sf wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:57:34 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
> wrote:
>>
>> A lot of the elderly become over weight simply because they become
>> elderly... folks live a lot longer now than they did just a few short
>> years ago, but because they live so much longer they also develop
>> chronic illnesses requiring medications that cause weight gain plus
>> their illnesses prevent them from exercising. The elderly comprise a
>> huge proportion of the population. And there are lots of young
>> people today as well who are experiencing the same situation...
>> young people who only a few short years ago would not have lived to
>> puberty, many would have died at birth, or sooner.
>>
>> I think very few people are overweight simply because they eat too
>> much... many eat too much because they can't receive enough
>> nourishment otherwise... there are many reasons beyond ones
>> control... and genetics plays a huge role, in fact other than for
>> accidental incapacitation it's all genetics, we are NOT all the
>> same, far from it, and thankfully. And much of today's employment
>> just does not require much physical activity, far more people these
>> days work a life time of very long hours chained to a desk.
>> Children don't play outdoors much anymore, they can't, it's no
>> longer safe, and both parents work so they're raised in the day care
>> test tubes, they don't develop normally, not physically or
>> emotionally and certainly not socially. The reasons for the
>> increase in obesity involves many complex compound issues, including
>> societal and economic, it's not just about food.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> There but for the grace... no one is immune, no one gets out alive.
>>
>> Life is about ones quality, not ones "quantity"... there is no point
>> in living to 100 if no one can remember anything profound they've
>> accomplished other than living to 100.
>>
>> Sheldon Thorninside
>
> Wow! How compassionate and perceptive. I can't believe it's you
> writing this.

I had to look twice and the name of the poster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 24 Nov 2007 18:51:14 GMT, Blinky the Shark >
wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> That's reasonable airline behavior. It is more strain on the
>>>> baggage handlers to handle a single heavier bag. Per-bag weight
>>>> limits reduce worker injury. The overweight bags get a "heavy" tag
>>>> put on them and are handled more carefully.
>>
>>>Do you figure that they pay the baggage handlers extra for hoisting
>>>that extra 5 pounds, or that charging $50 extra makes it okay? Does it
>>>cost $50 to put that tag on?
>>
>> I figure only a subgroup of handlers handles the "heavy" bags, and
>> they pay more for insurance on these individuals.
>
>Perhaps the specially tagged overweight bag is handled by a pair of
>workers. That wouldn't be a surprising or unreasonable clause for their
>union contract.

Maybe a person operating a special machine handles it. Machines cost
money too.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

> No Shel... the people I am thinking about are not elderly nor on any
> particular medication that can cause weight gain (steroids, for example).
> What they do is make poor food choices, over eat, under excercise and in
> general take poor care of themselves.
>

Does that then make the difference on who should be considered "fat" and
have to buy two tickets? "I'm sorry ma'am are you on thyroid medication?"
"Ah then you I can give two tickets to for free. "Oh sir, are you just a
bingeing overeater?" "then your habits mean you have to pay twice. Sorry but
being a fatty means you have to pay a premium."

I can't imagine how you would decide between the two extremes

Cindi

Cindi - HappyMamatoThree wrote:
>
> > No Shel... the people I am thinking about are not elderly nor on any
> > particular medication that can cause weight gain (steroids, for example).
> > What they do is make poor food choices, over eat, under excercise and in
> > general take poor care of themselves.
> >
>
> Does that then make the difference on who should be considered "fat" and
> have to buy two tickets? "I'm sorry ma'am are you on thyroid medication?"
> "Ah then you I can give two tickets to for free. "Oh sir, are you just a
> bingeing overeater?" "then your habits mean you have to pay twice. Sorry but
> being a fatty means you have to pay a premium."
>
> I can't imagine how you would decide between the two extremes
>
Who should have to pay more..... a 5 foot 200 pounder or a 6'6" 200
pounder? The former is going to be almost as big as round as he/she is
high, but the other would likely be thin. Once is going to find the seat
too narrow and the other will not have leg room. One is fat and out of
shape while the other is likely quite fit.

