| Forum | Topic | Date | Replies |
 |
|
|
|
| The Lounge | Draft: Who can and can't be drafted? and other ?'s | Sep 28 2008 20:51 (UTC) |
2 |
Ctpbunny, that's one more reason to feel good about him aging. |
|||
| The Lounge | Draft: Who can and can't be drafted? and other ?'s | Sep 28 2008 20:07 (UTC) |
4 |
Original Post by alibsam: Next he'll say " Our military is strong we have enough troops. " Then couple weeks later a draft will be issued! Lol That's the kind of expectations he gives people based on his words. Or is it just me? |
|||
| The Lounge | Palin -- this is PATHETIC! | Sep 28 2008 20:02 (UTC) |
119 |
McCain should text Palin her stance on the topic before she contradicts him again. Seriously? Seriously! I think they should be in constant contact so he can verify her comments before they're broadcaster. She can't even retract her own stance?! Mc.Cain can't delegate the responsibility of her own words to her? O_o Mc.Cain can't delegate the responsibility of the campaign to her either? o_O That's pathetic.
|
|||
| The Lounge | Draft: Who can and can't be drafted? and other ?'s | Sep 28 2008 18:16 (UTC) |
13 |
Clairelaine, I understand why people were outraged during Vietnam. I don't see how anyone can be so unaware that the potential of a draft isn't on their horizon though. I completely understand why people were outraged by it in the past. I think people should consider the likelihood of a draft if things continue on this way. I doubt they will though because they listen to media and political icons. The economy was strong two weeks ago according to Mc.Cain. People refused to even acknowledge a recession extensively. I just think people are deluding themselves to believe it's not likely. |
|||
| The Lounge | Draft: Who can and can't be drafted? and other ?'s | Sep 27 2008 17:02 (UTC) |
16 |
| Alibsam, I hadn't said there was one being issued right now. I just had those questions about it. Dbackerfan, Yeah. I know generally how it works but had a couple questions. After watching the debate last night it made me wonder. Since we're at odds withs so many places and they were suggesting more and more needed troops. Loki, I'm not trying to get out of one or anything of that nature. LMAO! I guess a lot of people would try that though. Keyword: try Jewelsmcblah, Thank you. I don't know why I hadn't thought to check wiki. I just thought some retired vets reading might know. |
|||
| Weight Loss | too much pressure? | Dec 06 2007 03:26 (UTC) |
15 |
| EnchantingImage said, OP posted for personal gain. Reporter said, It wasn't for gain, it was so others can tell her how to do something. How do you figure that isn't gain? When somebody asks a question, they want an answer, that is gain. Opposed to somebody giving something. Sounds like gain to me. You're the one making assumptions such as saying enchanting thinks the OP wants money.. that's intelligent of you. Reporter said, no, I won't avoid them in the future, so don't tell me to do so. You think you're special? I didn't read any of Image's posts telling you not to read hers. I don't see your name at all. I think she said that if you don't like to read something then don't read it. That's like saying if the fire burns, don't touch it. I bet you burn yourself to make points. Reporter said it was nice when others said what image said, but not when image said it. The way image said it was direct. The way others said it was redundant, almost copyright infringement, and was sugar coated as if you have to talk down to a person of less intellect. So much for you liking direct. Enchanting said the friend sounds fantastic. Reporter said we don't know how good of a friend it is. If she's all that bad, the OP shouldn't put out false images such as calling her a friend. If she doesn't consider this person a friend, she should say so, and there is no problem with telling them to go away. If the OP DOES consider this person a friend, then we're back to square 1 and Image being correct. Enchanting said this person is looking for insight. Reporter opposes by saying that isn't gain. Lol, you have a jaded perspective on what gain is. Nothing Image said is uncalled for. If you don't know what friendship or help are, you shouldn't post about it. The OP asked about help with getting rid of a friend. Image's post was direct and honest. Others' posts may have had constructive advice, but most of those were copying Image's post with sugar coating. Not because they don't have their own response, but because Image is right, and they are also right. A lot of advice you're giving. All you can do is judge image's post? I've seen the type of advice people like you give. If the OP was asking how to murder her friend you would ask her how she was going to do it, or what type of person the friend is. How about we be direct and honest like Image and just say what is and what is not a good idea. Stop sugar coating for people. |
