Archive through July 17, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archive Three: Why no REAL 'fat girl' in the house, but we get George, Gerry, Kent, etc. : Archive through July 17, 2002

Seamonkey

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 02:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Examples of people coming to mind who seem to be strong and not reed thin.. SaraMarie from BB Australia and Kelly Osbourne. Camryn Manheim.

BB UK had a woman who was Hindu, Narinder. She was also vegetarian or vegan.

Here we've had Britt, Karen, Cassandra, Nicole, and others who haven't seemed to have the need to expose the most possible flesh every moment and look just fine.

Calamity

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 02:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
It's pretty obvious why BB reserves a place for the token beefy man yet casts only slim women (and I include Amy in this group - she may not be stick-skinny but she's certainly not fat). While individual preferences vary, in general American society considers it more acceptable for men to be larger than it is for women. Maybe it not's fair but that's the way it is.

I don't mean to make anyone feel defensive, but doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the audience lambasts the producers for selecting some houseguests primarily based on their looks but then the fans turn around and make endless comments about the players' appearances? It's a human weakness to focus on such superficial issues but we all do it to one degree or another and it's only logical that the show would try and exploit that. Honestly, if kinda-cute Jason wasn't on the show, I doubt I'd bother watching. "The Amazing Race" is terrific but even if the players annoy or bore you, there's always the fabulous places they visit to hold your interest. "Big Brother" has lame challenges and looks to be set in a drab manufactured house in parking lot, for gosh sake. If the contestants aren't engaging or attractive, I can't imagine what reason I'd have to tune in. (And frankly, all the live feed dish I've read on this board about the smutty goings on have me thinking I might drop out despite good-natured Jason and funny Amy.) Actually, more than anything, I'd welcome a group of all-around *smart* players. They can scheme better and usually are quicker-witted which would improve the level of conversation dramatically.

If you want to see ordinary, typical-sized folks on a reality show, watch an episode of "Trading Spaces". I've only viewed it a few times but find it downright mortifying comparing the testy, cookie-cutter 30 or 40-something suburbanites in their size extra-large shirts with the fit and multi-demographic neighbors of the UK's "Changing Rooms". I don't mean to offend anyone, but like Bill Maher said, the eating disorder we ought to be concerned about in this country isn't anorexia or bulimia, it's obesity. It isn't merely a matter of aesthetics, our national diet is a disaster for people's health and the environment.

One final thing. I always get riled whenever I hear/read about how nasty and vicious women "always" behave towards each other. I kinda get the vibe here that some believe any criticism female posters make about female houseguests and likewise any negative interaction between female houseguests themselves must be based on petty feminine jealousy and competitiveness. Not true. If anything, I suspect it's dismay because in my experience, whenever a female behaves badly, there's a general tendancy to attribute it to "typical woman". I don't want someone else's skanky behavior reflecting on me, thank you very much.

Okay, who didn't I tick off with this post?!

Wcv63

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 03:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
You didn't tick me off Calamity although I don't agree with some of your views. :)

Women are generalized as a group. I agree with that. Nothing gets me going than the offhand quip, "typical woman" or "must be THAT time". Arrrgghh.

My comments about women "allowing" themselves to be caught up in the body image consciousness had more to do with self-image and self-judgement. If we aren't permitting ourselves to be comfortable with our bodies how can we expect others to do any different?

As far as watching BB for the beautiful people. Not me. I watch because I have been captivated by the sociological and interpersonal relationships. The "prettiness" doesn't factor into it at all.

Some of my most favorite people in the world don't fit into the "pretty hardbody" catagory. However I'd rather spend my time listening to their fascinating, humorous, insightful, and intelligent conversations than watching a hardbody spew out some vapid nonsense.

Oregonfire

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 03:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think Americans are obsessed with food, period. Something is seriously out of whack when there *is* such an obesity problem, yet the Hollywood lovelies look like lollipops at the same time. I think the problem has to do with consumer culture and our on-the-go lifestyles. Many overweight Amercians, IMO, are the opposite of lazy. They are crazed and overworked, shoving a burger in their mouth while working through lunch and the like.

