Physique Critique

Okay, in the spirit of "Voice Your Unpopular Opinions Here," here's a thread for all of us shallow people to enjoy. (To those of you who dislike discussing physical appearance, my apologies, but at least I'm trying to corral posts on that topic into a single thread.)

So . . . strictly in terms of how they LOOK (rather than how healthy or unhealthy they may be, what movie roles they may be preparing for, or how ell their appearances match their characters'), what do you think of the cast members' appearances now and in the past?

Here's my list:

CCA�She was at her best in seasons 1�3. In fact, she was gorgeous back then, and the main reason I started tuning in to reruns of the show last year (and thus got hooked, after not seeing a single episode during Friends' first four-and-a-half seasons on the air.) But by the time Monica and Chandler hooked up, Cox was already starting to look a little creepy. This year, she's really looking haggard with HER way-too-skinny bod ( and face) and her way-too-long hair. Monica would look about 10 years older than Chandler if it weren't for the fact that . . .

MP also looks like hell this season. Sorry, but he's gained far too much weight for my liking, a condition that is exacerbated by a bad wardrobe and terrible hair. They need to quit dressing him in sweatshirts and white sneakers�Chandler just got fat; he didn't move to the suburbs for god's sake. And that weird Elvis-y hair�well, I don't hink I need to say anything more about that.

Anyway, I kinda liked MP with that lanky body and shaggy hair in season one. He was even cuter in season 2, and for the first half of season 3. He looked good for a while post-rehb

I am glad you said it Monica looks so OLD now. Her skin looks so old and her hair is died way too black which makes it look even harsher. she looked bad in scream3 also. She wouldn't look bad if she gained a little weight and softened her hair a bit

I don't mind chandlers weight at all. I just don't like the hair!

Oops, I accidentally sent this out half-finished; here's the whole thing.

Okay, in the spirit of "Voice Your Unpopular Opinions Here," here's a thread for all of us shallow people to enjoy. (To those of you who dislike discussing physical appearance, my apologies, but at least I'm trying to corral posts on that topic into a single thread.)

So . . . strictly in terms of how they LOOK (rather than how healthy or unhealthy they may be, what movie roles they may be preparing for, or how well their appearances match their characters' lifestyles), what do you think of the cast members' appearances now and in the past?

Here's my list:

CCA�She was at her best in seasons 1�3. In fact, she was gorgeous back then, and the main reason I started tuning in to reruns of the show last year (and thus got hooked, after not seeing a single episode during Friends' first four-and-a-half seasons on the air.) But by the time Monica and Chandler hooked up, Cox was already starting to look a little creepy. This year, she's really looking haggard with her way-too-skinny bod (and face) and her way-too-long hair. Monica would look about 10 years older than Chandler if it weren't for the fact that . . .

MP also looks like hell this season. Sorry, but he's gained far too much weight for my liking, a condition that is exacerbated by a bad wardrobe and terrible hair. They need to quit dressing him in sweatshirts and white sneakers�Chandlerjust got fat; he didn't move to the suburbs for god's sake. And that weird, Elvis-y hair�well, I don't think I need to say anything more about that.

Anyway, I kinda liked MP with that lanky body and shaggy hair in season one. He was even cuter in season 2, and for the first half of season 3. He looked good for a while post-rehab, too, but has been on a gradual decline since about the beginning of season 5. (It's only since about TO ON the Last Night or so, though, that his appearance has really turned me off.)

MLB�not really my type, but looks great this year. I think he went through a slightly pudgy period at some point, but now looks about the same as he did in season one.

DS�ugh. I've never liked his looks. Those big wet puppy-dog eyes are totally unappealing to me. I'll admit, though, that he's probably in better all-around shape than anyone else in the cast right now.

JA�hated the signature Rachel haircut of the early seasons. Thought she looked great in seasons 4 and 5. Think she'd look pretty good now if she'd wear her hair somewhat shorter. She looked better when she wasn't so skinny, but she still looks okay�nothing like CCA.

LK�Attractive woman; body looks good (more normal and appealing than either CCA's or JA's); the hair extensions she wears for Friends are scary, but I like her real-life hair.

�Spencer (who does occasionally think about something other than the way people look)

In article ,

thing.

thread

discussing

posts on

or

how well

think of the

back then,

year (and

first

Chandler hooked

she's really

too-long

weren't for

Agreed- I, for one, am very pleased that pea-brain David Arquette got her AFTER she hagged out*. But she is not too skinny for my taste. I like that look.

much weight

terrible

god's sake.

anything more

season one.

looked

since about

Night or so,

He looks too well-fed. He looks like he's enjoying too many late night dinners. Very puffy-looking (from too much alcohol).

through a

he did in

No opinion. He is still pudgy, however.

totally

all-around

No opinion.

she looked

wear her

but she

She looks 100% better now that she lost that poundage in her ass. With that improvement and Courtney's hagging out, Jen is now hotter than Courtney Cox (NEVER thought I would ever be saying that). Around season 4 she was getting saddlebags.

But, thankfully, she's became high-maintenence ever since she started banging Brad Pitt-- and the results have been superb. Nice tits, too. Very nice pkg now.

either

but I like

Too matronly-looking. They try to cover that up by dressing her in hippie clothes, but it's like throwing bricks into the Grand Canyon.

*Zsa Zsa Gabor said this years ago: A woman has to make a choice at some point in her life: Let your body go and keep your face looking young (i.e. Zsa Zsa, Liz Taylor), or work out to stay thin and suffer the consequences on your face (i.e. Farrah Fawcett, Courtney Cox).

wes said:

"She looks 100% better now that she lost that poundage in her ass. With that improvement and Courtney's hagging out, Jen is now hotter than Courtney Cox (NEVER thought I would ever be saying that). Around season 4 she was getting saddlebags. "

Saddlebags? Jennifer Aniston?? This is a joke, right?

~cs-nerd

In article ,

What show are you watching? She had a lot of extra weight tacked onto those buttocks of hers. But it's gone now. She looks fantastic. Get it?

RE: JA's alleged saddlebags, Wes said:

"What show are you watching? She had a lot of extra weight tacked onto those buttocks of hers. But it's gone now. She looks fantastic. Get it? "

At no time during the run of "Friends", would I consider Jennifer Aniston to be "carrying extra weight". I've seen the old pictures before "Friends" and at that time, she might have been a little chubby. She had a beautiful, *slim* but curvy body during the first few seasons.

Since then, she's lost too much weight.

~cs-nerd

wes wrote:

Get with it wes, this is getting old. Your incessant rantings are completely out-of-touch with reality. But that's to be expected from a no-load drag leg such as yourself. . .

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, wes stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

You gotta be kidding - hagged out?!

Nope. Some people think she isn't pretty anymore. I'm one of them.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, claire abraham doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

When I'm in Hollywood, someone remind me that the rule is to get all the plastic surgery you can while it'll still make a difference... :)

Tina (who's waiting for her other favourite TV show to come on, and is veeeeeeeeeeeeery booooooooooooored...)

In article , Tina wrote:

She means "Roswell High", he explained Phoebishly...

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

It's just "Roswell", dammit!

Tina (who'll never understand why they decided to add the "High" part in every country aside from the US)

Tina wrote...

If it makes you feel any better, they DIDN'T add the stupid 'High' in France =)

Adeline.

===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbianni, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Adeline doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

It just strikes me as really stupid - supposedly it was because they thought we wouldn't know where Roswell was if they didn't add the "High" part... how insane can you get?! Who *hasn't* heard of Roswell?! AGH!!!

Tina (who has an air base named after one of her ancestors right in the middle of the Area 51 range, just coincidentally)

In article , Tina wrote:

Lol!

Tennant

Tina moved the red knob over to one side, and scribbled:

Tennant picked up the dangling pen and added:

Tina moved the red knob back to the other end, and scribbled:

During the end credits, it says "Based on the Roswell High Series of Books published by Pocket Books". :)

Tennant

AFTER

Seconded. I was watching s1 eps last night, and she's a LOT prettier then. Softer, healthier, prettier. She looks too *taut* now.

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

But wouldn't all that change for the better if she became pregnant, and followed the medical advice she was given?

Tennant :)

Tennant Stuart wrote

but first she has to GET pregnant. I'm not convinced that she's not presently too thin to do that...

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

(Tennant has a little think)

"I'm not convinced that she's not presently too thin to do that"

"I'm convinced that she's presently too thin to do that"

Ah yes, got you now. So she has the medical advice first, pulls herself up into the lower end of the healthy zone, and gets pregnant. Would she then become softer, healthier, prettier?

Tennant :)

Tennant Stuart wrote

prettier

Not quite, negatives don't always cancel out to give the nuances that are required... I'm not "convinced" that she's "too thin", I'm just "not convinced" that she's "not too thin". (I'll draw you some diagrams if it will help...) ;)

Undoubtedly. I'd add her to my list with Caroline Quentin and 'Nise.

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

This is so. It's not quite correct to cancel pairs of negatives like that, but it does help poor little me to see which way your wind is blowing, if I may use such an unladylike metaphor. (219)

CQ oh yes, but 'Nise? Is this a Ratuee thing? (As in 'Chelle)

Tennant :):)

Tennant Stuart wrote

Oh, you've not met Nise, have you... she used to be a regular here. She and I were having a lovely torrid affair, and then she went and got domestic with Don and has basically abandoned us *sniff* ;)

(Hi 'Nise, Hi Don. Come back to us. We love you. Stop snogging for five minutes and post to us.)

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Ah, this must be Denise & Don, I've heard about them - they met on ATF: he moved thousands of miles to be with her, and now they're very happy; while he doesn't bother with the internet any more since he's found what he was looking for - am I right? Charming story. :)

Tennant

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, claire abraham stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

'Hagged out' though?

