|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 378 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 78 of 378:
| 
Mar 7 03:40 UTC 2006 |
resp:77 Fair enough. $275 million dollars extra a year sure sounds like
a lot, doesnt it? But I wonder how much that is per passenger? Since
that $275 million figure was from 2000, I tried to get a stat as close
to that as I could. What I got was pretty close and it says that around
2000 there were 600 million airline passengers. So that $275 million
dollars amounts to an additional cost of about 45 cents per passenger
per year. YIKES! FAT PEOPLE are costing everyone who flies a whopping
FORTY FIVE CENTS per year. THE HORROR. Clearly we must publicly shame
them at every opportunity.
This is the site where I got that 600 million figure, btw.
http://www.countryplace.com/cplace/Congress/Airline_Fairness.html
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 378:
|
Mar 7 04:27 UTC 2006 |
We need a chubby seating section on planes with an added price. Hmm..lets
call it FIRST CLASS!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 80 of 378:
|
Mar 7 06:09 UTC 2006 |
...except it's much, much cheaper to just buy two coach tickets (unless you
can upgrade with miles or something.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 378:
|
Mar 7 07:15 UTC 2006 |
Re #76: just shows that you can't trust your own mother...but mother
Google has the answer:
"Xanthan gum (E415) is a microbial desiccation-resistant polymer prepared
commercially by aerobic submerged fermentation from Xanthomonas
campestris. It is naturally produced to stick the bacteria to the leaves
of cabbage-like plants. It is relatively expensive by weight but becoming
rather less so. As the media used to grow the Xanthomonas may contain
corn, soy or other plant material, manufacturers should make clear if any
residues may remain."
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hyxan.html
|
kingjon
|
|
response 82 of 378:
|
Mar 7 11:59 UTC 2006 |
Note that last sentence. Our experience has been that it generally comes from
corn plants and that residue does remain (from the effects).
|
cyklone
|
|
response 83 of 378:
|
Mar 7 13:01 UTC 2006 |
Lynne, I pretty much guessed when I posted that you would respond exactly
the way you did. However, the point is still valid. You are analyzing only
one example out of many. Cumulatively, I'm sure the costs the obese
externalize on the non-obese are much more than forty five cents.
|
jep
|
|
response 84 of 378:
|
Mar 7 14:24 UTC 2006 |
Society decided it's society's business, due to insurance costs, to
have laws about motorcycle helmets, seat belts, drunk driving, no-fault
insurance, and smoking tobacco. It's well established that, if it
affects insurance costs, it's in the public interest. I don't like it
either but I see no reason why obesity should be exempt. Americans
like to tell other people what to do, and are constantly looking for
any sort of excuse to justify doing so.
|
scholar
|
|
response 85 of 378:
|
Mar 7 15:40 UTC 2006 |
Yeah.
Like when some people tell some other people to do a drive-by on BBS. :(
(Please note that there is no hint of hypocrisy in this post. I have fucked
with BBS too, but I've always been strongly in favour of RETAINING content,
not DESTROYING it!)
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:08 UTC 2006 |
re #68 I think some people see gastric bypass surgery as an easy solution.
It is a lot less work to have someone cut you up and reduce the size of your
stomach than it is to exercise hard and diet intensely and lose a hundred
pounds the old fashioned way. Sadly I have read that since most doctors won't
perform the surgery unless a person is *at least* a hundred pounds overweight,
that many patients deliberately *gain* weight to be fat enough to qualify for
the surgery.
|
scholar
|
|
response 87 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:09 UTC 2006 |
Re. 78: yeah?
|
edina
|
|
response 88 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:14 UTC 2006 |
Re 86 Believe me, when I want Pad Thai and can't have it (long noodles bother
me) or when I get reckless and eat it anyway and then have to go and make
myself sick to relieve the pain, I don't think it's easy. Nor did I think
it was easy when I *had* the surgery.
|
scholar
|
|
response 89 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:16 UTC 2006 |
i think there's something wrong with people who get life threatening and life
altering surgery when simple will power will do.
|
richard
|
|
response 90 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:19 UTC 2006 |
edina there are some doctors who don't advise that surgery unless your life
is in danger. Was your life in danger? Don't you think that some people just
obsess about their weight and all of a sudden some miracle surgery comes along
and they just *have* to have it? I look at a guy like Al Roker of the Today
Show, who was overweight but clearly healthy and not dying, and it seems like
he had the surgery for vanity reasons. He had the surgery because well...he
could, and then he could go on tv skinnier and boast about it over and over
|
edina
|
|
response 91 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:24 UTC 2006 |
I don't presume to answer for anyone but myself when it comes to the decision
made to have bariatric surgery. No - my life was not in danger. My decision
was based on a bunch of reasons, the primary being my health. I was sick of
being as fat as I could. I have dieted on and off all my life. I have had
psychotherapy. I have worked out. It just wasn't happening.
