PDA

View Full Version : Toning sneakers....


Existential Angst[_2_]
July 20th 11, 01:04 PM
Here's sumpn I posted to rec.running -- since this group is essentially
dead.
RR ain't doin so well, either, imo.... The below post generated very li'l
interest..... LOL

But I wanted to add, along the lines of my later points on advertising and
ripoffs, that toning sneakers are clearly another great example of The
Mind****, using an utterly bull**** """concept""" to catapult a product into
our view, and apparently very successfully.

fyi, the "puff piece" was some NYTimes contrarian bull**** on how running on
soft ground is just as bad as running on concrete..... give me a fukn
break..... an inneresting thread on RR if you want to follow it.

Oh, David, you got a fellow Aussie on RR, his handle is Thangus....
Dude, are y'all having trouble with yer water over there???? LOL!!!!


-----------------------
Dudes --

Apropos of the recent thread on the puff piece on soft ground trail running,
a recent issue of CR (Aug. 2011) had a short ditty on these bull**** toning
sneakers, largely from Skechers. Yeah, CR in their own way called them
bull****.

But these toning sneakers are also apparently associated with an increased
injury rate, directly because of the way these things are sposed to work:
by creating instability.

CR said to basically save yer money. CR is increasingly telling it like it
is, instead of their old insufferable voice-of-reason middle of the road
crap -- altho they still don't always get it right.

For example, about a year ago, they reviewed some infomercial fitness junk,
and gave some of it decent marks. I shot off a pretty detailed letter on
the absurdity of this, with absolutely no response from them, and normally
they are pretty good about responding.

Further, I would suggest that these toning POSs actually "harm" the walking
effort by eliminating what would normally be "intra-foot exertions", such as
tensing the arch, rolling off the ball of the foot, toe gripping, etc, via
the built-in curvature of the toning sole.


On a related note, they did a very inneresting analysis of the time-line for
when repairs make sense on an appliance.
For example, at the 3rd year, it makes no sense to repair a microwave.
Otoh, for built-in 'fridges (expensive), it always makes sense.

The only other "appliance" that it always makes sense to fix is.... a
treadmill! Go figger. And even if the bull**** electronics go on the
fritz, if you can get the motor to operate off the speed knob (heh, iffin it
has a knob), you've got 98% of the functionality.


And, in this same issue, for you running junk fastfood bunnies, it turns out
that *every* big-name fast food chain SUCKS, even at fast food -- and you
REALLY suck if you suck at fast food. goodgawd.....
To wit:

The BOTTOM five in burgers are Wendy's, A&W, Burger King, and, you guessed
it, McD's smack dab on the bottom. Holy ****....

In mexican, Taco Bell is second from the bottom.
In chicken, the bottom 3 are Popeye's, Church's, and, you guessed it, KFC
right at the bottom.

In Subs, Quzno's is right at the bottom, Subway 4th from the bottom, Arby's
2nd from the bottom.
Pizza: Domino's is 2nd from the bottom, Pizza Hut 3rd from the bottom, and
Papa John's in the middle.

Too bad they didn't do coffee: I'll bet dat goddamm Starbucks would be
right at the bottom.....

The moral to the story to virtually all advertising:
There is a *very high positive correlation* between advertising
presence/corp. size and you getting ripped off.
In food, insurance, debt relief, cosmetic surgery (lifestyle lifts), heating
companies, hardware (HD of course), you name it.
Advertising now essentially means, We're here to **** you. And, we're here
to **** the (your) local economy in particular.

The second moral to the story is, Iffin yer gonna eat **** food, eat ****
food responsibly.

--
EA
26.2 -- Who, ME???? Are you effing kidding me????

