Study finds Americans are too fat
411791, Study finds Americans are too fat
Posted by Thankfully_in_Britain on 3/10/04 03:20 AM
news.bbc.co.uk3496918.stmOpen ↗
A new study in the United States says obesity is likely to
become the country's biggest preventable killer. The
research, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
is the latest work showing widespread weight gain among
Americans of all ages.
"We're just too fat," Health Secretary Tommy Thompson said
at the unveiling of the study.
It found that poor diet and lack of exercise caused 400,000
deaths in the US in the year 2000. That figure represents a
33% jump since 1990.
If current trends continue, then obesity will shortly
overtake smoking as the single biggest cause of preventable
deaths in the United States.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411794, You know what that means ...
Posted by BareKnuckledLiberal on 3/10/04 03:24 AM
.. it means that fat people must be ridiculed, lectured, and
humiliated at every opportunity.
--bkl
413097, don't forget smokers. nt
Posted by tobius on 3/10/04 05:04 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413175, Jeez
Posted by PassingFair on 3/10/04 05:51 PM
..like they aren't already?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411796, It took a study to point that out?
Posted by DarkSim on 3/10/04 03:30 AM
My girlfriend is considered by studies as "fat" so don't
assume i'm some kind of obese person hater.
As an expat i can say that the U.S does have a reputation
world wide of being a "fat" nation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411799, This is all [censored].
Posted by eridani on 3/10/04 03:33 AM
Fat 'fact' takes on life of its own
Paul Campos, Rocky Mt. News
rockymountainnews.comarticOpen ↗
le/0,1299,D...
June 18, 2002
An abiding weakness of the conventional wisdom is that, once
a supposed fact has become part of that wisdom, it becomes
almost impossible to dislodge it. Contemporary journalism
contributes to this problem by relying on technologies that
help ensure an assertion, once it is repeated enough times,
will never be checked against the actual evidence. Consider
for example the claim that fat kills 300,000 Americans per
year, and is thus the nation's second-leading cause of
premature death, trailing only cigarettes.
A Lexis database search reveals that this "fact" has been
repeated in more than 1,000 news stories over the past three
years alone. Yet the evidence for this claim is so slim as
to be practically nonexistent.
As University of Virginia professor Glen Gaesser points out
in the forthcoming revised edition of his book Big Fat Lies,
the supposed source for this claim was a 1993 medical study
that made no such assertion. That study attributed around
300,000 extra deaths per year to sedentary lifestyle and
poor dietary habits, not to weight, which was not even
evaluated as a risk factor. Indeed the authors of the study,
Michael McGinnis and William Foege, became so frustrated by
the chronic miscitation of their data that in 1998 they
published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine,
objecting to the misuse of their study.
A year later the journal published an article which actually
did assert that obesity causes approximately 300,000 deaths
annually. This article, "Annual Deaths Attributable to
Obesity in the United States," is a classic example of junk
science at its worst. After calculating the death risk
associated with various weight levels derived from six
epidemiological studies, the authors employed the following
assumption: "Our calculations assume that all excess
mortality in obese people is due to their obesity" (emphasis
added). That was, to put it mildly, a remarkable assumption.
As Gaesser points out, "the authors made no attempt to
determine whether other factors -- such as physical
inactivity, low fitness levels, poor diet, risky weight loss
practices, and less-than-adequate access to health care,
just to name a few -- could have explained some, or all, of
the excess mortality in fat people."
In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors
are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-
term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute,
involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade
or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality
associated with increasing weight is accounted for by
activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately
active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin
sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates
as thin active people. In other words, adding just one
variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as
a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum
mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour
walk will by itself put a person in these categories).
Furthermore the 300,000-deaths-per-year figure was derived
without taking into account factors such as yo-yo dieting
and diet drug use, both of which have been shown to have
devastating effects on health. Nor were variables such as
class -- poor people die sooner than the well-off -- and
social discrimination, which has been shown to have a very
negative impact on health, taken into account. In short, the
claim that fat causes 300,000 deaths per year should be
dismissed as an assertion for which there is essentially no
evidence. Journalists in particular ought to start noticing
that fact, rather than endlessly reprinting the same piece
of junk science.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of
Colorado. He can be contacted at [email hidden]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412493, Thanks for posting this
Posted by redqueen on 3/10/04 12:24 PM
I've heard of similar studies as well that back up this
assertion. IIRC a woman in CA filed a lawsuit after she
tried to get a job as a fitness instructor, but was turned
down for the job because she was overweight. They won the
lawsuit, due to the fact that she didn't fit the image they
wanted to project (that if you work out you will be thin).
