There remains polite ways in which we can debate subjective matters, like the size of a girl's breasts. I have no idea to Martina's current claims, but accept the assumption that post operative last year, she likely had less volume than she would have going into the operation. While camera angles can make for false assumptions, the little videos I have seen in the past year suggests someone much larger than 2000cc. And while I do not always agree with the rationale or statements cited by some, I do try to keep contrasting opinions civil; sometimes silence is the best response.
I am sure we can agree that some models have a history of exaggeration, but I don't recall ever calling one out for such myself, but rather let the truth be found in the eyes of the beholder. I will agree that Foxy has not been prone to inflate her position and that her size truly looks to be the volume claimed, however, the smaller initial implant size may also enable the better judgement. I think that larger, under-filled implants may be harder to judge, a case in point would be Beshine; estimates of volume were all over the chart, likely because not only was she rather vague on volumes, but her breast shape was irregular and not spherical. And despite visual evidence to the contrary, there remains rather dramatic differences in estimates of size today.
I do not agree with everything Martina has stated or chosen to pursue, but it is not my position to criticize her choices in life. Just like the friend that always embellishes the truth, we either accept the nature and remain friends or walk away. The one thing we should all do is remain respectful of personal choices and not condemn people in some sort of absurd political correctness stupidity for not conforming to our own subjective standards, and when we debate breast volumes, that is exactly what we are using, subjective empirical evidence.