brooklyn1 wrote:

> The idiot legislator was interviewed on TV and he's a certifiable
> pinhead.... his father died of a coronary a couple three months ago so
> he went on a witch hunt for something to blame... he has no
> medical/dietary training whatsoever and all he did is rant utter
> nonsense while spewing spittle and could barely control his wild
> gesticulating... the guy is extremely mentally ill, he needs to be
> institutionalized before he harms himself and/or others. He's one sad
> dude.


He sounds like Carolyn McCarthy.

Bob

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:55:16 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 3/11/2010 3:22 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 12:53 pm, > wrote:
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2010/...d-new-york-sal...
>>>
>>> Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill
>>> introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use
>>> of salt in restaurant cooking.
>>>
>>> "No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any
>>> form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such
>>> restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such
>>> restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129, states in part.
>>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2010/...d-new-york-sal...
>>>
>>> There's more at the article, but I didn't want to go to jail for arranging
>>> your monitor's pixels in a way that would cause Fox News to lose millions
>>> and millions of dollars in revenue.
>>>
>>> Anyway... what do you think? I think even most chain restaurant food
>>> tastes pretty good, like at Chili's, Applebee's, Olive Garden, and I don't
>>> give a shit if you laugh at me for eating in those restaurants. It tastes
>>> good, and that's all I care about. I'd hate to go into a place like
>>> Chili's for their queso dip only to find they had to use cheese that had
>>> no salt it. What would unsalted cheese taste like?
>>>
>>> If the restaurant cannot use salt in any form, that means they can't use
>>> food they buy from places like Sysco, which already has salt included.
>>> What about McDonald's? Their ketchup packets have salt in them. Are all
>>> the McDonald's in New York City going to have to buy unsalted ketchup?
>>> Unsalted hamburger buns?
>>>
>>> The new bill sounds ridiculous to me.
>>>
>>> Damaeus
>>
>> Before voting on the bill, the legislature should eat a meal prepared
>> with
>> no salt, and be aware that's what they're eating.
>
> Amen. The thing these morons fail to grasp is that cooking is an
> interplay of chemical processes--if salt is eliminated then quite a lot
> of processes that depend on it have to be eliminated as well.
>
> But politicians are politicians and they'll likely pass it and then
> wonder why they can't get a decent meal in town anymore.

there's no way in hell this passes. ortiz, the man who submitted it, is a
showboater like the fruitcake who submitted the bill in the south carolina
state legislatu

<http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2010/02/17/bill-would-ban-federal-currency-in-sc/>

pay it no mind.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:37:17 -0800, David Harmon wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:53:29 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
> > wrote,
>>Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill
>>introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use
>>of salt in restaurant cooking.
>
> I assume that this has no real chance of passing, but is merely part of
> a scheme to shake down restaurateurs for campaign donations or some such
> thing.

i don't even think it rises to that level of elegance. the man is
obviously a nutter.

your pal,
blake

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Terry Pulliam Burd > posted:

> "Land of the free." Feh! Nanny State from sea to shining sea, AFICS.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

Yeah, but we have to be careful of HOW we critizice or we'll be labeled
terrorists and waterboarded. Freedom of speech we can still use, but it's
not always wise in these days to say /exactly/ what we think, even though
it really does need to be said.

Damaeus

On 3/14/2010 7:19 AM, Damaeus wrote:
> Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
> Terry Pulliam > posted:
>
>> "Land of the free." Feh! Nanny State from sea to shining sea, AFICS.
>>
>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
> Yeah, but we have to be careful of HOW we critizice or we'll be labeled
> terrorists and waterboarded.

Only if you aren't a citizen.

> Freedom of speech we can still use, but it's
> not always wise in these days to say /exactly/ what we think, even though
> it really does need to be said.
>
> Damaeus

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:

> Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
> Terry Pulliam Burd > posted:
>
> > "Land of the free." Feh! Nanny State from sea to shining sea, AFICS.
> >
> > Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
> Yeah, but we have to be careful of HOW we critizice or we'll be labeled
> terrorists and waterboarded. Freedom of speech we can still use, but it's
> not always wise in these days to say /exactly/ what we think, even though
> it really does need to be said.
>
> Damaeus

This is very true. Many have been visited by the Secret Service due to
some Usenet posts. And I am not kidding. They appear to be pleasant
when they do come, but they are still cops and will do their job.

Om -> who got a visit late last year due to weird phone calls made by
dad... not from usenet posts.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> > Yeah, but we have to be careful of HOW we critizice or we'll be labeled
> > terrorists and waterboarded.
>
> Only if you aren't a citizen.

