BJean

P.S. Who's going home tonight?

Ya'll are right on!! I hate the thought of everyone thinking they need to wear Spanx or girddles for gosh sakes!!! I thought that crap went out with the '50s!!! I haven't figured out why some girls today think that tight is right, and extremely tight is better. Very few people can get away with extremely tight clothes. A few super models and that's about it. My DD explained to me the other day what sporting a "muffin top" means. Ya'll know? It's when you wear the low waisted jeans and it's the fluff that bulges up and out over the top of the waistband. Muffin top - a perfect name for it. I know you're wondering... and yes, I have a muffin top and I try not to wear tight or short tops that accentuate it. My gosh, who'd want to see that??? I've found that with the band, having those low waisted jeans are much more comfortable than jeans that put pressure on the band area. Am I the only one who thinks Ramiele's clothes look like she raided her little sister's closet? Her stuff is just as bad as Carly's as far as I'm concerned. What did you think of David Cook's new do? Freakishly normal, I thought. His patent leather Count Dracula comb over with spit curls sure leaves something to be desired though. :wink_smile:

I shouldn't have presumed to speak for them. Of course they are the only ones who can determine if they are tormented. In fact, I was assuming that they really are extremely religious folk, who faithfully believe that their prayers can be healing. Otherwise, the alternative is just too awful to deal with. That would mean that they are neglectful at the very least and possibly even abusive parents. Those things cannot be determined here. We should only be debating or discusing the possibiities. We can't know what really happened, probably even if we read the newspapers and watch TV news broadcasts about it. Everyone seems to put their own slant on seemingly outrageous stories. The more slanted, the better we public seem to like it. Gives us something to rant and rave about. I think debating and ranting and raving is fine. But for any of us to believe that we should be in charge of exacting punishment based on what we know, we're way out of line.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to support snuffy in this argument. If you insist that an embryo, or even a just fertilized egg, is a person with all the rights of a fully grown human being, and you insist that it is your right to speak for that fertilized egg which you call a fully complete human being, then you must be compelled to treat women who have used abortion and morning after pills as murderers. Anyone who assists in those things should also be accomplices to murder, i.e., the pharmacist, the doctor, the nurse attending, the man who supplied the money for the abortion. I'm afraid I can't see it any other way. You are totally unrelenting in your insistence that a fertilized egg is a full and complete human being, how can you disagree? Isn't that why shooters have sat outside abortion clinics in the past, believing that they have the right to speak for those full and complete human beings that are being aborted in the clinics, by killing doctors, nurses and other people who entered the clinics to commit what they consider to be murder?

Excellent point, plain! One thing that you all may be missing about the law and what we were discussing earlier about how we can SAVE children, rather than focusing on just the punishment itself is the idea that punishment may be a deterrent. I figured someone would pick up on it but I guess I'm the only one who thinks in my own peculiar way. The primary reason to punish the parents in this case, as far as I'm concerned, (because they are living in torment right now which should be enough punishment because, for goodness sake, their faith caused the death of their child!) is for the pumishment to serve as a deterrent to others who might find themselves in a similar situation in the future. I can think of no other reason to punish parents who have faithfully put their child in the hands of their God only to have their child die anyway. Do we just want revenge because we're angry that a child died? Do we feel that we have the right to retribution because we disagree with the parents' strong faith in a particular religion? Do we want to punish them because we believe that they are unbelievably stupid and therefore deserve to be punished for being so stupid? What exactly are our motives for punishing these parents? I can see no other logical and sane reason for punishing them but for the punishment to be used as a deterrent in the future. By the way, I'm surprised to read here that someone with strong religiious beliefs could say that, "death is irreversible". If you believe in God, Jesus and the afterlife, death is only a part of everlasting life. We may miss loved ones who have died, but if you are a true believer, you know that they were promised everlasting life and they are not really gone, they aer just away.

