Conference back40::soapbox

                           They're all size queens!

RE           <<< Note 311.0 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "CML IAC RTL RAL" >>>

>	Speaking of rights, RKO jocks were discussing the proposal
>	to include height and weight on the list of things, based on
>	which, one could not be discriminated against.  
>
>	Is that going too far or what?

  Well it depends. If some political district is saying that you have to meet
certain height and/or weight restrictions in order to vote then I'd say that is
wrong. 

  On the other hand if someone is saying that you have to tolerate 500 pound
flight attendants on commuter flights then that's going to far. 

  George

>>  On the other hand if someone is saying that you have to tolerate 500 pound
>>flight attendants on commuter flights then that's going to far. 

	right - no discrimination, in terms of jobs, housing, etc. based
	on race, color, creed, ... height, or weight.

    that's the long and the short of it.

    .3
    
    > right - no discrimination, in terms of jobs, housing, etc. based
    > on race, color, creed, ... height, or weight.
    
    good thing our army doesn't buy its tanks from the rooskies.  i'd hate
    to see them trying to cram a 6-3 tanker into a t-72.

    
    T-80...
    
    and the local civil war over there has found that the tank sucks...
    

    .6
    
    i referred specifically to the t-72 because it's pretty generally known
    that nobody over 5-4 can work in one.  and the main gun also has a
    pretty spiffy autoloader that tends to autoload not only shells but
    also certain rather valuable parts of the gunner's anatomy.  as one
    israeli expressed it, "we believe that this is where the russian army
    chorus gets its sopranos."

    >> On the other hand if someone is saying that you have to tolerate 500
       pound flight attendants on commuter flights then that's going to far.
    
    
    if she can do the job well, then what difference does it make what her
    weight is???
    
    
    

    Are you saying you're a well rounded person?

    
    
    nothing wrong with that!
    
    

    Why not add attractiveness, too? And what about intelligence?

    Re: .8
    
    >if she can do the job well, then what difference does it make what her
    >weight is???
    
    Given the size of the typical commuter plane's aisle and the
    circumference of the typical 500 pound person, it is extremely unlikely
    she or he could do the job well.

	There's also the question of whether "doing the job well" includes
	making people feel comfortable with one's appearance.  If the job
	is host/hostess, receptionist, or something along those lines, then
	is it reasonable to include presentability among the criteria for
	placement?  

	Legislating the whole thing opens up quite the can of worms, too,
	since it would probably mean that tall people or little people or
	fat people would officially be minorities.  Boggles the mind.

    
    
    Why not?
    
     Everyone else wants to be a victim today...
    

    .15
    
    > all people or little people or
    > fat people would officially be minorities.
    
    except in colorado.

RE               <<< Note 311.8 by GAVEL::JANDROW "brain cramp" >>>

>    if she can do the job well, then what difference does it make what her
>    weight is???
    
  Well 1st of all it's not necessarily a she but airplanes are very sensitive
to weight. The more weight used up by the crew, the less available for things
like fuel and cargo.

  Then with passenger aircraft there's always the problem of limited space
in isles and in work areas.

  George

    
    There used to be a height minimum to join a police dept. That has been
    waived for about 6-7 years, at least in Illinois, can't speak for the
    rest of the country though.
    
    Mark

I hope this law passes.  I've always wanted to be a jockey.

    <---- You should put together a straw horse document and jockey for
    some funding.

    
    I wish you guys would quit horsing around.
    

    Nay

    Whoa!

    
    Does this mean I can join the NBA now?

    RE: Deb in the NBA
    
    Tyrone ("Mugsy") Bogues is still going strong, so you might
    have a chance!
    
    -b

    Quit trying to stirrup trouble, OK?
    

    
    How tall is this Tyrone fellah?

    -1 i dunno. there's been a lot of controversy over his actual
       height, but he's around 5'6" - 5'7" (approx.).
    
       hey, didja know you had to be over 6' to be a Vatican Guard?
    
       Chip

    RE: .29
    
    	How tall are the Vatican forwards and center?
    
    ME

    -1 nice one! :-)
    
       Chip

    
    Darn it, I get shut out of all the fun jobs 8^/.

    I thought Mugsy was 5'4".

    Mugsy is 5' 3"...
    
    -b

    
    Oh, a tall guy, huh 8^/.

    NPR has a thing on Dwarfs the other day.  Seems as if a gene is
    reponsible and there is a test to determine if your baby will be born
    as a dwarf.  Some dwarfs do not want to have a normal sized child.  The
    issue was on aborting the fetus if the baby would be normal.
    
