From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
from a NYTimees article,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
&sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>

The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
reader comments; this is one of my favorites: "No money? Eat Spam!-
Bad advice!

For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
are getting. Why? Because of articles like this that encourage people to
suplement their loss of income by eating cheap garbage. Too many people
would rather spend their only $3 on the a trio of double cheeseburgers
from McDonald's dollar menu and be full than a lesser portion of
something healthy. You're better off eating a smaller portion of
something good for you." posted by hozer85.

I entered a recipe contest at the Fair one year * I think I conjured up
a SPAMetizer involving pineapple and cheese. Perhaps it was a variation
on Barfburgers ‹ been a long time and I don't recall the details.

HWSRN has fond memories of SPAM; I haven't had it in the house in 15-20
years, I'll bet. Blech.

Looks like it's a big seller in a tough economy, though. Strange, that,
for its per pound cost!
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/kilikini
(Send her a note!)

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
> from a NYTimees article,
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
> &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
>
> The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
> reader comments; this is one of my favorites: "No money? Eat Spam!-
> Bad advice!
>
> For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> are getting. Why? Because of articles like this that encourage people to
> suplement their loss of income by eating cheap garbage. Too many people
> would rather spend their only $3 on the a trio of double cheeseburgers
> from McDonald's dollar menu and be full than a lesser portion of
> something healthy. You're better off eating a smaller portion of
> something good for you." posted by hozer85.
>
> I entered a recipe contest at the Fair one year * I think I conjured up
> a SPAMetizer involving pineapple and cheese. Perhaps it was a variation
> on Barfburgers ‹ been a long time and I don't recall the details.
>
> HWSRN has fond memories of SPAM; I haven't had it in the house in 15-20
> years, I'll bet. Blech.
>
> Looks like it's a big seller in a tough economy, though. Strange, that,
> for its per pound cost!
Elitist Southern Canadian! I have a can of Low Sodium Spam chilling in
the fridge at the moment. Makes excellent sandwiches, even better if
it's fried a bit. The chilling makes the fat congeal for that gourmet
taste. So there!

Melba's Jammin' > wrote:

> I entered a recipe contest at the Fair one year * I think I conjured up
> a SPAMetizer involving pineapple and cheese. Perhaps it was a variation
> on Barfburgers ‹ been a long time and I don't recall the details.

Don't they have a SPAM festival/contest near there in Austin every
year? We do. But they charge admission so I've never gone - not
because I'm cheap, but because it's supposed to be a commercially
sponsored event (Hormel) - which should be free.

> Looks like it's a big seller in a tough economy, though. Strange, that,
> for its per pound cost!

Exactly. It costs more than twice as much as real ham.

But hey! Sheldon eats at least a can of it a week, so it must be
good, right?

-sw

On Nov 16, 1:41*pm, George Shirley > wrote:
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
> > from a NYTimees article,
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
> > &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
>
> > The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
> > reader comments; this is one of my favorites: * *"No money? Eat Spam!-
> > Bad advice!
>
> > For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> > are getting. Why? Because of articles like this that encourage people to
> > suplement their loss of income by eating cheap garbage. Too many people
> > would rather spend their only $3 on the a trio of double cheeseburgers
> > from McDonald's dollar menu and be full than a lesser portion of
> > something healthy. You're better off eating a smaller portion of
> > something good for you." *posted by hozer85.
>
> > I entered a recipe contest at the Fair one year * I think I conjured up
> > a SPAMetizer involving pineapple and cheese. *Perhaps it was a variation
> > on Barfburgers ‹ been a long time and I don't recall the details.
>
> > HWSRN has fond memories of SPAM; I haven't had it in the house in 15-20
> > years, I'll bet. *Blech.
>
> > Looks like it's a big seller in a tough economy, though. *Strange, that,
> > for its per pound cost! *
>
> Elitist Southern Canadian! I have a can of Low Sodium Spam chilling in
> the fridge at the moment. Makes excellent sandwiches, even better if
> it's fried a bit. The chilling makes the fat congeal for that gourmet
> taste.

