On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:29:30 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:

>I trust the evidence-based medicine project at Oxford, who say

"Who say" or that says?

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

bob > wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:29:30 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:

>>I trust the evidence-based medicine project at Oxford, who say

>"Who say" or that says?

Sorry, I was lapsing into U.K. English again.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Miche > wrote:

> >There's no need. Eggs have little to no effect on blood cholesterol
> >levels.
>
> I trust the evidence-based medicine project at Oxford, who say
> it may make a significant (but small) difference for people
> who need to watch their cholesterol. In that context, 2 eggs
> per day is above threshold:
>
> http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandoli.../eggschol.html

Unless it has changed, I'm still hearing recommendations to limit egg
consumption for people at risk. I'm remembering four per week, but my
memory isn't great, and it's been a year since I was told that. For
those who want eggs for breakfast every morning, it's not a problem.
Either an egg substitute, generally made mostly of egg white, or just
make your eggs with only one yolk, and multiple whites.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:04:42 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:

>bob > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:29:30 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>>Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>>I trust the evidence-based medicine project at Oxford, who say
>
>>"Who say" or that says?
>
>Sorry, I was lapsing into U.K. English again.

Is it correct in "U.K. English" to refer to a university with, not
only a personal pronoun, but a plural personal pronoun? I don't think
so ...


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:23:19 +1300, Miche wrote:

> In article
> >,
> amandaF > wrote:
>
>> I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
>> concern about the cholesterol.
>
> There's no need. Eggs have little to no effect on blood cholesterol
> levels.
>
>> I am not going to eat breakfast
>> suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> Cheese on toast.
>
>> Any other item that would give me complete protein? Please don't
>> say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western culture.
>
> Plenty of people in Western cultures eat fish for breakfast.
>
> Miche

Yes !! Saturday morning, breakfast with Dutch green (raw) herrings.
I like the British' love for kippers (smoked herring) too.

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

bob > wrote:

>>Sorry, I was lapsing into U.K. English again.

>Is it correct in "U.K. English" to refer to a university with, not
>only a personal pronoun, but a plural personal pronoun? I don't think
>so ...

It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.
So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
at Wembley".

I'm a little less certain about the personal vs. impersonal
pronoun choices. But it seems to me if you are using the
plural, that almost implies you'd choose the personal pronoun --
if the sentence required one.

Steve

On Mar 2, 2:46 pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> bob > wrote:
> >>Sorry, I was lapsing into U.K. English again.
> >Is it correct in "U.K. English" to refer to a university with, not
> >only a personal pronoun, but a plural personal pronoun? I don't think
> >so ...
>
> It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
> pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.
> So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
> at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
> at Wembley".
>
> I'm a little less certain about the personal vs. impersonal
> pronoun choices. But it seems to me if you are using the
> plural, that almost implies you'd choose the personal pronoun --
> if the sentence required one.
>
> Steve

Apparently, US English doesn't like rules. To say "Dire Straits
are..." is odd, because they are a group and the name is a proper
name, so it seems natural to say, "Dire Straits is performing." On
the other hand, we say "The Beatles are...." instead of "The Beatles
is. Hmmm.

N.

Nancy2 > wrote:

>On Mar 2, 2:46 pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
>> pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.
>> So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
>> at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
>> at Wembley".

>Apparently, US English doesn't like rules. To say "Dire Straits
>are..." is odd, because they are a group and the name is a proper
>name, so it seems natural to say, "Dire Straits is performing." On
>the other hand, we say "The Beatles are...." instead of "The Beatles
>is. Hmmm.

My general impression is that until a decade or so ago, Americans
referred to musical ensembles as a singular, unless there
was a UK (or possibly, Commonwealth) tie-in. This has since
become less universal and more Americans have just shifted
to the British plural usage.

Steve

On Feb 28, 2:31*pm, bob > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:02:57 -0800 (PST), amandaF
> > shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
> >I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> >concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> >suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > *Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> >say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> >culture.
>
> By "western culture" I assume you mean "Anglo," because a typical
> breakfast in non-English speaking "Western" countries includes foods
> that you don't normally see served for breakfast in the US, Canada,
> the UK, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand.
>
> For example, a typical breakfast in the Netherlands consists of a
> choice of cheeses, sliced meats, bread, cereal and hard boiled eggs.
> Leave out the eggs and

> you've still got your protein.
But NOT complete protein.


