Playing games

Blah wrote:

"Logorrhea" wrote :

Ah, well, they are probably right about that. After all, they obviously
know so much more about me and my life than I do myself, don't they...
;-)

Precisely, and the sooner we just shut up and let them tell us how to
run our lives, the sooner we will be just like them. Angry, vengeful and
lonely.

I usually don't have time for them, I'm here under a different account,
getting real help and advice from those who are on this NG to give and
receive support. A good KF helps. But because of the constant internet
stalking and harassment of the "Pack hunters", I can only use this ISP to
warn others of their methods. Any other conversation gets lost in the static
of their resentful attacks.

oh, you poor thing. it's a crying shame how you've been so put upon by
this group. there oughta be a law.

Roger Zoul wrote:
M.W.Smith wrote:

:: Well, being on the Atkins diet is a health issue. There
:: apparently have been cases of individuals getting into
:: severe medical strife while on the diet, possibly caused by
:: or agravated by the diet. I would think you would owe it to
:: your partner to tell him/her what you are doing, so that if
:: you are suddenly rushed to the hospital unconscious, the
:: doctor who treats you will have the full picture of your
:: medical situation.

Please provide at least some proof of this claim....
Just because someone says they are doing Atkins doesn't make it so.

Right. Every so often there's a news article about someone
claiming to be on Atkins who got sick. Each and every time it
has turned out what they were doing had very little resemblence
to what the real Atkins plan actually is. They there NOT on
Atkins, but they *claimed* they were on Atkins.

On this newsgroup newbies often come through reporting they are on
Atkins. Asking them to post a menu, sometimes they are and
sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they've even read the book and in
theory knew what the plan is but didn't follow the directions.
Sometimes they've even read the book but got so confused by it they
couldn't follow the directions even with trying.

So I very much agree with Roder Zoul and I repeat his statement:

Just because someone claims they are doing Atkins doesn't make it so.

Nancy wrote:

I live alone but friends I see every day haven't noticed I've lost 42
pounds.

This is frustrating but standard. You don't change much from one day
to the next. Folks who see you every day never see much of a change,
and they always have the memory of you only yesterday. It's the
slippery slope issue; you don't notice until you're way down the
slope. I lost 30 pounds in 6 months and couldn't see much of a
change.

Compare that with folks who see you once per year. You could change
*a lot* in a year. Since they're most recent memory of you is a
year old the difference will stand out. I only see my sister every
year or two. One year she started low carbing and lost 100+ pounds.
When I saw her at a family function, I literally didn't recognize my
own sister. I was speechless.

If my Dad was still here he'd notice he always did.

Then he was more observant than average. Good for him.

Logorrhea wrote:
mena wrote:

It's a newsgroup and everyone is entitled to her/his opinion.

Isn't it simple courtesy to hold off from offering an opinion - particularly
to a total stranger - until you're actually asked for one?

You posted in a public newsgroup. So you did in fact ask aynone who
cases to offer their opinion. You invited it.

On 6 Nov 2003 09:05:51 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nancy wrote:

I live alone but friends I see every day haven't noticed I've lost 42
pounds.

This is frustrating but standard. You don't change much from one day
to the next. Folks who see you every day never see much of a change,
and they always have the memory of you only yesterday. It's the
slippery slope issue; you don't notice until you're way down the
slope. I lost 30 pounds in 6 months and couldn't see much of a
change.

Compare that with folks who see you once per year. You could change
*a lot* in a year. Since they're most recent memory of you is a
year old the difference will stand out. I only see my sister every
year or two. One year she started low carbing and lost 100+ pounds.
When I saw her at a family function, I literally didn't recognize my
own sister. I was speechless.

If my Dad was still here he'd notice he always did.

Then he was more observant than average. Good for him.

That's why you need to look up old friends!

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

Luna wrote:
Logorrhea wrote:

Interesting that you chose a handle that is a contraction meaning
diarhea of the mouth. And you pick a subject line "Playing games".
Word games of course.

Here's a point to debate. Is anyone trying to LC solo, without telling the
folks back home? I have so far lost 11 pounds [272 to 261] since 8/18
without DW noticing either the weight loss or the fact that I'm picking my
way selectively around the food in the evenings.

Being oblivious to one's surroundings is cliche for men. So here's a
woman satisfying a cliche normally reserved for men. Shrug, it happens.