Cut a diamond pattern on all surfaces, coat with some of the glaze
that comes with a ham or make your own with brown sugar and spice.
Stud with a few whole cloves, brush Spam with orange marmalade, coat
liberally with sugar glaze, and nuke on med-low for like five minutes
or until well heated through watching it doesn't burn... flip over
ocasionally... voila, Virginia Spam. Remove cloves, slice and eat
warm on a toasted roll with cole slaw.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
> from a NYTimees article,
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
> &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
>
> The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
> reader comments; this is one of my favorites: � �"No money? Eat Spam!-
> Bad advice!
>
> For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> are getting. Why?

People, especially kids, are fat because they are lazy, not because
they are poor... no one loses pounds sitting on their butt at a PC, a
TV, text messaging, cell phoning 27/7. And if you have a PC, a TV,
and
a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
day that cost nothing... and kids had to do chores. We could eat all
we wanted, whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, and never got
fat... no one ever drove us to soccer or anywhere, we walked.

Sheldon wrote:
>
> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
> day that cost nothing... and kids had to do chores. We could eat all
> we wanted, whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, and never got
> fat... no one ever drove us to soccer or anywhere, we walked.

And it was uphill in both directions.

Sheldon > wrote:

> Cut a diamond pattern on all surfaces, coat with some of the glaze
> that comes with a ham or make your own with brown sugar and spice.

You buy hams that come with a glaze? I bet you buy steaks that come
with sauce, too.

-sw

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
>> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
>> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
>> day that cost nothing... and kids had to do chores. We could eat all
>> we wanted, whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, and never got
>> fat... no one ever drove us to soccer or anywhere, we walked.
>
> And it was uphill in both directions.


In three feet of snow, summer and winter.

Actually, Sheldon is right. Kids were a lot more active back when it
was safe to let them run the neighborhoods and their only exercise
wasn't an hour or two of organized sports per week.

There was also a lot less junk food available including fast food and
packaged treats. We drank water, milk, or the rare glass of lemonade,
not soda as a regular beverage.

OTOH, we spent a week recently in NH, VT, MA and RI and I couldn't
believe how many DOUGHNUT shops we saw in every town and hamlet. There
was practically one on every block in the commercial areas. We live in
a Denver suburb and I don't think I could find more than one or two in
our metro quadrant if I tried hard. Starbucks and bagel shops are
fairly common but not doughnuts.

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
...
Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
> from a NYTimees article,
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
> &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
>
> The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
> reader comments; this is one of my favorites: � �"No money? Eat Spam!-
> Bad advice!
>
> For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> are getting. Why?

People, especially kids, are fat because they are lazy, not because
they are poor... no one loses pounds sitting on their butt at a PC, a
TV, text messaging, cell phoning 27/7. And if you have a PC, a TV,
and
a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
day that cost nothing...

Lets see there was:

Mumblety-peg with a switchblade.
Stretch with a switchblade
Knucks (knuckles)
Stickball with a pink Spalding
Stoop-ball
Making a match shooter (thimble - thumb tacks & rubber band)
Firecracker in the can rockets
Bottle rockets
Cherry Bombs
Ash Cans
Mickey's at the beach.

What else?

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:
>
> What else?

Chemistry kits full of bottles of real chemicals.

Gloria P wrote:

> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
>>> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
>>> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
>>> day that cost nothing... and kids had to do chores. We could eat all
>>> we wanted, whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, and never got
>>> fat... no one ever drove us to soccer or anywhere, we walked.
>>
>>
>> And it was uphill in both directions.
>
>
>
> In three feet of snow, summer and winter.
>
> Actually, Sheldon is right. Kids were a lot more active back when it
> was safe to let them run the neighborhoods and their only exercise
> wasn't an hour or two of organized sports per week.

My son (age 14) roams the neighborhood on his bike with his buddy's.
He's got a cell phone in case there's an emergency, and doesn't
participate in any organized sports. I mean, why would you, when you
can run with your pack and do whatever you want until the street lights
come on?

Using their phones they coordinate meetings at various vacant lots and
fields and shoot the begeezus out of each other with airsoft or
paintball guns (eye protection is mandatory). They show up at school
Monday mornings looking like they've got chickenpox.