I pretty much agree with across the board, GG. Although as far as Carly's wardrobe is concerned, I think she could do much better. The tight pants and fitting tops that she wears accentuate her thighs which are the largest part of her body. It makes her look like she is carrying too much fat there and I'll bet in person she's neat and trim. All she'd have to do is wear pants that aren't tight and have a little flair at the ankle and have a top that accentuates her shoulders and then tapers in at the waist. She looks like she's just out shopping or going to a movie. I'm not into lots of flashy stuff, but she's on national TV trying to get millions of people to adore her. She should use her assets to her best advantage. TV is very cruel. She needs to get some good advice. When she started wearing her hair differently (undoubtedly added some extensions) and wearing more eye makeup, her face now looks very beautiful. Before, when she had stringy hair and not much attention to her eyes, her nose looked huge. I think above the neck she's done great things but now she needs to work on the rest of the package. I thought Michael John's song was a lttle odd. I couldn't get a real melody out of it, but his voice and delivery were awesome! There's just something about him that knocks me out. I was happy to see him not sweating and looking more confident last night. David Cook was great again. David A. was back to his original beautifully delivered self. Kristy hit a home run (even if Simon disagreed). Ramelie is probably finished with American Idol, although I think she has an entertainment future ahead of her. Syesha needs to get in movies and forget just singing. She has a good voice but I feel sure she'd make a really great actress. She could sing a little on the side, but she's no Whitney Houston. She'd probably be a better actress than Whitney though. Anybody else agree, disagree?

Oh that reminds me of another scary thing I learned at my last dietician session. She works for the band doc, in his office. Anyway she announced that the most recent wisdom regarding bandsters taking oral meds is that we should not take pills of any kind. I knew they discouraged it when we were first banded, but I take pills all the time. She said that they are learning that too many people are aspirating pills and getting into big trouble. Well, even though it is a scary thought, I am still taking pills because I have never had a problem. There are just too many things that I take (various Vitamins, etc.) that are unavailable in liquid form. Also, one of my regular meds is not crushable. Rather than go through a bunch of rigamarole to find an alternative med, I just take it. Have you heard anything about this?

luluc: I know exactly how you feel. It certainly does break your heart to see anyone or any animal neglected or abused. The problem I see is that we often won't know about a case like this until after it has already happened. I guess we could hand down a mandate to all churches that they must afford children medical care, with no exceptions. Do you think that would work? Because our intention should be to save children, not punish parents. Therefore, we would need to know about this kind of "neglect" before the child became endangered. I used to date a wonderful man who was a Judge and a Christian Scientist. He had a little boy from his first marriage, who became congested with a cold. He fought his wife and her parents tooth and nail because he didn't believe that his son should be taken to the doctor. I found it very strange. He was a very intelligent and successful man and I was very young and seeing his dispair over the possibility of his son being harmed by medical attention, opened my thinking a little to consider his beliefs on the subject as having some possibility of being rational even though on the surface it made no sense to me. He and his wife wound up divorced because of their religious differences. The little boy is a healthy young man today. Having known someone personally who has strong religious convictions about medical treatment has given me a little different perspective, I think. I do not condone or think that it is right to withhold medical care for an ailing child. But I do think that we have to be very careful about passing laws that govern people's beliefs.

Oh gosh, I sure didn't mean to worry you. If I had been expecting the band to tighten, I would have known not to try to eat solid foods and wouldn't have gotten into trouble. These darned gizmos are hard to figure out. What works for one person doesn't for the next person. In fact, I am right now restricted at the same level 3.2, that I was when I couldn't eat at all and had lots of pain. Right now with the same restriction as a year ago, I can eat pretty much anything I want. I'm hoping that it is because I have lost some fat in the area. But my weight isn't significantly different. I have no idea how your surgery might have affected you in that area. Did you get lipo in the upper tummy area? It is hard to make the decision not to get more restriction because I know you don't want to gain weight. However you don't want your trip to be ruined because you're in pain. I don't really know what to tell you. I sure didn't mean to scare you, girlfriend!

I believe that it was said earlier that slavery was not abolished because it was "unpopular". I guess I'm not understanding what that means because that's exactly why the Civil War happened and why slavery was abolished. As I believe snuffy was pointing out, there's no comparison between people enslaving other people and certain people being allowed to physically intervene when a woman becomes pregnant against her wishes and force her to grow a person (btw it doesn't matter what color).

