Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Maurice, While I don't necessarily agree, I can understand your view that it was unnecessary for MTV to address matters of personal hygiene for LPs. BUT...if that segment helped EVEN ONE person, LP or AP, become a little bit more educated, and less ignorant, isn't it worth it? There ARE LP's who have never heard or seen of such devices, whether you choose to believe that or not. So for those individuals, maybe it was helpful, because maybe now they have found a way to make their lives a little bit easier. Is it really that hard to believe that there are LPs out there who have NOT been part of LP communities, such as this group, or LPA, where they could learn about such things? It is ENTIRELY possible, because I am one of them. I only very recently became involved, and until then I had no idea that such things existed. As for APs...why anyone would think ignorance is best, is beyond me. Would you rather have a bunch of mean spirited kids who ridicule people or things they don't understand, or would you like to educate them, so maybe they can say " wow, I never thought of that before " and maybe be less closed minded? Maybe help people realize, that even the most seemingly simple daily tasks can be taken for granted. As I said before, I can understand your view that butt wiping is not an issue most people need to discuss. But I think that, if it helped even ONE person, than it was NOT useless information. Jess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 > > These intimate details bring home the reality to us APs and helps > > us relate on a very basic, human level. > >What reality is it you have trouble with here? Is it that hard to >understand the we " LPs " go to the bathroom, unless under special >circumstance, pretty much in the same manner as you " APs " ? And >doesn't a little common reasoning tell you that if a person's arms >are short then they must have to do something to accommodate the >requirements? Maybe it wouldn't have occurred to them, Maurice. (It honestly didn't occur to me before I became active in LPA and found out such things existed.) Just like it might not occur to them that we make important distinctions between the words " dwarf " and " midget. " I have a friend who lives in subsidized housing, and I have that conversation almost every time I run into one of the children living in the building. >Using your reasoning, would it not have been pertinent >to include brief instruction on the use of feminine hygiene products >as well? Actually, if that had been discussed, only half the viewers would have been able to relate. What is your greater objection, Maurice? That the topic was discussed, or that it was discussed on MTV and not PBS or the Discovery Channel? >For reference I am including the subject line... > >Subject: Re: ass wiping meeeeeeeeeedgits > > > > I totalllllllllllllly aggreee! man all u ppl that think she > > should not have talked about it need to take ur stick outta ur > > ass! Geeze, thats great info for ppl that might not know there are > > gadgets to help out to make ur life better. > >Post such as this only tend to lend credulity to my opinion of MTV >and its veiwership. In which case you seem to have thoroughly missed the point of the post. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 > Maybe it wouldn't have occurred to them, Maurice. (It honestly > didn't occur to me before I became active in LPA and found out > such things existed.) A while back I think it was alluded to that the median age for viewers of MTV is between 15-25 years old. I don't know the actual demographics, so we will use that range for my point here. Now, let's go way out on a limb and pretend that all those viewers are Lps. (My reasoning here is because if you are not an LP or do not have a child who is an LP, then the need to know how LPs perform matters of hygiene is of little significance.) So, using what you say here, does this mean that by the mentioned age bracket, these people still do not now how to take care of such functions? What have they been doing all this time? Have they just let it go because they could not determine a way to take care of it? Or are they still at this age relying on outside assistance? (Some exceptions noted) You see, by this standard, the point made in the segment was moot unless it was intended to inform a curious portion of the viewers which in my opinion, didn't need to be informed of the matter. >Just like it might not occur to them that we make important >distinctions between the words " dwarf " and " midget. " Actually, I don't make a lot of distinction between the two. They are both merely descriptive terms. I have a given name and prefer to be addressed by it. If being called a " midget " was the worse thing in my life to have been called, then I would consider myself fortunate. > I have a friend who lives in subsidized housing, and I have that > conversation almost every time I run into one of the children > living in the building. Is this to indicate that children living in subsidized housing are somewhat inferior to those living in non-subsidized housing? Wouldn't this come under the guise of " Profiling " ? For the record, I live in subsidized housing. Am I inferior because of it. You should chose your adjectives a little more judiciously. > What is your greater objection, Maurice? That the topic was > discussed, or that it was discussed on MTV and not PBS or the > Discovery Channel? Neither, my greatest objection is MTV as a whole entity. And it has been long before the program aired. That is what all these threads have been about as far as my part goes. > In which case you seem to have thoroughly missed the point of the > post. In reference to the post I included, I take it you don't mind the subject line phrase, " ass wiping meeeeeeeeeedgits " . I am not sure exactly what " ass