In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 May 2009 17:03:53 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:46:43 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>We bought a Keurig a few months ago. Makes one brewed cup at a time.
> >>The K-cups are pricey, so we mostly use the reusable, fillable cup
> >>that comes with it. I cannot abide coffee that's been sitting on a
> >>warmer for any length of time. I bought one for the office, too, as we
> >>don't have running water in the suite, although we do have big jugs of
> >>bottled water. Hauling a coffee pot (and periodically its basket) down
> >>to the rest room just grosses me out, so it's a good choice for the
> >>office.
> >
> > My workplace has decent coffee. You see the beans in a dispenser at
> > the top of the unit and every cup is made with freshly ground beans.
> > It's a poor man's coffee bar because you can get lattes, espressos,
> > cappuccinos and various coffee drinks like mochaccino for only $2 a
> > (smallish) cup. I have a big mug that not only fits well in the
> > dispensing compartment, it hold two full shots of coffee nicely. My
> > favorite mixture is one each of mochaccino and latte.
>
> so, how many people here use a french press? am i correct in thinking
> there are no paper filters involved? are they difficult to keep clean?
>
> your pal,
> blake

I have one and used to use it a LOT before I gave up coffee.

There are no filters involved and it's VERY easy to clean.
I really do like it.

I now occasionally use it for making fresh brewed iced tea. <g>
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> so, how many people here use a french press?

I do.

> am i correct in thinking
> there are no paper filters involved?

No, there's a mesh filter, usually metal.

> are they difficult to keep clean?

Not at all.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

blake murphy wrote:

> so, how many people here use a french press? am i correct in thinking
> there are no paper filters involved? are they difficult to keep clean?


I have two different sizes. One of them makes 6-8 cups and the other
makes enough or two small cups or one good sized mug. They aren't hard
to clean. I just wait until it had cooled off and then I fill it will
cold water, swill it around and toss it into the garden or on the lawn
because it is good compost. If the lawn is covered in snow I pour it
into a sieve,let the water run out and then tap the sieve out into the
compost pail.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> so, how many people here use a french press? am i correct in thinking
> there are no paper filters involved? are they difficult to keep clean?

I used to have one. They are a fast way to make
good coffee. There will usually be a little
sediment at the bottom of the cup, but that's
okay.

I no longer use it because I broke the glass,
but even if I hadn't, I would avoid it. Coffee
contains the diterpenes cafestol and kahweol, which
raise LDL (bad cholesterol), but paper filters
absorb nearly all of these diterpenes.

Here's a link to an article in the British Medical
Journal on the subject:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7069/1362

I believe the term "cafetiere coffee" means the
same thing as French press.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:39:40 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 May 2009 17:03:53 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:46:43 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>We bought a Keurig a few months ago. Makes one brewed cup at a time.
>>>The K-cups are pricey, so we mostly use the reusable, fillable cup
>>>that comes with it. I cannot abide coffee that's been sitting on a
>>>warmer for any length of time. I bought one for the office, too, as we
>>>don't have running water in the suite, although we do have big jugs of
>>>bottled water. Hauling a coffee pot (and periodically its basket) down
>>>to the rest room just grosses me out, so it's a good choice for the
>>>office.
>>
>> My workplace has decent coffee. You see the beans in a dispenser at
>> the top of the unit and every cup is made with freshly ground beans.
>> It's a poor man's coffee bar because you can get lattes, espressos,
>> cappuccinos and various coffee drinks like mochaccino for only $2 a
>> (smallish) cup. I have a big mug that not only fits well in the
>> dispensing compartment, it hold two full shots of coffee nicely. My
>> favorite mixture is one each of mochaccino and latte.
>
>so, how many people here use a french press? am i correct in thinking
>there are no paper filters involved? are they difficult to keep clean?
>
>your pal,
>blake

Some have paper filters ( I'd avoid them), mine has a fine mesh
screen....very easy to clean

On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:36:01 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> so, how many people here use a french press? am i correct in thinking
>> there are no paper filters involved? are they difficult to keep clean?
>
>I used to have one. They are a fast way to make
>good coffee. There will usually be a little
>sediment at the bottom of the cup, but that's
>okay.
>
>I no longer use it because I broke the glass,
>but even if I hadn't, I would avoid it. Coffee
>contains the diterpenes cafestol and kahweol, which
>raise LDL (bad cholesterol), but paper filters
>absorb nearly all of these diterpenes.