Being the parenting police must feel pretty good in a discussion like this. But as with everything else, where will those parenting police choose to draw the line? How far will people go when they decide that what they think or believe is in the best interests of a child that isn't their own? How exactly do you expect to make this happen? Or is everything retroactive? How can you ensure that each and every child is being raised safely? There are no manuels that the government puts out on how one must raise a child. There are certain protections that allow us to intervene if we believe that a parent's behavior is endangering a child. But those are after the fact. We say that we have the freedom in this country to believe and embrace whatever religion we choose and that no one can interfere with those beliefs. We allow religions to operate tax free. What gives us the right to tell parents that they MUST believe in using conventional medicine when a child becomes ill? Even if you aren't Christian Scientist or Seventh Day Aventist or other faith that shuns much of conventional medicine, there are some doctors who should not be practicing medicine that could scare you off if you we exposed to them. Who are we to tell each other that we must take our children to a doctor or hospital? Exactly what are the parameters that you would like to have drawn up for us to go by? And I don't mean after the illness or injury has already happened. I'm one of those who believes that we have too many laws in this country. We people need to take responsibility for ourselves and stop expecting the government to do it. We need to work with each other when we have problems like this, not condemn each other. People who have drug problems (although not the dealers) and mental health problems shouldn't be in jail. Jails should be for hardened criminals. I know it isn't as simple as I'm attempting to make it. I am just trying to bring a little different perspective to this discussion. I really believe that this is a very gray area subject - it isn't black and white even if we'd like to think that it is that simple.

Earlier it was stated that if a sperm is left alone it will not become a person and that if an egg is left along it will not become a person but if a fertilized egg is left alone it WILL BECOME A PERSON. Now I finally get it... all this arguing and it has finally been revealed to me. Some people actually believe that a fertilized egg will always become a person - if nothing else happens. How very wrong that is!!! No wonder we have so many people at odds in this country. Fertilized eggs will never become people unless they are given the proper nutrition from their hosts, proper nests in which to incubate for a certain length of time within their hosts, and all of the conditions of making a person are met - including a healthy labor and delivery. Fertilized eggs are not in and of themselves people. They are only the promise of people. They cannot survive if they are left alone. They are blobs of tissue without the proper conditions. Just like sperm is a blob of tissue and an egg is a blob of tissue. Just because they have united, never guarantees that a human being will be produced.

karey your DH sounds like mine. He can charm the pants off anyone if he decides to. Men can be such great rescuers when we are freaked about something. I know you and your DD are incredibly relieved. Now what promised to be a very negative experience has turned into a very positive one! Hurrah for gentle men! Especially the ones on our teams. I can relate to the feeling you and Gh0st talked about regarding the compression garmet. It really does give you a feeling of security. When the time is right, you'll come busting out of that thing and never look back. With regard to the other topic about band tightening after a flight, believe me, it can happen. I had a really awful experience last summer. Went to a spa with the girls and I was nearly out of commission the whole time because I couldn't eat and I had no idea what had happened. Before the flight I had just the right amount of restriction. So be careful if you have to fly someplace! When I got home I actually had to have an unfill because it got so bad.

Yeeuh. Taylor Hicks! I really liked him a lot. I expected to see him doing great things. Wonder what happened?

kat: Not only do we need to commend you for the incredible weight loss you've managed, but we also need to commend you for conquering cancer. You're amazing. I love your take on things. You always seem to have a kind and caring approach to most threads where I've read your posts. I wouldn't be surprised if that has had an enormous impact on your good health. I always enjoy reading what you have to say. I know that you, like me, must be more than a little upset to hear that green is having to deal with health issues right now. She too has cancer and we have to hope with all our might that as Jack pointed out, her wit and wisdom will serve to deal her cancer a blow that will have her on the mend and back among us real soon. As for you grrl (as green would say) keep up the great work!

