Comments on 2396 | MetaTalk

Why was this post deleted?

The big fat lie? "The classic [misconception is that] 95 percent of all dieters never lose weight, and 95 percent of those who do will not keep it off. This will be correctly attributed to the University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist Albert Stunkard, but it will go unmentioned that this statement is based on 100 patients who passed through Stunkard's obesity clinic during the Eisenhower administration."
posted by bingo at 4:18 AM PST - 8 comments (8 new)

It was a great article, well researched and interesting. I didn't get to read any of the comments that people submitted because I'm getting a "nothing to see here" message when I click on the comments link. What gives? Bingo didn't make up the title...that is the title of the article. I can't see why this topic would be deleted. Any chance that it can be restored? Was this just a mistake or intentional?

posted by dejah420 to etiquette/policy at 9:04 AM (13 comments total)

Anyway the last thing we need is another post about people's weight.

Yes, because if we don't cater to people's sensitivities and biases and censor related discussions, the terrorists will have won.
posted by rushmc at 9:19 AM on July 24, 2002

Is it possible, when link is deleted for being a double post, which seems to happen occasionally, for there to be a message pointing the user to the original post? I dunno how hard that would be to implement, but I know that unless you'd said "double post", I wouldn't have thought to try 10 different keyword combinations to find the original. I tried searching for "big fat lie", the URL, "atkins", "diet revolution", I tried author's name, I tried a few other combinations of keywords... finally searching for "low fat" found the thread. Now, granted, someone who had seen the previous post might have had an easier time finding it...

And I don't think this would have denigrated into another SWAirlines fight...this wasn't about weight so much as it was about nutrition. Of course, I say that without having the opportunity to see the comments that had already been posted, so I could be wrong. :)

posted by dejah420 at 9:23 AM on July 24, 2002

That would be cool. On the "Nothing to see here, move along..." page, link to the original topic. Though that would take a lot more administration than just remembering the topic had been covered recently.
posted by pracowity at 9:26 AM on July 24, 2002

Right, rushmc.

Now imagine that the medical division of the Israeli Defense Forces (from a link to Debka) had said, in an interview, that he could easily identify Palestininian suicide bombers because they were "too thin", "generally swarthy" and non-smokers to boot. Furthermore, he'd stated that not smoking, being lean and having a darker skin was positively correlated to being a raging terrorist.

Wouldn't that be a thread?! ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:29 AM on July 24, 2002

You know, you prolific posters out there could cut down on the doubleposts if you really wanted to. If you can't do it on sheer willpower alone, you're just lazy.

*kidding, kidding. running, running*
posted by digital_insomnia at 10:27 AM on July 24, 2002

Someone on the thread pointed out early on that it was a double-post before the thread was deleted. It's a fascinating article, but we did in fact already have a thread about it (or at least, linked to it).
posted by bingo at 1:23 PM on July 24, 2002

digital_insomnia: I don't think you're considering the full weight of this issue. It's a topic heavily discussed on here and it'd take a large effort to track down the originals.
posted by ODiV at 2:32 PM on July 24, 2002

July 24, 2002 9:04 AM Subscribe

July 24, 2002
9:04 AM Subscribe