# I done it!



## chris42 (7 Aug 2007)

02/08/2006 weight was 116 kgs.

07/08/2007 weight 98 kgs!

next goal 90 kgs.

Have to say this is with the help of my Dr. I was taking a drug called Xenical until January This stops the body absorbing fat. If you eat it you poo it.

Then switched to Reductil in May this is an appitite suppressent.

and bingo 18 kgs weight loss!


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2007)

I've lost a sniff over four stones since February.


----------



## Big Bren (7 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> I've lost a sniff over four stones since February.



Jeepers - did you have a leg off?? 

Congrat's though - that's quite an achievement.

Bren


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2007)

Thanks. WeightWatchers. It works and I eat a *shedload* of food each day.


----------



## Christopher (7 Aug 2007)

Wow! Well done Helen! Are people now failing to recognise you in the street?


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2007)

Well done you guys, it takes a lot of hard work and determination to make permanent changes to your life style, it is far easier to fall into bad habits than it is to get out of them!!


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2007)

Funnily enough, yes! 

Bearing in mind I'm nowhere near thin, as I'm still overweight, not yet being in the healthy BMI range, I've also had someone ask me if I'm ill . Then there's the well-meaning souls who, when I was very overweight thought they just had to be able to tell me, in no uncertain terms, how I needed to lose weight and now tell me not to become anorexic . Then there's the ones who have also been trying to lose weight, have been unsuccessful and now don't speak to me . Then there's those who tell me that they can't understand why I'm not looking like a stick-insect due to all the cycling I do . Then there's those who see me eat a bit of cake (there's no such thing as a banned food on WeightWatchers, I diarise all I eat, so I allow myself the odd 'treat' built in to my overall food intake) and say "Should you be eating that as you're on a diet?"  This is often followed by "I couldn't eat that if I was on a diet." followed by a smug look. Twerps, the lot of them.  I feel like saying, "Actually, yes I can have the odd bit of xxxx, as it doesn't do me any harm, having lost four stones since February." before smacking them about the head with a large frozen block of lard .

Sadly for me, I put on weight very easily, even though I do *lots* of exercise and I have to be exceedingly careful about what I eat & how much. For me there's a very, very fine line between eating sufficent to lose/maintain weight healthily & putting weight on (in vast quantities, not just the odd pound or two) so I have to be very alert to what I'm eating & when I'm eating it. Unfortunately I'm not one of those who can seemingly eat anything and not gain weight. I will never be able to relax about food intake.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2007)

Dom, for many it's not as simple as 'bad habits' or 'lifestyle' It can be far more complex than that.


----------



## Christopher (7 Aug 2007)

Talk about passive-aggressive! They're just jealous, Waffers. 
I put on and lose weight fairly easily, but it now sticks around longer now that I am over 40.
Edit: and well done Chris!


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2007)

Sorry Waffly! Hope I didn't put my foot in it too badly. I'm not exactly an expert in this area.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (7 Aug 2007)

Well done, Waffles, the proof's in the pudding... (so to speak!)
You're losing weight whilst still eating healthily.
Well done too!! Chris.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2007)

domtyler said:


> Sorry Waffly! Hope I didn't put my foot in it too badly. I'm not exactly an expert in this area.



No problem.  I openly admit to being hyper-sensitive on weight issues. It comes from years of being treated as a third-class citizen by virtue of being overweight and 'natch all overweight people are lazy, lacking in self-control, do naught but sit on a sofa stuffing their bloated faces with cake & chips all day etc., etc and the usual stuff put out by too many who usually haven't ever had a weight 'problem' themselves and are all too often very willing to tell you how pathethic an individual you are if you are overweight. But as my teenage son has told me in the past "Mum, you are overweight compared to many of my mates's mums, but they can't get on a bike & do a fifty-mile bike ride and you can get on a bike ride fifty miles." Now I'm slimmer than some, but will always, always, be super-sensitive about weight issues. 

Even when I was very overweight I'd exercise regularly, be it cycling, walking or dancing. But I had other health problems in the past which left me with long-term problems as regards weight. 

