anonemouse

Same here. I'm 5'3", and I also have broad shoulders. I currently have Ds, and I like the way it looks. Of course, I still have a bit to lose, so I'll reserve final judgement for when I do reach goal, but I'm thinking I'll probably like to stay at roughly the same size I'm at right now. I know I'll need to have at least a breast lift, and if that means I'll lose size, I'll probably opt for augmentation, too.

Absolutely. That's why I've always had a bad taste in my mouth towards WW. I mean, hey, good for the person that thought it up, and the person that thought up Jenny Craig, etc., etc., etc. They've managed to make a mint, I'm sure. The organization itself, though, IMO, is still built around making money off of fat people who keep coming back to them over and over and over. The organizations want the programs to fail. Not immediately, of course, but eventually. After all, if the program didn't fail, they wouldn't get the guaranteed repeat customers who think that it wasn't the program's failure, but rather their failure. The customers think that if they just try a little harder this time, they'll succeed. And in 6 months or a year, they'll be coming right back for another try when the current one fails. The program doesn't teach someone how to live, IMO, it teaches them to become dependent on WW.

Have you tried the 100-calorie packs? You can find them in a lot of different types, Cheezits, cookies, etc., and they're the perfect size for bandsters. They fill you up without letting you eat a ton of calories. Not necessarily super-low carb, but not high in calories, either.

Ditto. If he's spent that many years raising the child as his own, and the child thinks of him as her father, he is her father, regardless of DNA. I can definitely see where the judge is coming from. On the other hand, I do understand where the father is coming from. He feels betrayed by his former wife, rightfully so. But, IMO, he should also be thinking of what's best for the little girl that he thought of and raised as his daughter, not trying to stick it to his ex-wife.

Who's your surgeon?

Does anyone else out there have compulsive habits? I have (or had) several. When I had long hair, I would compulsively brush it. I HAD to carry a brush with me, and I always brushed my hair before getting out of my car or leaving a restroom. If I didn't, I was EXTREMELY self-conscious of it. I also have bad skin. I compulsively pick at it, to the point where my folks and brother used to slap my hands or tell me to stop picking. Seriously, I've made myself bleed many times. If I get scratches or sores anywhere, I have to pick at the healing scabs until they open up. I also used to be a nail-biter. My fingers are all scarred because I'd chew at the skin around my nails until it bled.

I just started looking the other day, and my BMI is 31.something. I figure there isn't any harm in starting to look now, so that I have an idea of what I'll do and who I'll go to.

Honestly, your mention of other groups was very superficial. You skimmed over them, and the way you phrased your OP made it sound like you thought that Christians were being singled out of the crowd for "special bashing treatment" that you thought every other group was being accepted except yours. If that isn't the way you meant for your OP to sound, I apologize, but I obviously wasn't the only one that read it that way. And did you or did you not make the following statements? You said it yourself, it was the Christian-bashing you're interested in. Does that not sound like you think you're being persecuted? Can you understand where where my comment came from?

To me, "viable" means that it's got a greater chance of living than dying. Hence, 50%.

Like I said before, what people "see" and what they read is not necessarily reality. And to be quite honest, while your original post was quite eloquent, it's verges on offensive (if not outright). Like Green said, there's not been a single group that hasn't been bashed in RnR. And unfortunately, there were Christians doing a lot of the bashing. So to see a post basically talking about all the persecutions Christians supposedly face on this forum, that it's so much more than any other group, is outright offensive to those of us who belong to those other groups. And I would imagine that you basically calling what happens on this site "persecution" and actually comparing it to what Jesus Christ went through is really offensive to Green, who had parents that fled the holocaust and bombing in WWII. THAT was persecution.

The thing is, though, it doesn't have to become emotional. For example, Gadgetlady and I have had multiple non-emotional debates over evolution. We debated our beliefs and evidence, etc. Now, lol, other people intruding on those debates tended to become over-emotional and tried to pick fights, but we didn't. I think some people just get too attached to their point of view, even if they aren't the ones engaging in a debate, only observing. To them, any challenge to that belief is automatically a bash. The debate, to me and a lot of other people on both sides of the aisle, is emotionally and intellectually stimulating. It broadens your horizens. I mean, I may not give any creedence to their position at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't stimulating to talk about it and hear their position from their lips (or keyboards, in this case). Now, onlookers may think the debates are emotional, but that doesn't mean that they are. I think a lot of people see those debates, don't bother participating in them, and think stuff is going on that actually isn't. Does that make sense? I mean, they may interpret the debate as an Atheist bashing a Christian because they have sympathizing beliefs, but they don't realize that the Christian is a full and willing participant in the debate. In the case of myself and Gadgetlady, we have a lot of fun in our debates. We both find them interesting, even though many onlookers may think that the debates are very heated and argumentative. Hell, I even sent her a card at Christmas, and I'll likely try to meet her in person when she gets back over to Kentucky/Tennessee. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that what people see happening or their interpretation of what happens isn't always reality.