David
July 20th 11, 02:52 PM
"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
...
> Here's sumpn I posted to rec.running -- since this group is essentially
> dead.
> RR ain't doin so well, either, imo.... The below post generated very li'l
> interest..... LOL
>
> But I wanted to add, along the lines of my later points on advertising and
> ripoffs, that toning sneakers are clearly another great example of The
> Mind****, using an utterly bull**** """concept""" to catapult a product
> into our view, and apparently very successfully.
>
> fyi, the "puff piece" was some NYTimes contrarian bull**** on how running
> on soft ground is just as bad as running on concrete..... give me a fukn
> break..... an inneresting thread on RR if you want to follow it.
>
> Oh, David, you got a fellow Aussie on RR, his handle is Thangus....
> Dude, are y'all having trouble with yer water over there???? LOL!!!!
>
>
> -----------------------
> Dudes --
>
> Apropos of the recent thread on the puff piece on soft ground trail
> running,
> a recent issue of CR (Aug. 2011) had a short ditty on these bull****
> toning
> sneakers, largely from Skechers. Yeah, CR in their own way called them
> bull****.
>
> But these toning sneakers are also apparently associated with an increased
> injury rate, directly because of the way these things are sposed to work:
> by creating instability.
>
> CR said to basically save yer money. CR is increasingly telling it like
> it
> is, instead of their old insufferable voice-of-reason middle of the road
> crap -- altho they still don't always get it right.
>
> For example, about a year ago, they reviewed some infomercial fitness
> junk,
> and gave some of it decent marks. I shot off a pretty detailed letter on
> the absurdity of this, with absolutely no response from them, and normally
> they are pretty good about responding.
>
> Further, I would suggest that these toning POSs actually "harm" the
> walking
> effort by eliminating what would normally be "intra-foot exertions", such
> as
> tensing the arch, rolling off the ball of the foot, toe gripping, etc, via
> the built-in curvature of the toning sole.
>
>
> On a related note, they did a very inneresting analysis of the time-line
> for
> when repairs make sense on an appliance.
> For example, at the 3rd year, it makes no sense to repair a microwave.
> Otoh, for built-in 'fridges (expensive), it always makes sense.
>
> The only other "appliance" that it always makes sense to fix is.... a
> treadmill! Go figger. And even if the bull**** electronics go on the
> fritz, if you can get the motor to operate off the speed knob (heh, iffin
> it
> has a knob), you've got 98% of the functionality.
>
>
> And, in this same issue, for you running junk fastfood bunnies, it turns
> out
> that *every* big-name fast food chain SUCKS, even at fast food -- and you
> REALLY suck if you suck at fast food. goodgawd.....
> To wit:

What is this rating about? Do you mean the bottom from a nutritional point
of view? Whats wrong with McDonalds? Meat, cheese, bread - absolutely
nothing wrong with eating this stuff once or twice a week nothing gonna
happen to you.
I would kill for a McDonalds breakfast egg and sausage - once or twice a
week - its a great meal
You can goto McDonalds and have a meal for 450 calories without fries - you
wont even gain weight
Its the people who eat a double burger with fries and a milkshake and end
up eating 1000 calories that causes the issues
So supersize me

>
> The BOTTOM five in burgers are Wendy's, A&W, Burger King, and, you guessed
> it, McD's smack dab on the bottom. Holy ****....
>
> In mexican, Taco Bell is second from the bottom.
> In chicken, the bottom 3 are Popeye's, Church's, and, you guessed it, KFC
> right at the bottom.
>
> In Subs, Quzno's is right at the bottom, Subway 4th from the bottom,
> Arby's
> 2nd from the bottom.
> Pizza: Domino's is 2nd from the bottom, Pizza Hut 3rd from the bottom,
> and
> Papa John's in the middle.
>
> Too bad they didn't do coffee: I'll bet dat goddamm Starbucks would be
> right at the bottom.....
>
> The moral to the story to virtually all advertising:
> There is a *very high positive correlation* between advertising
> presence/corp. size and you getting ripped off.
> In food, insurance, debt relief, cosmetic surgery (lifestyle lifts),
> heating
> companies, hardware (HD of course), you name it.
> Advertising now essentially means, We're here to **** you. And, we're
> here
> to **** the (your) local economy in particular.
>
> The second moral to the story is, Iffin yer gonna eat **** food, eat ****
> food responsibly.
>
> --
> EA
> 26.2 -- Who, ME???? Are you effing kidding me????
>
>
>

Jim Janney[_2_]
July 20th 11, 04:02 PM
"Existential Angst" > writes:

> Here's sumpn I posted to rec.running -- since this group is essentially
> dead.
> RR ain't doin so well, either, imo.... The below post generated very li'l
> interest..... LOL
>
> But I wanted to add, along the lines of my later points on advertising and
> ripoffs, that toning sneakers are clearly another great example of The
> Mind****, using an utterly bull**** """concept""" to catapult a product into
> our view, and apparently very successfully.
>
> fyi, the "puff piece" was some NYTimes contrarian bull**** on how running on
> soft ground is just as bad as running on concrete..... give me a fukn
> break..... an inneresting thread on RR if you want to follow it.
>
> Oh, David, you got a fellow Aussie on RR, his handle is Thangus....
> Dude, are y'all having trouble with yer water over there???? LOL!!!!
>
>
> -----------------------
> Dudes --
>
> Apropos of the recent thread on the puff piece on soft ground trail running,
> a recent issue of CR (Aug. 2011) had a short ditty on these bull**** toning
> sneakers, largely from Skechers. Yeah, CR in their own way called them
> bull****.
>
> But these toning sneakers are also apparently associated with an increased
> injury rate, directly because of the way these things are sposed to work:
> by creating instability.
>
> CR said to basically save yer money. CR is increasingly telling it like it
> is, instead of their old insufferable voice-of-reason middle of the road
> crap -- altho they still don't always get it right.
>
> For example, about a year ago, they reviewed some infomercial fitness junk,
> and gave some of it decent marks. I shot off a pretty detailed letter on
> the absurdity of this, with absolutely no response from them, and normally
> they are pretty good about responding.
>
> Further, I would suggest that these toning POSs actually "harm" the walking
> effort by eliminating what would normally be "intra-foot exertions", such as
> tensing the arch, rolling off the ball of the foot, toe gripping, etc, via
> the built-in curvature of the toning sole.
>
>
> On a related note, they did a very inneresting analysis of the time-line for
> when repairs make sense on an appliance.
> For example, at the 3rd year, it makes no sense to repair a microwave.
> Otoh, for built-in 'fridges (expensive), it always makes sense.
>
> The only other "appliance" that it always makes sense to fix is.... a
> treadmill! Go figger. And even if the bull**** electronics go on the
> fritz, if you can get the motor to operate off the speed knob (heh, iffin it
> has a knob), you've got 98% of the functionality.
>
>
> And, in this same issue, for you running junk fastfood bunnies, it turns out
> that *every* big-name fast food chain SUCKS, even at fast food -- and you
> REALLY suck if you suck at fast food. goodgawd.....
> To wit:
>
> The BOTTOM five in burgers are Wendy's, A&W, Burger King, and, you guessed
> it, McD's smack dab on the bottom. Holy ****....
>
> In mexican, Taco Bell is second from the bottom.
> In chicken, the bottom 3 are Popeye's, Church's, and, you guessed it, KFC
> right at the bottom.
>
> In Subs, Quzno's is right at the bottom, Subway 4th from the bottom, Arby's
> 2nd from the bottom.
> Pizza: Domino's is 2nd from the bottom, Pizza Hut 3rd from the bottom, and
> Papa John's in the middle.
>
> Too bad they didn't do coffee: I'll bet dat goddamm Starbucks would be
> right at the bottom.....
>
> The moral to the story to virtually all advertising:
> There is a *very high positive correlation* between advertising
> presence/corp. size and you getting ripped off.
> In food, insurance, debt relief, cosmetic surgery (lifestyle lifts), heating
> companies, hardware (HD of course), you name it.
> Advertising now essentially means, We're here to **** you. And, we're here
> to **** the (your) local economy in particular.
>
> The second moral to the story is, Iffin yer gonna eat **** food, eat ****
> food responsibly.

I don't know why Consumer Reports rates fast food. (Actually, I do
know: it looks good on the cover). I can't buy one of each car to
decide which is best, but I can easily do my own research on the local
restaurants.

On shoes, *these* are the ones I want:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/revolutionary-new-insoles-combine-five-forms-of-ps,759/

but the manufacturer seems to have gone out of business...