That's bullshit, coffee is actually good for you, I'll find the
actually study and post the link

>
>Here's a link to an article in the British Medical
>Journal on the subject:
>
>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7069/1362
>
>I believe the term "cafetiere coffee" means the
>same thing as French press.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:39:40 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 May 2009 17:03:53 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:46:43 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>We bought a Keurig a few months ago. Makes one brewed cup at a time.
>>>The K-cups are pricey, so we mostly use the reusable, fillable cup
>>>that comes with it. I cannot abide coffee that's been sitting on a
>>>warmer for any length of time. I bought one for the office, too, as we
>>>don't have running water in the suite, although we do have big jugs of
>>>bottled water. Hauling a coffee pot (and periodically its basket) down
>>>to the rest room just grosses me out, so it's a good choice for the
>>>office.
>>
>> My workplace has decent coffee. You see the beans in a dispenser at
>> the top of the unit and every cup is made with freshly ground beans.
>> It's a poor man's coffee bar because you can get lattes, espressos,
>> cappuccinos and various coffee drinks like mochaccino for only $2 a
>> (smallish) cup. I have a big mug that not only fits well in the
>> dispensing compartment, it hold two full shots of coffee nicely. My
>> favorite mixture is one each of mochaccino and latte.
>
>so, how many people here use a french press? am i correct in thinking
>there are no paper filters involved? are they difficult to keep clean?
>
I have a french press. Not impressed enough by the results to haul it
out to make my daily coffee.

Oh, I was wrong about that coffee machine at work. It's a dollar a
cup. I pay $2 total to fill my big mug, not $4.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:36:01 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>I no longer use it because I broke the glass,
>but even if I hadn't, I would avoid it. Coffee
>contains the diterpenes cafestol and kahweol, which
>raise LDL (bad cholesterol), but paper filters
>absorb nearly all of these diterpenes.

HUH! Interesting! I thought the paper filters just absorbed some
acid, tannin - bitterness... whatever it's called.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:55:44 -0500, wrote:

>coffee is actually good for you, I'll find the
>actually study and post the link

You can find a study that will prove just about any theory, no
matter how odd the premise.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:01:31 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:55:44 -0500, wrote:
>
>>coffee is actually good for you, I'll find the
>>actually study and post the link
>
> You can find a study that will prove just about any theory, no
>matter how odd the premise.

Actually aI found not just the one I posted to the stroke network, but
a few more as well. They can't all be wrong.

Coffee Health Risks: For the moderate drinker, coffee is safe says
Harvard Women’s Health Watch
https://www.health.harvard.edu/press...ee_health_risk


Evidence suggests that consuming coffee may protect women from stroke
http://www.worldhealth.net/news/new_..._consuming_cof

Coffee: The New Health Food?
http://men.webmd.com/features/coffee-new-health-food


Study finds coffee has benefits for men with Lou Gehrig’s disease
http://health.blog.yorku.ca/2009/04/...hrigs-disease/



Study: Drinking Coffee Has Health Benefits
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1074559


Coffee as a Health Drink? Studies Find Some Benefits
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/he...on/15coff.html

Coffee and health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_and_health

On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:53:26 -0500, wrote:

> On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:39:40 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>>
>>so, how many people here use a french press? am i correct in thinking
>>there are no paper filters involved? are they difficult to keep clean?
>>
>>your pal,
>>blake
>
> Some have paper filters ( I'd avoid them), mine has a fine mesh
> screen....very easy to clean

o.k. thank you and dave, om, miche and mark for your replies. i looked at
the bonjour model at the hardware store the other day, but it was hard to
tell just looking at the box.

your pal,
blake

wrote:
>
> That's bullshit, coffee is actually good for you, I'll find the
> actually study and post the link

The link I posted was to an actual clinical study
in which the cholesterol-raising effect of drinking
unfiltered coffee were shown. If you have evidence
which directly contradicts that study, let's see it.
Otherwise, you're diagnosis of "bullshit" is not
based on any facts.

Wht you, in your profound ignorance, don't realize
is a substance may have both positive and negative
effects. For example, egg yolks are one of the
richest sources of natural vitamin B-12, but they
are also a rich source of cholesterol.