    Lots of issues here.  One was that some dwarfs feel intimadated by a
    child much larger than them.  Another was that dwarfs generally live in
    houses built for them.  Low counter tops, smaller furniture, short
    stoves, etc.  Hard for normal size people to live in this setting. 
    Hard for dwarfs to live in normal peoples houses.
    
    Anyway, this went on for 30 minutes.  I never that much about it until
    the show.  To think that dwarfs would want to abort their fetuses
    because the baby would be normal.  This would be a real issue for the
    pro abortion people.  Would also be a real issue for the
    disabled/size/handicapped/were different/special/give us something/you
    owe us something/leave us alone/we are normal/no your not crowd.
    
    Different slant.

    Too bad "Men Without Hats" aren't making videos anymore, eh?
    
    -b

    Oh, boo-hoo.  As a fellow "width challenged", "height challenged",
    and "depth challenged" person (mainly, width = height = depth),
    I'm intensely annoyed with NAAFA and other "fattist" organizations
    who've become empowered (i.e., whining self-proclaimed victims
    who demand to be heard with increasing volume until someone humors
    them out of desperation and/or boredom, especially if it's a slow
    news day) to seek out new rights and special treatment from the
    government and the media.
    
    These people are just making the rest of us look worse by association.
    It's the real world, go out and make it (or not) on your own merits,
    talents, knowledge, and experience.  Don't go looking for Mommy
    Government's shoulder to cry on if your feelings are hurt or you
    think you're missing out on something.  The government will never
    be able to write a law forcing someone to like the way you look (or
    even to like you at all, for that matter), so get to work and shaddup.
    
    You know, this is a good incentive for me to stay on my diet and
    exercise, just to put some distance between myself and these bleating
    cretins.
    
    Chris

    
    here,here, chris...
    
    

    I`m not over weight, I`m just short!!

    <---
    
    
    i think you mean undertall...
    
    

    knee undertall?

    Thor Heiderdahl (sp?)

	Glenn, it's kneed underalls

    
    lacey underalls

    cagney and lacey underalls
    

wow..... cop underalls.... detectives yet.... 

    get us out from under, wonder woman!

    According to new stories today 71 % of all Americans are overweight,
    therefore the minority that needs to be "protected" are those whose
    weight is below overweight levels.

    careful, overweight doesn't necessarily mean obese...
    
    Chip

    
    or fat either

    if 71% of the population are "overweight" shouldn't the
    weight-for-height tables be redefined ? how old are they anyway ? and
    are they inter- or intra- racial ?
    
    ric

    .52 well, maybe table portions need to be redefined... :-)
    
        weight tables are based on height, weight, body type, %body
        fat, male/female. these are only guidelines for the "average"
        individual. races may be a factor, but i've read or seen any-
        thing that factors it in. certainly, regional diet may play a
        role in many facets of the body's composition. by itself, it
        doesn't really mean a thing.
    
        say no to corpulence...
    
        Chip

    Obesity is 20% above normal weight.  Given the usual caveats about what
    constitutes normal, a lot of people are probably on a lot of different
    border lines.
    
    I'd say that any female who's a size 16 or higher is definitely fat;
    larger than a size 12 is on the way but not quite there yet.  I feel
    strongly that a size 12 is _not_ fat.  (And no, that's not my size.)

    -1 welllllll? :-)

    I suppose next you'll be asking my age.

    I am concidered obese. I weight in @276 lbs, 6' tall with a large
    frame. If I didn`t tell people this they would never know. I work out
    as often as I can (which is often enough for me). My is genetic because
    more than 50% of my family is more than 50% overwight. Othe than that I
    am in excellent health. I just try to be as carefull as possible about
    the ammount of fat intake and exercise as ofthen as possible. 

    >58
    and I`m a helluva nice guy with a great sense of humor and a nice
    personality. 

    age Chelsea... nope, not me! :-)
    
    not to pick on anyone, but the genetic equation, while valid, isn't
    extremely definitive. except in rare medically based cases, weight gain
    and weight loss is a simple formula of deposits and withdrawels...
    
    but even that alone is not the only factor. weight loss or gain can
    become an extremely complicated conversation, e.g. genetics, metabolic
    rates, other chronic disease implications, etc...
    
    Chip

    .60
    I don`t buy that. I worked out 9x`s more than recommended, ate
    1500-2000 calories a day and I didn`t lose anything, in fact I gained
    twenty pounds and my choleral went to 275. I stopped working out,
    continued to eat the same ammount, lost the twenty pounds and my
    cholestrol went back to normal. My Dr. is still stumped.

    .61 so you're not normal... but if i were you i'd get myself into a
        specialist and find out what's going on. it certainly doesn't
        sound like genetics...
    