People can comment all they want about will-power and what have you and that's
their right. I know the decision was right for me.
|
richard
|
|
response 92 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:31 UTC 2006 |
I knew one woman who had the surgery, a co-worker at a past place of
employment. She lost a great deal of weight, and looked like a different
person, and then her husband divorced her. He liked her better fat
apparently, and felt that if she was so dissatisfied with her pre-surgery
life, that he must be part of that dissatisfaction. How such surgery affects
your loved ones or will affect them and how they perceive you, is something
that needs studying.
|
edina
|
|
response 93 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:33 UTC 2006 |
I was divorced when I had it - and I was just getting involved with Dave.
Both Gary (the ex) and Dave were very supportive, and my family stood by me
too. I was very lucky in that respect.
|
richard
|
|
response 94 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:49 UTC 2006 |
The other thing is that modern medicine may well come up with better, easier,
less invasive ways to lose weight fast in the near future. Wouldn't it be
a bummer to have had your body cut up and then the next year they come out
with miracle diet pills or something?
|
jep
|
|
response 95 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:54 UTC 2006 |
That's true for dieting, too. Wouldn't it be a bummer to have gone
through a grueling diet, then have a miracle pill come out that could
do it all for you?
|
edina
|
|
response 96 of 378:
|
Mar 7 16:56 UTC 2006 |
Re 94 No, it wouldn't be a bummer.
|
richard
|
|
response 97 of 378:
|
Mar 7 17:21 UTC 2006 |
edina I read that some people who've had the surgery don't eat three meals
a day, but starve themselves long enough that they are hungry enough to eat
one regular sized meal without getting sick. Is that what you do now?
|
edina
|
|
response 98 of 378:
|
Mar 7 17:24 UTC 2006 |
No. Nor does that even make sense.
|
tod
|
|
response 99 of 378:
|
Mar 7 17:26 UTC 2006 |
re #84
Society decided it's society's business, due to insurance costs, to
have laws about motorcycle helmets, seat belts, drunk driving, no-fault
insurance, and smoking tobacco. It's well established that, if it
affects insurance costs, it's in the public interest. I don't like it
either but I see no reason why obesity should be exempt.
Well, I can imagine a few scenarios why it should be exempt. It could be
considered a religious freedom in some cultures(some Pacific Islanders) to
be overweight. I can also see folks like the fast food lobby being against
anything that would cut into their revenues. Also, if we're going to talk
about being at risk..why not require everyone to drink a glass of red wine
on a daily basis otherwise they should be penalized? How about mental health?
Should we penalize people for not having a healthy sex life or for not having
a sex life at all?
|
scholar
|
|
response 100 of 378:
|
Mar 7 17:30 UTC 2006 |
By the way: The latest medical evidence spreads all sorts of doubt about
even moderately being beneficial rather than detrimental to your health.
Not that I'd get in the way of you having a few drinks!
|
jep
|
|
response 101 of 378:
|
Mar 7 17:32 UTC 2006 |
It could be considered a religious freedom in some cultures(some
Pacific Islanders) to be overweight.
So could smoking tobacco. Drinking alcohol has religious connotations
for some as well.
I can also see folks like the fast food lobby being against anything
that would cut into their revenues.
So was the tobacco industry, remember?
Also, if we're going to talk about being at risk..why not require
everyone to drink a glass of red wine on a daily basis otherwise
they should be penalized?
No proven effect. If there was, maybe we might see that as well.
How about mental health? Should we penalize people for not having a
healthy sex life or for not having a sex life at all?
What are you talking about?
|
scholar
|
|
response 102 of 378:
|
Mar 7 17:39 UTC 2006 |
Your mother.
|