While coffee has other effects which are healthful,
coffee which has not passed through a paper filter
has a bad effect on cholesterol. That's not a
theoretical result -- it was measured in people.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:54:01 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> That's bullshit, coffee is actually good for you, I'll find the
>> actually study and post the link
>
>The link I posted was to an actual clinical study
>in which the cholesterol-raising effect of drinking
>unfiltered coffee were shown. If you have evidence
>which directly contradicts that study, let's see it.
>Otherwise, you're diagnosis of "bullshit" is not
>based on any facts.
>
>Wht you, in your profound ignorance, don't realize
>is a substance may have both positive and negative
>effects. For example, egg yolks are one of the
>richest sources of natural vitamin B-12, but they
>are also a rich source of cholesterol.
>
>While coffee has other effects which are healthful,
>coffee which has not passed through a paper filter
>has a bad effect on cholesterol. That's not a
>theoretical result -- it was measured in people.


I posted three studies ( did you even bother to read them), the other
were stories. The studies were from places like Harvard Medical
school, World Health, and York University, the stories just the New
York Times, ABC News, and WebMD, you provided one.
Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.

wrote:
>
> I posted three studies ( did you even bother to read them), the other
> were stories. The studies were from places like Harvard Medical
> school, World Health, and York University, the stories just the New
> York Times, ABC News, and WebMD, you provided one.
> Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
> unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.

You didn't post any studies. You posted links to a press release
and some popular articles, not to any primary sources. Not one
addresses the safety question raised by the clinical study paper
I linked to. You can't reliably say coffee is safe if you only
consider the positive effects and ignore the negative effects.
You have to balance the risk vs. the benefit, and nothing you
linked to takes the cholesterol-raising risk into account in
determining the overall effect onn health.

You could post a hundred irrelevant press releases and
popular articles, and that would not discredit the study
published in the British Medical Journal one bit. There's
a huge difference between a popular article and a peer-reviewed
scientific paper. Quality is more important than quantity.

Virtually all French press and espresso coffee is
not filtered through paper filters. Without that,
the cholesterol risk is present.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:06:40 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> I posted three studies ( did you even bother to read them), the other
>> were stories. The studies were from places like Harvard Medical
>> school, World Health, and York University, the stories just the New
>> York Times, ABC News, and WebMD, you provided one.
>> Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
>> unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.
>
>You didn't post any studies. You posted links to a press release
>and some popular articles, not to any primary sources. Not one
>addresses the safety question raised by the clinical study paper
>I linked to. You can't reliably say coffee is safe if you only
>consider the positive effects and ignore the negative effects.
>You have to balance the risk vs. the benefit, and nothing you
>linked to takes the cholesterol-raising risk into account in
>determining the overall effect onn health.
>
>You could post a hundred irrelevant press releases and
>popular articles, and that would not discredit the study
>published in the British Medical Journal one bit. There's
>a huge difference between a popular article and a peer-reviewed
>scientific paper. Quality is more important than quantity.
>
>Virtually all French press and espresso coffee is
>not filtered through paper filters. Without that,
>the cholesterol risk is present.

OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
actually it's got some real beneficial properties.

The American Anti Aging Association representing 22,000 physicians in
105 countries posted the Harvard study.

The Web MD thought it was worth mentioning as well.

After analyzing data on 126,000 people for as long as 18 years,
Harvard researchers calculate that compared with not partaking in
America's favorite morning drink, downing one to three cups of
effeminates coffee daily can reduce diabetes risk by single digits.
But having six cups or more each day slashed men's risk by 54% and
women's by 30% over java avoiders.

Then there were the studies by the American Medical Association, you
do know who they are right? They think moderate coffee drinking to be
acceptable.

The New York Times thought it news worthy enough to put in their
paper as a feature, you know who they are right?.

I wasn't trying to discredit the study published in the British
Medical Journal, but there's overwhelming data to the contrary, so
who's studys is correct?

On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:21:29 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:16:20 -0700, Mack A. Damia
>>
>>> Don't bogey that joint, and pass the munchies.
>>
>> that's bogart, and no munchies for youse
>
> Bogey is the verb, bogart is the noun.

Swap that around.

Whatever.

-sw

wrote:
>
> OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
> study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
> actually it's got some real beneficial properties.

According to a press release.

> The American Anti Aging Association representing 22,000 physicians in
> 105 countries posted the Harvard study.