Restaurants are also guilty of "supersizing," and corporations of creating "low cal" foods that are actually no better than regular calorie foods. We also love our cars to a ridiculous degree, and the car companies who are making a tidy profit have no incentive to convince us otherwise.

I'm not saying that being a certain size is "all society's fault," but how did such a hardworking society get so fat?

IMO, the problem is indicative of rampant American consumerism.

Mr_Bozack

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 03:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
What are you're qualifications for what makes for a fat girl? 20 pounds overweight? 30 pounds overweight? 50 pounds overweight? (There's a lot of women on this board, so I'm genuinely curious as to your opinions...and the guys too if they have the guts). Some might argue that Cassandra was fat, or at least overweight and getting close to that edge. NOT ME, but some might.

But you all KNOW why you can't put a bunch of young, thin girls in a house in which they can't leave with another girl who is fat/overweight/thinks they're fat/etc. If the fat girl gets on the thinner girl's nerves, they are going to tease her about it; especially if it will make her freak out and get her nominated.

There's been girls in every Big Brother so far who start whining about how they're the fat one. Britney in #1 whined about that a few times, didn't she? At that time, the house guests were reliant on the public not to vote them out, so they all put up with it and were extremely nice to one another, but who knows if someone would've used it against her to get her to freak if they all voted each other out and didn't need to rely on appealing to the public.

There was Autumn from #2 who whined about it, and sure enough, as soon as she confided in everyone that she was sensitive about her weight, Shannon used it on her after she led Mike on, she bawled and bawled about it and Autumn was gone that week, not Shannon. And hey, wasn't Autumn a "normal-sized" girl who was a character on Big Brother? She was far from "thin".

And now we got Amy, who definitely isn't fat at all, but she labeled herself almost immediately as the fat one. What kind of low self-esteem is that? Could you imagine if they had a truly fat woman in there with Lisa and Kiara and she got on their nerves? It would be a bloodbath...which might be kind of entertaining in a sleezy, reality TV kind of way...but regardless, they would go right after her weight, subtly, yet malitiously. If she was some big-ass dominatrix, now SHE might be the one sending Lisa and Kiara back to their army cots crying, but if she had any of the same types of issues most of the "normal-sized" women in the house have had, they would chew her ass up.

Or maybe not. Who knows? Based upon what I observe though, women can be pretty cruel psychologically to one another, and personal weight issues is definitely and angle that can be subtly worked due to the fact that most women are susceptible to them. If you get your wish, you may not be happy with what you see.

Wcv63

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 03:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Mr. B, although I understand what you're trying to say I don't agree with it. People who feed on others insecurities doesn't fit the "typical woman". Most typical women are not like that all. SOME WOMEN are. SOME MEN are as well. That kind of psychological cruelty is not a gender issue. But it does speak for the types of people they put on the show.

Mr_Bozack

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 04:01 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Wcv63, exactly. And those are the types of scenarios that would happen with the self-centered, competitive, malitious, spiteful people they cast in this series, no?

In my observations, and I'm someone who tries to be as objective as I can as I don't like to cast stereotypes (and I can't in all honesty say in every case this would be the situation), but whenever I've seen a relationship between two women go sour, and one really wants to hurt the other one, and they both aren't thin or physically fit, they go right for the weight issue. Like a fish to water, like a bird to the sky. Even if they're both overweight, the heavier one will get called fat. Adolecents, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged women. The only types of women I haven't seen lower themselves to this when they really go at one another are senior citizens. When it's an all-out fight, one always goes for the weight issue, and then the tears start flowing.

Sobaditsgood

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 04:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hey MrB, I started this thread so maybe it's only fair that I get the first crack (no crack cracks pls!) at answering your question.

