[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

During World War II the British had a drastically reduced diet. Researchers 
have shown it was better for you than today's junk. Thank you Herr Hitler . . . 

 
 Today's eight-year-olds consume on average 1,200 calories a day more than the 
generation of youngsters who were fed on wartime rations between 1940 and 1954, 
say experts.
 

 
 Rather than eating junk food and snacking between meals, children in the 
rationing era ate three square meals a day, with fruit instead of sweets, and 
were far healthier as a result.
 

 
 Children then had little choice but to eat the food put in front of them.
 
 For a fortnight, a class of eight-year-olds from a London school were fed 
porridge, stew, steam puddings and other dishes typical of the rationing years.
 
 Researchers found that children's concentration levels went up and that they 
began to stop snacking on sweets after being given a large bowl of porridge for 
breakfast and a decent-sized lunch.
 

 
 The wartime menu for the study was drawn up by cookery writer Marguerite 
Patten, who was an adviser to the Ministry of Food during the war.
 
 She said: 'The ration book diet was difficult to follow and was boring and 
monotonous, but events have proved that it was actually good for you.'


  


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[upfron...@ymail.com [FairfieldLife]]

The extract shows that initially, very restricted food has health benefits (not 
for elderly folk particularly) but brings disease eventually (This is of 
interest to me as I was born in Jersey, Channel Islands, 15 years after the 
‘Occupation’). 

 http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/hygiea/v8/i1/a4/hygiea09v8i1a4.pdf 
  
 Conditions in the Channel Islands during the 1940–45 German Occupation and 
their impact on the health of islanders
 
 An unhealthy occupation? 
 
 “We’re all quite well, but getting thinner, 
 Not much for tea, still less for dinner. 
 Though not exactly on our uppers, 
 We’ve said Adieu to cold ham suppers. 
 In peace time those who wished to slim, 
 Tried diet, massage, baths and gym. 
 We’ll tell the stout of every nation
 The secret’s solved by Occupation.” 
 [Anon, Jersey (Lainé, 1945)]
 
 
 Introduction
 
 The occupation of the British Channel Islands by the German Army is one of the 
less discussed episodes of the Second World War, not least perhaps because it 
was something of an embarrassment to the British Government of the time.1  The 
British Government was forced to order the demilitarisation of the islands, 
which lie just off the coast of northern France, when the collapse of the 
Maginot line and the retreat of Allied forces to the beaches of Dunkirk meant 
that occupation became inevitable.2 Any attempt to defend the islands would 
have involved huge loss of life, both military and civilian, and at little 
strategic gain to the Allies. For this reason they were abandoned to their fate 
– a fate which involved almost five years of increasing deprivation and misery.
 
 Health and disease
 
 In the main, the general health impact of the occupation was perhaps not as 
bad as it might have been. Indeed, in some respects health actually improved, 
such as the weight loss that benefited the obese,91 especially in terms of 
cardiac health.92 In some cases this might have also helped some previously 
overweight women to conceive,93 while even those women who appeared to have 
become underweight as a result of the occupation still seemed to give birth to 
healthy sized babies.94 One Jersey doctor stated that, particularly in the 
early days of rationing, his more overweight patients benefitted from their 
change of diet.95 Elsewhere, the health of the population of Guernsey was 
thought to be “exceptionally good”96  during the first winter of the 
occupation. Some aspects of the occupation diet that may have been advantageous 
in this regard were the reduced sugar and fat content, and the increased 
consumption of wholemeal flour.97 However, the weight loss experienced by most 
Channel Islanders during the occupation was not beneficial to all sectors of 
the population, such as the elderly and infirm and those who were required to 
do physical work. For example, the outdoor telephone staff in Guernsey each 
lost an average of 22lbs (10kg) in weight between 1940 and 1943, and the 
associated loss of energy began to prevent them from doing their jobs properly 
even before the onset of the siege in 1944.98  Even the Jersey doctor cited 
earlier, who was wealthy and had many contacts from whom to obtain off-ration 
food, saw his body weight fall from 13 stone (83kg) to under 9 stone (57kg) by 
the end of the war.99   Indeed, he stated that many of his patients experienced 
similar losses, including his mother-in-law, who weighed less than 6 stone 
(38kg) by the end of the occupation. Some elderly people seem to have ended the 
war at an alarmingly low weight, as evidenced by an inquest into the death of a 
70-year-old Jersey woman where “malnutrition” was cited as a secondary cause, 
and whose weight was reported to be only 3 stone (19kg).100
 