Dave Smith > wrote:

>Who should have to pay more..... a 5 foot 200 pounder or a 6'6" 200
>pounder? The former is going to be almost as big as round as he/she is
>high, but the other would likely be thin. Once is going to find the seat
>too narrow and the other will not have leg room. One is fat and out of
>shape while the other is likely quite fit.

This is tangential, but my healthcare provider now includes
"body surface area" in its medical records. I suppose there
was enough flak about "body mass index" being a poor indicator
of health they decided to substitute something else.

S.

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> Cshenk wrote:
>
>>
>> I do not feel they should pay extra, but had to sit once with a lady
>> who couldnt 'fit' in the seat without removing the 'arm' between us.
>> It was a packed plane so no extra seats. When you reserve a seat, the
>> airline doesnt know your size.
>>
>> She was very nice and we chatted the whole time, but I was happy when
>> we got off to be able to breathe and was rather 'squished' feeling
>> (grin).
>>
>> The survey didnt cover situations like that. If a person literally
>> needs 2 seats, they should have 2 assigned and not squish a smaller
>> person in with the arm raised up. If that means to pay more due to 2
>> seats assigned, thats fairer than making some other unsuspecting
>> traveller put up with being squished. I enjoyed that ladies company
>> but another might be less forgiving.
>
>
>
> The problem isn't with people's size. The problem is that the airlines
> don't give any of us enough room. If I were in a situtation where I
> paid for a seat and couldn't use half of it, I'd explain to the flight
> attendants that the situation wasn't safe, that the seatbelt wouldn't
> buckle, that it wasn't safe, that I didn't have full use of my flotation
> device thus making it not safe, and continue repeating the unsafety of a
> situation where a person can't occupy his/her seat. Then let the
> airline deal with their problem. Leave the size of the person next to
> you out of it. It would be just as unsafe if the airline decided to put
> a bunch of boxes in your seat or if they chose to put 2 full size people
> in one seat. Can't put the arm rest down? Give me a break. No one
> should have to put up with those conditions.

Amen. I'm tall and on one flight I had some yahoo sitting in front of
me who kept trying to recline his seat in spite of the fact that my
knees were jammed up against his seat back, my ass wedged against my own
seat back.

Another time my seatmate was a large woman on a packed flight who was
clearly mortified at having to struggle to fit into her seat with the
armrest down. I flipped it up and out of the way myself, asking if she
minded, that I kept dinging my elbow on it.

I was less uncomfortable sharing a few inches of space and sitting
cheek-to-cheek with a clean, well-groomed female than I would have been
insisting on my right to the armrest and adding to the overall misery
level of that particular flight.

Seats at the movie theaters are smaller too and there is little leg
room. I'm 5'10 and unless I am able to get the end seat I am miserably
cramped. My husband is 6'2 and it's even worse for him. Any more we just
wait for movies to hit dvd or cable to see them, who wants to pay to be
uncomfortable.

Sheldon wrote:

> A lot of the elderly become over weight simply because they become
> elderly... folks live a lot longer now than they did just a few short
> years ago, but because they live so much longer they also develop
> chronic illnesses requiring medications that cause weight gain plus
> their illnesses prevent them from exercising. The elderly comprise a
> huge proportion of the population. And there are lots of young people
> today as well who are experiencing the same situation... young people
> who only a few short years ago would not have lived to puberty, many
> would have died at birth, or sooner.
>
> I think very few people are overweight simply because they eat too
> much... many eat too much because they can't receive enough
> nourishment otherwise... there are many reasons beyond ones control...
> and genetics plays a huge role, in fact other than for accidental
> incapacitation it's all genetics, we are NOT all the same, far from
> it, and thankfully. And much of today's employment just does not
> require much physical activity, far more people these days work a life
> time of very long hours chained to a desk. Children don't play
> outdoors much anymore, they can't, it's no longer safe, and both
> parents work so they're raised in the day care test tubes, they don't
> develop normally, not physically or emotionally and certainly not
> socially. The reasons for the increase in obesity involves many
> complex compound issues, including societal and economic, it's not
> just about food.
>
> Of all people anyone who works in the medical arena should realize
> that so many more folks are surviving via artificial means and obesity
> is just as much a result as many other physical and emotional
> conditions. Medicine is a wonderful thing but unfortunately those who
> live the closest are the first to become short sighted... folks who
> work with the sick and dying are the first to develop immunity, RNs
> and MDs are by far the most guilty of developing a blindness to the
> human condition... they also make the worst patients when it happens
> to them and their's. There are none so blind as those who choose not
> to see.
>
> There but for the grace... no one is immune, no one gets out alive.
>
> Life is about ones quality, not ones "quantity"... there is no point
> in living to 100 if no one can remember anything profound they've
> accomplished other than living to 100.
>
> Sheldon Thorninside

