"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> Oh wait! You don't even know what a golliwog is!
>
> huh. I was born in 1953 and I've never ever heard of a golliwog. I had to
> google it today. I must have read the wrong childrens tales or
> whatever,.
> Never heard of it until this morning.

I was born in 1959 and I remember them.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 03:02:12 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> Oh wait! You don't even know what a golliwog is!
>>
> That's right. I never saw one until I looked it up. Maybe I wasn't
> brought up in a racist part of the country.

I lived in Wichita until I was 7. They were very racists there in those
days.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 03:02:12 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> Oh wait! You don't even know what a golliwog is!
>>
> That's right. I never saw one until I looked it up. Maybe I wasn't
> brought up in a racist part of the country.

Neither was I. They were just cuddly toys for the wee ones. But now I know
it could be hurtful, then I would never give houseroom to one!

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 6/22/2013 10:52 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:48:16 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh wait! You don't even know what a golliwog is!
>>
>> huh. I was born in 1953 and I've never ever heard of a golliwog. I had to
>> google it today. I must have read the wrong childrens tales or whatever,.
>> Never heard of it until this morning.
>>
> Thanks.
>

Ok, so this is embarrassing, I was wondering what tadpoles had to do
with any of this ...;-)

On 6/22/2013 12:10 PM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
> casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/2013 11:44 AM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>>> casa bona > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2013 7:41 AM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>>>>> sf > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:31:34 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chipotle's GMO ingredients:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The popular burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill is widely considered a healthy place to eat, and is known for promoting local produce and offering calorie counts on its menus. But Chipotle has revealed that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are present in 12 of the 24 ingredients it lists on the company's website. According to The Huffington Post, GMOs can be found in all tortillas, rice and all of the varieties of meat, except pork carnitas. To its credit, Chipotle is the only fast-food chain that's identifying GMOs (though it's only on their website, not on store menus).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just so's you knows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you. I wish more restaurants would fess up like that. Maybe a
>>>>>> chink could be kicked into Monsanto's armor if enough restaurants did
>>>>>> that and the general public started requesting organic ingredients.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who the hell cares. All the GMO hysteria from the usual
>>>>> suspects is just that -- hysteria, piggybacking on the
>>>>> scientific illiteracy of the mobs. Perception is reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> After 2 or 3 decades, the best they come up with is "Oh,
>>>>> but.. but.. we just don't know!"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Honestly is that why they have that international seed bank up in Svaalberg?
>>>
>>> Yes, in the hope that splicing some petunia genes into you
>>> might make you smarter.
>>>
>>
>> Or at least hardier, they're quite hardy where frost is concerned ;-)
>
> Right... some petunia genes might make you more of a man.
>
Otoh, the pansy ones you've been mainlining seem to have shrunken your
gonads to vastly diminished capacity...

Best go back to haunting old man Kazoo.

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:27:27 PM UTC-4, casa bona wrote:
> On 6/22/2013 12:10 PM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>
> > casa bona > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 6/21/2013 11:44 AM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>
> >>> casa bona > wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> On 6/21/2013 7:41 AM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>
> >>>>> sf > wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:31:34 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>
> >>>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Chipotle's GMO ingredients:
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> The popular burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill is widely considered a healthy place to eat, and is known for promoting local produce and offering calorie counts on its menus. But Chipotle has revealed that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are present in 12 of the 24 ingredients it lists on the company's website. According to The Huffington Post, GMOs can be found in all tortillas, rice and all of the varieties of meat, except pork carnitas. To its credit, Chipotle is the only fast-food chain that's identifying GMOs (though it's only on their website, not on store menus).
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Just so's you knows.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> Thank you. I wish more restaurants would fess up like that. Maybe a
>
> >>>>>> chink could be kicked into Monsanto's armor if enough restaurants did
>
> >>>>>> that and the general public started requesting organic ingredients..
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Who the hell cares. All the GMO hysteria from the usual
>
> >>>>> suspects is just that -- hysteria, piggybacking on the
>
> >>>>> scientific illiteracy of the mobs. Perception is reality.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> After 2 or 3 decades, the best they come up with is "Oh,
>
> >>>>> but.. but.. we just don't know!"
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Honestly is that why they have that international seed bank up in Svaalberg?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Yes, in the hope that splicing some petunia genes into you
>
> >>> might make you smarter.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> Or at least hardier, they're quite hardy where frost is concerned ;-)
>
> >
>
> > Right... some petunia genes might make you more of a man.
>
> >
>
> Otoh, the pansy ones you've been mainlining seem to have shrunken your
>
> gonads to vastly diminished capacity...
>
>
>
> Best go back to haunting old man Kazoo.

Jesus! Are you going to pollute every thread with your inane bullshit? Since you didn't comprehend my more subtle suggestions I'll use simple words this time. You have thoughts. Not all of them need to be expressed in a reply to a post. You are not witty. Your observations are not unique. Get it? If you have something pertinent to say, by all means say it. But spewing every random thought is just irritating.