Yes, there are lazy indivduals who don't eat sensibly or do exercise, but for many, the weight thing isn't quite as simple as that.


----------



## Blue (7 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> Yes, there are lazy indivduals who don't eat sensibly or do exercise, *but for many*, the weight thing isn't quite as simple as that.



I can't bring myself to believe that. I used to be overweight and I know I was firmly in the greedy & lazy bracket. I can accept that *some* overweight people have other issues, but not "many".

This may seem pedantic, but unless the vast majority of the obese accept the reality of their situation the current lardiness that afflicts the nation will never be resolved.


----------



## wafflycat (8 Aug 2007)

Perhaps you need to be looking at some up-to-date research on the underlying causes of obesity.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (8 Aug 2007)

Well done Chris, brilliant effort.


----------



## chris42 (8 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Well done Chris, brilliant effort.




Cheers!


----------



## Steve Austin (8 Aug 2007)

Good work Chris!


----------



## chris42 (8 Aug 2007)

Next goal is 89 kgs by December then I'm thinking about racing!


----------



## Keith Oates (8 Aug 2007)

All I can say is well done to both of you, it takes effort and will power to achieve those results!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Blue (8 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> Perhaps you need to be looking at some up-to-date research on the underlying causes of obesity.



I don't think so.

The simple calorie equation is the basis of the vast majority of all cases of obesity - always has been and always will be.


----------



## wafflycat (8 Aug 2007)

Whatever.


----------



## Twenty Inch (10 Aug 2007)

Blue;36034][quote name= said:


> Perhaps you need to be looking at some up-to-date research on the underlying causes of obesity.



I don't think so.

The simple calorie equation is the basis of the vast majority of all cases of obesity - always has been and always will be.[/QUOTE]

Yes, if you want to break the argument down into its Cartesian minimalist components.

If you want to make a contribution to the debate, perhaps you could look at some of the reasons why people end up on the wrong side of the calorie equation. Comfort eating, addiction, crap food, no cooking skills, no knowledge of what constitutes good food, food industry loading processed food with fat, sugar and salt, supermarkets strangling local production, advertising, public health policy that is ten years behind trends, vast lobbying industries geared to making sure that producer interests are protected, town planning that prioritises cars over walking and cycling, lack of access to sports facilities or recreation, capitalist production systems that value profit above human well-being.

Just a few suggestions for you.


----------



## Twenty Inch (10 Aug 2007)

Well done Wafflycat, by the way.


----------



## gbyers (10 Aug 2007)

Twenty Inch;37434][quote name= said:


> wafflycat'' said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you need to be looking at some up-to-date research on the underlying causes of obesity.
> ...



Yes, if you want to break the argument down into its Cartesian minimalist components.

If you want to make a contribution to the debate, perhaps you could look at some of the reasons why people end up on the wrong side of the calorie equation. Comfort eating, addiction, crap food, no cooking skills, no knowledge of what constitutes good food, food industry loading processed food with fat, sugar and salt, supermarkets strangling local production, advertising, public health policy that is ten years behind trends, vast lobbying industries geared to making sure that producer interests are protected, town planning that prioritises cars over walking and cycling, lack of access to sports facilities or recreation, capitalist production systems that value profit above human well-being.

Just a few suggestions for you.[/QUOTE]

The few suggestions are good ones Twenty Inch. 

But even allowing for these contributing factors, Blue, your simplistic energy formula theory is itself increasingly viewed as being too simplistic.

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2006-07/apr/13.shtml

This makes the acheivements of thoese who exercise more, modify their diet and lose weight, even more laudable.

So yes, well done waffleycat.


----------



## Blue (10 Aug 2007)

Twenty Inch;37434][quote name= said:


> wafflycat'' said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you need to be looking at some up-to-date research on the underlying causes of obesity.
> ...



If you want to make a contribution to the debate, perhaps you could .[/QUOTE]

keep your arrogance to yourself, thanks


----------



## chris42 (10 Aug 2007)

come on people lets not fall out!

