Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

MSN Money: What if no one were fat?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Marge

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 8:38:14 PM4/28/08
to
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/Advice/WhatIfNoOneWereFat.aspx

What if no one were fat?
Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

By Shirley Skeel
Editor's note: This is part of an occasional series on financial what-ifs.

In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
overweight. But . . .

What if nobody in America were fat?

We'd save billions of dollars in gas. Airlines would double their profits.
A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more
-- and put thousands of doctors on the street. McDonald's would sell not
Big Macs but little steamed chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt
away. Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
jobs or higher wages all around.

Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and efficiencies, and you
could buy a professional home gym for every U.S. household -- or hand each
$4,270 in cash.

$487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
domestic product, no small sum.

Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth. The rest is a radical shift in
resources, away from the needs of our bigger citizens to . . . well,
whatever we and our overlords would spend these extra billions on.

First, let's put the meat on that $487 billion. The estimates below assume
the average American adult is at least 20 pounds overweight, a figure
nutritionists see as fair.

Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
$5 billion, according to industry studies. Researchers say each overweight
driver burns about 18 additional gallons of gas a year, or just under a
billion gallons altogether. Savings in the air are far greater: The
jet-fuel savings alone could double North American airlines' forecast 2008
profits to $3.8 billion and maybe persuade them to stop stranding
passengers because they can't afford the fuel for flights. As for oil
imports, they'd be dented by less than 1%.

Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
billion on shirts, pants and dresses. And clothes might fit better too.
Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
and bust sizes, rather than asking every woman to squeeze into an hourglass
shape.

Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.

If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
$20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).
Bob Young, the American Farm Bureau's chief economist, says farmers would
cope. They'd switch some land from fattening seed oils and sugar beets to
fruits and vegetables. Or they might grow corn for ethanol, or even open a
hunting resort.

The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
costs. That ballpark figure was calculated by Joel Cohen, an economic
researcher for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using data
from a 1998 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study. Cohen reckons
that if no one were fat, medical insurance costs would fall -- to
everyone's delight -- and doctors and drug makers could do more preventive
care. That sounds good, but Roland Sturm, a senior economist for Rand in
Santa Monica, Calif., doubts anyone would pay for preventive care. More
likely, he says, some doctors would be on the street. "They could drive
cabs," he suggests.

Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
spent less time at work feeling unwell. Ross DeVol, the director of health
economics at the Milken Institute, says the loss of productivity due to
people showing up at work sick is "immense." Using a recent Milken report
on the subject, he calculates that if no one were obese, the added output
from workers and their caregivers would give the country a $257 billion
boost. That's 1.8% of GDP, enough extra output to allow businesses to hire
tens of thousands more workers or to raise wages, economists say. Or at
least, that's the theory. Given bosses' love of expanding their profits and
their own pay, you can count on some of this being spirited away. Just look
at 2000 to 2005, when worker productivity rose 16.6% while median wages
rose less than half that amount.

"Jenny Craig would be very unhappy" if everyone were slim, says Rand's
Sturm. And so she would, along with the rest of the $55 billion weight-loss
industry. Trimmed-down citizens would be swapping their diet pills for
bikinis and their gastric-banding for nose jobs.

What to do with all that money?
On top of these savings would be billions of dollars more. Manufacturers
and builders wouldn't have to make doorways bigger, car seats wider,
furniture stouter. Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
decreased.

Even without those extras, the $487 billion reshuffle of the economy would
put us on the spot. Exactly how would we spend all this freed-up cash?
Optimists sing about improving education or medical research. Others figure
we'd fritter away the money.

Lady Veteran

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 9:55:23 PM4/28/08
to
On 29 Apr 2008 00:38:14 -0000, ma...@nothing.org (Marge) wrote:


Who would idiots like you ridicule?

>Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
>other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

For charm school?

>
>By Shirley Skeel
>Editor's note: This is part of an occasional series on financial what-ifs.
>
>In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
>adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
>overweight. But . . .

Yes and there is a fat guy under my bed right where Joe McCarthy said
the communists would be.

>
>What if nobody in America were fat?

What would brain stems do to keep themselves entertained with no one
to poke sticks at? How would they spend their day.

>
>We'd save billions of dollars in gas. Airlines would double their profits.

They would make this profit only because there are no fat people.
Never mind the bad management practices, poor financial habits and
waste.

>A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more
>-- and put thousands of doctors on the street.

Yes-remember that only fat people get diabetes. I guess a lot of thin
people would die becuase there would be no insulin available for them.
Id there is no diabetes, why have insulin?

> McDonald's would sell not Big Macs but little steamed chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt
>away.

Yep-that is how they made their money you know. Being just like
everyone else.


> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
>jobs or higher wages all around.

Right-that is becuase only fat people are lazy and take advantage of
employer amenities and do it every chance they can, right?

>
>Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and efficiencies, and you
>could buy a professional home gym for every U.S. household -- or hand each
>$4,270 in cash.

Ad everyone would be so very happy grunting and groaning on a bowflex
and even the women would look like Mr. Universe.

>
>$487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants

Of course everyone knows that only fat people wear stretchy and comfy
clothes. Only fat people waste gas, right?

>Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
>country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
>domestic product, no small sum.

Come on, how are you gonna make the fat people disappear and put the
brain stems in charge?


>
>Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth. The rest is a radical shift in
>resources, away from the needs of our bigger citizens to . . . well,
>whatever we and our overlords would spend these extra billions on.

Of course, a blighted case of Aryan delusion. You don't want the
"bigger citizen" to even exist, do you?


>
>First, let's put the meat on that $487 billion. The estimates below assume
>the average American adult is at least 20 pounds overweight, a figure
>nutritionists see as fair.

Oh well, lets all make allowances for a fatter boy with titties.


>
>Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
>$5 billion, according to industry studies. Researchers say each overweight
>driver burns about 18 additional gallons of gas a year, or just under a
>billion gallons altogether.

Blame it all on the fat people.

> Savings in the air are far greater: The
>jet-fuel savings alone could double North American airlines' forecast 2008
>profits to $3.8 billion and maybe persuade them to stop stranding
>passengers because they can't afford the fuel for flights. As for oil
>imports, they'd be dented by less than 1%.
>
>Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
>billion on shirts, pants and dresses. And clothes might fit better too.
>Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
>State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
>tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
>and bust sizes, rather than asking every woman to squeeze into an hourglass
>shape.
>

As if the average shopper isn't confused enough as it is.

Fat people don't need clothing-god forbid that they have money to buy
what they want.

This proves that the inmates are trying to run the asylum.

LV

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Rod Speed

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 10:01:44 PM4/28/08
to
Marge <ma...@nothing.org> wrote

> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/Advice/WhatIfNoOneWereFat.aspx

> What if no one were fat?

We'd be in a famine, and you'd really have something to get excited about.

> Imagine a lean and healthy America:

There would still be plenty with other medical problems even if no one was fat.

Most obviously with the stupid smokers.

> The savings on medical, fuel, food and other costs would
> be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> By Shirley Skeel
> Editor's note: This is part of an occasional series on financial what-ifs.

> In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight.

Doesnt mean that all of those are unhealthy tho.

> Almost 33% of adults are obese,

Doesnt mean that all of those are unhealthy tho.

> and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds overweight. But . . .

> What if nobody in America were fat?

We'd be in a famine, and you'd really have something to get excited about.

> We'd save billions of dollars in gas.

Wrong.

> Airlines would double their profits.

Wrong.

> A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more

Wrong, you'd still have type 1 diabetes that has nothing to do with obesity.

> -- and put thousands of doctors on the street.

Wrong again. They be dealing with the effects of famine.

> McDonald's would sell not Big Macs but little steamed
> chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt away.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more jobs

That would REDUCE the number of jobs available, fool.

> or higher wages all around.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and
> efficiencies, and you could buy a professional home gym
> for every U.S. household -- or hand each $4,270 in cash.

You've plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

> $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants

You've plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

> Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a
> leaner, meaner country add up to a weighty $487 billion.

You've plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

> That's almost 3.5% of gross domestic product, no small sum.

Pity you've plucked that number out of your arse.

> Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth. The rest is a radical shift
> in resources, away from the needs of our bigger citizens to . . . well,
> whatever we and our overlords would spend these extra billions on.

Pity you've plucked that number out of your arse.

> First, let's put the meat on that $487 billion.

Not even possible to put meat on a steaming turd.

> The estimates below assume the average American adult is at
> least 20 pounds overweight, a figure nutritionists see as fair.

Pity you've plucked that number out of your arse.

<reams of your mindless silly shit flushed where it belongs>


Chrisb

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 10:02:14 PM4/28/08
to

"Marge" <ma...@nothing.org> wrote in message
news:200804290038...@outpost.zedz.net...

My stock in MacDonalds wouldn't be worth anything. I support
fat-acceptance, as it helps my investment portfolio.......eat more dammit.


The Master

unread,
Apr 29, 2008, 10:29:41 AM4/29/08
to
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marge wrote:

> What if no one were fat?
> Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.

> In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
> adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
> overweight. But . . .

33% skinny
33% over
33% obese

Sounds like the normal numbers... Skinny people are outnumbered... We
need to elect a fat president, to protect the rights of fat americans.

> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
> jobs or higher wages all around.

I call bull shit on that one.

If I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected. I have a desk job,
I sit on my fat ass all day long. If it was skinny, I'd still be sitting
on it at my desk. Would I some how sit on my ass faster?

Do you mean the productivity of fat people who have manual labor jobs?
How many fat people have manual labor jobs? If they have to be on their
feet walking 8 hours a day, that's a lot of exercise. And since they are
already doing it, I doubt that productivity would rise much, if at all.

No new jobs would be created, nor would wages increase.

Arguably, since food would be more abundant, farmers would go out of
business. People buying less food means that less time at the check stand
at the store, which means less cashiers would be needed. In fact, there
would be more unemployment, not the other way around...

> $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
> Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
> country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
> domestic product, no small sum.

So the economy would actually slow down, while the dollar is already
dropping on the open market. Great idea...

> Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth.

None of it would be new growth. You don't grow demand when it drops.

> Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
> $5 billion,

Exxon would make less money, and less demand means less workers are
needed, so Exxon would terminate the employment of workers. Most of that
"savings" would be taken away due to the lost income of workers.

> Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
> billion on shirts, pants and dresses.

Needing less cotton for each shirt means the garment workers need to spend
less time making each shirt, which means less workers are needed. Less
cotton per shirt means the cotton growers have less demand for cotton.
Again, most of that "savings" would be taken

> Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
> State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
> tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
> and bust sizes,

A lot of women's "plus sized" clothing stores offer that already! They
would all go out of business though.

> Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
> way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
> That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
> you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.

And then where would teenagers get their first job? More "savings" thrown
out the window.

Mind you, I'm not even talking about the lost income due to the stock
market. What would McDonald's share holders do? That's right, dump the
stock.

> If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
> calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
> $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).

Really shafting US farmers, who wouldn't need to hire as much farm help,
thus negating more "savings" again.

> The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
> heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
> costs.

Doctors, hospitals, drug companies... More workers out of jobs.

> Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
> spent less time at work feeling unwell.

I have taken about 3 or 4 sick says since I started with my current job
back in 2004, and currently have 234.17 hours on the books for vacation.

> What to do with all that money?

Give most of it back in the form of unemployed workers having no money to
spend, except for what they get in unemployment benefits.

> Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
> as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
> decreased.

And some scientists STILL INSIST that global warming is a 100% natural
cycle. They just aren't given press coverage.

FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 9:52:23 PM4/30/08
to
On Apr 29, 8:29 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

I agree with you Bro!

Somebody should write an article about how much money we would save if
there was no hatred, prejudice, and bigotry in this world. Just think
of how much money would be saved if we didn't have any more wars, and
how much would be saved if we feed all the hungry people in the world,
because hunger, and lack of resources, often lead to violence and war
which exacts heavy costs in the number of deaths, and damage to
civilization.

I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.

And yes, I'm a fat person at only 5 ft 6 in and 400 pounds.

When I was 4 years old, I fell out of a car, and busted my left knee
on the road, so as a kid, my left leg was crippled up, and I walked
with a limp, and I could not run, and I was lousy at sports.

My mother taught me how to read and write before I even started
school, and by the time I was only in the 3rd grade, I was already
reading at the high school and adult level. When I was 13, I scored
150 points on a standard IQ test, so going through school should have
been a breeze for me. Science was my favorite subject, especially
Astronomy.

But then, back in 1962 I believe, the President's Council on Physical
Fitness said that Americans were out of shape and that we all needed
to go on 50 mile hikes, and then, our schools became super gung-ho on
Physical Education, while cutting back on academics.

In the 4th grade, I was suspended from school because I failed to
climb a rope in a gymnasium. In the 5th grade I had my first male
teacher who made my life a living Hell in the PE class. He would
humiliate me in front of all the other students, and one day he
punched me in the stomach with a basketball. Then there was another
time when our class went to the school library. There was this one
Astronomy book that I wanted to check out, but the teacher would not
allow me to have that book. When I asked why he let all the other kids
check out any book they wanted, but not me, he dragged me out of the
library, out into the hallway, grabbed me by the shoulders, and bashed
my head up against the corner of a concrete block wall. The following
year, that teacher was fired and could not get a teaching job anywhere
else. But for years after that, from the age of 11 years and through
out my teen ages years, I had dizzy spells and headaches as a result
of my head injuries.

I suffered a lot of mental and emotional problems, and during my teen
age years, I gained a lot of weight, and I got fat, weighing about 280
pounds by the time I was only 17 years old.

In school I was harassed and bullied around by the jocks. I was called
a "fat sissy boy" because I didn't care for sports, and in high
school, I wanted nothing to do with the drug scene. I tried to avoid
anyone who was using drugs, but a couple of pusher keep harassing me,
trying to get me to try some of their stuff. Then I made a stupid
mistake. I turned them in, because they wouldn't leave me alone. After
than, I was harassed even more. In the art class, my oil paintings
were destroyed, I had books stolen from me, and my life was even
threatened, so for my own safety, I had to drop out of school. After
that, I had a total breakdown, mentally and emotionally, and spent
three weeks in a mental hospital, where I was beatened on a regular
bases, and one night, I was raped by an older man. I was 17 years old
at the time, and after I came home from the mental hospital, after the
effects of the drugs wore off, my weight shot up from 220 pounds to
around 280 pounds in less than two months!

When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
was about 120 pounds overweight. Actually, I was glad for that,
because it meant that I didn't have to go to Viet Nam and die for a
country that treated me like a 4th class citizen.

Since I never graduated High School, I took the GED Test, and I scored
high in it, and got a certificate that is as good as a High School
Diploma, and from 1975 to 1978 I tried going to Collage where I
majored in Physics and Astronomy, but I never completed my degree. I
was under a lot of emotional stress. I made Bs in most of my math
classes, and I love Trigonometry. For me its' fun, but I couldn't hack
being under too much stress. I have become emotionally fragile, unable
to control my emotions, probably due to my head injuries and some
other factors in my life.