>
> In Mexico & Central America (also considered parts of the Western
> World) I used to eat a breakfast of rice & beans with either eggs or
> fish. It's still one of my favourites.
>
> Baked beans on toast is another protein breakfast option.
>
> Also - Don't know if it's 100%, but I was told in a Weight Watchers
> meeting that when cereals (carbs) are combined with milk they become a
> protein.
Milk has protein. Combining cereal to milk adds suger in the food one
intakes.

>
> --
>
> una cerveza mas por favor ...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
> Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

amandaF wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2:31 pm, bob > wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:02:57 -0800 (PST), amandaF
>> > shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>> I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but
>>> I am concern about the cholesterol. I am not going to eat
>>> breakfast suasage, etc. nor protein powder. Any other item that
>>> would give me complete protein? Please don't say fis. I am
>>> talking about typical breakfast item in western culture.
>> By "western culture" I assume you mean "Anglo," because a typical
>> breakfast in non-English speaking "Western" countries includes
>> foods that you don't normally see served for breakfast in the US,
>> Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand.
>>
>> For example, a typical breakfast in the Netherlands consists of a
>> choice of cheeses, sliced meats, bread, cereal and hard boiled
>> eggs. Leave out the eggs and
>
>> you've still got your protein.
> But NOT complete protein.
>
>
>> In Mexico & Central America (also considered parts of the Western
>> World) I used to eat a breakfast of rice & beans with either eggs
>> or fish. It's still one of my favourites.
>>
>> Baked beans on toast is another protein breakfast option.
>>
>> Also - Don't know if it's 100%, but I was told in a Weight Watchers
>> meeting that when cereals (carbs) are combined with milk they
>> become a protein.
> Milk has protein. Combining cereal to milk adds suger in the food one
> intakes.
>


That corn muffin mix of Barb's (in another thread) is probably pretty
high in protein! Probably has plenty of B12 too. HTH :-)

Bob

On Feb 28, 2:32*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "amandaF" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > *Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > culture.
>
> Peanut butter on toasted bread makes for a tasty quick breakfast and
> peanuts are very high in protein.

Peanuts are also high in fact and so I can't eat it on regular basis.
I have decided to eat this particular bean/legume that was used back
home by the natives. I forgot about it because if we used it at
home, we bought the one already boiled - actually, it is steamed with
a little water that was used to soak until thje bean sprouts. Our
family used it by mixing it with thinlly sliced hallots (rinsed
version to get the strong flavor out) in a little bit of oil with some
salt. Sometimes, it was sautee fried with onion and tumric powder. It
is eating with Naan bread; this way of eating Naan is unique and is a
Burmese creation.

I have tried sprouting that beans but I don't have the right steam
pot and so it doesn't come out the way it was back home, soft and noie
and still in oung shape, not soggy.

I have heard some people boiling it in pressure cooker. the lady ust
said to test by trial and error how much water to put. That didn't
help me at all. I would have tried it though if my weight hing of the
pressure cooker ddin't burn off when it slid into the gas stovetop
area and melted the plastic tip of that metal piece.

I do not know the name of that bean in English; it is availabe in
Indian stores.


>
> Jill

On Feb 28, 7:16*pm, "3,4,5-trimethoxyphenethylamine"
> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:02:57 -0800, amandaF wrote:
> > I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast suasage,
> > etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western culture.
>
> In reality you get enough protein already, it's difficult not to.
I am hypoglycemic and need more protein intake (complete protein that
is) if I want to avoid eating every two hours.

> And the cholesterol 'problem' is grossly exaggerated, don't worry about
> it.

On Feb 28, 4:04*pm, maxine > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:02*pm, amandaF > wrote:
>
> > I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > culture.
>
> Yogurt, cereal and milk, cheese grits, pancakes, waffles etc.
>
> In New England, cod cakes and beans are a standard part of breakfast.
>
> Hummus and pita make a nice start to the day, make it as mild or spicy
> as you like.

I guess I should have mentioned that I meant "Complete protein and a
high content at that with the least amount of sugar".