*I posted this thread to see if it could inspire people who wanted to loose weight.*
I had massive trouble loosing it without intervention from a Dr. due to years of heavy heavy training as a competitive swimmer and semi pro Ice hockey player.
the Dr. says this coupled with 3/4 years (during my mid 20's) of much reduced activity and eating the same level of calories I was when I was training has had a negative effect on my metabolism.
So normal increase excercise and decrease food had very little effect.

There are poeple who have real trouble loosing weight so unless you are one of these you have no way of knowing how frustrating it is when the weight will just not shift or how bloody annoying it is when people just say "all you have to do is excercise more and eat less"

Tolerance and understanding.?


----------



## Twenty Inch (10 Aug 2007)

Blue;37739][quote name= said:


> Blue;36034 said:
> 
> 
> > wafflycat'' said:
> ...



keep your arrogance to yourself, thanks[/QUOTE]

When you keep your ignorance to yourself.


----------



## Blue (10 Aug 2007)

OK Twenty Inch, I apologise if I caused you offence - that was not my intention, I assure you. Please accept my apology.

I think my intentions are not understood. I, like anyone, applaud anyone who alters their lifestyle and gets fitter.

My original post took issue with the assertion that 'many' obese people can look to reasons beyond themselves for their condition. I have already acknowledged that 'some' people have a genuine problem. However, I have walked this planet for nearly 60 years and have rarely met an obese person who was simply anything other than more fond of food and drink than exercise. We live in a society that seems to me to be increasingly based on self indulgence and the blaming of others for our woes that the acceptance of personal responsibility and the leading of a healthy lifestyle.

I do talk from experience. In the 1980s I went from a 16st 2lb (Hgt 5' 7") lardarse to a 10st 2hr 38min marathon runner after taking a long hard look at myself and deciding to stop the rot. I now cycle between 150 and 200 miles at an average of 16-18mph every week, but still have to keep an eye on my diet or the weight can pile on - but I know who is to blame when I slip up and let that happen.

My intelligence is offended by any suggestion that many of the obese are not responsible for their own condition.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2007)

_"My intelligence is offended by any suggestion that many of the obese are not responsible for their own condition."_

As I said - perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with up-to-date research on obesity issues.


----------



## Blue (12 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> _"My intelligence is offended by any suggestion that many of the obese are not responsible for their own condition."_
> 
> As I said - perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with up-to-date research on obesity issues.



I have already replied to that.

However, I think it has to be said that a lot of so called research has to be read carefully. Much of it is about someone who has an idea and seeks proof of their own theory, ignoring everything else, rather than being independent. Much of it is written to serve a purpose, which can often be as simplistic as who pays the writer etc. (are we not at war for such reasons!!)

I mean look at some of the arguements that were raised against me in this thread:-

Comfort eating - what about distracting oneself with exercise, even as simple as housework

Addiction - self inflicted, seek help to cure it rather than indulging it

Crap food - alternatives are as easily available - in the same supermarkets

No cooking skills - I don't have any either, but fruit, veg, brown bread etc keep me ok and require few skills.

No knowledge of good food etc - well, you all beem to think that I am not too well read so how come I'm able to get by. The info is everywhere, or have none of you noticed how hard the government etc are working to change our habits.

Town planning and the social system - I ask you, what next - the planet is located in the fat sector of the universe

Lack of access - whats wrong with the footpath outside your door. I have participated in endurance sports for more than 20 years and have never used anything other than the public pavement and road. 

The simple truth is that as I travel about I see hundreds of obese people over indulging for every obese person I see making an effort by even so much as powerwalking on the pavement. You can try to quote papers if you wish, but remember the saying that 'a picture paints a thousand words' and I see the picture that is Britain every minute of every day.


----------



## gbyers (12 Aug 2007)

Blue;38441][QUOTE=wafflycat said:


> _"My intelligence is offended by any suggestion that many of the obese are not responsible for their own condition."_
> 
> As I said - perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with up-to-date research on obesity issues.



I have already replied to that.

However, I think it has to be said that a lot of so called research has to be read carefully. Much of it is about someone who has an idea and seeks proof of their own theory, ignoring everything else, rather than being independent. Much of it is written to serve a purpose, which can often be as simplistic as who pays the writer etc. (are we not at war for such reasons!!)