You wish...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:40:38 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 3/14/2010 7:19 AM, Damaeus wrote:
>> Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
>> Terry Pulliam > posted:
>>
>>> "Land of the free." Feh! Nanny State from sea to shining sea, AFICS.
>>>
>>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>>
>> Yeah, but we have to be careful of HOW we critizice or we'll be labeled
>> terrorists and waterboarded.
>
> Only if you aren't a citizen.

bullshit. jose padilla is a u.s. citizen, but he got the full treatment:

<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN10183324>

....and according to current law, the president can declare *anyone* an
'enemy combatant' and hold them without bringing charges and doing god
knows what to them.

in any case, the citizen/non-citizen crap is a red herring. constitutional
rights are guaranteed to 'persons' in the u.s., not 'citizens.' the
constitution mentions 'citizens' only when talking about voting.

but i wouldn't expect a yo-yo like you to know that.

blake

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Omelet > posted:

> In article >,
> Damaeus > wrote:
>
> > Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
> > Terry Pulliam Burd > posted:
> >
> > > "Land of the free." Feh! Nanny State from sea to shining sea, AFICS.
> > >
> > > Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
> >
> > Yeah, but we have to be careful of HOW we critizice or we'll be labeled
> > terrorists and waterboarded. Freedom of speech we can still use, but it's
> > not always wise in these days to say /exactly/ what we think, even though
> > it really does need to be said.
> >
> > Damaeus
>
> This is very true. Many have been visited by the Secret Service due to
> some Usenet posts. And I am not kidding. They appear to be pleasant
> when they do come, but they are still cops and will do their job.
>
> Om -> who got a visit late last year due to weird phone calls made by
> dad... not from usenet posts.

I'm surprised I haven't been visited. But I'm always careful not to say
anything about a politician which could be said about a citizen, such as,
"Somebody who would do something that stupid ought to be taken out behind
the barn and be shot."

Sure, I don't think people really mean things like that when they say
them, but the Secret Service is an organization I don't perceive as having
a sense of humor when it comes to protecting the lives of the privileged
politicians. Cop killers are treated more harshly than people who just
kill an ordinary citizen, and if you issue public threats against
politicians, you're treated differently than if you've threatened your new
girlfriend's ex-boyfriend.

Well, I certainly don't believe politicians are perfect. They are doing
some really stupid things, and saying really stupid things that make them
look like they must have spent /some/ time in Special Education wing while
they were in school. As I see it, any politician who supports and
continues to support funding for the drug war is a danger to America, and
they continue to stomp all over what it means to be free. When I hear any
politician brag about American freedom, I just roll my eyes and have to
cackle sarcastically, because until I can sit out in the back yard and
smoke a bong without feeling like a spying neighbor is going to turn me in
to the American Gestapo for being a dissident, America, to me, is not free
at all, but a Nazi-esque police state.

It's been said before, you're not paranoid if they really are out to get
you. So it's not marijuana that causes paranoia. They really are after
pot smokers. It's a real fear, not unfounded paranoia.

I can sit here calmly and fantasize. Anytime I see Newt Gingrich up on
the TV screen with his smug, self-satisfied smile as he continues to
support the drug war, I just want to drop a big, fresh, still-warm cow
patty right on top of that white hair of his, and see if that stupid smile
he has is permanently glued on, or if he even has the capability to fathom
that he might be wrong.

The whole political system as it stands now is outdated. The whole system
needs to be reformed. I think information on the internet spreads so
quickly that politicians are unable to pull the wool over our eyes as they
could before the internet became so widely-accessible. Even biblically
speaking, knowledge and information will be increased in the "end times",
and to me, this is exactly what this means. People are too informed to be
considered ignorant by politicians and the media.

It's not necessary for people to storm the CIA building and gun the place
down, but it does end up serving a purpose. It does send a message that
people are kind of getting upset. A few people are going nuts.

Just sitting back and waiting is enough. There are enough lunatics in the
world running around waving their guns at each other that there's no
reason for me to get involved in it. I just sit here, read a little, play
video games a little, watch a little TV, and go back to bed.

Damaeus

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:

> > This is very true. Many have been visited by the Secret Service due to
> > some Usenet posts. And I am not kidding. They appear to be pleasant
> > when they do come, but they are still cops and will do their job.
> >
> > Om -> who got a visit late last year due to weird phone calls made by
> > dad... not from usenet posts.
>
> I'm surprised I haven't been visited. But I'm always careful not to say
> anything about a politician which could be said about a citizen, such as,
> "Somebody who would do something that stupid ought to be taken out behind
> the barn and be shot."

<snipped rest of very valid rant>

The Secret Service only responds to direct threats to the President of
the United States. That is their primary job.

Dad made a "precognitive" phone call about Obama to the CIA. I got a
phone call 3 days later from the SS. Surprisingly, they were courteous
enough to make an actual appt. with us (and they were on time) so I had
a chance to tidy up the living room and make sure that dad had clean
clothes on... Dad is elderly and a bit, um, "eccentric".

Supposedly, Obama is supposed to be assassinated on April 1st. 2012. I'd
been listening to that rant for months. I got a visit from the local
cops too when he called them and told them the same story.

There are challenges associated with caring for an elderly parent, but
dad is half crippled and incapable of even going out any more, so he is
no threat. The Secret Service came to the same conclusion after
interviewing him... He also has severe short term memory loss. I make
sure he eats and takes his meds, and stays clean.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In news:rec.food.cooking, Omelet > posted on Sun, 14
Mar 2010 21:45:22 -0600 the following:

> Dad made a "precognitive" phone call about Obama to the CIA. I got a
> phone call 3 days later from the SS. Surprisingly, they were courteous
> enough to make an actual appt. with us (and they were on time) so I had
> a chance to tidy up the living room and make sure that dad had clean
> clothes on... Dad is elderly and a bit, um, "eccentric".
>
> Supposedly, Obama is supposed to be assassinated on April 1st. 2012. I'd
> been listening to that rant for months. I got a visit from the local
> cops too when he called them and told them the same story.

