Things that are pissing you off- Food & Drink Edition

[mgm9128]

My favorite egullet poster:

"I'm on a bread making kick--not good because I'm trying to NOT eat carbs *sigh*"

"AND, a pasta making kick *double sigh*"

 

[Piobaire]

She looks like a troll doll.

 

[ehkay]

It's been a while since Steve Shaw puffed up a restaurant that happened to give him a ton of free ****.

 

[mgm9128]

What...is...this?

 

[ehkay]



What...is...this?

oh.. the picture works now.. ruined my joke.

 

[mgm9128]

"I'm 36 and have been married to a wonderful man for 11 years. We got married New Year's Eve 1999....due to all the hype about the world ending in the year 2000, he figured he wouldn't have to be married long that way."

 

[edinatlanta]



I've got no experience with marketing, just... people skills

I'm skeptical.

 

[mgm9128]



One does not have to say to one's face what one would say about them on the internet.

 

[edinatlanta]



One does not have to say to one's face what one would say about them on the internet.

brb.

 

[mgm9128]

 

[edinatlanta]



brb.

nvm. someone turn that into a meme, please.

 

[ehkay]



There goes your opportunity to sell polyscience gear through "society" friendly amazon links.

 

[mgm9128]

**** 'em. That site is bullshit. You can't even have a human conversation or debate without being censored for veering "off topic". They are robots.

 

[ehkay]

Hi -

Thanks for your ongoing participation in and support of eGullet. Your recent Le Bernadin post had a reported comment towards the end of the post that warrants us contacting you and requesting that you edit the post.

The Member Agreement states:

Quote
Members must not attempt to act as moderators.


It's unquestionable that you weren't trying to "moderate the forum" per se but please note that sending a message to the moderators should be accomplished by sending a Forum Host a quick PM or - if you're uncertain who the host is - using the convenient "Report This Post" button (yes - you are welcome to report your own post!)

Assuming that you get this message within the 24 hour editing period ... please remove and repost the following comments in
Eleven Madison Park: Reviews and Discussion

i sent some bs apology etc., and got this

[quote name=CulinaryArtsAndLettersPolice]]Apologies aren't necessary and no harm was done. You didn't cause any real problem. It's not a "touchy issue" per se but past experiences have proven it wise to put the "No Moderation by Members" rule in in place. It ensures that we don't have free-for-all discussions spiraling out of control with fuel being added to the fires by those in disagreement
Your brief remarks about EMP would concern only if the subsequent posts migrated into an EMP discussion one the LB thread. But again - based on past experience we've found that such migrations do occur and it's generally best to just post those other thoughts or remarks - however brief - on the appropriate existing thread or just start a new one.

Mr reason for contacting you was simply to make you aware of the "Report This Post" option so you'd know of the easy way to contact moderators outside the discussion for any questions that may arise.

We welcome and value your ongoing involvement in eGullet and look forward to seeing much more of you. Thanks! [/quote]

this was in like 2007

 

[mgm9128]

mm84321, rotuts, IndyRob -

Society members value eG Forums for their focused, insightful discussions of food and drink, and our hosts work hard to keep those discussions on topic. For that reason we've deleted your recent off-topic posts in the The "Truth" About Obesity topic.

Of course, we're eager to have you contribute to the subject at hand (i.e. obesity and directly related behaviour/contributing factors), so don't hesitate to return to the topic and chime right in!

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Michaela (aka Mjx)

mm84321 -

As you know, eG Forums are valued by Society members for their engaged, insightful discussions of food and drink, and our forum hosts work hard to keep the discussions lively and on-topic. For that reason, we deleted your recent post in the The "Truth" About Obesity topic because it was a personal message to another Society member, and not a contribution to the discussion at hand. As the Society Topicality Guidelines state:

Quote
All posts should contribute new, topical content to the discussion at hand. Instead of posting personal correspondence with no other food-related content, please use the PM system to share your thanks, compliments, or off-topic thoughts.


Regards,
Michaela (aka Mjx)

Hi mm84321,

I'm PMing you, because if the current exchange goes any further, the entire thing (beginning with my post) will doubtless be deleted as being off topic.

But you made a fair point, and I didn't want to just let it go, and leave you thinking I'd decided to ignore you.

If you read the article to the end, you noticed that it drew no particular conclusions as to what people should do, but described how they actually react to certain factors. It noted that certain factors are likely to increase served portions, and that if this occurs regularly, it will increase overall food/caloric intake. It should be fairly evident that the crux of this article is that it is important to be aware of what we are actually doing, we need to pay attention, to think, not just muddle along.

The failure of the general public to be willing to think does not invalidate research findings.

Is the popular press likely to take this and make rubbish of it?
Very possibly, since this seems like the inevitable fate of most scientific findings, but dismissing them because of this makes no sense. Ultimately, each individual is responsible for acquiring and using the knowledge necessary to take proper care of him or herself, and avoid being gulled.