Are u kidding - just seen her in TOW Unagi and she looked incredible!

Don't you think that's a little nasty? This is the same kind of attitude that makes models and actresses to lose to much weight or to get plastic surgery because they need to look beautiful to succeed. I don't think she looks bad at all. I think that's a pretty insulting thing to say about her marriage too, afterall the basis of marriage is supposed to be love, not looks.

====== "Life is never without love" -Sheryl Crow

In the previous post, the mostly harmless Sprong77 claimed:

I don't like her hair when she pulls it behind her ears. I'm okay with the long black hair though, in fact I love that :)

Bram

Without attempting at all to actually argue with Sprong, here's my list.

CCA� When I first saw her in Bruce Springstein's Dancing in the Dark video, I thought she was fresh-faced and quite pretty. I still found her pretty attractive the first few years of this show. Courteney either isn't aging at all well, or she's really taken poor care of herself. In recent months, her face has been gaunt. Her hair has been too straight, too dark and too harshly cut. Her makeup has been too stark. She really, really needs softening somewhere.

claire abraham wrote:

Yup. I agree completely with Claire about CCA.

The character "Chandler" seems to fit the image of MP portrayed earlier, the first few seasons. Now he seems to be playing a father of a "Malcom in the Middle" or somesuch, looks and all.

Agreed.

I actually don't mind the changes DS has gone through, appearance-wise (personality-wise is a whole 'nother issue). Aren't those "puppy-dog" (bedroom?) eyes what women absolutely loved about Paul McCartney?

I just wish she'd cut her hair a little, and not dress so uptown/trendy in Friends episodes. When was the last episode we saw her walking around in sweats? or faded Levi's?

Except she needs a haircut also. She looks too much like CCA and JA. hair-wise. The rest of her has been a consistent great, however.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Randy Hinds doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Yeah, the puppy-dog eyes are definitely a winner for most women - I think we tend to be big on eyes in general, but puppy-dog eyes are particularly popular. :)

YEP YEP YEP

~Act

Randy wrote:

<<I actually don't mind the changes DS has gone through, appearance-wise (personality-wise is a whole 'nother issue). Aren't those "puppy-dog" (bedroom?) eyes what women absolutely loved about Paul McCartney?>>

Oh, probably so. They're just not to MY taste, on David Schwimmer OR Paul McCartney. (John Lennon was the sexy one, IMO. For that matter, young George Harrison was cuter than young Paul McCartney.)

In article ,

Oooh, I am just shallow enough to enjoy this!

Here's my list:

For a long time I thought CCA was one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen. Now she is one of the least attractive. In interviews that she has given, she's stated that she is paranoid of getting fat (apparently pear-shaped bodies run in her family). So I find it kind of funny that she wants to have kids. Not saying that once you have children you're body is ruined, but she will go through a period when her body is not going to look how she wants it too. Is she going to be able to handle that?

Monica would look about 10 years older than Chandler if it

Funny, I thought he looked bad in seasons 2 + 3, but great in 4 + 5. With the exception of his addiction problems, he has never looked worse than now. I never liked the character of Kathy but I wish they would write her back into the storyline long enough to give Chandler another haircut!

MLB never did anything for me in the past (even though his work on the show is great). But he's looking so good these days I might just have to change my opinion some!

Agree with everything you said there.

I think she looks much better with straight hair than with the Rachel cut, but it could stand to be cut a little. She is naturally pretty, but her character is just so vibrant and passionate that it makes her look even better.

I think her body is kind of funny shaped (but it's still better than mine :)

; the hair extensions she wears for Friends are

Any way she does her hair is fine with me as long as she doesn't go back to that season 1 look!

Alanna (who does occasionally think about something other than 'Friends'

CCA is WAYYY too thin. She looks guant, and older. It looks like her skin is just hanging on her. She needs to gain some weight then the wrinkles wont show so much and she will look much better!!

I COMPLETLY agree with this one. Either Kathy or Pheobe!!! I really liked when they both gave him hair cuts especially Pheobe..Maybe pheobe could be kind enough to give him another?

I Liked his looks the best at the very end of season 3, season 4, and the first half of five.

me too

I really liked Rachel's hair in the earlier seasons (wished I had hair like that) and I think her weight bascially stayed the same througout except this year..maybe she is on the same diet as Courtney.

agreed

yea she was the best in season 4 I think

Yea...I think we all try not to do that.

~Act

You know, I've never seen the one where Phoebe gives them haircuts. Or the one where Chandler dates Aurora. Either they never get rerun or I am somehow missing them when they are. It's really starting to tick me off!

Alanna

If a 100 monkeys each could get their own show (alt.tv.friends), perhaps one day (26 Apr 2000 06:35:37 GMT) a chimp ([email] (Sprong77)) might say:

hmm, i re-watched that today (I'm halfway through it, I just decided to check mail and NGs and read some fanfic in the meantime) and I thought he looked cute in TO On The Last Night. The weight's not really a problem, but I would like him to have a haircut.

Oh whatever, I think he looks cute whatever. I'm so smitten <g>

sesameslang - "Because I'm worth it!"

her hair's not great, but I think she consistently looks better on the show than she did for example in Scream 3 (with that horrible Lois Lane/Margot Kidder hairdo). I think she looks quite strong and muscular in the arms. Everyone looked different in the first few seasons because a) they were younger and b) clothes still had a bit of that eighties streamlined crispness. they dress more like slackers now.

I sort of like the chubby, and I always like longer hair on guys. He's not in his most sexy phase, but it's better than emaciated Chandler.

Again, pudgy not a problem. I love how he dresses whenver Joey has a tv job (including especially [address]); he's a handsome man, and the dark circles under his eyes sometimes only add to it.

Agreed, he has the best male body at the moment. And his hair's not at its scariest/shiniest. Don't like Ross's clothes much, though.

Her hair is awful these days, the rest is as cute as ever.

Her friends hair has always been very iffy. I think my favorite dos are the loose ones w/part of it up and the rest flowing down her back. And the braids she did for seducing chandler in "my eyes?my eyes!"

In article , [email] (Sprong77) wrote:

Well, CCA *is* over five years older than MP, for starters.

Tennant Stuart

Tennant wrote:

<Well, CCA *is* over five years older than MP, for starters.>

Yeah, that's true. But Monica 's supposed to be a bit younger than Chandler, I think, and CCA's current appearance would make that rather unbelievable if MP weren't also looking lousy right now.

In article , [email] (Sprong77) wrote:

Monica & Chandler are the same age, just turning 31.

Tennant

Tennant wrote:

<sprong 77 wrote:

unbelievable if MP weren't also looking lousy right now.

Okay, I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything, because I don't think it really matters whether M and C are the same age or M's slightly younger, but . .

I don't think its possible to determine the exact ages of these characters. It just hasn't been handled that consistently in the scripts. For instance, I believe you've stated in previous posts that Joey is the youngest Friend and I assume you've got evidence to back that up. However, in an episode this season, Monica tells Joey "In 1981, you were 13." That would mean that Joey's 32 now, or will turn 32 this year. Which means he's not the youngest�at least he's not if Monica and Chandler are just turning 31. But I don't think you can say that for sure, either, and here's why:

In

Sorry, Tennant. Once again, I hit the "send" button before finishing my post. Anyway, as I was saying,

<< That would mean that Joey's 32 now, or will turn 32 this year. Which means he's not the youngest�at least he's not if Monica and Chandler are just turning 31. But I don't think you can say that for sure, either, and here's why: >>

Episode 617, according to the script, takes place two weeks after Valentine's Day:

Chandler: Okay, look I need your help, I don�t know what to get her for Valentine�s Day.

Rachel: Well, Valentine�s Day was like two weeks ago, so I wouldn�t get her a calendar! (thanks to the cfsi for these quotes)

Later in the episode, Monica states that Chandler's birthday takes place in a month-and-a-half:

Monica: Oops! (Covers its eyes.) Y�know, your birthday is in a month-and-a-half, what do you say I forget to get you a present for that too? (thanks again to the cfsi)

So, Chandler's birthday's gotta be in mid-April, right? Well, back in 407, he says he's 29:

Chandler: Well, y�know I�m 29. I mean who needs a savings account. (Thank you, cfsi)

Now, we know that 407 takes place in November of Season 4, because the very next episode is TOW Chandler in a Box, which is a Thanksgiving Episode. If Chandler was 29 in November of Season 4, then he must have turned 30 in April of Season 4, right? And that means he should have turned 32 in April of Season 6, correct? But you just said that he's turning 31, and I'm sure you've got quotes and stuff to back up that assertion. Which only goes to support my original point: as regards the precise ages of the characters, the scripts are inconclusive.

(What is conclusive is that I have very little to do at work today.)

I don't think any of this matters, really. I think that all we need to know is that the characters are all supposed to be in their early 30s. But since I've always been a bit obssessed with working out the ages of characters in books and elsewhere�and since you seem to be obsessed with any and all details relating to Friends�I figured I'd point it out.

Regards,

Spencer

And contradictory as well. We can only get a ballpark figure for everybody.

In article , [email] (Sprong77) wrote:

You typed this out online? Oh, America, land of the free phone calls...

Yep. That's good actually, because there's been some controversy about Chandler's age, yet we only inferred his birthday was in April from a casual remark he made in 518 "TOW Rachel Smokes". Now we know for sure.

Not necessarily. By considering all the references to Chandler's age, we reckon that he was born in April 1969, so in November 1997, he was 28y7m old. When people talk about their ages, they sometimes ignore the months even if it's their birthday the next day; but on other occasions they round it up to the nearest whole number, especially when they are emphasising how old they are, as Chandler was in this case.