I mean look at some of the arguements that were raised against me in this thread:-

[/QUOTE]

Blue, there are some flaws in your reply.

Firstly, you can't just dismiss all scientific research as biased in favour of funders vested interests without quoting specific examples. Such generalisation is unhelpful and inaccurate.

Secondly, some recent research has highlighted genetic factors which will mean some individuals may not respond to simple calorie/exercise equation weight regulation (see link I posted above).

Thirdly the social factors are highly relevant, all of those you dismissed are quoted here at the FSA website. http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/advertisingtochildren/promotion/promofacts/

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that all obese individuals carry responsibility for their condition and that rectifying it is a simple matter of changing diet and exercising more. The genetic case and the social facts would suggest it's a bit more complex than that.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2007)

Scientific research. Dreadful stuff. Much better to rely on what we see with our own eyes and through our own filters/prejudices.


----------



## Blue (12 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> Scientific research. Dreadful stuff. Much better to rely on what we see with our own eyes and through our own filters/prejudices.



I think that you, rather than I, should be thinking carefully about what is being said here. Your comment exemplifies the arrogance being shown towards me - as mentioned before.

I didn't say ignore research - I said "a lot of so called research has to be read carefully". Hardly what you claim I said and hardly foolish comment on my part.

Are you suggesting you ignore what you see for yourself - if so you are advocating extreme gullibility.

You suggest that I assert that all obese people are responsible for their condition - quote where I said that. I have repeatedly been at pains to point out that I acknowledge that some have problems beyond their control.

The link to the FSA site was interesting - using words like marketing is a 'probable' cause. Portion sizes are a 'possible' link. Definitive research indeed. In all honesty there would be nothing on the site that I would take issue with as I don't think that is disagrees with too much, if any, of what I have said. People eat too much of the wrong food - couldn't agree more.

Look, I don't want to fight with anyone about this, or anything else for that matter. I voiced my opinion and I haven't seen any reply that makes me alter it. You think that I am not well read, fine. I think that you are an apologist for the majority of the obese. My problem with taking your line is that without hard, straight talking the majority of the obese have no incentive to sort themselves out.

Please don't get me wrong I know the issue has complexities - what issue doesn't. In my own case I had two obese parents and so, by todays reckoning, I have probably inherited an 'obesity gene' - or something of that sort. As I have already stated, my natural tendency is to gain weight - that doesn't stop me fighting it. I have a brother who is significantly obese. That brother is on heavy duty medication which he claims slows him down and leads to the weight gain - fine. He won't take on board anything I say about even simple exercise. What my 'simplified' thought process doesn't understand is why his wife and children are in the same state, but not on the medication. Unless, of course, they all simply eat too much and exercise too little - gosh, I wonder!!

My comments may be simplistic - that doesn't mean that they are wrong. A lot of simple things are pure genius.

The bottom line is that I am happy to voice my opinion. I am also happy if people ignore what I say - but that doesn't mean that I am wrong.


----------



## Pete (13 Aug 2007)

(very belatedly ) Congrats Chris, and congrats especially to you, Helen! Having touched on this subject before now, I know how much this achievement must mean to you.


----------



## Blue (13 Aug 2007)

Report out today from the Institute for European Environmental Policy states that we shoud deal with the obesity crisis by forcing parents and their children to walk more so that they develop good habits.

Couldn't agree more


----------



## wafflycat (13 Aug 2007)

If the answer was as simple as more exercise, I'd be built like a stick insect, considering I exercise on a daily basis.


----------



## Steve Austin (13 Aug 2007)

Blue, your whole theory is so simplistic, you could change the world with your theory if it was workable and correct! Eat less, move more is 100% correct in theory, and in the laboratory works everytime. 
Put it in the real world and it fails miserably

Quoting snippits of theories that support you 'simple' theory is worthless too. Maybe you need to understand there is more happening to the human form than exercise and food consumption.


----------



## chris42 (13 Aug 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> Blue, your whole theory is so simplistic, you could change the world with your theory if it was workable and correct! Eat less, move more is 100% correct in theory, and in the laboratory works everytime.
> Put it in the real world and it fails miserably
> 
> Quoting snippits of theories that support you 'simple' theory is worthless too. Maybe you need to understand there is more happening to the human form than exercise and food consumption.




