rwgibson13 wrote:
> On May 16, 1:21�pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:32:17 -0700 (PDT), tdciago <tdci...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On May 16, 7:24?am, Tim <jmeth...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Plus, she sure got into shape quickly after the pregnancy.
>>>>She should go on Oprah.
>>
>>>They really walked a tightrope in the numbers for the pregnancy story.
>>
>>>1) They had to make Kate *early* enough along (6 months) at the time
>>>of the crash so that her pregnancy might not show. It's still a
>>>ridiculous concept that a woman with Kate's build would've shown zero
>>>signs of being pregnant, IMO.
>>
>>This is the second time in as many weeks that they've done that, though.
>>Locke's mom was also supposed to be almost six months along, and she had
>>the figure of a typical, young un-pregnant girl.
>>
>>Maybe Darlton need a medical consultant for the show...
>
>
> As goofy as it sounds to us guys, there are do***ented cases of women
> giving birth when they actually had NO idea they were even pregnant...
>
> RWG (it's incredibly rare, but evidently it does happen)
>
Usually they are fat chicks.
|