I wonder if he was of the mind to realize that April 1 is April Fool's
day. Or maybe in his mind, he concluded that April 1 is the perfect date
because people would first assume it must be a joke, being on April 1st.

> There are challenges associated with caring for an elderly parent, but
> dad is half crippled and incapable of even going out any more, so he is
> no threat. The Secret Service came to the same conclusion after
> interviewing him... He also has severe short term memory loss. I make
> sure he eats and takes his meds, and stays clean.

I keep myself under voluntary house arrest most of the time, because right
now, I don't actually enjoy being around people all that much. I see
society as being in a state of change, and to me, it's like watching a
woman give birth...kind of unpleasant, but still it can be interesting to
watch it play out on live television. Yes, there's a difference to me
between watching TV in these three situations:

1. Live TV, being aired as it happens

2. Live TV airing a program that has been recorded

3. TV shows I've recorded on the DVR.

When I watch the shows, I make a note of which situation I'm in when
watching the program. It concerns the idea of how, or if, we are all
connected to each other by a medium. I'm not claiming to know the answer,
but I suspect we are connected to each other, so watching a live program,
I take into account that others are seeing what I'm seeing, at the same
time. I even take into account in my mind the fact that there's a delay
between when it actually happens, and when I see it, both a transmission
delay, and the delay from when the signal comes into my satellite
receiver, is recorded to the hard drive, then played onto the TV screen. I
take into account that some people don't have DVRs, so they see the TV
signal a second or two before I do. Plus there are people seeing it live.
All this creates a "fuzzy wave" of realization for me, of sharing the same
experience others are having. Sometimes when a big idea hits the screen,
I can actually feel the realization hit the minds of the masses. At the
same time, I also consider that just my imagining such a thing happening
can make me feel like it actually is happening, whether it actually is or
not. So...do I feel happening what I think is happening because it really
is happening that way? Or do I feel it just because I expect that it
probably should be that way? How do I know for sure? Therein comes the
experimentation part of the experience of life...figuring out how it all
fits together. Marijuana helps with that, and that's why I think the
relegalization of it will lead to a new "era" of accelerated human
development. That this would be made a crime by today's government is
just a sign of how primitive the thinking on this really is. They still
think marijuana makes people crazy, or they use it as an excuse to keep it
illegal.

Yours was a wild story. Glad it turned out okay.

Damaeus

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, Omelet > posted on Sun, 14
> Mar 2010 21:45:22 -0600 the following:
>
> > Dad made a "precognitive" phone call about Obama to the CIA. I got a
> > phone call 3 days later from the SS. Surprisingly, they were courteous
> > enough to make an actual appt. with us (and they were on time) so I had
> > a chance to tidy up the living room and make sure that dad had clean
> > clothes on... Dad is elderly and a bit, um, "eccentric".
> >
> > Supposedly, Obama is supposed to be assassinated on April 1st. 2012. I'd
> > been listening to that rant for months. I got a visit from the local
> > cops too when he called them and told them the same story.
>
> I wonder if he was of the mind to realize that April 1 is April Fool's
> day. Or maybe in his mind, he concluded that April 1 is the perfect date
> because people would first assume it must be a joke, being on April 1st.

He noted it and considered it to be appropriate.
>
> > There are challenges associated with caring for an elderly parent, but
> > dad is half crippled and incapable of even going out any more, so he is
> > no threat. The Secret Service came to the same conclusion after
> > interviewing him... He also has severe short term memory loss. I make
> > sure he eats and takes his meds, and stays clean.
>
> I keep myself under voluntary house arrest most of the time, because right
> now, I don't actually enjoy being around people all that much. I see
> society as being in a state of change, and to me, it's like watching a
> woman give birth...kind of unpleasant, but still it can be interesting to
> watch it play out on live television. Yes, there's a difference to me
> between watching TV in these three situations:
>
> 1. Live TV, being aired as it happens
>
> 2. Live TV airing a program that has been recorded
>
> 3. TV shows I've recorded on the DVR.
>
> When I watch the shows, I make a note of which situation I'm in when
> watching the program. It concerns the idea of how, or if, we are all
> connected to each other by a medium. I'm not claiming to know the answer,
> but I suspect we are connected to each other, so watching a live program,
> I take into account that others are seeing what I'm seeing, at the same
> time. I even take into account in my mind the fact that there's a delay
> between when it actually happens, and when I see it, both a transmission
> delay, and the delay from when the signal comes into my satellite
> receiver, is recorded to the hard drive, then played onto the TV screen. I
> take into account that some people don't have DVRs, so they see the TV
> signal a second or two before I do. Plus there are people seeing it live.
> All this creates a "fuzzy wave" of realization for me, of sharing the same
> experience others are having. Sometimes when a big idea hits the screen,
> I can actually feel the realization hit the minds of the masses. At the
> same time, I also consider that just my imagining such a thing happening
> can make me feel like it actually is happening, whether it actually is or
> not. So...do I feel happening what I think is happening because it really
> is happening that way? Or do I feel it just because I expect that it
> probably should be that way? How do I know for sure? Therein comes the
> experimentation part of the experience of life...figuring out how it all
> fits together. Marijuana helps with that, and that's why I think the
> relegalization of it will lead to a new "era" of accelerated human
> development. That this would be made a crime by today's government is
> just a sign of how primitive the thinking on this really is. They still
> think marijuana makes people crazy, or they use it as an excuse to keep it
> illegal.
>
> Yours was a wild story. Glad it turned out okay.
>
> Damaeus

It worked out. I'm not old enough to retire. Wish I was...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

God save us from the government.


