If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
"Nunya B." wrote:
"nanner" wrote: "Nunya B." wrote: "nanner" wrote: "Eddie-Type2" wrote: The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred to as Inuit, not Eskimos. That is false. They are Inuit Eskimos (as opposed to Yupik Eskimos), and technically can be referred to by either term. They prefer the more specific term Inuit. But Eskimo is in fact still correct... except that it is an all inclusive term which includes not just Inuit, but also Yupik (people, language, or culture). Well, sure they are properly referred to as Inuit, that's the name they call themselves but if they were/are eaters of raw meat then they are properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them as such. That is a myth perpetuated by Westerners. The term Eskimo has nothing to do with raw meat, and would hardly be insulting even if it did. Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term "Eskimo" is incorrect. The term Eskimo is correct *if* (but not only if) you are speaking English and want to reference *all* types of Eskimos rather than just one type. It still is not wrong when used to reference only a single type (Inuit or Yupik) but it just isn't as technically valid as using one of the more specific terms. by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the definition of the word and we are not Inuit? In a perfectly PC world, sure. But Inuit is what the aboriginals of the Arctic region prefer to be called thus it is fine to call them that. They Not all Inuit people, much less all Eskimos, want to be referenced with the term Inuit. Those in Greenland and Canada use Inuit. Those in Alaska use the term Inupiat. Of course all Eskimos in Siberia are Yupik, and like Yupik Eskimos in Alaska they do not want to be called Inuit either. do not prefer to be called Eskimos. And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? It's like calling the aboriginals of the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to be mistakenly from India. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any subject... So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Quyanaqpak, Ap'a Flo -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
"Nunya B." wrote:
"Lá~ká~ Wáná" wrote in message .com... Tell that to the many people who don't eat carbs and live long health lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes from the far north. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...330/7487/326-d Inuits have a significantly shorter life expectancy than other Canadians. But there is nothing which correlates that to diet. On the other hand, they die from accidents at a higher rate (because people in the Arctic commonly do things that are dangerous) and also have a higher infant mortality rate, which is usually taken as an indicator of poor medical care. Ancient people lived even shorter lives. http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan.htm If you're going to post bull****, back it up with actual facts. I don't think that typical Eskimo diet statistics have any meaning at all when applied in the manner above. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: do not prefer to be called Eskimos. And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians and people from a number of indigenous groups. It's like calling the aboriginals of the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to be mistakenly from India. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any subject... RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that different nations and tribes do things differently. I go by what passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with everything - life is a lot different in AK. So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an expert. Giga-waabamin, -- the volleyballchick |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: "Nunya B." wrote: "Lá~ká~ Wáná" wrote in message .com... Tell that to the many people who don't eat carbs and live long health lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes from the far north. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...330/7487/326-d Inuits have a significantly shorter life expectancy than other Canadians. But there is nothing which correlates that to diet. On the other hand, they die from accidents at a higher rate (because people in the Arctic commonly do things that are dangerous) and also have a higher infant mortality rate, which is usually taken as an indicator of poor medical care. And there is nothing to the claim that they live long healthy lives either which is the original point I was responding to. Sorry if you have a problem with it but I'm going to continue to counter the useless garbage pulled from thin air. If you want to talk life spans look at the Okinawa study where there are people who do have a significantly longer life span when taken per capita and some of that is attributed to the fact that they generally don't stuff themselves and also their diet which is chock full of carbs and no so much fat. -- the volleyballchick |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
I can speak a bit in this area, I am part Cherokee and part apache, I am an
American, I don't get offended if you can't figure it out and think I am from India, but I wouldn't let you housesit for me, Lee Nunya B. wrote in message ups.com... Floyd L. Davidson wrote: do not prefer to be called Eskimos. And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians and people from a number of indigenous groups. It's like calling the aboriginals of the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to be mistakenly from India. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any subject... RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that different nations and tribes do things differently. I go by what passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with everything - life is a lot different in AK. So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an expert. Giga-waabamin, -- the volleyballchick |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