What equals "really" fat? First let me explain again that "really" wasn't intended to mean "extremely" fat but rather "actually" fat as opposed to "supposedly". Maybe that is too much semantics for a msg board about a silly tv show but I just want you guys to understand the spirit in which I posed the question in the first place because there's quite a difference between meanings.

Having said all that --

"Actually fat" is not easy to put a pound amount on because people carry weight differently. But just to get a visual starting point if you have, say, someone who can't touch their own toes while standing flat on the ground because of their extra body weight, that would be "actually fat". (Yeah I realize some people who are thin can't do this either but that's a flexibility issue, just trying to get some rough idea of a starting point!!)

Hmm. Now that I'm thinking of it, I could try and think of some other qualifiers for actually fat as opposed to merely "fat" but I think it might devolve quickly if meanspirited people jumped in so I will not go there.. and want to point out again that I'm not trying to insult ANYONE with the thread, just have been genuinely curious about the issue.

Your points about women being capable of cruelty (psych.) are of course completely valid, and it's one of the things the producers count on every bit as much as they count on audience wanting to see hardbodies. Lots of people like a good catfight, anybody remember that old night time soap with the two female characters who somehow wound up literally in the mud, fighting, and that was a big ratings hit.

Sure there would be the probability that other women would be catty and malicious about a (true) fat girl's weight, but I guess I just don't think that should be any more sacred an issue than anything else... so many contestants in these shows claw and snipe and scratch at each other about other things, weight would just be one more. I'm not going to be hypocritical and say that would be terrible -- of COURSE it would be terrible, but in the real world as well as on these shows some people are capable of being terrible. (Me, I'd rather know who they are right up front! But that's another story.)I don't think it would be any more a "bloodbath" than anything else, esp if they screened carefully for personality and not just body type. Pick a gal with a certain kind of attitude and I think you wouldn't have to worry a lot about her weeping and breaking down because somebody put some chips on her bed or otherwise called her fat, a la Autumn.

As for not being happy with what I see if I get my wish, hey I'm not all that happy with the show NOW so if I don't get to be happy with it, I'd rather be not-quite-happy *with* my wish than not-quite-happy *without*!!!! :)

(I'd never be completely happy unless they let me cast all the shows and decide which forced interactions to give the hamsters... but since that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, I'm more or less happy enough to keep semi-watching and nitpicking. hee!)

Misslibra

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 05:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think if I were a guy, out of all the girl's I would find Amy the sexiest. she leaves something to the imagination.

Jeneane

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 06:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think the whole issue comes down to a resentment towards the casting people and producers deciding what we all want to see and making generalizatins as to what we all like. Again as with body type we all have different likes and dislikes therefore we all want a menue that offers more than one item. Unfortunately Arnie hasn't grasped this concept yet.

Loppes

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:11 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I made the similar observatiion in another folder. The oldest men thus far have been somewhat pudgy or overweight, while the women in their age category are hot.
Lon

Sherball

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:29 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes but what is not known is that older, heavier women have been seriously considered. Speaking for last year only my mom has told me stories about a heavier older lady who did cartwheels in the gym during their finals week in LA. She made it to the final group of 9 woman before being chosen as an alternate.

Gadzooks

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I personally would have liked to see an actual obese girl living in the house. The media keeps telling us that Americans are increasingly getting fatter and that is reality. It would only make sense to include that demographic in the house. It would have been interesting to see how fast she would have been voted out and how the men would have reacted to her. I'm sorry but I've never seen anyone like Tonya anywhere near my town and it isn't realistic to fill the house with people like that. By the way, why not add a 70 or 80 year old person in there. The population is getting older and why is that sector being totally ignored? What??? NO FARMERS....NO PLUMBERS.....NO "REAL" PEOPLE....ugh!!!