She was fit and qualified to lead an aerobics class but was
still overweight.
I think we need more focus on this. There are many young
girls who will work out regularly, but if they don't get the
flat tummy they expect then sometimes that leads to
unhealthy ways of trying to achieve the look that's marketed
as acceptable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411800, DUH.......
Posted by Joanne98 on 3/10/04 03:37 AM
When did he figure this out. Oh I get it. It wasn't
important to get Americans to quit eating fast food before.
Now that we're going to privatize all of the health care
system and the insurance companies have to pay, it's all of
a sudden a problem. Well good luck. After a lifetime of
hearing "junkfood" is healthy, fun and cool, it's going to
be impossible to get them to eat right. Besides, vegetables
are UNAMERICAN don't ya know. It's bigger than food, "it's
their idenity. My SUV, my big Mac and my "merican" flag
sticking out of my dumb fat ass. " Hey Betty, get the kids
ready and let's go to the Wal Mart".
That great "merican" store. Uggggghhhhhhhh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411833, You have hit the button--that is my feeling also
Posted by Marianne on 3/10/04 04:45 AM
I keep reading the word "preventable" disease, this one says
"preventable killer" a lot more in the past year than I have
before. I wonder why--and I think at some point these
"slackers" who "refuse" to "prevent" a "possible disease"
will be punished by insurance companies in some way-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411847, I wonder if this is another Bushco "edited"
report...
Posted by zbird on 3/10/04 05:39 AM
like the poverty/minority/access to health care study.
Also, wait for the other shoe to drop. A 33% increase during
the 1990's. It will all be Clinton's fault. The economy was
booming, the US was at relative peace, and we got fat. I can
see the spinning now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411805, I predict this problem will be solved
Posted by NJCher on 3/10/04 03:44 AM
...when the energy crisis gets worse. We do everything with
fossil fuels. We don't even bend over to pick up a frickin'
leaf. I've seen people actually get out a leaf blower to
blow one leaf off a driveway!
When it becomes cost prohibitive to keep a home at 70
degrees, that's when we'll start burning off some of this
fat.
Cher
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411811, Bare assed liberal
Posted by undergroundpanther on 3/10/04 03:52 AM
. it means that fat people must be ridiculed, lectured, and
humiliated at every opportunity.
And bullies who think like this..need to be told to grow
past that [censored] they have got for a mouth.
This "well meaning" call to abuse heavy folks is just an
excuse to abuse people.Call it what it is,it does NOBODY
good to belittle them for being heavy but it does an abuser
good to shame them by calling them on the carpet over their
crappy behaviors..
I hate this kinda [censored] it's so republican of you.To hell
with this fat scapegoating,You'd think people would grow
beyond doing this kind of bigoted middle school
mentality [censored].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412445, I think that post you're responding to was meant to
be satirical
Posted by meluseth on 3/10/04 12:01 PM
Pointing out that this info only provides ammo for
those bullies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411818, If they are so concerned about Americans being
Posted by Piperay on 3/10/04 04:08 AM
too fat how come they fight tooth and nail to keep
nutritional information off of fast food menus???
(rhetorical question) I know the answer, it's because the
fast food industry lobbies to keep that from happening. They
are afraid it might hurt sales if people knew how chucked
full of fat and calories the [censored] is. :puke:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412961, Bingo-they even changed the Pyramid, PAID to push
cheese etc.
Posted by dax on 3/10/04 03:54 PM
My dad is a nutritionist who consults with the government
and he was BURNIN Mad about the last food pyramid they set
up-the meat and dairy industry totally revised what the
scientists came up with to push meat and dairy higher up.
Then the dairy people got a bunch of tax money to market
cheese to fast food so they can add calories with double
cheese this and stuffed crust that it is a propaganda
campaign for everyone to take the guilt-you just don't
exercise enough (well that is propbably true) but it doesn't
excuse BushCo's deconstruction of science- that is a crime!
Last week they declared there is "no difference" between
wild salmon and hatchery fish so we don't have to protect
them (look for major zoo-expansion- maybe we don't have to
protect any habitat if we can raise enough wild animals!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413074, Are you saying people think fast food is not full of
fat and calories?
Posted by tobius on 3/10/04 04:47 PM
don't be ridiculous, ever see someone eating a double bacon
cheeseburger with the sauce dripping off their wrist
drinking a diet coke? that's called a balanced meal.