My responses are in blue.

Ditto. BTW, can Alex do anything about the board not letting you post a reply unless it's a certain length? :wink2:

I have an aunt that has done WW for years. Seriously, I don't remember a time when she wasn't on WW. And she's morbidly obese. She always talks about how "WW is a great tool for living, really teaches you how to live instead of diet." And I always want to say to her, "Well, why aren't you a healthy weight by now, then?" I know it's mean, and maybe it does keep her from gaining tons of weight back (I think she's lost the same 50 pounds several times), but it obviously isn't working that well.

Borns are awesome! They really are the most comfortable shoes I've worn in a long time.

Ditto. What people should understand is that in the vast majority of "religious debates" on the board (not all, but most), it is not the Atheists/non-believer that brought religion into the discussion. In most cases, what happens is this: A believer and a non-believer get into a debate over something. The believer brings their religous beliefs into the debate as support and justification of their position. The non-believer then challenges the logicality of the support/justification. That's how debates work. Now, IMO, if someone doesn't want their beliefs questioned, they shouldn't bring them up in a debate. Because otherwise, they wouldn't be fair game. Like Green said, we don't go around hunting Christians on the board. In fact, we generally actively avoid the Christian threads. But yes, if people decide to enter a debate and use their religious beliefs as their support/justification, those religious beliefs do become valid debating material. That's not bashing, it's debate. And on the idea that a non-believer can't know anything about Christianity, or as much about it as the average Christian.... Well, you don't have to be from Germany to be completely fluent in German and know the history and customs of the country. An Atheist may not understand the spiritual/feeling side of the religion, but they can know the historical/ritual side.

I sometimes wonder about doing that, but then I chicken out. Mainly because I have double vision, and the only reason it doesn't bother me to any extent is because one eye is significantly weaker than the other. In other words, I'm worried that instead of having a clear picture with a fuzzy double, I'll have two clear pictures.

Ditto. I don't mind wearing heeled shoes that have a wide, chunky heel, but I can't wear thin heels at all. I apparently tend to walk on the outer edges of my feet, which obviously would not work well with thin heels. I'd break my ankle, guaranteed. :wink2: Maybe I'll be able to change the way I walk once I get thin, but I doubt it.

Okay, I've found my top 3 plastic surgeons (as of today, at least! ). I've looked around on www.makemeheal.com for people that had lost a lot of weight and had PS with a surgeon in my state, and I was really impressed by all of these surgeons. Could you guys check out their websites for me and tell me what you think? I kind of feel like I might miss something myself, since I'm already thrilled with them. A "so happy, I'm blind to the reality" sort of thing, you know? Anyway, here are their websites: Dr. David Reath Dr. Lois Wagstrom Drs. Mary Gingrass and Melinda Haws So far, I'm leaning towards either Dr. Reath or Dr. Wagstrom, but I plan on doing at least 3 consultations. I really like the results of both the LBLs and FTTs on both Reath's and Wagstrom's pages. I'm not so thrilled with the LBL results from Gingrass/Haws, but the basic FTT results are pretty decent. Any comments on any of those doctors?

Yeah, that's one thing I noticed about Dr. Reath's site, too, that there was only one patient that even looked like she really needed the surgery. Hers turned out really well, though. So far, Reath and Wagstrom are my favorites. I really like the idea of having a female surgeon. What throws me about the Haws/Gingrass pictures is that they don't identify which surgeon did the surgery.

I'm wanting to lose a lot more weight before I go to a consult, so I'm thinking late spring or early summer for that and then surgery in December (to give me enough time to find and get established in either a job or a PhD position). Or sooner, if I get too impatient! :biggrin: This is terribly exciting. It wasn't too long ago that it was just hitting me that the band was actually working. Now it's starting to hit me that it's working so well that I'll probably need plastic surgery. I'm thrilled, though. So far, I really like Dr. Reath's pictures the most, but he comes across as smarmy-looking in his own pictures on the website. I'm really hoping that's not the case, though.

Voondahbah, I'd suggest that you print off these posts as proof of harassment, so that if anything DOES happen at your workplace, you've got something to show to your human resources department. Edited to add: BTW, if those posts get deleted before you can do that, I've taken screenshots that I can email to you if you need them.

Why are you only eating 300 calories a day? That's WAY lower than any other surgeon's requirement that I've seen. :biggrin:

Where in Tennessee are you from? I'm originally from Crossville, but I'm in Kentucky now, working on a grad degree.

Wow. Stalkerish, much?