Musn't have heard a Chav/cockney accent then.

Dont worry, psychopath and sociopath are two different words for the exact same thing.

Look, it's not a massive deal, but I really think it's worth the minor effort to look into what the best way to put these things are, considering how the misgendering and erasure of trans folks is still so common.

You said

Just FYI, calling someone 'a transgender' is weird in the same way that calling someone 'a gay' would be. Usually the terminology is 'a trans/transgender person'.

Well low fat stuff does tend to be shitty in that there is usually a whole lot of extra sugar and salt to make up for the missing fat, so no argument there.

Yes you can, the difference isn't even noticable most of the time.

Fair enough, you're obviously having a very unpleasant reaction to something. If avoiding MSG works for you, then yes, you're perfectly justified in avoiding it.

It's just that no MSG reactions have ever been reproduced in a lab setting (although one was obtained with a placebo), and glutamate is actually always…

But was it the MSG or something else in the meal? Your anecdote indicates you have an allergy to something, but actual scientific trials conducted with people with purported MSG sensitivities where they have either given them a capsule of pure MSG or a placebo have repeatedly found no reactions that were not…

Yeah I really should.

Yeah, yeah. It just gets so annoying how generally accepted 'MSG reactions' are when there is literally no conclusive evidence that they are a real thing.

Are you sure it was MSG? Glutamates are naturally occuring and can be found in just about everything, including tomatoes, mushrooms and parmesan.
As far as I'm aware, there have been no documented negative physiological reactions to MSG that weren't psychosomatic.

He, the joint creator of the format and the name of the format is wrong? How?

How about giraffe?

You know one of the creators of the format reckons it should be pronounced like that right? Apparently he intended it to be pronounced like 'Jiff' the peanut butter brand.

Yeah fair enough to say the methods are flawed (I don't know enough about it to judge), but so many people are talking about SES here as if it hadn't even been considered by the researchers.

There are certain statistical analyses that are used when you expect the presence of a confounding factor such as SES that are used to control for and take the factor into account, even when sample populations differ. From my reading of the study they did this, specifically statistically controlling for SES when doing…

So there are a lot of people here commenting and bringing up possible methodological issues that if they had bothered to read the study were actually considered and addressed by the researchers.

Other articles about this study mention that the authors did specifically control for SES and other factors. Critiquing a study's methods is fine, but you kind of have to read the actual paper first.

For fuck's sake, why is everyone assuming the authors didn't control for socio economic status? They did!