>
> You could also switch to the cholesterol-free egg products in the
> dairy section of your grocery, sometimes found in the freezer
> section. *You'll be relegated to omelets or scrambled, no more over
> easy or sunny side up, but you'll have your eggy goodness still.
>
> Bagels, cream cheese and lox is considered a breakfast food.
>
> If you like Asian foods, pho is a Vietnamese soup, usually with beef
> broth, vegetables, and bits of various meats.
>
> maxine in ri

On Feb 28, 6:43*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *amandaF > wrote:
> > I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > culture.
>
> Soy.
I drink some soy
milk every morning along wiht 2 eggs. I want to replace one egg with
something that would give the equivalent amount of protein.
>
> So what is wrong with meat and eggs?
I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
it?

> Eating Cholesterol does not raise serum Cholesterol. It's a no brainer.
> --
> Peace! Om
>
> I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

On Feb 28, 4:02*pm, "Jinx Minx" > wrote:
> "amandaF" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > *Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > culture.
>
> Buckwheat is a good non-animal source of complete protein, as well as quinoa
> and spirulina. *I'm sure you can google plenty of recipes for buckwheat
> pancakes. *When it comes to "typical breakfast items in western culture",

I like western style - surrent day western style - breakfast though I
want to skip meat in breakfast. The only other things that in
nonwestern item I like for breakfast is nann but they don't come in
wheat and so it is out of my list.

I specifically stated what I stated in my initial post for a reason,
hoping that I would not have question like why not meat, why not onon
wetsren, blah..blah.

I am hypoglycemic and in havign to eat many times, I want to reduce
calorie, fat, and sugar as much as possible especially if those items
do not have complete protein. Get it people?






> why limit yourself to what other people deem typical? *If you like
> something, eat it! *Who cares if it's not a "breakfast" food? *Fish is the
> same nutritionally whether you eat it at 8am or 6pm.
>
> Jinx

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
wrote:

>I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
>it?

You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. Go to a dietician. They get PAID
for dealing with people like you. (Sorry to all the dieticians who
may be affected if she follows through)

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

>"amandaF" > wrote in message
...
>>On Feb 28, 4:02 pm, "Jinx Minx" > wrote:
>>> "amandaF" > wrote in message
>
>
>> >I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
>> > concern about the cholesterol. I am not going to eat breakfast
>> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
>> > Any other item that would give me complete protein? Please don't
>> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
>> > culture.
>
>> Buckwheat is a good non-animal source of complete protein, as well as
>> quinoa
>> and spirulina. I'm sure you can google plenty of recipes for buckwheat
>> pancakes. When it comes to "typical breakfast items in western culture",

> I like western style - surrent day western style - breakfast though I
>want to skip meat in breakfast. The only other things that in
>nonwestern item I like for breakfast is nann but they don't come in
>wheat and so it is out of my list.

>I specifically stated what I stated in my initial post for a reason,
>hoping that I would not have question like why not meat, why not onon
>wetsren, blah..blah.

>I am hypoglycemic and in havign to eat many times, I want to reduce
>calorie, fat, and sugar as much as possible especially if those items
>do not have complete protein. Get it people?

Rude, rude, RUDE!! "WE" get it. You're the one that doesn't. You want
"complete proteins" yet don't want to eat meat or other animal products. I
gave you three ideas for non-animal proteins that are considered as close to
complete as possible for non-animal sources. You won't eat nuts because they
have too much fat, and grains because they have too many carbs and sugars.
In addition to restricting yourself to foods that basically don't exist, you
also want to restrict yourself to foods traditionally eaten during a western
breakfast (i.e. meat, eggs, and cereals). If you don't want to eat meat,
eggs and cereals for breakfast than you are going to have to eat
"non-traditional" western foods for breakfast. Do YOU get it??!! Do you
think we're all out here eating some secret mystery complete protein in our
western breakfasts? You're not the only person out here that is
hypoglycemic. I suggest you get rid of all the whacked out dietary ideas
you were raised with in your behind-the-times non-western culture regarding
cholesterol, fat, sugar and carbs and go see a registered dietician--at a
real clinic--or better yet, a psychiatrist. You're a kook. Maybe even a
hypochondriac. Were you even diagnosed by a real doctor or did you diagnose
yourself? If you're so hypoglycemic that you need to eat steadfastly every
two hours, then you need some serious medical help for your condition.

I gave you honest, good suggestions in my first post to you. Don't you dare
respond back to me like I'm the idiot you ungrateful wench.