They are not a reputable organization. Their website advertises
Caracol cream, if you know what that is. (Quack medicine
made from snails.)

http://americanantiagingspotlight.com/sitemap.html

If that's the best support you can find, it just shows
the poverty of evidence you've got.

> The Web MD thought it was worth mentioning as well.
>
> After analyzing data on 126,000 people for as long as 18 years,
> Harvard researchers calculate that compared with not partaking in
> America's favorite morning drink, downing one to three cups of
> effeminates coffee daily can reduce diabetes risk by single digits.
> But having six cups or more each day slashed men's risk by 54% and
> women's by 30% over java avoiders.

If you only look at diabetes risk and ignore cholesterol risk,
then you may conclude that coffee is good. That is a lot
different from analyzing overall risk. When the negative
effects of coffee are ignored, of course it would look good.
That's true of anything, if you ignore the negative effects.
It's true of tobacco, for example.

> Then there were the studies by the American Medical Association, you
> do know who they are right? They think moderate coffee drinking to be
> acceptable.

Yes, I know who the AMA is. They are a professional
organization for doctors. They do not conduct research
studies. They publish studies in their journal, but
there's no such thing as "studies by the American
Medical Association" on the health effects of coffee.

> The New York Times thought it news worthy enough to put in their
> paper as a feature, you know who they are right?.

Yes, they are a newspaper. They also do not conduct
research studies. One may as well cite an article
in _Reader's_Digest_.

> I wasn't trying to discredit the study published in the British
> Medical Journal, but there's overwhelming data to the contrary, so
> who's studys is correct?

There is not "overwhelming data to the contrary".
That is your ignorant delusion because you lack
the ability to tell the difference between good
data and bad. You don't know the difference between
a study and an article in the popular press.
You are a fool.

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:21:29 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:16:20 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> >>
> >>> Don't bogey that joint, and pass the munchies.
> >>
> >> that's bogart, and no munchies for youse
> >
> > Bogey is the verb, bogart is the noun.
>
> Swap that around.
>
> Whatever.
>
> -sw

Agreed. <g> If he was stoned when he posted that, I'm jealous!
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

On Sun, 17 May 2009 01:17:42 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
>> study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
>> actually it's got some real beneficial properties.
>
>According to a press release.

From Harvard themselves

>You don't know the difference between
>a study and an article in the popular press.

Seems the California sun has baked your brain

wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 01:17:42 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
> >> study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
> >> actually it's got some real beneficial properties.
> >
> >According to a press release.
>
> From Harvard themselves
>
> >You don't know the difference between
> >a study and an article in the popular press.
>
> Seems the California sun has baked your brain

I provided a link to an original primary source,
a clinical study published in a peer-reviewed
medical journal. On no basis, you called that
"bullshit".

You provided links to a press release and some
articles in the popular press, absolutely none
of which addressed the cholesterol-raising risk
described in the article I linked to. And you
had the audacity to claim because you provided
several links to my one, that somehow outweighed
my link. And you called that "overwhelming
evidence" despite the fact that I had cited
an actual clinical study published in one
of the most reputable medical journals and
you only cited secondary sources which did not
at all take into account adverse health effects
caused by coffee.

You don't know the difference between solid, reliable
data from the refereed scientific literature -- data
from a clinical study -- and articles written by
press agents and professional hack writers. And
when the deficits in your data are exposed, you
respond with more insults. That is the basis for
accurately identifying you as a fool.

Moreover, you seem to be unaware that you are
a fool. That cinches the diagnosis of "fool",
because fools are never aware that they are fools.
If you were aware, that would move you to the next
category above fool, but clearly you're not there
yet.

On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:10:09 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:
< blah, blah, blah>

<snip>

Harvard Medical schools 18 year study seems on par with your link, do
I really care if you think not, not really.

wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:10:09 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
> < blah, blah, blah>
>
> <snip>
>
> Harvard Medical schools 18 year study seems on par with your link, do
> I really care if you think not, not really.

And even though nothing in that press release contradicts
the documented cholesterol-raising effects of unfiltered coffee,
you still call the study published in the British Medical
Journal "bullshit". That just confirms the accuracy of
the diagnosis of "fool".

I'd really like to get "fool" added as a category in
the DSM, but unless there was a therapy or a drug to
deal with it, I'm out of luck. If somebody were to
invent a drug, I'd have Big Pharma on my side, and it
would be a slam-dunk to get it in the next release.
Of course, it would have to be given another name,
otherwise patients would resist the diagnosis and
therapy. Something like "Critical Thinking Deficit
Disorder" or something else that would not be obvious
to fools.