And they meet up with other "clans", and with the girls, at DQ or the
Hawaiian Shaved Ice stand, throwing their bikes down in a pile just
outside the window, where they can see them.
>
> There was also a lot less junk food available including fast food and
> packaged treats. We drank water, milk, or the rare glass of lemonade,
> not soda as a regular beverage.

The proprietors of the places they tend to congregate welcome them.
Yes, they monopolize tables and booths for hours at a time, but they're
also constantly purchasing food and drink that is shared among the
group. And although they are loud, they are also well behaved. They
never cause problems.

And, in fact, when families stop in, the kids usually end up joining the
childpack, the younger ones orbiting the perimeter, thrilled by mere
proximity, the older ones joining the group. Leaving their parents to
enjoy their meal and have an actual conversation.

And yes, they eat a lot of junk. But the five mile round trip to
purchase your garbage is an excellent counterbalance.
>
> OTOH, we spent a week recently in NH, VT, MA and RI and I couldn't
> believe how many DOUGHNUT shops we saw in every town and hamlet. There
> was practically one on every block in the commercial areas. We live in
> a Denver suburb and I don't think I could find more than one or two in
> our metro quadrant if I tried hard. Starbucks and bagel shops are
> fairly common but not doughnuts.

Dimitri wrote:

>
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ...
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>> From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
>> from a NYTimees article,
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
>> &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
>>
>> The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
>> reader comments; this is one of my favorites: � �"No money? Eat Spam!-
>> Bad advice!
>>
>> For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
>> are getting. Why?
>
>
> People, especially kids, are fat because they are lazy, not because
> they are poor... no one loses pounds sitting on their butt at a PC, a
> TV, text messaging, cell phoning 27/7. And if you have a PC, a TV,
> and
> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
> day that cost nothing...
>
> Lets see there was:
>
> Mumblety-peg with a switchblade.
> Stretch with a switchblade
> Knucks (knuckles)
> Stickball with a pink Spalding
> Stoop-ball
> Making a match shooter (thimble - thumb tacks & rubber band)
> Firecracker in the can rockets
> Bottle rockets
> Cherry Bombs
> Ash Cans
> Mickey's at the beach.

Clapping chants

Tether ball

Croquet

Badmitton

Bike riding

Walking miles with a quarter in your pocket to buy licorice whips at the
little pink store

Building forts in the woods

Waddling, bent over at the waist, through a quarter mile of storm sewer
drain, and scaring each other with the possibility of a sudden rain

On 2008-11-16, Gloria P > wrote:

> Actually, Sheldon is right. Kids were a lot more active back when it
> was safe to let them run the neighborhoods and their only exercise
> wasn't an hour or two of organized sports per week.

Still, that has no bearing on many overweight kids. I grew up in "the old
days" and I was always extremely active, yet pudgy. I was all over the
neighborhood and would walk and bike 5-10 miles daily, just for fun and to
see my friends. Even in the Summer when I was swimming every day from 10 in
the morning till 8 at night ....that's 10 hrs a day, every single day! no
breaks, no snacks.... I was still overweight. I didn't eat that much or eat
empty calories, I've just always naturally tended toward overweight. It's
called somatotypes and I'm endomorphic.

I've been close to my correct weight for my size 2 times in my life. Once
in high school when I played football and went on a brutally strict diet and
again 30 yrs later when I divorced and just plain didn't eat while working
12 hr days. Otherwise, I lose weight hard and put in on almost at a
thought. One pint of ice cream equals one lb of weight gain for me,
gauranteed. That's not normal metabolism.

It's easy for ppl who are not normally obese to criticize, but I find most
haven't a clue.

nb

"Gloria P" > wrote in message
>
> OTOH, we spent a week recently in NH, VT, MA and RI and I couldn't believe
> how many DOUGHNUT shops we saw in every town and hamlet. There was
> practically one on every block in the commercial areas. We live in a
> Denver suburb and I don't think I could find more than one or two in our
> metro quadrant if I tried hard. Starbucks and bagel shops are fairly
> common but not doughnuts.