|||
| Fitness | a question to all guys, from a girl | Nov 21 2007 05:44 (UTC) |
23 |
| I'd like to add something also in regard to the post saying ... "Having a lot of guy friends and three outspoken brothers...I have always heard the same. "I like my women to have curves...Manly" men like a woman who is curvy. They don't want to feel like their with a man." Okay. I seriously think people have opposing views on the definition of the word curvy. I've heard people use it instead of chubby, for someone that had a few extra pounds. Rolls aren't curves. There's nothing curvy about that in my view. Curvy is someone that's fit with a flat belly, that has an hour glass curve. A slim torso with accented butt and breasts are proper curves. It's not curvy or feminine to consider huge breasts comprised of 99% overweight fat appealing. And yes, I realize that breasts are generally fat and mammory glands. But breasts that are large just because the fat in them defines their unhealthy body is not attractive. Just because a woman is fit doesn't mean she's a line segment. Body builder women generally lose their breasts since body building works off fat, and breasts are half fat. However, women with core defination alone can still maintain feminine curve. I can't think of the name of the thread I read before, but it got to the point. People were they talking about how no girl could possible be a size zero and maintain breasts. They went on to say all size zeros looked like boys without curves. I disagree. Some girls wear a size zero and maintain a C cup. Depends on their bone stucture more than anything. Personally, I think girls that are visibly tone are more attractive. That doesn't necessarily mean a six pack, but definition all the same. A flat belly doesn't mean you forgo your feminine curves. Perhaps, to some that were never that endowed to begin with. I think that some women don't know their actual breast size, because they're too overweight to see it. In reality, a woman 5'2 that's 180lbs with a DD isn't curvy. Someone that's 5'2 105lbs with a C cup is curvy. One is fat the other is curve. Fat rolls aren't curves. - Just a guy |
|||
| The Lounge | Bratz Dolls: Worse Than Barbie? | Nov 03 2007 00:49 (UTC) |
|
| I know what you mean... It's much more difficult to get others involved in giving 'learning' or experiance related gifts. For instance on my childs birthday I suggested ' learning toys ' whether it be blocks or shapes or learn your colors/abc books. Everyone in our family acted defensive. They said " you want to raise your child Amish. " Then I was attacked because I didn't allow liquor or smoking at the the kiddie party. Note: It was a One Year Old's First Birthday. The only people attending were close family and cousins. All with kids four and under. Yet they were crushed when I scratched Liquor and smoking off the ' to do ' list. People don't even get the difference between adult Birthday parties and childrens. Therefore, I can see how the same people wouldn't understand how toys could be ' too mature ' for certain ages. Sad. | |||
| The Lounge | Bratz Dolls: Worse Than Barbie? | Nov 02 2007 00:46 (UTC) |
11 |
| I agree that Getfitgirl's post is a contradiction with her prior post on the thread 'Children and Body Image!!!' If your child has a poor body image, and you allow these dolls. I think you may not be the best candidate to vouch for them. | |||
| The Lounge | Bratz Dolls: Worse Than Barbie? | Nov 01 2007 23:41 (UTC) |
14 |
| It could be due to a balance of an assortment of different dolls/toys ect. Instead of the a dozen Bratz only as their idol. Just a thought... It's normal for kids to behavior to be both good and bad. But, I wouldn't want a toy called " Jerkz." To my sons favorite toy and idol. In what way are Jerks admirable? It's about as silly as the name Bratz. Not only is it spelt incorrectly, but they're romanticizing the term to our youth. | |||
| The Lounge | Bratz Dolls: Worse Than Barbie? | Nov 01 2007 21:44 (UTC) |
18 |
| ++++"#26 Lilmisszarah Kids can even get bad messages from good cartoons or play dirty games with teddy bears." Children don't just come up with 'dirty games, ' It stems from something around them. Something that they've seen and are emulating. Children don't just know sexual things. They don't just get dirty jokes, or tell them on their own either. These are things they've been influanced to do. Children have very impressionable little minds. Boys and girls don't just start playing dirty games with teddy bears. I strongly and seriously suggest you should to look into your childs behavior for the source. If he/she is doing these things because it's very possible they're being molested or something just as wrong. Or to anyone else that has a child that's acting out in such a way. It was a