Sunta

WO! I had no idea what this thread was all about! I feel remiss in not coming on sooner to state my opinion, cause I know how everyone must miss me soooooo much when I'm not around! Well, all I have to say is: God sure does cause alot of fights, doesn't he?

I have to add eating when I am very hungry. It's an almost 100% promise of a PB for me. I don't know if it's from eating too fast, or what, but it feels like my stomach just clamps down and shuts when I am ravenous. Since I started adopting this rule and others (liquids in the morning, wine before dinner) I went from having two PB's almost every week to having one PB in two months!

77 pounds down. Can you see a difference?

The number one reason I chose the band was because of the low mortality rate. Number 2 was that it is reversible should major complications arise. Had the bypass had the exact same safety profile, I would have had it instead. But the bypass has a much, much worse safety profile than the band, both during the operation and afterwards. There is another option I might have gone with had I known about it at the time of my decision: the vertical sleeve. I just read an article that says it actually has a similar saftey profile as the band. If I ever lose my band I would consider it.

My port hurt bad for about three months, and recently, I've been having problems with it again. Two weeks out of surgery is very early on. At two weeks I couldn't even go back to work yet. I'm sure it will get better as time goes on.

Since my banding 11 months ago I have eaten anything and everything I feel like eating, and have lost nearly 80 pounds. So I don't think weight loss has anything to do with carbs or no carbs, but rather, calories. That being said, I do eat a healthy, varied diet that includes a huge variety of foods, including whole grains, Beans, tofu and lean meats as well as sweets, fats, and fried foods. Nothing is off limits any more and that is the beauty of the band! Here is a typical day for me: Protein shake (which includes all of my daily Vitamins and minerals) cheese and crackers for a snack Wine Grilled tofu, salad, and dessert So you can see I have high-fat cheese, processed crackers, and a sweet on a typical day, but not every single day. I basically eat whatever I feel like on a given day. Some days I feel like having fried food, other days I feel like having beans and tofu. Most days are a mixed of healthy and treats. I am strong supporter of calories in/calories out determines weight loss or gain. And hey, when you're only eating three bites of cake, how bad can it really be? Good luck!

My pet peeves tend to center around noise. My number 1 peeve is people who talk in the theater (movie theater, ballet, etc). It enrages me no end. Second to that would be people who let their children scream and shriek in public, or play loud obnoxious video games in public, or run around and climb all over things in a store. etc. My patience and tolerance for these things is zero, and I often complain directly to the people themselves and am a pretty cranky curmedgeon most of the time. I think of myself as the crazy old lady in the neighborhood who always yells out "get off my lawn, you damn kids!" I think our society had degenerated in terms of just basic polite behavior. While I loath people who have no noise etiquette, I am not a hypocrite. I would not dream of blaring my music so loud my neighbors could hear it, talking in the theater, or if I had a child, letting them disrupt adults in any way. I'm also extremely considerate of others when it comes to parking my car (always leave space for another car, don't box people in), sitting in the movie theater (try not to sit in front of people if there are other seats available), on public transportation (always get up to let an older or pregnant person sit) etc. I notice, however, that it seems that there are fewer and fewer people who share my sense of etiquette, and I think that's a real shame.

My doctor, Doctor C, and Inamed all say that there is no evidence that carbonation can damage the band or the pouch. My doctor says it's a "theoretical" risk, but that occasional carbonation is ok. He said to use common sense and don't walk around with a 2-liter bottle of coke every day, but an "occasional" treat is ok.

Do we live by Christian principles in this country or not? Or do you pro-war people think that "An eye for an eye.." is the only way to handle heathens and terrorists? It's always the so-called "Christians" who are the most war-mongering. Why is that? Things that make you go hmmmm....