On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:57:10 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:10:09 -0700, Mark Thorson >
>> wrote:
>> < blah, blah, blah>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Harvard Medical schools 18 year study seems on par with your link, do
>> I really care if you think not, not really.
>
>And even though nothing in that press release contradicts
>the documented cholesterol-raising effects of unfiltered coffee,
>you still call the study published in the British Medical
>Journal "bullshit". That just confirms the accuracy of
>the diagnosis of "fool".


What the **** do you really care about some Brit study, or is it that
you just want someone to argue with? Have a stiff drink, stay out of
the sun, and please see your physician on monday to re-new your
prescription for valium.

iffu wrote:

> Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
> unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.

Mark's post was prompted by several posts regarding French press coffee.
Coffee made using that method is not filtered through paper; it's filtered
through a fine metal mesh.

Try to pay attention, will you?

Bob

iffu wrote:

> OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
> study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
> actually it's got some real beneficial properties.
>
> The American Anti Aging Association representing 22,000 physicians in
> 105 countries posted the Harvard study.
>
> The Web MD thought it was worth mentioning as well.
>
> After analyzing data on 126,000 people for as long as 18 years,
> Harvard researchers calculate that compared with not partaking in
> America's favorite morning drink, downing one to three cups of
> effeminates coffee daily can reduce diabetes risk by single digits.
> But having six cups or more each day slashed men's risk by 54% and
> women's by 30% over java avoiders.
>
> Then there were the studies by the American Medical Association, you
> do know who they are right? They think moderate coffee drinking to be
> acceptable.
>
> The New York Times thought it news worthy enough to put in their
> paper as a feature, you know who they are right?.
>
> I wasn't trying to discredit the study published in the British
> Medical Journal, but there's overwhelming data to the contrary, so
> who's studys is correct?


Did *ANY* of those sources focus exclusively on French press coffee? If not,
why are you dragging filtered coffee into the discussion? Mark was only
discussing danger from unfiltered coffee, which makes all your cites
irrelevant.

I see that logic isn't your strong point. (Neither is English, but that's
also beside the point.)

Bob

On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:27:52 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>iffu wrote:
>
>> Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
>> unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.
>
>Mark's post was prompted by several posts regarding French press coffee.
>Coffee made using that method is not filtered through paper; it's filtered
>through a fine metal mesh.
>
>Try to pay attention, will you?
>
>Bob
>
>

BOB BOB BOB try to keep up, if you've read the thread from the start
you'd see that I replied about that. But he said he'd never drank
filtered coffee, now unless he only drinks coffee he makes at home and
not resturants, fast food joints, or the mother in laws he's not being
completely honest.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:38:35 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>iffu wrote:
>
>> OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
>> study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
>> actually it's got some real beneficial properties.
>>
>> The American Anti Aging Association representing 22,000 physicians in
>> 105 countries posted the Harvard study.
>>
>> The Web MD thought it was worth mentioning as well.
>>
>> After analyzing data on 126,000 people for as long as 18 years,
>> Harvard researchers calculate that compared with not partaking in
>> America's favorite morning drink, downing one to three cups of
>> effeminates coffee daily can reduce diabetes risk by single digits.
>> But having six cups or more each day slashed men's risk by 54% and
>> women's by 30% over java avoiders.
>>
>> Then there were the studies by the American Medical Association, you
>> do know who they are right? They think moderate coffee drinking to be
>> acceptable.
>>
>> The New York Times thought it news worthy enough to put in their
>> paper as a feature, you know who they are right?.
>>
>> I wasn't trying to discredit the study published in the British
>> Medical Journal, but there's overwhelming data to the contrary, so
>> who's studys is correct?
>
>
>Did *ANY* of those sources focus exclusively on French press coffee? If not,
>why are you dragging filtered coffee into the discussion? Mark was only
>discussing danger from unfiltered coffee, which makes all your cites
>irrelevant.
>
>I see that logic isn't your strong point. (Neither is English, but that's
>also beside the point.)
>
>Bob
>
>

He's still never answered where he drinks unfiltered coffee, in the
third world country perhaps?