That means Chandler turned 29 in April 1998, and now he's 31.

Thanks, Spencer. I wouldn't say I was obsessed exactly, but I have a naturally analytical turn of mind, so this kinda stuff comes easy to me. The thing is that I'm not so obsessed that I'd plough through all my tapes looking for clues, but I'm happy to program a search through cfsi.com to pull out all the calendrical references.

Tennant

Tennant wrote:

<< You typed this out online?>>

Yep. I was at my office, where I can do so without tying up my phone line. (I've got just one line at home.)

<<Oh, America, land of the free phone calls... >>

Well, actually, a local call in NYC costs a whopping ten cents.

<< . When people talk about their ages, they sometimes ignore the months even if it's their birthday the next day; but on other occasions they round it up to the nearest whole number, especially when they are emphasising how old they are, as Chandler was in this case. >>

Sorry, Tennant, but I think your explanation is a bit of a stretch . . . It's really not that common for someone to round up his age when his next birthday is five months away. And I can't imagine the writers thinking that through:

Writer 1: Hey, how old is Chandler supposed to be right now? Writer 2: Well, he was born in April '69, so he's 29. Writer 1: Okay, but let's have him say that he's 28. Writer 2: Why? Writer 1: Well, it'll make him sound like he's trying to emphasize his age, not that any normal viewers are even aware of his exact age. Plus, it'll give freakish newsgroup users something to argue about 3 1/2 years from now.

I think a more plausible explanation is that the scripts contain contradictory references to Chandler's age because the writers didn't feel that it was an important enough matter to check out carefully. (I'd agree with that, actually. It's not the sort of thing that affects the quality of the show in any way.) Further evidence of this lies in a statement Ross made in last night's ep (I don't think this'll spoil anything for you) wherein he said that Ben is six. Given that Ben was born at the end of season one, he should be just turning five now. Moreover, Rachel and Monica lived together for only about five years, but in the early eps this season, they kept saying it was six. So, either

1) "Friends time" is totally different from real time�in which case it's pointless to try to figure out ages and birthdates

OR

"Friends time" is meant to correspond, more or less, to real time, but the age, date, and time references provided in the scripts tend to be a bit sloppy.

<< The thing is that I'm not so obsessed that I'd plough through all my tapes looking for clues, but I'm happy to program a search through cfsi.com to pull out all the calendrical references. >>

I'm not even obsessed enough to MAKE any tapes, nor have I converted the CFSI into my own personal searchable database. :) But if you'd like to pull out the references that have convinced you Chandler is 31, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

�Spencer

In article , [email] (Sprong77) wrote:

Come off it Spencer, people do this sort of thing all the time.

If you had 19 dollars and 70 cents in your pocket and someone asked you if you had any cash, you'd say you had about twenty bucks, wouldn't you? People who are 5'1�" tall do not say they are 5'1" tall and *never* say they are 5' tall. If it's 11 miles 928 yards 2 feet and 3 inches to your house you say you live 12 miles away.

You don't seem to have a grasp of the logic here Spencer, if Chandler was 29 then he wouldn't be emphasising his age by saying he was 28.

Furthermore the writers are prone to casually rounding up ages since this makes only their characters sound older, not themselves.

I'll let your "freakish" remark pass on this occasion.

Tennant

Tennant wrote:

Yes, I would, but that's irrelevant. I wouldn't tell you I'm 31 when I'm 30 and 9 months. No, indeed, I'd tell you I'm 30.

Huh?

Just how likely is it that I would know the distance from my house to anywhere else down to the inch? :)

Why don't YOU come off it, Tennant? Your analogies are no good�the vast majority of people simply don't round up their ages the way they'd round up a distance or a dollar amount. On the contrary, when you tell someone how old you are, you ALMOST ALWAYS round DOWN; that is, you refer to the age you turned on your last birthday�not the age you will turn on your next birthday. That's just the way it's done. (At least, that's the way it's done in the US, and since Chandler is an American character, created by American writers, I think we can safely assume that he adheres to the American convention for reporting one's age.) If you ask some guy his age and he's going to turn 29 next week, MAYBE he'll tell you he's 29. But even then he's more likely to tell you, "I'm almost 29," or "I'll be 29 next week." As for a guy who is only 28 years and 7 months old? Definitely, definitely, definitely he will tell you he's 28.

And that 's why I'm certain that when the writers of episode 407 chose to have Chandler say, "I'm 29," in their minds, he had already turned 29. At least for the duration of episode 407 he had. In later or previous scripts, the writers may well have included details about Chandler�s age that contradicted what they wrote in 407. And that's exactly my point. The scripts ARE contradictory. Why? Because the writers just aren't all that concerned with making sure that the characters� ages and birth dates remain consistent from one episode to the next.

If you want to assign a birth date to each to each character, go ahead. But recognize that your dates are just dates YOU made up, somewhat based upon what�s in the scripts. Your dates are not facts etched in stone and gleaned from meticulous analysis of the scripts�they can�t be because the scripts aren�t that meticulously written in the first place. Got it? :)

�Spencer

because the

Except for Phoebe and Rachel, where it *is* "written in stone". But there is plenty of non-conflicting evidence for Chandler and Monica's birthdays, a bit for Joey, and Ross is the only odd one really, having appeared to be 30 for at least 14 months, not knowing how old his son is, and celebrating his birthday in 2 different months. There's nothing that sloppy for the other 3.

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Yes indeed - Chandler explicitly states (in 109 "TOW Underdog Gets Away") that he was nine years old when Thanksgiving was ruined by his parents breaking up, and this was in 1978. Monica stated she was 25 and thirteen months old in May 1995. This means they were both born in April 1969.

Ross is the sloppy one as you say, for in 104 "TOW George Stephanopoulos" he says the date is October 20th, later adding that his birthday was seven months before, so we infer that he was born in May or June. Then 205 "TOW Five Steaks and an Eggplant", which aired on October 19th, featured Ross's birthday - did someone misread the earlier script? Fortunately for us, this inconsistency was swept away by 405 "TOW Joey's New Girlfriend" in which Ross explicitly states that his birthday in December, so we have to take that piece of evidence instead.

But I don't wish to appear arrogant about this stuff, I do recognise that we are trying to analyse works of fiction, and that sometimes the writers will make errors. The tricky task is to sort out which references followed the back-story for the characters, and which went wrong. All we can do is look for which data are consistent then put warning flags on the noise. As the series continues we will have to take new evidence on board.

An example here is Joey, where there have been no explicit references, just remarks which fit quite well together except for one that makes him two years older. Now the script for 619 "TOW Joey's Fridge" has Monica saying that he was 13 in the spring of 1981, which would make him two years older, somewhat tipping the weight of evidence. We shall see.

Tennant

him

As Joey himself doesn't appear to know how old he is, I think Monica may also be mistaken. We'll see when that airs here (I don't like reading scripts).

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Me too. I searched for "1981" and only read two harmless lines.

BTW, the script database is now 41592 lines long (101-620).

Tennant :):)

Jacqui wrote:

<< Except for Phoebe and Rachel, where it *is* "written in stone". >>

Okay, I'll take your word for that.

<< But there is plenty of non-conflicting evidence for Chandler and Monica's birthdays, >>

I'll take your word on Monica. The Chandler evidence, however, IS conflicting. In at least one episode he states that he was nine when got the news about his parents' divorce on Thanksgiving Day, 1978. Then, in both of the episodes (407 and 409) that surround the 1997 Thanksgiving episode, he states that he's 29. Since I don't buy the argument that Chandler was "rounding up" in 1997, I'd say this evidence is conflicting.

<< a bit for Joey, >>

Well, Tennant's got evidence that Joey was born in January 1970, but, in 621, Monica says that Joey was 13 in the spring of 1981. So, again, the evidence is conflicting. Which brings me back to my original point�the characters' exact ages (some of them, anyway) cannot be determined, because the evidence provided in the scripts is too sloppy (and I don't think it's possible to say that one piece of evidence is "right," while another, conflicting, piece is "wrong.")

<<rest of Jacqui's post SNIPPED>>

�Spencer (who should probably be killed for resurrecting this argument)

In the previous post, the mostly harmless Tennant Stuart claimed:

I think you'll have to give Spencer some credit here. I know many people who do *not* round up to their age when they're close to it (moi incluis). I know few people who actually do this. Then again, maybe if you get older (say, over 40), a few years more or less don't matter that much to one, but I can't speak out of own experience there ;) What I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers of people rounding up their age is less or equal to those who do not.

If you ask the weight someone who weighs 148 pounds, I'm quite sure you'd rather hear 140-145 than 150. I don't think these comparisons are fair since some numbers are more important in positive/negative sense than others.

Yes, but the importance of years is bigger than those few extra inches to your doorstep or a few pennies in your pocket. Ever told a woman she's 30 while she actually is 27? You'll know what I mean <g>

Bram

I've been saying I'm 28 for about 2 weeks now, although my birthday isn't for 18 days. It's simpler than saying "well actually I'm 28 in not quite 3 weeks time" or "I'm 27 and 11 months" ;) And as I'm nearer 30 than 25, I don't really mind if someone says "oh you're nearly 30".

Jac (obviously not at all vain)

I actually say ..I'm 16 almost 17.. Cause I dont want to feel like I'm giving out wrong info because than I feel guilty, and I think that when they find its my b-day they are going to think I'm 18. Then they will think I was lying..

But thats just me, and my guilt. It also depends on who I am talking to.

~Act

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Thanks. :)

Indeed you are not, good for you.