 In his history of the occupation of Jersey, RCF Maugham mentioned that in 1943 
the general public began to look emaciated, and that by the end of the war, 
“the people grew thin, their features pinched by privation and want… normal 
strength and vitality could just not be maintained”.107
 
 Although this weight loss must have been alarming, it seems to have been 
malnutrition that affected the islands most as opposed to outright 
starvation108 since the principal problem lay with the composition of the diet 
rather than a paucity of calories, at least until the onset of the siege.109 
When the islands were starving, towards the end of the siege, this took the 
form of slow starvation rather than acute deprivation. This may have made the 
crucial difference between suffering and death for many,110 since the Channel 
Islanders were able to become gradually accustomed to fewer and fewer calories 
rather than being suddenly deprived. However, this is not to say that the 
effects of this ‘creeping malnutrition’ were not serious, as malnutrition was 
recorded as a cause of death on a number of death certificates at the time.111 
Malnutrition also caused loss of memory, concentration and stamina, and many 
people collapsed in the street as they were going 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[upfron...@ymail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Interesting. ‘Everything in moderation’ applies to famine too. The extract 
shows that initially, restricted food can have healthy benefits (except for 
elderly folk) but brings disease eventually (This is of interest to me as I was 
born in Jersey, Channel Islands, 15 years after the ‘Occupation’).
  
 http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/hygiea/v8/i1/a4/hygiea09v8i1a4.pdf 
  
 Conditions in the Channel Islands during the 1940–45 German Occupation and 
their impact on the health of islanders
 
 
 An unhealthy occupation? 
 
 “We’re all quite well, but getting thinner, 
 Not much for tea, still less for dinner. 
 Though not exactly on our uppers, 
 We’ve said Adieu to cold ham suppers. 
 In peace time those who wished to slim, 
 Tried diet, massage, baths and gym. 
 We’ll tell the stout of every nation
 The secret’s solved by Occupation.” 
 [Anon, Jersey (Lainé, 1945)]
 
 
 Introduction
 
 The occupation of the British Channel Islands by the German Army is one of the 
less discussed episodes of the Second World War, not least perhaps because it 
was something of an embarrassment to the British Government of the time.1  The 
British Government was forced to order the demilitarisation of the islands, 
which lie just off the coast of northern France, when the collapse of the 
Maginot line and the retreat of Allied forces to the beaches of Dunkirk meant 
that occupation became inevitable.2 Any attempt to defend the islands would 
have involved huge loss of life, both military and civilian, and at little 
strategic gain to the Allies. For this reason they were abandoned to their fate 
– a fate which involved almost five years of increasing deprivation and misery.
 
