Remember the human
The golden rule your parents and your kindergarten teacher taught you was pretty simple: Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you. Imagine how you'd feel if you were in the other person's shoes. Stand up for yourself, but try not to hurt people's feelings.

In cyberspace, we state this in an even more basic manner: Remember the human.

When you communicate electronically, all you see is a computer screen. You don't have the opportunity to use facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice to communicate your meaning; words -- lonely written words -- are all you've got. And that goes for your correspondent as well.

When you're holding a conversation online -- whether it's an email exchange or a response to a discussion group posting -- it's easy to misinterpret your correspondent's meaning. And it's frighteningly easy to forget that your correspondent is a person with feelings more or less like your own.

It's ironic, really. Computer networks bring people together who'd otherwise never meet. But the impersonality of the medium changes that meeting to something less -- well, less personal. Humans exchanging email often behave the way some people behind the wheel of a car do: They curse at other drivers, make obscene gestures, and generally behave like savages. Most of them would never act that way at work or at home. But the interposition of the machine seems to make it acceptable.

The message of Netiquette is that it's not acceptable. Yes, use your network connections to express yourself freely, explore strange new worlds, and boldly go where you've never gone before. But remember the Prime Directive of Netiquette: Those are real people out there.

Would you say it to the person's face?

Writer and Macintosh evangelist Guy Kawasaki tells a story about getting email from some fellow he's never met. Online, this fellow tells Guy that he's a bad writer with nothing interesting to say.

Unbelievably rude? Yes, but unfortunately, it happens all the time in cyberspace.

Maybe it's the awesome power of being able to send mail directly to a well-known writer like Guy. Maybe it's the fact that you can't see his face crumple in misery as he reads your cruel words. Whatever the reason, it's incredibly common.

Guy proposes a useful test for anything you're about to post or mail: Ask yourself, "Would I say this to the person's face?" If the answer is no, rewrite and reread. Repeat the process till you feel sure that you'd feel as comfortable saying these words to the live person as you do sending them through cyberspace.

Of course, it's possible that you'd feel great about saying something extremely rude to the person's face. In that case, Netiquette can't help you. Go get a copy of Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.

Another reason not to be offensive online

When you communicate through cyberspace -- via email or on discussion groups -- your words are written. And chances are they're stored somewhere where you have no control over them. In other words, there's a good chance they can come back to haunt you.

Never forget the story of famous email user Oliver North. Ollie, you'll remember, was a great devotee of the White House email system, PROFS. He diligently deleted all incriminating notes he sent or received. What he didn't realize was that, somewhere else in the White House, computer room staff were equally diligently backing up the mainframe where his messages were stored. When he went on trial, all those handy backup tapes were readily available as evidence against him.

You don't have to be engaged in criminal activity to want to be careful. Any message you send could be saved or forwarded by its recipient. You have no control over where it goes.


-

Several years ago I was flying home from the Super Bowl and had to fly with alot of sad Giant fans...I was wearing lots of purple! My husband was tucked by the window and I was in the middle seat watching as a HUGE man wearing Giants gear made his way to the aisle seat . My husband groaned, not sure why since he was at the window. The man seemed quite shy and very self conscious. He said he always traveled with his wife and he would try to move if there was room. I said not to worry (I was in a purple haze). we chatted about his family ..a 4 year old (whom I hoped would have a Dad at his high school graduation). When the attendant came around with drinks he said he wanted to buy us a round because we (really me) had been so kind to him. He did his best to give me some room. I will always remember that flight because I hope he has been able to lose weight and be there for his boy (and wife)

((f)) to you, baylady!

Faina: Good one! "horizontally challenged"! :) Doubly good since English is your third or fourth language!!

Now, this suggestion of making some tri-seats into two-seaters to accommodate the larger folk among us, this suggestion deserves some serious thought.

Where should these two seaters be placed? If they are placed at the rear of the plane, the plane tail will drag. If these two seaters are placed up front, the plane nose will dive. If these two seaters are placed over the wings, the wings will buckle and we wouldn't be able to take off. :)

jetset 1,

Funny...traveling through the Southern US. If anyone on this post has been to Disney World, that would be enough evidence. 20 years ago, when I was a teenager, we moved to Atlanta from the SF Bay Area. We visited DWorld for the first time, and my father was so amazed at the abundance of...well...FAT people, that he actually started taking photos of them. Why does this country's weight tilt southwards...The Men's Fitness mag report in January 2004 listed the US's "fattest" cities: 8 southern cities in the worst fifteen, 1 coastal city (Philly) on it.