On 6/22/2013 3:11 PM, wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:27:27 PM UTC-4, casa bona wrote:
>> On 6/22/2013 12:10 PM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>>
>>> casa bona > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On 6/21/2013 11:44 AM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>>
>>>>> casa bona > wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> On 6/21/2013 7:41 AM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:31:34 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Chipotle's GMO ingredients:
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> The popular burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill is widely considered a healthy place to eat, and is known for promoting local produce and offering calorie counts on its menus. But Chipotle has revealed that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are present in 12 of the 24 ingredients it lists on the company's website. According to The Huffington Post, GMOs can be found in all tortillas, rice and all of the varieties of meat, except pork carnitas. To its credit, Chipotle is the only fast-food chain that's identifying GMOs (though it's only on their website, not on store menus).
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Just so's you knows.
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you. I wish more restaurants would fess up like that. Maybe a
>>
>>>>>>>> chink could be kicked into Monsanto's armor if enough restaurants did
>>
>>>>>>>> that and the general public started requesting organic ingredients.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Who the hell cares. All the GMO hysteria from the usual
>>
>>>>>>> suspects is just that -- hysteria, piggybacking on the
>>
>>>>>>> scientific illiteracy of the mobs. Perception is reality.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> After 2 or 3 decades, the best they come up with is "Oh,
>>
>>>>>>> but.. but.. we just don't know!"
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Honestly is that why they have that international seed bank up in Svaalberg?
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> Yes, in the hope that splicing some petunia genes into you
>>
>>>>> might make you smarter.
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Or at least hardier, they're quite hardy where frost is concerned ;-)
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Right... some petunia genes might make you more of a man.
>>
>>>
>>
>> Otoh, the pansy ones you've been mainlining seem to have shrunken your
>>
>> gonads to vastly diminished capacity...
>>
>>
>>
>> Best go back to haunting old man Kazoo.
>
> Jesus! Are you going to pollute every thread with your inane bullshit?

Frak! Are you going to throw a tantrum every time I reply to someone?

> Since you didn't comprehend my more subtle suggestions I'll use simple words this time. You have thoughts. Not all of them need to be expressed in a reply to a post.

Since you seem to have a bit of a Napoleon complex, I'll clarify for you
- YOU are not the boss of me, tu comprendes?

> You are not witty.

Halfwits like yourself are no judges of wit.

> Your observations are not unique. Get it?

Yours are not either, understand?

> If you have something pertinent to say, by all means say it.

Oh I will, trust me I will...

> But spewing every random thought is just irritating.

Pot/kettle/random anger...etc...

On 6/22/2013 1:22 PM, casa bona wrote:
> On 6/22/2013 10:52 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:48:16 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait! You don't even know what a golliwog is!
>>>
>>> huh. I was born in 1953 and I've never ever heard of a golliwog. I
>>> had to
>>> google it today. I must have read the wrong childrens tales or
>>> whatever,.
>>> Never heard of it until this morning.
>>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> Ok, so this is embarrassing, I was wondering what tadpoles had to do
> with any of this ...;-)


Heh!

Becca

On 6/25/2013 3:28 PM, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:16:23 -0600, casa bona wrote:
>
>> So who else believes that?
>
> ME! Based on the fact that if they think they are getting any of my $$
> they have no chance. Both times I've went thankfully some one else paid.

So you see yourself as a bellwether for the larger customer base?

> I won't be going back, nor will they get any good word of mouth PR.
> Matter of fact it will be BAD PR. It is just a crap place to eat. Crap
> food, fake "PC" smarminess.

Well let it out, don't bottle things up!

>> If I look at analyst ratings on the stock I see only 2 "sells".
>> I will agree they've had some issues with hiring undocumented workers,
>> but so has Wal Mart.
>
> Oh you want that kind of input.. don't really care what stock
> "manipulators aka analysts" think.

Never the less they closely follow the company and its earnings.

Of course you didn't really give a rip about the rest of the metrics I
posted on market share and growth potential either, so enjoy being
convincingly wrong.

This is a healthy and growing franchise, regardless of whether you can
see it.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:23:16 GMT, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear
> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:31:34 -0700, ImStillMags wrote:
>
> > Chipotle's GMO ingredients:
> >
> > The popular burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill is widely considered a
> > healthy place to eat, and is known for promoting local produce and
> > Just so's you knows.
>
> Just so's you knows... I don't care!
>
<snip>
>
> Same with my food.. those stupid useless "health nut labels" aka
> nutrition facts labels.. Don't read them.

You are free to ignore any information that pops up. We certainly
wouldn't want that cluttering your mind. Other people prefer to know
what's in their food and to make an informed decision based on it.
They may choose the unhealthy option, but at least they have
information to base it on and they are exercising free will when they
make their decision.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:55:40 GMT, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear
> wrote:

> Plain and simple I don't care whether it is a "healthy growing franchise"
> based on stock manipulators. I didn't dispute your claims and/or metrics
> as I don't care. Wouldn't know, didn't read, nor do I want to read or
> know about their metrics. They can have all the growth etc... it means
> shit when customers don't go. And I will be doing my part to discourage
> customers. Most in my non work crowd wouldn't and don't go. They would
> just as soon go to Taco Bell than shitpotle. If there was another
> restaurant where this shipotle was I would have went there and got food
> both times. Even if it was a mcdonalds which is the absolute last choice
> on my list of places.
>
> Add in their "PC smarminess" and that alone is a big enough turn off,
> even if the food was consumable.

Since you're not a customer and say you won't be in the future, your
vote doesn't count.

I'm not a Chipotle fan, but I'm all for truth on the menu and it turns
out I like seeing those calorie counts. So as a (potential) customer
who is would like to consume fewer GMO's, seeing menu items clearly
labeled GMO free would be a real plus for me.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 26/06/2013 3:23 PM, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:55:18 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> You are free to ignore any information that pops up. We certainly
>> wouldn't want that cluttering your mind. Other people prefer to know
>> what's in their food and to make an informed decision based on it. They
>> may choose the unhealthy option, but at least they have information to
>> base it on and they are exercising free will when they make their
>> decision.
>
> Bull shit! I see very few customers at the local store be it Walmart/
> Target/Public/Krogers/Giant Eagle/Shop n Save who those ****ing labels.
> They grab what they want off the shelf and in to the cart.


I see people looking at those labels. I look at them myself sometimes. I
would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if someone
were to look at the nutrition information and ingredients of everything
they buy every time they shop.


>

On 6/26/2013 12:55 PM, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:46:44 -0600, casa bona wrote:
>
>> So you see yourself as a bellwether for the larger customer base?
>
>
> In the category of restaurant customer and fast food customer yes.
>
> They are NOT even a consideration.
>
> I eat out a large percentage of my meals from fast food to 5 star sit
> down formal restaurants, and this place is NOT going to be /my/ choice,
> ever. I went twice, first 4 years ago or so, and then again recently. I
> only went both times as 1) I was not paying, and 2) and it was not my
> choice, since both times it was work related trips that clients wanted to
> go there, and never would have been.