This is a slippery slope, indeed. If they were proven to be neglectful or murderous people that is one thing, but if medical treatment is against their religion and they can prove it, it's a whole 'nuther thing. People have a right to choose any religion they want in this country. Just because we disagree with the tenents of their religion doesn't give us the right to interfere. People handle poisonous snakes as a part of their religion and worship service. They believe that God will protect them, don't they? We allow them to endanger themselves and their families when they introduce rattlesnakes into their churches. I see very little difference. We can't legislate people's beliefs. These people need counseling at this point. I agree with gadget, they are undoubtedly heartbroken and devastated. That is, of course, unless they intentionally set out to kill their child. If that were the case, they should be separated from each other and incarcerated for the remainder of their lives. (I don't personally believe in capital punishment.)

Has anybody seen anything of the guy who won year before last (I think) who had a kind of bluesy style and was from New Orleans? See, I've even forgotten his name! It's like he dropped off the face of the earth. Others from his show have been all over the place but as far as I know not him. Good point, cool c.

I guess I yacked too much and didn't make my point. I definitely think that if there is a way to do it, you should contact the designer. Surely he has some kind of website. If not, maybe the bridal shop has a contact point for him that they can give you. Sometimes the bridal shop's gowns have been so abused by people trying them on, they don't maintain them as they should. One of the swankest bridal salons we went to had try-on dresses that were dirty and even torn in some cases. The worst were the Vera Wang gowns. They were really popular right then and I suppose everyone wanted to see how they looked in a Vera Wang. If the shop removed the staves in order to make it more comfortable so that girls would buy them, that would definitely be a case of "bait and switch" as far as I'm concerned and the bridal shop should be held responsible. karey I sure hope you can get some satisfaction from somebody. What has happened is not right and it is extremely disappointing. Those places are counting on girls feeling like your DD who don't want to be accused of being a "bridezilla" plus they don't want to have to go back for refittings to a place that is unhappy with them. It's gotten to be kind of a sketchy industry, I think. There's just so darned much money involved in weddings, and like so many other businesses in the U.S. these days, they have gotten greedy and forgotten who pays the bills - the customer! Good luck and keep us posted.

Dolly Parton week! Geez. This should get interesting. I'm guessing the country girl will be in her element this week. But I'm not so sure that David Cook or Brooke or Michael Johns or Carly will do too well. But the rest, Jason Castro, David A., Ramiele and Syesha should do fine with Dolly's little numbers. Don't get me wrong, I think Dolly is talented and I love her personality and wit, but her songs all sound similar and not too American Idol-ish. That do ya'll think?

Oh gosh, you poor things!! Just what you don't need right now. Bridal salons operate very differently. Some offer the fittings and alterations as part of the purchase price. Many of the high end bridal salons do not. In fact, a large part of their profit comes from alterations. $4,000 is so much money! But unfortunately designer gowns these days can run into the tens of thousands. When you oder a dress (as we did too for my DD) the Bridal Salon is not really in control of what the manufacturer chooses to send. So although you expect the salon you're dealing with to make it good, many of them just don't take on that responsibility. They think that you've made the decision but they're just providing the means for you to get the dress from the designer or manufacturer. Like a middle man. And any problems/alterations will be additional charges. All that being said, I do believe that you should have recourse since the dress your DD tried on is so very different from the one that was delivered. Comfort is so important on the day. It can mean the difference between having a wonderful experience and being absolutely miserable. People in the wedding business know that you'll probably never be buying another Lazaro wedding gown and they are unbelievably independent. I don't think that you should give up though. I believe that you should fight this until you and your daughter are satisfied. Believe me, they will all try to intimidate you into tears. Don't cry, just stick to your guns and insist they make it right. Most of us will wring our hands and cry and feel vicitimized under those circumstances (wedding planning is emotional on a good day) but we will throw up our hands and pay whatever they're demanding just to get through that part. Our floral designer was fired a few days before my DD's wedding without our knowing it. The flowers that were delivered were not exactly what we ordered. And I am very particular. The people they sent to do the tables and back drops couldn't speak English (or acted as if they couldn't). The tables looked like crud and if it had not been for the planner we had, everything would have been just awful. She jumped in and in a matter of a couple of hours, redesigned the tables and back drops and it was beautiful. Not what we ordered, but beautiful. Btw, after the reception, there were little daisies all over the dance floor, that had just fallen out of the bridesmaids bouquets. That was pretty sad, especially since we had not even ordered daisies as fillers. But you know what? People still say that it was the most beautiful wedding and most fun reception that they've ever been to. I did not demand any part of my flower money back because I was so glad to just put it all behind me. However I regret that I didn't because some other unlucky girl and her mother probably had to go through the same thing with that florist. I should have ripped them a new one, if you know what I mean. Good luck. I'll be pulling for you. My only real advice is that you try to enjoy the process as much as possible and to help your DD enjoy it as well. I have to tell you what a wonderful mother-in-law my DD got. She came to my home the day following the wedding with a check for $5,000 to help defray the costs. She was so delighted with the wedding and how we treated all of their guests, she wanted to do more than her share. Neat, huh?