Wow, lots of issues on this thread!

Anyone seen "Super Size Me" yet? One of the interviewed health professionals argues that the US was doomed as soon as the stigma against obesity got thrown out the door . . .

How can we get our nation to respect our bodies as the temples they truly are??? There's a lot of money to be made (and saved, looking at the costs of this health epidemic) if only we could crack the problem of how to translate nutrition+fitness knowledge into action.

Yes, I am one of those 125lb. women with a BMI of 19. Yes, I get pissed off when my regulation size carry-on gets weighed (just moved house, so schlepped my cast iron pots/skillets in my backpack). Why should I get dinged, when my weight allowance still comes in under an OL person?

BTW I have witnessed United flight crews behaving with immense tact and efficiency rejigging pax on transatlantic flights. Every LHR and AMS flight I've been on has been full or nearly, & they rock when it comes to shuffling couples who were separated, pp prefering aisle seats, etc.

Rant over!

Thanks, Mimi, for the words of wisdom. I'm appalled by many of the comments here--whatever happened to compassion?

Compassion is very important.. but in these days of cutbacks and all the necessary drama before being allowed on the darn plane, it is understandable why some people would resent having to share their miniscule persoanl space with someone whose dimensions exceeded the seat limits.
As I noted previously, I have overweight relatives(some don't care to fly), and my mom was pleasantly plump, but we can either blame the airlines, or try to prevent "seat rage" when faced with the frustration. I hope for the best, use upgrades, free or paid, and try to be as polite as possible. Who knows, maybe the airlines will start to accomodate the majority of "normal" as we have come to see in the US.
I do feel for those who struggle with their size, and must endure the stares or contempt when they are trying to live like anyone else.
I have heard proposals about a possible junk food tax- is that discrimination? I don't know, but the whole situation sure stirs up a hornets' nest worth of opinion.

Great response Elle!

Compassion should not be reserved only for the sunny, happy, rich days when everything is going well for us. Everyone (especially me) should work harder to cut everyone around us a little slack. Here is the alternative - Fat people, families, perfume wearers, allergics, snorers, people who chew with their mouths open, flirts, talkers, winkers, fidgeters, big shoulders, leg spreaders, sinners, and those without sin get their own airlines. People fitting in more than one category will pay extra. No complaining allowed. I will be on the without sin plane since that should have the most room.

I have just been informed by those who know me best that I don't qualify for the without sin plane. I guess I am destined to travel steerage.

shaz60- I am quite certain the without sin plane would be empty!

O:)

You are probably right Atilla and I hadn't considered that it is also very likely to be one-way.

Is anyone actually so foolish as to believe that the very real problem of seating comfort on planes is going to be solved by railing at people to lose weight? I think, along with sweetdreams and Underhill and some others who have spoken out in the later part of this thread, that there is an undertone of something much different and a whole lot less attractive than problemsolving in many of the posts above.

And who is so otherworldly as to think that the airlines are going to resolve the problem by telling people who spend a substantial minority of air travel dollars that they aren't as welcome as others? That they ought to pay more than other people because the majority thinks it is right they should pay extra for "not controlling their behavior" in past years? How many airlines will decide that this will help them sell tickets?

About as many as think that all the people above who say "it's only fair that people pay for the amount of space they take up" would be willing to reserve on the first airline to charge separately for baggage, by the cubic inch. Yes, some of those people would, if it meant the base fare per person was sufficiently lower; many would not; some of those would be outraged by the very idea, oblivious to how they're contradicting themselves. You could make a case that it would be a fair policy, but it would be cumbersome and unpopular. Most airlines will choose to continue to sell tickets by the person rather than by the space taken up on the plane.

Would you fly an airline on which you knew you risked finding out, at flight time, that you would have to pay way more than you expected? That would influence the airline choice of many more people than would actually be made to pay more because of their size--anyone who felt that some airline employee might even think them borderline-as well as that of many others planning to travel with them. If another airline did not have such policies, it would get those reservations.

It may happen that Southwest, at this time, is in the position of having customers to burn, but it is probably the only airline which does. I predict that even for Southwest, eventually, the policies they now follow will prove a competitive impossibility.

Business enterprises which survive and prosper serving a mass market do so not by just trying to cater to majority tastes and judgements, but by figuring out how to serve a wide variety of different people and different needs simultaneously.