Can we stand up for individual responsibility, or are we a
nation of dupes who will eat what we see on tv? Fat tastes
good, pork fat is my favorite! I don't see a line of people
at Mcburgers studying the nutritional info before ordering
(it's there!). People make choices, and we are damn lucky to
have the choice to be fat. Not many problems dealing with
eating disorders like bulimia, anorexia, or obesity in sub-
saharan countries or third world countries in general. Hell
in this country we send our pets to the fat farm. Choice,
people! We can choose what to eat and choose what to do or
not do for physical activity. This rant is making me hungry!
Gotta order a pepperoni,sausage, double cheese pizza AND
have it delivered so I don't have to walk to my damn
car..... hey, maybe I'll have them throw some of those yummy
buffalo wings in too..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413218, I don't believe it but
Posted by Piperay on 3/10/04 06:16 PM
apparently the fast food industry thinks that the public is
stupid because they are the ones who are afraid it will lose
them business if they give people the information. They are
the ones who are stupid because people already know the
stuff is fattening but they go there anyway. IF the
government was serious they would give more than lip service
to the issue, that's the point.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413297, like what? people want to eat that sh.. -stuff.
Posted by tobius on 3/10/04 07:11 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
411848, With meals like this...
Posted by Dead_Parrot on 3/10/04 05:40 AM
x-entertainment.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
(Warning - Don't read while eating)
..it's not that surprising. Seriously, do people eat
that stuff? (And I thought adding parmesan to roast
parsnips was bad.)
:puke:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412478, It's real. I have seen it.
Posted by BiggJawn on 3/10/04 12:14 PM
"Over a POUND of FOOD!"
and they have other versions of it, too, like 1/2 a chicken,
and 3 hamburger patties.
Lance Armstrong couldn't burn that much saturated fat
climbing Mt. Ventoux AND Col du Calibre!
Oh, BTW, I finished up my sushi lunch while looking at that
site. I have a strong constitution. :7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412761, that is wonderful--it made me laugh until i cried!!!
Posted by frank frankly on 3/10/04 02:08 PM
i passed it along immediately...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412234, How many millions were spent discovering this, or
did they just
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli on 3/10/04 10:47 AM
send the college intern down to the local shopping mall to
look around and snap some pics?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412535, Our Food
Posted by DesignGirl on 3/10/04 12:42 PM
I have studied nutrition for many years after my doctors
couldn't help with chronic illness with my son. If people
really know what is in the food or understood how much food
effects every part of our life, maybe they would force the
industry to do something about it.
Right now I pay more for almost all my organic food(even at
a local coop). Our food has so much artificial, unnatural
[censored] in it, no wonder we have so many new diseases like ADD
and Obesity. What happened to growing food and eating it in
its basic form.
It is sad that we have so many drugs to help with these
issues, and most of it could be helped with a better
understanding and willingness to change the food. It changed
my sons life.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412591, So true!
Posted by rawtribe on 3/10/04 01:12 PM
When the calories in your diet are nutrient dense all
aspects of your health will improve. This comes from eating
low on the food chain.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413022, Exactly what part of
Posted by eridani on 3/10/04 04:31 PM
after controlling for activity levels, there is no
relationship between fat and disease is it that you don't
understand? Healthy eating and exercise will make everyone
healthier, not necessarily (very much) thinner.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412590, They could have just looked...
Posted by Thankfully_in_Britain on 3/10/04 01:11 PM
at the guy unveiling the study, Tommy Thompson. He ain't
exactly Mr skinny is he?
Here's another article on the matter I've found about
somebody who's written a book on obesity
observer.guardian.co.uk0,9950,907Open ↗
894,00.html
The statistics were shocking - 26 per cent of Americans are
now clinically obese - but more shocking still was the fact
that people were, and continue to be, in denial of this
fact. For the middle classes in particular, any discussion
of obesity, or even fat, soon leads to aesthetic and gender
issues - the idea that talking about it will give children
'low self-esteem' or, worse, anorexia.
Doctors also remain either in ignorance or outright denial
about the dangers of obesity to the poor and the young. A
patient earning more than $50,000 is more likely to be
advised to lose weight than one with a lower income. Since
it is the urban poor who suffer the highest rates of obesity
and consequent ill-health, this is worrying. The fat just
get sicker and sicker. In the US, the annual cost of
treating diabetics, the majority of new cases being a direct
result of excess weight, stands at more than $100 billion.
Between 1988 and 1994, 39 million working days were lost due
to obesity, with a value of $3.9 billion to the economy.
'Most of us are fat because we are slothful and gluttonous,'
he says. 'People don't want to hear that. In the course of
researching my book, I came to believe that, morally, over-
eating is wrong. Look at Bosch's depiction of gluttony: a
man is eating; his child is tugging at his shirt; another
man sits at the end of the table with nothing on his plate;
his wife is waiting at the door for his next demand. Act the
glutton, and you're not only worshipping your belly as a
false god; you're involved in the dereliction of your
secular duties as well. You're not taking care of your
child; you're taking the food off somebody else's plate;
you're neglecting your duties at work; you're not taking
care of your body.'
That Critser is a liberal and a Democrat, rather than some
toothy bible basher from the Mid-West, somehow serves to
make his assertions all the more forceful. 'All of this does
have spiritual, religious overtones,' he says. 'But I think
we can agree that, even in a secular sense, these things are
morally wrong. I come from a generation that wants to avoid
talking about moral absolutes, preferring instead to put the
emphasis always on context. But I now think that there ARE
absolutes, and the question is: what is a compassionate way
to educate people about them? The people who accuse me of
wanting to stigmatise fat people are just confused; I want
to stigmatise gluttony, not the fat per se.'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
412750, Again, the focus is on fat, and not quality of food
or exercise
Posted by redqueen on 3/10/04 02:04 PM
There IS a difference.
Doesn't anyone wonder WHY the urban poor have the highest
rates of obesity? JUNK FOOD IS CHEAP.
*sigh*
I should just give up now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413005, Full of [censored]
Posted by eridani on 3/10/04 04:17 PM
Sorry, but the focus should be on exercise, not looks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413095, on looks? no correlation between physical
activity/diet and fat levels?
Posted by tobius on 3/10/04 05:02 PM
How many marathon runners do you know who are obese? Why is
there an assumption that this is about looks?
How to lose weight= eat less calories than you use. Not
rocket science.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413250, More [censored]
Posted by eridani on 3/10/04 06:36 PM
Eat less, and your systems automatically adjust to 'need'
less. Whether you can get ahead of the game depends 100% on
factors beyond your control. You'd know that if you knew
anything about complex systems with feedback loops that have
no resemblance to bank accounts.
It's all about looks--the dull normals who aren't fat, but
have lives of no particular distinction can always pat
themselves on the back for something. (Do you know any power
lifters who are skinny?)
The real thermodynamic balance of human metabolism is this.
C - N - S - I - H - E - V = 0
C = calories eaten N = non-absorbed calories excreted in
bowels S = calories stored I = calories calories used
involuntarily (muscle maintenance, involuntary motion) H =
calories used for heat generation V = calories used
voluntarily (exercise, for example) E = calories excreted
in urine (Examples: fat converted to glucose in the liver
and excreted in the urine, incompletely burned
triglycerides which are excreted in the urine, and albumin
excreted in the urine)
It should be noted that there is 'manual' control only on C
and V. People who think of human metabolism as a bank
account are willfully ignorant that these other variables
adjust automatically within an active control system. All
adjust when some of them change. When C and V are changed
'manually', there may be permanent alteration to the control
system (as in long-term dieting).
The amount of energy stored is not 'whatever is left over'.
The body actively stores or mobilizes energy from its energy
store. If there is a resulting energy deficit, it tries to
increase C, causes a reduction in I, H, and E, and even
actively prevents V. If there is an energy surplus, it tries
to decrease C, increases I and H, encourages V, and, as a
last resort, increases E.
The control system for these actions is decentralized. So,
it is possible for the energy store to believe that it needs
to increase S, while simultaneously, the liver believes that
it is necessary to increase E. This leaves I, H, and V at an
extreme disadvantage.
If an individual is not lethargic and ravenous, then the
control system is notimbalanced, but may have a different
equilibrium than the average. One may wish that the
equilibrium were different, but the system is not amenable
to manual control (especially by manually varying C), but
there are strict limits to an individual's ability to
change it.
Decreasing C (dieting) has been shown to cause a long- term
decrease in H and a long term increase in S, and to prevent
I from increasing when V is increased. Millions of dieters
have experienced this. Obesity researchers
try to do something real with their lives instead of cheap
shots boosting their self-image at the expense of people who
are different.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413099, This is breaking news?
Posted by Concerned GA Voter on 3/10/04 05:04 PM
All you had to do is ask my ass cheeks........
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413216, People do not KNOW how to eat healthy
Posted by Marianne on 3/10/04 06:12 PM
and their satiation point is far above what it should be.
