Why the fascination with Kimmer? #4

[Doodle_in_MA]

.

[Diana]

Re:The PM System 1 Hour, 23 Minutes ago
The reason for the PM's being monitored is to find the sources who are hacking in by simply reading...

We are making this known to you so that there is no misunderstanding later.

As far as who is reading them, I will not say for protection of that admin. That admin has a job to do for the good of this site and the good of its members. Nothing more, nothing less. The same admin has been very busy uncovering a lot elsewhere and bit by bit we are winning this war.

I am hoping we will not need to do this forever. But we have to face facts here. The hackers came on to this site with harm's intent. They did PM to each other and we know this now. So this is why we are monitoring and what we hope to stop.

Again, we apologize but feel we must take this action.
Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable

What makes them think the hacker is using PM'S? what an excuse to read the Pm's. Plus not mentioning the Admin for it to protect them?? Good Grief.... THese people seriously believe this? They are really in a brain fog from VLCD!!! If they up those calories some they may see the light!

[Diana]

That's like Dottie and Cheri saying they read our PM's to protect us....

[CJane]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Let's see, in a nut-shell, Tippy has said:

The Red Dress Never Existed.

Members health problems are their own fault and not Kimkins.

There is no cruise because you people can't think for yourselves and constantly need to be told what to do, eat and think.

Reading PM's? Umm...That's only to protect you.

Great synopsis, Tooter. That's the way it read to me, too.

[Violet Skye]

While I believe Kim with all my heart, I sadly believe it was Heidi, trying to make kim feel a false sense of security towards the kkompound. Man, I watch too much SVU.

First of all, ain't no such thing as "too much SVU".

Secondly, and more to the point, I believe that both Kim and SL received threatening calls, and it would not surprise me if my suspicions regarding the source of the calls was correct. I work in a psychiatric centre and have received threatening calls on my voice mail from certain patients. So I know what it must feel like.

Despite my predeliction for snark, which I am not going to rein in, I think it's a good idea to refrain from posting too much personal information about third parties on the web. True justice will be served only via the proper channels, and not through the misguided efforts of a self-appointed vigilante.

[Diana]

Can someone tell me why there is an affilate of "Pet supplies unlimited"?

[Violet Skye]

Can someone tell me why there is an affilate of "Pet supplies unlimited"?

For missi's pooches, Johnny Rottweiler and Snarls Barkley.

[CJane]

Originally Posted by 2big4mysize

as a dyslexic I can answer that .
to use spell check you
one have to know which of all their choices is the correct one for what you are trying to say
and two from experience many times the words offered by spell check aren't anywhere close to what i was saying. I've even has spelling sticklers correct my spelling in parts they quote and had to ask them where did I say that cause they assumed my mess was a word I wasn't using.

I'm dyslexic, too. I see what you're saying, but if you go to Dictionary dot com and type in a word it will give you a long list of choices and if you're not sure which one to pick from you can always look at the definition there. Just my handy dandy tip of the day for dyslexics everywhere.

Some of the things TT comes up with for words even makes me scratch my head, though, honestly.

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by sammymomma

This is really un called for...and it really speaks volumes as to the HATRED against Kimmer and those who support her...how does this show support and caring for those following the diet?????
It just doubts ALL on THIS website because it will be assumed someone from here wrote this...

This is just sad.

It shouldn't be assumed that someone from here wrote that. Why would this site be the only suspected source? Doesn't make sense. The web is full of people discussing this. It could be anyone from anywhere.

Originally Posted by wifezilla

The fact that there are random jerks in the world shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Nothing wrong with pointing out bad behavior, but WE DIDN'T DO IT. So I will not let the jerky actions of one person distract me or derail the thread.

KIMMER is a liar and a fraud.
She based her diet, her website and her marketing on a claim of a near 200 lb weight loss.
She did not lose the weight is a more like 300 lbs.
Kimmer has banned people from her site despite them paying for a LIFETIME membership because they had the nerve to question her lies.
Tippy and Singinglass are just as bad as Kimmer because they supprt and aid her in perpetuating her lies.

Just wanted to repeat that.

Originally Posted by Katinsac

Can you say BS!! From Tippy re: red dress pic being gone

What happened to Kimmer's Red Dress Picture? 36 Minutes ago
We are making many new and positive changes to this site every single day. We have chosen to remove the red dress photo and in place use People magazine. Too much contravery surrounds that pic and rather than try to defend its use we have decided to simply replace it. The success stories are still there although someone else did ask me where they went. I checked and they are there. Not sure if this is a tech glitch or not. But I can look further into it. Does anyone else not see them?