Tennant :):)

In article , Bram wrote:

Yes, okay. I was just putting my case for the *occasional* rounding up of ages, in most instances people do round down. But don't forget that these are characters who have to say what others write for them, so they're more likely to round up than those who speak for themselves.

Tennant

Yep! Free Local calls! Plus unlimited internet.. ahh the land of the free.

LMAO!!

~Act

Tennant wrote:

<<especially when they are emphasising how old they are, as Chandler was in this case.>>

Why do you think he was emphasizing how OLD he was, anyway? I rather thought he was emphazing his YOUTH, as in "I'm 29, I'm too YOUNG to need a savings account. "

(BTW, he says this in 407, just after he's refurnished his and Joey's apartment to make up for kissing Joey's girlfriend. The exact quote went: "Well, y�know I�m 29. I mean who needs a savings account." )

�Spencer

In article , [email] (Sprong77) wrote:

It's called irony. :)

Tennant

In article , [email] (Sprong77) wrote:

Which episode was that? In Britain we've only seen up to 617, so no plot spoilers please.

It's that SEND button again! See you in the next topic, Spencer.

Tennant

In article , Tennant Stuart wrote:

Ep. 619 TOW Joey's Fridge

Alanna

In article , Alanna Regan wrote:

Okay, we get that in 6 days time...

Tennant

In article , Tennant Stuart wrote:

Who is this idiot? You know nothing! It's in 13 days time.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote Tennant Stuart wrote:

You tell him, er, Tennant...

or is it Nannett?

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

or me?

A.Trust  :):)

Are you sure? Monica is supposed to be Ross' litle sister and Chandler was Ross' roommate in college right? Or am I missing something...

On a related subject, does anyone know how Phoebe got into the group? Rachel and Monica are school friends, Ross is Monica's brother, Chandler was Ross's room mate, and Joey is Chandler's room mate. I can't remember (were we ever told?) why Phoebe knows them all. Anyone?

Phoebe was Monica's first roommate. I forget the name of the episode but they had a flashback show which shows how they all knew eachother back in the 2nd or 3rd season.

====== "Life is never without love" -Sheryl Crow

In article ,

That was 306 "TOW the Flashback".

Phoebe was Monica's roomie before Rachel, but it's my guess that she wasn't the first. It could be that when Ross moved into the city, he took over his grandmother's apartment, so Monica went with him to get away from her awful mother. Then after he left to live with or marry Carol, kind-hearted Monica rescued a foul-smelling vicious bum from a cardboard box in an alley...

Tennant

The stupid thing is, I've watched my season 3 tapes reasonably recently - I guess I was half asleep at the time!

Thanks Tennant and EsotericGrrrl

In article , [email] (Neha333) wrote:

Oh, if only I had a dollar for every time someone has said this... :)

Monica is 16 months younger than Ross. People at college together do not have to be the same age, it's not like school.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:[email]...

so chandler is the same age as Monica ? and younger than Ross ? ok.. I gettit

In article , "Helena" wrote:

Yep, our best guess so far is Phoebe on 16th February 1968 and Rachel on 5th May 1969; Ross is the oldest (December 1967), Joey the youngest (January 1970), and Chandler & Monica are the same age (April 1969).

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Haven't been following this closely, but I thought that Chandler was the same age as Ross, and Monica and Rachel were the same age - Chandler was in College with Ross, and I assumed that they were the same age, anyway. But if Chandler is the same age as Monica's older brother, I just assumed that he must then be older than Monica. And that was a very longwinded way to say all that.

In article , Sarah Bassett wrote:

Rachel is only three weeks younger than Chandler.

College roomies do not have to be the same age.

Tennant

I'm sorry.. I judge the characters and show on it's funniness and their ability to act........ and often on the storylines.. I don't care what they look like at all.. and remember "the camera adds 10 pounds" "so how many cameras were actually one you ?" *lol*

plus.. must they all be perfect specimens of the human race to be on a TV show.. as long as they are good at their job, happy with what they look like and healthy.. they can be as slim or as "well-padded" as they like !!

someone told me that 47% of Americans admit to being slightly overweight or overweight itself, so it is only a natural reflection of society... plus.... Matthew Perry is not at all fat.. he's just not as slim as CCA or JA..... and I still think he looks great..

In article , "Helena" wrote:

their

a TV

look

like !!

overweight or

CCA or

Matthew Perry is pudgy.

Jen has lost her big ass and looks great now. She's a lot buffer, too. Fantastic to look at now.

Courtney is great-looking but she is aging. Will make a nice-looking older woman.

Never never never can you be too thin. Sorry- that's just a fact.

[email] wrote:

That is a very dangerous point of view that kills many women each year. Sorry, but THAT'S just a fact!

Yes I agree. and you can bee too thin..CCA is a perfect example..or go see some people that have aneroxi and are being fed through a tube right now.. or go somewhere where the people are so poor they cant get food.

~Act

Activia wrote:

Yes. That's rediculous. Why would a bony and lanky guy (which is what men generally are. . . ) want to lay down next to a thin, bony, lanky woman? (which is what happens when they become too thin). Not unlike sleeping with a 2x4. . .

Good Lord. . . It's the curves, man !

Randy Hinds wrote in message news:[email]...

men

then there's still hope for us girls who have curves (and too many !) I need to get Monica's slim-in-a-year diet.. coz I'd really like to do that to someone who called me something (not fat.. but something else) when I see them next year....

In article ,

fact.

go

right

food.

what men

woman?

sleeping

Ever think that what's "bony and lanky" to you may be "hot" to someone else? Get WITH it.

Why are you so obsessed with being all skin and bones..That's basically what you want isnt it? just skin and bones.. no muscles no fat.

~Act

Both of you have extremely good points. But I think that you can never be to thin as long as you're *healthy*. I've heard people say to me "oh my god, you're so skinny, you must never eat" etc. etc. but i eat right and i exercise, and I think as long as you follow those rules than you can never be too skinny. well, unless it looks really gross, then you can. But I dont think CCA is so skinny she's gross looking, so as long as she's healthy, i dont see the problem.

That's the crux, isn't it? You are quite right, but that is a very important distinction.

be to

god,

exercise,

skinny.

But at what point do you stop being too skinny and start being dangerously underweight? If you are genuinely eating right and exercising you should *not* be underweight for your height. If you are then you are NOT eating right. Doctors treat people for being underweight almost as often as they do for being overweight. Dieticians will happily give you a diet to get to your optimum weight. If what you are saying is true, they wouldn't be doing that. Think about the words "you can never be too thin". Then look at what you are actually saying. (Better still, go look at some people who suffer from anorexia. Most of them started by saying exactly what you've just said about diet and exercise. Unfortunately dieting is addictive, and a lot of people cannot stop themselves when they get to the correct weight range...)

is so

Even when you can count her ribs through her chest wall? That's not a problem? I don't mean to be cruel, but if the stories about her wanting a child are true, she's going to have to put on some weight before that's going to be likely. Being underweight is a pretty good contraceptive - in some cases the body never does recover and women can find themselves sterile...

Jac

Jacqui wrote:

And for those of you not in this stage of life, this means extra weight *not including the baby*. In fact, with the added metabolism of your body, many women actually *lose* a few pounds their first trimester if they only eat as they were before they were pregnant.

The doctors recommend lots and lots of fattening foods, desserts, etc to add weight. If you are used to eating like a bird, you will be utterly suprised, nay horrified, at how much you'll have to eat to not only make yourself gain weight, but to ensure a healthy baby.

It's a lot. And you know what? It's *good* for you and the baby.

Then, after the blessed event, you're *still* supposed to keep some weight on to ensure sufficient breast milk (if you're going that route). The number of calories in one's breast milk is directly related to one's body fat index.

CCA is in for a rude awakening. . . .

No, some actually advise against sugar. I ate a lot of carbohydrates, but not an unusual amount of junk food. I was lucky. One of my cravings was veggies.

You are assuming she doesn't know this. Why? Hell, she's watched Lisa Kudrow go through it.

to add

Wow. You are lucky! :)

weight

The

body

To be fair, though, Lisa wasn't so thin before her pregnancy, so she probably didn't need to make such radical changes to her regime as Courteney might have to. (TTBOMK, no one's ever complained about Lisa in quite the same way, she's a healthy looking size.) I know what you're saying, but I think the balance lies about midway between her not knowing anything about it and her being totally aware. Everyone has an inkling of what they need to do to be healthy, most people don't actually envisage having to do it! :)

Jac

Jacqui wrote:

Well, not all desserts contain an inordinate amount of sugar. My point was that dessert is something most people skip altogether.

THAT'S what I meant. She might very well know it. A lot of people probably know this. But to actually do it is another story. And to actually have a OB-GYN Dr. possibly say: "Now, Courtney, I realize you think you've been eating a lot lately, but we're just not seeing the weight gain we had hoped. You're still 10 pounds underweight at this stage, so we're going to have to put you on a specially-designed diet to get some weight on those bones. "

Depending upon her self-image, she might think the Dr. is asking her to become obese, when in reality she wouldn't.

But then again, maybe she's just enjoying being thin while she still can, before the onslaught of kids and middle-age.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, claire abraham stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

You mean vegetables, not vegetarians, I assume? :)

In article ,

CCA

the

a

wanting

can

weight *not

many

eat as

to add

make

weight

body

What an expert you are on Courtney Cox. You must know her very well.

[email] wrote:

Well, no, it's not a fact; it's an opinion, and a rather insane opinion at that. After all, it is perfectly possible to be so thin that you get sick and even die from it. Don't know about you, but I'd say that's a bit too thin.