And so, I have been a victim of prejudice and hatred, the same kind of
bigotry being spouted off by the likes of people like Shirley Skeel,
who is a slimy green with the lust for money. All she cares about is
money, and she does not care if human lives are put on the Sacrificial
Alter of Capitalism and Greed just to save a few bucks.

I'm more interested in saving human lives than saving money!

As for me, being fat has done me no harm, and has actually protected
me from more serious injuries from beatings I had received in the
past. But the hatred, just for being different, had taken a far
greater tole on me than my weight ever could.

Hey, because I'm fat, I actually save more energy. I don't need to
have my thermostat set so high during the winter months and have my
home heated at tropical temperatures as thin people do. I'm too fat to
drive a car, so I use public transportation, thus saving more energy.
Also, I have a slow metabolism. Normal body temperature is about 98.6
degrees, while mine averages 96.5 degrees. That usually indicated
hypothyroid, but I've been checked for that, and the lab results
always come back negative. I can maintain my weight on fewer calories
than the average size person, thus saving more on food. It's been said
that to maintain a weight of 400 pounds, that it would take about 4000
calories, but I can maintain my weight on just 2500 calories per day.

I know a lot of skinny people, like my younger brother for example:
who is much taller, and only weighs about 160 pounds, and he eats a
Hell of a lot more than I do, but he is not anymore active than I am,
because he is also crippled up and walks with a cane, and he needed to
use a cane about 10 years before I finally needed one myself. He has
had surgery done on one of his feet, and he has incurred far more
medical expenses than I have.

I'm not harming anybody else, but I have been harmed several times
repeatedly, and it has cost me much. I'm unable to hold a job, not
because of my weight, but because I'm far less able to cope with
emotional stress than most people, thanks to all that had happened to
me, so my earning potential is greatly reduced. I plan to go back to
working on my oil paintings again, and perhaps I might be able to
supplement my meager income.

And so, someone should publish an article about the high cost, of
prejudice, hatred, and bigotry!

I say we need more fat people in this world, and we need to get even
fatter!

Most of the fat people I have known were very kind and gentle people.
I only knew a few who were mean or aggressive, but most of us fat
people are gentle and more docile. We are far less pron to committing
violent crimes, and fat men have much lower suicide rates than thin
people.

I hope more and more people become obese, and when every man, woman,
and child is obese, we will all be too soft and weak to want to fight
in anymore bloody wars, and we will have to depend more on human
intelligence to solve our conflicts, and seek more peaceful solutions.

Increasing obesity around the world may one day bring about world
peace, thus saving even more money.

FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 9:52:49 PM4/30/08
to
On Apr 29, 8:29 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

I agree with you Bro!

FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 9:58:11 PM4/30/08
to
On Apr 29, 8:29 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

I agree with you Bro!

Monty

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 10:40:57 PM4/30/08
to
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTed...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
>kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.

<snip>

>When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
>holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
>behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
>so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
>was about 120 pounds overweight.

<snip>

I'm calling bullshit!


jcderkoeing

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 11:02:48 PM4/30/08
to

"Monty" <mo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:200805010240...@outpost.zedz.net...

Because at age 46 he would have been born in 1962 and drafted at age 7?


FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
May 1, 2008, 1:10:50 AM5/1/08
to

Sorry! That was a typo! I meant to say 56 years old and NOT 46.

It was a typing error.

I have probably misspelled a few word as well, one is bound to make a
few mistakes when typing a long message.

I was born September 30, 1951, so my age of 46 was in error. I'm
actually 56.

It can happen to anybody!

Sorry about that! OK?

FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
May 1, 2008, 1:11:43 AM5/1/08
to
On Apr 30, 8:40 pm, mo...@nowhere.com (Monty) wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTeddyB...@gmail.com wrote:
>
On Apr 30, 9:02 pm, "jcderkoeing" <jcderkoe...@ibm.com> wrote:
> "Monty" <mo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:200805010240...@outpost.zedz.net...
>
>
>

Rod Speed

unread,
May 1, 2008, 2:07:06 AM5/1/08
to

Nope, a Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Dont make a mess of the carpet.


Rod Speed

unread,
May 1, 2008, 2:22:33 AM5/1/08
to
FatTed...@gmail.com wrote
> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote
>> Marge wrote

More fool you!!

> Somebody should write an article about how much money we would
> save if there was no hatred, prejudice, and bigotry in this world. Just
> think of how much money would be saved if we didn't have any more wars,

Thats arguable. Wars can be claimed to be just another way of
boosting the economy and providing hordes of jobs, particularly
with modern world wars and the cold war in spades.

> and how much would be saved if we feed all the hungry people in the world,

Its a lot cheaper to let them die.

> because hunger, and lack of resources, often lead to violence and war

Bet you cant list even a single war thats been due to hunger.

> which exacts heavy costs in the number of deaths, and damage to civilization.

War has big benefits to civilisation too tho. We wouldnt have seen the same
boom in heavy aircraft without war, and the resulting cheap world travel either.

> I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to
> school as a kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.

> And yes, I'm a fat person at only 5 ft 6 in and 400 pounds.

And thats all due to hatred eh ?