very distrubing thing to read on my behalf. Our children are exposed to all sorts of things, as they get older. At points that it's harder to keep tabs when society says they're old enough to choose. However, that's long past this stage in their life when the toys are put away... and posters of their favorite bands are placed on their walls. Parenting isn't a lack of boundries.There is a time when it's suitable to stop filtering certain material, but it's not grade school or preschool for that matter. I had to look it up to see but the age guideline is Four years and older on Bratz dolls. I thought perhaps it was older and people were just giving them to younger kids. Four years isn't agreeable to me. I think they're preteen dolls for children say loosely between ' 10-14.' I also agree with the fact the name in itself is a bad example. " I wanna be a BRAT, Daddy! " Great. That's fantastic. What's next? Four year olds should have better examples than divas. Maybe cartoons and such that give lessons ect. Our to teach them their shapes ect. With singalong animals or something. Teaching them to be nice and friendly and smart. Not just high fashion at that early an age. Then hopefully by the time they get to ten ... Because of good parenting they know life is about more than sparkles and makeup. Also, I've seen advertisments for their upcoming " Bratz movie " which is very diva high school Mean Girls by the looks. At least Barbie didn't teach girls to be a mean diva. And I never saw a teddy bear teach a child dirty games either. I agree with the first posting they're too superficial for such a young tot. They teach children to be just that superficial because that's what they are in all actuality. They lack any substance. |
|||
| The Lounge | J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character | Oct 22 2007 07:42 (UTC) |
19 |
| Scandalous ^_^ | |||
| The Lounge | J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character | Oct 22 2007 06:56 (UTC) |
22 |
| Source: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3
Of course, it was read. However it was simply the demographics of their sexual orientation. Not the ratio of demographics or heterosexuals verses homosexuals in sexual assaults against children. |
|||
| The Lounge | J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character | Oct 22 2007 06:53 (UTC) |
23 |
| Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation. |
|||
| The Lounge | J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character | Oct 22 2007 05:55 (UTC) |
25 |
| You've posted nothing saying otherwise besides your personal thought. That's not as informative as survey information. It doesn't matter where it's listed on what site. It's the same survey information ratio statistics on multiple sites. | |||
| The Lounge | J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character | Oct 22 2007 05:38 (UTC) |
28 |
| I suggest crediting your own assumptions, rather than uninformative posting. Post something that proves otherwise against the ratio. By asking me if I'm Christian that's you using religious propaganda yourself. The idea that one must be Christian to be aware of the ratio. Or to disagree. | |||
| The Lounge | J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character | Oct 22 2007 05:10 (UTC) |
31 |
| http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosex ual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in- child-sex-abuse-cases/
This is another example showing my point, but this is a more current example that proves my point even further. I just picked the first result when searching for it, there are lots. Nobody else has posted any references or support. The truth is at that link. |
|||
| The Lounge | J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character | Oct 21 2007 21:59 (UTC) |
35 |
| By the way, Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on surveys. The National Opinion Research Center found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as ?homosexual? or ?bisexual. A survey of a 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation. Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are ?heterosexual? males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals. Credit http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.ph p Your comment is correct and incorrect at the exact same time, Clairelaine. Because a higher percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles compared to the percentage of heterosexuals. If 100 heterosexuals were pedophiles out of 1,000,000... And 5 homosexuals were pedophiles out of 10, then that's over half of the homosexual population who are pedophiles, even though Heterosexuals obviously have more, it's a very small percentage of that demographic. The numbers are for demonstration, but it's the same concept. Back to the topic of the thread: I'm a huge fan of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books. I've read all of them and seen then in theater the first showings.Dumbledore is actually my favorite character, always has been. That fact remains. However, this is a children's book sexuality shouldn't be geared towards children. Sexual orientation wasn't relevant to her character's development or the plot. Therefore, I'm glad it wasn't added into book since it held no importance. Some people try to put way too much importance on the nuances and forget the substance. It just wasn't relevant. |