iffu wrote:
>
> Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
> unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.
>
>
Mostly I use one of those gold mesh filters, coffee tastes better and allows
for using a little less coffee. Restaurant don't use them because they
don't have the facility for proper cleaning nor are they willing to take the
time.

http://gourmet-coffee-zone.com/coffee-filter.html

"Boob Twilly" wrote:
> iffu wrote:
>
>> OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
>> study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
>> actually it's got some real beneficial properties.
>>
>> The American Anti Aging Association representing 22,000 physicians in
>> 105 countries posted the Harvard study.
>>
>> The Web MD thought it was worth mentioning as well.
>>
>> After analyzing data on 126,000 people for as long as 18 years,
>> Harvard researchers calculate that compared with not partaking in
>> America's favorite morning drink, downing one to three cups of
>> effeminates coffee daily can reduce diabetes risk by single digits.
>> But having six cups or more each day slashed men's risk by 54% and
>> women's by 30% over java avoiders.
>>
>> Then there were the studies by the American Medical Association, you
>> do know who they are right? They think moderate coffee drinking to be
>> acceptable.
>>
>> The New York Times thought it news worthy enough to put in their
>> paper as a feature, you know who they are right?.
>>
>> I wasn't trying to discredit the study published in the British
>> Medical Journal, but there's overwhelming data to the contrary, so
>> who's studys is correct?
>
>
> Did *ANY* of those sources focus exclusively on French press coffee? If
> not,
> why are you dragging filtered coffee into the discussion? Mark was only
> discussing danger from unfiltered coffee, which makes all your cites
> irrelevant.
>
> I see that logic isn't your strong point. (Neither is English, but that's
> also beside the point.)
>
>
What a riot, the superfluous/decorative parenthesis does not repair your
improperly constructed sentence, Twilly the English butcher.

French press coffee is indeed filtered, just uses a metal mesh filter is
all... and they do make secondary fine mesh plastic sediment filters that
many use which enables use of a finer grind coffee.

Now STFU, Twilly, you ignoranus babboon-butt faced ugli bastid.

http://www.sweetmarias.com/prod.frenchpress.php

iffu wrote:

> He's still never answered where he drinks unfiltered coffee, in the
> third world country perhaps?

Anybody who drinks French press coffee is drinking unfiltered coffee. I
thought Mark made it pretty clear that he DOESN'T drink unfiltered coffee. I
don't know why you continue to ask where he drinks it.

Bob

Sheldon was stupid:

> French press coffee is indeed filtered, just uses a metal mesh filter is
> all... and they do make secondary fine mesh plastic sediment filters that
> many use which enables use of a finer grind coffee.

Do you HAVE to trumpet your inability to follow a conversation to all of
Usenet? The discussion was about the hazards of drinking coffee which has
not been filtered through PAPER. French press coffee has not been filtered
through PAPER.

Let that sink in... I know it will take several hours of spluttering and
frothing, during which you will probably molest your cats and then post
several other stupid diatribes here, but eventually you will realize that
you are wrong and stupid, and that your stupidity has been exposed once
again.

Bob

brooklyn1 wrote:
> "Boob Twilly" wrote:
>> iffu wrote:
>>
>>> OK lets look at it this way, Harvard Medical school did a 18 year
>>> study, found moderate coffee drinking to be no risk to our health,
>>> actually it's got some real beneficial properties.
>>>
>>> The American Anti Aging Association representing 22,000 physicians in
>>> 105 countries posted the Harvard study.
>>>
>>> The Web MD thought it was worth mentioning as well.
>>>
>>> After analyzing data on 126,000 people for as long as 18 years,
>>> Harvard researchers calculate that compared with not partaking in
>>> America's favorite morning drink, downing one to three cups of
>>> effeminates coffee daily can reduce diabetes risk by single digits.
>>> But having six cups or more each day slashed men's risk by 54% and
>>> women's by 30% over java avoiders.
>>>
>>> Then there were the studies by the American Medical Association, you
>>> do know who they are right? They think moderate coffee drinking to be
>>> acceptable.
>>>
>>> The New York Times thought it news worthy enough to put in their
>>> paper as a feature, you know who they are right?.
>>>
>>> I wasn't trying to discredit the study published in the British
>>> Medical Journal, but there's overwhelming data to the contrary, so
>>> who's studys is correct?
>>
>> Did *ANY* of those sources focus exclusively on French press coffee? If
>> not,
>> why are you dragging filtered coffee into the discussion? Mark was only
>> discussing danger from unfiltered coffee, which makes all your cites
>> irrelevant.
>>
>> I see that logic isn't your strong point. (Neither is English, but that's
>> also beside the point.)
>>
>>
> What a riot, the superfluous/decorative parenthesis does not repair your
> improperly constructed sentence, Twilly the English butcher.
>
> French press coffee is indeed filtered, just uses a metal mesh filter is
> all... and they do make secondary fine mesh plastic sediment filters that
> many use which enables use of a finer grind coffee.
>
> Now STFU, Twilly, you ignoranus babboon-butt faced ugli bastid.
>
> http://www.sweetmarias.com/prod.frenchpress.php
>
>
>
>
You do realize that the discussion was about the use of *paper* filters?