Jinx

Jinx wrote:

> If you don't want to eat meat, eggs and cereals for breakfast than you are
> going to have to eat "non-traditional" western foods for breakfast. Do
> YOU get it??!! Do you think we're all out here eating some secret mystery
> complete protein in our western breakfasts?

SHHHHHH! Fer cryin' out loud, don't let on that there's a SECRET!

While I don't have amandaF killfiled, I generally don't find it worth
responding. This thread is one such example.

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Jinx wrote:
>
>> If you don't want to eat meat, eggs and cereals for breakfast than you
>> are
>> going to have to eat "non-traditional" western foods for breakfast. Do
>> YOU get it??!! Do you think we're all out here eating some secret
>> mystery
>> complete protein in our western breakfasts?
>
> SHHHHHH! Fer cryin' out loud, don't let on that there's a SECRET!
>
> While I don't have amandaF killfiled, I generally don't find it worth
> responding. This thread is one such example.
>
> Bob

Yeah, 95% of all threads I find not worth responding to, but I just couldn't
help myself this time. Amanda's a nutball.

Jinx

amandaF wrote:
>

>
> I guess I should have mentioned that I meant "Complete protein and a
> high content at that with the least amount of sugar".
>

It isn't necessary to eat complete proteins as a *single* dietary item.
A combination of proteins that makes up to complete protein works just
as well. The body just needs those amino acids daily rather than on a
per-meal or hourly basis.

Soy milk is rather dilute, so wouldn't help you as far as concentrated
protein. Try tofu instead; it's mild flavoured and can be seasoned up
any way you'd like. Non-fat unflavoured (so no sugar) yoghurt is also a
good source of concentrated protein.

Nuts and whole grains are common breakfast items in certain 'Western'
cuisines, so try whole grain porridges (which do not need to be
sweetened) with toasted nuts on top.

Why do you need to eat a 'Western' breakfast anyway? Other food
combinations might suit your hypoglycaemia much better.

If your 'hypo' is that unstable, might be best to see your doctor again.
It can have several causes, some more serious than others.

"amandaF" wrote:
I am hypoglycemic and in havign to eat many times, I want to reduce
calorie, fat, and sugar as much as possible especially if those items
do not have complete protein. Get it people?

Hey, this ain't yer personal HMO... RFC ain't for catering to diseased folk.
You have no manners... yer momma musta been some 25¢ back alley whoring
slut, she never taught you "please" & "thank you", bitch!

"amandaF" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 6:43 pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> amandaF > wrote:
> > I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. I am not going to eat breakfast
> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > Any other item that would give me complete protein? Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > culture.
>
> Soy.
I drink some soy
milk every morning along wiht 2 eggs. I want to replace one egg with
something that would give the equivalent amount of protein.
>
> So what is wrong with meat and eggs?
>
I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get it?

Eat shit. LOL

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> wrote:
>
>> I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
>> it?
>
> You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. Go to a dietician. They get PAID
> for dealing with people like you. (Sorry to all the dieticians who
> may be affected if she follows through)
>
> Carol
>

I think she's neurotic. I imagine she's very boring as well as annoying
in real life.

In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> wrote:
>
> >I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
> >it?
>
> You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. Go to a dietician. They get PAID
> for dealing with people like you. (Sorry to all the dieticians who
> may be affected if she follows through)
>
> Carol

Yeah. I was trying to help her and she got all bitchy on me.
That's the last time I'll try for sure!
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:38:20 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Feb 28, 2:31*pm, bob > wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:02:57 -0800 (PST), amandaF
>> > shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>> >I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
>> >concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
>> >suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>>
>> > *Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
>> >say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
>> >culture.
>>
>> By "western culture" I assume you mean "Anglo," because a typical
>> breakfast in non-English speaking "Western" countries includes foods
>> that you don't normally see served for breakfast in the US, Canada,
>> the UK, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand.
>>
>> For example, a typical breakfast in the Netherlands consists of a
>> choice of cheeses, sliced meats, bread, cereal and hard boiled eggs.
>> Leave out the eggs and you've still got your protein.
>
>But NOT complete protein.

I think you'll find that cheese and meat ARE complete proteins.

>>
>> In Mexico & Central America (also considered parts of the Western
>> World) I used to eat a breakfast of rice & beans with either eggs or
>> fish. It's still one of my favourites.
>>
>> Baked beans on toast is another protein breakfast option.
>>
>> Also - Don't know if it's 100%, but I was told in a Weight Watchers
>> meeting that when cereals (carbs) are combined with milk they become a
>> protein.