 Health and disease
 
 In the main, the general health impact of the occupation was perhaps not as 
bad as it might have been. Indeed, in some respects health actually improved, 
such as the weight loss that benefited the obese,91 especially in terms of 
cardiac health.92 In some cases this might have also helped some previously 
overweight women to conceive,93 while even those women who appeared to have 
become underweight as a result of the occupation still seemed to give birth to 
healthy sized babies.94 One Jersey doctor stated that, particularly in the 
early days of rationing, his more overweight patients benefitted from their 
change of diet.95 Elsewhere, the health of the population of Guernsey was 
thought to be “exceptionally good”96   during the first winter of the 
occupation. Some aspects of the occupation diet that may have been advantageous 
in this regard were the reduced sugar and fat content, and the increased 
consumption of wholemeal flour.97 However, the weight loss experienced by most 
Channel Islanders during the occupation was not beneficial to all sectors of 
the population, such as the elderly and infirm and those who were required to 
do physical work. For example, the outdoor telephone staff in Guernsey each 
lost an average of 22lbs (10kg) in weight between 1940 and 1943, and the 
associated loss of energy began to prevent them from doing their jobs properly 
even before the onset of the siege in 1944.98  Even the Jersey doctor cited 
earlier, who was wealthy and had many contacts from whom to obtain off-ration 
food, saw his body weight fall from 13 stone (83kg) to under 9 stone (57kg) by 
the end of the war.99   Indeed, he stated that many of his patients experienced 
similar losses, including his mother-in-law, who weighed less than 6 stone 
(38kg) by the end of the occupation. Some elderly people seem to have ended the 
war at an alarmingly low weight, as evidenced by an inquest into the death of a 
70-year-old Jersey woman where “malnutrition” was cited as a secondary cause, 
and whose weight was reported to be only 3 stone (19kg).100
 
 In his history of the occupation of Jersey, RCF Maugham mentioned that in 1943 
the general public began to look emaciated, and that by the end of the war, 
“the people grew thin, their features pinched by privation and want… normal 
strength and vitality could just not be maintained”.107
 
 Although this weight loss must have been alarming, it seems to have been 
malnutrition that affected the islands most as opposed to outright 
starvation108 since the principal problem lay with the composition of the diet 
rather than a paucity of calories, at least until the onset of the siege.109 
When the islands were starving, towards the end of the siege, this took the 
form of slow starvation rather than acute deprivation. This may have made the 
crucial difference between suffering and death for many,110 since the Channel 
Islanders were able to become gradually accustomed to fewer and fewer calories 
rather than being suddenly deprived. However, this is not to say that the 
effects of this ‘creeping malnutrition’ were not serious, as malnutrition was 
recorded as a cause of death on a number of death certificates at the time.111 
Malnutrition also caused loss of memory, concentration and stamina, and 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Interesting.  I read a good book awhile ago re: the Channel Islanders called 
"The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society." 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The extract shows that initially, very restricted food has health benefits 
(not for elderly folk particularly) but brings disease eventually (This is of 
interest to me as I was born in Jersey, Channel Islands, 15 years after the 
‘Occupation’). 

 http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/hygiea/v8/i1/a4/hygiea09v8i1a4.pdf 
  
Conditions in the Channel Islands during the 1940–45 German Occupation and 
their impact on the health of islanders
 
 An unhealthy occupation? 
 
 “We’re all quite well, but getting thinner, 
 Not much for tea, still less for dinner. 
 Though not exactly on our uppers, 
 We’ve said Adieu to cold ham suppers. 
 In peace time those who wished to slim, 
 Tried diet, massage, baths and gym. 
 We’ll tell the stout of every nation
 The secret’s solved by Occupation.” 
 [Anon, Jersey (Lainé, 1945)]
 
 
 Introduction
 
 The occupation of the British Channel Islands by the German Army is one of the 
less discussed episodes of the Second World War, not least perhaps because it 
was something of an embarrassment to the British Government of the time.1  The 
British Government was forced to order the demilitarisation of the islands, 
which lie just off the coast of northern France, when the collapse of the 
Maginot line and the retreat of Allied forces to the beaches of Dunkirk meant 
that occupation became inevitable.2 Any attempt to defend the islands would 
have involved huge loss of life, both military and civilian, and at little 
strategic gain to the Allies. For this reason they were abandoned to their fate 
– a fate which involved almost five years of increasing deprivation and misery.
 