MA is the home of Dunkin Donuts. They are all over the place. Our small
town has three (one in the supermarket) and right across the town line is a
DD that also does all the baking for the area and incorporates a Baskin
Robbins. When I moved here 27 years ago, there was one independent doughnut
shop and it was sufficient. There is little change in population in that
time, but the places to buy food certainly have increased. McDonalds,
Wendy's and KFC has also come to town, but KFC did not make it after about
two years. Not to mention in the new two block shopping center that are two
Chinese and one Thai restaurants. .

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2008-11-16, Gloria P > wrote:
>
> > Actually, Sheldon is right. Kids were a lot more active back when it
> > was safe to let them run the neighborhoods and their only exercise
> > wasn't an hour or two of organized sports per week.
>
> Still, that has no bearing on many overweight kids. I grew up in "the old
> days" and I was always extremely active, yet pudgy. I was all over the
> neighborhood and would walk and bike 5-10 miles daily, just for fun and to
> see my friends. Even in the Summer when I was swimming every day from 10 in
> the morning till 8 at night ....that's 10 hrs a day, every single day! no
> breaks, no snacks.... I was still overweight. I didn't eat that much or eat
> empty calories, I've just always naturally tended toward overweight. It's
> called somatotypes and I'm endomorphic.
>
> I've been close to my correct weight for my size 2 times in my life. Once
> in high school when I played football and went on a brutally strict diet and
> again 30 yrs later when I divorced and just plain didn't eat while working
> 12 hr days. Otherwise, I lose weight hard and put in on almost at a
> thought. One pint of ice cream equals one lb of weight gain for me,
> gauranteed. That's not normal metabolism.
>
> It's easy for ppl who are not normally obese to criticize, but I find most
> haven't a clue.
>
> nb

Agreed.

Have you had your thyroid hormones checked?
--
Peace! Om

"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." -- Dalai Lama

Dimitri wrote:

> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ...
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
> > from a NYTimees article,
> >
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
> > &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
> >
> > The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
> > reader comments; this is one of my favorites: ? ?"No money? Eat Spam!-
> > Bad advice!
> >
> > For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> > are getting. Why?
>
> People, especially kids, are fat because they are lazy, not because
> they are poor... no one loses pounds sitting on their butt at a PC, a
> TV, text messaging, cell phoning 27/7. And if you have a PC, a TV,
> and
> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
> day that cost nothing...
>
> Lets see there was:
>
> Mumblety-peg with a switchblade.
> Stretch with a switchblade
> Knucks (knuckles)
> Stickball with a pink Spalding
> Stoop-ball
> Making a match shooter (thimble - thumb tacks & rubber band)
> Firecracker in the can rockets
> Bottle rockets
> Cherry Bombs
> Ash Cans
> Mickey's at the beach.
>
> What else?


Playing "doctor"...

;-)


--
Best
Greg

Dimitri > wrote:

> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ...
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>> From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
>> from a NYTimees article,
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
>> &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
>>
>> The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
>> reader comments; this is one of my favorites: � �"No money? Eat Spam!-
>> Bad advice!
>>
>> For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
>> are getting. Why?
>
> People, especially kids, are fat because they are lazy, not because
> they are poor... no one loses pounds sitting on their butt at a PC, a
> TV, text messaging, cell phoning 27/7. And if you have a PC, a TV,
> and
> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
> day that cost nothing...
>
> Lets see there was:
>
> Mumblety-peg with a switchblade.
> Stretch with a switchblade
> Knucks (knuckles)
> Stickball with a pink Spalding
> Stoop-ball
> Making a match shooter (thimble - thumb tacks & rubber band)
> Firecracker in the can rockets
> Bottle rockets
> Cherry Bombs
> Ash Cans
> Mickey's at the beach.
>
> What else?


Separating your post from the one you're responding to?

Ahh, the good 'ol days.

-sw

Buck wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:01:04 -0600, Kathleen wrote:
>
>
>>My son (age 14) roams the neighborhood on his bike with his buddy's.
>>He's got a cell phone in case there's an emergency, and doesn't
>>participate in any organized sports. I mean, why would you, when you
>>can run with your pack and do whatever you want until the street lights
>>come on?
>
>
> Stoners, eh?

Nope. It wouldn't surprise me, but as a child of the 70's (class of
1980), I'd definitely recognize both the odors and the behaviors and, so
far, so good.