|||
| The Lounge | the ex-boyfriends, skinny model girlfriend | Oct 14 2007 06:14 (UTC) |
|
| Yeah, I can agree with what Sun is saying to an extent. If a widower/widow were starting a new relationship, I'm sure their current partner would be aware of their lose. It wouldn't be downplayed to make anyone feel better ect. Their love and lose would be accepted and know to all parties involved. It wouldn't be hidden emotion. I do think being madly in love with someone else, is something you should clue your new partner in on. My Grandpa lost my Grandma and remarried. But, of course Grandma Shirley ( His new wife ) knows all about Grandpa's lost. How he loved her, still does... ect. It would've been unhealthy for my Grandpa to put up an emotional barrier, not to show Shirley how much he cared/loved and still loves his prior wife of 52 years. That doesn't mean that he loves Grandma Shirley any less. I think the your current lover deserves to know, if this is a serious relationship. Why hide it? Sharing is good. This is a different situation, but still. Otherwise, a couple may think they're going down the same path. But, in reality be on different roads. It's not healthy for someone to pretend or downplay their emotions. Everyone involved should be aware so nobody gets hurt. Also as for frandorra, nursemeow, and neese. Sounds to me like you need to start your own site. Or stop telling people who can and shouldn't be member here. Everyone is welcome on Caloriecount.com. If you didn't like the posters advice, perhaps you should turn the other cheek. Or give some of your own. Rather than bagging on other's advice. Nothing you said was even the slightest bit constructive. EnchaningImage gave perfectly good advice. I agree with julie2385 what the orginal poster is going through does suck, but EnchantingImage hit the nail on the head. |
|||
| Weight Loss | What size do you wear and how do you feel about it?? | Sep 29 2007 05:14 (UTC) |
50 |
| According to Dr. Oz, omentum is a fatty layer of tissue located inside the belly that hangs underneath the muscles in your stomach. The omentum contributes to the size of your waist. The more fat in your body, the larger your omentum, the bigger your waist. On average a woman's waist is healthy at no more than 32.5", a male at 35". He also said you can calculate by dividing your height in inches in half. If you are a female who is 60 inches tall (5 ft), then your waist should be no more than 30" round. I think women's sizing is wack they should have the same sizing as mens. It would be easier for them to keep an eye on such things. If anyhow knows what the sizes mean in regards to inches, feel free to share. |
|||
| Weight Loss | What size do you wear and how do you feel about it?? | Sep 29 2007 03:00 (UTC) |
54 |
| I'd like to know the difference between 0 and 00. Lol If anyone ever finds one of those charts. What's next -1? Or would one have to revert back to the childrens section? I think that a child is the only one that should be that size. | |||
| Weight Loss | What size do you wear and how do you feel about it?? | Sep 29 2007 02:28 (UTC) |
56 |
| Guys sizes are different. But, I bought new pants this spring because I was gaining weight. >_< 36 inche band. They actually fit very nicely. But, since then I've been running more. So I've actually lost some weight. From 186lbs to now 170lbs. I don't know what my band size is now. But, I know that a 36's are very loose and that makes me smile. I've just invested in belts. I don't like shopping. | |||
| Weight Loss | Do people generally look down on fat/ overweight people? | Sep 24 2007 05:10 (UTC) |
13 |
| Yeah. So angry I inserted a smile mid post. You have issues. Every generlization/quote isn't about you. | |||
| Weight Loss | Do people generally look down on fat/ overweight people? | Sep 24 2007 04:15 (UTC) |
15 |