Loppes

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Gadzooks,
You have a good point!
Lon

Calamity

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 09:20 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Hi Mr_Bozack, this is getting way off topic but as I see it your comments have merely proved my point that there is a blind tendancy to d*** all women for the bad behavior of one or a few. I didn't watch BB1 and only saw some of BB2, but to use your example...you point to Shannon being cruel to Autumn and then try and use that isolated case as definitive proof of women's natural inclination to be mean and hurtful towards each other. Wrong, it means *Shannon* was an unpleasant *person*. Why should her nasty behavior be considered more representative of women's relationships with each other than Krista and Monica's friendship could be? Or any of the other females in the house who didn't mock Autumn for her appearance? Like Wcv63 wrote, SOME women are vindictive or trashy or incompetent. Just like SOME men are. I thought you had almost talked your way out of it when you specified that only a certain type of spiteful, malicious, etc. person would behave in such a negative manner but then you went on to say that in your experience all women except senior citizens behave in that way. You may know of women who have made deliberately hurtful comments to an ex-friend after a falling out, but that does not mean that all or most females would behave that way or even that the situation came about because they were both women. Just trying to explain my position and hope you don't take my comments as a flame because that isn't how they were intended.

Hi Wcv63, hope you didn't misunderstand me. I agree that ultimately it's the contestants' personalities and behavior that are what attracts (or repels) the audience. I was just pointing out that it's not unreasonable for the producers to play to the cameras somewhat with a few good-looking players. If those people turn out to be jerks or bores, well, neither gorgeous faces nor buff bodies will be able to hide that from the audience.

And finally, hi Oregonfire, yep, Americans need to take a good long look at our lifestyle. Hope we take our blinkers off pretty soon because if we don't, someone or something else is going to do it for us.

Mr_Bozack

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 10:30 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Calamity, don't worry about me taking offense to your position. I don't get offended easily.

You should consider yourself fortunate that your experiences with other women don't more often than not downgrade to this type of personal attack against one another whenever they go to war against one another. It happened twice in the office I work out of just last week with two of my female, middle-aged co-workers; both of whom refered to the other as a fat b--ch to me while the other wasn't present. This is a sentiment I've heard more often than not (whether direct or in confidence) whenever two women have a problem with one another that is probably not likely to get resolved (that is, only if one of the two could fall into the voluptuous/chunky/fat/obese cagegory; whatever you want to call it). I'm sure there are many women out there who would never resort to that type of behaviour for vendictive, personal reasons (and good for them). It's just that, based on what I've observed much more often than not, weight is something women who don't like each other will seem to go after after the relationship has soured after a certain point. At least from what I've observed anyway.

Dedonjo

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 10:59 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Interesting thread here, with many good points made! Thanks!
I agree with those folks who feel that this game would be more interesting with a cast of "real" people, people truly from all walks of life (with no more than one Hollywood wanna-be), of all shades and shapes, including some large, healthy people - as largeness does not necessarily preclude healthiness.

I disagree with those who say that "America wants" to see only skinny, hard bodies. I think that's something we're still being sold by the people who live and work in that particular culture, who want to perpetuate their myth that they have sole rights to the "beauty factor". Many of those "beautiful" people are the most insecure folks around (including those we are watching now), and by devaluing everyone else they are trying to raise their own level of self value.

Tonya fell prey, she's a victim. I feel sorry for her.

I think "America" wants and needs people they can relate to in the media.
I want to see physically and intellectually well rounded people.

And even if I was only watching this show for the "eye candy", I don't consider the offerings here all that tasty... I'm not interested in looking at the women, to emulate them or anything else. And I think it's sad that so many consider weight a main factor in repulsivity - there are many who don't, and in fact find large attractive. Many of them won't admit it publicly, it's not socially acceptable, right?

And as for the men, well, for the most part they all look the same - people keep getting Roddy and Eric mixed up, Jason looks like Will... there are so many other "sweet" types of men...

Hershey bars are okay, but Nestle Crunch are better - and for a real treat, maybe an Almond Roca...

Last comment - I think it is interesting that a game like Survivor, that requires some level of physical fortitude, has a higher percentage of "less beautiful" people competing - and winning - than BB, which requires no physical strength, but has a houseful of physically "fit" contestants.

