rst > wrote:

> Shouldn't chocolate contain, you know... chocolate? By which I mean

<snip inaccurate rant about old news>

First, this has been talked about here at least a month ago.
Second, this guy's exaggerating a good bit when he says,
"They want to be able to use no chocolate at all."
It does no good to make wild claims if you want reasonable
people to take you seriously. As far as I know, they only
want to replace the cocoa butter, not the solids. That's
hardly "no chocolate at all." The reality is bad enough.
Making false claims just turns off people who might otherwise
see the point and agree.

Third, couldn't he have at least spelled Guittard correctly?

Who is this whacko, anyway?

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.