 Health and disease
 
 In the main, the general health impact of the occupation was perhaps not as 
bad as it might have been. Indeed, in some respects health actually improved, 
such as the weight loss that benefited the obese,91 especially in terms of 
cardiac health.92 In some cases this might have also helped some previously 
overweight women to conceive,93 while even those women who appeared to have 
become underweight as a result of the occupation still seemed to give birth to 
healthy sized babies.94 One Jersey doctor stated that, particularly in the 
early days of rationing, his more overweight patients benefitted from their 
change of diet.95 Elsewhere, the health of the population of Guernsey was 
thought to be “exceptionally good”96  during the first winter of the 
occupation. Some aspects of the occupation diet that may have been advantageous 
in this regard were the reduced sugar and fat content, and the increased 
consumption of wholemeal flour.97 However, the weight loss experienced by most 
Channel Islanders during the occupation was not beneficial to all sectors of 
the population, such as the elderly and infirm and those who were required to 
do physical work. For example, the outdoor telephone staff in Guernsey each 
lost an average of 22lbs (10kg) in weight between 1940 and 1943, and the 
associated loss of energy began to prevent them from doing their jobs properly 
even before the onset of the siege in 1944.98  Even the Jersey doctor cited 
earlier, who was wealthy and had many contacts from whom to obtain off-ration 
food, saw his body weight fall from 13 stone (83kg) to under 9 stone (57kg) by 
the end of the war.99   Indeed, he stated that many of his patients experienced 
similar losses, including his mother-in-law, who weighed less than 6 stone 
(38kg) by the end of the occupation. Some elderly people seem to have ended the 
war at an alarmingly low weight, as evidenced by an inquest into the death of a 
70-year-old Jersey woman where “malnutrition” was cited as a secondary cause, 
and whose weight was reported to be only 3 stone (19kg).100
 
 In his history of the occupation of Jersey, RCF Maugham mentioned that in 1943 
the general public began to look emaciated, and that by the end of the war, 
“the people grew thin, their features pinched by privation and want… normal 
strength and vitality could just not be maintained”.107
 
 Although this weight loss must have been alarming, it seems to have been 
malnutrition that affected the islands most as opposed to outright 
starvation108 since the principal problem lay with the composition of the diet 
rather than a paucity of calories, at least until the onset of the siege.109 
When the islands were starving, towards the end of the siege, this took the 
form of slow starvation rather than acute deprivation. This may have made the 
crucial difference between suffering and death for many,110 since the Channel 
Islanders were able to become gradually accustomed to fewer and fewer calories 
rather than being suddenly deprived. However, this is not to say that the 
effects of this ‘creeping malnutrition’ were not serious, as malnutrition was 
recorded as a 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Thanks, really interesting article.  I am still digesting it.  In context of FF 
I wonder what the effect of diet change [no meat] is on the health of people 
coming to school here for extended periods of time where the food service is 
all vegetarian on campus? 
 https://www.mum.edu/why-study-here/unique-elements/organic-vegetarian-meals/ 
https://www.mum.edu/why-study-here/unique-elements/organic-vegetarian-meals/
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Interesting.  I read a good book awhile ago re: the Channel Islanders called 
"The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society." 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The extract shows that initially, very restricted food has health benefits 
(not for elderly folk particularly) but brings disease eventually (This is of 
interest to me as I was born in Jersey, Channel Islands, 15 years after the 
‘Occupation’). 

 http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/hygiea/v8/i1/a4/hygiea09v8i1a4.pdf 
  
Conditions in the Channel Islands during the 1940–45 German Occupation and 
their impact on the health of islanders
 
 An unhealthy occupation? 
 