In article >,
"Dimitri" > wrote:

> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ...
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
> > from a NYTimees article,
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
> > &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
> >
> > The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
> > reader comments; this is one of my favorites: ? ?"No money? Eat Spam!-
> > Bad advice!
> >
> > For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> > are getting. Why?
>
> People, especially kids, are fat because they are lazy, not because
> they are poor... no one loses pounds sitting on their butt at a PC, a
> TV, text messaging, cell phoning 27/7. And if you have a PC, a TV,
> and
> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
> day that cost nothing...
>
> Lets see there was:
>
> Mumblety-peg with a switchblade.
> Stretch with a switchblade
> Knucks (knuckles)
> Stickball with a pink Spalding
> Stoop-ball
> Making a match shooter (thimble - thumb tacks & rubber band)
> Firecracker in the can rockets
> Bottle rockets
> Cherry Bombs
> Ash Cans
> Mickey's at the beach.
>
> What else?
>
> Dimitri
>
You forgot Kick The Can. :-)
Sure. Times have changed. My kids walked a mile to elementary school,
starting in first grade. Now the big road they had to cross (with a
crossing guard) is WAY too busy and WAY too fast for safe crossing by a
little kid. So the kids in the development are now bussed to school.
The days of leaving the house after breakfast and not returning until
5:30 for supper are over. And if they're not over, the parent might get
hauled in for child neglect or child endangerment. And then there are
the parents who use the tv as babysitter €” it keeps the kid in sight
(maybe) and keeps the kid quiet (mostly). The Twerp likes to play
outside but it's only this Fall that she's been allowed outside to play
in the yard alone (she'll be 7 in a couple weeks)€”the parents'
involvement with felons has a lot to do with that particular parental
oversight.

And poverty does come into play. Junk food is often cheaper, more
immediate, and more satisfying to kids' changed palates than nutritious
stuff. Many (dare I say most?) develop a taste and a hankering for
sweet stuff in infancy and it's often easier to just provide that and be
done with it than take the time to prepare a real meal. Please note
that when I say 'cheaper', I mean in the immediate scenario, not talking
about long term health 20 or 40 years away. If a bag of Doritos can be
had for $3, that might fill (or at least stave off the hungries) more
bellies that $3 worth of apples. The consumption of soft drinks has
increased dramatically since me and thee were kids. Some choices are
easier to make than others and easy is way out in front.

OB supper: I've had a sample of Tastefully Simple Creamy Wild Rice Soup
mix in the cupboard for a few years. It's simmering on the stove right
now with the addition of a handful of dried mushroooms. I'll add
homemade chicken broth to it and some cooked chicken meat and Friday's
leftover white rice from Shuang Cheng before it goes into our bowl and
our bellies.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/kilikini
(Send her a note!)

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Kathleen wrote:
>
>>Nope. It wouldn't surprise me, but as a child of the 70's (class of
>>1980), I'd definitely recognize both the odors and the behaviors and, so
>>far, so good.
>
>
> Ah, good. They're not getting into your stash.

Well, no. Not unless they're snorting white pepper and smoking oregano.

Kathleen wrote:

> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> Kathleen wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. It wouldn't surprise me, but as a child of the 70's (class of
>>> 1980), I'd definitely recognize both the odors and the behaviors and, so
>>> far, so good.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, good. They're not getting into your stash.
>
>
> Well, no. Not unless they're snorting white pepper and smoking oregano.
>

But I'd break their fingers like breadsticks if I thought they'd been
into the saffron.

Kathleen wrote:
>
> Nope. It wouldn't surprise me, but as a child of the 70's (class of
> 1980), I'd definitely recognize both the odors and the behaviors and, so
> far, so good.

Ah, good. They're not getting into your stash.

Gloria P wrote:
>
> OTOH, we spent a week recently in NH, VT, MA and RI and I couldn't
> believe how many DOUGHNUT shops we saw in every town and hamlet. There
> was practically one on every block in the commercial areas. We live in
> a Denver suburb and I don't think I could find more than one or two in
> our metro quadrant if I tried hard. Starbucks and bagel shops are
> fairly common but not doughnuts.