In article ,

fact.

go

right

food.

be to

god,

exercise,

too skinny.

is so

the

Exactly. I know a couple of models, some TV news anchors, etc -- all perfectly healthy... they laugh at the crap that is being spewed by these jealous yentas who think they know who's sick and anorexic.

These women say they are worried about thin actresses "sending the wrong message"... when in reality it all fuelled by jealousy and anger- because they themselves are not hot-looking.

sure...thats why even good looking women say these things. I mean really lets get some perspective.

~Act

In article ,

each

example..or

tube

never

my

and i

be

CCA

see

all

wrong

really

Speaking of perspective, there are of course sexy women who have more than 20% body fat (altho rarely are they Euro American women, who, when they gain weight, tend to be far more blobby than the Afro Americans or the Asian American women). But even these alluring women can feel unattractive and fat, and they can vent by attacking the image and self-esteem of superslender beauties.

Well, no, in that case I'd be fuming about Jennifer Aniston, who is also very thin, but still seems absolutely stunning to me. No, I'm sorry, but I am not jealous of Courteney Cox' looks. Not anymore. She was beautiful when the show started, but she has become very severe. It isn't just the thinness. Her makeup and hair have been very harsh and stark this year and it isn't flattering. And it *still* didn't bug me until she exposed her chest and tried to seduce Chandler while hacking and coughing with a headcold. I'm not particularly worried about how she's sending the wrong message. It seems to me she's debunking the idea that scrawny is beautiful every time she stands next to Lisa.

Wes, you seem to be obsessively angry about this, and you've posted a number of things about American food that have little basis in fact. Either you have a political agenda or you are trying to see how many people you can upset. I only read your posts trying to find out what set Jacqui off. At any rate, just because obesity is bad, it does not follow that starving yourself is good, any more than suggesting that since washing your hands is good for you, you should do it every five minutes. There's a sensible place in between. And Courteney Cox does need to gain some weight. I am going to assume that she's still quite fertile and any discussion of how to have a healthy baby is a matter she can successfully discuss with her doctor without our help.

wes wrote:

I think it's very hard to determine who's rationalizing who in your comparison.

Shawn

In article ,

all

wrong

Perhaps. But in the case of thin beauties, I would certainly hope that they will laugh, all the way to the bank, at toxic voodoo messages from thin bashers. But unfortunately, they cannot always laugh it off. A lot of them read the thin hatred posts and let it get under their skin, which is not at all good. Thin voodoo is more damaging mentally and emotionally than being ultra lean, that's for sure.

wes wrote:

That is the largest piece of ill-concieved diatribe I have ever read, and it doesn't suprise me coming from a moron such as yourself. I don't know what rock you're living under there, wes, but perhaps you should come up for air, but even breathing must be an intellectual chore for you.

It has NOTHING to do with jealousy and anger based on how one looks. Perhaps you should grow up a little and realize that. But then I'm probably talking to a 12 year old, or atleast someone with the IQ of such.

What do YOU know about birthing? or the ideal weight of a mother expecting or planning on having a baby? Or even health and nutrition?

No, your biggest concern is trying to plaster you little bedroom with pictures of Brittany Spears and Christina Aquilera so you can fantacize about them nightly right?

Grow up. Now turn off mommy's laptop and go to bed. It's past your bedtime.

you DO know that since you're IQ never changes, a twelve year old could have a genius IQ... -Kat

Monica:"Fine! Judge all you want to but (to Ross) married a lesbian, (to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg into the fire, (to Chandler) live in a box."

have a

Your IQ does change, throughout your life, as it is measured by calculating your score in one of a series of tests over your age at the time of taking the test, therefore it will change even if you never take another test.

It also deteriorates with age, damage, substance abuse, prolonged use of mobile phones/monitors if you believe all the hype, and general lack of use. It is perfectly possible to be a genius as a child and not as an adult, which is why Mensa used to refuse to admit children. Conversly, since you can learn the tricks required to educate your brain further, especially with the kind of knowledge you need to take such tests, you can improve your IQ (but it's hard to increase it significantly).

Jac

Katrina wrote:

Ya. Actually, I did know that, but I stand corrected anyway. . .

The original line was "But then I'm probably talking to an intellectual moron, or atleast someone with the IQ of such" but then decided to change it to "But then I'm probably talking to a 12 year old, or atleast someone with the intelligence to match" but didn't get the thing cut & pasted properly.

In article ,

never

i

CCA

wrong

Exactly. Thin bashers are unhappy people that themselves feel like they have been persecuted for being fat, and they use superslender women like voodoo dolls that they practice sticking needles into. It makes them feel better, sort of like the zombies in Dawn of The Living Dead got some relief by eating brains.

My only hope is that superslender beauties that have achieved their shape thru discipline and self control do not allow that sicko crap to get to their self esteem.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Activia doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Even *I* think I'm slightly underweight, and I'm actually a healthy weight for my height... yeah, I'm working out, but that's because I badly need the exercise - all I've done most of the time since I hurt my arm playing tennis (almost three years ago - come ON, will the doctors just get it *sorted* already?!) is sit around on my bum and become an MTV junkie! There is certainly such a thing as "too thin"... trust me, I've known people who've fallen into that trap, and they've become half the person they were (no pun intended; I mean in terms of personality, not weight). It's a dangerous thing to get into.

In article ,

go

right

food.

Yes indeed, you can be too thin. But this is not the case with most superslenders, who still have at least seven percent body fat (its invisible, but because you can't see it, does not mean that it isn't there). The problem is that people act as if superslenders are anorexic, which in most cases does not apply.

In article ,

right

Please... could you take this discussion any further out of context? You are over-reacting to a someone's physical preference.

umm, I was reacting to your comment how noone can be too thin, not to CCA's appearance. But she still does need to gain weight.

~Act

In article ,

fact.

each

example..or go

food.

"she needs to gain weight"

-- how do people- perfect strangers- automatically know what Courtney Cox "needs" to do? Everyone is such an expert on other people's health.

You are falling for that anti-thin crap that's being spewed by the (usually overweight) yentas that dominate the tabloid airwaves.

She "needs" to gain weight. Preposterous.

are you anerexic? I have to ask because you seem to think that people can never be underweight. There is such a thing. Ok..how about this. She needs to eat healthier, meaning she needs more food like more servings of protein, carbohydrates, fruits, veggies. Otherwise she wouldnt be underweight.

In article ,

Obesity kills more people... much more people. And it costs every one us money in higher healthcare costs because of the other fat-related illnesses. That's a fact.

Funny how only fat people bitch about thin actresses and models...

Sorry, but that's bollocks. If you are of such a height that your weight should be around, say, 8 stone or 112lbs, then to be 4 stone underweight will be fatal. To be 4 stone overweight will not. You can be fit and healthy at 12 stone (172lbs) but at 4 stone (56lbs) you will be near death. Anorexia is potentially more lifethreatening than being overweight - obesity really only becomes a problem when you reach morbid obesity, have blood-pressure issues, or reach late middle age. Being underweight not only points to anorexia, but also malnutrition and a host of assorted disorders. Anorexia generally kills young impressionable women, and they are the people that are most influenced by "role models" such as actresses and models. To be too thin is a real problem, and one that is reinforced by idiots who make comments like your last one. Thin people can be perfectly capable of criticising thin actresses if they look like they are setting a bad example, and to be overweight is not necessarily the same as being unfit or unhealthy. Smokers cost the healthcare system more than fat people (and paradoxically also fund the majority of state-provision healthcare (ie the bulk of the NHS) through higher taxes.)

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

fact.

one

can

will

being

morbid

real

thin

You're in the UK.... you have no idea what's going on over here. Obesity is an EPIDEMIC. There are SO many more health problems related to obesity than thinness. America's healthcare industry is going to be stretched to the limits- and it's costing us a lot of money already.

The mass-produced food that's being manufactured over here is GARBAGE. It's made NOT to satisfy your hunger-- therefore people eat MORE.

Not to mention the fast food explosion over here.

You are lucky you live in Europe, where they still have some standards about the quality of food. People are practically being poisoned over here.

Au contraire.

Your system is not essentially state-funded though, is it? Ours is, and any funding crisis is multiplied much higher than it should be, despite our having one quarter of your population. We're also dealing with a breakdown of our "island immunity", and a rise in diseases like TB which we'd almost entirely eradicated, and an almost impossible staffing/population crisis.

Nothing compulsory about fast food. Try cooking with real ingredients. It's fun. Even Rachel can do it after a fashion.

ROFLMAO. Tell that to the French, the Germans, the Intervention Board, the MAFFia, the Spanish vets, Coca-Cola Schweppes, Edwina Currie, John Selwyn Gummer's daughter...

What you really mean is Americans* have no will power or common sense. ;)

*those of you I know and love I exclude from this and you know full well I don't mean you, I mean the kind of people Wes is talking about. Fercrissakes, you're a nation that sues tobacco companies for "making me smoke" and actually win! Hot coffee may scald you! Do not attempt to drive while asleep! Use a knife in a back-and-forth sawing motion to cut this cake. Sleeping pills may cause drowsiness...

All that aside, I'd much sooner see someone weigh their ideal weight x 2 than their ideal weight x 0.5.

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Perhaps we should explain to our American friends that this is a reference to the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries, a uniquely British arm of government that puts the interests of producers ahead of consumers...

Tennant :):)

Thanks, cause I actually was thinking you meant organized crime. NO sarcasm

~Actk

I omitted the main reason why American mass-produced food (food made by huge companies like Kraft, General Foods, Proctor & Gamble, etc...) is purposely made not to satisfy your hunger -- so you BUY more.

In article ,

reference

British arm of

consumers...