Outsourcing is another example of how American corporations put greed and lust for wealth above the lives of other human beings. It's more important to make a buck than to employ local workers and create sustainable economies. It's also more important to make a buck than to provide good customer service. I would never work for a company that outsources. The owners of my company receive offers every day to outsource our Web programming tasks for $7 per hour. Instead, they prefer to pay their employees a living wage, believing it's more important to put people before profits. As a matter of fact, they run the company with a "triple bottom line" approach: people first, planet second, and profit last. Too bad more company owners don't follow their example.

Curcumsized or not I wonder what he uses it for, Maybe that's where we get the term "The Big Bang" Oh my goodness. It should be illegal for me to laugh this much while I'm at work.

Hi, I'm 11 months out from surgery, and last month, I got a bad pain in my port area. It's like a stabbing, pulling, pinching, burning pain. It was so bad I could hardly walk. It lasted for about five days, so I went to the doctor. She gave me Celebrex and told me to take it for two weeks. Well, after one Celebrex, the pain disappeared and stayed away for three and a half more weeks. Now, this month, the pain is back. What I noticed is that both times, I've had my period. Could it be related? It's a severe pain that happens mostly when I move around or walk. My port is located right above my belly button and a little to the left. Yesterday, it was so bad I could hardly stand up. I took a Celebrex and two Tylenol, and felt 100% better. Today it's back to being slightly sore. Anyone else experience something similar?

Tell me about the future. How will the world, or our country be a better place for me to live in 4 more years? Bush is gone...someone else is in the Oval Office. Presumably, there are new Cabinet officers, new diplomats, new foreign policy, etc. Tell me about my new tax rates (I'm a retired teacher, my DH still teachers, one child), my security in relation to the world, my personal freedoms/rights (seriously, I haven't noticed these being abridged, but some of you are worried about that), what new laws are on the horizon...lay it all out for me. How are things going to be? How could we possibly know that when we don't know who will be in office or even who the nominees will be? I think it's quite easy though, for you to figure out for yourself what each candidate thinks about taxes, laws, and Iraq strategy. All you have to do is research these questions and the answers are abundant. I'll give you a head start. Here's an excerpt from several of Hillary Clinton's recent speechs that addresses exactly what she will do about American's privacy plus some of her Iraq strategy. I'm sure her views on taxes are also easy to find, but I don't have time to go searching all over the Web right now. These two excerpts were simple to find on her official site: Quote: My privacy bill of rights will be encapsulated in the PROTECT Act, which stands for – you know when you’re in the Congress you have to find acronyms; you spend hours trying to find legislation in words that can eventually spell something, so I give my staff full credit for this – but The PROTECT Act, Privacy Rights and Oversight for Electronic and Commercial Transactions Act. Pretty good, huh? This legislation not only provides clear privacy rules, it gives you clear protections for your most private information, the right to sue when those rules have been violated, the right to protect your phone records, the right to freeze your credit when your identity has been stolen, the right to know what businesses are doing with your credit and credit reports, and the right to expect the government to use the best privacy practices itself with your information. We should start with the principle that, for the most deeply personal information about how we spend money on a daily basis, your information should be shared only when you “opt-in.” We know that a booming industry is tracking every purchase you’ve made with your debit or credit cards or personal checks. This means that if you’ve failed to check that tiny little opt out box