You should see the donut shops around here, especially Tim Hortons. I
live in a town on 15,000 and there are three Tim Hortons shops. In most
of the towns and cities around here you can't drive more than a few
blocks without seeing one, never mind the competitors. OTOH, there are
very few Starbucks.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:43:37 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

<snip>

> For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> are getting. Why? Because of articles like this that encourage people to
> suplement their loss of income by eating cheap garbage. Too many people
> would rather spend their only $3 on the a trio of double cheeseburgers
> from McDonald's dollar menu and be full than a lesser portion of
> something healthy. You're better off eating a smaller portion of
> something good for you." posted by hozer85.

Look at the contents of most cheap food: invariably contains grain-based
products. All those excess carbs - far beyond what they can use as
immediate fuel - can only end up in one place...

Ironically there is no reason one cannot eat very well with little money,
but nobody wants to prepare meals unsing basics like soaking beans, etc.

Actually, a lot of higher priced foods are not much better.

Its crazy when so many people can be obese and yet malnourished at the
same time. What a world...

Kathleen wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>>
>> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>
>>> From this morning's Strib, <http://www.startribune.com//34498114.html>,
>>> from a NYTimees article,
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1
>>>
>>> &sq=SPAM&st=nyt&scp=2>
>>>
>>> The Times story has a couple fun pictures but the Strib has interesting
>>> reader comments; this is one of my favorites: � �"No money? Eat Spam!-
>>> Bad advice!
>>>
>>> For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
>>> are getting. Why?
>>
>>
>> People, especially kids, are fat because they are lazy, not because
>> they are poor... no one loses pounds sitting on their butt at a PC, a
>> TV, text messaging, cell phoning 27/7. And if you have a PC, a TV,
>> and
>> a cell phone you ain't poor. When I was a kid there was no such
>> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
>> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
>> day that cost nothing...
>>
>> Lets see there was:
>>
>> Mumblety-peg with a switchblade.
>> Stretch with a switchblade
>> Knucks (knuckles)
>> Stickball with a pink Spalding
>> Stoop-ball
>> Making a match shooter (thimble - thumb tacks & rubber band)
>> Firecracker in the can rockets
>> Bottle rockets
>> Cherry Bombs
>> Ash Cans
>> Mickey's at the beach.
>
> Clapping chants
>
> Tether ball
>
> Croquet
>
> Badmitton
>
> Bike riding
>
> Walking miles with a quarter in your pocket to buy licorice whips at the
> little pink store
>
> Building forts in the woods
>
> Waddling, bent over at the waist, through a quarter mile of storm sewer
> drain, and scaring each other with the possibility of a sudden rain
>
>
in the nice weather (and in addition to your list),
-hide and seek
-tag
-skipping
-hopscotch

in the winter,
-ice skating on whichever pond was frozen, or in the backyard of
whatever kid's dad had made a rink
-tobogganing
-snow fort building

Jeßus > wrote:

> Look at the contents of most cheap food: invariably contains grain-based
> products. All those excess carbs - far beyond what they can use as
> immediate fuel - can only end up in one place...

OK - I give up. Where do *you* think they go?

-sw

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:42:05 -0600, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>Playing "doctor"...

spin the bottle... what was that all about?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
Jeßus > wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:43:37 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> > are getting. Why? Because of articles like this that encourage people to
> > suplement their loss of income by eating cheap garbage. Too many people
> > would rather spend their only $3 on the a trio of double cheeseburgers
> > from McDonald's dollar menu and be full than a lesser portion of
> > something healthy. You're better off eating a smaller portion of
> > something good for you." posted by hozer85.
>
> Look at the contents of most cheap food: invariably contains grain-based
> products. All those excess carbs - far beyond what they can use as
> immediate fuel - can only end up in one place...
>
> Ironically there is no reason one cannot eat very well with little money,
> but nobody wants to prepare meals unsing basics like soaking beans, etc.
>
> Actually, a lot of higher priced foods are not much better.
>
> Its crazy when so many people can be obese and yet malnourished at the
> same time. What a world...


Melba's Jammin' said no such things. Watch your attributions, please.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/kilikini
(Send her a note!)