--
Dymphna
Message origin: www.TRAVEL.com

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:50:07 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:
>>
>The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.
>
>Krypsis

Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be
addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.

Nathalie in Switzerland

"Nathalie Chiva" <Nathaliedotchivaatgmail.remove.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio
>>The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in
>>time.
>>
>
> Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be>
> addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?>
> Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.

It's a really stupid law and would turn NYC into a restaurant desert. Who
would bother to go out to eat toilet-paper-tasting food? Our local bread is
saltless and that's what it tastes like. Ugh.

All the great restaurants would fold. Chefs don't need politicians to write
their recipes.

Giusi wrote:

>>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in
>>> time.
>>
>> Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be
>> addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
>> Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.
>
> It's a really stupid law and would turn NYC into a restaurant desert.

Ahhh... the Great NYC Chef Diaspora of 2010... Maybe it would lead to
landmark restaurants being opened in such culinary deserts as the Oklahoma
panhandle, or the Wyoming-South Dakota-Nebraska tri-state area.

Bob "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"

Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>Krypsis wrote:
>>
>>The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.

Huh... salt contains no calories... salt has absolutely nothing to do
with obesity... salt isn't even a food... ban salt, may as well ban
air and water.

>Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be
>addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
>Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.

Obviously salt hasn't a whit to do with low IQ Australians.

On 20/03/2010 10:12 PM, Nathalie Chiva wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:50:07 +1100, >
> wrote:
>>>
>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.
>>
>> Krypsis
>
> Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be
> addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
> Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.
>
> Nathalie in Switzerland

Most of our food is cooked in a salt free environment. Bread however
needs some salt in the preparation to make the dough work as it should.
We shop for bread with minimal salt, usually less than 200 mg per 100
grams. Not easy to find but the low salt loaves are making an appearance
in our local shopping centre.
Since I have been on a salt reduced diet for many years now, my palate
has adapted and I now can taste the food rather than the salt. If I eat
out at the homes of friends, I can only taste the salt. As a
consequence, my wife and I only eat at restaurants that cater to our low
salt needs and at the homes of understanding friends. For all other
meals, we cook our own to our own recipes and tastes. Our food may taste
bland to you but that's because your palate has adapted to the high salt
load.

I will admit that some foods might benefit from a sprinkle of salt but
our idea of a sprinkle is way less than yours.

Also, for the record, I never add salt to water I cook pasta in. The
pasta tastes ok to me.

Krypsis

On 20/03/2010 11:57 PM, brooklyn1 wrote:
> Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>
>>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.
>
> Huh... salt contains no calories... salt has absolutely nothing to do
> with obesity... salt isn't even a food... ban salt, may as well ban
> air and water.

Where you find excesses of salt, you will invariably find excesses of
sugar, fat and other nasties in prepackaged or "takeaway" foods.
>
<snip>

Krypsis

Krypsis wrote:
>brooklyn1 wrote:
>> Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.
>>
>> Huh... salt contains no calories... salt has absolutely nothing to do
>> with obesity... salt isn't even a food... ban salt, may as well ban
>> air and water.
>
>Where you find excesses of salt, you will invariably find excesses of
>sugar, fat and other nasties in prepackaged or "takeaway" foods.

Not true. And in fact when salt is diminished people tend to consume
more sugars, fats, and larger portions, all equated with more
calories... salt is a wonderful appetite appeaser, sodium goes
directly to the brain telling it you ate enough... salt also triggers
thirst, whereas hydration flushes excess salt. I've no idea what you
mean by "nasties"... do you shit in your food? Unless one has a
specific medical condition where low sodium is indicated salt can't
harm you, the human body is extremely efficient in flushing itself of
excess salts. Making a concerted effort to eliminate sodium from ones
diet when no medical condition is indicated is harmful to ones
health... it's far more healthful to consume excess salt than not
enough salt... one of the first things done in many cases when one is
hospitalized is hook up the oxygen and the saline solution; without
air, water, and salt one dies.

In article >,
Janet Baraclough > wrote:

> You're mistaken; there's a well documented causative link between
> high salt intake and obesity
>
> http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/salt-...and-11904.html

Correlation does not equal causation.

I believe that many people that over-indulge in salt also most likely
overindulge in sugar and fat...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

Krypsis > wrote:
>On 20/03/2010 10:12 PM, Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:50:07 +1100, >
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.
>>>
>>> Krypsis
>>
>> Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be
>> addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
>> Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.
>
>Most of our food is cooked in a salt free environment. Bread however
>needs some salt in the preparation to make the dough work as it should.

That's not true, salt is added to yeast dough for one reason and one
reason only, flavor enhancer... in fact yeast leavens best with no
salt. Any quantity of salt kills yeast.