Remember how not long ago, nothing was bilingual? Remember that then and still now, the overwhelming majority view is that everyone in this society should learn and use English, and the English-speaking majority should be in no way inconvenienced for those who do not choose to do so? Then remember how many times businesses have made you "press 1 for English" recently? The majority does not always have it as it thinks it should be, when the minority has money to spend.

It's the market, not diet, exercise or the ACLU, which will eventually ease the seating problem. Some smarter airline will realize that it needs to have a small section of larger seats in coach, because everyone will be more comfortable, and more likely to reserve on the airline next time, if the people who need such seats get to have them.

These seats will not cost more, and their presence will not be advertized, probably. People will not be able to reserve them on their own initiative. They will just be there for flight crews to be able to assign some people to in the course of switching people around so everyone's comfortable. Flight crews can identify some people they choose for these seats for profiling so that they are automatically assigned such seats when they reserve on the airline again.

Some people, especially those selected for the seats, will figure out what is going on and most of them will be happy that an awkward situation has been resolved. Yet these people will be large enough that these seats won't be luxuriously wide for them, so they won't be envied by other passengers for getting them.

This airline will get a reputation for more comfortable seating arrangements amongst both groups, which will outweigh the loss of the sale, when the plane is full, of the very small number of seats eliminated by making a few others larger. Competitive pressures will cause other airlines to follow suit.

My dystopic view of the above post is that plane seats will continue to get narrower and the population of people who spill over them will get wider. Southwest will hire Dr. Greg Cynamon as their spokesperson.

in resonse to shaz60 - the market has already rejected attempts to make airline space bigger. remember american's "most legroom in coach" thing in late 90's? well, that went by wayside as people just want the cheapest fares.

If you cannot fit into the seat, you should buy another one...regardless of why you are fat. Not fair...well what about the other person sitting next to you that now only has 1/2 the room . Tos say that a normal sized person usus up 2/3 of the seat and should get a refund is a joke, I'm sure. The seats are standatd sized, but maybe a bit tight in legroom. If you cannot fit into it, you should buy another seat.

I do not like flying coach...my husband and I are both tall...so not to ruin our trip we fly first. We fit into coach seats but cannot move our legs. I have found it is just easier to upgrade than to complain. So if you are fat...and you know who you are, be a little considerate and buy that second seat. At least you will build up miles faster.

Vacationdreamer, you are incorrect that the "market has rejected" more seat space as a marketing tool. While American did add seats back and decrease space on some of its planes, a move that got a lot of publicity, they continue their more spece policy, and continue to promote it, on many other of their planes:

http://www.americanairlines.com/cont...horEvent=false

And meanwhile, a travel writer notes JetBlue is having great success while promoting itself as the airline that took seats out of their planes to give people more space:

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/elliott/160.asp

Now JetBlue is not yet doing quite what I predicted above is going to happen, that is offering a few wider seats in the same class of service as narrower ones, but they're already established the precedent of seats with different amounts of space at the same fare and in the same class of service as a marketing tool, in case anyone thinks airlines wouldn't do that. In their case, the seats nearer the front have less room, for those who want to get on and off faster as a priority. The seats farther back, less convenient in that respect, offer more space, for those for whom that's a priority. Smart marketing, differentiated services for different people's needs.

http://www.jetblue.com/

It's nice for Annabel above that she finds it "easier" to pay for first class space than to "complain," but in the world most people inhabit, it is not so "easy" for them to pay double or more to travel in order to be "considerate." Everyone who is talking about "fairness" on this issue (on both sides!) is barking up a tree that will not be relevant in the end. Economics will determine what happens. The system will adjust to serve people who need larger seats as well as those who have other priorities, and the airline who will get the money of people whose priority needs to be a larger seat will not be the airline which requires them to pay double (two seats) or more (almost all first class.)

I certainly hope Annabel is not in marketing or customer service in any company I own stock in. She is saying in effect: If you don't find the product and price offered satisfactory, just conform to what businesses want to give you and pay what they ask for it, don't look for or demand what meets your needs. That's not how competition is supposed to work for consumers, or how businesses achieve success.

Yesterday the Southwest Airlines head resigned, after it was announced that earnings had plummeted. Interesting in light of Southwest's decision to inspect passengers for size--perhaps that wasn't such a wise idea after all.

TGIF...I am now relaxing on my overly large patio, sipping an overly large mai tai and admiring my lush garden full of overly large flowers.
Oh yeah, I am from the overly large state of Alaska! Happy weekend everyone. Cheers!

