breast implants

What happoned to windy. Why did she get breast implants. It looked like the doc who was doing that was trying to save her life.

She felt she had to keep up with Bebe. That doctor was just brutal. :D

They were trying to point out that Wendy was too young to have breast implants. The doc had a hard time putting that shit in.

"Willie Westwood" wrote in message news:gdDZ8.2049$[email]...

True, but money trumps all.

"Willie Westwood" wrote in message news:1xFZ8.1726$[email]...

That and I'm sure the doctor wanted more breasts to ogle.

"Buddy Lee" wrote in message news:J4FZ8.98911$[email]...

He also fucked up. According to his own explanation, "we take this little plastic bag and gently place it in the chest where we fill it with salt water." How hard could it be to place an empty plastic bag in there and then fill it up? Looks like the doctor shoved two *filled* bag in Wendy's chest rather than two empty ones. The surgery would have gone much smoother if they were empty.

But hell, that an eight-year-old would need implants is quite ridiculous in and of itself. :D

On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 09:45:52 GMT, "Willie Westwood" wrote:

Except that the bags come pre-filled with saline. The reason is that a completely sealed bag is thought to be less likely to leak than one that is filled after being inserted. When my roommate worked for a plastic surgeon, we had about a dozen pre-insertion funbags sitting around the apartment, they're fun to toss at least.

Jeremiah

I thought that perhaps it was because he was a quack.

In France, defendants are presumed GUILTY until proven innocent, in accordance with Napoleonic law (hence the burden of proof lies not with the state, but with the individual). I understand it's still practiced in the state of Louisiana.

[email] ([email]) wrote in message...

side

presenting

That sounds absolutely horrible to me. That describes the legal system on an episode of the sci-fi fantasy show "Lexx." It basically results in the lawyers not worrying much about their clients, but rather their own asses. (In Lexx, the punishment wasn't disbarment, but rather whatever punishment the client received!)

That cannot be true of Louisiana, or any U.S. state. Are you sure it's true about France? That's just plain ridculous if it is true. I don't see how a country so rooted in democracy would stand for such a policy...one that basically supports a police state. btw, we are treading closely here in the U.S. with this...in many cases, it may as well be that one is presumed guilty until proven otherwise. Sad.

Okay, I did the research. The statement about France presuming defendants guilty until proven innocent is patently false. It was true centuries ago, perhaps. Such was true many places centuries ago. It might be true somewhere on Earth still, though I doubt anywhere that is considered a first-world nation. For example, I know that it is true in Vietnam. Be glad you don't live there.

Bao H. Lammy wrote:

It is partially true only. The main precept of the French justice is presumption of innocence.

But for some offences, like mental harassment, the defendant has to prove his innocence.

And furthermore, according to their function, some people are automatically on oath (policemen and some state agents for example) which means they don't have to prove what they say, since they say someone did something, it is considered true unless the defendant can prove it wrong, with witnesses for example. (and generlly, it is really witness*es* since a single witness is generally not enough)

Well, that is true even in the U.S. for some things. For example, if you are audited by the IRS, you have to prove that you did file taxes correctly by producing receipts, etc. If you are charged with drug dealing, your assets are often seized immediately and sold off before you have a trial. A travesty of justice.

That bites. What about corruption in the police?! Yikes.

i believe it was a reference to "A streetcar named desire"

"Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

Yes, and a royal pain in the ass it is too.

PZB

[email] (Malcolm) wrote in message news:...

This is false. Napoleonic code actually has no presumption of guilt nor innocence. It is the task of the courts to arrive at the truth and then to accord justice.

This has some interesting implications. For example, a witness is not allowed to refuse to testify on the basis of not self incriminating. There is no equivalent to the fifth ammendment. Or for another example, a judge is allowed and encouraged to ask questions of a witness to further the cause of the truth. A judge can call his/her own witnesses.

You understand wrong. grelbr