Ingesting excess salt in food does not make any normal person sick, in
fact extra salt keeps one healthier by killing many bacteria and
viruses. The diseases one contracts that indicate limiting salt
intake are not caused by ingesting excess salt. What's excess salt
anyway, can you define a specific quantity, of course not.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:26:54 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from brooklyn1 > contains these words:
>
>> Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>> >Krypsis wrote:
>> >>
>> >>The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>> >>at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just
>> >>in time.
>
>> Huh... salt contains no calories... salt has absolutely nothing to do
>> with obesity... salt isn't even a food... ban salt, may as well ban
>> air and water.
>
> You're mistaken; there's a well documented causative link between
>high salt intake and obesity
>
>http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/salt-...and-11904.html


That's not scientific evidence, that's pinheaded political theory.
It's far more a fact that obeastity is escalating at an ever
increasing rate because at an ever increasing rate people are becoming
more and more otiose. When I was young I never sat in front of a PC
at all let alone for a minimum of eight hours every day like folks do
nowadays... I still limit my pc use to less than three hours a day and
not every day. Fact is that the modern human glutious maximous will
expand to fill the PC chair... the most common complaint at office
furniture stores is that pc chairs are too small - so they make chairs
with adjustible arms that will open to accomodate a sperm whale! LOL
Fifty years ago folks consumed more than twice the sodium as they do
today but far, FAR fewer were obeasties. I hardly ever see kids
playing outdoors anymore, I can't remember the last time I saw a kids
at the playground perspire... the only part of their anatomy kids
exercice today is their texting thumbs. Kids today don't need legs...
soon as medical science can do leg transplants the mick won't need his
wheelchair.

On 21/03/2010 4:23 AM, brooklyn1 wrote:
> Krypsis wrote:
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>>>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>>>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.
>>>
>>> Huh... salt contains no calories... salt has absolutely nothing to do
>>> with obesity... salt isn't even a food... ban salt, may as well ban
>>> air and water.
>>
>> Where you find excesses of salt, you will invariably find excesses of
>> sugar, fat and other nasties in prepackaged or "takeaway" foods.
>
> Not true. And in fact when salt is diminished people tend to consume
> more sugars, fats, and larger portions, all equated with more

References?

> calories... salt is a wonderful appetite appeaser, sodium goes
> directly to the brain telling it you ate enough... salt also triggers
> thirst, whereas hydration flushes excess salt. I've no idea what you

If your body is flushing excess salt, that means that you have or are
ingesting far too much. If your sweat tastes salty, your salt
consumption is too high.

> mean by "nasties"... do you shit in your food? Unless one has a

Interesting concept! Do you??

> specific medical condition where low sodium is indicated salt can't
> harm you, the human body is extremely efficient in flushing itself of
> excess salts.

Salt in excess CAN AND WILL harm you. The human body isn't well adapted
to flushing the body of excess salt. That is why excess can cause an
increase in blood pressure. The excess sodium cause cells to retain more
fluid thereby increasing blood pressure. 300 years of salt excesses
isn't long enough for our body to genetically adapt to unnaturally high
levels of salt.

Making a concerted effort to eliminate sodium from ones
> diet when no medical condition is indicated is harmful to ones

Excesses of salt at an early age WILL cause you harm that typically
won't become evident until you reach middle age. By then the damage has
been done. If you consume a diet of natural foods, you will get enough
salt for your body's needs without any additional. All medicos will warn
against high salt diets for children.

> health... it's far more healthful to consume excess salt than not

It is NEVER healthy to consume excesses of salt. Ask any medical specialist!

> enough salt... one of the first things done in many cases when one is

You will get enough salt from a diet of natural foods. No need to add
salt to any food you eat if you consume a balanced diet.

> hospitalized is hook up the oxygen and the saline solution; without
> air, water, and salt one dies.

The saline solutions are used in hospitals as a disinfectant and those
in the drips are balanced at 0.9% NaCl to match the body's natural
sodium balance. Any more than this and complications arise.

Krypsis

On 21/03/2010 4:42 AM, brooklyn1 wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On 20/03/2010 10:12 PM, Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:50:07 +1100, >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction. Looking
>>>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just in time.
>>>>
>>>> Krypsis
>>>
>>> Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be
>>> addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
>>> Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.
>>
>> Most of our food is cooked in a salt free environment. Bread however
>> needs some salt in the preparation to make the dough work as it should.
>
> That's not true, salt is added to yeast dough for one reason and one
> reason only, flavor enhancer... in fact yeast leavens best with no
> salt. Any quantity of salt kills yeast.

Try telling them that over in alt.bread.recipes
>
> Ingesting excess salt in food does not make any normal person sick, in

Ingesting excess salt will make you sick. It will progressively increase
your BP over time.

> fact extra salt keeps one healthier by killing many bacteria and

The right amount of NaCl will kill bacteria. Excess will kill the host.

> viruses. The diseases one contracts that indicate limiting salt
> intake are not caused by ingesting excess salt. What's excess salt
> anyway, can you define a specific quantity, of course not.

Excess salt is a body content greater than 0.9%, ie. the same level as
the rehydration drips of saline solution. An exercise for you. Try to
convince your doctor of your need to have a saline solution greater than
0.9%. You might be surprised at his response.