 “We’re all quite well, but getting thinner, 
 Not much for tea, still less for dinner. 
 Though not exactly on our uppers, 
 We’ve said Adieu to cold ham suppers. 
 In peace time those who wished to slim, 
 Tried diet, massage, baths and gym. 
 We’ll tell the stout of every nation
 The secret’s solved by Occupation.” 
 [Anon, Jersey (Lainé, 1945)]
 
 
 Introduction
 
 The occupation of the British Channel Islands by the German Army is one of the 
less discussed episodes of the Second World War, not least perhaps because it 
was something of an embarrassment to the British Government of the time.1  The 
British Government was forced to order the demilitarisation of the islands, 
which lie just off the coast of northern France, when the collapse of the 
Maginot line and the retreat of Allied forces to the beaches of Dunkirk meant 
that occupation became inevitable.2 Any attempt to defend the islands would 
have involved huge loss of life, both military and civilian, and at little 
strategic gain to the Allies. For this reason they were abandoned to their fate 
– a fate which involved almost five years of increasing deprivation and misery.
 
 Health and disease
 
 In the main, the general health impact of the occupation was perhaps not as 
bad as it might have been. Indeed, in some respects health actually improved, 
such as the weight loss that benefited the obese,91 especially in terms of 
cardiac health.92 In some cases this might have also helped some previously 
overweight women to conceive,93 while even those women who appeared to have 
become underweight as a result of the occupation still seemed to give birth to 
healthy sized babies.94 One Jersey doctor stated that, particularly in the 
early days of rationing, his more overweight patients benefitted from their 
change of diet.95 Elsewhere, the health of the population of Guernsey was 
thought to be “exceptionally good”96  during the first winter of the 
occupation. Some aspects of the occupation diet that may have been advantageous 
in this regard were the reduced sugar and fat content, and the increased 
consumption of wholemeal flour.97 However, the weight loss experienced by most 
Channel Islanders during the occupation was not beneficial to all sectors of 
the population, such as the elderly and infirm and those who were required to 
do physical work. For example, the outdoor telephone staff in Guernsey each 
lost an average of 22lbs (10kg) in weight between 1940 and 1943, and the 
associated loss of energy began to prevent them from doing their jobs properly 
even before the onset of the siege in 1944.98  Even the Jersey doctor cited 
earlier, who was wealthy and had many contacts from whom to obtain off-ration 
food, saw his body weight fall from 13 stone (83kg) to under 9 stone (57kg) by 
the end of the war.99   Indeed, he stated that many of his patients experienced 
similar losses, including his mother-in-law, who weighed less than 6 stone 
(38kg) by the end of the occupation. Some elderly people seem to have ended the 
war at an alarmingly low weight, as evidenced by an inquest into the death of a 
70-year-old Jersey woman where “malnutrition” was cited as a secondary cause, 
and whose weight was reported to be only 3 stone (19kg).100
 
 In his history of the occupation of Jersey, RCF Maugham mentioned that in 1943 
the general public began to look emaciated, and that by the end of the war, 
“the people grew thin, their features pinched by privation and want… normal 
strength and vitality could just not be maintained”.107
 
 Although this weight loss must have been alarming, it seems to have been 
malnutrition that affected the islands most as opposed to outright 
starvation108 since the principal problem lay with the composition of the diet 
rather than a paucity of calories, at least until the onset of the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

Vegetarian diets are natural for tropical climates but not northerly 
ones.  The students will probably become anemic though a lot of them 
will probably sneak off and get a burger which will prevent it.


On 12/03/2015 06:01 PM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Thanks, really interesting article.  I am still digesting it.  In 
context of FF I wonder what the effect of diet change [no meat] is on 
the health of people coming to school here for extended periods of 
time where the food service is all vegetarian on campus?


https://www.mum.edu/why-study-here/unique-elements/organic-vegetarian-meals/



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Interesting.  I read a good book awhile ago re: the Channel Islanders 
called "The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society."



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

The extract shows that initially, very restricted food has health 
benefits (not for elderly folk particularly) but brings disease 
eventually (This is of interest to me as I was born in Jersey, Channel 
Islands, 15 years after the ‘Occupation’).



_http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/hygiea/v8/i1/a4/hygiea09v8i1a4.pdf_**

**

*Conditions in the Channel Islands during the 1940–45 German 
Occupation and their impact on the health of islanders*


An unhealthy occupation?