Nope, its due to all that food you shovelled into your mouth.

> When I was 4 years old, I fell out of a car, and busted my left knee
> on the road, so as a kid, my left leg was crippled up, and I walked
> with a limp, and I could not run, and I was lousy at sports.

Plenty who were similarly crippled didnt even up such bloated hippos.

> My mother taught me how to read and write before I even started school,

Plenty of kids taught themselves before they started school too.

> and by the time I was only in the 3rd grade, I was already
> reading at the high school and adult level. When I was 13,
> I scored 150 points on a standard IQ test,

But were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice what the
inevitable result of shovelling all that food into your mouth would be.

> so going through school should have been a breeze for me.
> Science was my favorite subject, especially Astronomy.

> But then, back in 1962 I believe, the President's Council on Physical
> Fitness said that Americans were out of shape and that we all needed
> to go on 50 mile hikes, and then, our schools became super gung-ho
> on Physical Education, while cutting back on academics.

Bullshit they did.

> In the 4th grade, I was suspended from school
> because I failed to climb a rope in a gymnasium.

Bullshit you were.

> In the 5th grade I had my first male teacher who made my life a living
> Hell in the PE class. He would humiliate me in front of all the other
> students, and one day he punched me in the stomach with a basketball.
> Then there was another time when our class went to the school library.
> There was this one Astronomy book that I wanted to check out, but the
> teacher would not allow me to have that book. When I asked why he let
> all the other kids check out any book they wanted, but not me, he dragged
> me out of the library, out into the hallway, grabbed me by the shoulders,
> and bashed my head up against the corner of a concrete block wall.

SURE he did.

> The following year, that teacher was fired and could not get a
> teaching job anywhere else. But for years after that, from the
> age of 11 years and through out my teen ages years, I had
> dizzy spells and headaches as a result of my head injuries.

Nope, due to the ear to ear dog shit.

> I suffered a lot of mental and emotional problems, and during
> my teen age years, I gained a lot of weight, and I got fat,
> weighing about 280 pounds by the time I was only 17 years old.

So its all someone else's fault eh ?

> In school I was harassed and bullied around by the jocks. I
> was called a "fat sissy boy" because I didn't care for sports,

Nope, because thats precisely what you were.

<reams of your mindless pathetic whining flushed where it belongs>


Message has been deleted

FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
May 1, 2008, 4:41:57 AM5/1/08
to

You're just another Fascist Nazi scum-bag piece of crap!

So, you think I'm less of a man because I don't care for sports! Eh?

You think that to be a "real man" your IQ must be exceeded by your
shoe size!

So, you think it's OK for jocks to bully everyone around in our
schools!

What if it were happening to your kid?

Or are you a pedophile who likes to butt-bang little kids?

Go to Hell, Short Eyes!!!

I bet you probably even burn books!

Tell me. When doe the band play Der Führer Forever?

Rod Speed

unread,
May 1, 2008, 4:51:07 AM5/1/08
to

This is from the tub of lard that was stupid enough to claim that

>> Most of the fat people I have known were very kind and gentle people.

> So, you think I'm less of a man because I don't care for sports! Eh?

Nope, I dont bother with them myself, hippos.

> You think that to be a "real man" your IQ must be exceeded by your shoe size!

This is from the tub of lard that was stupid enough to claim that

>> Most of the fat people I have known were very kind and gentle people.

> So, you think it's OK for jocks to bully everyone around in our schools!

Nope, just whining tubs of lard like you, hippo.

> What if it were happening to your kid?

It wouldnt.

> Or are you a pedophile who likes to butt-bang little kids?

This is from the tub of lard that was stupid enough to claim that

>> Most of the fat people I have known were very kind and gentle people.

> Go to Hell, Short Eyes!!!

Is this where I'm sposed to curl up and die or sumfin is it, hippo ?

> I bet you probably even burn books!

Nope, read them, actually.

> Tell me. When doe the band play Der Führer Forever?

This is from the tub of lard that was stupid enough to claim that

Rod Speed

unread,
May 1, 2008, 4:52:06 AM5/1/08
to
Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty> wrote:
> FatTed...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:8506439f-ceb5-4eca...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Is there an award for Troll of the Year?

Nope, and that wouldnt get it even if there was.


FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
May 1, 2008, 5:04:31 AM5/1/08
to
On May 1, 2:51 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Rod Speed

unread,
May 1, 2008, 5:30:26 AM5/1/08
to

Even an obscene tub of lard should be able to do better than that, hippo.


Kadaitcha Man

unread,
May 1, 2008, 5:47:39 AM5/1/08
to
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67tekpF...@mid.individual.net...


There is a k0oK award with your name on it, Woddleypoo.

Coward of the Month.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List

Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E

"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com

"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com

"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arn...@Arnold.com> giving technical
advice. news:k96dnd110uImNojV...@earthlink.com


Hollywood

unread,
May 1, 2008, 2:13:38 PM5/1/08
to
On Apr 29, 10:29 am, The Master

<tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marge wrote:
> > What if no one were fat?
> > Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> > other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.
>
> If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
> less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
> that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
> only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
> lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
> prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.