That's well and good, but still merely anecdotal.

>> Never the less they closely follow the company and its earnings.
>>
>> Of course you didn't really give a rip about the rest of the metrics I
>> posted on market share and growth potential either, so enjoy being
>> convincingly wrong.
>>
>> This is a healthy and growing franchise, regardless of whether you can
>> see it.
>
> Plain and simple I don't care whether it is a "healthy growing franchise"
> based on stock manipulators.

Their growth comes from actual revenues per store (100% higher than
their competition) and market share, not 'stock manipulators".

Do try and focus.

> I didn't dispute your claims and/or metrics
> as I don't care. Wouldn't know, didn't read, nor do I want to read or
> know about their metrics. They can have all the growth etc... it means
> shit when customers don't go.

That's silliness and illogical to boot, customers "going" are the
metrics, and they remain robust and increasing, period.

> And I will be doing my part to discourage
> customers. Most in my non work crowd wouldn't and don't go. They would
> just as soon go to Taco Bell than shitpotle.

Toxic Hell is not their comp, Q'doba is.

> If there was another
> restaurant where this shipotle was I would have went there and got food
> both times. Even if it was a mcdonalds which is the absolute last choice
> on my list of places.
>
> Add in their "PC smarminess" and that alone is a big enough turn off,
> even if the food was consumable.

The food is quit consumable, by those of greater palette than beliefs bias.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> I
> would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if
> someone were to look at the nutrition information and
> ingredients of everything they buy every time they shop.

Some people with food sensitivities and/or allergies need to keep
informed on the crap that's in prepared/processed foods. This new
thing where they lull you to sleep by saying their product has no
ingredient you can't pronounce (what does THAT mean? if you can
read, you can pronounce!) so you go "I don't need to check that
label because there is nothing in there I can't pronounce".
So, the assumption they make is that they could cure your meat with
mosquito repellent and you wouldn't care because you can't
pronounce "mosquito repellent."

Maple Leaf says they make cold meats with no preservatives or
artificial ingredients. For those of you who are challenged, it
means no nitrates. But unfortunately, they use cultured celery
extract which DOES contain nitrates. So they ARE using
preservatives but hiding that fact by suggesting that if you can
pronounce the name of the ingredient, it isn't bad for you.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:18:01 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

> Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> > I
> > would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if
> > someone were to look at the nutrition information and
> > ingredients of everything they buy every time they shop.
>
> Some people with food sensitivities and/or allergies need to keep
> informed on the crap that's in prepared/processed foods. This new
> thing where they lull you to sleep by saying their product has no
> ingredient you can't pronounce (what does THAT mean?

That's really, really OLD - like 25 years old. Bryers ice cream used
that phrase in their advertising back when they used cream, milk and
eggs - before they changed their ingredients to the cheaper stuff.

> if you can
> read, you can pronounce!) so you go "I don't need to check that
> label because there is nothing in there I can't pronounce".
> So, the assumption they make is that they could cure your meat with
> mosquito repellent and you wouldn't care because you can't
> pronounce "mosquito repellent."
>
> Maple Leaf says they make cold meats with no preservatives or
> artificial ingredients. For those of you who are challenged, it
> means no nitrates. But unfortunately, they use cultured celery
> extract which DOES contain nitrates. So they ARE using
> preservatives but hiding that fact by suggesting that if you can
> pronounce the name of the ingredient, it isn't bad for you.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:23:59 GMT, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear
> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:55:18 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > You are free to ignore any information that pops up. We certainly
> > wouldn't want that cluttering your mind. Other people prefer to know
> > what's in their food and to make an informed decision based on it. They
> > may choose the unhealthy option, but at least they have information to
> > base it on and they are exercising free will when they make their
> > decision.
>
> Bull shit! I see very few customers at the local store be it Walmart/
> Target/Public/Krogers/Giant Eagle/Shop n Save who those ****ing labels.
> They grab what they want off the shelf and in to the cart.
>
> They only wanted by a niche minority. Now they are trying to get this
> crap on wine and other alcohol. If you need that information your free to
> call the manufacturer and obtain it or in 2013 via their web site. That
> is where it belongs and the only place it needs to be. Ever, Period.

Once again, you're free to ignore anything that might make you a
better informed consumer. We wouldn't want you to lose that King of
Fools crown.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Fuzz Wuzzy Bear" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:55:18 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> You are free to ignore any information that pops up. We certainly
>> wouldn't want that cluttering your mind. Other people prefer to know
>> what's in their food and to make an informed decision based on it. They
>> may choose the unhealthy option, but at least they have information to
>> base it on and they are exercising free will when they make their
>> decision.
>
> Bull shit! I see very few customers at the local store be it Walmart/
> Target/Public/Krogers/Giant Eagle/Shop n Save who those ****ing labels.
> They grab what they want off the shelf and in to the cart.

Sadly, I think most people do not care what is in their food. I have a
friend who at times will be careful with certain aspects of what she is
eating. Sometimes she will focus on food being high fiber. Other times she
will focus on the sodium. She can have super high BP and I think she is one
of the few that sodium does affect. She once at a single slice of a bacon
pizza and bloated up like a stuck whale! For a while she was focusing on
low fat. But she doesn't like to cook so often relies on prepared foods.
My mom will sometimes do the same. But overall she hasn't a clue.

The other day, she tried to pawn off some vitamins on me that my dad used to
take but for whatever reason does not now. There were Kirkland Senior. I
told her I could not take them because I am avoiding iron and copper. I
have read countless studies recently linking them to dementia. And I know
that my mom takes a multi that has no copper or iron. Recommended by her
Dr.