I think it was well said previously that Kimkins diet has been abused by some members at their own doings who now point the finger in blame towards us. We are encouraging everyone to not abuse the plans or themselves for weight loss. They don't have to! Kimkins works beautifully all on its own. We do not promote starvation, laxitive abuse or any of the like and we are making this clear. There will always be room for improvements and we are always willing to make them. We have even introduced a cycle option as part of the positive change and to help transition towards maintenance later.

We have also removed the cruise info. We have decided that a cruise would present a safety hazzard for Kimkins members as well as staff. However, rest assured we have some new gathering ideas in the works for next year. What we have in mind will be better and will geer more in tuned with Kimkins diets than an all you can eat fest cruise. I have cruised many times and it is not possible in my opinion to not gain some weight. So we are making positive changes in this area as well.

The year 2008 is going to offer a lot of fun for members here. We have a walk for breast cancer coming up and I will be posting more soon. In addition we are considering a fundraiser challenge to benefit Toys For Tots. Members participating would make and pay their own pledges directly to Toys For Tots. There are also talks of a fund raiser coming soon to benefit local low cost animal sterilization services.

So hang tight, my fellow Kimkinettes! Change is GOOD!

I want you all to not be afraid to see positive changes being made. This only means we are here to stay and getting better all the time.

Yeah, abused because they were constantly told to go lower. They were guided by the person who is supposed to be supporting and guiding them on HER claimed success.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by Diana

That's like Dottie and Cheri saying they read our PM's to protect us....

LOL -just for the record: we don't.

I don't get the whole "hackers" angle either. If there were hackers, you'd think they'd be in contact OFF the site, not on?

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by Katinsac

just posted...another one leaves:

See ya! 1 Minute ago
Goodbye all! Just posted over in the red dress thread (What happened to Kimmer's Red Dress Picture?) about how upset I am about all the changes. Here it is just so you know…

Too much controversy surrounding the red dress???? Are you kidding me??? Why not fix this then????? There should be NO controversy!!! FIX THIS by proving what is real! I don't understand what the problem is. If the picture is Kimmer then PROVE IT! Why all the secrets, changes, drama, and lies??? WHY??? I have been around since the beginning on LCF. I was one of the first 20 members of Kimkins when all was hailed..."isn't it nice to be on a site where you can speak freely and not have PM's read and posts changed/deleted" WTH? This place is worse than LCF EVER was. What is wrong with you crazy people?? This is a nut house now. I can't believe what has happened to this place. I feel so sad for the members who don't understand that all of this change is a horrible sign. I am so sad it has come to this.

Goodbye all and good luck to finding what works for you!

EXACTLY

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by mrsmenopausal

It shouldn't be assumed that someone from here wrote that. Why would this site be the only suspected source? Doesn't make sense. The web is full of people discussing this. It could be anyone from anywhere.

After this all started, I did a little web searching and found a lot of sites where people were discussing the "fake" before and after pictures for months before the WW article came out.

[missis36]

Originally Posted by Violet Skye

For missi's pooches, Johnny Rottweiler and Snarls Barkley.

HA, I actually used to have a Rotty named Spike (after Spike on Buffy hehe) but I lost him in the breakup

And I hope ya know Violet, I agree with the not sharing stuff on the net, it seems I'm not making myself clear these last few days hehe.

[LosingToLive]

Originally Posted by missis36

Sammy I know, and I have tried to make that stop. And I'm sorry. I do trust you and know you have a good heart you are just confused. That's why I have been tyring to be supportive. And I think most on here are trying to be supportive, but remember some of the "snarky" type comments are coming from people who are where you are and they are hurt that they hurt their bodies with Heidi's diet. Just don't lose faith in the group for a few comments ok

Was this meant for me? I asked her if she had proof that it came from someone here. This is her comment that made me ask the question.

"when this stuff happens, its makes one doubt everyone here" < -------

[ShellyW]

I have a great dane named ruepert missi after ruepert jiles

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by jayed

Kim posted that she received a threat after her info was posted at Ducky's. She categorized it as more disgusting than threatening but the police are investigating. I'm not sure how far back the post is though.

Thanks. I finally found her post about that. I keep messing up and missing stuff. I think when I post a reply it sends me to the end of the thread, then if I'm away from the computer I forget to go back to where I was.

[missis36]

Well check out what yahoo has on thier main page today:

Six Diets to Avoid When it comes to losing weight, everyone's in search of a magic bullet. But don't fall for the hype. Unfortunately, there's no short-term fix for long lasting weight loss.

