quote:Sam's health is in no way harmed by my skepticism.
Unless it's placebo and you've undercut his belief in it!
Ah crap, that's a good point. Nevermind, Sam. Wheat is poison, you should probably just eat nuts and berries and raw scallops.
thanks dan!! but what diagnosis are you talking about
Is this like a smoking gun or something? I'm confused. I get that you have no formal diagnosis yet. I'm glad you're so aware of that! I got the mistaken impression from your earlier post that you figured it was basically a foregone conclusion, but even then I respected that you allowed for other possibilities.
Does this question have some special significance to you or is this just the game where you ask a question a lot because you're convinced the person you're talking to has no possible answer to it? Or at least none that doesn't shoot them in their own foot.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you said "I'm not going to rule out the possibility that the diagnosis is hogwash and his improvement is due to coincidence or placebo."
which is where the question 'what diagnosis?' comes from. it's not hard to look at my posts and see that i am not assured, personally, that I have celiacs, and state that it's only a probable cause (subject to further review) and definitely not an assured diagnosis.
so what do you mean by diagnosis in this statement? which diagnosis is hogwash? Do you mean the precautionary dietary elimination of gluten while I wait for testing to be done on that particular possible answer? Because I have no doubt that this is a wise course of action, medically, and is not hogwash. Or is it more a general condemnation of celiacs as a medical phenomenon itself!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're saying it's "not hard" to read your post and reach a conclusion that I, in the post directly above yours, indicated I had not reached. I incorrectly thought you were treating these early findings as, essentially, a diagnosis. Didn't I just say this a second ago?
What's kinda amazing is that right after this, you suggest maybe I am condemning celiac completely. Even though I already stated pretty explicitly that I'm not doing that. Seems like a bizarre double standard, expecting me to correctly interpret your statements and then reading mine so sloppily that you make an error like that.
posted
This is all about that it's important for Dan to note how much he thinks gluten free is a stupid fad, and it's amusing that people are on board with the fad even if they are actually made sick by gluten.
Except it's ALSO about how it's important for people to be mad at Dan for being like that.
Just barely eclipsed by how it's important to be shocked by people being mad at Dan.
I guess it's a little bit about whether you're doing the right thing or not, Samp, but not mainly.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [QB] You're saying it's "not hard" to read your post and reach a conclusion that I, in the post directly above yours, indicated I had not reached.
Ok, and I would contest that this is no fault of the wording I used, especially considering that by the time you called my diagnosis hogwash I had already said there was no confirmed diagnosis. You just were pushing too hard on a mistaken interpretation
quote:What's kinda amazing is that right after this, you suggest maybe I am condemning celiac completely. Even though I already stated pretty explicitly that I'm not doing that.
More precisely, I am not nor will I say you are condemning celiac completely, but for all I know you could, for example, disagree that the phenomenon of celiacs involves this sort of medical response, and you wouldn't think my symptoms correlate with your understanding of what celiac actually is!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we need to forcibly redistribute some of these threads. Sam has so many, and Dan has so few. Sam, would it be okay with you if Dan could have this thread?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think we need to forcibly redistribute some of these threads. Sam has so many, and Dan has so few. Sam, would it be okay with you if Dan could have this thread?
Besides, forcible redistribution of threads (phone tried to autocorrect that to bread, which seemed amusing given the previous conversation. Plus Soviet connotations. All around just a good autocorrect) is immoral.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
God does inflict wrath during rapture right? I never read that series but I think after all the atheists and Muslims and non-denominational Christians are Left Behind some sort of wrath follows.
Is it zombies? I vaguely remember someone saying it might be zombies. But that's probably just because zombies are In lately.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think so, or at least that is what I understand from the atheist pet care service.
But my understanding is that if you are a Jehovah's Witness, everyone bad dies and all the good people are left behind. My former Witness friend says she and her friend used to walk around their neighborhood and decide whose house they were going to live in after Armageddon.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like a lot of work for the saved, though. Lot of mass graves to dig, infrastructure to maintain... Yeah, I'm not sure that sounds very rapturous. Sounds like a lot more work than the regular world.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it depends on if you are a dispensationalist premillennialist type, an amillenialist or you yourself are a zombie
for the purposes of the rapture though there are two options:
0. First, a 'time of trouble' (e.g., strife, war, obama gets re-elected to office, a very particular north american nation itself stops disallowing gay people from marrying*)
1. christ shows up. It's immediately visible and evident and obvious to, like, everyone.
2. suddenly every righteous person reappears, resurrected! if they were dead, I guess.
3. when this happens, there's no further opportunity for the unrighteous and the wicked to repent. if christ shows up and makes himself evident, if you hadn't atoned and been a goodly christian, BAM, that's it, it's too late, you're doomed. sorry.
4. kingdom of christ is established on earth, s'all chill
5. eventually the unredeemed come back or something it's all really hazy
OR
1. something involving an antichrist
2. the blessed/saved/righteous just vanish. they're off to go have a great time!
3. everyone else just left behind kind of gives off a collective "uh oh"
4. bad times
*pretty much what pat robertson rambles on about forever sometimes
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought in scenario 2 that the left behind guys like have a chance to repent still and end up righteous dudes. They just have to combat the Antichrist in a bunch of wicked Mad Max style fight scenes or something.
Which sounds great, because if every good Christian just up and vanished I would seriously reconsider my stance on atheism. So I was kinda banking on that "yeah okay god is real it's super evident now this is your last chance to believe" grace period.
You're telling me I've been wrong this whole time?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, yeah, if there's no incentive to repent and convert to the service of christ BEFORE clear evidence of christ, that would be terrible!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next you'll tell me that purgatory isn't a place were all the chill atheist bros go until they realize they done screwed up and repent, thus buying a ticket to Heaven. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's one of many reasons to like Mormons.
It helps that they tend to be pretty rad folks, too. Exhibit A being most of the Mormon folks here and on Sake.
And exhibit B being... Every Mormon missionary I've invited in for a cup of water and some air conditioning has been super nice. Even though I very bluntly and immediately tell them that I'm not interested in their religion and am just offering because I imagine they get tired and thirsty. So that's cool too.
Oh man oops I dropped the joking and was genuine. My bad.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What book? The Left Behind books? Dude. Libraries. My hometown library had 'em, the whole series. I also strongly suspect not too many are checked out at any given time. Never read them, but when I was a page in high school, I knew everything we had and where it was better than the reference librarians.
I also was explicitly forbidden from helping people find things, even helping the people who walked up to me and said "where is x?" (because it was the reference librarian's job, which consisted of sitting around until someone had a question so I should actually give them stuff to do, yah?). So someone would come to the reference librarian and say right in front of me "do you have any knitting books?", and I would go find a footstool, and leave it in front of the knitting books (they were on a top shelf, and badly squished) while the reference librarian googled the knitting dewey decimal number. Then go back to work.
There were things I really didn't like about working at the library. That was one of them.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I got the mistaken impression from your earlier post that you figured it was basically a foregone conclusion, but even then I respected that you allowed for other possibilities.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