Of course I meant a 5 lb. a month LOSS is a success story.

If you are too tight, and you cannot keep a reasonable amount of solid food down, you will tend to eat only soft foods and they are not as nutritious and they are usually calorie laden. If you are too tight, besides putting yourself at risk by too much PB'ing, you can actually GAIN weight. The advice above by luluc and miller is great! And 5 lbs. in a month is a success story.

luluc: Thanks a lot for your input. You make a couple of very excellent points. I've had it too.

I never accused anyone of photoshopping or making stuff up when it comes to the grisly photos, etc. You're the one who's thinking that up, not me. I have seen photos and ultrasounds and read the literature and heard the talk. People demonize abortion, claim that they are only concerned with unborn babies. I do not need to constantly go to those sites that you keep posting. I am sure that many people do need those constant reminders when they are speaking with people who have had much needed abortions or who are contemplating them. That way you can continue to pass judgement, throw around the words like "inconvenience" and the rest of the propaganda that is generated to keep women under the firm hand of those people who think they know best. What is not mentioned often enough here are the women who are in such dire straits that they must consider something like abortion in order to themselves survive. You discount those women as if they are exactly what you mentioned in your last post: women who get implants, have sheep's urine injections, tatoos, piercings and other forms of changing their bodies. Unfortunately the vast majority of women who for many reasons, find themselves unable to bear an unwanted child, are just like you and me. They're just American women who need help. They find that they cannot, absolutely cannot, have a child. Those women should not be characterized as just some dumb women with no sense and only illicit sex on their minds. Nor should they be characterized as someone who did not use birth control. You cannot, must not, lump troubled women into one "likely" scenario that you conjure up to make a point. Women can and do need abortions from time to time. That is a fact. And They should never have to break a law to get one.

I think this whole discussion has become snarky. I didn't call gadget out on her remarks, but I did think that it sounded like she was sandbagging and waiting to pounce. That's getting personal. That's why discussions like this get non-productive. They become personal. When people offer up their personal experience to rebut something when someone has posted a broad or generalized statement that it begs for a rebuttal, the common response here is to get personal. That's not productive, doesn't add anything good to the debate and discourages lots of people to participate. Both sides of the argument are guilty of that. It happens. The anti-abortion/pro-choice debate seems to always wind up getting personal. Then everyone gets grossed out and jumps ship. The discussion dies off for a while and then it is opened up again with some big prounouncement that provokes readers to jump in. This has been going on for quite a long time. If people don't want abortions, don't believe that they are worthwhile for any reason, they should not have them. They have the ability to use their influence to convince others not to have abortions. That's the law, they have those rights. That is right and good. But that's not what many anti-abortion arguments are all about. They want the law changed. They want to make the choice for ALL WOMEN. They'll tell you that in extreme circumstances they would allow a woman and her doctor to decide what happens to the woman who has become impregnated without her consent. However what they truly want is to take away ALL women's rights to make decisions about their future and the future of their unwanted pregnancies. They tell you it's about all babies, but it is really about CONTROL. If it was really just about the babies, they would spend their time and all of their resources on all of the unwanted children in the world. They would be so busy they wouldn't have time to argue. But they don't do that. Their focus is on the law. They spend their time and resources on changing the law to take away women's rights to choose what happens to them. They spend their time composing grisly photographs and thinking up guilt laden arguments to try to convince you that you should want our government to pass laws that makes women's choice illegal. That's about CONTROL. They want to control YOU.