Then a few days later, she told me to pick her up some Ocuvite at Costco.
But I decided to go to the Ocuvite website because I know that they make an
50+ formula that I thought might be better for us. I was shocked to see
that not only did it contain fish oil (which I can not have) but also a
pretty high dose of copper! So I then looked up the kind that Costco sells.
No fish oil but copper! Much smaller amount though. So I called her and
told her this. And she was like... Ohhhhhh! I did not know this! Oh
well. I've been taking them, so I guess I'll keep on taking them! Lots of
people are like that. They say they are avoiding something when they really
are not. I gave her the rest of my Ocuvite and will go back to using the
eye vitamins from Swanson. They will cost a little more but that's fine by
me.
>
> They only wanted by a niche minority. Now they are trying to get this
> crap on wine and other alcohol. If you need that information your free to
> call the manufacturer and obtain it or in 2013 via their web site. That
> is where it belongs and the only place it needs to be. Ever, Period.

Don't really know about the wine since I no longer drink it.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> I see people looking at those labels. I look at them myself sometimes. I
> would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if someone
> were to look at the nutrition information and ingredients of everything
> they buy every time they shop.

I can't say that I look at every label every time, even though I know that I
should. If you have food allergies or intolerances you really do have to.
Manufacturers change formulas all the time. And I have sickened myself or
my daughter by not checking. Assuming that something was still safe because
we had been eating it for years.

Also as a diabetic, I need to check the carb count on stuff. One thing that
still bugs me is something called a Falafil sandwich. They are prepared
locally. They take falafel, give it a coarse chop and roll it in a flour
tortilla or similar wrap like a burrito. The first time I bought it, it
said it had 1 serving and 16g of carbs. I was like... Wow! That's really
low in carbs for something so big! It's so big that I can rarely finish it.

But the first time I ate it, I knew by the high blood sugar I had afterwards
that it had to have more than 16g of carbs. I think it said 22g the next
time I bought it. Then 30 then I think it said 40 at some point. I tried
to contact the company to ask for clarification. I thought maybe they were
only counting the carbs of the falafel and not the wrap part. And clearly
whoever does their labels does not speak English very well due to the
various misspellings.

This is not something I buy very often any more. Mainly because I know that
it will spike my blood sugar and it's so good I can't usually restrain
myself to eat just half. I have bought them for family meals and cut one
into 1" chunks to share. That's about the only way I can eat one.

I do not bolus for my meals any more. But any diabetic who does, really
does need to know the carb count of what they are eating. Otherwise they
could wind up with high or low blood sugar.

I have found that the people who shop at PCC, Whole Foods or Central Market
are far more likely to check labels. Sometimes they are vegan. But more
often than not they have some other food issue. Celiac, food allergies or
food intolerances. Or perhaps they have an autistic child who has to avoid
dairy and gluten. Or food colorings.

But the general population? Usually does not read labels.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> I
>> would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if
>> someone were to look at the nutrition information and
>> ingredients of everything they buy every time they shop.
>
> Some people with food sensitivities and/or allergies need to keep
> informed on the crap that's in prepared/processed foods. This new
> thing where they lull you to sleep by saying their product has no
> ingredient you can't pronounce (what does THAT mean? if you can
> read, you can pronounce!) so you go "I don't need to check that
> label because there is nothing in there I can't pronounce".
> So, the assumption they make is that they could cure your meat with
> mosquito repellent and you wouldn't care because you can't
> pronounce "mosquito repellent."
>
> Maple Leaf says they make cold meats with no preservatives or
> artificial ingredients. For those of you who are challenged, it
> means no nitrates. But unfortunately, they use cultured celery
> extract which DOES contain nitrates. So they ARE using
> preservatives but hiding that fact by suggesting that if you can
> pronounce the name of the ingredient, it isn't bad for you.

The other thing that gets me is the 5 ingredients or less. On a forum that
I frequent, one poster started a thread about healthy diets and asked who
was going to join her? Her opinion of a healthy diet was just as you said.
Contains nothing that you can't pronounce. But it also had to be organic
and not contain over 5 ingredients. To me that was a joke! You can't even
make a good beef stew or vegetable soup with 5 ingredients! Most foods
contain salt and pepper so that's two right there! Add in any other herbs
and seasonings and you could quickly add up to 5 before you even put in any
meat or veg!

When I pointed out to this woman how ridiculous this was, she snapped at me
and said it was only an expression! Um, yeah. Okay. Whatever that means!

I also don't think there is any one diet that we all would agree was a
healthy one. I think we all have varying opinions on that.

"Fuzz Wuzzy Bear" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:32:27 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> Once again, you're free to ignore anything that might make you a better
>> informed consumer.
>
> I am as informed as I need to be, product(s) I like costs x for y size.
> I am not interested in how it got to me etc... I eat what I like. I cook
> with butter, lard, salt, bacon grease, and all kinds of other things.. I
> don't cook because it is good for me. I cook because I need to eat, and
> what tastes good. Additionally I like to cook...but if in the process
> that kills me. So be it. I will die happy, unlike you and others reading
> about did I ingest too much this or that or something... who will
> probably die from all the worrying about what their intake of something
> trivial is versus the actual item itself.
>
>> We wouldn't want you to lose that King of Fools
>> crown.
>
> The only fools are the schmucks who read those stupid labels.

Uh, no. Some people *have* to.

On 27/06/2013 7:55 AM, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:39:38 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> I see people looking at those labels. I look at them myself sometimes. I
>> would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if someone
>> were to look at the nutrition information and ingredients of everything
>> they buy every time they shop.
>
> Those looking at them are the minority, unless you shop at Whole Foods
> and Hippemart stores. The average Jane consumer, me, couldn't give damn
> about them in the least.
>
As I said.... don't expect to see them looking at every label every
time. Shoppers should be able to determine the ingredients in their food
products and have ready access to the nutritional data. There are a lot
of products out there that try to pass themselves off as healthful
products that are not.

Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:32:27 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > Once again, you're free to ignore anything that might make you a better
> > informed consumer.
>
> I am as informed as I need to be, product(s) I like costs x for y size.
> I am not interested in how it got to me etc... I eat what I like. I cook
> with butter, lard, salt, bacon grease, and all kinds of other things.. I
> don't cook because it is good for me. I cook because I need to eat, and
> what tastes good. Additionally I like to cook...but if in the process
> that kills me. So be it. I will die happy, unlike you and others reading
> about did I ingest too much this or that or something... who will
> probably die from all the worrying about what their intake of something
> trivial is versus the actual item itself.
>

I'm with you there, F.Wuzzy Bear. I know the basics of good and bad food but
at this point I still eat anything that comes to mind (within reason).
Hopefully that will never need to change but if it does, I'll have to weigh
decent food vs longer life. You have to draw a line somewhere.

G.

Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:39:38 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > I see people looking at those labels. I look at them myself sometimes. I
> > would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if someone
> > were to look at the nutrition information and ingredients of everything
> > they buy every time they shop.
>
> Those looking at them are the minority, unless you shop at Whole Foods
> and Hippemart stores. The average Jane consumer, me, couldn't give damn
> about them in the least.

"Hippemart stores." LMAO but so true. I do go to these stores occasionally
to buy a few things and I have noticed how many shoppers there seem to have
a 'cool kid' attitude. If you are not carrying a cloth green bag, or wearing
the latest fashion, they tend to frown at you and move on.

I guess I'm just "trailer trash" but hey, the world needs ditchdiggers too.


G.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Fuzz Wuzzy Bear" wrote
> > The only fools are the schmucks who read those stupid labels.
>
> Uh, no. Some people *have* to.

I DO agree with you there, Julie. The Wuzzy and I are only referring to
people without health problems. Certainly others have to watch everything.

G.

On 6/27/2013 6:09 AM, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:54:15 -0600, casa bona wrote:
>
>> That's well and good, but still merely anecdotal.
>
> There are plenty like me, anecdotal or not. That become statistically
> important.

So far their sales indicate you are not important.

>> Do try and focus.
>
> Do try to and focus, as none of that is meaningful to the customer.
>
> Customer:
>
> Good Food?
>
> Good Service?
>
> Price for the above?
>
> Any one or all can sink a restaurant quickly.

No wonder they're so popular then.

> Restaurants trying to peddle this fake "PC" responsible crap can just
> take that manure back to the farm they got it from and spread it there. I
> am not interested. And in the case of shitpotle that sinks their brand
> quicker than their crap food.

Their food is quite good for the fast food segment, try again.

>> That's silliness and illogical to boot, customers "going" are the
>> metrics, and they remain robust and increasing, period.
>
> Not by me and by few outside a handful of work clients. Even what I would
> consider to be the PC/healthnut whack jobs don't care for it.

You few have not factored, their sales keep growing.

> I as a consumer have decided they do not meet any food need for me, ever.
> No reason to go. I will tell others the same. When the weekly group meets
> and it is my choice this place is not a choice. Don't have to worry as
> the group wouldn't choose this place either.

Guess what...you don't factor, any of you.
]
>> Toxic Hell is not their comp, Q'doba is.
>
> Well I don't know what the **** qdoba is never heard of it, it it is a
> restaurant they don't have them in my area or any where I travel.

That's because you came into this discussion uneducated, and likely will
leave it so, despite my best efforts, oh well...

http://www.qdoba.com/
>
>> The food is quit consumable, by those of greater palette than beliefs
>> bias.
>
> I have a very eclectic palette..

I'll just bet...

> but I don't like what I don't like and
> since I don't eat rice or beans, something that is stuffed with it is
> just disgusting.. I can make a better burrito/taco or whatever than
> shitpotle. Hell even Taco Bell can.
>

Toxic Hell is hardly "better" by any standard, even one as lax as yours.

And they put beans in almost all their burritos.

If ground meat is your fare so be it - but it's not close to comparable
to Chipotle.

You're an unmitigated fool.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:07:02 PM UTC-5, casa bona wrote:
> On 6/20/2013 4:59 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:22:09 PM UTC-4, casa bona wrote:
>
>
> >> It may not be taqueria fare, but it's also not fried in lard and
>
>
> >> dripping in sat. fat.
>
None of the taquerias around here use lard. It is most likely that they
use soy oil. It's in a squirt bottle next to the grill.
>
>
> >> And I'm not ripping on taquerias, just being honest.
>
>
> > Sure, you can eat "healthy" (and boring) there, but most
> > people eat mounds of (boring) food.
>
>
>
> I can and do eat "healthy there" - all it involves is eliminating the
>
> superfluous sat. fats like cheese and sour cream.
>
Superfluous to a joyless ascetic.
>
> A chicken burrito with black beans, rice, corn salsa and lettuce comes
>
> in at 6 grams of sat. fat. Not an unhealthy reading at all.
>
>
>
> I can do just as well at Subway by ordering a turkey breast sub and
>
> eliminating the cheese and squeeze bottle sauce.
>
Anyone who eats at Subway has their tongue so far up their ass that
their opinion is less than worthless.

--Bryan

In article >, says...
>
> Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:32:27 -0700, sf wrote:
> >
> > > Once again, you're free to ignore anything that might make you a better
> > > informed consumer.
> >
> > I am as informed as I need to be, product(s) I like costs x for y size.
> > I am not interested in how it got to me etc... I eat what I like. I cook
> > with butter, lard, salt, bacon grease, and all kinds of other things.. I
> > don't cook because it is good for me. I cook because I need to eat, and
> > what tastes good. Additionally I like to cook...but if in the process
> > that kills me. So be it. I will die happy, unlike you and others reading
> > about did I ingest too much this or that or something... who will
> > probably die from all the worrying about what their intake of something
> > trivial is versus the actual item itself.
> >
>
> I'm with you there, F.Wuzzy Bear. I know the basics of good and bad food but
> at this point I still eat anything that comes to mind (within reason).
> Hopefully that will never need to change but if it does, I'll have to weigh
> decent food vs longer life. You have to draw a line somewhere.