[email]

Oh, bull, Wes. That's just wrong. I find a Tuna Helper pretty satisfying. If you don't want to eat mass-produced food, hit the butcher and the produce section and you can have a stick-to-your ribs stew or roast dinner (with gravy) in no time flat. Learn to cook and you won't be hungry. People are responsible for their own decisions.

thanks for clearing that up tennant. I was just sitting there thinking, what in the hell does the mafia have to do with this? :o)

In article , [email] (Katrina) wrote:

You're welcome, but there was a subtle clue in the double-F, for Jacqui's spelling is impeccable.

Tennant

reference

arm of

what in

I don't know if you've ever noticed, but I can spell, and I would NEVER use the word Mafia to refer to organised crime, anyway. The CAPITAL letters should have been a clue.

Anyone want to hazard a guess at any of the other things I mentioned in that statement, like the Intervention Board, or John Selwyn Gummer's daughter?

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

                 +------------------------------------+
                 |                                    |
                 |      STEWED STEAK WITH GRAVY       |
                 |             425g  15oz             |
                 |                                    |
                 |         NOT FOR RETAIL SALE        |
                 |                                    |
                 |  United Kingdom Intervention Beef  |
                 |                                    |
                 |                                    |
                 |             EEC AID  IB            |
                 |                                    |
                 |    Specially packed on behalf of   |
                 |        the Intervention Board      |
                 |            Fountain House          |
                 |                Reading             |
                 |               Berkshire            |
                 |                                    |
                 |            UK CG 007P EEC          |
                 |                                    |
                 |        Best before end APR 98      |
                 |                                    |
                 +------------------------------------+

John Selwyn Gummer fed a beefburger to his trusting young daughter to prove to the British press that beef from cows suffering from BSE was safe. Much later he admitted that at the time, he *did* know that the beef was unsafe. People living in other countries should reflect that their producers are still in full denial.

Tennant :):)

Tennant Stuart wrote

in

Woah. Don't touch that with a bargepole (apart from the BBE date). I know what the Intervention Board actually *do*... (hint: they're not actually a food producer!) and I wouldn't go near that for �1m.

Yup. Our reward for warning the public was hysteria and trade blockades. Other countries just kept quiet as long as possible, prolonging the problem...

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

I know too. Trophy of war. But it might come in handy...

At the time, many people were very puzzled because cows are herbivores. I liked pointing out that protein is easier to digest than grass. It's not that cows can't eat sheep, but that they can't catch them...

Tennant :):)

Yes, but for one that has never heard of MaFFia, its easily mistaken.

~Act

In article ,

reference

arm of

That is what modern America does...it puts the interests of producers ahead of individuals, supply controls demand thru American propaganda. Of course some Americans don't know this, due to cultivated bias, misinformation and control along the lines of Brave New World. Other Americans are afraid to talk about it at all, lest they come up against a gigantic security power born of Clintonesque fusion of corporation and government. Its American Capitalistic Socialism, the most inefficient socialism on the planet since the old Reds, a socialism that denies what it is and spins a delusion of freedom and democracy and equality which is nothing but bull. Its a socialism that does nothing but promote the high capital elite that control virtually all media and censor all communication outside of the internet, a regime that no doubt hopes to conquer the planet, where it can contaminate and destroy all cultures everywhere else and replace it with the lowest common denominator, a plan that is given the code name Globalism.

Re fast food: Europe is just now getting inundated with these restaurants. We've had McDonald's for 50 years. You have got a lot of catching up to do if you want to "out-pork" Americans.

And at least the French have the balls to torch a McDonald's or two in protest. Americans are sheep.... or they are just plain ignorant.

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

related

be

and

despite

which

GARBAGE.

ingredients.

standards

over

Board,

well

me

2

They've been open here since the 1960s. We've had burger bars in general since the late 1940s. We just don't believe the hype, and like to choose for ourselves what we will eat. British homes have kitchens you can actually cook in, so most people do, to some degree. We don't need to rely on getting food in, or driving up to a window for it. We shop.

You have got a lot of

Oddly enough that is not one of our collective ambitions. Neither is becoming institutionally stupid.

A bit of both, on the whole.

Jac

Sitting in my sink right now is a set of ribs defrosting for tonight's dinner. We will be having corn on the cob as well. Last night's dinner was fish with a side salad topped by whitefish. Earler in the week we made an entirely vegetarian casserole, which we ate on for three days. A typical day's food involves cereal, sandwiches, cheese, fruit, carrot sticks, hot dogs, and some type of casserole.

I have to "shop" at the grocery store nearly every day.

American homes have kitchens you can actually cook in, so people usually do. Getting food in, or driving up to the window, happens, but it's a luxury and if we did it as often as you seem to think we do my family would be bankrupt. We usually shop. Is this the part where I snidely and rudely retort that the English kitchens I've seen are very small, or that I don't care for kidney pie and fish and chips with vinegar? Well, they are certainly not too small to be functional, and if you like kidney pie, bon appetit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear you can cook a pretty wide variety of other things, too. Why do you think we don't cook at all?

Remember that the unpleasant, unkind, and untrue stereotype of English cooking is that it's very much inferior to that in the rest of Europe. There's no reason to believe that. Nobody should be using stereotypes at all. Jacqui, please, you of all people on this newsgroup are above this kind of mean-spirited generalization.

We

dinner

usually

snidely

Hell, all our homes are small. We don't have acres of space to build in. :)

or

Well,

can

That would be "Steak and Kidney", btw, Claire, Umble Pie (in the original sense) is very out of fashion. ;)

Sorry, Claire, but that Wes guy was just really winding me up. If his argument is that Americans are fat because they eat fast food, then my response was that we don't, so much, because we don't have the access to it in such vast quantities, nor the inclination to gorge on it. I have seen American kitchens, I have talked to Americans who *never* cook, and some of the reasons cited were that eating out is a) cheaper b) more convenient c) the only practical option for many, thanks to the "kitchenette". My parents were treated with surprise in Florida when they did a large grocery shop for their stay, because everyone there ate out the whole time. (It probably *would* have been cheaper to, as the grocery prices did not seem to be as cheap as expected.) In Georgia there was less surprise. Maybe it's regional...

On a more on-topic note, I'd find both Monica and Joey's kitchens far too small, and in Joey's case very badly designed.

I think you know me well enough to know that I don't usually generalise, but this whole "too thin" thread winds me up, as I've seen people die from anorexia, and it's not pleasant. I think anyone who blames the junk food culture is essentially wrong, but to say that we don't know about it here is also wrong. It's just that we, as a nation, don't go for it much. Statistically, unfortunately, the US does. (Your dinner sounds yummy, btw, Claire, and is probably better than what I'm having tonight (baked gnocchi with chickpeas and sausage). But you are not the kind of person we see on Ricki Lake, Montel, Jerry Springer, and you do not defend the anorectic culture either. You are a well-balanced person, and your kids are very lucky. Unfortunately there are not 240 million Claires in the US.)

Jac

Darlin' ah GOHT to show you Teyaxas. (Really, the urban spraul here is getting obnoxious.

I have

Cheaper????? WHERE ARE THEY BUYING THEIR FOOD????

It may indeed be regional. Here most of the kitchens I see are usable and eating out is pricey.

Yeah, that's what surprised me.

in.

<g> In a list of rapidly expanding cities, Oxford came 4th in the UK... The USA has 4 times our population in an area of land 45 times the size, if my maths is right (9.3m sq km as opposed to 244,000 sq km...). I appreciate that TV distorts things, but "poor" families in shows like Grace Under Fire appear to live in houses I could lose my flat in... I could fit my entire flat into Monica's living room, by the looks of things. :)

and

I guess it does depend where you live. Mind you, a burger here is cheaper than a roasting chicken, or a pack of sausages, or 5lbs of potatoes, and we do pay more proportionately than most of the world does, if you compare, say, Big Mac prices... In quite a few areas of the UK you'd have to drive for an hour to reach a McDonalds, mind you.

generalise,

Chalk it up to a crappy day (although the sun shone for the first time in weeks) and a great irritance with the "you can never be too thin" brigade. My friend Alison died 12 years ago in June, and I've still never forgotten what watching that happen was like.

Jac

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Jacqui doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Yes... the area I live in being one of them! I live on microwave meals simply because I've never learnt to cook properly (and on the other comment, I find them pretty satisfying, thank you very much), and any fast food outfit tends to be my Mecca as a result. :) Can't wait until we *finally* get a Maccy D's here, even though it'll probably be on the other side of town...

the

do

Well you've totally missed the point. No one is "defending" anorexics. They are sick people who need help. I am defending the falsely-accused thin actresses the media love to pick on. These women are being accused of all sorts of things that may not be true. And there is a faction out there that cannot stand to see others who are thin and sexy-looking- because they are not thin. So they attack.

wes wrote:

Are Naomi or Kate or Cindy or any of them really worried about what people say? They're still getting paid very well to look that way, aren't they? What makes them immune from the complaints of others? They're public figures, and rich ones at that.

Shawn

wes wrote:

And what are you basing this on ??? Your *personal* opinion of what motivates these commentators??? Hmm... That seems to be a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Or don't you see that?

It wouldn't be newsworthy if it was at all common, wes. That's the whole POINT of a newsitem. It's NOT common, so therefore it's UNCOMMON.

Buy a clue

On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:23:43 GMT, claire abraham wrote:

But you can! I'm under the impression that Americans know their way around the kitchen. When I have visited my relatives living in the US, I've always been offered delicious food. I'm under the impression that you eat a lot of sallads, chicken and turkey, and those things are very healthy!

But I don't think you use as much dairy products as we do, 'cause we use *a lot* of milk in our food. Porridge, for instance, is almost the national dish here. And you use pancakes for breakfast, while we make big pancakes for dinner.