Well said, Sheldon.

Becca

Dave Smith wrote:
>
>
> Who should have to pay more..... a 5 foot 200 pounder or a 6'6" 200
> pounder? The former is going to be almost as big as round as he/she is
> high, but the other would likely be thin. Once is going to find the seat
> too narrow and the other will not have leg room. One is fat and out of
> shape while the other is likely quite fit.


This really is what it comes down to. Excellent question. It shouldn't
matter to the airline WHY someone is big. I'd like to add the variable
of the tiny person with a psychological aversion to sitting too close to
someone else. Can she get an extra large seat too so she doesn't have
to be crammed up next to others?


--Lia

In article >, Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> Who should have to pay more..... a 5 foot 200 pounder or a 6'6" 200
>> pounder? The former is going to be almost as big as round as he/she is
>> high, but the other would likely be thin. Once is going to find the seat
>> too narrow and the other will not have leg room. One is fat and out of
>> shape while the other is likely quite fit.
>
>This really is what it comes down to. Excellent question. It shouldn't
>matter to the airline WHY someone is big. I'd like to add the variable
>of the tiny person with a psychological aversion to sitting too close to
>someone else. Can she get an extra large seat too so she doesn't have
>to be crammed up next to others?

A friggin' 5 foot 200 pounder would be *in* your seat too -- *that's*
the problem with some body shapes!


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:04:42 -0600, Kathleen
> wrote:
>
>I was less uncomfortable sharing a few inches of space and sitting
>cheek-to-cheek with a clean, well-groomed female than I would have been
>insisting on my right to the armrest and adding to the overall misery
>level of that particular flight.

You sound like a very nice person, but I'm glad I haven't had to make
the choice myself.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 08:57:43 -0500, Julia Altshuler
> wrote:
>
>
>I'd like to add the variable
>of the tiny person with a psychological aversion to sitting too close to
>someone else. Can she get an extra large seat too so she doesn't have
>to be crammed up next to others?
>
>
I think that is a good reason to upgrade to first class, Lia.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

In article >,
Julia Altshuler > wrote:


> The problem isn't with people's size. The problem is that the airlines
> don't give any of us enough room. If I were in a situtation where I
> paid for a seat and couldn't use half of it, I'd explain to the flight
> attendants that the situation wasn't safe, that the seatbelt wouldn't
> buckle, that it wasn't safe, that I didn't have full use of my flotation
> device thus making it not safe, and continue repeating the unsafety of a
> situation where a person can't occupy his/her seat. Then let the
> airline deal with their problem. Leave the size of the person next to
> you out of it. It would be just as unsafe if the airline decided to put
> a bunch of boxes in your seat or if they chose to put 2 full size people
> in one seat. Can't put the arm rest down? Give me a break. No one
> should have to put up with those conditions.

The seats just keep getting smaller, so they can pack more in.