| "If I agree to google it per your request, will you consider doing the same for the definition of ironic?" No, I will not make a deal to play a game because you attacked a quote where you have no idea of its meaning. Are you trying to turn this into a definition discussion? It's a stereotype, not an -ism. Generalizations are also called stereotypes. The question in the thread is, "Do people generally look down on fat / overweight people?" And a lot of people do look down on fat / overweight people. It's not just a fat thing, it's the accompanying assumptions of the fat attribute. When a person is fat, it's probably because they are horribly lazy. Or, because they like to be gluttons with food. Or, because they are not good with hygeine. Or, because they want to walk slow and take up an entire isle and slow down everybody else. Or, because they want to take up all the food at the all you can eat bar and leave such a mess because they can't even wipe their own mouth and they spit food everywhere. Or, because all a fat person can do is complain about how fat they are and how hard they are trying not to be fat, or how people don't like them, nobody is attracted to them, they need so much pity and help. These are all generalizations of a fat person. There are lots more, and I could list hundreds of them. I, like EnchantingImage, dislike fat people. That is a generalization or stereotype. I have met one or two overweight individuals who were rather happy and didn't get in anybody's way. But generally, the question is general, and general is general, general? General. =-P It does not mean you have an -ism against people because of a particular attribute. Saying you dislike people because of the color of their skin, or their gender, is different. These are things people can't change. What you can change is either how healthy you are, how much you complain about poor you, or how much you get in people's way. |
|||
| Weight Loss | Do people generally look down on fat/ overweight people? | Sep 23 2007 20:31 (UTC) |
22 |
| (On another note Sun123 you've obviously never heard that quote in full. Or even pondered over it's meaning. It doesn't apply to you, yet your attempt to make it do so is quite humerous. I'm not say that it couldn't in another situation. But, you actually attempted to destroy a beautiful quote by making it personal. It's so much deeper than by the sight of your response you grasped. Google it. Or not. That's Sad. Nobody asked you to shrink. The person simply said they'd use avoidance. So cruel I think not. They don't need to make eyes and greet you and sit nearby you while you eat in order to be a good person. Or show compassion. It's not their job. Nor should anyone expect it. They're a person at random that you wouldn't even realize was avoiding you, because they'd so so quickly no doubt. I think the avoidance is actually a tackful tactic. Annnd their CHOICE. Just as it's an obese persons choice to put whatever they want in the mouths.) Moving on... I actually read the same profile and it was a list of loves and dislikes. Not hate. So first off that statement in itself was fault. It's ironic that if someone dislikes bad teeth yet that that isn't considered personal hatred. Or a racism. Hate and dislike are two very different things. I consider fat an attribute of a person. It's something they can choose to change or not to change for that matter. Just as smokers. Smoke or not to smoke. However...There is a concessus about fat people by some, that obese people can't do anything about it. Whereas, there isn't the same concessus on other attributes. Thus making the concessus in itself by others a contradiction. Someone can dislike whatever they want. You can choose to make it personal or not. This entire thread is made up of opinions of a generalization. I dislike multiple attributes myself. So funny. To me. That you're so annoyed by this Members lack of Regard for Obese people. The fact that they avoid fat people. That they dislike that attributes that you'd personal attack them by reference to their profile. That shows a lack of maturity if I ever saw one. Everyone has attributes the love or like or dislike. I don't even think harping on someone personally is allowed on this site. Or is it only allowed if the other person doesn't realize it and report you to a moderator for being so low as to revert to personal attacks. Seriously, she disliked The Beatles too! Omg, that's so wrong. I love the Beatles. However, it's this persons choice not to like them. However, I'm not as infused with anger to argue because I've taken comments personally rather than in a constructive positive way. In the terms of a conversation. So I won't jump on your hop happy train to say " OMG, They hate The actual Beatles. What did the Beatles ever do to them?! Where is their compassion?! Why must the HATE the AMAZING BEATLES!?!?!? It's because they don't understand them." The reason? Because I realize some people simply dislike their skills as an artist. They dislike that attribute of them so what. Someone dislikes the attribute of fat in a person. Somehow, I find myself okay with that. I think we need more diversity in this world and on this site for that matter. |
|||
