than your
blunt-instrument insistence of having the *only* way to think. Couple
that with insane Chung and his insolent ranting, and any value is
instantly gone. Rather than sponsor discussion, it's all monologue
and diatribe, complete with smugness and condemnation, as though you
could speak for God.

And the two of you are pussies who want your big brother to fight your
battles for you. You can't muster enough substance and convincing
ideas, so you say "Jesus will get you" and try to hide behind him as
though he were concerned about your pettiness and selfish willfulness.
YOu hide so far back that you're afraid to even say who you are.
A pair of children who threaten others with damnation and eternal
punishment as though you were actually doing the judging. "Oh, waaah,
you said something I don't like, God will get you for that..."

Don't write checks with your mouth that your ass can't cash.

Bob

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:16:54 -0400, Gloria wrote:

This was a very fine post MU. I am in agreement with this as I've been
down nearly every rout with my dieting but ya know, it is my own
spituality which gives me te best stength of all.I ALWAYS grasp the
strength which stays close to me.

Thanks again for this post.

glo

Most welcome.

MU

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:57:34 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

See, here's where you are simply full of ****.

And the two of you are pussies. Don't write checks with your mouth that your ass..

Gosh, Bob, relax; no need to bring on another round of cardiac surgery;
clean up that language, Bob; why are you so upset over simple Usenet posts,
Bob? Unbecoming is your swearing, enlightening is the fear behind it.

MU wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:57:34 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

See, here's where you are simply full of ****.

And the two of you are pussies. Don't write checks with your mouth that your ass..

....can't cash.

Good advice, neighbor whom I am amused by.

Gosh, Bob, relax; no need to bring on another round of cardiac surgery;

Tell us more about your ass, MU_sty. Tell us all about how you needed
surgery to make it possible for you to get rid of some of that ****
you're so endlessly full of. LOL

clean up that language, Bob; why are you so upset over simple Usenet posts,

G That's me, MU_xy, all upset because you don't post enough. I need
the target practice with slow-moving, not so bright hot air balloons.
Talk about a perfect fit...

Bob? Unbecoming is your swearing, enlightening is the fear behind it.

Talking like Yoda is MU_ffy, failing to be as bright as the puppet is he.

MU_ncher doing his psychobabble analyses is almost as funny as Chung
doing nutrition.

I'll weigh some vulgar language against the boastful lying you do any
time. I can do whatever I want with language. Pity you can't do
anything about your character. Enough evidence is already in,
MU_skweasel, to accuse, try and convict you of being a fake with a
life of smoke and whispers seemingly envious of others who contribute
to society.

Bob