>Milk has protein. Combining cereal to milk adds suger in the food one
>intakes.

As someone else pointed out earlier, whole grain cereals already
contain protein. The milk makes the portions complete.

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:46:42 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:

>bob > wrote:
>
>>>Sorry, I was lapsing into U.K. English again.
>
>>Is it correct in "U.K. English" to refer to a university with, not
>>only a personal pronoun, but a plural personal pronoun? I don't think
>>so ...
>
>It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
>pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.
>So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
>at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
>at Wembley".

To use the plural when referring to a single entity might be in
"common" usage, but that doesn't make it correct.

After all, "between you and I," is also common, but incorrect, usage
in UK, Australian and New Zealand.

However, I doubt that even a Brit would say "between I and you." Or
"please give it to I."

But your original sentence was: "I trust the evidence-based medicine
project at Oxford, who say it may make a significant (but small)
difference ... "

So, from the way it was constructed, the "who say it may make ..."
actually refers to the report, not the university. And the report is
definitely singular and "that says it makes" is entirely appropriate,
whereas "who say it make" isn't.

>I'm a little less certain about the personal vs. impersonal
>pronoun choices. But it seems to me if you are using the
>plural, that almost implies you'd choose the personal pronoun --
>if the sentence required one.

Nor is a university, company, team, rock group or club a "who" whether
you consider the entity singular or plural.

Otherwise you'd have a cricket club "who took the trophy," or a
cricket team "who won the series." The correct usage would be a
cricket club "that" or a cricket team "that' (singular) ... or "which"
if you insist on using the plural.

Then again, this is Usenet and correct English usage is hardly a
priority, let alone mandatory. I was just being picky ;-)b



--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

bob > wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:46:42 +0000 (UTC), (Steve

>>It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
>>pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.

The above sentence was a little off from what I meant.
"It is most definitely correct in UK English to treat as
plural a subject that would be treated as singular by an
American".

>>So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
>>at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
>>at Wembley".

>To use the plural when referring to a single entity might be in
>"common" usage, but that doesn't make it correct.

Okay, but if the usage gets past the editors of the Times
and the Guardian maybe it's pretty well accepted.

>But your original sentence was: "I trust the evidence-based medicine
>project at Oxford, who say it may make a significant (but small)
>difference ... "

>So, from the way it was constructed, the "who say it may make ..."
>actually refers to the report, not the university. And the report is
>definitely singular and "that says it makes" is entirely appropriate,
>whereas "who say it make" isn't.

The suject is "project", which is a collection of people.
This is what leads to "who say...".

>Nor is a university, company, team, rock group or club a "who" whether
>you consider the entity singular or plural.

>Otherwise you'd have a cricket club "who took the trophy," or a
>cricket team "who won the series."

Which is exactly what you will hear or read.

>The correct usage would be a
>cricket club "that" or a cricket team "that' (singular) ... or "which"
>if you insist on using the plural.

A little googling reveals the phrase "Chelsea, who defeated" has
20 times more hits than "Chelsea, which defeated" and 200
times more hits than "Chelsea, that defeated".

>Then again, this is Usenet and correct English usage is hardly a
>priority, let alone mandatory. I was just being picky ;-)b

At this point I can't agree that the usage is British vernacular
as opposed to correct British English, but I'm open to hearing
more of a case for the former, if you or anyone can supply
more data.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> bob > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:46:42 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>
>>>It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
>>>pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.
>
> The above sentence was a little off from what I meant.
> "It is most definitely correct in UK English to treat as
> plural a subject that would be treated as singular by an
> American".
>
>>>So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
>>>at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
>>>at Wembley".
>
>>To use the plural when referring to a single entity might be in
>>"common" usage, but that doesn't make it correct.
>
> Okay, but if the usage gets past the editors of the Times
> and the Guardian maybe it's pretty well accepted.
>
>>But your original sentence was: "I trust the evidence-based medicine
>>project at Oxford, who say it may make a significant (but small)
>>difference ... "
>
>>So, from the way it was constructed, the "who say it may make ..."
>>actually refers to the report, not the university. And the report is
>>definitely singular and "that says it makes" is entirely appropriate,
>>whereas "who say it make" isn't.
>
> The suject is "project", which is a collection of people.
> This is what leads to "who say...".
>
>>Nor is a university, company, team, rock group or club a "who" whether
>>you consider the entity singular or plural.
>
>>Otherwise you'd have a cricket club "who took the trophy," or a
>>cricket team "who won the series."
>
> Which is exactly what you will hear or read.
>
>>The correct usage would be a
>>cricket club "that" or a cricket team "that' (singular) ... or "which"
>>if you insist on using the plural.
>
> A little googling reveals the phrase "Chelsea, who defeated" has
> 20 times more hits than "Chelsea, which defeated" and 200
> times more hits than "Chelsea, that defeated".
>
>>Then again, this is Usenet and correct English usage is hardly a
>>priority, let alone mandatory. I was just being picky ;-)b
>
> At this point I can't agree that the usage is British vernacular
> as opposed to correct British English, but I'm open to hearing
> more of a case for the former, if you or anyone can supply
> more data.
>
WTF is wrong with you people? Hear that ticking? That's your life running
out.

"bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:38:20 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>On Feb 28, 2:31 pm, bob > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:02:57 -0800 (PST), amandaF
>>> > shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>> >I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
>>> >concern about the cholesterol. I am not going to eat breakfast
>>> >suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>>>
>>> > Any other item that would give me complete protein? Please don't
>>> >say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
>>> >culture.
>>>
>>> By "western culture" I assume you mean "Anglo," because a typical
>>> breakfast in non-English speaking "Western" countries includes foods
>>> that you don't normally see served for breakfast in the US, Canada,
>>> the UK, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand.
>>>
>>> For example, a typical breakfast in the Netherlands consists of a
>>> choice of cheeses, sliced meats, bread, cereal and hard boiled eggs.
>>> Leave out the eggs and you've still got your protein.
>>
>>But NOT complete protein.
>
> I think you'll find that cheese and meat ARE complete proteins.
>
>>>
>>> In Mexico & Central America (also considered parts of the Western
>>> World) I used to eat a breakfast of rice & beans with either eggs or
>>> fish. It's still one of my favourites.
>>>
>>> Baked beans on toast is another protein breakfast option.
>>>
>>> Also - Don't know if it's 100%, but I was told in a Weight Watchers
>>> meeting that when cereals (carbs) are combined with milk they become a
>>> protein.
>
>>Milk has protein. Combining cereal to milk adds suger in the food one
>>intakes.
>
> As someone else pointed out earlier, whole grain cereals already
> contain protein. The milk makes the portions complete.
>
I dislike "Amanda" so intensely, just the way she types disgusts me. Then
there is what she actually says.

cyberpurrs > wrote:

> WTF is wrong with you people? Hear that ticking? That's your
> life running out.

But word geeking is one of the foremost pursuits of life true?

Steve

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
>>> it?
>>
>> You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. Go to a dietician. They get PAID
>> for dealing with people like you. (Sorry to all the dieticians who
>> may be affected if she follows through)
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
> I think she's neurotic. I imagine she's very boring as well as annoying in
> real life.

And you should know. I think Amanda should eat what she likes for breakfast,
and if there is nothing at all she like to eat ever, so much the better.

"Jinx Minx" > wrote

>Amanda's a nutball.
>
A nutball minus the fun.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> cyberpurrs > wrote:
>
>> WTF is wrong with you people? Hear that ticking? That's your
>> life running out.
>
> But word geeking is one of the foremost pursuits of life true?
>

Don't you dare make me laugh, word boy.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:31:26 -0500, "cyberpurrs" >
shouted from the highest rooftop:

> WTF is wrong with you people? Hear that ticking? That's your life running
>out.

Don't let it worry you.


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:34:23 -0500, "cyberpurrs" >
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>I dislike "Amanda" so intensely, just the way she types disgusts me. Then
>there is what she actually says.

Maybe she does it just to annoy you. If so, it looks like she's
succeeded ...

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:34:43 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:

>cyberpurrs > wrote:
>
>> WTF is wrong with you people? Hear that ticking? That's your
>> life running out.
>
>But word geeking is one of the foremost pursuits of life true?
>
>Steve

I hear that it's better than protein for breakfast.