The point is what kind of "longer life"? It's not just a live/die
choice. What is far more likely and common, is that diminishing health
from poor diet significantly impairs the quality of life for many years,
especially in old age. For instance, developing heart, circulatory and
lung problems may mean you're always short of breath, can't sleep lying
down, can't walk upstairs or any distance. Diabetes may lead to
neuropathy, painful ulcers and amputations. Obesity risks both, plus
stroke... dropping stone dead of a stroke is one thing, but surviving
one can mean years helpless, disabled, mentally impaired, unable to
speak, etc.

Janet

On 6/27/2013 12:37 PM, Vegan Earthworm Holocaust wrote:
> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:07:02 PM UTC-5, casa bona wrote:
>> On 6/20/2013 4:59 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:22:09 PM UTC-4, casa bona wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It may not be taqueria fare, but it's also not fried in lard and
>>
>>
>>>> dripping in sat. fat.
>>
> None of the taquerias around here use lard. It is most likely that they
> use soy oil. It's in a squirt bottle next to the grill.

Lard is traditionally used to make refried beans.

The grill will have squeeze bottle oil of whatever is cheapest, oft
times cottonseed oil.

Neither are very healthy, imo.

>>
>>
>>>> And I'm not ripping on taquerias, just being honest.
>>
>>
>>> Sure, you can eat "healthy" (and boring) there, but most
>>> people eat mounds of (boring) food.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can and do eat "healthy there" - all it involves is eliminating the
>>
>> superfluous sat. fats like cheese and sour cream.
>>
> Superfluous to a joyless ascetic.

If one wishes to eat healthy it is an easy choice.

>>
>> A chicken burrito with black beans, rice, corn salsa and lettuce comes
>>
>> in at 6 grams of sat. fat. Not an unhealthy reading at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can do just as well at Subway by ordering a turkey breast sub and
>>
>> eliminating the cheese and squeeze bottle sauce.
>>
> Anyone who eats at Subway has their tongue so far up their ass that
> their opinion is less than worthless.
>
> --Bryan

So you eat there too?

;-)

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:39:38 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> > I see people looking at those labels. I look at them myself sometimes.
>> > I
>> > would consider it to be a significant psychological problem if someone
>> > were to look at the nutrition information and ingredients of everything
>> > they buy every time they shop.
>>
>> Those looking at them are the minority, unless you shop at Whole Foods
>> and Hippemart stores. The average Jane consumer, me, couldn't give damn
>> about them in the least.
>
> "Hippemart stores." LMAO but so true. I do go to these stores
> occasionally
> to buy a few things and I have noticed how many shoppers there seem to
> have
> a 'cool kid' attitude. If you are not carrying a cloth green bag, or
> wearing
> the latest fashion, they tend to frown at you and move on.
>
> I guess I'm just "trailer trash" but hey, the world needs ditchdiggers
> too.
>

Here most everyone carries their own bags. They have been pushing that for
a long time. You won't see people wearing the latest fashions though.
We're more un-fashion here.

Were at Whole Foods yesterday. Saw a man get out of a vehicle. He had the
standard tattoos and various piercings that are getting more and more common
here. But other than that, nothing looked abnormal about him. Then a
little person got out of the vehicle. That person did look strange.
Dressed in all black but the pants were odd. Quite baggy with open bottoms
to them but the bottoms did taper in slightly and the length was strange.
Too long to be shorts. Too long to be capris. Too tapered in to be
gauchos. Then they had on what looked like men's thick crew socks. You
could see the tiniest bit of skin between the sock tops and the pant
bottoms. Had on a big black, sweatshirt looking top. Very generic. Also
strange black shoes. Looked as though they were slip ons but very much
conformed to the feet. Very plain looking. No makeup. No tattoos or
obvious piercings. But an unusual hairstyle. Had sort of a tiny little
Mohawk thing going on. Maybe an inch high. But the rest of the head was
like a crew cut. And the hair was all black. Appeared to be dyed. They
had a baby with them, also dressed in a unisex little baby suit. Angela and
I couldn't tell if the little person was male or female. You just never
know here. May well have been two guys!

Today we saw all sorts of people in coats. It's warm and uncomfortably
muggy here and yet we saw wool winter coats, puffer jackets, Berber fleece,
sweatshirts. Can't tell you how many jackets and coats that we saw. People
are strange here.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Fuzz Wuzzy Bear" wrote
>> > The only fools are the schmucks who read those stupid labels.
>>
>> Uh, no. Some people *have* to.
>
> I DO agree with you there, Julie. The Wuzzy and I are only referring to
> people without health problems. Certainly others have to watch
> everything.

I do agree that most people without health problems do not read labels. And
when they do, they are often looking for some seemingly random thing to
either be there or not be there. People can be very faddish.

Remember the big chicken push back in the 80's? Chicken and oat bran. Not
necessarily together. They pushed the oat bran like it was the cure all for
everything! And then almost as soon as it began, they said, "Oops! I
doesn't do what we said it would!" I had an oat bran cookbook and another
that had something like 365 chicken recipes in it.

One day a friend told me that she was so proud of herself because she had
eaten a healthy meal the night before. I asked her what it was, wondering
because at the time she liked to brag about how she didn't cook. That was
another thing that used to be popular with women. I don't personally get it
because perhaps I am not quite old enough to relate to those days but... A
lot of women older than me felt that they were obligated or required to do
all of the cooking and resented it. So there was a big anti-cooking thing
going on. Anyway... She described this sandwich that she had gotten
somewhere. Fast food. Breaded chicken patty on a white flour bun. So I
said to her, "You know that you are negating any healthy aspect of that
chicken by breading, frying and eating on that bun. Right?" She looked a
bit shocked. Replied, "No... It was chicken! I thought we were SUPPOSED
to eat chicken!" Yeah. People think some weird things.