Hi Floyd,
In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack of respect for the people you are referring to If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used? We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a riot!!!! I think you show some respect and refer to them properly. They do not prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to continue to use the term? Eddie Weight June05-359.0lbs Current Weight-286.8lbs Loss to date=72.2lbs Goal Weight-180.0lbs "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nunya B." wrote: "nanner" wrote: "Nunya B." wrote: "nanner" wrote: "Eddie-Type2" wrote: The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred to as Inuit, not Eskimos. That is false. They are Inuit Eskimos (as opposed to Yupik Eskimos), and technically can be referred to by either term. They prefer the more specific term Inuit. But Eskimo is in fact still correct... except that it is an all inclusive term which includes not just Inuit, but also Yupik (people, language, or culture). Well, sure they are properly referred to as Inuit, that's the name they call themselves but if they were/are eaters of raw meat then they are properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them as such. That is a myth perpetuated by Westerners. The term Eskimo has nothing to do with raw meat, and would hardly be insulting even if it did. Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term "Eskimo" is incorrect. The term Eskimo is correct *if* (but not only if) you are speaking English and want to reference *all* types of Eskimos rather than just one type. It still is not wrong when used to reference only a single type (Inuit or Yupik) but it just isn't as technically valid as using one of the more specific terms. by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the definition of the word and we are not Inuit? In a perfectly PC world, sure. But Inuit is what the aboriginals of the Arctic region prefer to be called thus it is fine to call them that. They Not all Inuit people, much less all Eskimos, want to be referenced with the term Inuit. Those in Greenland and Canada use Inuit. Those in Alaska use the term Inupiat. Of course all Eskimos in Siberia are Yupik, and like Yupik Eskimos in Alaska they do not want to be called Inuit either. do not prefer to be called Eskimos. And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? It's like calling the aboriginals of the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to be mistakenly from India. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any subject... So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Quyanaqpak, Ap'a Flo -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
"Nunya B." wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: do not prefer to be called Eskimos. And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians and people from a number of indigenous groups. Then you probably should *ask* a few Eskimos about this, instead of imagining what they would say. (I have no idea what Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders or other indigenous groups have to do with it... they won't know any more than you do.) It's like calling the aboriginals of the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to be mistakenly from India. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any subject... RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that different nations and tribes do things differently. Then do *not* make sweeping statements suggesting that one specific opinion would satisfy everyone. I go by what passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with everything - life is a lot different in AK. Life is a lot different in *many* parts of of the US. If you want to see an interesting discussion on the topic, use Google to research the threads for creating the soc.culture.native newsgroup at a dozen plus years ago. The original attempt failed over the issue of what to name it, because everyone was divided (and vehemently so) no matter what name was used. The eventually successful attempt worked because the vote to creat and the vote to name were separate. So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an expert. Then do *not* make statements like the one above. I personally know a few thousand Eskimos who would be very upset that you are saying they "sound like an ignorant White person". -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
"Nunya B." wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: "Nunya B." wrote: "Lá~ká~ Wáná" wrote in message .com... Tell that to the many people who don't eat carbs and live long health lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes from the far north. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...330/7487/326-d Inuits have a significantly shorter life expectancy than other Canadians. But there is nothing which correlates that to diet. On the other hand, they die from accidents at a higher rate (because people in the Arctic commonly do things that are dangerous) and also have a higher infant mortality rate, which is usually taken as an indicator of poor medical care. And there is nothing to the claim that they live long healthy lives either which is the original point I was responding to. Sorry if you have a problem with it but I'm going to continue to counter the useless garbage pulled from thin air. My family buried our matriarch early last year. She was 102. She had been eating a traditional Eskimo diet all of her life, and we certainly do believe that is part of what allowed her to live so long. All of her siblings that survived long enough to become adults lived well into their 80's, and one into his 90's. While it is a fact that Eskimos (Inuit included) have an average lifespan shorter than non-Inuit Canadians, it is not at all clear that diet is a factor and indeed *might* be a responsible for precisely what was stated: ... many people who don't eat carbs and live long health lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes... Many people live a long healthy life without eating lots of carbs. If it were actually unhealthy, they would not be able to do that. If you want to talk life spans look at the Okinawa study where there are people who do have a significantly longer life span when taken per capita and some of that is attributed to the fact that they generally don't stuff themselves and also their diet which is chock full of carbs and no so much fat. But that does *not* suggest that a low carb diet is more healthy. You aren't correlating valid facts with results. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
"Eddie-Type2" wrote:
Hi Floyd, In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack of respect for the people you are referring to Is your opinion of any significance? Is there some reason anyone should imagine that you have more knowledge about this topic than the average non-Inuit Canadian? I happen to be well aware that the average non-Inuit Canadian agrees with you... for a lot of usually very good reasons which I do appreciate; but alas, they have virtually all of their facts *wrong*. If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used? That is wrong. You don't seem to know anything about the term Eskimo, much less about Inuit or other Eskimo people. We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a riot!!!! I think you show some respect and refer to them properly. They do not prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to continue to use the term? I've discussed this topic with Eskimos from Greenland and from Canada as well as with Alaskan Eskimos. (I should warn you that I've also discussed this with my immediate family: all of whom, with the exception of me, do happen to be very traditional Eskimos.) Let me provide you with a few facts. The etymology of the term "Eskimo" is plagued with a myth that it is an Indian word for "eaters of raw meat", as if that would be an insult. Of course nobody but a Westerner with a very hypocritical Eurocentric view would consider that insulting. Worse yet, that isn't what it means at all! There are two well documented possible derivations for "Eskimo". An anthropologist from Quebec, Jose Mailhot, did a definitive study quite some time back, and decided it probably came from words meaning "People who speak a different language". Mailhot, Jose, L'etymologie de *esquimau' revuew et corrigee. In: Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(2): 59-69. Mailhot speaks fluent Cree. Her study has never been refuted. However, she publishes in French, and is almost unknown on the Internet or in the US. Another view comes from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian Institute, who says it probably meant "snowshoe netter". Goddard of course is a linguist who studies Algonquian languages. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5 (Arctic), p6. You can find more discussion at http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html Another URL, which I hesitate to suggest because it contains some rather gross errors (read with caution), http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html The gist of that is you are simply *wrong* about any derivation of Eskimo being insulting. But the overall problem with your understanding is the idea that "Inuit" is a valid replacement term for "Eskimo" in the English language. It is *not*. Inuit is just one branch of what the term Eskimo covers. Whether applied to language, to culture, or to a people, there are two branches of Eskimo, and 1) Yupik Eskimos are not Inuit, plus 2) many "Inuit" Eskimos simply do *not* like to be called Inuit (they use the term Inupiat, which has a slightly different connotation than Inuit). I personally have never met an Eskimo who objected to being called in Eskimo in the correct context. I know some who will correct anyone who calls them personally an Inuit. In any English language discussion of "Eskimo" that includes both Yupik and Inuit, the *only* proper term that can be used is "Eskimo". There is no other all encompassing term in the English language. In fact most discussions do encompass all Eskimos, because they have a common ancestry (the Inuit variation is perhaps 1500-2000 years old, while Yupik is a continuum from Proto-Eskimo as it existed prior to that). For that reason virtually all academic work (linguistics, anthropology, etc.) necessarily continues to use the term Eskimo in all cases. It is precisely correct. http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology. Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to use the term Inuit when discussing local people. But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is simply a misunderstanding on *your* part. Here are a few other interesting URLs, though not directly discussing this topic (they do, however, use the term "Eskimo" quite properly): A comparison between Inuit and Yupik languages, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html Discussions of Inuit dialects and Yup'ik, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/i.html http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/cy.html A fascinating discussion of Lower Kuskokwim River Yup'ik culture by a Yup'ik elder (who also happens to have a PhD in Anthropology), http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/Histor.../kawagley.html -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
calories?