wiping meeeeeeeeeedgits " are suppose to be, but I don't think it was a very tactful approach. And the point I was making by including the post is this type of communication seems indicative of the intelligibility of a portion of the MTV viewership. Or perhaps I am behind the times when it comes to cutting edge commuication. Maurice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 >A while back I think it was alluded to that the median age for >viewers of MTV is between 15-25 years old. I don't know the actual >demographics, so we will use that range for my point here. Now, >let's go way out on a limb and pretend that all those viewers are >Lps. (My reasoning here is because if you are not an LP or do not >have a child who is an LP, then the need to know how LPs perform >matters of hygiene is of little significance.) Let's go out on an even bigger limb. Let's assume that no APs out there have any curiosity whatsoever about such matters, in which case your point would be worth discussing. >Is this to indicate that children living in subsidized housing are >somewhat inferior to those living in non-subsidized housing? >Wouldn't this come under the guise of " Profiling " ? For the record, I >live in subsidized housing. Am I inferior because of it. You should >chose your adjectives a little more judiciously. I meant: there are a lot of kids, who span a pretty broad range of ages and backgrounds. If you (or anyone else) took it as denigration or profiling or anything similarly negative, that truly was not my intention and I apologize for any offense > > What is your greater objection, Maurice? That the topic was > > discussed, or that it was discussed on MTV and not PBS or the > > Discovery Channel? > >Neither, my greatest objection is MTV as a whole entity. And it has >been long before the program aired. That is what all these threads >have been about as far as my part goes. So you don't like MTV. What does that have to do with whether the topic at hand was appropriate for discussion in the context of the program? > > In which case you seem to have thoroughly missed the point of the > > post. > >In reference to the post I included, I take it you don't mind the >subject line phrase, " ass wiping meeeeeeeeeedgits " . It's called sarcasm, Maurice. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 okay i didn't even hear about the MTV show until just last night. I am 43 and don't watch MTV. I am however going to watch the special this afternoon at 4:00. I will let you all know then whether I think this was a good venue for the show. My pre-conceived notion is that it was not. Be in touch later. Jeanie >From: " Dybala " <johndybala@...> >dwarfism >Subject: Re: Re: A couple of things... >Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:15:42 -0700 > > >A while back I think it was alluded to that the median age for > >viewers of MTV is between 15-25 years old. I don't know the actual > >demographics, so we will use that range for my point here. Now, > >let's go way out on a limb and pretend that all those viewers are > >Lps. (My reasoning here is because if you are not an LP or do not > >have a child who is an LP, then the need to know how LPs perform > >matters of hygiene is of little significance.) > >Let's go out on an even bigger limb. Let's assume that no APs out there >have >any curiosity whatsoever about such matters, in which case your point would >be worth discussing. > > >Is this to indicate that children living in subsidized housing are > >somewhat inferior to those living in non-subsidized housing? > >Wouldn't this come under the guise of " Profiling " ? For the record, I > >live in subsidized housing. Am I inferior because of it. You should > >chose your adjectives a little more judiciously. > >I meant: there are a lot of kids, who span a pretty broad range of ages and >backgrounds. If you (or anyone else) took it as denigration or profiling or >anything similarly negative, that truly was not my intention and I >apologize >for any offense > > > > What is your greater objection, Maurice? That the topic was > > > discussed, or that it was discussed on MTV and not PBS or the > > > Discovery Channel? > > > >Neither, my greatest objection is MTV as a whole entity. And it has > >been long before the program aired. That is what all these threads > >have been about as far as my part goes. > >So you don't like MTV. What does that have to do with whether the topic at >hand was appropriate for discussion in the context of the program? > > > > In which case you seem to have thoroughly missed the point of the > > > post. > > > >In reference to the post I included, I take it you don't mind the > >subject line phrase, " ass wiping meeeeeeeeeedgits " . > >It's called sarcasm, Maurice. > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com > > > >=== > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 At 4, which time zone? Re: Re: A couple of things... > >Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:15:42 -0700 > > > > >A while back I think it was alluded to that the median age for > > >viewers of MTV is between 15-25 years old. I don't know the actual > > >demographics, so we will use that range for my point here. Now, > > >let's go way out on a limb and pretend that all those viewers are > > >Lps. (My reasoning here is because if you are not an LP or do not > > >have a child who is an LP, then the need to know how LPs perform > > >matters of hygiene is of little significance.) > > > >Let's go out on an even bigger limb. Let's assume that no APs out there > >have > >any curiosity whatsoever about such matters, in which case your point would > >be worth discussing. > > > > >Is this to indicate that children living in subsidized housing are > > >somewhat inferior to those living in non-subsidized housing? > > >Wouldn't this come under the guise of " Profiling " ? For the record, I > > >live in subsidized