As for specific quantities in food, the numbers are easy. Sodium content
of food should not exceed 120 milligrams per 100 grams of food. Try to
get to that level in a diet of processed foods and takeaways.... Even
your standard supermarket bread has levels between 400 and 600 mg per 100g.

Krypsis

Clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz wrote:

> I still limit my pc use to less than three hours a day and not every day.

Let's just check the truth of that over the past couple days:

On 3/18, Pussy has posts with these times (all times shown are in Pacific
time): 5:31 AM, 5:32 AM, 7:28 AM, 8:27 AM, 8:49 AM, 11:39 AM, 11:49 AM,
12:14 PM, 1:17 PM, 1:30 PM, 4:10 PM, 4:28 PM, 6:07 PM, 6:20 PM, 6:41 PM, and
7:21 PM.

So he would have been online from 5:00 AM to 5:35 AM, from 7:00 AM to 9 AM,
from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM, and 4:00 PM to 7:30 PM -- a total of just over
seven-and-a-half hours.

On 3/19, Pussy posted at these times: 8:44 AM, 10:14 AM, 10:34 AM, 12:47 PM,
2:13 PM, 3:36 PM, 6:18 PM, 7:11 PM, and 7:37 PM. So Pussy would have been
online from 8:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and from 12:30 AM all the way to 8:00 PM --
a total of ten hours.

Now that "three hours a day" has been shown as a lie, let's look at that
"not every day" claim:

Between February 1 and today, there has been NO DAY AT ALL when Pussy didn't
post at least twice.

So once again, Pussy has been shown to be a complete lying scumbag.

Bob

On 3/21/2010 12:30 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 21/03/2010 4:42 AM, brooklyn1 wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> On 20/03/2010 10:12 PM, Nathalie Chiva wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:50:07 +1100, >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> The new bill sounds like one small step in the right direction.
>>>>> Looking
>>>>> at the obesity levels of Americans and Australians, it's come just
>>>>> in time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Krypsis
>>>>
>>>> Sure, pre-prepared food has too much salt it in, and that should be
>>>> addressed. But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
>>>> Pasta cooked in saltless water? A totally saltless sauce? Ugh.
>>>
>>> Most of our food is cooked in a salt free environment. Bread however
>>> needs some salt in the preparation to make the dough work as it should.
>>
>> That's not true, salt is added to yeast dough for one reason and one
>> reason only, flavor enhancer... in fact yeast leavens best with no
>> salt. Any quantity of salt kills yeast.
>
> Try telling them that over in alt.bread.recipes

He's correct that it "kills the yeast". If he's ever made bread and
forgotten the salt he'll know why that's a good thing. If he hasn't he
should try it. If he doesn't bake he should quit blathering about
things he doesn't understand.

>> Ingesting excess salt in food does not make any normal person sick, in
>
> Ingesting excess salt will make you sick. It will progressively increase
> your BP over time.

You are certain that it will increase _his_ blood pressure? Don't
assume, because your body is broken, that everyone else's is broken in
the same manner.

>> fact extra salt keeps one healthier by killing many bacteria and
>
> The right amount of NaCl will kill bacteria. Excess will kill the host.

It has to be a lot more "excess" than is normally added to food.

>> viruses. The diseases one contracts that indicate limiting salt
>> intake are not caused by ingesting excess salt. What's excess salt
>> anyway, can you define a specific quantity, of course not.
>
> Excess salt is a body content greater than 0.9%, ie. the same level as
> the rehydration drips of saline solution. An exercise for you. Try to
> convince your doctor of your need to have a saline solution greater than
> 0.9%. You might be surprised at his response.

Uh, that's IV. Food is not administered IV.

> As for specific quantities in food, the numbers are easy. Sodium content
> of food should not exceed 120 milligrams per 100 grams of food. Try to
> get to that level in a diet of processed foods and takeaways.... Even
> your standard supermarket bread has levels between 400 and 600 mg per 100g.

Who says that sodium content should not exceed 120 milligrams per 100
grams of food? Don't assume that everyone needs to follow the diet that
is needed to cope with _your_ illness.

On 21/03/2010 4:29 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 3/21/2010 12:30 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>> On 21/03/2010 4:42 AM, brooklyn1 wrote:

<snip>

>>> That's not true, salt is added to yeast dough for one reason and one
>>> reason only, flavor enhancer... in fact yeast leavens best with no
>>> salt. Any quantity of salt kills yeast.
>>
>> Try telling them that over in alt.bread.recipes
>
> He's correct that it "kills the yeast". If he's ever made bread and
> forgotten the salt he'll know why that's a good thing. If he hasn't he
> should try it. If he doesn't bake he should quit blathering about things
> he doesn't understand.
>
He's had a quick read of bread making and misunderstood what he's read...

>>> Ingesting excess salt in food does not make any normal person sick, in
>>
>> Ingesting excess salt will make you sick. It will progressively increase
>> your BP over time.
>
> You are certain that it will increase _his_ blood pressure? Don't
> assume, because your body is broken, that everyone else's is broken in
> the same manner.

Statistically, nearly everyone on a western style diet will have high BP
by 60 or thereabouts.

