Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, let's do away with the hostility. I don't know what I have done to provoke it but it's certainly not worth discussing anything in this manner. It's important not to engage in willful misunderstanding, or conflate separate points I made into some kind of chimera to distort what I said. > You blame everything on "behavior" then claim to have a food addiction. This is certainly a gross mischaracterization, and I…
I don't recall "doing this before" with you in specific. I recall talking to you. I recall it was amicable, which is part of why I replied at all. But this type thing does happen to me a lot on the internet generally, which is incredibly frustrating for me personally. It also happens a lot on HN specifically: I get dismissed by people who are convinced they know science, thus their vague generalizations and personal…
Having discussions with smart people who disagree with me is one of the reasons I enjoy HN so much. But it is no fun if key points are misunderstood, ignored, or repeated out of context. So I really wanted to find out why this was happening.
I won't repeat things I said earlier, but as a summary: I really don't think there can be any contention about the growth mechanism of bacteria. As a point of personal opinion, I have voiced doubts about the study and its methodology. I also expressed a personal theory on two major factors that make people fat, one of which I (somewhat regretfully) tied myself to.
> There are a lot of people who are either obese and have tried everything and can't lose weight or are thin and have tried everything and can't gain weight.
Those two are very different. There is absolutely no doubt that obesity comes from excess intake of energy. None. Some diseases cause the body to grow excess tissue or to store water excessively, but that's not obesity. Failing to gain weight, however, can be down to a lot of factors both behavioral and biochemical.
> But your opinion is "some people just eat too much", apparently with no real cause.
I did not say that or anything even resembling that.
> Equally, you are comfortable with "bacteria are everywhere -- if you eat too much you can grow them".
It's a simplified summary, but it's fair.
> In your view, the eating too much has to precede the bacterial overgrowth. Seems awfully convenient.
I don't think that's convenient for anybody. It's just the only way you can multiply microorganisms to any significant numbers.
> But people don't get AIDS or anything else because "well, germs are everywhere".
That one leaves me a little speechless. HIV is a virus, it doesn't have a metabolism of its own. It's a rogue piece of software that hijacks the human runtime, so to speak. That's an exceedingly bad example, but there are bacteria out there that would be much better suited for the point you are trying to make: Take MRSA for example, because it grows and lives off living human tissue. Contrast that to the enterobacteria we were talking about originally, they live off our waste products. So it's clear why, for example, E. cloacae is directly related to the food you eat, but MRSA is not. MRSA attacks the body and provokes an immune response, E.c. does not. That's also the reason why MRSA is something you contract, whereas E.c. is something which in all likelihood you already have. It's worth repeating that enterobacteria actually lend essential assistance to our digestive system.
> My only goal was to kill off the overgrowth of germs which were killing me.
Now I understand so much better where you're coming from. We could have saved a lot of time... Whatever works for you is fine, I didn't want to sabotage that - nor did I have any idea why my dry descriptions provoked such a visceral response, but now I see why.
> I really should know better by now, by my recollection was that you are a very reasonable member of the forum.
Well, I do think this exchange was worth pursuing in retrospect. I do try to be reasonable, though of course I often fail. I'll just have to try harder :)