If consumers cannot take the trouble to educate themselves and their children properly, I'm incapable of feeling any sympathy with their moaning over the consequences, or claims of being victimized: If someone reads this article, and decides that it means he should buy 'diminutive porcelain [dishes] painted red', and that this will help him to lose weight, he's a fool.

Regards,
Michaela


Reply
mm84321

Firstly, the title of the article you linked is "Why expanding dinner plates are expanding our waistlines", which is, itself, drawing a pretty broad conclusion, and one which is false. If the title were instead "Why expanding dinner plates may be expanding our waistlines", I might take less issue with it, although that would still be false.

Secondly, the article is presupposing that obesity itself is caused by the consumption of a surplus of calories, which it lays blame on larger portions as a result of plate size. Again, this is erroneous for many reasons, and nowhere does the article address the actual conditions of obesity. It's essentially shoddy science based on other shoddy science.

And, for what it's worth, I know it's your policy to keep things on topic, but I think it's a shame that a conversation which is based on a post made in a thread cannot continue uninterrupted. Especially when it is something that's worth people's attention.

Max


Mjx:
First, anybody who looks no deeper than an article headline is naive, since headlines are designed to attract attention.

Second, to suggest that there is no correlation between overeating and obesity is incorrect. While insulin metabolism, for example, plays a significant role, it is the rare individual who can exceed a certain caloric intake without gaining weight (tangentially, as you no doubt know, since you seem to take an extensive interest in this topic, all-you-can-eat diets that restrict carbohydrates are interesting in that not all that much is eaten by the participants; reduced appetite is an interesting side effect of it, and food intake diminishes, correspondingly).

The artice is focused on a single aspect of eating, and makes no pretence of comprehensively addressing the full spectrum of factors contributing to obesity.

I'm not clear on how you are able to definitively state that the original reasearch is shoddy, given the the article is not going to be published until August 2012, and no one, apart from the authors, copyeditor, and proofreader, is likely to have read it.

Is the article shoddy? Well, I suppose for those who failed to pay attention in their science classes, and who expect to have information spoon-fed to them in a way that leaves no room for doubt and requires no thought, the article leaves somthing to be desired. For any thinking person, both any valid information and any deficiencies in the article are evident. This is an internet blurb, a jumping-off point for individual reasearch.

While researchers should be held accountable for appropriate and sound experimental design, accurate and comprehensive observation, and open and transparent reporting, they should not be held responsbile for the sloth and carelessness of others.

Last, although none of the moderators agrees with all eG policies all the time, the idea of keeping a single topic focused makes sense: If someone begins reading a topic on methods for preparing a roast chicken, for example, and it spins off into a discussion of the various methods of raising poultry, it may never even return to the topic of roasting chickens, which means that it is rendered useless for reference purposes. For this reason, off-topic exchanges are removed, moved, or split off into new topics, and comments that do not add anything of substance (e.g. 'You jerk, have you ever even held hunting rifle?', or 'Bonnie Simpson, is that you?! I haven't seen you since...') are also removed.
Keeping the topics distinct makes it possible to find and discuss the specific information in which one is interested.

Regards,
Michaela

Reply
mm84321

Grouparticipating member
Posts:105
Joined:11-November 11
Sent 19 January 2012 - 02:13 AM
So, for the sake of the naive, maybe the next time you link an article, try mentioning that the title of your article is a false statement.

And I did not say that an individual could exceed their BMI and not gain weight. I said that overconsumption is not the cause of obesity. Correlation is not causation.

It may well be that the research findings concerning the plate experiment are valid. My point was that the whole experiment was conducted based on an erroneous belief. Therefore, essentially worthless.

As far as staying on topic...debate is important. It is worth showing another side to any topic. If we can't do that, we make no progress.

Max

Mjx:
Indulging the lazy and careless is never worth it.

Since neither of us has read the original research, there is no way of debating the accuracy and validity of the research: come August, ask me again.
However, the thesis appears to be that plate size and colour affect portion size (as per research that is not yet available to the public), and excessive portion size leads to excessive food intake (assuming the eater consumes the entire oversized portion, rather than stopping at some point before, and does this on a regular basis). For some people, there is no question that their overeating is a significant cause of their obesity.

It's certainly worth presenting various sides of a subject, but it isn't exactly fair to highjack a topic; better to start a new topic, and have the focus there.

Regards,
Michaela

Reply
mm84321

OK, Michaela. But what I'm trying to say is that there's something that causes overeating in the first place, and it's not the size of the dinnerware.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. It was nice talking to you again.

Max

heidih


Group:host
Posts:7,308
Joined:10-March 07
Location:Los Angeles
Sent 19 January 2012 - 09:57 AM
Hello Mjx and mm84321 -

We have deleted your off topic posts regarding an article about plate size in the Cooking for Weight Loss topic.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Heidi