on your credit card company’s or your bank’s privacy statement, there may be a profile on what you read, what you wear – and what size – what over the counter drugs you take and what books and music you buy. And that profile then may be bought and sold and shared with third parties everyday. The opt out protections under current law can be helpful, but for some things the default privacy agreement should be that companies cannot share this information without your explicit agreement to “opt in”. Opt out protections essentially assign property rights for your personal information to financial institutions, while opt-in awards ownership to consumers. I believe applying opting in for these types of transactions would reinforce the relatively simple and reasonable concept, that you own your information about yourself and you should have control when, how, or if it is shared. Quote: We need a fundamental change in course and I believe there are three basic parts to that. First, we need to press consistently, privately and publicly the Iraqis to become serious about achieving an internal reconciliation and political solution, and present real consequences for their failing to do so. Only the Iraqi government can take action to create the conditions for a political settlement. Instead, the government in recent days seems to be going out of its way to rebuff our efforts to move in that direction. American credibility is held hostage by an Iraqi government that will not fulfill its pledge to seek a political resolution of the rights and role of the Sunni minority and to determine how oil revenue is allocated. For several years, actually since the summer of 2003, I have pushed the idea that we should establish in Iraq an oil trust guaranteeing that every individual Iraqi would share part of the country's oil wealth every year. Instead, the oil distribution remains unsettled. Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting, Kurds have no incentive to operate within Iraq and Shiites have no incentive to stop participating in militias and internecine conflict. Guaranteeing every Iraqi a share of the oil revenues at the individual level is one way to try to begin to move beyond the impasse -- and to give Iraqis some reason to believe number one, we aren't there for oil; we aren't there to support big oil; we aren't there to line the pockets of the new Iraqi elite and fatten their Swiss bank accounts; and to give the Iraqis also some reason to feel positive about their national government. Second, we do need what many of us have been calling for now for months even years at some point -- a public international conference of the parties in the region -- the Turks, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Emirates, the Jordanians but also the Syrians and Iranians. We need to put everybody on the record to whether they will make public commitments to respect Iraq's sovereignty and to further the task of Iraq's stability. Instead of fearing to negotiate, we should fear what happens if we never attempt to negotiate a regional commitment to a stable, unified Iraq. And also, Iraq's neighbors should fear that as well. They would bear the brunt of an all-out civil war, including millions of fleeing refugees and new bases for regional terrorist operations. And thirdly, we do need to begin, I had hoped by the end of this year, a phased redeployment. I joined Senators Levin and Reed, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate and House, in proposing a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq during this year, 2006. That would include a change in the mission of US forces to one of training and supporting Iraqi troops and targeting counter-terrorism as well as protection American operations and personnel and facilities. You know, Richard Holbrooke in his recent article was right; we really have three choices. We muddle along not necessarily going forward but, as my Chairman on the Armed Services Committee, John Warner, has said, moving sideways. We begin some kind of sensible, prudent de-escalation, or we escalate. And we can't do any of those in the absence of the full-hearted attempt on the political reconciliation front, the oil allocation front, and the regional parties being involved.