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Kathleen wrote:
>> Nope. It wouldn't surprise me, but as a child of the 70's (class of
>> 1980), I'd definitely recognize both the odors and the behaviors and, so
>> far, so good.
>
> Ah, good. They're not getting into your stash.

Them getting into her stash?
Maybe it's the other way around. When I was a teen my brothers and I
used to be careful to figure out how much of our fathers booze we could
get into without him noticing. When my son was my age it was me trying
to figure how much of his stash I could get into without him noticing
and finding another hiding place.

On 2008-11-16, Omelet > wrote:

> Have you had your thyroid hormones checked?

never have....

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:17:11 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:43:37 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter
>> > they are getting. Why? Because of articles like this that encourage
>> > people to suplement their loss of income by eating cheap garbage. Too
>> > many people would rather spend their only $3 on the a trio of double
>> > cheeseburgers from McDonald's dollar menu and be full than a lesser
>> > portion of something healthy. You're better off eating a smaller
>> > portion of something good for you." posted by hozer85.
>>
>> Look at the contents of most cheap food: invariably contains
>> grain-based products. All those excess carbs - far beyond what they can
>> use as immediate fuel - can only end up in one place...
>>
>> Ironically there is no reason one cannot eat very well with little
>> money, but nobody wants to prepare meals unsing basics like soaking
>> beans, etc.
>>
>> Actually, a lot of higher priced foods are not much better.
>>
>> Its crazy when so many people can be obese and yet malnourished at the
>> same time. What a world...
>
>
> Melba's Jammin' said no such things.

Are you claiming somebody hijacked your machine, and posted under your
name? The headers appear to match.

> Watch your attributions, please.

I do, so what's your point?

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:53:10 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:

> Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Look at the contents of most cheap food: invariably contains
>> grain-based products. All those excess carbs - far beyond what they can
>> use as immediate fuel - can only end up in one place...
>
> OK - I give up.

Good.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> When my son was my age it was me trying to figure
> how much of his stash I could get into without him
> noticing and finding another hiding place.

Um, I thought you used to be a cop.
They don't ****-test cops in Canada?

Kathleen wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
> When I was a kid there was no such
>> thing as dieting and kids weren't obese... kids didn't need money to
>> be happy.. there were hundreds of games where kids ran and sweated all
>> day that cost nothing...
>>
>> Lets see there was:
>>
>> Mumblety-peg with a switchblade.
>> Stretch with a switchblade
>> Knucks (knuckles)
>> Stickball with a pink Spalding
>> Stoop-ball
>> Making a match shooter (thimble - thumb tacks & rubber band)
>> Firecracker in the can rockets
>> Bottle rockets
>> Cherry Bombs
>> Ash Cans
>> Mickey's at the beach.
>
> Clapping chants
> Tether ball
> Croquet
> Badmitton
> Bike riding
> Walking miles with a quarter in your pocket to buy licorice whips at the
> little pink store
> Building forts in the woods
> Waddling, bent over at the waist, through a quarter mile of storm sewer
> drain, and scaring each other with the possibility of a sudden rain
>

Don't forget:
WALKING to school
swimming, beachcombing
making snowmen, snowball fights, sledding, skating
shoveling the driveway, mowing the lawn
games like tag, statues, cowboys and Indians
dodgeball
foursquare
jump rope
gardening
etc.

gloroa p

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Gloria P" > wrote in message
>> OTOH, we spent a week recently in NH, VT, MA and RI and I couldn't believe
>> how many DOUGHNUT shops we saw in every town and hamlet. There was
>> practically one on every block in the commercial areas. We live in a
>> Denver suburb and I don't think I could find more than one or two in our
>> metro quadrant if I tried hard. Starbucks and bagel shops are fairly
>> common but not doughnuts.
>
> MA is the home of Dunkin Donuts. They are all over the place. Our small
> town has three (one in the supermarket) and right across the town line is a
> DD that also does all the baking for the area and incorporates a Baskin
> Robbins. When I moved here 27 years ago, there was one independent doughnut
> shop and it was sufficient.

I was surprised not only to see lots and lots of DD, much higher density
than we remembered, but also Tim Horton's all over the place. (Before
we made this trip I thought they were only in Canada .)