Flawed.
Fat people do not pay a fuel surcharge on airplanes. Assuming the
airlines didn't just take higher profits, and passed the savings
along,
all air travelers would benefit.

Similarly, if you are in a large group insurance and all the obesity
and diabetes related costs suddenly vanished, everyone in the group
benefits. There are no "obesity" surcharges in group insurance.

Medicare/Medicaid and other government taxes that might see
reduced costs with the reduction of the obese would flow to all as
well.

Clothing manufacture streamlining benefits all. Efficiency in
production
would lower costs across the board. Additional fabric saved would
lower demand for raw materials, again, reducing cost for all.

Reducing gas consumption. Yes, the formerly obese would yield the
highest benefit, but a reduction in demand (due to cutting the obese
excess demand) would reduce costs across the board. You, Master,
would yield a higher benefit than me, but a high tide raises all
boats,
even the Hollywood machine.

Your dismissal shows weak thinking. Sorry. The rest isn't even
worth discussing, since you have yet to think through this at an
adequate level.

The Master

unread,
May 1, 2008, 2:48:33 PM5/1/08
to
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Hollywood wrote:

>> If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
>> less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
>> that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
>> only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
>> lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
>> prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.
>
> Flawed.
> Fat people do not pay a fuel surcharge on airplanes.

They do on South West, where they are forced to purchase two tickets.

> Assuming the
> airlines didn't just take higher profits,

Now THAT is flawed thinking... A company willing to give back profits?
:p

> Similarly, if you are in a large group insurance and all the obesity
> and diabetes related costs suddenly vanished, everyone in the group
> benefits. There are no "obesity" surcharges in group insurance.

And that affects everyone, that is true. In my quick retort to the faulty
article, I neglected to specifically address group insurance rates.

> Medicare/Medicaid and other government taxes that might see
> reduced costs with the reduction of the obese would flow to all as
> well.

So all the previously fat people get to live to a ripe old age, with lots
of other medical issues that Medicare/Medicaid and other government
agencies have to deal with instead. Like I said, much of the "savings" is
taken back in other costs.

Articles like the original are based on a static economy. If you take
away one thing that costs money, the rest of the system continues to
function as is. Thinking like that might make good "MSM Money" articles,
but are bad economics.

> Clothing manufacture streamlining benefits all. Efficiency in
> production would lower costs across the board.

And you think they will need to keep as many workers due to the effeciency
increase? Yes, it takes less time to make a size 4 dress then a size 24.
So why on earth would they need to employ the same number of workers? Eh?
See my point? And what about the fact that unemployed workers tend to
spend less then they did when they had jobs? The economy is NOT static.

> Additional fabric saved would
> lower demand for raw materials, again, reducing cost for all.

And put the producers of that material in a financial bind, until enough
of them go bankrupt and thusly lower supply.

> Reducing gas consumption. Yes, the formerly obese would yield the
> highest benefit, but a reduction in demand (due to cutting the obese
> excess demand) would reduce costs across the board.

Exactly what I said. The skinny people will only see benefit from the
lower demand pushing prices down.

> Your dismissal shows weak thinking.

No, it means I'm not silly enough to think the economy is static.

Lady Veteran

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:24:13 PM5/1/08
to

Call bullshit all you want. It can happen. Is Bullshit your little
brother?

Lady Veteran

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:25:49 PM5/1/08
to
On Thu, 01 May 2008 03:02:48 GMT, "jcderkoeing" <jcder...@ibm.com>
wrote:

If brain stems can lie about their age and human status, fat people
can lie about their age.

Lady Veteran

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:30:43 PM5/1/08
to

I don't know about Der Fuehrer forever, but Deutschland Uber Alles
comes up regularly....


There are many Aryan wannabes in SSFA.

To weed through the vermin, some of the regulars use kill files.

If you can battle the brain stems-welcome.

Marty

unread,
May 1, 2008, 9:03:46 PM5/1/08
to
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTed...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm unable to hold a job, not
>because of my weight, but because I'm far less able to cope with
>emotional stress than most people

So you're a worthless fucking parasite sucking on the public tit.

Yours in Christ,

Marty

Hollywood

unread,
May 2, 2008, 8:28:55 AM5/2/08
to
On May 1, 2:48 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

> On Thu, 1 May 2008, Hollywood wrote:
> >> If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
> >> less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
> >> that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
> >> only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
> >> lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
> >> prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.
>
> > Flawed.
> > Fat people do not pay a fuel surcharge on airplanes.
>
> They do on South West, where they are forced to purchase two tickets.

Uhm, yeah, except that policy is the exception, not the norm. And
you'd
have to be very obese to have to buy two tickets. When I was 270, I
could cram into a small airline seat. It wasn't comfortable, but it
didn't
require an extra fare.

> > Assuming the
> > airlines didn't just take higher profits,
>
> Now THAT is flawed thinking... A company willing to give back profits?
> :p

Market competition. Someone would to take higher market share.
Google for "airline fare war". Lively up your mind.