Huge servings are a pride and joy and denote abundance and
wealth--continuous snacking on sugar laden cakes and candies
is expected--vendor machines are all over the schools.
When I went to school, there were no machines that contained
juice, candy, potatoe chips, cookies and other little
treats. We survived and we were not a fat generation.
Walk down the cereal aisle and count, if you are as
compulsive as I am, the number of cereals there-more than
two hundred--all jumping with appealing cartoons, Nascar
cars and bright color and beckoning to the little children-
every single one of them contains added sugar-- a lot of it.
If it were not for the added vitamins, it would really be a
worthless food. Yet, we are told that cereal is a good thing
to feed your child and yourself. Add some milk to the fruity
o's and you get the heart award. Many advertise they are
"heart healthy" and that is because they are low fat. Most
breads and grains are, but it says nothing about the
deteriment to the health of the sugar added to almost
everything on the supermarket shelf .
The entire food corporate industry is dedicated to selling
food to the American people any way they can sell
it. Mostly advertising appeals to those who are fulfilling
an image of the concerned mom who wants to feed her
child the best there is. We think it just fine to eat
and eat and eat because they tell us, subliminally, it
is so wonderful to do so.
And then we eat the sugar and indeed, feel wonderful.
In other countries, this is not the case, but in America,
and it is quite obvious we do have a lot of fat people
here,they is no denying that, it is considered the normal
way of eating. It is a constant eating and eating and giving
the stomach little rest.
One does not have a normal portion of french fries,
containing maybe half a cup--you want, and think you deserve
for your money, three times the serving size. And soon, even
that does not "fill you up"
Most people do not realize what a 'serving" consists of.
Most cannot at this point discipline themself to eat only
one serving of anything.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413272, I'm not sure if you're giving people too much
credit,
Posted by Robb on 3/10/04 06:50 PM
or not enough. I think it's just like smoking. I don't know
a single smoker who doesn't know it's just plain bad for
you; I can't imagine there are consumers who think a big ol'
drippy cheeseburger and fries is good for you.
It's just both groups are very, very good at not
thinking about it while they're partaking. And society
has largely been pretty good at not pointing it out to
them in the moment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413310, Yes, that could be one way to look at it, but
Posted by Marianne on 3/10/04 07:24 PM
I was shocked when I found out what a "serving" was. It is
half a cup, usually. That is, when one sees five servings of
bread, pasta or whatever starches on the food pyramid, that
is a half cup serving. If you eat two cups of pasta at one
sitting, which I think is pretty much what people pile on
their plate that is already four servings for the day. If
the daily requirement on that pyramid is five servings and
you had two pieces of toast in the morning, and bread with
the pasta, and a sandwich for supper, you are way over the
guidelines not to mention any starchy vegetables that you
may have had, like potatoe salad with the sandwich. Now try
measuring out half a cup of pasta and being satisfied with
it. That is what I mean--we get a satiation tolerance far
over what is recommended. In other words, if we do not have
two cups of pasta we feel cheated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
413317, Good ol' Corporate Amerikkka...
Posted by I m With Stupid on 3/10/04 07:30 PM
Look, advertising works. It's as simple as that. The
corporate shills love to go on about Personal
Responsibility, but the sad fact is that we're raised from
infancy being told by business what to eat, what to drink,
what to wear, what to watch, what to do, and what to think.
It really isn't surprising that when they tell us to spend
our wealth on poison and dump it into our bodies, the masses
respond like trained sheep.
Have you heard the latest? The neocons are arguing in the
senate, right now, that we need a law protecting Big Heart
Attack from legal action. Well, hell, I wonder who paid
for that...?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded messages
More here: democraticunderground.comdubOpen ↗
oard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=
Jai Maharaj mantra.comjaiOpen ↗ Om Shanti
Panchaang for 20 Phalgun 5104, Wednesday, March 10, 2004:
Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Uttarayane Moksh Ritau Kumbh Mase
Krshn Pakshe Buddh Vasara Yuktayam Svati-Vaishakh Nakshatr
Vyaghat Yog Balav-Taitil Karan Chaturthi-Panchami Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum mantra.comholocaustOpen ↗
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
hindu.orghindu.orgOpen ↗ hindunet.orghindunet.orgOpen ↗
The truth about Islam and Muslims
flex.comsatyamevajayateOpen ↗
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have
been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected
by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of
copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to
me, it will likely not be read, considered or
answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice
telephone number. o Posted for information and
discussion. Views expressed by others are not
necessarily those of the poster.