Ghost

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Amazing .. The answer to this thread is contained within replying posts but not in the way you might think .. a couple of examples ..

***

Iceprincess

Because "REAL" women have "REAL" brains and they would not only intimidate, but outsmart those "FAKE" ones and thereby making the competition unfair. Can't have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person.

Tabbyking

hey, gals just buy the sports illustrated swimsuit issues to get them all off the racks before our guys see them and expect us to look like the models!

Twiggyish

I think Tonya is an example of fake woman ==> no brains.

Deirpg

Tonya and her implants is a perfect example of this. In the CBS BB chat room, all I hear is how beautiful Tonya is and what a great body she has. Some people don't realize or maybe don't care that it's fake - all of it. Her hair is fake, her white teeth are fake, her breasts are fake, and what else has she altered for appearance sake? This is an unrealistic and unhealthy ideal to live up to.

***

Iceprincess implies that a woman that is 'FAKE' is thus stupid and all 'REAL' women are intellegent. Can we spell Stereotyping ?

Tabbyking, which guys are you talking about that expect all women to be a certain look, shape or size? More stereotyping.

Twiggyish, Tonya has no brian's, hmmm, ok she has a shot at winning half a million dollars, manages to get out of bed, feed and cloth herself. Must have some brians don't you think? Where is it written that all persons on the planet must have an IQ of 150+?

Deirpg, "This is an unrealistic and unhealthy ideal to live up to." what's unrealistic about it, people get implants, people get their teeth bleached, people like to look good. If Tonya or anyone chooses to 'improve' their appearance, good luck to them. Who asked you to live up to anything?

If people are going to be torn up for taking pride in the way they look, then imagine what would happen to someone that is the slightest bit overweight, or less than a rogue scholar on these forums. Mosts of the posts here do exactly what they accuse the producers of BB of doing, stereotyping and catering to the lowest comon denominator.

Amazing

Sobaditsgood

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Heya Ghost - you said:

>>Mosts of the posts here do exactly what they accuse the producers of BB of doing, stereotyping and catering to the lowest comon denominator.<<

Er.. okay, if you say so (though personally I don't think that MOST of the posts here do that). But here's my question for you:

do you *disagree* that the producers are doing these things, or merely felt compelled to point out what you perceive as hypocrisy in some of the msg board posters?

Let me just say, btw, that "accusing the producers of stereotyping" etc should not automatically be taken as a bad thing. I'm the one who started this thread and I can tell you flat out that the word to use for MY intent in asking the question is not "accuse" but maybe "acknowledge." This show exists for one reason, to make money, so naturally there are tried-and-true formulas producers follow toward that end. I for one ain't dumb enough to think otherwise.

I simply wanted to know if others in the audience would honestly keep watching if some producer were nervy enough to deviate from the formula. (So you see, my original question really was more about the audience than the producers...)

Iceprincess

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ghost,

You took my post way out of context. By fake I was speaking of those not with fake bodies but fake minds. You could have a 350# woman in there who could be totally FAKE. Tonya is by far FAKE not just cause of her breasts but because of her attitude. Anyone who can talk THAT much about money and material things is really lacking in the brain department. I have YET to hear anything out of her mouth that is remotely intelligent. Even her spending habits are FAKE. I am sorry but $4,000 for a CAT and she doesn't have a basting brush. Sounds more like bragging then anything real.

I would rather watch people with brains whether fat, thin, purple, or green then people without. It offers more brain stimulation and entertainment when you have people debating things and talking about things then sex.

And for the record, with the exception of 1 or 2 this group by FAR is more shallow and unintelligent then any of the BB groups thus far.

Jane_Bond

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I just had to say that as a woman of voluptuous size: I can touch my toes with ease! What a ridiculous measure of size!

And, yes, Survivor's popularity is partly because they consistantly offer a compelling range of personalities, body types, ages, lifestyles, levels of education and economic lifestyles.

People don't watch TV to see the pretty people, they watch it to see versions of themselves reflected back at them.