"Vegan Earthworm Holocaust" > wrote in message
...
>>
> None of the taquerias around here use lard. It is most likely that they
> use soy oil. It's in a squirt bottle next to the grill.

Soybean oil is very common in most restaurants here. Some of the Mexican
ones say that they use "vegetable" oil. Whatever that means. There are a
few places who use peanut oil and they are up front about it. There's a
little place that opened in Edmonds a few years ago. Their menu looks great
but sadly they use peanut oil so we can't eat there.
>>
>>
>> >> And I'm not ripping on taquerias, just being honest.
>>
>>
>> > Sure, you can eat "healthy" (and boring) there, but most
>> > people eat mounds of (boring) food.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can and do eat "healthy there" - all it involves is eliminating the
>>
>> superfluous sat. fats like cheese and sour cream.
>>
> Superfluous to a joyless ascetic.
>>
>> A chicken burrito with black beans, rice, corn salsa and lettuce comes
>>
>> in at 6 grams of sat. fat. Not an unhealthy reading at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can do just as well at Subway by ordering a turkey breast sub and
>>
>> eliminating the cheese and squeeze bottle sauce.
>>
> Anyone who eats at Subway has their tongue so far up their ass that
> their opinion is less than worthless.

Apparently there is some need for them. I could see it maybe if they had a
drive through, but I suppose that defeats the purpose of them having so many
topping choices. Would really bung up a drive through. They did put a
Subway in by where I worked, many years ago. I ate in there twice and it
was good back then. But then they suddenly closed. Don't know why. In
those days there were fewer bread choices. Maybe none. They pulled out the
middle of the bread on both sides and it was quite full of meat and cheese.
Still would never, ever by my first choice of places to eat but bore no
resemblance to what it is today.

At the other end of the building was a local small chain place called
Sandwich Isle. Now that place was great! No sub buns there. Freshly baked
bread of all kinds. All kinds of sandwich choices including shrimp. Small
salad bar. Fresh fruits and a limited selection of desserts. I am not even
a sandwich lover but those were damned good! So good that we would
sometimes even go there as a destination for lunch.

There was another great sandwich place called Paisano's. They may possibly
have had sub bread as a choice. Don't remember. That place boasted the
first big screen TV in the area. We ate there a lot! Then the owner (who
was Italian) for some reason decided to close that place and open an Italian
place nearby. For some reason that place never took off. And I don't know
why. The food was excellent and it was truly all you could eat. Not a
buffet but... No matter what you ordered, they told you as they brought
your plates that if it wasn't enough for you, they'd bring you more free of
charge. Not that anyone from my family ever took advantage of it. But the
big difference in the two places was that at the Sandwich shop, Aldo (the
owner) was always around. He was a very friendly and personable guy. We
looked for him at the Italian place but never saw him. In fact I think I
only ever ate there maybe three times. Italian food in a restaurant is
rarely ever my first choice of meals unless perhaps it is one of those
places that serves some of the more authentic Italian things that the other
places don't. Anyway... That place just didn't make it.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:52:27 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>
> "Vegan Earthworm Holocaust" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> > Anyone who eats at Subway has their tongue so far up their ass that
> > their opinion is less than worthless.
>
> Apparently there is some need for them. I could see it maybe if they had a
> drive through, but I suppose that defeats the purpose of them having so many
> topping choices. Would really bung up a drive through. They did put a
> Subway in by where I worked, many years ago. I ate in there twice and it
> was good back then. But then they suddenly closed. Don't know why. In
> those days there were fewer bread choices. Maybe none. They pulled out the
> middle of the bread on both sides and it was quite full of meat and cheese.
> Still would never, ever by my first choice of places to eat but bore no
> resemblance to what it is today.

There's a brand new Subway by the mailbox that we use to send our
Netflix DVD back to the mothership. There's a sign in the window
beaconing us to order a sandwich with avocado and avocado is the big
deal part of it. I can't find what I think the sandwich is called on
the internet (I would ignore a sandwich with "turkey" as part of the
title), so I need to write it down (or at least take a picture of the
sign) the next time we pass by it.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >, says...

> I do agree that most people without health problems do not read labels. And
> when they do, they are often looking for some seemingly random thing to
> either be there or not be there. .

How on earth would you know what healthy people do ?

I read labels and I'm in radiant health.

Maybe one of the reasons my family is so healthy is that I read labels
to avoid eating stale over-processed chemically-disguised crap.

>People can be very faddish

Yeah, the ones like you, not the ones like me.

Janet UK

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:59:51 PM UTC-5, casa bona wrote:
> On 6/27/2013 12:37 PM, Vegan Earthworm Holocaust wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:07:02 PM UTC-5, casa bona wrote:
>
> >> On 6/20/2013 4:59 PM, wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:22:09 PM UTC-4, casa bona wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> It may not be taqueria fare, but it's also not fried in lard and
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> dripping in sat. fat.
>
> >>
>
> > None of the taquerias around here use lard. It is most likely that they
>
> > use soy oil. It's in a squirt bottle next to the grill.
>
>
>
> Lard is traditionally used to make refried beans.
>
>
>
> The grill will have squeeze bottle oil of whatever is cheapest, oft
>
> times cottonseed oil.
>
>
>
> Neither are very healthy, imo.
>
They're both too high in Omega 6, but I thought was saturated fat that
you were concerned with, which is pretty bogus.
http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Fats...dp/0967812607/

You can read excerpts on Amazon, and your public library might have a copy, could get a copy interlibrary loan, or might even be willing to acquire it if you requested it.
> >>
>
> >>>> And I'm not ripping on taquerias, just being honest.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Sure, you can eat "healthy" (and boring) there, but most
>
> >>> people eat mounds of (boring) food.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I can and do eat "healthy there" - all it involves is eliminating the
>
> >>
>
> >> superfluous sat. fats like cheese and sour cream.
>
> >>
>
> > Superfluous to a joyless ascetic.
>
>
>
> If one wishes to eat healthy it is an easy choice.
>
I'm not sure you even know what healthful is. You or almost anyone else.
Around here, well, Susan seems to have a clue.
>
> >> A chicken burrito with black beans, rice, corn salsa and lettuce comes
>
> >>
>
> >> in at 6 grams of sat. fat. Not an unhealthy reading at all.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I can do just as well at Subway by ordering a turkey breast sub and
>
> >>
>
> >> eliminating the cheese and squeeze bottle sauce.
>
> >>
>
> > Anyone who eats at Subway has their tongue so far up their ass that
>
> > their opinion is less than worthless.
>
> >
>
> > --Bryan
>
>
>
> So you eat there too?
>
The stench of their "bread" makes the local Wal Mart an even less
attractive place to shop.

