Physical fitness is entirely too broad a term for you to actually tell me I am wrong for using it. And defining it as "above normal physical ability" is simply arbitrary. You're trying to insert your own definition; fortunately, your specific opinion does not dictate general, medical, or scientific consensus -- something that is fairly varied, and contextual, not rigged.
The article above actually uses the word "fit" multiple times. The related articles state quite clearly: "There’s an impressive body of science showing" that such workouts "are very effective at improving health and fitness."
You're too lazy to thoroughly read the article above, let alone the the actual study. Worse? You seem to be too lazy to even bother with a valid rebuttal, so you'll have to forgive us if we don't, ya know, listen to you.
They never claimed endurance, or muscle tone, they never claimed anything beyond achieving physical fitness by maintaining a minimum exercise routine. A 6 pack, and/or the ability to run a marathon, while commendable, have nothing to do with basic physical fitness.
It's almost as though you have no idea what you're talking about.
Knowing stuff is stupid. Saying stuff on the internet is awesome!
You're selling Henry Waxman short. He does some really great work.
And the idea that this plays well enough to anyone outside of the loop, that it means anything in terms of shoring up votes, is absurd.
What's the problem here? They are unique because, unlike other boobs that are attached to other people, Upton's boobs are attached to Upton. It's a comedy joke.
Thank you.
Well, as stated above, that is false. Referencing the Cato institute just make me feel that much confident in my assertion.
That's ridiculous.
That is a law signed in the late 70s, and it addressed discriminatory lending practices, and it by no means "required banks to issue mortgages" to anyone who didn't meet the necessary requirements, it instructed institutions to issue loans in "a safe and sound manner"-- it basically insured that those requirements were not different because of where you lived, or where you wanted to move.
The article above is not a political one, it is not about legislation, regulatory short comings, or any of the who, what, and whys -- its simply about the equation above.
If you want to point at legislation, and not unrestricted greed, look at the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and its effective repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Why did this appear as one big block of text?
I promise I tried to make that post easy to read.
The most important part:
"This comprehensive study of an unexplained apparent dermopathy demonstrated no infectious cause and no evidence of an environmental link. There was no indication that it would be helpful to perform additional testing for infectious diseases as a potential cause. Future efforts should focus on helping patients reduce their symptoms through careful attention to treatment of co-existing medical, including psychiatric conditions, that might be contributing to their symptoms."
Are you kidding? Have you seen the way stress manifests itself in people? It can be overwhelming. While you may have thought that diagnosis was a little dismissive, it was almost certainly the correct one. Hair loss, hives, severe weight loss, mood swings, anxiety, nervousness, nausea; the list is almost endless.
Instead of dismissing doctor after doctor, because you simply can not accept that mental health could be the culprit, you should really investigate treatment, or therapy that address what modern medical practitioners are telling you is wrong. Why you believe you know better is beyond me; it's unfortunate that mental health issues are so often dismissed by the sufferers, sometimes with devastating effects, due to pure stubbornness, and denial.
It does everyone a huge disservice when people insist that problems, which by all accounts are psychological, are a result of "toxins" and diet, and bad medicine, and other such nonsense.
Infections, poisoning, etc... those things are easily diagnosed -- we have a very good understanding of how those conditions present themselves -- your body is amazingly consistent, in that regard.
Your mind on the other hand? Its frightening. Your body, and even your own sense consciousness has no real control over that.
And, while there is no way of proving this is what the "new doctor" did, the treatment of psychological disorders are often presented as treatment for something physiological, when it ism in reality, nothing more than a placebo effect.
Nope. Vaccines did it to them.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
1. She was never diagnosed because no reputable doctor would diagnose someone with something that, ya know, doesn't exist.
2. The CDC just released an exhaustive study.
"Results of the study, published in PloS OneExternal Web Site Icon show this condition appears to be uncommon among a population representative of Northern California residents. Skin damage from the sun was the most common skin abnormality found, and no single underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified. Upon thorough analysis, most sores appeared to result from chronic scratching and picking, without an underlying cause. The materials and fibers obtained from skin-biopsy specimens were mostly cellulose, compatible with cotton fibers.
Neuropsychological testing revealed a substantial number of study participants who scored highly in screening tests for one or more co-existing psychiatric or addictive conditions, including depression, somatic concerns (an indicator of preoccupation with health issues), and drug use."
Read more here: [www.cdc.gov]
Your friend has a psychological disorder that is manifesting itself in the form of "Morgellons Disease" (a name, by the way, coined by the person who first self-diagnosed herself with the non-existent disease.) and by simply accepting the disease as real, and not addressing the cause (psychological) you're doing a grave disservice to your friend.
You can tell, simply by looking at him, that he is nothing more than some random dipshit.
My friend just got one of those. It looks like a Chihuahua that went as Bodhi from point break, for Halloween.
This isn't Macaulay Culkin, this is a genetic monster -- a result of modern science, and Hollywood, gone mad!
This is a Denis Leary - Steve Buscemi hybrid, and its loose in NYC.
I wasn't aware of any of the banning. I still don't think it's really the same, but I would like to retract 45% of my effort to defend Gawker.
No. All of that is wrong. And your post is sort of idiotic. Your anecdote, where someone who is homophobic equates being gay with having AIDS, has nothing to do with race, at all. There, based on your story, was no racially charged precursor, it was as simple as "those people are gay, I'm going to say they have AIDS," I'm not saying the person who carved that into the desk wasn't racist, but racism had nothing to do with the statement made.
Simply put: One of the 3 being "of color" had nothing to do with it. So, no. That isn't "unintentional racism". Nor would be calling a minority stupid, if you weren't calling them stupid for being a minority. You can be insulting, without being racist.
2 things.
I don't think anyone at Gawker is actually offended by the file name. The commercial itself was plenty racist-y. This is more of a "haha oh AND look at this funny thing" sort of article.
Nobody on the Gawker staff, as far as I am aware, is running for office. So while you may want to cry out for the eradication of such obvious double standards, you may want to put things in perspective.
3rdish thing: It might just be a joke by @elSpanielo. Because I couldn't find "stupidRedIndianGuy" anywhere in the source.*
*Disregard this if Gawker has updated the page/whatever.