RI used to have lots of Bess Eaton donut shops but they are all
Tim Horton now.

gloria p

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> HWSRN has fond memories of SPAM; I haven't had it in the house in 15-20
> years, I'll bet. Blech.
>
> Looks like it's a big seller in a tough economy, though. Strange, that,
> for its per pound cost!

Funny you should mention. Prompted by another thread, I hauled the can of
Spam I had in the cupboard (properly labeled as Barb taught me as having
been purchased in Sept of '06). I opened it. It even looks gross. I
looked at the "nutrition" label (I use the term lightly). Holy
arteriosclerosis, Batman! I allowed it to slither out of the can. Cut it
in slices. Cut off one corner of one slice and tasted it. Salt and fat,
yum yum. I cut up a couple of slices and put a little pile of them on top
of each of the dogs' kibble. The dogs were very happy. They're also
delighted to eat kitty almond roca (aka kitty crunchies). They'll get the
remainder of the pastel slimy vileness over the next couple of days.

TammyM

On Nov 16, 8:46�pm, "TammyM" > wrote:
> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> <snip>
>
> > HWSRN has fond memories of SPAM; I haven't had it in the house in 15-20
> > years, I'll bet. �Blech.
>
> > Looks like it's a big seller in a tough economy, though. �Strange, that,
> > for its per pound cost!
>
> Funny you should mention. �Prompted by another thread, I hauled the can of
> Spam I had in the cupboard (properly labeled as Barb taught me as having
> been purchased in Sept of '06). �I opened it. �It even looks gross. �I
> looked at the "nutrition" label (I use the term lightly). �Holy
> arteriosclerosis, Batman! �I allowed it to slither out of the can.. �Cut it
> in slices. �Cut off one corner of one slice and tasted it. �Salt and fat,
> yum yum. �I cut up a couple of slices and put a little pile of them on top
> of each of the dogs' kibble. �The dogs were very happy. �They're also
> delighted to eat kitty almond roca (aka kitty crunchies). �They'll get the
> remainder of the pastel slimy vileness over the next couple of days.
>
> TammyM

You don't know what you're missing,
Spam is wonderful in a grilled cheese.

On Nov 17, 9:38*am, Jeßus > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:43:37 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > For the first time in history the less money people have the fatter they
> > are getting. Why? Because of articles like this that encourage people to
> > suplement their loss of income by eating cheap garbage. Too many people
> > would rather spend their only $3 on the a trio of double cheeseburgers
> > from McDonald's dollar menu and be full than a lesser portion of
> > something healthy. You're better off eating a smaller portion of
> > something good for you." *posted by hozer85.
>
> Look at the contents of most cheap food: invariably contains grain-based
> products. All those excess carbs - far beyond what they can use as
> immediate fuel - can only end up in one place...
>
> Ironically there is no reason one cannot eat very well with little money,
> but nobody wants to prepare meals unsing basics like soaking beans, etc.
>
> Actually, a lot of higher priced foods are not much better.
>
> Its crazy when so many people can be obese and yet malnourished at the
> same time. What a world...

It's your fat world!....I am not fat and I will NOT let my SO to
become fat again. Overeating is laziness.

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"As viscous as motor oil swirled in a swamp, redolent of burnt bell
peppers
nested in by incontinent mice and a finish reminiscent of the dregs of
a
stale can of Coca-Cola that someone has been using as an ashtray. Not
a bad
drink, though."
Excerpt from "The Moose Turd Wine Tasting" by T. A. Nonymous

Jeßus > wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:53:10 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> Look at the contents of most cheap food: invariably contains
>>> grain-based products. All those excess carbs - far beyond what they can
>>> use as immediate fuel - can only end up in one place...
>>
>> OK - I give up. Where do *you* think they go?
>
> Good.

IOW: You don't have a clue WTF you're talking about.

-sw

Jeßus > wrote:

> Are you claiming somebody hijacked your machine, and posted under your
> name? The headers appear to match.
>
>> Watch your attributions, please.
>
> I do, so what's your point?

That you're still an idiot. She didn't write that. Go back and
*READ*.

-sw