We Bite Back
http://webiteback.com/forum/

Company U.K Complaint
http://webiteback.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=13283
Page 2 of 2

Author:  georgia2 [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Yeah I saw it, it was really bizarre, addressed to Moving On (although I think she may have meant Captain Awesome2.0? cos of all people, you were the one that wasn't offended, Moving On?) apologizing and saying that it was her and that's she feels awful for how it's made people feel or something to that effect... Then suddenly it is the post that it is now... doesn't even say that it has been edited...!?

Author:  MovingOn [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:03 am ]
Post subject: 

^yep, that's the same as I saw. To me, saying "I'm sure you're gorgeous!" and cheesy stuff like that.
If there's not yet a post after the one in question you can edit it without it showing up. or delete it altogether.

Author:  Seekingnewpastures [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

How odd! I've actually been wondering about editing posts - I often edit mine because I'm a grammar nazi, but to me it doesn't show up as saying it's been edited. I was under the impression posts show up as having been edited if they've been edited after someone else has posted after the original post? If that makes sense...

Author:  CaptainAwesome2.0 [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've just popped back on the forum, reading this thread i am TOTALLY confused! What have i missed whilst being gone all day?! I find the repsonse from the mystery user quite interesting..considering i also recieved an email back from the magazine today! I'm abit worried about causing conflict so i won't upload the response here..but if anyone is interested of what they had to say, do message me :)

Author:  beatingED [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Alexandra wrote:
Reply by the person from the magazine? It's not in this thread is it, or am I going mad??


scarlet4356 wrote:
Hi there,

I just read your complaint and thought I would express my opinion,

The food diary was included was part of an article that expressed a concern over women suffering from food guilt. The article contains information on losing weight sensibly as well as advice on forgetting the calories and contains an analysis and relevant information on how to eat healthily, whilst attempting to lose weight or otherwise.

I think the article reflects upon a thinking process that I know affects me and my girlfriends. I feel all the same pressures and I'm glad they were honest about it. From discussions with the majority of women in my life the constantly thinking of food, cravings and most importantly the restriction of calories is a common, yet unfortunate, occurrence. Maybe girls would relate to the story but see that there were better ways of losing weight. The article does not promote that way of eating and in fact recommends the opposite.

I realise from your words how this came across and I'm sure it was not intentional. I found the article interesting and informative.
1400 calories is not too bad and this was just an 'average Saturday' and does not reflect eating behaviour on other days.

Hope you are not too upset :)

Author:  beatingED [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

MovingOn wrote:
That reply by the person from the magazine has changed completely. It said something entirely different when I read it a little while ago. In fact, tbh it seemed a genuine response, she said she was the person who kept the diary too, whereas now it appears a standard editors apology to maintain their reputation whilst advertising the product in question. :-?


Although I didn't see the original post, viewing what's here now, I agree in it being the standard apology from an editor. Strange. :/

Author:  CaptainAwesome2.0 [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Verrrrry bizzare!! o.O

Author:  Fishbulb [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

That post sounds as though it is someone who has just "read the article", not someone from the magazine. But it also reads like a standard "sorry you didn't like it, kindly fuck off"
OK, I didn't read the article, but I have a few problems with the reply from the new member...

Quote:
Maybe girls would relate to the story but see that there were better ways of losing weight.


Or maybe they'd get triggered or encouraged to do the same, which was what this post and the email that Lucy sent was all about...


Quote:
1400 calories is not too bad and this was just an 'average Saturday' and does not reflect eating behaviour on other days.


HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO PEOPLE ON AN EATING DISORDER RECOVERY SITE???????
And "average Saturday"? So people routinely starve themselves on a Saturday, do they? Not in my world, sweetheart.



sorry, I'm angry...

Author:  CaptainAwesome2.0 [ Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

THANK YOU!!!!!!!

1,400 cals a day is NOT substainable and will ruin your body. That's how i bite back.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 4 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/