I don't see anyone dismissing anything. I did see an explanation as to why things are the way they are.

The dismissal is in the last sentence:

>A lot of hedging and hemming aside, I think I've pretty much captured the whole article.

The article is not hedging or hemming anything, it's making it very clear that the main reason why bodies are being rejected is due to obesity as opposed to people being too tall. Furthermore, the article is arguing that this is a problem that is only going to get worse since people are getting more and more obese, but not more and more tall.

No, that isn't a dismissal. I think it's clear you're fundamentally misunderstanding the points being made.

You're arguing against stances that no one here has taken.

That is a dismissal and the fact that you have failed to clarify any point whatsoever and are keeping your statements vague and ambiguous suggests you're either trolling or are genuinely ignorant.

My original comment was to add precision to what was an otherwise fairly open-ended claim; to turn the "often too tall" into a precise figure of 7%. The article is not about that 7%, which is a figure that has likely remained fairly consistent for decades. Instead, the bulk of the article is about the 40% of Americans who are too obese. You have decided to dwell on a detail that 7% is actually significant (ignoring the fact that there's a lot of overlap between the 7% of Americans who are over 6' and those who are obese) and in doing so have turned this into a petty semantic argument.

What exactly do you think it means to claim that an article is hedging and hemming? If you're actually arguing in good faith instead of trolling, you should be able to provide a clear answer to that, but something tells me you won't and will instead continue to repeat the same semantic drivel over and over again.