I don't understand. Why would you be keeping your new lifestyle a secret
from your wife? Do you think she wouldn't be supportive?

Two contrasting views:

1) If you tell your family, they *can* be supportive.

2) If you don't tell your family, they *can not* actively sabotage you.

I told my family when I went on Atkins.

I got well over two years of support from my wife before an eternal
battle started with pressure to make me try low fat. After all my BP
has been pegged at normal since I started low carbing, my cholesterol
has been normal since then, etc. So clearly all that good health
that's *directly* caused by low carbing must be a fluke and I must be
pressured to do something that failed and that contributed to my
health problems. Because that's what general society has been saying
for three decades. And this from a wife who is supportive in all
other aspects of my life. She just can't bring herself to believe
that my health benefits really *have* come from low carbing.

Sometimes I wish I had remained silent on the topic and just done it
on my own. If I'd just appeared to become a picky eater and not used
the dreaded Atkins word, maybe it wouldn't be like this.

I can understnad wanting to do it on your own. But the peer pressure
will be there whether your family supports you or opposes you. Outside
of the home no one cares that you're low carbing they just hand you
cake.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 04:42:40 GMT, "Blah" announced
in front of God and everybody:


"Dawn Taylor" wrote :

I'm not saying that rudeness is a good thing. I'm saying that it's the
norm on Usenet.

For you.

.... sez a whiny, bitchy, insult-driven, hit-and-run nutball who
continually morphs his address to stay out of killfiles.

You, James, are the exactly the sort of person that make the bulk of
Usenet the jungle that it is.

Dawn

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 6:08:39 -0500, Steve announced
in front of God and everybody:

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:42:20 -0500, Dawn Taylor wrote
(in message ):


I'm not saying that rudeness is a good thing. I'm saying that it's the
norm on Usenet.

Again, I disagree :-) I like the metaphor of the "Wild West" better
than the "Jungle". Most of the settlers were good, law abiding people.
However, because of the lack of organized law enforcement, a few
criminals often ran wild.

_Most_ people on usenet are not rude, hence rudeness isn't "the
norm"... it's the exception.

You disagreement is noted. Me, I think that when rudeness is rampant
in every single nrewsgroup, that makes rudeness "the norm on Usenet."
Many groups are so bad that if a newbie makes even the most innocuous
misstep, he's savagely shredded by the regulars. Other groups are
simply unnavigable unless you're a sociopath. Much of what's usually
accepted as okay behavior on Usenet -- even in the politer ng's --
would be considered "rude" in face-to-face conversation.

snip

Rude is your term. I think that manners and good breeding encompass
more than that. There are entirely too many people on this group who
seem to feel that appending "IMHO" grants them license to say any
outrageous thing they want. Surely, everyone is "entitled" to their
opinion... but they are also entitled to keep it to themselves.

Entitled to keep itheir opinion to themselves? In a discussion forum?
When someone has stepped forward and invited advice?

Um, I don't think so.

It's just that some of
the sanctions available in the "real world" for this type of behavior
are no longer available, for example, a punch in the mouth. Calling
them on it seems to be the only option left.

You seem to be confusing genuine rudeness and what actually happened
here. This gentleman opened a discussion on the subject of his
relationship with his wife. People responded ... and then he
complained that people were remarking on the subject of his
relationship with his wife. Say, what?

Well, yes and no. I have reread the OP and frankly am not sure what he
was asking for:

Here's a point to debate. Is anyone trying to LC solo, without telling the
folks back home? I have so far lost 11 pounds [272 to 261] since 8/18
without DW noticing either the weight loss or the fact that I'm picking my
way selectively around the food in the evenings.

snip

Now, before anyone says anything, it is [of course] possible that she's
noticed the difference but is deliberately saying nothing - as her own way
of playing games with me! I don't think this is the case, however

snip

She is usually very
observant. I guess that being with someone every day blinds you to
infinitesimal changes, whereas someone you don't see in 6 months will
immediately be struck by the difference in profile.

What is the "point to debate?" Whether one should inform their family
that they are trying to loose weight? Whether his wife really has
noticed? Whether living with someone makes you insensitive to gradual
changes? Something else? I'm not sure. However, even though it is not
clear, it _is_ clear (to me, anyway) that he is not asking for marriage
counseling.

Well, if he's not actively asking what's up between himself and his
wife, then he's just staking out a personal moment in his private life
for comment and observation.