housing. Am I inferior because of it. You should > > >chose your adjectives a little more judiciously. > > > >I meant: there are a lot of kids, who span a pretty broad range of ages and > >backgrounds. If you (or anyone else) took it as denigration or profiling or > >anything similarly negative, that truly was not my intention and I > >apologize > >for any offense > > > > > > What is your greater objection, Maurice? That the topic was > > > > discussed, or that it was discussed on MTV and not PBS or the > > > > Discovery Channel? > > > > > >Neither, my greatest objection is MTV as a whole entity. And it has > > >been long before the program aired. That is what all these threads > > >have been about as far as my part goes. > > > >So you don't like MTV. What does that have to do with whether the topic at > >hand was appropriate for discussion in the context of the program? > > > > > > In which case you seem to have thoroughly missed the point of the > > > > post. > > > > > >In reference to the post I included, I take it you don't mind the > > >subject line phrase, " ass wiping meeeeeeeeeedgits " . > > > >It's called sarcasm, Maurice. > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > >http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > > >=== > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 >Intimate details bring any story to life, an intimate detail being >anything we do that we don't commonly talk about but do all the time. >These don't have to be shocking details. They can be quite mundane >like how a DD wife has to do a mountain climbing routine to get the >frozen dinner left too far in the back of the freezer by her tall >idiot husband. Actually, I think this detail gives us the understanding that when lee kills you, she will be aquitted because it will be justafiable homicide. >But a little shock value thrown in might stimulate thinking along >unfamiliar lines. What can it hurt? Thanks but I don't need the >education on feminine hygiene products Does this mean the topic of dwarf women & tampons will not be forthcoming? Drats! R. Squirrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2007 Report Share Posted September 1, 2007 > > Hi Bee, > > Hope you are well. I have a couple of questions about different foods... > > 1. Is Tuna in the can ok? I feel like I just see Tuna stated in all > locations, but that could mean so many i different things. ==>This is on the Candida Diet No-Nos List: Do not have fish packed in soybean, safflower, canola or any oils (other than olive), tomato, mustard, etc. are not okay (spring water is best) and do not have tuna that does not state the kind of fish on the label. Only have skipjack or albacore tuna. > 2. I dont want to over due it with butter, so can i use the Smart Beat or Parkay butter sprays? What is it in the real butter that we need that we could not use lower fat brands for that little flavoring? ==>No, do not have Smart Beat or Parkay which are fake butters derived from vegetable oils. This diet is high in " good " saturated fats such as " real " butter, coconut oil, and other natural occurring fats and oils from Mother nature, so they are not processed. All " bad " man-made fats and oils derived from vegetables (except extra virgin olive oil) are damaging and toxic to the body, acting just like plastic - they are like consuming melted down Tupperware. ==>Consuming such bad fats and oils means your body will utilize them to construct cell membranes, which makes them weak, when they are supposed to be constructed out of 50% saturated fats (lung cells require 100% saturated fat). ==>Good fats and oils I recommend do not make your body fat, and they do not cause heart disease despite all of the propaganda and lies put out by the food, drug and medical industries. Cholesterol is not the villian it is made out to be. In fact it is extremely important for your health. Your body doesn't even make cholesterol from fats and oils, and if you consumed no fats and oils of any kind your body would still produce what it needs to repair and protect your body. Please read my articles " Candida Basics by Bee " and " How to Successfully Overcome Candida " thoroughly, as well as articles about cholesterol and fats in our Group's Files - see " Candida Diet & Shopping Lists & All About Foods " Folder, and find the " Fat Facts " Folder. A great article to start with is called " Taking the Fear Out of Eating Fat " . > > 3. Can you suggest a good brand for sauerkraut? ==>I'm in Canada so I buy Karthein's Brand. Do not buy Bubbies brand because it is heated which destroys the good bacteria. > > 4. I am afraid to eat 5 T of coconut because it just seems like SO much fat? How much fat are we supposed to get a day? ==>The reason this diet works so well to build up your immune system is because it is very high in " good " fats and oils from Mother nature, i.e. butter, coconut oil, lard, fish oil, etc., etc. If you figure out your ratios of protein to fat to carbs I recommend you will be consuming about 66% good saturated fats in order to achieve optimal health. These ratios are modelled after the Optimal Diet, designed by Dr. Jan Kwasniewski, who is in Poland. For over 30 years he has been curing people of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, asthma, and many other diseases with his diet; http://homodiet.netfirms.com/ ==>You can depend upon the fact that any media reports, government published food guides, etc. are geared towards big industry, i.e. drug, food, agricultural & medical, which helps them make money, but they are totally and utterly false for improving your health. ==>One of the best sources about nutrition is Dr. Weston A. Price's book " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " and the foundation set up in his honor: www.westonaprice.org - here's most of his book online: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.