How many of you who are so concerned about your personal space would be so adamant about keeping the armrest down if it was a physically challenged individual seated next to you?

Somehow you (and you know who you are) can justify being rude to someone who is overweight, yet I am thoroughly convinced you would be the first one to blow your own horn and let others know what a valiant effort you made to accommodate the disabled person seated next to you. Big hero. It is not the fact that your space is being infringed upon that bothers many of you, it is the fact that these people are fat, and that, IMO, is discriminatory.

Um,no...it's the fact that your space is being infringed upon. You are paying to occupy an already cramped space within an aircraft. When the body mass of a fellow passenger intrudes upon that space, it's unfortunately an issue.

Few overweight people today are overweight due to medical conditions. They are overweight due to lifestyle choices.

Maybe they should charge people with loud voices more. What about taller people that block your ability to get out of the seat to use the lav?

This is so stupid, give it up people.

You missed the point completely. I am not implying that OW people are that way due to a medical condition, that has nothing to do with what I am saying. The point is, the level of tolerance that people exhibit is determined in a discriminatory manner. If you would make concessions to a disabled person, why not display this same kindness and compassion to one who is OW? Well, I am sorry to say it is because some of you find it repulsive and for that reason you can justify behaving in a childish, rude manner, thus, discriminatory.

I'm always interested in what people consider to be "overly large." I'm large, no doubt about it, but what is "overly large?"

I stand about 5'10" and weight just shy of 300lbs. Like I said, I'm a big guy. That said, I'm able to sit in an airplane seat without "spilling" over into the seat next to me, and I don't require the use of a seat-belt extender. In fact, I usually have 2-3 inches to spare.

Now granted, I usually do find myself occupying the "shared" arm rest, if its available. But isn't that a common experience for just about everyone who flies in coach?

I've never had anyone (passenger or airline worker) say anything to me about my weight, so I'm not sure how I would respond if something was said or if I was asked to buy another ticket.

I do think the airlines need to put a universal policy in place (at the time the sale is made), as I've heard way too many horror stories about overweight people who arrived at the airport, only to be told at that moment that they needed to purchase an extra ticket at a cost of $XXX-$XXXX, which they may not always be able to afford. Maybe the airlines need to start saying at the TIME OF PURCHASE that if you are over XXXlbs, you need to pay an upgrade fee for a larger seat or buy an extra seat outright. That way, if the passenger lies about their weight at the time of the purchase, it puts the onus on them and if they arrive at the airport and are told they can't fly, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Frankly, I get far more irritated with the folks who routinely haul excessive or oversized carry-on bags on to the plane.

If the woman next to you on a plane put her purse on your seat, tucking it between your body and the armrest, would that be okay? What if the guy next to you did the same thing with his briefcase?

I paid for my seat. ALL OF IT. Keep your excess baggage, fleshy or otherwise, off of my seat. If you need more room, pay for two seats. Do not penalize me because I am not oversized.

There would be no problem, or at least much less of one, if the airlines hadn't shrunk the seat size to truly punishing dimensions and crammed the seats together in a configuration we wouldn't put up with in any other context -- not a movie, not a classroom, not a train, not a bus, not a taxi, and certainly not our homes.

It's also a quirk of history that they did so just at the time that the proportion of Americans who have become "supersized" has substantially risen.

The anger I detect here is misdirected, or at least very much imbalanced. If you examine the logic, it's that slender people who fit the smallest seats and smallest spaces that have EVER been installed in flying machines are willing to put up with the tightness -- because they can -- in order to have cheap airfare, but then they feel entitled to be angry at heavier people as if they had no right to fly in these tiny seats.

My stance on obese and/or "huge" people paying for two seats is that it's not a civil rights question so much as a matter of the inhumanity of the airlines in treating their clientele like overnight express packages. I'm very short and take up quite a bit less space in my seat than the "average" passenger (I think-- but see below), and I am very uncomfortable with headrests that push the top of my head forward and cramp my neck from looking down through the whole flight! Shouldn't I pay less, since I take up less than an entire seat?

About that "average" passenger, btw -- I think if you calculated the average height, weight, and height:weight ration, you would find the "average" passenger is really just a bit too large for the "average" coach seat and pretty much hates the ride. Taking it out on the larger person next to you is definitely missing the mark.