If he didn't want comments on his interaction with his wife, he
shouldn't have started a thread about his interaction with his wife on
Usenet. That's pretty basic.

I myself have plenty of things in my life that I don't want to hear
stranger's comments on. You know how I deal with that? I DON'T POST
ABOUT 'EM ON USENET.

This particular post is probably a poor one to take a stand on because
of its ambiguity, but the response _is_ illustrative of the tendency of
some members of this group to volunteer their "expertise" in areas
where they in fact have none, particularly in matters of personal
relationships.

People here have every bit as much expertise in interpersonal
relations as they have in health and nutrition.

My own theory is that this type of behavior has been Institutionalized
by the "Oprahfication" of our society. Other people's intimate,
personal problems are put on display for the vicarious entertainment of
the audience. Everyone gets to "line up at the microphone" and compete
for the cheers or catcalls of the audience by expressing their
"opinions". The victims of this tasteless spectacle become objects,
devoid of feelings and self-respect. However, the true victims are all
of us as the limits of gracious and acceptable behavior descend into
the gutter. It is the Circus Maximus without the bloodshed.

Oh, aren't we superior. :-)

This is a _support newsgroup_. Giving each other our two-bit,
half-baked opinions -- and soliciting those opinions -- is what we're
here for. If you find that so distasteful then, brother, you are SO in
the wrong newsgroup.

If you don't want to hear
people's opinions on some aspect of your life, it's up to you to keep
that aspect of your life to yourself.

I certainly agree with that :-)

Well, it's nice to be agreed with. :-)

Don't get used to it :-)

Oh, I won't. :-)

Dawn

"Doug Freyburger" wrote :

You posted in a public newsgroup.

One person posting in a public newsgroup is not an excuse for another's
rude behavior. Sure it's common on usenet, sure many people accept and even
condone it, but it's still rude.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:16:53 +0000 (UTC), "Logorrhea"
announced in front of God and everybody:


"Dawn Taylor" wrote in message
.. .
You seem to be confusing genuine rudeness and what actually happened
here. This gentleman opened a discussion on the subject of his
relationship with his wife. People responded ... and then he
complained that people were remarking on the subject of his
relationship with his wife.

Although I'm enjoying standing back while the bitch-fight develops, I have
to correct you. I opened a discussion on the practicability - not the
social dynamics - of low-carbing for oneself, by oneself.

Well, you should have made that more clear. What you _actually_ did --
as opposed to what you intended -- was to post a story inllustrating
your interpersonal dynamics with your wife, then sat back and invited
comment.

Whether or when
DW notices was an incidental element. What enraged me was that someone had
the nerve to start theorising about a relationship and, on the basis of an
information level which was approximately 10% of 3/8ths of the square root
of **** all, suggest that: "Maybe marriage counseling would be in order".
I'm not complaining about 'rude', but about the idiotic, automatic
suggestion of therapy for a non-existent problem.

Too bad. You asked for advice and you got different advice than you
intended.

Then you threw a hissy fit. And you still are.

Granted, I did not anticipate that talking of 'playing games' was
provocative phrasing for the sisterhood. Nevertheless, Jarkat2002's was a
singularly blatant example of fingers lunging for the keyboard before the
brain had fully, or indeed even partially, engaged.

Ah, see, that's never good. It helps to think stuff out first.

If
someone had commented on his relationship with his wife utterly out of
the blue or as a way to dig at him because of something else he'd
said, that would have been out of line.

Thus it was out of line. Thank you.

Well, in this case it wasn't. Your question was unclear and you
offered far more information up for discussion than you intended.

He was told a few things he didn't want to hear in response to the
question he asked, so he accused those people of making rude personal
remarks. He didn't call a spade a spade -- he called a spade a club.

Not exactly. My 'spade' was merrily interpreted as a saucepan. What
happened was more along the lines of:
Logorrhea: Does anyone here walk along the street alone?
Jarkat2002: Jeez, you really are some kind of weirdo. You need to see a
shrink if you spend your life crouching in the gutter, drinking Thunderbird
and shouting at the traffic.

Actually, a more realistic analogy would be this:

WOMAN 1: Every night, when my husband gets drunk, he tells me that my
ass is fat. I'm wondering if I should be worried about the size of my
ass.

WOMAN 2: I think you should be worried about your husband drinking
every night and then insulting you.

WOMAN 1: How dare you comment on my personal life! That's none of
your business!!

Dawn