As for me, I don't have a high BP. Mine is in the normal range. I intend
to keep it that way as everyone else in my family has high BP and
diseases consequent to it. I have never been one for adding salt to food
nor do I have a liking for processed and takeaway food. Since my palate
has never adapted to a high salt diet, I can still taste the natural
flavours of unsalted food. I cannot eat anything with a high salt
content as all I taste is salt.
>
>>> fact extra salt keeps one healthier by killing many bacteria and
>>
>> The right amount of NaCl will kill bacteria. Excess will kill the host.
>
> It has to be a lot more "excess" than is normally added to food.
>
>>> viruses. The diseases one contracts that indicate limiting salt
>>> intake are not caused by ingesting excess salt. What's excess salt
>>> anyway, can you define a specific quantity, of course not.
>>
>> Excess salt is a body content greater than 0.9%, ie. the same level as
>> the rehydration drips of saline solution. An exercise for you. Try to
>> convince your doctor of your need to have a saline solution greater than
>> 0.9%. You might be surprised at his response.
>
> Uh, that's IV. Food is not administered IV.

I knew that! However Brooklyn was the one to mention the saline solution
in IV drips.

I think, however, that you can be fed intravenously. They've been doing
that for a long time for comatose hospital patients.
>
>> As for specific quantities in food, the numbers are easy. Sodium content
>> of food should not exceed 120 milligrams per 100 grams of food. Try to
>> get to that level in a diet of processed foods and takeaways.... Even
>> your standard supermarket bread has levels between 400 and 600 mg per
>> 100g.
>
> Who says that sodium content should not exceed 120 milligrams per 100

Generally accepted medical recommendation disputed mostly by the salt
industry and processed food manufacturers. Whenever suggestions are made
to reduce salt in food by the medical profession, the food processing
lobby goes berserk. They have the most to lose you see. People with salt
adapted palates will find nothing to distinguish between the brands.
Also shelf life will be affected as salt is used as a preservative.

> grams of food? Don't assume that everyone needs to follow the diet that
> is needed to cope with _your_ illness.
>
Repeat, I don't have a salt related illness nor do I want one. I intend
to take every step required to ensure that I don't develop the usual
western lifestyle diseases.

Krypsis

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:00:04 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz wrote:
>
>> I still limit my pc use to less than three hours a day and not every day.
>
>Let's just check the truth of that over the past couple days:
>
>On 3/18, Pussy has posts with these times (all times shown are in Pacific
>time): 5:31 AM, 5:32 AM, 7:28 AM, 8:27 AM, 8:49 AM, 11:39 AM, 11:49 AM,
>12:14 PM, 1:17 PM, 1:30 PM, 4:10 PM, 4:28 PM, 6:07 PM, 6:20 PM, 6:41 PM, and
>7:21 PM.
>
>So he would have been online from 5:00 AM to 5:35 AM, from 7:00 AM to 9 AM,
>from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM, and 4:00 PM to 7:30 PM -- a total of just over
>seven-and-a-half hours.
>
>On 3/19, Pussy posted at these times: 8:44 AM, 10:14 AM, 10:34 AM, 12:47 PM,
>2:13 PM, 3:36 PM, 6:18 PM, 7:11 PM, and 7:37 PM. So Pussy would have been
>online from 8:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and from 12:30 AM all the way to 8:00 PM --
>a total of ten hours.
>
>Now that "three hours a day" has been shown as a lie, let's look at that
>"not every day" claim:
>
>Between February 1 and today, there has been NO DAY AT ALL when Pussy didn't
>post at least twice.
>
>So once again, Pussy has been shown to be a complete lying scumbag.
>
>Bob

What a moroon... only a NEWBIE would think that a PC is logged on from
first post to last, or that just because a PC is logged on 24/7 that
the user is sitting there all that time... and that because someone
posts one day they post every day... it's no wonder that when the
LYING baboon ass face isn't out of work he's a terlit butt-ler...
proven by how much time he spends sniffing my butt and everyone
elses... 99% of the baboon ass face posts are butt sniffing police,
the other 1% is keyboard kooking! LOL-LOL

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:51:12 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from Nathalie Chiva <Nathaliedotchivaatgmail.remove.com> contains these words:
>
> But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
>
> Yes. My husband makes all our bread at home by hand , not in a
>machine, without salt. Every year it wins prizes at the local produce
>show. Hundreds upon hundreds of guests have commented on the great taste
>and texture.
>
> Janet

Well, I'd have to try it to believe it. Tuscan saltless bread, which I
have tasted, is certainly something I can live without...

Nathalie in Switzerland

On 22/03/2010 1:46 AM, Nathalie Chiva wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:51:12 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> > wrote:
>
>> The >
>>from Nathalie Chiva<Nathaliedotchivaatgmail.remove.com> contains these words:
>>
>> But have you tasted totally saltless food? Saltless bread?
>>
>> Yes. My husband makes all our bread at home by hand , not in a
>> machine, without salt. Every year it wins prizes at the local produce
>> show. Hundreds upon hundreds of guests have commented on the great taste
>> and texture.
>>
>> Janet
>
> Well, I'd have to try it to believe it. Tuscan saltless bread, which I
> have tasted, is certainly something I can live without...
>
> Nathalie in Switzerland

If you allowed your palate to adapt to a low salt diet, you would find
that you are better able to enjoy the natural tastes of most foods.
Palate adaptation, I might add, takes about 4 - 5 weeks due to the short
life span of your tastebuds.