Well said!


----------



## Steve Austin (13 Aug 2007)

Want some cake?


----------



## Blue (13 Aug 2007)

Steve Austin said:
 

> Blue, your whole theory is so simplistic, you could change the world with your theory if it was workable and correct! Eat less, move more is 100% correct in theory, and in the laboratory works everytime.
> Put it in the real world and it fails miserably
> 
> Quoting snippits of theories that support you 'simple' theory is worthless too. Maybe you need to understand there is more happening to the human form than exercise and food consumption.



Thank you for affirming my theory.

Shame on you for saying what I have to say is worthless and suggesting I don't understand people. Neither is correct

I have acknowledged the problems involved with the issue and have worked with people all my working life - I understand them only too well. 

I have always struggled with a weight problem. I follow my theory without difficulty and it hasn't failed yet.

The majority of the obesity problem is tied in with the frailty of the basic human personality that will always seek the easiest path through life. I mean to say, the report I referred to earlier has brought us to the point where people will have to be compelled to walk because they won't make that decision for themselves - what sort of world are we creating by inventing excuses for people. Get real, town-planners make it easy to travel by car so it's their fault that we drive and get fat rather than walk and get fit. Is this logic not in the realms of suggesting that gun makers may as well have pulled the trigger in every gun murder.

People here have suggested I am not well read and too simplistic etc. Let me tell you all something. Two years ago I retired from a successful career as a teacher of Law and Business Studies. My academic qualifications are such that I have more letters after my name than in it. Due to the nature of my job I worked with people all day every day. I used to watch my students complicate, and get no-where with, almost every issue they were given for discussion and I spent my time telling them to keep it simple (because it works).

I voiced a valid opinion on a forum and in reply I get strangers telling me I am not well read and don't know how the real world works.

You all make me laugh.


----------



## wafflycat (13 Aug 2007)

Being an academic in law means diddly-squat when it comes to understanding science.


----------



## chris42 (13 Aug 2007)

Let's all carm down a few of us have lost some weight and a we have had a debate.
It is now going round in circles.
Lets leave this as the last post and all move on?


----------



## Blue (13 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> Being an academic in law means diddly-squat when it comes to understanding science.



Oh dear, back to the insults. Be careful, don't let your brains go to your head!!

(BTW, just remember who started the slagging before you feel too insulted by my remark).


----------



## Steve Austin (13 Aug 2007)

sorry, i need to reply to Blue.

I said your using one theory to back up your opinion was worthless and it is. As an academic you will undoubtedly realise that using one theory to support another is fundamentally flawed.

I think you may be a little delicate for Forums Blue, if you post an opinion and folk dis-agree and you are unhappy with what they say then first off, make sure you are right. 
As i said, your view on weight gain, is naive and wrong, and fails to acknowledge so many other factors. 

Carry on contributing and expect some dis-agreement, but there is little point spitting your dummy if folk dis-agree, especially on subjects that polarise opinion.


----------



## Blue (13 Aug 2007)

chris42 said:


> Let's all carm down a few of us have lost some weight and a we have had a debate.
> It is now going round in circles.
> Lets leave this as the last post and all move on?



Fair enough, Chris. I will not write any more - just forgive me for not taking the last insult without reply.


----------



## wafflycat (13 Aug 2007)

Blue, I'm not slagging. Knowing loads about law does indeed mean diddly-squat when it comes to science. Just as being an expert in quantum physics means diddly-squat when it comes to understanding the intricaies of say, criminal law.. Being an expert in one field does not qualify a person as an expert in another unrelated field. That is what I meant, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Blue (13 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> Blue, I'm not slagging. Knowing loads about law does indeed mean diddly-squat when it comes to science. .



I won't return to the subject of the thread. However, I have to make a point about this issue as it's personal.

I mentioned that I have extensive qualifications. I mentioned that I was a successful teacher of Law and Business Studies. My qualifications related to more that the subjects that I taught. I have passed academic papers in both general science and medical science at third level. 