So learn to identify these six red flags:

1. Diets that promote or promise drastic weight loss.

When you start a diet, you can potentially drop a lot of weight during the first two weeks (some of which will be water weight). However, if you lose more than two pounds per week in the weeks that follow, you run the risk of losing "muscle mass," and your metabolism will slow down in response. That's why true health experts advocate losing weight slowly and gradually - so you melt away fat while sparing precious muscle.

2. Diets that claim to work because of special supplements, creams, or potions - no diet or exercise required!

Or diets that make you buy mega supplements in order to follow the program. If it sounds too good to be true, it is!

3. Diets that differ entirely from the way you currently eat (or like to eat).

If a plan is incompatible with your lifestyle, chances are slim you'll stick with it.

4. Diets that are less than 1,000 calories.

Too difficult to sustain and can often leave you cranky, irritable, and with a bad headache. Not to mention hungry and lethargic.


5. Diets that claim they are effortless.

There's no such animal. Losing weight takes focus and effort. Period.


6. Diets that cut out entire food groups, or focus on only a few foods.

Not realistic for the long haul; the sign of a plan you're soon to go off.

Lord have mercy I joyfully opened that thinking PLEASE SAY KIMKINS...but it's enough no?

[Diana]

Originally Posted by Violet Skye

For missi's pooches, Johnny Rottweiler and Snarls Barkley.

On a diet website??

[golite]

Originally Posted by Dottie

After this all started, I did a little web searching and found a lot of sites where people were discussing the "fake" before and after pictures for months before the WW article came out.

I saw some of those too and wondered if any of those people are here?

[Diana]

Originally Posted by Dottie

LOL -just for the record: we don't.

I don't get the whole "hackers" angle either. If there were hackers, you'd think they'd be in contact OFF the site, not on?

Right... exactly!!! It's all for show...

[LosingToLive]

Originally Posted by Diana

She's Hiding!!! Too scared to come out and play

I think she is long gone.

[missis36]

Originally Posted by LosingToLive

Was this meant for me? I asked her if she had proof that it came from someone here. This is her comment that made me ask the question.

"when this stuff happens, its makes one doubt everyone here" < -------

Nope not at all Losing, it was at the comment she made re: it makes EVERYONE look bad. I just wanted her to realize that what one person may or MAY NOT do, doesn't reflect the group.

Shelly that's hilarious

[Diana]

Well check out what yahoo has on thier main page today:


Quote:
Six Diets to Avoid When it comes to losing weight, everyone's in search of a magic bullet. But don't fall for the hype. Unfortunately, there's no short-term fix for long lasting weight loss.

So learn to identify these six red flags:

1. Diets that promote or promise drastic weight loss.

When you start a diet, you can potentially drop a lot of weight during the first two weeks (some of which will be water weight). However, if you lose more than two pounds per week in the weeks that follow, you run the risk of losing "muscle mass," and your metabolism will slow down in response. That's why true health experts advocate losing weight slowly and gradually - so you melt away fat while sparing precious muscle.

2. Diets that claim to work because of special supplements, creams, or potions - no diet or exercise required!

Or diets that make you buy mega supplements in order to follow the program. If it sounds too good to be true, it is!

3. Diets that differ entirely from the way you currently eat (or like to eat).

If a plan is incompatible with your lifestyle, chances are slim you'll stick with it.

4. Diets that are less than 1,000 calories.

Too difficult to sustain and can often leave you cranky, irritable, and with a bad headache. Not to mention hungry and lethargic.


5. Diets that claim they are effortless.

There's no such animal. Losing weight takes focus and effort. Period.


6. Diets that cut out entire food groups, or focus on only a few foods.

Not realistic for the long haul; the sign of a plan you're soon to go off.


Lord have mercy I joyfully opened that thinking PLEASE SAY KIMKINS...but it's enough no?
__________________

Gee it SCREAMS Kimkins!!!! LOL who are they trying to kid??? I remember back in the day when Kimmer was on the boards, A lot of us believed her.... wanted her secrets, well we got them huh?

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by missis36

Wow, see this is what I was talking about, spread the little seed of doubt and look what happens. If this wasn't planted by Heidi (the seed of doubt that is) then I'm going to hang up my detective shoes.

No matter what you're going to have those that choose to ignore all the evidence put in front of them. Not all will. I don't think there's a way around that. Some will come to realize what's what when/if they have something happen to them or someone they care about, in the form of a ban or health issue.