all good. i know it can be frustrating, to constantly repeat the same points. therefore tones may slip. if you allow me to give some advice, keep reading. otherwise have a great day, and ignore the rest of this post.
i think it is useful to target the most powerful party: “you claim that …” (the person trying to learn something) becomes “they claim that …” (the company selling something). that way the person (if that person is genuinely trying to learn) is not pushed into a defensive stance.
additionally dont forget that you may be an expert on a certain toppic. but others are not and therefore need much more context to pick up just the right keywords. e.g: what is DEXA and why does a scan for osteopenia matter for body fat? or is +/-5% your personal quality gate or is it a medical standard?
anyway, i hope this shows why ppl may disagree with a post - even if agreeing with the main message. have a great day.
what is DEXA and why does a scan for osteopenia matter for body fat?
HA. Yes this is the question at the very heart of the issue. Why is a misappropriated bone scan with notoriously inaccurate readings when used to measure body fat championed as the “gold standard” for doing so? A fascinating subject if you pry into it. At the bottom of the rabbit hole is simply the tendency of scammers to create scams. But I sense that further elaboration on my part is not appropriate at the moment.
Otherwise, to be honest I disagree with your advice. (I hope it goes without saying that you are equally free to ignore my words, and that I wish you well either way) I think presenting OP as “the person trying to learn” is a lopsided mischaracterization. They repeatedly asserted specific, grandiose claims without evidence. I directed my comment towards them personally because indeed they personally were the one running damage control for a random brand. Even going so far as to bring up the rest of that company’s product line lol.
Secondly, frankly, people can simply look up the words if they want the full context. Like I said this scam is incredibly well documented. Anyone who is capable of differentiating a company’s marketing from actual research will arrive at the truth quickly. If they can’t, and instead present me with mere marketing material, well hey, we can proceed from there if the attempt appears to be in good faith.
Which is the crux of our issue here. You and others consider OP to be posting in good faith. I do not, for many reasons, and as such continue to stand by exactly what said. I have acknowledged that I may be wrong about that, and the inherent problems that creates, but at the end of everything I simply disagree with that take. I notice someone else responded to OP as well, with a softer tone, and was also ignored. The truth is there simply is no truth whatsoever in what they said, and they quickly realized this and tried to flip it around on me when I called it out.
I do appreciate your insight and perspective despite our disagreement on some matters. Thank you for the discussion
all good. i know it can be frustrating, to constantly repeat the same points. therefore tones may slip. if you allow me to give some advice, keep reading. otherwise have a great day, and ignore the rest of this post.
i think it is useful to target the most powerful party: “you claim that …” (the person trying to learn something) becomes “they claim that …” (the company selling something). that way the person (if that person is genuinely trying to learn) is not pushed into a defensive stance.
additionally dont forget that you may be an expert on a certain toppic. but others are not and therefore need much more context to pick up just the right keywords. e.g: what is DEXA and why does a scan for osteopenia matter for body fat? or is +/-5% your personal quality gate or is it a medical standard?
anyway, i hope this shows why ppl may disagree with a post - even if agreeing with the main message. have a great day.
HA. Yes this is the question at the very heart of the issue. Why is a misappropriated bone scan with notoriously inaccurate readings when used to measure body fat championed as the “gold standard” for doing so? A fascinating subject if you pry into it. At the bottom of the rabbit hole is simply the tendency of scammers to create scams. But I sense that further elaboration on my part is not appropriate at the moment.
Otherwise, to be honest I disagree with your advice. (I hope it goes without saying that you are equally free to ignore my words, and that I wish you well either way) I think presenting OP as “the person trying to learn” is a lopsided mischaracterization. They repeatedly asserted specific, grandiose claims without evidence. I directed my comment towards them personally because indeed they personally were the one running damage control for a random brand. Even going so far as to bring up the rest of that company’s product line lol.
Secondly, frankly, people can simply look up the words if they want the full context. Like I said this scam is incredibly well documented. Anyone who is capable of differentiating a company’s marketing from actual research will arrive at the truth quickly. If they can’t, and instead present me with mere marketing material, well hey, we can proceed from there if the attempt appears to be in good faith.
Which is the crux of our issue here. You and others consider OP to be posting in good faith. I do not, for many reasons, and as such continue to stand by exactly what said. I have acknowledged that I may be wrong about that, and the inherent problems that creates, but at the end of everything I simply disagree with that take. I notice someone else responded to OP as well, with a softer tone, and was also ignored. The truth is there simply is no truth whatsoever in what they said, and they quickly realized this and tried to flip it around on me when I called it out.
I do appreciate your insight and perspective despite our disagreement on some matters. Thank you for the discussion