It was your narrow assumption that my retort attacked.

On a personal basis I don't have any problem with you, or anyone else. If people would read what I say instead of attacking it you would see that I applauded the efforts of all those who fight the good fight with regard to lifestyle - that includes you. For dear sake, I am in the same boat, as I have said.

I have enjoyed the debate and hope that we can part friends on this and maybe find subjects where we agree in the future.

All the best to you - enjoy your cycling.


----------



## Blue (13 Aug 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> sorry, i need to reply to Blue.
> I think you may be a little delicate for Forums Blue, if you post an opinion and folk dis-agree and you are unhappy with what they say then first off, make sure you are right.



Steve, It was others who spat the dummies out just because I disagreed with one word in a comment about the obese. Read my first contribution. Read the early comments by WC, they indicated that she was touchy on the subject of obesity and she obviously meant that. That said, I wasn't trying to provoke. I only disagreed with one word for goodness sake!!

My opinions on all things are indeed simplistic - I would never dispute that. Simple doesn't mean wrong. While others contemplate their navels (the complexities of everything) I will watch the problem get steadily worse.


----------



## Twenty Inch (13 Aug 2007)

Blue;39337][QUOTE=Steve Austin said:


> sorry, i need to reply to Blue.
> I think you may be a little delicate for Forums Blue, if you post an opinion and folk dis-agree and you are unhappy with what they say then first off, make sure you are right.



Steve, It was others who spat the dummies out just because I disagreed with one word in a comment about the obese. Read my first contribution. Read the early comments by WC, they indicated that she was touchy on the subject of obesity and she obviously meant that. That said, I wasn't trying to provoke. I only disagreed with one word for goodness sake!!

My opinions on all things are indeed simplistic - I would never dispute that. Simple doesn't mean wrong. While others contemplate their navels (the complexities of everything) I will watch the problem get steadily worse.[/QUOTE]

Funny that someone with so many qualifications doesn't know the difference between "simplistic" and "simple".

Simplistic: overly simplified, not including all the factors that may contribute to the problem.

Simple: having few parts, not complicated.

Well done Blue. You've obviously spent a long time fighting your own (genetic? socially adaptive?) tendency to fight your over weight. As indeed I have. 

But you display your simplistic attitudes to almost every other issue in your responses. Town planning is an issue in obesity. When BUPA and the WHO recognise addiction as a multi-faceted illness, then I don't see how a business lecturer can say it's not. And so on, ad nauseum.


----------



## wafflycat (13 Aug 2007)

Blue;39337
Steve said:


> That said, I wasn't trying to provoke. I only disagreed with one word for goodness sake!![/B]
> 
> My opinions on all things are indeed simplistic - I would never dispute that. Simple doesn't mean wrong. While others contemplate their navels (the complexities of everything) I will watch the problem get steadily worse.



To which the response was _"Perhaps you need to be looking at some up-to-date research on the underlying causes of obesity."_ which is hardly a throwing the toys out of the pram-type response... YMMV


----------



## Blue (13 Aug 2007)

Twenty inch - I withdraw the apology I offered last week as your arrogance continues to astound.


----------



## Steve Austin (13 Aug 2007)

Blue, your stance is that weight loss is 'simply' less calories, more exercise will result in weight loss. Which is NOT true in all cases.

Your first couple of contributions to this thread were neither informative nor helpful, but they were confrontational and argumentative. So if you feel folk are being arrogant, i suggest you look at what provoked them.

Without meaning to insult your obvious knowledge, do you think that your statements may come across as arrogant and dismissive?

i do


----------



## Blue (14 Aug 2007)

Steve, I don't know why I have to keep repeating that I never held that my simplistic attitude held true in every case - to be arrogant about it; are you all thick?? (written in jest to get my point home via the shock, in case you don't understand!!)

Let's not beat around the bush. There is another thread in this section started by BFTB who proudly announced a weight loss via extra exercise and better eating - you and the others who are arguing with me have all simply congratulated him and some posters have repeated comments similar to my own.

When you show some consistency I will pay heed to what you have to say.


----------



## fossyant (14 Aug 2007)

Is it safe to come out yet !


----------