> > Similarly, if you are in a large group insurance and all the obesity
> > and diabetes related costs suddenly vanished, everyone in the group
> > benefits. There are no "obesity" surcharges in group insurance.
>
> And that affects everyone, that is true. In my quick retort to the faulty
> article, I neglected to specifically address group insurance rates.
>
> > Medicare/Medicaid and other government taxes that might see
> > reduced costs with the reduction of the obese would flow to all as
> > well.
>
> So all the previously fat people get to live to a ripe old age, with lots
> of other medical issues that Medicare/Medicaid and other government
> agencies have to deal with instead. Like I said, much of the "savings" is
> taken back in other costs.

Of course, the ones who object to these other costs are welcome to
eat their guns and save the rest of us the cost. The author noted that
only 1.8% of the $487B would be new growth. The rest would be
available for redirection. The manufacturing savings and engineering
costs alone would probably lower costs. Can you imagine having to
engineer a truck to be comfortable for everyone from Kate Moss to
you? The cost savings pointed to in the article are only the obvious
ones.

> Articles like the original are based on a static economy. If you take
> away one thing that costs money, the rest of the system continues to
> function as is. Thinking like that might make good "MSM Money" articles,
> but are bad economics.

Hrm. The article is weak headed on this point. What do you expect? It
doesn't really affect many of your contentions.
Non-obese workers (even desk jockeys) are more productive in pretty
much every study that's been done on this. If telephone customer
service reps are more efficient when not obese (true), your contention
"f I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected." Regardless of
the speed at which you sit on your ass. You take more sick leave or
more breaks or whatever. And before you build the smoking strawman,
I concede that elimination of smoking would have some pretty big
economic impact, particularly along productivity and group health
insurance lines.

> > Clothing manufacture streamlining benefits all. Efficiency in
> > production would lower costs across the board.
>
> And you think they will need to keep as many workers due to the effeciency
> increase? Yes, it takes less time to make a size 4 dress then a size 24.
> So why on earth would they need to employ the same number of workers? Eh?
> See my point? And what about the fact that unemployed workers tend to
> spend less then they did when they had jobs? The economy is NOT static.

I don't think it takes less time to make a size 4 than a 24, but I
will
leave knowledge on all things dresses to you. The gain I see is not in
piece efficiency (already fairly high). It's in materials (it clearly
takes
more fabric to make a size 24 anything than a size 4 anything), and in
set up. If you have a factory line, making khaki pants, resizing means
doing a reset on some of the machines. This eats time. Lot of people
make large money figuring out optimal batch sizes to optimize set ups.
If, in this hypothetical world, you can take out everything from size
12
and up, that's fewer set ups. More efficient production. Using less
material.

One more thing: most clothing bought in the US is not made in the US.
So those lost jobs are lost Chinese and Taiwan jobs. Yes, the
economies
are all linked, BUT, a million unemployed Chinese garment workers
don't
have much impact on an American consumer's ability to spend. Sorry,
you're wrong on this.

> > Additional fabric saved would
> > lower demand for raw materials, again, reducing cost for all.
>
> And put the producers of that material in a financial bind, until enough
> of them go bankrupt and thusly lower supply.

Over the long haul, everyone is dead. Ramping down factories in longer
haul than the price reduction. It's unlikely that supply would drop
drastically enough to return material prices to current real dollar
levels.

> > Reducing gas consumption. Yes, the formerly obese would yield the
> > highest benefit, but a reduction in demand (due to cutting the obese
> > excess demand) would reduce costs across the board.
>
> Exactly what I said. The skinny people will only see benefit from the
> lower demand pushing prices down.

So, an obese person gets 18 gallons a year back in their pocket. And
a 5% reduction on cost for the other 500. An already normal person
gets the 5% reduction on cost for the 500 gallons of gas. I think
everyone is happy with that outcome.

> > Your dismissal shows weak thinking.
>
> No, it means I'm not silly enough to think the economy is static.

Lack of vision. You're getting better, but you're still not seeing it.
Not that it matters. It's a hypothetical exercise.

As a side question, I wonder what kind of car the Master drives.

Hollywood drives a Volvo s80, 1998. Will be trading out for a
smaller car in the next two-three years.

The Master

unread,
May 2, 2008, 12:36:33 PM5/2/08
to
On Fri, 2 May 2008, Hollywood wrote:

> Over the long haul, everyone is dead.

I'll actually accept that, and agree with it as is. Given the fact that
in 200 years everyone alive now will already be dead, none of this crap
matters. As such, I'll go take my productivity crippling "ding-dong
break" as often as I want (yes, I'm being a smart ass).

> As a side question, I wonder what kind of car the Master drives.
>
> Hollywood drives a Volvo s80, 1998. Will be trading out for a
> smaller car in the next two-three years.

2005 Kia Rio, that gets a real MPG of 30. What do you get on that Volvo?

Lady Veteran

unread,
May 2, 2008, 7:59:46 PM5/2/08
to

Marty are you afraid there won't be enough for you? A third-rate
Canadian like you can't get a job and the army won't have you.

What ever will you do?

(Like I care)

FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:25:56 PM5/2/08
to
On May 1, 7:03 pm, ma...@bllobbbsmasher.com (Marty) wrote:

No!