--
Jim Janney

Existential Angst[_2_]
July 20th 11, 08:07 PM
"David" > wrote in message
ond.com...
>
> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here's sumpn I posted to rec.running -- since this group is essentially
>> dead.
>> RR ain't doin so well, either, imo.... The below post generated very li'l
>> interest..... LOL
>>
>> But I wanted to add, along the lines of my later points on advertising
>> and ripoffs, that toning sneakers are clearly another great example of
>> The Mind****, using an utterly bull**** """concept""" to catapult a
>> product into our view, and apparently very successfully.
>>
>> fyi, the "puff piece" was some NYTimes contrarian bull**** on how running
>> on soft ground is just as bad as running on concrete..... give me a
>> fukn break..... an inneresting thread on RR if you want to follow it.
>>
>> Oh, David, you got a fellow Aussie on RR, his handle is Thangus....
>> Dude, are y'all having trouble with yer water over there???? LOL!!!!
>>
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Dudes --
>>
>> Apropos of the recent thread on the puff piece on soft ground trail
>> running,
>> a recent issue of CR (Aug. 2011) had a short ditty on these bull****
>> toning
>> sneakers, largely from Skechers. Yeah, CR in their own way called them
>> bull****.
>>
>> But these toning sneakers are also apparently associated with an
>> increased
>> injury rate, directly because of the way these things are sposed to work:
>> by creating instability.
>>
>> CR said to basically save yer money. CR is increasingly telling it like
>> it
>> is, instead of their old insufferable voice-of-reason middle of the road
>> crap -- altho they still don't always get it right.
>>
>> For example, about a year ago, they reviewed some infomercial fitness
>> junk,
>> and gave some of it decent marks. I shot off a pretty detailed letter on
>> the absurdity of this, with absolutely no response from them, and
>> normally
>> they are pretty good about responding.
>>
>> Further, I would suggest that these toning POSs actually "harm" the
>> walking
>> effort by eliminating what would normally be "intra-foot exertions", such
>> as
>> tensing the arch, rolling off the ball of the foot, toe gripping, etc,
>> via
>> the built-in curvature of the toning sole.
>>
>>
>> On a related note, they did a very inneresting analysis of the time-line
>> for
>> when repairs make sense on an appliance.
>> For example, at the 3rd year, it makes no sense to repair a microwave.
>> Otoh, for built-in 'fridges (expensive), it always makes sense.
>>
>> The only other "appliance" that it always makes sense to fix is.... a
>> treadmill! Go figger. And even if the bull**** electronics go on the
>> fritz, if you can get the motor to operate off the speed knob (heh, iffin
>> it
>> has a knob), you've got 98% of the functionality.
>>
>>
>> And, in this same issue, for you running junk fastfood bunnies, it turns
>> out
>> that *every* big-name fast food chain SUCKS, even at fast food -- and you
>> REALLY suck if you suck at fast food. goodgawd.....
>> To wit:
>
> What is this rating about? Do you mean the bottom from a nutritional point
> of view?

Rarely is nutrition itself evaluated, by anyone. Here, they evaluated
quality, value, staff, and speed.


Whats wrong with McDonalds? Meat, cheese, bread - absolutely
> nothing wrong with eating this stuff once or twice a week nothing gonna
> happen to you.

That depends on what the rest of yer diet is like, the hormones, pesticides
in the meat, food, the enormous sodium and fat overload, etc. It is an
unhealthy concentration of calories, and it is very hard to take in moderate
portions of this food.

Plus, you have flavor/aroma chemists hard at work making sure you are
predisposed to overeat that stuff. With 64 oz Big Gulp soders, no less....
which you almost need, to osmotically dilute out the grams and grams of
salt.


> I would kill for a McDonalds breakfast egg and sausage - once or twice a
> week - its a great meal

Dude, that stuff is not even real food.... holy ****....

> You can goto McDonalds and have a meal for 450 calories without fries -
> you wont even gain weight
> Its the people who eat a double burger with fries and a milkshake and end
> up eating 1000 calories that causes the issues
> So supersize me

True. But you can maliciously pander to your audience, as well, to great
public detriment.

One of the keys to dieting is simply not to sit down to eat. The moment you
do, you will almost obligatorily overeat.
I eat while I walk.... heh, and I STILL overeat, occasionally.... lol

So I guess the corollary to the below moral is that there is not only ****
food, there is ****ty **** food.