I, too, am getting a little sick of the "George" stereotype.

Foodbunny

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"less than a rogue scholar"

I hear that Rogue Scholars get a +3 modifier on the backstab when wielding a slide rule.

Ghost

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 01:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Sobaditsgood,

I understood the point of your post and what you were looking for. You hit the nail on the head the object of BB is to make money through advertisement sales in it's timeslot on CBS.

Honestly, I think they would make more money if they were to include an opinionated, loud, overwieght, unattractive, obnoxious person or two in the HG line up. It's obvious that American BB HG's aren't going to go accomodate the 'sex sells' theory. So they would do better to put people in there that could be universally hated, it would work better from a sales point of view.

Lets face it most people love to jump on a band wagon, and 'hate' in groups. So what if the 'hated' would need to leave the country the moment they left the house because their life outside the house would be destroyed.

Your correct about the reason for my post, I thought much of what was posted was hypocrisy, and stereotyping to the extreme. If people want so called *REAL* people as house guests then they need to change attitudes IMHO. If I were a BB producer I'd be scared to death to put in a female house guest that was overwieght, didn't have 150+ IQ and that might ever do anything that didn't meet public approval 100% of the time. I couldn't afford the law suit or the medical bills when that poor person got out of the house and read what the 'audience' would have to say. British BB is a case in point on that one.

Look what people are saying about the current house guests, and their appearance. People are ripping them up when they look good, imagine what would happen if they put in people that didn't look good to start with. Scares the heck out of me.

Eliz87

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 01:35 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ghost, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention the BB UK lawsuit. Please fill me in on that one?

Anyway, remember on BB1....Karen had quite a hard time when she left the house. She certainly didn't have a fan club and word has it she got treated pretty rudely by the people in her hometown after she left the show. But to my knowledge, this wasn't any grounds for a lawsuit.

Sobaditsgood

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 01:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
sigh.

I guess I'll be the "mean" person to point out that the phrase is Rhodes Scholar. (And also to say how genuinely funny that *this* phrase is one to get mangled!)

Jane, you said:

>>I just had to say that as a woman of voluptuous size: I can touch my toes with ease! What a ridiculous measure of size!<<

Ridiculous? Really? You think? Well, I was struggling to come up with something that could provide a visual for someone unfamiliar with female clothing sizes and/or weights. As I mentioned, people carry weight differently - meaning one woman who is 5'7" and weighs 180 might look downright fat while another weighing the same amount (but carrying it proportioned differently or with different ratio of fat:muscle) could simply look robust/healthy. Someone asked what my idea of "actually fat" was and I knew if I started throwing out numbers in terms of pounds (180 pounds, 200 pounds) someone would inevitably pipe in with "Yeah but that depends on how tall you are and how it's distributed" ... .and if I said "Anyone size 20 or larger" someone would say "Gee I never bought women's clothes, what's a size 20?"

So excuuuuse me, please, I was just trying to think of some way to very roughly gauge body size/shape that doesn't involve pounds or other numbers. I thought the toes-touching thing was a pretty good gauge - I have to admit you have me curious about what "voluptuous size" means to you if you can touch your toes with ease. Because the idea in choosing that standard was this: someone with a bit of a tummy can still touch their toes while standing flat with knees unbent, if they are otherwise flexible. But there is a point beyond which, body-fat-size, it simply is not logistically possible for most people...unless you have disproportionately long arms. I'm not being facetious or anything else, just stating the fact -- someone with a certain amount of extra weight/fat around their middle would not be able to touch their toes. But what that "certain amount" might be, I can't begin to guess; just figured it would be an okay starting point in trying to define what's "actually fat" without getting into numbers for pounds or clothing sizes.

Okay?

I sincerely hope you get that I wasn't disparaging anyone of any size. I've known plenty of people who weren't overweight at all who still couldn't touch their toes because they had zero flexibility! People who are thin can be out of shape and people who aren't can be reasonably healthy. I know these things. If my prior posts led you to believe otherwise, I apologize.