I certainly agree that seats have gotten smaller, too small, and the airlines should increase the size of seats instead of squeezing every last penny out of the plane's real estate.

However: I argue that even if the airlines had NOT made seats smaller, there would still be many people who are too large for the coach airline seats. Americans (in particular) have gotten too large, no two ways about it.

Let's have signs in airports like those found at amusement parks:

"Must be less than XXXX lbs to ride."

I really am ill at ease with any ides of "blaming" or "punishing" large people. I don't think anyone knows "why" someone's body is large, and I observe over and over that it seems to be kind of okay, in some quarters, to stigmatize big people, make offensive comments about them, etc., where it (happily) has become unacceptable to make abusive remarks about many other groups.

I don't think an airpline policy asking a large person to pay for more space is "punitive," I don't think it's based on the idea of "punishing" such people.

I think it's legitimate for travellers to be protected from having other people's bodies touching theirs during their flights.

I believe the actual Southwest policy is to ask the person to pay for two seats only if the flight is too full for him/her to br provided with an extra seat. At least this was the policy originally, and it seemed fair to me. I don't object to the idea of the large person taking on the responsibility of finding a less-full flight when possible.

I also agree with the suggestions here that airlines have a few bigger seats on a flight that can accommodate bigger people, or 3-seat rows that can be altered to 2-seat rows.

I'll never forget sitting on a SW flight watching the people board. There was this huge man walking down the aisle towards the back of the plane. (I had seen him driving around town before and he was so heavy his car tilted on the driver's side.) A little while later I saw him come back up the aisle and leave the plane.

I haven't thought about it in years but now that this topic has been brought up I remember it clearly. I always wondered why he left the plane. Did he not fit in the seat? Did anyone even think of buying two seats back then? I was really sad for him because he must have had a trip planned and did not get to go.

However, as bad as I felt for him I do not want to "share" my seat with someone that won't fit in theirs.

Beautifully said, Cassandra, a few posts above. You have not only hit the nail on the head once, but pounded it home.

Why can't everyone just say the seats are too small instead of bashing overweight people.If any of you had an overweight person in your family, I doubt you would make some of these remarks or even if you would gave your real names. It's easy to be critical, insulting, and impatient when you are anonymous. After saying that-yes it is unconfortble to be overweight nd I'm sure they know it and may only travel for funerals, etc, at least some.But insulting remarks do not help. A fat friend told me it made her eat more.

Questionmotives says above: "Few overweight people today are overweight due to medical conditions. They are overweight due to lifestyle choices."

This statement is simply ignorant of the whole trend of medical and scientific research in this area since the discovery of a gene for leptin about ten years ago. Here's an excellent review of the subject: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...20/ai_54174555

....as well as the discovery of an what appears to be an obesity-causing virus, implying the possibility that the "epidemic" of obesity may be in significant part an actual viral epidemic, not all that different from the AIDS one. http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/07/28/fat.virus.ap/
and
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/S...besity497.html

Just within the past week, Medicare has redfined obesity as a disease, and, as the president of the American Association of Endocrinologists noted with approval, "not just a lifestyle or habits issue." http://www. technewsworld.com/story/35173.html

Yet questionmotives and others continue their oblivious assertions that this is a "lifestyle" issue, ignoring (or not caring to learn)what current science says, and people continue to disdain other people based on this misinformation.

Yes, it is also medical knowledge that nearly everyone can lose weight through better diet and exercise, and those habits and lifestyle are recommended. That's all valid, but a separate matter. It's distinctly different from saying that a person who is fat became fat because of the failure to do these things, or refusing to recognize that a person may follow these behaviors, lose some weight, but still be fat now, and continue to be fat.

With the same "lifestyle and habit" choices, some people will become fat and others won't. Some people who are fat and improve their "lifestyle and habit" behavior will lose a lot of weight and will stop being fat. Others who improve the same behavior to the same degree won't lose very much and remain fat. People's genes and bodies and maybe viruses are just different in this way. You can't tell anything about a person's choices in this regard just by looking at them.

I don't know you well enough to say if the following is true of you, questionmotives. I hope not. I'm not going to say it is true of all people who take the position you do. But I honestly believe that some people make ignorant comments about fat people because they desperately need them to be true. They need to be able to point to someone else and say, "The way that person looks proves I make smarter choices then they do and and that they lack my sterling personal qualities." It's the only time, or way, they can feel superior to someone else--and they need that, because other than that, they suspect there's not much else they have going for them. No matter how badly they feel about themselves...there's always somebody lower, fat people, to kick around.