Heh, I broke down the other day, for the first time in *years*, and had a
Whopper -- almost $5.
It was that, or the Subways with flies all over the tuna.... lol
--
EA

>
>>
>> The BOTTOM five in burgers are Wendy's, A&W, Burger King, and, you
>> guessed
>> it, McD's smack dab on the bottom. Holy ****....
>>
>> In mexican, Taco Bell is second from the bottom.
>> In chicken, the bottom 3 are Popeye's, Church's, and, you guessed it, KFC
>> right at the bottom.
>>
>> In Subs, Quzno's is right at the bottom, Subway 4th from the bottom,
>> Arby's
>> 2nd from the bottom.
>> Pizza: Domino's is 2nd from the bottom, Pizza Hut 3rd from the bottom,
>> and
>> Papa John's in the middle.
>>
>> Too bad they didn't do coffee: I'll bet dat goddamm Starbucks would be
>> right at the bottom.....
>>
>> The moral to the story to virtually all advertising:
>> There is a *very high positive correlation* between advertising
>> presence/corp. size and you getting ripped off.
>> In food, insurance, debt relief, cosmetic surgery (lifestyle lifts),
>> heating
>> companies, hardware (HD of course), you name it.
>> Advertising now essentially means, We're here to **** you. And, we're
>> here
>> to **** the (your) local economy in particular.
>>
>> The second moral to the story is, Iffin yer gonna eat **** food, eat ****
>> food responsibly.
>>
>> --
>> EA
>> 26.2 -- Who, ME???? Are you effing kidding me????
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Charles[_5_]
July 24th 11, 10:17 AM
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:52:16 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
...
>> Here's sumpn I posted to rec.running -- since this group is essentially
>> dead.
>> RR ain't doin so well, either, imo.... The below post generated very li'l
>> interest..... LOL
>>
>> But I wanted to add, along the lines of my later points on advertising and
>> ripoffs, that toning sneakers are clearly another great example of The
>> Mind****, using an utterly bull**** """concept""" to catapult a product
>> into our view, and apparently very successfully.
>>
>> fyi, the "puff piece" was some NYTimes contrarian bull**** on how running
>> on soft ground is just as bad as running on concrete..... give me a fukn
>> break..... an inneresting thread on RR if you want to follow it.
>>
>> Oh, David, you got a fellow Aussie on RR, his handle is Thangus....
>> Dude, are y'all having trouble with yer water over there???? LOL!!!!
>>
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Dudes --
>>
>> Apropos of the recent thread on the puff piece on soft ground trail
>> running,
>> a recent issue of CR (Aug. 2011) had a short ditty on these bull****
>> toning
>> sneakers, largely from Skechers. Yeah, CR in their own way called them
>> bull****.
>>
>> But these toning sneakers are also apparently associated with an increased
>> injury rate, directly because of the way these things are sposed to work:
>> by creating instability.
>>
>> CR said to basically save yer money. CR is increasingly telling it like
>> it
>> is, instead of their old insufferable voice-of-reason middle of the road
>> crap -- altho they still don't always get it right.
>>
>> For example, about a year ago, they reviewed some infomercial fitness
>> junk,
>> and gave some of it decent marks. I shot off a pretty detailed letter on
>> the absurdity of this, with absolutely no response from them, and normally
>> they are pretty good about responding.
>>
>> Further, I would suggest that these toning POSs actually "harm" the
>> walking
>> effort by eliminating what would normally be "intra-foot exertions", such
>> as
>> tensing the arch, rolling off the ball of the foot, toe gripping, etc, via
>> the built-in curvature of the toning sole.
>>
>>
>> On a related note, they did a very inneresting analysis of the time-line
>> for
>> when repairs make sense on an appliance.
>> For example, at the 3rd year, it makes no sense to repair a microwave.
>> Otoh, for built-in 'fridges (expensive), it always makes sense.
>>
>> The only other "appliance" that it always makes sense to fix is.... a
>> treadmill! Go figger. And even if the bull**** electronics go on the
>> fritz, if you can get the motor to operate off the speed knob (heh, iffin
>> it
>> has a knob), you've got 98% of the functionality.
>>
>>
>> And, in this same issue, for you running junk fastfood bunnies, it turns
>> out
>> that *every* big-name fast food chain SUCKS, even at fast food -- and you
>> REALLY suck if you suck at fast food. goodgawd.....
>> To wit:
>
>What is this rating about? Do you mean the bottom from a nutritional point
>of view? Whats wrong with McDonalds? Meat, cheese, bread - absolutely
>nothing wrong with eating this stuff once or twice a week nothing gonna
>happen to you.
>I would kill for a McDonalds breakfast egg and sausage - once or twice a
>week - its a great meal
>You can goto McDonalds and have a meal for 450 calories without fries - you
>wont even gain weight
>Its the people who eat a double burger with fries and a milkshake and end
>up eating 1000 calories that causes the issues
>So supersize me
>

Why with that monster do they opt for diet coke?