Great reply Floyd! I'm quite impressed with your reply, but this is the part
that sticks out most.... ......"That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology. *****Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to use the term Inuit when discussing local people***** But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is simply a misunderstanding on *your* part.........." --------------OK, I give - I agree with you. But I think you missed my original posting where I clearly said to LW .... ......."The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred to as Inuit, not Eskimos........" Then you popped in and went nutso on Nunya's posting........... You are obviously well educated on the subject, but you really should read and understand what you are responding to before you go off the deep-end with your replies.... That being said, I am truly impressed with your response and no offense was ever intended. Now, what do you have to say about weight-loss and WW ? LOL!!! Eddie Weight June05-359.0lbs Current Weight-286.8lbs Loss to date=72.2lbs Goal Weight-180.0lbs "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... "Eddie-Type2" wrote: Hi Floyd, In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack of respect for the people you are referring to Is your opinion of any significance? Is there some reason anyone should imagine that you have more knowledge about this topic than the average non-Inuit Canadian? I happen to be well aware that the average non-Inuit Canadian agrees with you... for a lot of usually very good reasons which I do appreciate; but alas, they have virtually all of their facts *wrong*. If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used? That is wrong. You don't seem to know anything about the term Eskimo, much less about Inuit or other Eskimo people. We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a riot!!!! I think you show some respect and refer to them properly. They do not prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to continue to use the term? I've discussed this topic with Eskimos from Greenland and from Canada as well as with Alaskan Eskimos. (I should warn you that I've also discussed this with my immediate family: all of whom, with the exception of me, do happen to be very traditional Eskimos.) Let me provide you with a few facts. The etymology of the term "Eskimo" is plagued with a myth that it is an Indian word for "eaters of raw meat", as if that would be an insult. Of course nobody but a Westerner with a very hypocritical Eurocentric view would consider that insulting. Worse yet, that isn't what it means at all! There are two well documented possible derivations for "Eskimo". An anthropologist from Quebec, Jose Mailhot, did a definitive study quite some time back, and decided it probably came from words meaning "People who speak a different language". Mailhot, Jose, L'etymologie de *esquimau' revuew et corrigee. In: Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(2): 59-69. Mailhot speaks fluent Cree. Her study has never been refuted. However, she publishes in French, and is almost unknown on the Internet or in the US. Another view comes from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian Institute, who says it probably meant "snowshoe netter". Goddard of course is a linguist who studies Algonquian languages. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5 (Arctic), p6. You can find more discussion at http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html Another URL, which I hesitate to suggest because it contains some rather gross errors (read with caution), http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html The gist of that is you are simply *wrong* about any derivation of Eskimo being insulting. But the overall problem with your understanding is the idea that "Inuit" is a valid replacement term for "Eskimo" in the English language. It is *not*. Inuit is just one branch of what the term Eskimo covers. Whether applied to language, to culture, or to a people, there are two branches of Eskimo, and 1) Yupik Eskimos are not Inuit, plus 2) many "Inuit" Eskimos simply do *not* like to be called Inuit (they use the term Inupiat, which has a slightly different connotation than Inuit). I personally have never met an Eskimo who objected to being called in Eskimo in the correct context. I know some who will correct anyone who calls them personally an Inuit. In any English language discussion of "Eskimo" that includes both Yupik and Inuit, the *only* proper term that can be used is "Eskimo". There is no other all encompassing term in the English language. In fact most discussions do encompass all Eskimos, because they have a common ancestry (the Inuit variation is perhaps 1500-2000 years old, while Yupik is a continuum from Proto-Eskimo as it existed prior to that). For that reason virtually all academic work (linguistics, anthropology, etc.) necessarily continues to use the term Eskimo in all cases. It is precisely correct. http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology. Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to use the term Inuit when discussing local people. But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is simply a misunderstanding on *your* part. Here are a few other interesting URLs, though not directly discussing this topic (they do, however, use the term "Eskimo" quite properly): A comparison between Inuit and Yupik languages, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html Discussions of Inuit dialects and Yup'ik, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/i.html http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/cy.html A fascinating discussion of Lower Kuskokwim River Yup'ik culture by a Yup'ik elder (who also happens to have a PhD in Anthropology), http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/Histor.../kawagley.html -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
total calories | [email protected] | General Discussion | 48 | April 20th, 2006 11:05 PM |
Three reasons why calories probably don't count | TC | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 120 | February 27th, 2006 06:57 PM |
Week 17 report - a "so so" week. Down 1.3 lb, but still higher thanI was on 9/9 | Doug Lerner | General Discussion | 9 | October 1st, 2005 01:20 AM |
Here are some WW's Dessert Recipes | SPOONS | Weightwatchers | 3 | August 24th, 2004 01:06 AM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 142 | February 14th, 2004 02:26 PM |