I agree. This discussion has gone far enough.

If we keep this one going, we need to get Monica so she can help us out with some cooking questions.

~Ariel

In article , claire abraham wrote:

Just for the record: my kitchen is very small, kidney pie is okay as long as it's steak & kidney pie, but I hate fish & chips with vinegar (I'll have a dry white wine instead).

Tennant

And Americans dont? This is a false accusation. I know thousands of Americans that have home cooked meals on a daily basis. Including myself, friends, and family. We go out to eat at restraunts occasionally. We only eat fast food if we are desperate, because it makes us feel horrible, or if we are on a road trip its sometimes easier

We don't

The only food we get in, or I should say go get thats already cooked, is pizza. I go to a fast food place about once every six months.

Ouch, thats prejudice.

~Act

like

kitchens

easier

Where exactly have I mentioned Americans' cooking ability or lack of in this post, anyway? Saying what British people do is not saying what Americans do or do not. If you choose to read that into it, that's your prerogative, but at no time did I write that you don't. I do know Americans that don't. You will find that I am deliberately fairly precise in my use of language, and I have very specifically avoided saying that "all Americans eat junk food". If you think that's what I'm saying, examine your own motives for thinking that.

We

is

Good for you. Did I say you went more often?

in

I like sheep, as Raven, Tennant, Jim & UMTF Meet 15, and several photos will confirm. ;)

The unfortunate thing about life is that statistics and incontrovertible facts do support the generalisations more often than we like to hear...

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

The woman likes sheep. A lot. But in a nice way.

Tennant :):)

No, but you were talking about Americans and then you say, well at least we have kitches you can cook in in the UK, which implies that.

I didnt say that being a sheep was good or bad, or that you disliked, or liked that, meerly that that was a prejudice comment.

Yes but you should never apply to all..

~Act

in

your

I'm

least

You infer all you like. I know what I was implying, you can't by definition.

photos

or

No, it was not prejudicial at all.

incontrovertible

hear...

And that's what "on the whole" qualifies. "All" would be a different story, but I did not type "all".

Jac

So lets say we chalk all this up to a language misinterpretation..and leave it at that.

~Act

Sounds good to me. I was mad at Wes, not an entire country! ;)

Jac (believe me, if I was going to start getting mad at entire countries I'd start with somewhere small, a long way away, and reasonably inoffensive, like New Zealand. <g>)

I am equally mad at wes.

~Act

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Have you heard Ed Byrne's hilarious piece about New Zealand having the world's eighth tallest building? Apparently they don't care there's seven bigger buildings, because it's better than anything in Australia, and that annoys them. Meanwhile, (still according to Ed), Ozzies don't give a...

Tennant :):)

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

like

in

Maybe you can say no to American crap because you guys actually have a culture, as opposed to the slime mold of greed, lies, and subhuman quality that passes as the American way of life.

wes wrote...

I was offended by this last comment. You may not have heard of it, but the last time my fellows 'had the balls to torch a McDonald's", it killed a girl who had nothing to do with all this crap. Besides, I don't think this is the right place to start discussing this kind of issues. No offense.

Adeline.

===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbiani, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

In article , "Adeline" wrote:

of

in

but the

a girl

this kind

If anyone can get their hands on "Harper's" Magazine a few months back. There was great article on how Americans are getting fatter- because the food that's most affordable is also the most fat-laden and the most unsatifying food available to them.

It shows how people have to "supersize" more and more-- to get their fill of calories and to feel satisfied.

It's a huge food industry scam: Make the food less-satisfying- so people will buy (and eat) more.

Aspartame- the stuff that's in diet soda- is another scam--- it makes you feel hungry. Have you ever seen a thin person who drank diet soda all of the time? Aspartame is also poison to your system.

wes wrote:

Here we go again. Did you also happen to do a little more research than was in the article???? Obviously not. The fast food industry admits to catering to their "regulars". These people are the ones who *regularly* eat at fast food places, (i.e. more than 28 times a month, according to their numbers). This class of consumers make up 80% of their business.

To spell it out for you, this means that a srelatively mall number of people make up the category of people you seemed to be concerned about. Not everyone eats fast food. In fact, the MAJORITY of people in the US don't eat fast food on any sort of regular basis

wes wrote:

So, on one hand you are saying that the food here is fattening, therefore causing all sorts of fat people in the US, and on the other hand you are saying the food is less filling (aka "less satisfying") so that people will buy more?

Ummm, excuse me, but isn't that a contradiction? Or don't you see that?

The absolute LAST thing a person would want to do after eating a meal full of high-fat foods is buy more. You're theory seems to fall to pieces under even the remotest scrutiny.

WHICH is it????????????!!!!

And perhaps you should do a little more reading other than "Hapers" magazine for your information.

In article ,

Exactly. Americans are just plain ignorant. They are raised to play total dumb, and the penalty for thinking about things in ways that might challenge the elite, where paid off political government and the big corporations are one big hydra, is severe.

No wonder the French don't like Americans. The only difference is that at least the French don't put on false airs and try to hide their dislike, unlike others, who will put on a happy face just so they can have a piece of the renowned American dollar, which is worth more than gold as a monetary standard.

In article ,

fat-related

Being

influenced

be

(ie

related

be

Amen to that. Euro American women are blobs compared to some of the more cultured Europeans. Obesity in America is vastly more of a problem than is anorexia.

But at last it seemed that America was finally getting serious about doing something about the plague of fat, but then came those pesky thin bashers, who are out to make thin women feel just awful when they should be feeling good.

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

fact.

one

Your argument is based on some fact, because a superslender beauty may have as little as eight pounds of body fat on her and if she loses four more pounds, this will cut the body fat in half, including the volume of breasts and the degree of curves. If she loses ten pounds, then mathematically, the tissue must come off of the lean organs, which is not good. So in a sense, superslenders are in danger of becoming too thin for their health.

But then on the other hand, you, like most others, fail to see that there is an enormous difference between being superslender and being anorexic. Its like if you have something cooled to nearly 8 degrees kelvin (degrees C above absolutely zero) its going to be a lot easier to raise the temperature twenty degrees higher than it will be to lower it just seven more degrees. If a woman is ten pounds above absolutely no body fat, there is going to be more difference between that and only two pounds above zero fat than there is between that and thirty pounds body fat.

will

being

morbid

The problem here is that, with all the talk, young girls can have trouble understanding the difference between being superslender and being anorexic. Superslenders must generally watch out for the temptation of anorexia, but if you have people telling them all over the media that they are already anorexic, its not going to help them be careful and to avoid this possible danger. And that is exactly thin bashers do all the time, telling women who are superslender that they are already anorexic, that they are already sick. So perhaps all the thin bashing is in fact creating anorexia in young girls, who learn to achieve the ideal of superslender, yet are given no help, no knowledge, and no support when it comes to protecting themselves from this disease.

Notice, you seldom have media telling women that are just plump (say about 170 lbs) that they are morbidly obese.

real

thin

I think that in a society like our own, where abundant food calories are available, it is logical to assume that the more superslender women there are, the less obesity will be a problem. And true, the more superslenders there are, the more anorexia will become a problem. So you have to weigh one against the other and ask what the net effect would be, and with slenderism it might well be a net gain...the loss in obesity caused disease will more than make up for the increase in eating disorders.

As for setting examples for the young, I think it is great. These girls need to master the principles of slenderism when they are young and adaptable, so they can learn it for life. When media entered its superslender wave, I noticed that more and more women were successfully achieving superslender. Only the few that went too far, or used drugs, excessive dieting, or some form of abuse looked bad, the others looked great, and they deserved to be commended, not abused, for their accomplishment. Whats more, slenderism was spreading very fast, as more and more girls learned the secrets of how to be superslender from a friend who had already mastered it. So fast was the spread of low fat that it seemed that at last something would be done about the horrid plague of obesity in America.

I was not suggesting that people should let themselves be fat.  (I
personally am struggling to get rid of 20 pounds of  post-pregnancy
padding via treadmill).  I really only mind Courteney's skinniness when
she tries to seduce Chandler while ill.  I am countering the extreme
position that there is *no* such thing as being too thin. There most
certainly is, and the public adoration of extreme skinniness is not
healthy.   There is a sane middle area.  I am trying to regain it.
David has found it, Lisa has found it, Kate Winslet revels in it.
Courteney needs to gain weight.   It is not a good idea to suggest that
people should starve themselves.  Eat right and use a treadmill.  Or
take a walk.  The idea that you can never be too thin is dangerous and
needs to be combatted as much as the idea that you shouldn't worry about
your weight at all.

In article ,

fact.

one

when

that

about

Another stupid statement: "Courtney NEEDS to gain weight"....

Amazing how you know what Courtney NEEDS to do.

She's obviously not getting her 7 food groups a day and the amount of servings she needs otherwise seh wouldn't be underweight.

~Act

In article ,

each

every

fat-related

models...

post-pregnancy

extreme

most

not

Or

and

You are out of your mind. People have faster metabolisms, she could be working out 4 hours a day, running, etc... How could anyone here possibly know what Courtney Cox is or isn't eating?

Stop reading the tabloids for your "information".

Funny how that's not true. Plenty of heavy women actively idolize those models and want to be like them. And plenty of attractive women find them far too extreme. Be on your thin kick if you want, but don't expect everyone to follow along.

Shawn

In article ,

On usenet, most people are male (including the trogs,who are men who pose as women for profit or pleasure, of which there are a surprising number. In the group that are really women, most of them are overweight if you could see them in real life.