How are you Oz; keeping well and happy I hope? ;o)

David[_11_]
July 26th 11, 11:20 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:52:16 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
...
>>> Here's sumpn I posted to rec.running -- since this group is essentially
>>> dead.
>>> RR ain't doin so well, either, imo.... The below post generated very
>>> li'l
>>> interest..... LOL
>>>
>>> But I wanted to add, along the lines of my later points on advertising
>>> and
>>> ripoffs, that toning sneakers are clearly another great example of The
>>> Mind****, using an utterly bull**** """concept""" to catapult a product
>>> into our view, and apparently very successfully.
>>>
>>> fyi, the "puff piece" was some NYTimes contrarian bull**** on how
>>> running
>>> on soft ground is just as bad as running on concrete..... give me a
>>> fukn
>>> break..... an inneresting thread on RR if you want to follow it.
>>>
>>> Oh, David, you got a fellow Aussie on RR, his handle is Thangus....
>>> Dude, are y'all having trouble with yer water over there???? LOL!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------
>>> Dudes --
>>>
>>> Apropos of the recent thread on the puff piece on soft ground trail
>>> running,
>>> a recent issue of CR (Aug. 2011) had a short ditty on these bull****
>>> toning
>>> sneakers, largely from Skechers. Yeah, CR in their own way called them
>>> bull****.
>>>
>>> But these toning sneakers are also apparently associated with an
>>> increased
>>> injury rate, directly because of the way these things are sposed to
>>> work:
>>> by creating instability.
>>>
>>> CR said to basically save yer money. CR is increasingly telling it like
>>> it
>>> is, instead of their old insufferable voice-of-reason middle of the road
>>> crap -- altho they still don't always get it right.
>>>
>>> For example, about a year ago, they reviewed some infomercial fitness
>>> junk,
>>> and gave some of it decent marks. I shot off a pretty detailed letter
>>> on
>>> the absurdity of this, with absolutely no response from them, and
>>> normally
>>> they are pretty good about responding.
>>>
>>> Further, I would suggest that these toning POSs actually "harm" the
>>> walking
>>> effort by eliminating what would normally be "intra-foot exertions",
>>> such
>>> as
>>> tensing the arch, rolling off the ball of the foot, toe gripping, etc,
>>> via
>>> the built-in curvature of the toning sole.
>>>
>>>
>>> On a related note, they did a very inneresting analysis of the time-line
>>> for
>>> when repairs make sense on an appliance.
>>> For example, at the 3rd year, it makes no sense to repair a microwave.
>>> Otoh, for built-in 'fridges (expensive), it always makes sense.
>>>
>>> The only other "appliance" that it always makes sense to fix is.... a
>>> treadmill! Go figger. And even if the bull**** electronics go on the
>>> fritz, if you can get the motor to operate off the speed knob (heh,
>>> iffin
>>> it
>>> has a knob), you've got 98% of the functionality.
>>>
>>>
>>> And, in this same issue, for you running junk fastfood bunnies, it turns
>>> out
>>> that *every* big-name fast food chain SUCKS, even at fast food -- and
>>> you
>>> REALLY suck if you suck at fast food. goodgawd.....
>>> To wit:
>>
>>What is this rating about? Do you mean the bottom from a nutritional point
>>of view? Whats wrong with McDonalds? Meat, cheese, bread - absolutely
>>nothing wrong with eating this stuff once or twice a week nothing gonna
>>happen to you.
>>I would kill for a McDonalds breakfast egg and sausage - once or twice a
>>week - its a great meal
>>You can goto McDonalds and have a meal for 450 calories without fries -
>>you
>>wont even gain weight
>>Its the people who eat a double burger with fries and a milkshake and end
>>up eating 1000 calories that causes the issues
>>So supersize me
>>
>
> Why with that monster do they opt for diet coke?
>
> How are you Oz; keeping well and happy I hope? ;o)

Ha ha nice to see you Charles! For heavens sake you have abandoned me in
this place with all these ****sticks. How are you doing? We are hurting in
the downturn here what is happening with you?