I have read through the entire Website you posted, Gadgetlady, and there is not one shred of evidence that proves intelligent design. Just like all other IT material I have read, the focus is on saying "evolution is wrong so intelligent design must be right". That would be like me deciding today that an apple can't be made into an apple pie, and therefore, an apple is really a bananna.

I had no idea I've been accusing of "bashing" until I went back and read all of the posts. I am not bashing anyone in particular, but I will say I am "bashing" the theory of intelligent design, yes. (which I think is acceptable on the rants and raves forum, correct?) Just the theory itself, though. I know that there are smart, nice people out there that believe in it, and I have no wish to hurt their feelings, but I am deeply concerned that these unscientific beliefs are being impressed upon children. That is unfair and wrong. And actually, I am quite astounded when I hear of scientists who believe this mumbo jumbo. I would love to meet them in person. It shocks me that there are intelligent, well-read people who believe in things which clearly fly in the face of everything we know to be true and to be fact. The people who are "afraid" to post here because of me only reinforce my belief that there is no credible scientific evidence of intelligent design, otherwise, wouldn't they be on here posting it?

Can you look at a rock and tell me how old it is? Can you look at a mountain and tell me how long it took to form it? Do you know how long it takes to make a fossil? Do you know how long it takes and what forces create strata in rock? Yes, I (well, actually scientists) can. Absolutely. Via radiometric dating, carbon dating, fission track dating, and animo acid dating, scietists can measure the age of rocks, fossils, and mountains. These results are clearly seen. It's like asking "can you tell how long your countertop is?" Well yes, I can, because I can take a ruler and measure it. A measure is a measure. If you read up on these methods of dating, you will see the extremely basic principals which are applied in all methods of measuring. It's not really all that complicated (even though scientific equipment is required). I don't see how anyone could discount something that is a measure of the rate of radioactive decay, for example. If scientists were wrong, then most medicines would fail. Most science revolves around numbers, period. When one really breaks it down, it's all about numbers, measures, rates, and comparisons. Certainly if all of these methods of measuring were wrong, then most other things in our lives would not work either.

Have you spent any time researching the claims involved or have you dismissed it entirely without any research? I have spent time researching the 6,000 year old theory (several months ago when an article came out on a "creationism" museum opening soon in the south), but the "supporting evidence" is incomprehensible and makes zero logical sense. It's totally unscientific, relies on bizarre and completely unsubstantiated claims, and actually, I found most of the articles on it generally unreadable because they were so full of garbage and nonsense. Creationism flies in the face of everything we know to be scientifically true about fossils, carbon dating, and indeed, science as a whole. It is patently absurd, and quite frankly I have zero idea how any learned person would even give it much thought, let alone believe it. I'm not saying you're not an intelligent person, but honestly it is so over the top crazy that I am entirely unsure how anyone with any schooling could give any credence to such a theory. Creationsim is a danger to the minds of young people, and a threat to all rational, logical, scientific thought. The earth is much older than 6,000 years old. I don't understand why anyone would favor belief in something that has absolutely zero evidence, when there is clearly, clearly, concrete evidence that they CAN see with their own eyes. That is simply nonsensical.

I'm surprised no one would ever answer that for you. His wife was his sister. EWWWW! That is super gross. It's just a pigment issue What?!?!?!?!? Race is a skin pigment issue only??? Nothing to do with genetics? If it's an issue of skin pigment only, where did the varied features of different races come from? Where did propensity towards certain diseases come from? Wait... are you one of those people who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old?

I love, love, love this article by the son of Jim and Tammie Faye Baker! It perfectly expresses how I feel! Editor's note: Jay Bakker, son of former Praise The Lord leaders Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, is minister of Revolution Church and subject of a new documentary series, "One Punk Under God," on Sundance Channel. Marc Brown is a Revolution staff member. NEW YORK (CNN) -- What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity. While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church. So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today? Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for. His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need. This brings us to the big issues of American Christianity: Abortion and gay marriage. These two highly debatable topics will not be going away anytime soon. Obviously, the discussion centers around whether they are right or wrong, but is the screaming really necessary? After years of witnessing the dark side of religion, Marc and I think not. Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda. Only then will Christianity see a return to its roots: Loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself. The Apostle Paul describes this idea of love beautifully in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance." But don't take our word for it; look at what Jesus and his followers stood for in his time and what Christianity stands for today. Then come to your own conclusion.

Because they do not care about the troops, human life, or anything like that. All they care about is money. Otherwise, we would not be at war with Iraq in the first place. When you're dealing with sub-humans like Bush, you get sub-human behavior.

To the people who believe in Adam and Eve literally: where did Cain's wife come from? I can never get an answer to that question. Secondly, where did people of other races come from?

I wish they would make a version that could be used on children that would render them silent and immobile for a few hours. It would be great to use in restaurants, movie theaters, and the like. What a great life that would be!

I don't support the death penalty because even one innocent person being put to death is too many. Too many innocent people suffer in jail and die. Too many are falsely accused. That being said, I don't know how I would feel if a loved one was a victim of homocide, and I totally understand victim's families supporting the death penalty. I don't think I would change my stance, but I can't really be 100% certain. It's a complicated issue for sure. But my official stance is that I do not support it.

umm--what about the fact that no useful medical advances have ever come from fetal stem cells?? Umm... could it be that funding is cut off? The very question is preposterous.

Bush is a mass murderer just like Saddam was.