        Chip

    
    
    >>>I'd say that any female who's a size 16 or higher is definitely fat;
    >>>larger than a size 12 is on the way but not quite there yet.  I
    >>>feel strongly that a size 12 is _not_ fat.  (And no, that's not my
    >>>size.)
    
                                              
    and i'd say that in some cases, you'd be wrong.
    

    I've been rowing my bloody ass off twice a day seven days a week
    for  a month, eating one meal a day of food that on the taste-o-
    meter rivals celery, popping chromium picoleanate and amino acids
    like they were Pez, and drinking enough water to drown a fish,
    and I've lost four pounds.
    
    I'm seriously thinking about visiting my friendly neighborhood
    lipo man to get a bit of a head start here.
    
    It must be all that brain matter that's weighing things down.
    
    -b

    .62
    The only test that I haven`t taken is a 5 hour glucose tolerance test.
    My mother had diabetes and my sister is hypoglycemic (please excuse the
    spelling) but ~Im within all ranges on a fasting test. I don`t think a
    specilist would pick any thing up. 

re:55 (And no, that's not my size.)/.57 I suppose next you'll be asking my age.

As my almost 4yr old daughter has recently learned to say via one of her aunts:
You're too much for your age. :-) 

re:.60 a simple formula of deposits and withdrawels..

withdrawals.

But whaddya do when the 'Fed' hikes interest rates?!?!

    Re: .63
    
    >and i'd say that in some cases, you'd be wrong.
    
    Which cases would those be?  The reason I feel strongly about it is be
    usual image conditioning, which implies that every desirable female
    should be a size 8, at most, preferably a size 6 or smaller.  There's
    no reason for the average size 12 to spend her life on the diet yo-yo.

    i suspect that raq is taking issue with your contention that anything
    over size 12 is fat or on the way to being fat, not because the target
    is size 8, but because she feels that larger sizes are not necessarily
    fat.  i concur; i know a knockout who is a size 14.  she is also six
    feet plus in height, a factor you omitted from your consideration.

    But can she do teh rope-a-dope?

    
    RE: working out and losing weight...
    
     Y'all have to remember a few things about the above...
    
     Your body chemistry and the way it uses/burns calories varies with
    degree.
    
      You will burn more fat calories at your lower target heart rate (ie.
    a brisk, sustained walk for 45-60 minutes) than you would running, say,
    5K in under 30 minutes.
    
      Working out with weights has it's problems re: gaining weight as
    muscle weighs more than fat... If you build/tone, you may very well
    gain weight. It's how you feel and how your clothes feel on you that
    tells the tale..
    

    
    
    thank you binder...that is pretty much what i was getting at...
    
    just because you are a size 16 does not mean you are fat.  and i
    have seen some rather 'fat' size 12s...
    
    height, frame size, and muscle tone can change ones 'fatness' when you
    refer only to size.  
    
    

    ::CRANE i wouldn't rule out all the possibilities as being covered.
    what's going on with you just doesn't fit and the skill and background
    required to determine/diagnose something out of the ordinary rarely
    exists with GP's or your regular hospitals.
    
    while weight lifting will add weight, the average (serious) body
    builder (if that's what he/she is targeting) can hope to gain only
    about 8lbs. in muscle a year. weight lifting is not an effective
    weight control exercise. you've got to invest time in an aerobic
    activity.
    
    studies have also concluded that your body will try and maintain a
    certain weight based on your activity. this is called the set point.
    this set point can be lowered with a balanced diet and a regular
    exercise (the right) program.
    
    Chip
    

    Re: .70
    
    >a factor you omitted from your consideration.
    
    Or so you assume.  Rules of thumb are pretty much by definition
    tolerant of some leeway.

    Re: .73
    
    >just because you are a size 16 does not mean you are fat.
    
    I would need some serious convincing on this point.  Size 16 has a hip
    measurement of about 40-42 inches.  How much of that can really be muscle?
    
    >i have seen some rather 'fat' size 12s...
    
    I'm sure you have, but so what?  I think I've spread sufficient caveats
    about that it doesn't matter.

    >> Size 16 has a hip measurement of about 40-42 inches.  
    
    according to which maker of clothing????  
    
    >> How much of that can really be muscle? 
    
    depends also on her bone structure...and tho it all may not be muscle,
    a size 16 woman in not necessarily fat.
    
    
    
    

    .84
    Thats my wifes hat size...oh no wrong note. :')

Chelsea, you are unbelievably ignorant in this matter.

Bob

    
    
    	I wish I could show you all pictures of my wife at the height of
    her anorexia when she was near death. 80+lbs of bone and skin. All this
    talk of what is or isn't fat makes me sick.
    
    

    Re: .84
    
    >according to which maker of clothing????
    
    Most American ones.  Sizes are pretty standard.
    