And again you confirm what you are really are about with the juvenile
school yard name calling.

On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:20:03 GMT, "brooklyn1"
> wrote:

> iffu wrote:
>>
>> Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
>> unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.
>>
>>
>Mostly I use one of those gold mesh filters, coffee tastes better and allows
>for using a little less coffee. Restaurant don't use them because they
>don't have the facility for proper cleaning nor are they willing to take the
>time.
>
>http://gourmet-coffee-zone.com/coffee-filter.html


Actually it would not be cost efficient nor practical for most, can
you imagine a McDonalds or Tim Horton Donuts at 7AM cleaning a mesh
filter in one of their machines with hundreds of cups of joe going out
the door every couple of minutes.

Gourmet coffee shops are completely different, you pay for the extra
service.

iffu wrote:

> Actually it would not be cost efficient nor practical for most, can
> you imagine a McDonalds or Tim Horton Donuts at 7AM cleaning a mesh
> filter in one of their machines with hundreds of cups of joe going out
> the door every couple of minutes.

Sonic/ultrasonic cleaners could probably do the job in seconds. Even if it
takes as long as five minutes, you could just have spare mesh filters on
hand to use while the others are being cleaned.

At any rate, "hundreds" over a span of a couple minutes is a gross
exaggeration, unless you're talking about an entire chain rather than an
individual outlet.

Bob

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:20:03 GMT, "brooklyn1"
> > wrote:
>
>> iffu wrote:
>>>
>>> Just where do you drink coffee that's not been filtered? I use the
>>> unbleached filters, as do a fair number of resturants I frequent.
>>>
>>>
>>Mostly I use one of those gold mesh filters, coffee tastes better and
>>allows
>>for using a little less coffee. Restaurant don't use them because they
>>don't have the facility for proper cleaning nor are they willing to take
>>the
>>time.
>>
>>http://gourmet-coffee-zone.com/coffee-filter.html
>
>
> Actually it would not be cost efficient n/or practical for most
> [restaurants].

Is that an echo? That's what I said. See, there is why there are so many
stupid tirades, folks can't write properly... yours is not a properly
constructed sentence [so I fixed it]. The same kind of imbeciles write
"filter" when they mean *paper* filter because they are too lazy (actually
ignorant) to write *paper* filter... if that's what you mean then write what
you mean EACH TIME... stupid lazy cocky doody ****heads... imagine, after
THEY **** up THEY want to play lawyer. Whenever a post is snipped there
should ALWAYS be enough *pertinent* information retained so that someone can
know exactly what is being discussed at any point in the thread.... these
are not private/playground conversations.

Another reason restaurants don't use the gold mesh filters is they'd need to
stock many so they can clean them all at once and of course the employees
would steal them... the employees already steal the little nitrogen packed
coffee pouches... gals start work with B cups and go home with D cups.

On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:52:05 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>iffu wrote:
>
>> Actually it would not be cost efficient nor practical for most, can
>> you imagine a McDonalds or Tim Horton Donuts at 7AM cleaning a mesh
>> filter in one of their machines with hundreds of cups of joe going out
>> the door every couple of minutes.
>
>Sonic/ultrasonic cleaners could probably do the job in seconds. Even if it
>takes as long as five minutes, you could just have spare mesh filters on
>hand to use while the others are being cleaned.
>
>At any rate, "hundreds" over a span of a couple minutes is a gross
>exaggeration, unless you're talking about an entire chain rather than an
>individual outlet.
>
>Bob
>
>

You've obviously never seen a Tim Hortons serving over the course of a
day.

iffu wrote:

>>> Actually it would not be cost efficient nor practical for most, can
>>> you imagine a McDonalds or Tim Horton Donuts at 7AM cleaning a mesh
>>> filter in one of their machines with hundreds of cups of joe going out
>>> the door every couple of minutes.
>>
>> Sonic/ultrasonic cleaners could probably do the job in seconds. Even if
>> it takes as long as five minutes, you could just have spare mesh filters
>> on hand to use while the others are being cleaned.
>>
>> At any rate, "hundreds" over a span of a couple minutes is a gross
>> exaggeration, unless you're talking about an entire chain rather than an
>> individual outlet.
>
> You've obviously never seen a Tim Hortons serving over the course of a
> day.


You didn't say "the course of a day." You said "every couple of minutes."
Even at their busiest, which TWO MINUTES would see TWO HUNDRED cups of
coffee going out the door?

Just admit that you exaggerated. It's obvious.

Bob

wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:36:24 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:55:46 -0500, wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:31:01 -0400, Bob Muncie >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>>>> Usually up before 6, and I start my day with a mug of tea - British
>>>>> Blend - very strong, and I drink my tea with milk and sugar.
>>>>>
>>>>> After that, it's usually decaffinated coffee for the rest of the
>>>>> morning, although I may have an occasional cup of high-test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually drink freeze dried. Sometimes, I use regular with the coffee
>>>>> maker.
>>>>
>>>> It's been over two and a half decades... but I remember well the best
>>>> way to wake up ;-)
>>> LOL
>>> (evil grin)
>> Married twice, but I've never really enjoyed actually *sleeping* with
>> anybody. I want the bed to myself! I want my own space, too.
>>
>> Always thought having separate bedrooms was a cool idea. And when
>> you're in that special mood, leave your underpants hanging on the door
>> knob or sumpin'
>
>
> Wouldn't want to do that in a barrack block would you?

Having spent ten years in the military under many different conditions
as I traveled and had dealings with many different organizations both
military , Federal, and other countries we aligned with at the time. I
could probably scare you some of the scenes that I "could not forget
what I saw" scenarios (don't ask). But I would have to say that you
called into my mind a few low class folks I have met during those times.

I'm more of a "don't discuss the details or names" kind of guy, but
being someone who's memories are strongest where smells and visuals are
concerned, somethings I wish I could forget. Then I remember the things
I'd never want to forget. Hopefully it's an even slate at the end of my
travels.

But back to the group, I always appreciated the opportunity to try
different local cuisines short of organ type stuff, or something bug
like. ;-) Aside from the landscape, you can be certain that the food and
the people are what your best memories will be of.

And yes, it wasn't my reply, but I thought I'd add a positive note
before it ended.

I'm usually a lurker here but you guys are nuts. Arguing about coffee.

Here is the deal...French press makers allow the oil of the beans to
remain compared to a paper filter that absorbs the oils. How healthy
is the additional oil? I don't really know. The way I treat my body,
my coffee is not going to matter at all.

My coffee is 8 o'clock whole bean. I'll add 20% Starbucks French Roast
when I'm in the mood for a bolder cup. I use teabag filters for my
daily coffee at work. French press at home. I have a Bodum glass 4
cup, a Nissan thermal and a Bodum travel press. When camping, a nice
percolater does the trick.

As a side note, BK has about 40mg of caffiene, DD about 50 and SB a
whopping 130. Time for a fresh bag.

Thomas

Thomas wrote:
> I'm usually a lurker here but you guys are nuts. Arguing about
> coffee.
>
> Here is the deal...French press makers allow the oil of the beans to
> remain compared to a paper filter that absorbs the oils. How healthy
> is the additional oil? I don't really know. The way I treat my body,
> my coffee is not going to matter at all.
>
> My coffee is 8 o'clock whole bean. I'll add 20% Starbucks French
> Roast
> when I'm in the mood for a bolder cup. I use teabag filters for my
> daily coffee at work. French press at home. I have a Bodum glass 4
> cup, a Nissan thermal and a Bodum travel press. When camping, a nice
> percolater does the trick.
>
> As a side note, BK has about 40mg of caffiene, DD about 50 and SB a
> whopping 130. Time for a fresh bag.
>
> Thomas

I'm happy with Dunkin' Donuts decaffeinated coffee and my 8-cup
French press, thank you. Gives me two large mugs, then I'm ready to
go.

Dora