“We’re all quite well, but getting thinner,
Not much for tea, still less for dinner.
Though not exactly on our uppers,
We’ve said Adieu to cold ham suppers.
In peace time those who wished to slim,
Tried diet, massage, baths and gym.
We’ll tell the stout of every nation
The _secret’s_ solved by Occupation.”
[Anon, Jersey (_Lainé_, 1945)]


Introduction

The occupation of the British Channel Islands by the German Army is 
one of the less discussed episodes of the Second World War, not least 
perhaps because it was something of an embarrassment to the British 
Government of the time.1The British Government was forced to order the 
demilitarisation of the islands, which lie just off the coast of 
northern France, when the collapse of the Maginot line and the retreat 
of Allied forces to the beaches of Dunkirk meant that occupation 
became inevitable.2 Any attempt to defend the islands would have 
involved huge loss of life, both military and civilian, and at little 
strategic gain to the Allies. For this reason they were abandoned to 
their fate – a fate which involved almost five years of increasing 
deprivation and misery.


Health and disease

In the main, the general health impact of the occupation was perhaps 
not as bad as it might have been. Indeed, in some respects health 
actually improved, such as the weight loss that benefited the obese,91 
especially in terms of cardiac health.92 In some cases this might have 
also helped some previously overweight women to conceive,93 while even 
those women who appeared to have become underweight as a result of the 
occupation still seemed to give birth to healthy sized babies.94 One 
Jersey doctor stated that, particularly in the early days of 
rationing, his more overweight patients benefitted from their change 
of diet.95 Elsewhere, the health of the population of Guernsey was 
thought to be “exceptionally good”96during the first winter of the 
occupation. Some aspects of the occupation diet that may have been 
advantageous in this regard were the reduced sugar and fat content, 
and the increased consumption of wholemeal flour.97 However, the 
weight loss experienced by most Channel Islanders during the 
occupation was not beneficial to all sectors of the population, such 
as the elderly and infirm and those who were required to do physical 
work. For example, the outdoor telephone staff in Guernsey each lost 
an average of 22lbs (10kg) in weight between 1940 and 1943, and the 
associated loss of energy began to prevent them from doing their jobs 
properly even before the onset of the siege in 1944.98Even the Jersey 
doctor cited earlier, who was wealthy and had many contacts from whom 
to obtain off-ration food, saw his body weight fall from 13 stone 
(83kg) to under 9 stone (57kg) by the end of the war.99Indeed, he 
stated that many of his patients experienced similar losses, including 
his mother-in-law, who weighed less than 6 stone (38kg) by the end of 
the occupation. Some elderly people seem to have ended the war at an 
alarmingly low weight, as evidenced by an inquest into the death of a 
70-year-old Jersey woman where “malnutrition” was cited as a secondary 
cause, and whose weight was reported to be only 3 stone (19kg).100


In his history of the occupation of Jersey, RCF Maugham mentioned that 
in 1943 the general public began to look emaciated, and that by the 
end of the war, “the people grew thin, their features pinched by 
privation and want… normal strength and vitality could just not be 
maintained”.107


Although this weight loss must have been alarming, it seems to have 
been malnutrition that affected the islands 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This could catch on. How about: 

 “Our organisation hates and resents smokers. We disapprove of your wasting 
health-service money to treat your selfish greed. We are sick of breathing in 
your noxious fumes as we pass you in the street.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that though you think you look 
so sophisticated with a cigarette dangling from your mouth to us you look just 
like a desperate junkie searching his scrotum for that last usable vein.
 

 "I hope you die of cancer sooner rather than later you sad apology for a human 
being."
 

 

 

 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 You're right about that, Back. Mind you, I don't object to all overweight 
women. It depends on how tall they are, how they carry themselves, and whether 
they are well proportioned. 

You have to be careful on dating websites, though, if you are looking for women 
in Iowa. If they describe their weight as "average," the unwary might assume 
that weight won't be an issue, but the lady could easily be about 180 
pounds—and in checking the "average" box she would not in fact be lying. 
 