So that would make most of the women on usenet into potential thin bashers. No wonder that cruel sport is so "popular".

wrote in message news:8e7hp1$qd3$[email]...

ok.. so if all you have is bones.. and you look like you're gonna snap if you bend over.. is that not too thin ?? I am not saying CCA us too thin.. she looks fine, but my point is tha people can be too thin.. if they eat nothing or something like that I would rather see a well-padded happy person than a skeleton watching their calories. I think all the Friends cast look great anyway....

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:58:36 GMT, [email] wrote:

Have you ever seen Calista Flockhart??? And Portia DeRossi after she got skinny? UGH!

Sorry, but that comment is offensive to women!

I haven't seen the most recent episodes from the US (I've seen pictures and vidcaps, though), but I think JA looks great now. I like her new long hair better than that hairdo she had in season 1.

CCA's hair looks better now as well. It's thicker, and that takes some of the attention away from her being too thin, I think. OTOH, her hair was great at the end of season 4. She *is* too thin now, but do you guys remember her appearance in 517 TOW Rachel's Inadvertent Kiss? She was wearing a black leather skirt, and it was painful to see just how thin she actually was.

MP is ok, but he needs to get a haircut. He looked gorgeous in season 4 and most of season 5.

DS... has he really changed that much? I mean, apart from his hair? I agree with Claire. His hair looked great in the beginning of season 5.

MLB has always looked *goooood*.

LK needs to throw away her wig.

~Ariel

Helena wrote:

Agree with you on the weight.. :) I object to the dressing. My husband is tall and very solidly built (square shoulders and long legs, etc) plus he has a little spare tire. He still dresses nicely. Why should someone look frumpy and dress with sweats and baseball hats and uncombed hair because they are not a toothpick? There are plenty of nice clothes for bigger men, and it is sad that the "dress-people" don't make much of an effort to make him less dowdy. Does anybody else agree? JRP

Yes that red sweater in TOW Chandler cant cry....I think that was the episode..ugh. They need to dress him so much better!!

~Act

I don't, really. Chandler's clothes look at least as expensive as the rest of them, just not quite as International Male as Joey's. He dresses fine, he's just going for loose fitting comfort lately. How long has it been since we've seen him at work?

Want to see dowdy, look at that comic book geek [address] This one is a fashion plate in comparison, queeny red sweater and all.

Shawn

I think the person who started this thread warned everyone that it was superficial. It's just something to talk about, doesnt mean that I think they are bad actors or anything like that. Just commenting on appearances which I do to about every person I meet in my head. It's purely human nature. Matthew Perry has gained some weight he is heavier..my biggest pet peve is his hair. I think Courtney makes him look heavier standing next to him, she is like a stilt.

~Act

In article , Activia wrote:

she is like a stilt.

*LMAO* :-)

Alanna

In article ,

I say Rachel is better looking than ever now that she lost the extra weight... especially in her rear end. Monica is still OK- getting lots of lines though.. I agree with previous post about Phoebe being "matronly". She would be hot if she had a rib removed, like Cher and that runway model-- the one who does all of the CK ads now.

Maybe he's trying something new?

-Andy, AKA Andy1251

Thank God!!

Absolutely =).

Adeline.

===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbianni, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

It'd be funny to have this conversation about Roseanne, or King of Queens, or even Sienfeld where there was more than one body type present.

Shawn

I'm always suspicious of people who say an actress is "too thin"... or she "needs to gain weight"- or ignorantly describe the actress as "sick".

99% of the time, the source of these accusations are overweight or un-buff women (or men).

[email] wrote:

Ok, lets go back a step. CCA was skinny and then lost some weight. Why would she need to loose weight if she was already skinny? Signifigant weight change means you are not eating properly, whether you get heavier or lighter..

~Act

Or an illness, or a too much excersize etc.. I really don't think she has an eating disorder. I saw a picture of her a while ago that obviously was taken by some scum photographer in the bushes or something, where she was in her sweats standing outside eating some pizza or something. Some people have a very hard time gaining weight, so if she lost some on purpose or not it may be very difficult to gain it back. Think of how hard it would be to conciously try to gain a lot of weight, I don't know how many people could go from eating low fat health foods (which for all we know she might not even eat anyway) to eating a ton of fattening foods right away. If there's a problem there, then that's for her and her family to worry about. I don't know, I just don't think we have enough facts to go into detail about her weight.

====== "Life is never without love" -Sheryl Crow

I actually wasnt talking about CCA directly. But, more about women in general. I doubt she has an eating disoder, or I have no idea without proper facts.

~Act

In article ,

heavier

she has an

was taken by

her sweats

very hard

very

conciously try to

eating low fat

to eating a

that's for

we have

Good, I'm finally getting through to you people.

No I've felt this way all along, I can formulate my own opinion without needing you to take credit for it.

====== "Life is never without love" -Sheryl Crow

wes wrote:

The only thing you're getting through to is a new level of stupidity.

What are you talking about, getting through what? She could have one, but I dont know for sure. How is that getting through? I still think EVERYTHING you said was superficial, arrogant, and just plain stupid. You just want EVERYBODY to be all skin and bones, no muscles or fat that give people character, and take away the wrinkles...

Thanks Randy for quoting all the way up. I hadn't gotten his reply to my message, it seems my newserver is getting picky and is only giving me have the posts again.

~Act

In article ,

get

think

obviously

was in

have a

may be

from

anyway)

there, then

think

women in

without

that

You are so very off. Being superlean includes all possible degrees of buff (muscular development). Women can have lots of flesh on their bones, or they can weigh a lot, or they can be thick and voluptuous, and still support superslender levels of body fat. Muscle is not fat. And buff has shape, as opposed to the shapeless, hanging, inactive fatty tissue. Building body shape thru muscular development is so much more desirable than filling it out by eating too many empty, unhealthy, fattening foods.

If women want shape, if they want curves, they should go to the gym, work those weights or pilates. Instead, they complain, hoping to take the easy way out, of being lazy and putting on hanging body fat.

And you know, I bet that overweights will find as much occasion to bash disciplined women with beautiful buff shoulders, backs and firm shapely legs. Cos they are just plain envious and jealous of what they think they can never have.

stupidity.

me

[email] wrote:

You must have mis read my post. Because I said no MUSCLES or FAT, that give people character and shape. Muscles do of course, but if you look at over weight people they usually dont have many wrinkles.. So I'm afraid to say its BOTH.

Next time read it twice.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would stop bashing Americans. End of this topic. I am no longer replying to this pointless subject, that has nothing to do with friends, and is getting way to political.

~Act

In article ,

heavier

has an

was taken by

her sweats

very hard

very

conciously try to

eating low fat

eating a

that's for

we have

That's correct. And it doesn't stop w/Cox. The innuendo regarding Calista Flockhart, Lara Flynn Boyle, Kate Moss has been even worse.

Most of the rumor-mongering toward these women and others is baseless- the product of envious fat chicks.

So not only are you insulting women, but you are calling all the people that are against what you are saying fat? *clears throat, looks at him, turns away and ignore's, its not worth it*

~Act

Activia wrote:

Well, what do you expect from a two-faced dinwaddle like wes. The guy can't seem to see the obvious inconsistencies in his line of reasoning, if that is in fact reasoning. . . .

Exactly, thats why I said its not worth it. I am getting all mad at him and backlashing, but hey it doesnt do any good for a guy like him anyway. He probably won't listen, and I've said enough already. Plus, I dont think most people think that.

~Act

Activia wrote:

Well, you're one better than I. I was firing them off so fast I wasn't even proofreading. . . You're right. It's not worth it. . . .

I'm ignoring all the American bashing also.. I want to talk about friends not about what is too thin and what does that mean or the american character and media.. This is not a political group.

~Act

In article ,

she

in

a

be

to

then

think

baseless-

people

him,

In truth, not all the thin bashers are overweight. There are for example a lot of men who prefer women with more body fat. That is fine, the problem is that just because you have certain tastes, that does not mean you have a right to persecute others that have different opinions. But some of these guys don't see that, they don't see it at all. Instead, they think that they have a divine right to stick pins in peoples fragile self image like n*z* evangelists. This situation with the men is compounded and catalyzed by the women in a sense, because the guys think that they will be rewarded for their bigotry by getting brownie points from the women they like. In other words, these guys are just being pricks to impress the non thin girls.

It's a sad sad day when guys think that being bigots will get them laid. But in America, this is prolly actually the way it is.

And then there are those dudes who might love to have a superslender beauty, but they know in their heart that they don't stand much chance, so they try to please easier prey. Its called rationalization.

And of course, when you have a cultural problem, such as the insulting of groups of people, it is the culture, not any one group of individuals, that is the source of the disease. So naturally, when it comes to thin bashing, it is everyone that does it that is the problem, not just men, or women alone.

[email] wrote:

And you don't think the other side of the coin is applicable either? Care to mention the thin people who claim heavier people are fat, or slobs, or lazy?

Or did you happen to miss that, which wouldn't suprise me.

You should know.

I'm not sure where you came from, but perhaps you should go back to the drawing board, mr spectrum. Your drivel is so full of holes, I could use it to irrigate my carrots. You appear to be so ignorant, it's pathetic. You criticize and condemn people for criticizing groups of people, yet you don't seem to have a problem condemning the American lifestyle or morals.

Excuse me?

I don't care if you are in America or not. Perhaps you should dutifully cancel your ISP, uninstall your newsreader, and go away. You are using part of the Internet that was initially created and funded based on *my* (aka AMERICAN) tax dollars, if you believe this is such a corrupt and morally bankrupt society.

wes wrote:

You're so full of BS your breath stinks. Where are YOU getting YOUR information? Not everything is based on shallow and superficial motives such as you display with your all-to-ignorant rantings.