A long time ago, I took my daughter to meet the relatives (well,
actually, to show her off). I figured it was a good time, since kids
under two flew for free. So we get on the plane. After the front door
was closed and we left the gate, I plopped her down into the vacant seat
next to me and fastened her seat belt. The stewardess immediately came
over and said that since I hadn't paid for that seat, she couldn't sit
in it. I had to hold her in my lap. So the seat sat vacant the whole
flight. Now, if I had refused to fasten my own seat belt, I might have
gotten thrown off the plane. Somehow, if you are under two, you didn't
need a seat belt. Nowadays, in this state, if you don't keep kids
secured in your car, you are subject to a hefty fine.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:


> To give you a idea what jerks they can be, one of them....KLM... screwed
> some friends who had come to visit me from the Netherlands this fall. They
> travelled light, I thought, with just one large suitcase for the two of
> them. They bought some wine while they were here and put it in their
> suitcase. It was 5 pounds over the maximum, so the airline charged them an
> extra $50. I can see that if they each had a bag, but it was one bag
> between two of them. That means that each of them was just over 2 1/2
> pounds of half the personal maximum.

Not too much the airline person can do, but still. Last time I flew,
the person ahead of me in the baggage check line was over. I think it
was less than two pounds. It was US$50. The agent just told them to
open the suitcase, and take out enough stuff to get them under, and put
it in their carryon, or pockets. Not too hard.

I lost a knife one time. I always carry a knife. I use it to open
packages. It had a blade that was 1 1/2 inches. Mostly it had a nail
file and little scissors, but still, there was a blade. It was
confiscated by security. They said maybe I could mail it back home.
Well, it was US$10 when I bought it, so it wasn't worth dealing with.
When I flew back, there was a Leatherman in my carryon. That was dumb
of me. It had a blade also. The security person suggested that I just
check my carryon. I was wearing a huge coat. I just took out
everything that I wanted and went back to the ticket counter and checked
it. I had already checked the suitcase with clothes and stuff.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Steve Pope wrote:

> > That's reasonable airline behavior. It is more strain on the
> > baggage handlers to handle a single heavier bag. Per-bag weight
> > limits reduce worker injury. The overweight bags get a
> > "heavy" tag put on them and are handled more carefully.
>
> Do you figure that they pay the baggage handlers extra for hoisting that
> extra 5 pounds, or that charging $50 extra makes it okay? Does it cost $50
> to put that tag on?

Sometimes people move. It was cheaper to just put it on the airplane
rather than pay shipping. So now they charge.

I just looked at my Email. Last time I flew, the limit was 50 pounds.
For each of two bags. Plus a carryon. Plus a "personal" item.

I thought my suitcase was too heavy once. I put it on the scale. It
was 20 pounds.

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> Cshenk wrote:
>
> > While some folks who are overweight just eat alot or eat alot and of the
> > wrong things (portion control issues), many actually eat the same as their
> > thinner counterparts.
>
> or they just eat "alittle" (just teasin you about the "alot")
> But seriously, some really fat people can't lose weight even on a
> starvation diet. It is freaky how it works some times. For them they
> sometimes have to eat *more* to lose weight!
>
> One thing that annoys me is when I hear or read someone claim they're
> fat because of thyroid problems. As if they're helpless. Some slowing of
> the metabolism is certainly a result of hypothyroidism, but a majority
> of the problem is the "hand to mouth" disease.

Many years back, I needed to lose weight. I did the "eat more" thing
and it worked. Before then, I just couldn't resist that extra serving
of the main dish. So I started eating large portions of salad and
veggies. At the end of the meal, I could decide not to have another
portion of the high calorie food. My stomach said I was full.

But yes, people lie to themselves in thousands of ways about their diet.
I worked with a woman who was on a "strict 700 calorie a day diet". She
gained weight on it. Well, no sense in doing that. I watched her. She
snacked all day long. I doubt that she counted those calories.

I'm sure you've heard these stories. People who spend all day "tasting"
the food in the fridge while standing up. Those calories don't count,
do they?