    >>> How much of that can really be muscle? 
    >
    >depends also on her bone structure...
    
    Do you have any idea how far apart hip bones are on a person of various
    size frames?  The difference between a "medium" frame and a "large"
    frame is only a few inches.
    
    The waist measurement for a size 16 is on the order of 30-32 inches. 
    How much of that is bone?  (Hint:  the waist falls below the rib cage
    and above the hip bones.)  How much of that is muscle?
    
    >and tho it all may not be muscle, a size 16 woman in not necessarily fat.
                                                          
    I would accept that for someone who's six feet tall.  But someone who's
    around average height?  _Extremely_ unlikely.  (Average height is on the 
    order of five foot four.)

    Re: .86
    
    >Chelsea, you are unbelievably ignorant in this matter.
    
    Then it should be extremely simple to point out to me what my mistakes
    are.  So do it -- now.  Or are you just blowing hot air?

re: .92

The others have done a very good job, so I won't bother.

Bob

    Re: .93
    
    You bothered enough to chime in -- at least to castigate me.  Was that
    it?  They hadn't done a very good job of castigating me, so you felt
    you had something to contribute?  But now that you've shot your wad,
    you're going to run away and hide?

    to return to my .52 which wasn't really discussed enough imho
    
    over or under weight has to be relative to something. presumably this
    is currently to the widely published weight for height tables as a
    quick reference, without going into the more complicated body type/ %
    body fat etc etc. again presumably these were derived from a study of
    the population at some time in the past. if the population is now
    71% over, then surely the average has to be updated so half are
    over and half are under ?
    
    ric$under_and_who_would_become_even_more_under

    
    >>Most American ones.  Sizes are pretty standard.
    
    you think so??  then explain to me how one person can be 3 different
    sizes depending on which store she shops in and who the maker of the
    clothes is...doesn't sound very standardized to me.
    
    >>I would accept that for someone who's six feet tall.  But someone who's
    >>around average height?  _Extremely_ unlikely.  (Average height is on the
    >>order of five foot four.)
    
    chelsea, i never said i was refering to an averaged sized person...in
    fact, i said height played a role...i simply stated that a size 16 is not
    necessarily fat. 
    

    .96
    I love it when they tell me one size fits all!!!

    >I love it when they tell me one size fits all!!!
    
    I got a bathrobe for Christmas once that was billed as "one
    size fits all". It could have fit a family of four!
    
    I turned it into a homeless shelter... :-) :-)
    
    -b

    I tried one of those robes...what a joke. I couldn`t get it over my
    shoulders.

    
    <-------
    
    Was in Wal-Mart the other day and picked up a women's spring coat (a
    gift for a relative).
    
     It was made in China and the tag said:
    
     "One size fits most"...
    
      I kid you not...
    

    re: last few -- in my house, we call those things "one size fits no
    one".
    
    M.
    

    Re: .96
    
    >doesn't sound very standardized to me.
    
    I said pretty standard.  That allows room for anomalies.  For the most
    part, you know what size clothing to try on when you go shopping.
    
    >simply stated that a size 16 is not necessarily fat. 
    
    And I have previously stated that this was a rule of thumb, which means
    that telling me something is not _necessarily_ so is no news.

    >> And I have previously stated that this was a rule of thumb, which
    >> means  that telling me something is not _necessarily_ so is no news.
    
    
    i never said it was news...just pointing out that your 'rule of thumb'
    has some holes in it.
    
    
    
    
    

    Re: .104
    
    >just pointing out that your 'rule of thumb' has some holes in it.
    
    Well, duh.  That's part and parcel of the definition of 'rule of thumb'
    -- precisely the point I was trying to make in my previous reply.

    Re: .106
    
    >I still think your "rule of thumb" is merely an opinion.
    
    Well, duh.  That's part and parcel of the definition, too.

    
    Chelsea
    
    You really must be alot of fun on a date or at a cocktail party. Have
    you ever been wrong in your life?? Just curious.
    
    Mark

re .113:

She's a veritable goddess.

    Re: .113
    
    >You really must be alot of fun on a date or at a cocktail party.
    
    I do not date or attend cocktail parties, so I guess not.
    
    >Have you ever been wrong in your life??
    
    No doubt.  I can't recall the exact circumstances, which implies that
    it has happened more than once.

    Re: .121
    
    >There is no truth to your rule of thumb
    
    So, you've never seen a size 16 who was fat or a size 12 who wasn't?
    
    As far as opinion goes, it was clearly indicated that it was my
    personal way of viewing things.  So telling me that I've expressed an
    opinion is hardly contributing anything to the discussion.  If you want
    to say, "Your opinion has no basis in fact," then say _that_.