If you don't mind, I'm just going to chime in on the "zero point veggies and fruits" discussion. I don't do Weight Watchers nor any other pre-structured plan, but I make fruits and veggies the basis of my diet and make no attempt to limit them (barring a few exceptions, most notably: bananas, dried fruit, corn, and white potatoes, which are all included but portion-controlled). I
do loosely estimate the calories, but if I'm too high on calories, they're the last to go. For example, yesterday I didn't have a lot of calories left for dinner, so I ate a ginormous serving of watermelon and a large english cucumber with a few tablespoons of garlic hummus. Sure, some people would be starving on that dinner - yes, I'm hearing the gasps of "where's the protein and fat?!"

(it
is there, for those curious) - but that's what works for me, and I still lose weight consistently.
I can see WW's logic. I dare you to eat 500 calories of raw, preferably non-starchy veggies in one sitting. Or even 500 calories of melon. If you can even do it, it'll most likely leave you feeling uncomfortably overstuffed (I've done it before). I think that it is a great move to get people to eat more veggies and fruits, given their many healthful properties. But I agree that there should be limitations when it comes to losing weight, whether that involves counting calories/points of the fruits/vegs, limiting portions of certain fruits/vegs, or both. The problem comes when people think "oh, this junk food is [x] points and that apple is [x] points...I'll take the junk, thanks." Perhaps a suitable compromise would be a separate point allocation for fruits and veggies? I don't know enough about the system to say.