| Weight Loss | Do people generally look down on fat/ overweight people? | Sep 21 2007 01:32 (UTC) |
44 |
| That's the exact thing I was talking about in my post. You have an emotional tie to the topic so instead of it being about obese people. It's about you. To quote" because I am obese. " Come on. Enchanting wasn't compassionate or incompassionate. From the sight of it was more along the lines of indifferent. One can't expect any form of emotion from another person. Revealing emotion doesn't make someone good or bad. Or expect others to make things 'easier' for them. People are conditioned to think in the terms of good and bad. If you can't detach your emotions from causing the topic to be about you instead of a generalization, perhaps you should take a step back. Otherwise, you're causing your own emotional discomfort. Just a thought. It's not a personal thread unless you make it personal. |
|||
| Weight Loss | Do people generally look down on fat/ overweight people? | Sep 20 2007 22:48 (UTC) |
46 |
| Um. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Being at the buffet and seeing someone obese fill three plates heaping over. It looked very yummy. But, wrong. ' Twisted perception ' who're you to decide that. Ooh, let me guess. You're one of the holier than thou people. Your heart and compassion is almightier than thou. You speak with such compassion and goodness. wow'ed by your glory and light I am not. Seriously though. I'm not going to discern right or wrong by your view of twisted. Or ones view of obese we all have views they're like noses. We each have one some bigger than others. Whatever. Honest. Haa. There is a point when a conversation becomes an argument to some. One person is just talking but then the other becomes pissed off. When you're typing with anger it's no longer a conversation of honesty. It's just emotional disturbance lashing out. |
|||
| Fitness | Vigorous Dog walking? | Sep 11 2007 20:40 (UTC) |
3 |
| To each their own. Some consider it important to have well behavior for their benefit and the benefit of others. Anyone can go buy a pet. Or adopt one they've found somewhere. Just like anyone can father or mother a child. ( Perhaps, not adopt a child so easily. ) That by no means makes them a good parent. The fact that they bared a child or have one in their home doesn't make them a ' good parent.' It's the job that you accept to attend to their mental development and physical growth. Just as a baby has a growth chart. They have list of things they should be able to do within a certain length of time. Months 1-3 Months 3-5 Months 5-7 ect ect. ( So do dogs. ) The question in itself showed a lack of regard. Instead of ignoring an issue, or batting it off finding a new way to log calories burnt. Do something about it. Obviously time need to be set aside for the purpose of Smokey's developement. It would burn extra calories as well. If they can't accept the responsibility and be accountable for the lack of work invested in their dog, I feel sorry for Smokey. Also, anyone that doesn't see this as constructive advice isn't a good parent to their dogs. /owner There is nothing negative about telling someone they need time invested in their pet. It's honesty. It's not troublesome to be direct. Negative would be " There is nothing you can do. LOL Run real fast. Do some weight training so you can pull against him better. Lol LOL lol. Yeah, GOOD luck! " "bty, heart monitiors work great. " " Omg, take him on more walks... perhaps on the second one you'll accidently lose the leash and he can run free.. that would burn some extra calories if you had to chase HIM " The advice I bestowed is to help them and their dog in the longrun. Rather than to dismiss the reality of the situation. Calorie log< Smokey If you don't see that equation as correct. Once again I say " Poor Smokey. " |
|||
| Weight Loss | For girls wondering, "Am I thin enough?" | Sep 01 2007 03:05 (UTC) |
17 |
| It does. I think it's all tied together in a twisted manner for some though. Actually, sad. | |||
| Weight Loss | For girls wondering, "Am I thin enough?" | Sep 01 2007 02:51 (UTC) |
19 |
| Duckie, read post #19. That's what it was all about. Distorted self images. It went into exactly what you just said. I agree with that. What they see in the mirror... Is different. I believe. | |||
j/k
Join Calorie Count - it's easy and free!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Your Personal Nutritionist
Featured question:
Where can I see 1/8th or 1/6th of a pie or angel food cake?
This is the best way to picture a portion of pie or cake: Draw a circle to represent the circumference of the cake or pie (9" pie? 10" cake?... Read more
Where can I see 1/8th or 1/6th of a pie or angel food cake?
This is the best way to picture a portion of pie or cake: Draw a circle to represent the circumference of the cake or pie (9" pie? 10" cake?... Read more