zoocrew

Not according to the authors.

I don't think you're understanding the article. I'm sure you know much more about it than they do. Please forward me your paper on the topic so I can use it for the facilities that deal with late teen and early adult disorders.

Do you not realise the study is about LATER IN LIFE WEIGHT GAIN AND ALLERGIES that are not out grown from childhood? Are you really not understanding the point of the article?

So you are saying Fox News is wrong? Or are the authors wrong?

Do you not realize that what you just posted proved the point of the authors? The link is there. Exactly! Link means there is a causal relationship.

Are you saying Fox News was wrong? After all, that was the headline. The relationship was there according to the authors and the headline.

Well, since I had already posted it before you did, it is not all that hard to be unimpressed. And you should know that the article on Fox News was not the study but a story about the study.

I just gave the article, the summation and the headline. Perhaps your problem is with Fox News and its headline? Or the authors?

The authors of the two studies would seem to disagree with you. Or maybe you should contact Fox News and discuss their headline.

The article discusses that.

Great example. The problem in that case is that McDonald's didn't act in a reasonable manner. We find it preposterous. But for an elderly grandmother who was unfamiliar with the product, a product the company knew to be a hazard if spilled, they were liable when they didn't take reasonable precautions for all consumers. Like it or not, the jury acted according to the law.

So you've never taken a course in Public Economics, have you?

No.

Then contact the study's authors to get a clarification. I guess the study's authors just don't know what they're talking about. Perhaps you should contact Fox News and object to their characterisation.

And reasonable people understand that. If you want a more detailed definition, I would suggest you contact the study's authors. The article is about the long term effects of bullying and some causation. It is worth investigating. If you have better credentials than the authors to critique their findings, I'm sure the scholarly community would love to read your assessment.

I don't think you quite caught the jest of the article to which you linked. The improvements and boosts to the local economy are worth much more than the tax itself, a benefit that is magnified far beyond the value of the tax/

I shall have to investigate that brand! The two inexpensive brands we bought were several years ago after we first got married. We keep them mainly for those instances where we are afraid of breaking the good knives! Thank you so much for the tip!!!

How is that bubble world?

Reasonable people understand what that means.

My Gosh....I can't believe I am engaging in this silly conversation but if YOU don't like MY posts, then simply ignore them - it is a very simple concept. And no, I won't leave - I have things to say and not that it matters, but I am not finished. I can post on this site as long as I don't violate the rules just as you or anyone else does. Have a nice day, Guard Dad. My link

I do agree. Avoiding fast food is a great way to have a more healthy lifestyle of better weight control, better cholesterol numbers, lower blood sugar, etc.

You really do sound a lot like Baby Cookie. The article described the bullying actions. Perhaps you just missed it. Might I suggest a more comprehensive definition to your liking by contacting the study';s authors. I'm sure they will be more than willing to discuss your concerns.

That is not nice.

Then you should contact the study's authors for a more detailed definition. You really do sound a lot like that other chap, Baby Cookie.

We will see who is right. Just like asdfasdfasdfasd said we couldn't handle $3.50 gasoline and everything would go to pot. Got it boomarked. Again, some people just don't know what they're talking about. My link Again, the tax is a bad thing?