If you are a busy person, the difficult part is actually finding enough
processed food on supermarket shelves that actually have low salt and
that will allow your palate to adapt. If you have time to cook 100%
fresh meat and vegetables, the task is less onerous.

We have a guest from Vietnam staying with us for the time being and he
does some of the cooking. I will have to convince him to lay off the
salt a little as I found some of his culinary delights inedible due to
high salt levels, at least from my perspective.

Krypsis

Krypsis wrote:
> Salt in excess CAN AND WILL harm you. The human body isn't well
> adapted to flushing the body of excess salt. That is why excess can
> cause an increase in blood pressure. The excess sodium cause cells to
> retain more fluid thereby increasing blood pressure. 300 years of salt
> excesses isn't long enough for our body to genetically adapt to
> unnaturally high levels of salt.

One day I accidentally saw the Dr.Oz show and he has me concerned about
my salt intake. Have you ever seen his show? He uses plenty of diagrams
to make his point and I believe him. I am trying to reduce my salt
intake in order to lower my blood pressure.


Becca

On Mar 21, 5:30*pm, Krypsis > wrote:


> Ingesting excess salt will make you sick. It will progressively increase
> your BP over time.


******Hmmmmm Just look what 55 years with your snout in the public
purse did to you Krypto.

A sadder grumpier old fart never exsisted

On Mar 21, 12:30*am, Krypsis > wrote:

> Ingesting excess salt will make you sick. It will progressively increase
> your BP over time.
>

Yes, mine has shot right up to 120/70 at age 53.

You're full of it.

Cindy Hamilton

In article
>,
Cindy Hamilton > wrote:

> On Mar 21, 12:30*am, Krypsis > wrote:
>
> > Ingesting excess salt will make you sick. It will progressively increase
> > your BP over time.
> >
>
> Yes, mine has shot right up to 120/70 at age 53.
>
> You're full of it.

Or, more charitably, we could say that perhaps Krypsis has it backwards.
When you go to the doctor and are diagnosed with high blood pressure,
the first thing the doctor might advise is to restrict sodium
consumption. If that works, well, how easy was that? Blood pressure
medicines are prescription. That's because there is some risk.
Reducing sodium has almost no risk. It is recommended that normal
people keep sodium down to 2000mg a day. I can't speak for the doctors,
but I've heard 1500 or 1000 for restrictions. Your body needs 10.
That's a *lot* of wiggle room.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mar 22, 10:52*am, Krypsis > wrote:

Dude, I weigh 260 pounds and never exercise. 120/70 is excellent.

Cindy Hamilton

On 3/22/2010 1:44 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:52 am, > wrote:
>
> Dude, I weigh 260 pounds and never exercise. 120/70 is excellent.

I know a guy who if he wasn't already married would have flipped for
_you_. Every reminiscence of his youthful adventures starts out, "Ahh,
<whatever her name was> (wistfully), she was a big girl . . ."

In article >,
Nathalie Chiva <Nathaliedotchivaatgmail.remove.com> wrote:


> Yep, 120/80 is considered as "perfect" by any doctor I ever heard on
> the subject

I've never heard it referred to as "perfect". It is "normal", and is at
the high end of normal:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/blood-pressure/HI00043

> and my BP, age 49, is 111/70.

That's good. I find it hard to get concerned about a few points this
way or that, especially as much as it changes, sometimes rather quickly.
Still, there *is* the concept of too low, also:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low...essure/DS00590

This says that the upper end of "low" is 90/60.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mar 22, 2:47*pm, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 1:44 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 10:52 am, > *wrote:
>
> > Dude, I weigh 260 pounds and never exercise. *120/70 is excellent.
>
> I know a guy who if he wasn't already married would have flipped for
> _you_. *Every reminiscence of his youthful adventures starts out, "Ahh,
> <whatever her name was> (wistfully), she was a big girl . . ."

Good to know, but my husband has already flipped for me. Twenty years
and he is just getting more and more daffy about me (and vice versa).

Cindy Hamilton

On 23/03/2010 3:02 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Cindy > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 21, 12:30 am, > wrote:
>>
>>> Ingesting excess salt will make you sick. It will progressively increase
>>> your BP over time.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, mine has shot right up to 120/70 at age 53.
>>
>> You're full of it.
>
> Or, more charitably, we could say that perhaps Krypsis has it backwards.
> When you go to the doctor and are diagnosed with high blood pressure,
> the first thing the doctor might advise is to restrict sodium
> consumption. If that works, well, how easy was that? Blood pressure
> medicines are prescription. That's because there is some risk.
> Reducing sodium has almost no risk. It is recommended that normal
> people keep sodium down to 2000mg a day. I can't speak for the doctors,
> but I've heard 1500 or 1000 for restrictions. Your body needs 10.
> That's a *lot* of wiggle room.
>

Two points I could make here.

Unless you are prepared to do as Nathalie does and cook only fresh foods
and also restrict prepackaged foods to those labelled "low salt", you
will find it incredibly difficult to get to the level of salt
consumption that the doctor advises.

What is wrong with "prevention"??? Why not maintain a healthy diet and
restrict salt BEFORE the need arises. Note that most of the damage done
by an excess of salt occurs in childhood and the teen years. It only
begins to manifest itself once you reach ~60.

Krypsis