 This might help...
 http://www.bookofmatches.com/freedating/area/iowa-iowa-10.htm 
http://www.bookofmatches.com/freedating/area/iowa-iowa-10.htm
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If he lived in Iowa he would run out of cards pretty quickly. 
 

 LOL, it's those corn-fed, hog-sated residents that account for this...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 UK police are investigating after a young man was spotted giving cards to 
fellow rail passengers informing them they are fat, and should lose weight for 
their own good. Printed in business card format, the message from ‘overweight 
Haters Ltd’ informs the holder: “It’s really not glandular, it’s your gluttony…

 

 “Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We object to the enormous 
amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves. We 
disapprove of your wasting health-service money to treat your selfish greed.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will 
be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted 
chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all”. 
 

 The authors of the card also objected to one particularly popular farm-yard 
animal being used as an insult. They wrote: “You are not a pig. You are a fat, 
ugly human”. 
 

 He's a cheeky bugger - but it did make me smile . . .
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

today I read that cases of diabetes are declining
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 In the US, the number of smokers is steadily going down. I think it's about 
17.5 percent now, or something like that. It is not cool to smoke in the US. 
Obesity, however, is on the rise, so a bit of fat-shaming might not be such a 
bad idea. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This could catch on. How about: 

 “Our organisation hates and resents smokers. We disapprove of your wasting 
health-service money to treat your selfish greed. We are sick of breathing in 
your noxious fumes as we pass you in the street.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that though you think you look 
so sophisticated with a cigarette dangling from your mouth to us you look just 
like a desperate junkie searching his scrotum for that last usable vein.
 

 "I hope you die of cancer sooner rather than later you sad apology for a human 
being."
 

 

 

 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 You're right about that, Back. Mind you, I don't object to all overweight 
women. It depends on how tall they are, how they carry themselves, and whether 
they are well proportioned. 

You have to be careful on dating websites, though, if you are looking for women 
in Iowa. If they describe their weight as "average," the unwary might assume 
that weight won't be an issue, but the lady could easily be about 180 
pounds—and in checking the "average" box she would not in fact be lying. 
 

 This might help...
 http://www.bookofmatches.com/freedating/area/iowa-iowa-10.htm 
http://www.bookofmatches.com/freedating/area/iowa-iowa-10.htm
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If he lived in Iowa he would run out of cards pretty quickly. 
 

 LOL, it's those corn-fed, hog-sated residents that account for this...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 UK police are investigating after a young man was spotted giving cards to 
fellow rail passengers informing them they are fat, and should lose weight for 
their own good. Printed in business card format, the message from ‘overweight 
Haters Ltd’ informs the holder: “It’s really not glandular, it’s your gluttony…

 

 “Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We object to the enormous 
amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves. We 
disapprove of your wasting health-service money to treat your selfish greed.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will 
be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted 
chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all”. 
 

 The authors of the card also objected to one particularly popular farm-yard 
animal being used as an insult. They wrote: “You are not a pig. You are a fat, 
ugly human”. 
 

 He's a cheeky bugger - but it did make me smile . . .
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[feste37]

If he lived in Iowa he would run out of cards pretty quickly. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 UK police are investigating after a young man was spotted giving cards to 
fellow rail passengers informing them they are fat, and should lose weight for 
their own good. Printed in business card format, the message from ‘overweight 
Haters Ltd’ informs the holder: “It’s really not glandular, it’s your gluttony…

 

 “Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We object to the enormous 
amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves. We 
disapprove of your wasting health-service money to treat your selfish greed.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will 
be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted 
chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all”. 
 

 The authors of the card also objected to one particularly popular farm-yard 
animal being used as an insult. They wrote: “You are not a pig. You are a fat, 
ugly human”. 
 