In article
>,
Sheldon > wrote:


> A lot of the elderly become over weight simply because they become
> elderly... folks live a lot longer now than they did just a few short
> years ago, but because they live so much longer they also develop
> chronic illnesses requiring medications that cause weight gain plus
> their illnesses prevent them from exercising. The elderly comprise a
> huge proportion of the population. And there are lots of young people
> today as well who are experiencing the same situation... young people
> who only a few short years ago would not have lived to puberty, many
> would have died at birth, or sooner.
>
> I think very few people are overweight simply because they eat too
> much... many eat too much because they can't receive enough
> nourishment otherwise... there are many reasons beyond ones control...
> and genetics plays a huge role, in fact other than for accidental
> incapacitation it's all genetics, we are NOT all the same, far from
> it, and thankfully. And much of today's employment just does not
> require much physical activity, far more people these days work a life
> time of very long hours chained to a desk. Children don't play
> outdoors much anymore, they can't, it's no longer safe, and both
> parents work so they're raised in the day care test tubes, they don't
> develop normally, not physically or emotionally and certainly not
> socially. The reasons for the increase in obesity involves many
> complex compound issues, including societal and economic, it's not
> just about food.
>
> Of all people anyone who works in the medical arena should realize
> that so many more folks are surviving via artificial means and obesity
> is just as much a result as many other physical and emotional
> conditions. Medicine is a wonderful thing but unfortunately those who
> live the closest are the first to become short sighted... folks who
> work with the sick and dying are the first to develop immunity, RNs
> and MDs are by far the most guilty of developing a blindness to the
> human condition... they also make the worst patients when it happens
> to them and their's. There are none so blind as those who choose not
> to see.


I understand perfectly. It's just not your fault. It's out of your
control.

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Goomba38 > wrote:
>
>> Cshenk wrote:
>>
>>> While some folks who are overweight just eat alot or eat alot and
>>> of the wrong things (portion control issues), many actually eat the
>>> same as their thinner counterparts.
>>
>> or they just eat "alittle" (just teasin you about the "alot")
>> But seriously, some really fat people can't lose weight even on a
>> starvation diet. It is freaky how it works some times. For them they
>> sometimes have to eat *more* to lose weight!
>>
>> One thing that annoys me is when I hear or read someone claim they're
>> fat because of thyroid problems. As if they're helpless. Some
>> slowing of the metabolism is certainly a result of hypothyroidism,
>> but a majority of the problem is the "hand to mouth" disease.
>
> Many years back, I needed to lose weight. I did the "eat more" thing
> and it worked. Before then, I just couldn't resist that extra serving
> of the main dish. So I started eating large portions of salad and
> veggies. At the end of the meal, I could decide not to have another
> portion of the high calorie food. My stomach said I was full.
>
> But yes, people lie to themselves in thousands of ways about their
> diet. I worked with a woman who was on a "strict 700 calorie a day
> diet". She gained weight on it. Well, no sense in doing that. I
> watched her. She snacked all day long. I doubt that she counted
> those calories.
>
> I'm sure you've heard these stories. People who spend all day
> "tasting" the food in the fridge while standing up. Those calories
> don't count, do they?

.... and if you break a biscuit (cookie) before you eat it, all the calories
fall out!

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:04:42 -0600, Kathleen
> > wrote:
>
>>I was less uncomfortable sharing a few inches of space and sitting
>>cheek-to-cheek with a clean, well-groomed female than I would have been
>>insisting on my right to the armrest and adding to the overall misery
>>level of that particular flight.
>
>
> You sound like a very nice person, but I'm glad I haven't had to make
> the choice myself.

It was a bad situation all around.
(Warning: Seriously ungrammatical but hopefully comprehensible sentence
coming up...)

In point of fact, I was more taller than average than she was fatter
than average. This was not some 400 pound behemoth. You wouldn't look
twice if you saw her on the street. It was just that she was carrying
most of her extra pounds below the waist (supposedly the healthier
configuration).

Yeah, things need to change but I wasn't willing to humiliate a stranger
by taking a stand. We were all just trying to get home.