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:31:26 -0500, "cyberpurrs" >
wrote:
>
>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
>> bob > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:46:42 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>>
>>>>It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
>>>>pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.
>>
>> The above sentence was a little off from what I meant.
>> "It is most definitely correct in UK English to treat as
>> plural a subject that would be treated as singular by an
>> American".
>>
>>>>So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
>>>>at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
>>>>at Wembley".

That's an easy one. Dire Straits is ONE (single) rock group. So,
"is" is appropriate. Dire Straits *is* performing. However, the
musicians of Dire Straits *are* performing.

>>
>>>To use the plural when referring to a single entity might be in
>>>"common" usage, but that doesn't make it correct.
>>
>> Okay, but if the usage gets past the editors of the Times
>> and the Guardian maybe it's pretty well accepted.
>>
>>>But your original sentence was: "I trust the evidence-based medicine
>>>project at Oxford, who say it may make a significant (but small)
>>>difference ... "
>>
>>>So, from the way it was constructed, the "who say it may make ..."
>>>actually refers to the report, not the university. And the report is
>>>definitely singular and "that says it makes" is entirely appropriate,
>>>whereas "who say it make" isn't.
>>
>> The suject is "project", which is a collection of people.
>> This is what leads to "who say...".

"Project" is an "it" not a they or who.

>>
>>>Nor is a university, company, team, rock group or club a "who" whether
>>>you consider the entity singular or plural.
>>
>>>Otherwise you'd have a cricket club "who took the trophy," or a
>>>cricket team "who won the series."
>>
>> Which is exactly what you will hear or read.
>>
>>>The correct usage would be a
>>>cricket club "that" or a cricket team "that' (singular) ...

Yes!

>>>or "which" if you insist on using the plural.

Ouch! That's not right.

>>
>> A little googling reveals the phrase "Chelsea, who defeated" has
>> 20 times more hits than "Chelsea, which defeated" and 200
>> times more hits than "Chelsea, that defeated".

Is Chelsea a place or a person?

>>
>>>Then again, this is Usenet and correct English usage is hardly a
>>>priority, let alone mandatory. I was just being picky ;-)b
>>
>> At this point I can't agree that the usage is British vernacular
>> as opposed to correct British English, but I'm open to hearing
>> more of a case for the former, if you or anyone can supply
>> more data.
>>
> WTF is wrong with you people? Hear that ticking? That's your life running
>out.

What? You're not enamored with the content of this thread??? TSK.




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

Mae West

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:34:23 -0500, "cyberpurrs" >
wrote:

>I dislike "Amanda" so intensely, just the way she types disgusts me. Then
>there is what she actually says.

I took care of that. She's in my KF now, so no problemo anymore.

End of story.



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

Mae West

sf > wrote:

>>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message

>>>>>So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
>>>>>at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
>>>>>at Wembley".

>That's an easy one. Dire Straits is ONE (single) rock group. So,
>"is" is appropriate. Dire Straits *is* performing.

That would be the American usage, yes.

>>>>"I trust the evidence-based medicine
>>>>project at Oxford, who say it may make a significant (but small)
>>>>difference ... "

>>> The subject is "project", which is a collection of people.
>>> This is what leads to "who say...".

>"Project" is an "it" not a they or who.

I bet they think of themselves as a they.

Another example, in the U.S. you'd say, "Bank of America
is in merger talks..." but in the U.K. you'd say "Barclays are
in merger talks...", as in the following:

http://www.prlog.org/10174314-atlas-...ger-talks.html

If it can be construed as a collection of people, it's likely
to be a plural subject in British usage. I do not know the exceptions
or limitations on this but it's extremely common and I have
seen no evidence that the more American usage would be
considered correct in the U.K. And, I'm seeing some evidence
of drift-over of the U.K. usage to the U.S.

>Is Chelsea a place or a person?

It's a football club, therefore a group of people, in this
context.

Steve

On Mar 2, 6:57*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> > wrote:
>
> > >I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
> > >it?
>
> > You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. *Go to a dietician. *They get PAID
> > for dealing with people like you. *(Sorry to all the dieticians who
> > may be affected if she follows through)
>
> > Carol
>
> Yeah. I was trying to help her and she got all bitchy on me.
> That's the last time I'll try for sure!

I know you were trying. And what I saw was not bitching. I just wanted
to get to the point. I just don't have time to be elaborate all the
time every time someone asks something or suggesting instead of
sticking to the question I posted.
> --
> Peace! Om
>
> I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama