Yes, you are obviously right. All us dunces who believe the "myth" think that all kids who drink soda have diabetes. Every single one of them develop the condition within the year, that is exactly what we believe. You are so smart to figure out what the great unwashed masses erroneously believe.
Or, possibly, we make a simplistic joke that glosses over some details of a widely misunderstood topic.
It's a myth that consuming too much sugar is the sole cause.
And that is why no one ever claims it is the only cause. We understand it's not a 1:1 relationship, and there are nuances that we gloss over. But claiming the entire line of thought is a myth is even more incorrect. We know there are nuances in the link, you ignore all nuances and claim no link at all.
I cut out grains, sugar, and most carbs from my diet a year ago and couldn't be happier or healthier now. Don't do it just as a way to lose weight, learn WHY it is healthier and part of our genetic makeup.
When you say "most carbs", do you still have whole fruits and vegetables? Either raw, cooked, or preserved? What is a typical dinner meal for you?
Scenes of murder and mutilation in a move are not real. They aren't the real body parts, and people aren't really dead. The weapons are props, and the blood is fake.
Show a guy sucking on a woman's nipple, and it is really a guy sucking on a woman's nipple. Ask Michael Douglas about that one, and what his young son told him.
Hey, you should be speaking Italian after that line.:^)
I understand there is confusion and misinformation in regards to diabetes in general. I won't attempt to claim to be an expert. But I don't accept the "myth" status regarding high sugar intake, when the myth-busting article itself admits there is a link. I don't accept it because it takes the most precise meaning of "x causes y" as an absolute, then in very inabsolute terms explains that the topic isn't well understood.
As I asked above, do we doubt the link between smoking and cancer, just because not all smokers get lung cancer?
Also, as Bitsy said and I agreed with, they should really call these conditions by different names. Make 'diabetes' be the condition when the pancreas isn't producing insulin because of damage from a virus (which generally happens at a young age), as the original story is about. Come up with a different name for when the body has become insulin-resistant due to dietary issues and lack of exercise. Then at least one more term for when the body isn't processing insulin correctly for other reasons, which may include results of an unrelated illness or a car accident.
They are medically different conditions, so why do they have the same name? They have half a dozen different terms for 'heart attack', which all have to do with one organ, but they can't come up with another term for "something's wrong with the patient's insulin".
Do you need to be reminded that correlation is not causation?
No, because I said that the joke that someone posted "isn't saying certain amount of sugar directly causes diabetes in all cases". I pointed out that the linked article that seems to call it a myth, actually shows there is a link, and avoiding high doses of sugar is recommended.
Do you also disagree with the common thought that links smoking to lung cancer, since not all smokers get cancer?
Yes, Type 2. Slashdot article is about Type 1. Got it. That doesn't matter.
Rubycodez posted a throw-away one liner about sugary snacks in relation to diabetes. AC follows with a throw-away link that implies sugary snacks have no relation to diabetes. The title says it's a myth.
But within the linked article, it explains not that it's a myth, but that it's an inaccurate over-simplification. The reason I responded is I have seen that "it's a myth" claim over and over, when talking about diabetes in general, or about Type 2 specifically. And I got sick of it, especially since the article states that the American Diabetes Association recommends avoiding sugary snacks to help avoid diabetes.
Also, I do agree with you final thought there. Two distinct names would help avoid the confusion and inaccuracy in the discussions and perceptions.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease [editor: we know this, that isn't what the debate is about]; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
Rubycodez isn't saying a certain amount of sugar directly causes diabetes in all cases. He is saying consuming large amounts of sugar is tied to the onset of diabetes. Which is what the American Diabetes Association also says.
Onyxruby, thank you for you knowledge in this matter. I am not questioning any point you make. But I will disagree with the recommendation you give.
If you don't do that the company can continue to report against your credit report and you can be sued by the company in the jurisdiction that they have on file and get a judgment [nolo.com] against you. Without a fraud dispute the company has no way of knowing your right address and the fraudulent address will be used for the jurisdiction you are sued under. Once a judgment [credit.com] is issued against someone you can have your wages garnished, credit ruined, tax refunds seized and property sold at auction.
You'll have hell to get an judgment overturned [foxbusiness.com] that was issued in another jurisdiction and than your in a position of explaining why you couldn't be bothered to write a simple affidavit and mail it in. Someone following your advice could well get a judgment against them that they couldn't get rid of - even after proving they didn't take it out. With a lot of jurisdictions allowing people to be arrested in order to enforce payment of judgments your advice could well put someone in jail [dailyfinance.com].
If we were back in the 1980's, and the crime was still called bank fraud, I would work with the system to keep my name clean. However, today they want to put the entire blame of their own mistakes on me, and I won't play their game. In the age of 'millions of identities stolen' every year, it is completely counter-productive for American citizens to actively encourage the situations you describe, by doing what the banks and governments should be doing themselves.
If the state government can send me a letter saying my name (and thousands of others) was found in the home of a guy that was busted for ID theft, they can send that same letter to the three credit agencies, as well as maintain a site that all banks can check before giving credit or a loan to someone using my name. In addition, the state certainly tracked me down to the correct address, even though the arrest happened at the other end of the state. It is time that banks and credit agencies use some of the money to improve their validation process, rather than spending it after being defrauded and trying to ruin the lives of innocent people.
If everyone felt like I do, and refused to play the game the banks have rigged in their favor, the banks would never be able to maintain their position that they are the innocent party. (I'm pro-business generally, but am more pro-citizen in these sorts of situations) Very soon, it would be evident that the banks are being very foolish with their money, and none of their actions should be excused and encouraged by blaming the truly innocent persons, and even holding them legally liable for debt they did not agree to.
But with the masses jumping through all the hoops the banks and governments set in front of them, just to keep the banks from being victimized, why should the banks spend their profits to keep themselves safe? They make more money with loose lending standards, and can just extort money from people later if needed.
It's good to hear that actually does work. When I've mentioned my views to other people, they usually say that it wouldn't matter, banks don't care about that, blahblahblah.
I also wonder about not just charging them with attempted fraud, but also suing for libel/slander if they claim you are responsible for the debt, and report that to the credit agencies.
Ironically, just last month we got a letter from the state, saying that our name was found on a list at the house of a guy arrested for ID theft. So we are advised to go through all the hoopla to 'ensure' our good credit. Screw it. If the guy used my name, or if twenty other wastes of oxygen do so, it isn't my problem if I don't let it be my problem.
And my understanding is that once the card is opened, it's now on the consumer to dispute everything about the card,
I never understood that line of thought. If someone, e.g. a bank, says I owe them money because I agreed to repay them money they loaned to someone who claimed to be me, my first question would be "Where is the paper I signed?". If the contract was made at a branch of the bank, such as for a loan, my next question would be "Where is the video footage of me at that bank?".
Because if they don't have those two items, and they indisputably prove it is me, they have absolutely no case to try to extort money from me. They can go after the actual person they gave money or credit to. Why should it not be that way for all cases of so-called "identity theft"? It used to be called "bank fraud", which firmly shows the bank is the victim of fraud, and should have been more diligent in its actions. Instead they now imply the party who should have been more pro-active is the person whose name was used without their knowledge.
Stop calling it ID theft, call it bank fraud, and tell the banks they can get their money from whomever they decided to give it to.
Obviously it is one of the sections of Great Britain. Doesn't "the Shire" give that away? I mean, who doesn't know that Peter Jackson filmed LOTR in New Zealand?
get a set of people together representing one side of the conversation
force something through by a partisan vote
mandates a fine if everyone doesn't participate with solution
and
then provide exemptions for your friends and corporations
I have broken the sentence up this way to make it easier for you to read, mcgrew.
The "set of people representing one side" was the Democrats in Congress, who had the majority in both houses and could ignore any substantive demand from the Republicans. So they were able to "force something through" when they passed Obamacare in the method they did. Since when did the Tea Party "mandate(s) a fine"? Please enlighten us. And finally, have you not heard how President Obama took it upon himself to "provide exemptions for [his] friends and corporations"?
So, while this whole subthread may be off-topic, and down-moddable as a result, you are seriously misreading a post and response. As for Oligonicella's statement of either badly worded or trolling, I think the AC was trying to make a point, but the words overtook the message. So it ended up seeming like he meant the wrong party was responsible. Because noone trolls that poorly, for it to be a troll post.
It was kind of interesting, old-fashioned adventure, humans vs. the aliens, but adding the worst of beaucracy, business and government on top of it.
Exactly. Anyone can write an alien invasion story. Thousands have done it. This one was about what happens much later. And I thought it was a very good story, if a little slow moving at places. Nothing in it was simply 'just another alien invasion story'.
Too bad the movie was more-or-less doomed from the start because of the link to Scientology, which is nowhere in the book.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are obviously right. All us dunces who believe the "myth" think that all kids who drink soda have diabetes. Every single one of them develop the condition within the year, that is exactly what we believe. You are so smart to figure out what the great unwashed masses erroneously believe.
Or, possibly, we make a simplistic joke that glosses over some details of a widely misunderstood topic.
It's a myth that consuming too much sugar is the sole cause.
And that is why no one ever claims it is the only cause. We understand it's not a 1:1 relationship, and there are nuances that we gloss over. But claiming the entire line of thought is a myth is even more incorrect. We know there are nuances in the link, you ignore all nuances and claim no link at all.
I cut out grains, sugar, and most carbs from my diet a year ago and couldn't be happier or healthier now. Don't do it just as a way to lose weight, learn WHY it is healthier and part of our genetic makeup.
When you say "most carbs", do you still have whole fruits and vegetables? Either raw, cooked, or preserved? What is a typical dinner meal for you?
It's a silly comparison though.
Scenes of murder and mutilation in a move are not real. They aren't the real body parts, and people aren't really dead. The weapons are props, and the blood is fake.
Show a guy sucking on a woman's nipple, and it is really a guy sucking on a woman's nipple. Ask Michael Douglas about that one, and what his young son told him.
When in Rome.
Hey, you should be speaking Italian after that line. :^)
I understand there is confusion and misinformation in regards to diabetes in general. I won't attempt to claim to be an expert. But I don't accept the "myth" status regarding high sugar intake, when the myth-busting article itself admits there is a link. I don't accept it because it takes the most precise meaning of "x causes y" as an absolute, then in very inabsolute terms explains that the topic isn't well understood.
As I asked above, do we doubt the link between smoking and cancer, just because not all smokers get lung cancer?
Also, as Bitsy said and I agreed with, they should really call these conditions by different names. Make 'diabetes' be the condition when the pancreas isn't producing insulin because of damage from a virus (which generally happens at a young age), as the original story is about. Come up with a different name for when the body has become insulin-resistant due to dietary issues and lack of exercise. Then at least one more term for when the body isn't processing insulin correctly for other reasons, which may include results of an unrelated illness or a car accident.
They are medically different conditions, so why do they have the same name? They have half a dozen different terms for 'heart attack', which all have to do with one organ, but they can't come up with another term for "something's wrong with the patient's insulin".
Do you need to be reminded that correlation is not causation?
No, because I said that the joke that someone posted "isn't saying certain amount of sugar directly causes diabetes in all cases". I pointed out that the linked article that seems to call it a myth, actually shows there is a link, and avoiding high doses of sugar is recommended.
Do you also disagree with the common thought that links smoking to lung cancer, since not all smokers get cancer?
Yes, Type 2. Slashdot article is about Type 1. Got it. That doesn't matter.
Rubycodez posted a throw-away one liner about sugary snacks in relation to diabetes. AC follows with a throw-away link that implies sugary snacks have no relation to diabetes. The title says it's a myth.
But within the linked article, it explains not that it's a myth, but that it's an inaccurate over-simplification. The reason I responded is I have seen that "it's a myth" claim over and over, when talking about diabetes in general, or about Type 2 specifically. And I got sick of it, especially since the article states that the American Diabetes Association recommends avoiding sugary snacks to help avoid diabetes.
Also, I do agree with you final thought there. Two distinct names would help avoid the confusion and inaccuracy in the discussions and perceptions.
Myth: eating too much sugar causes diabetes
Do you guys even bother reading your own links?
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease [editor: we know this, that isn't what the debate is about]; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
Rubycodez isn't saying a certain amount of sugar directly causes diabetes in all cases. He is saying consuming large amounts of sugar is tied to the onset of diabetes. Which is what the American Diabetes Association also says.
Onyxruby, thank you for you knowledge in this matter. I am not questioning any point you make. But I will disagree with the recommendation you give.
If you don't do that the company can continue to report against your credit report and you can be sued by the company in the jurisdiction that they have on file and get a judgment [nolo.com] against you. Without a fraud dispute the company has no way of knowing your right address and the fraudulent address will be used for the jurisdiction you are sued under. Once a judgment [credit.com] is issued against someone you can have your wages garnished, credit ruined, tax refunds seized and property sold at auction.
You'll have hell to get an judgment overturned [foxbusiness.com] that was issued in another jurisdiction and than your in a position of explaining why you couldn't be bothered to write a simple affidavit and mail it in. Someone following your advice could well get a judgment against them that they couldn't get rid of - even after proving they didn't take it out. With a lot of jurisdictions allowing people to be arrested in order to enforce payment of judgments your advice could well put someone in jail [dailyfinance.com].
If we were back in the 1980's, and the crime was still called bank fraud, I would work with the system to keep my name clean. However, today they want to put the entire blame of their own mistakes on me, and I won't play their game. In the age of 'millions of identities stolen' every year, it is completely counter-productive for American citizens to actively encourage the situations you describe, by doing what the banks and governments should be doing themselves.
If the state government can send me a letter saying my name (and thousands of others) was found in the home of a guy that was busted for ID theft, they can send that same letter to the three credit agencies, as well as maintain a site that all banks can check before giving credit or a loan to someone using my name. In addition, the state certainly tracked me down to the correct address, even though the arrest happened at the other end of the state. It is time that banks and credit agencies use some of the money to improve their validation process, rather than spending it after being defrauded and trying to ruin the lives of innocent people.
