ldsfaqs wrote:1. I said "likely".... maybe you need to learn to read. For an English expert you're quite poor at it.
This, from arguably the board's best example of poor use of the language.
ldsfaqs wrote:2. I was giving a story of when I really first had the thoughts in that subject matter a great deal. (not that I hadn't had the thoughts before, it's just they didn't impact me as much previously). The weight of Polynesians and others in Hawaii was highly noticeable.
In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about.
ldsfaqs wrote:3. Maybe Hawaii is one of the least fattest. I haven't been to most states, so I can't say. That wasn't the point of the story.
The point is that you cluelessly spout nonsense, and Blixa just owned your
dimensionally significant buttocks.
ldsfaqs wrote:It's also possible the darker skin tones made the fat stand out more.
I don't know; I can't imagine that a large brown-skinned mass would stand out better than a large,
pasty-white mass. Can you tell us why you think so?
ldsfaqs wrote:It's also possible I didn't care about fat people until then.
Why should you? You don't care too much about your own condition or that of your children; we certainly can't assume that you'd bother with anyone else with that being the case.
ldsfaqs wrote:It's also possible those in Hawaii don't go to the doctor as much, so their stats aren't as accurate.
It's also possible that this is another statement that you've just pulled out of your rotund rear, out of desperation to try to deflect from the fact that you have no idea about what you are prattling on about.
ldsfaqs wrote:It's also possible I primarily had only spent time on Molokai and the North side of Oahu which there are a LOT of fatter folks.
Who knows.....
Yes,
who knows? Certainly not
ldsfaqs, that's for sure.
ldsfaqs wrote:It was certainly the fatest place I had ever lived.
Oh, the
fatest place? You mean, the place with the most fate?
ldsfaqs wrote:There's another possibility.
Hawaii likely has the most "ultra-fat" per capita, thus the fat was more noticeable, compared to otherwise people can be just a little obese and it's considered "obese" by medical standards.
It's also possible that this is another statement that you've just pulled out of your gargantuan gluteus, out of desperation to try to deflect from the fact that you have no idea about what you are incoherently babbling about.
ldsfaqs wrote:Another possibility is there are less people, it's smaller, so I was seeing more fat people, but compared to a huge state like California the fat people are far more spread out thus not as noticeable.
It's also possible that this is another statement that you've just pulled out of your behemoth backside, out of desperation to try to deflect from the fact that you have no idea about what you are unintelligibly uttering.
ldsfaqs wrote:4. I wasn't making any sort of "definitive" judgment which is why I used the qualifying term "likely". Any of the above factors could have easily influenced my simplistic observation in the matter, especially the last two. I wasn't doing a "detailed study" on what state has the highest number of fat people. That's a non-important subject. I primarily only study in depth important subjects of worth, values, morality, truth, etc.
Indeed, 'simplistic observation' it was.
ldsfaqs wrote:So spare me your liberal jerk misrepresenting judgment.
Try writing something that actually reflects the facts, and maybe you won't be called on the carpet for it.