The worthless fucking parasites are football players who can't read
beyond
the second grade level and yet, they get paid millions of dollars
every year
just for kicking a hunk of pig-skin over an iron post.

They rape our sisters and daughters, but all they get is a slap on the
wrist.

No! Not even that!

They get a pat on the back and a brand new car! For FREE!

OH! And I don't believe in your Jeezer fuckin' Keeeeeeeerist!

I don't believe in the Trinity, Papa, Junior, and The Spook!

I'm a B'nai Noach, or Noachide so I don't believe in your pagan idols!

So! Fuck off, and may God bless you, because you're going to need it!

Lou

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:34:27 PM5/2/08
to

That's pretty funny coming from an emotionally crippled welfare mooch who
can't hold a job.

Mercellus Bohren

unread,
May 3, 2008, 12:10:43 AM5/3/08
to
On May 2, 9:34 pm, l...@yousuck.com (Lou) wrote:

Why are people so hateful in these chatrooms?
It makes me depressed; and then I eat.

Rod Speed

unread,
May 3, 2008, 2:19:59 AM5/3/08
to
Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com> wrote
> l...@yousuck.com (Lou) wrote
>> FatTeddyB...@gmail.com wrote
>>> ma...@bllobbbsmasher.com (Marty) wrote
>>>> FatTeddyB...@gmail.com wrote

>>>>> I'm unable to hold a job, not because of my weight, but because
>>>>> I'm far less able to cope with emotional stress than most people

>>>> So you're a worthless fucking parasite sucking on the public tit.

>>> No!

>>> The worthless fucking parasites are football players who can't read
>>> beyond the second grade level and yet, they get paid millions of
>>> dollars every year just for kicking a hunk of pig-skin over an iron post.

>>> They rape our sisters and daughters, but all they get is a slap on the wrist.

>>> No! Not even that!

>>> They get a pat on the back and a brand new car! For FREE!

>>> OH! And I don't believe in your Jeezer fuckin' Keeeeeeeerist!

>>> I don't believe in the Trinity, Papa, Junior, and The Spook!

>>> I'm a B'nai Noach, or Noachide so I don't believe in your pagan idols!

>>> So! Fuck off, and may God bless you, because you're going to need it!

>> That's pretty funny coming from an emotionally crippled welfare mooch who can't hold a job.

> Why are people so hateful in these chatrooms?

It isnt a chatroom, you stupid tub of lard.

> It makes me depressed; and then I eat.

Do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.


OrangeDood

unread,
May 3, 2008, 3:03:32 AM5/3/08
to
On May 3, 2:19 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mercellus Bohren <mercell...@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> > Why are people so hateful in these chatrooms?
>
> It isnt a chatroom, you stupid tub of lard.

Of course it is. We're chatting; hence, chatroom. Try to keep up hear,
its not that hard.

> > It makes me depressed; and then I eat.
>
> Do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.

Learn about the Innernets and stop being such a tool.

Cheers,
--Jeff

FatTed...@gmail.com

unread,
May 3, 2008, 8:59:37 AM5/3/08
to
On May 2, 8:34 pm, l...@yousuck.com (Lou) wrote:

On May 2, 8:34 pm, l...@yousuck.com (Lou) wrote:

I only get a lousy $600 dollars a month SSI.

While some stupid jock with an IQ exceeded by his shoe size gets
millions just for chasing a ball!

Hell! I can teach a dog to do that!

That is my retirement pension for doing the hardest work there is.

Being a human punching bag for the jocks to practice on.

But I didn't get paid for it. And it was not a job I volunteered for.

It was assigned to me against my will!

And human punching bags don't last very long on the job. You get
burned out after just three years, and then you're discarded, without
any severance pay!

And you don't get a free car, unlike the rapist cowardly scum-bag
jocks!

My parents were factory workers, and they paid property taxes on our
home, and school taxes. Their tax dollars paid for the book I was not
allowed to read, the rope I was unable to climb in the gymnasium
because of my crippled left leg, and paid the salary of the teacher
who have me suspended from school because I failed to climb the rope,
and their tax dollars paid the salary of the teacher who bashed my
head against the wall during an argument over an Astronomy book the he
would not allow me to check out of the school library. My parents paid
for that book!

My parents were tax payers and they got ripped off, royally, as I was
beaten and battered.

This is how Shirley Skeel would really love to save money, by stealing
it from the tax payers to line her pockets. She does not care if
anybody gets ripped off, and neither do the rest of you morons on this
forum.

That contemptible Jezebel would like to enforce mindless conformism
just so she can save 50 cents on each one of her size zero outfits!

Hey! I have a solution on how to save money and improve the economy!

All football players should be ground up, and made into lunch meat to
feed the homeless!

You are all a bunch of moronic retardos!

You're such a retard that you can't even find your way back out of
your own socks!

Yeah! Lowlifes like you, and Shirley Skeel, think it OK for people to
be oppressed just so you can have a little extra jingle in your
pockets. You would probably cut your own mother's throat for a dime!

Now, you can go suck some football players cock!!!

Hollywood

unread,
May 3, 2008, 9:11:28 AM5/3/08