 He's a cheeky bugger - but it did make me smile . . .
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

The ones that irk me are not fat adults but fat parents with kids in tow who 
are also the extra-large size. Like the three kids I saw in the supermarket 
today screaming: "Mum - there's a special offer: pizza and ice-cream for three 
pounds!" 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If he lived in Iowa he would run out of cards pretty quickly. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 UK police are investigating after a young man was spotted giving cards to 
fellow rail passengers informing them they are fat, and should lose weight for 
their own good. Printed in business card format, the message from ‘overweight 
Haters Ltd’ informs the holder: “It’s really not glandular, it’s your gluttony…

 

 “Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We object to the enormous 
amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves. We 
disapprove of your wasting health-service money to treat your selfish greed.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will 
be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted 
chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all”. 
 

 The authors of the card also objected to one particularly popular farm-yard 
animal being used as an insult. They wrote: “You are not a pig. You are a fat, 
ugly human”. 
 

 He's a cheeky bugger - but it did make me smile . . .
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If he lived in Iowa he would run out of cards pretty quickly. 
 

 LOL, it's those corn-fed, hog-sated residents that account for this...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 UK police are investigating after a young man was spotted giving cards to 
fellow rail passengers informing them they are fat, and should lose weight for 
their own good. Printed in business card format, the message from ‘overweight 
Haters Ltd’ informs the holder: “It’s really not glandular, it’s your gluttony…

 

 “Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We object to the enormous 
amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves. We 
disapprove of your wasting health-service money to treat your selfish greed.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will 
be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted 
chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all”. 
 

 The authors of the card also objected to one particularly popular farm-yard 
animal being used as an insult. They wrote: “You are not a pig. You are a fat, 
ugly human”. 
 

 He's a cheeky bugger - but it did make me smile . . .
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[feste37]

You're right about that, Back. Mind you, I don't object to all overweight 
women. It depends on how tall they are, how they carry themselves, and whether 
they are well proportioned. 

You have to be careful on dating websites, though, if you are looking for women 
in Iowa. If they describe their weight as "average," the unwary might assume 
that weight won't be an issue, but the lady could easily be about 180 
pounds—and in checking the "average" box she would not in fact be lying. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If he lived in Iowa he would run out of cards pretty quickly. 
 

 LOL, it's those corn-fed, hog-sated residents that account for this...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 UK police are investigating after a young man was spotted giving cards to 
fellow rail passengers informing them they are fat, and should lose weight for 
their own good. Printed in business card format, the message from ‘overweight 
Haters Ltd’ informs the holder: “It’s really not glandular, it’s your gluttony…

 

 “Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We object to the enormous 
amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves. We 
disapprove of your wasting health-service money to treat your selfish greed.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will 
be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted 
chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all”. 
 

 The authors of the card also objected to one particularly popular farm-yard 
animal being used as an insult. They wrote: “You are not a pig. You are a fat, 
ugly human”. 
 

 He's a cheeky bugger - but it did make me smile . . .
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fat shaming

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The ones that irk me are not fat adults but fat parents with kids in tow who 
are also the extra-large size. Like the three kids I saw in the supermarket 
today screaming: "Mum - there's a special offer: pizza and ice-cream for three 
pounds!"
 

 It'll put a lot more than that on them if they keep eating that way ;-) ;-)
 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If he lived in Iowa he would run out of cards pretty quickly. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 UK police are investigating after a young man was spotted giving cards to 
fellow rail passengers informing them they are fat, and should lose weight for 
their own good. Printed in business card format, the message from ‘overweight 
Haters Ltd’ informs the holder: “It’s really not glandular, it’s your gluttony…

 

 “Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We object to the enormous 
amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves. We 
disapprove of your wasting health-service money to treat your selfish greed.
 

 “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will 
be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted 
chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all”. 
 

 The authors of the card also objected to one particularly popular farm-yard 
animal being used as an insult. They wrote: “You are not a pig. You are a fat, 
ugly human”. 
 

 He's a cheeky bugger - but it did make me smile . . .