As to the comment about "space I paid for" you and Tansy others make so repeatedly above....no one is saying that the problems of comfort caused (and caused to) large people on planes isn't real. But the "space I paid for" argument doesn't stand up to logic.

You are not "paying to occupy space," as you put it, questionmotives, or "paying for a seat" as Tansy said....you are paying the airline to take you somewhere. If no large person interfered with your enjoyment of your space and you had perfect undisturbed use of your seat for five hours, and the plane stayed on the runway and never went anywhere, you would not consider yourself to have gotten what you paid for.

People pay airlines not to rent a seat or space for a period of time but to transport them to a destination. If you are uncomfortable during flight, you may complain about your seatmate, or decide to fly another airline next time, but you'll pay them if they get you where you want to go. If they don't take you want to go, you'll demand your money back. Unless we're talking about the payment of extra money for extra comfort and service--First Class--payment is all about getting there. And it's about people getting there, not cubic inches of space displacement.

How good a job, from your experience or their reputation, you think an airline will do at making you comfortable, and at how low a price, is important to whether that airline is the one you choose to pay to get you where you want to go, when you have a choice of airline. This is true for thin people and fat people, and both have money which talks.

In the end, not many airlines are going to tell a large group of potential farepayers that they have to pay a whole lot more than other people because of their "lifestyle choices." Especially not after the big revenue losses which have befalled Southwest since they became known for that policy (see Underhill post above).

The airlines need those dollars and, to repeat a point made in one of the johncharles posts above, these customers will not meekly pay double or First Class or even run the risk of doing so, but will go to the competitors of airlines which adopt policies like Southwest's.

So to not alienate any group of customers like Southwest did, airlines will work on ways to carry people of different sizes on planes more comfortably for everyone involved. They'll realize that the point has been reached where the pendulum has swung too far towards small seats, and it is just not good business to have all coach seats on all planes at all times be that small.

This will not be very satisfying for those of you with a need to see others singled out and suffer injury for being inferior to you--but it's the way of capitalism, and it's the American way.

Funny how the "disease" thing works for drug addicts, alcoholics and now overweight people.

I'm not going to debate that these are diseases or not.

However, if a person who has a disease that causes him to drink, become obnoxious, get into a car, kill someone, get back out and do it again and again. Do I cut him some slack because he has a disease? No, I do not.

There is still a choice, a behaviour a lifestyle. It's a matter of responsibility.

If a person has a disease of any kind, that person is responsible to take meds, evaluate condition and make changes in their lifestyle, etc.

If this means also, getting off drugs, alcohol, quitting smoking, eating healthy, exercise, etc. So be it, whatever it takes!

If you're going to buy that whatever is wrong with our behaviour, habits, lifestyle is not our responsibility, then where do we start? Who will we blame next???

Okay, enough of my soapbox!

Face it, we are a nation of people who do not want to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of our behavior. From the "twinkie defense" to "it's not your fault that you're overweight" (the line from a popular commercial right now), there is money to be made by convincing people that their actions had nothing to do with the end results, and a quick and easy fix, for a price, is all that is needed.

Isn't it amazing that Third World and developing countries seem to lack these so called "fat" viruses and diseases, yet America, land of processed food, has an overabundance of them. What a miraculous coincidence.

More broad statements without knowledge of the facts, questionmotives. The virus is present in the Third World. In fact, it was initially found in India, not known as a center of overeating. Its discovery there caused an American researcher of Indian descent to test Americans for it.

Rosemary1, your analogy doesn't cut it. An alcoholic can avoid drunken behavior by not eating. A drug user can avoid drug induced behavior by not taking drugs. One can't stop eating. And a fat person who undertakes the most rigorous diet and exercise routine will still be fat in the short run and in the log run may at best only be able to be somewhat less fat. On any given day, this is a matter of what people are, not how they are behaving.

GoTravel, you're dragging the level of this discussion down to threats of violence, now? Even if shortsighted airline executives have been successful in turning you against your fellow passengers instead of demanding a solution from them--which might require them to lose the revenue (plus, if they need to compensate someone for being bumped) now and then from one of those too-tightly packed seats they've foisted on us--don't count on them allowing you to physically attack others.

Sad to see how easily people can be turned away from rightly blaming large, powerful organizations for social problems and towards blaming and hating the most helpless and outnumbered of their fellow victims. Hitler knew about that.