If everyone felt like I do, and refused to play the game the banks have rigged in their favor, the banks would never be able to maintain their position that they are the innocent party. (I'm pro-business generally, but am more pro-citizen in these sorts of situations) Very soon, it would be evident that the banks are being very foolish with their money, and none of their actions should be excused and encouraged by blaming the truly innocent persons, and even holding them legally liable for debt they did not agree to.
But with the masses jumping through all the hoops the banks and governments set in front of them, just to keep the banks from being victimized, why should the banks spend their profits to keep themselves safe? They make more money with loose lending standards, and can just extort money from people later if needed.
They have to sign a paper of some sort. Even if it's a letter or application that arrived in the mail.
Hey, if her old breasts are hanging so low you have to pick them up for her, that's a bad sign.
It's good to hear that actually does work. When I've mentioned my views to other people, they usually say that it wouldn't matter, banks don't care about that, blahblahblah.
I also wonder about not just charging them with attempted fraud, but also suing for libel/slander if they claim you are responsible for the debt, and report that to the credit agencies.
Ironically, just last month we got a letter from the state, saying that our name was found on a list at the house of a guy arrested for ID theft. So we are advised to go through all the hoopla to 'ensure' our good credit. Screw it. If the guy used my name, or if twenty other wastes of oxygen do so, it isn't my problem if I don't let it be my problem.
And my understanding is that once the card is opened, it's now on the consumer to dispute everything about the card,
I never understood that line of thought. If someone, e.g. a bank, says I owe them money because I agreed to repay them money they loaned to someone who claimed to be me, my first question would be "Where is the paper I signed?". If the contract was made at a branch of the bank, such as for a loan, my next question would be "Where is the video footage of me at that bank?".
Because if they don't have those two items, and they indisputably prove it is me, they have absolutely no case to try to extort money from me. They can go after the actual person they gave money or credit to. Why should it not be that way for all cases of so-called "identity theft"? It used to be called "bank fraud", which firmly shows the bank is the victim of fraud, and should have been more diligent in its actions. Instead they now imply the party who should have been more pro-active is the person whose name was used without their knowledge.
Stop calling it ID theft, call it bank fraud, and tell the banks they can get their money from whomever they decided to give it to.
Obviously it is one of the sections of Great Britain. Doesn't "the Shire" give that away? I mean, who doesn't know that Peter Jackson filmed LOTR in New Zealand?
Don't be silly. There are no bananas is Kazakhstan.
President Reagan allowing more Americans to keep their money "wasn't judged offensive by conservatives back then"?
Why would it be?
At least Oligonicella can read. The AC post said
get a set of people together representing one side of the conversation
force something through by a partisan vote
mandates a fine if everyone doesn't participate with solution
and
then provide exemptions for your friends and corporations
I have broken the sentence up this way to make it easier for you to read, mcgrew.
The "set of people representing one side" was the Democrats in Congress, who had the majority in both houses and could ignore any substantive demand from the Republicans. So they were able to "force something through" when they passed Obamacare in the method they did. Since when did the Tea Party "mandate(s) a fine"? Please enlighten us. And finally, have you not heard how President Obama took it upon himself to "provide exemptions for [his] friends and corporations"?
So, while this whole subthread may be off-topic, and down-moddable as a result, you are seriously misreading a post and response. As for Oligonicella's statement of either badly worded or trolling, I think the AC was trying to make a point, but the words overtook the message. So it ended up seeming like he meant the wrong party was responsible. Because noone trolls that poorly, for it to be a troll post.
I don't grok what you are saying.
Buying the loan would allow Li to try and restructure the company
It's "try to restructure". I realize that you hear this a lot in spoken word, but it doesn't belong in writing.
Dang it. I would of made this same comment, but you beat me to it.
It's what I keep telling you wife too. I'm only in town every other Tuesday.
Then again, those armies were generally not in the habit of hugging or kissing those neighbours, slowing down the rate of spread of disease as well.
Well, they may not have hugged and kissed the men, but the winning side didn't mind hugging and kissing the remaining women.
He could have called her an "urban whore".
Nothing bad ever came from doing something like that.
I enjoyed the book, but not that much.
It was kind of interesting, old-fashioned adventure, humans vs. the aliens, but adding the worst of beaucracy, business and government on top of it.
Exactly. Anyone can write an alien invasion story. Thousands have done it. This one was about what happens much later. And I thought it was a very good story, if a little slow moving at places. Nothing in it was simply 'just another alien invasion story'.
Too bad the movie was more-or-less doomed from the start because of the link to Scientology, which is nowhere in the book.
Well, I'm an atheist towards the Dollar. I haven't seen one in so long, I don't believe they exist anymore.