I took a break in the middle of writing this to fry up three eggs in some coconut oil. What a delicious way to increase HDL. Earlier, I had three tortillas fried in high oleic sunflower oil. At work, I'll have coffee with half & half, and a few fish oil capsules and a can of kippered herring. I think I'll fry some chicken for dinner this evening.

--Bryan

Janet wrote:
>
> says...
> > I'm with you there, F.Wuzzy Bear. I know the basics of good and bad food but
> > at this point I still eat anything that comes to mind (within reason).
> > Hopefully that will never need to change but if it does, I'll have to weigh
> > decent food vs longer life. You have to draw a line somewhere.
>
> The point is what kind of "longer life"? It's not just a live/die
> choice. What is far more likely and common, is that diminishing health
> from poor diet significantly impairs the quality of life for many years,
> especially in old age. For instance, developing heart, circulatory and
> lung problems may mean you're always short of breath, can't sleep lying
> down, can't walk upstairs or any distance. Diabetes may lead to
> neuropathy, painful ulcers and amputations. Obesity risks both, plus
> stroke... dropping stone dead of a stroke is one thing, but surviving
> one can mean years helpless, disabled, mentally impaired, unable to
> speak, etc.
>
> Janet

Janet UK, that was very well said. Better thought out than my opinion and I
appreciate that vs name calling about being stupid, etc, etc.

I often will spout my beliefs but I'm always willing to listen to opposing
views. No killfile for me. If I'm wrong, feel free to educate me. I'm
always willing to listen to opposing views.

Since I still have no known health problems, I hold to my old doctor's
quote, "eat anything that you want to...just don't eat a lot of any one
thing."

Your post was a good, insightful one. You made me consider other
situations.

G.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
>
> > I do agree that most people without health problems do not read labels. And
> > when they do, they are often looking for some seemingly random thing to
> > either be there or not be there. .
>
> How on earth would you know what healthy people do ?
>
> I read labels and I'm in radiant health.
>
> Maybe one of the reasons my family is so healthy is that I read labels
> to avoid eating stale over-processed chemically-disguised crap.
>
> >People can be very faddish
>
> Yeah, the ones like you, not the ones like me.
>
> Janet UK


and sadly, you are still going to die.
No one has solved that problem to date.


G.

On 6/28/2013 7:29 AM, Vegan Earthworm Holocaust wrote:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:59:51 PM UTC-5, casa bona wrote:
>> On 6/27/2013 12:37 PM, Vegan Earthworm Holocaust wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:07:02 PM UTC-5, casa bona wrote:
>>
>>>> On 6/20/2013 4:59 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:22:09 PM UTC-4, casa bona wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> It may not be taqueria fare, but it's also not fried in lard and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> dripping in sat. fat.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> None of the taquerias around here use lard. It is most likely that they
>>
>>> use soy oil. It's in a squirt bottle next to the grill.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lard is traditionally used to make refried beans.
>>
>>
>>
>> The grill will have squeeze bottle oil of whatever is cheapest, oft
>>
>> times cottonseed oil.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither are very healthy, imo.
>>
> They're both too high in Omega 6, but I thought was saturated fat that
> you were concerned with, which is pretty bogus.
> http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Fats...dp/0967812607/

You are becoming quite tiresome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottonseed_oil

When it is fully hydrogenated, its profile is 94% saturated fat and 2%
unsaturated fatty acids (1.5% monounsaturated, and 0.5% polyunsaturated).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lard

Fat composition
Saturated fats 38–43%:
Palmitic acid: 25–28%
Stearic acid: 12–14%
Myristic acid: 1%
>
> You can read excerpts on Amazon, and your public library might have a copy, could get a copy interlibrary loan, or might even be willing to acquire it if you requested it.
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> And I'm not ripping on taquerias, just being honest.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Sure, you can eat "healthy" (and boring) there, but most
>>
>>>>> people eat mounds of (boring) food.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I can and do eat "healthy there" - all it involves is eliminating the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> superfluous sat. fats like cheese and sour cream.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Superfluous to a joyless ascetic.
>>
>>
>>
>> If one wishes to eat healthy it is an easy choice.
>>
> I'm not sure you even know what healthful is. You or almost anyone else.
> Around here, well, Susan seems to have a clue.

You are quickly establishing yourself as someone with little credibility
in this matter.

>>
>>>> A chicken burrito with black beans, rice, corn salsa and lettuce comes
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> in at 6 grams of sat. fat. Not an unhealthy reading at all.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I can do just as well at Subway by ordering a turkey breast sub and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> eliminating the cheese and squeeze bottle sauce.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Anyone who eats at Subway has their tongue so far up their ass that
>>
>>> their opinion is less than worthless.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> --Bryan
>>
>>
>>
>> So you eat there too?
>>
> The stench of their "bread" makes the local Wal Mart an even less
> attractive place to shop.
>
> I took a break in the middle of writing this to fry up three eggs in some coconut oil. What a delicious way to increase HDL. Earlier, I had three tortillas fried in high oleic sunflower oil. At work, I'll have coffee with half & half, and a few fish oil capsules and a can of kippered herring. I think I'll fry some chicken for dinner this evening.
>
> --Bryan
>

I think you have as little interest in reasonable discussion as I have
in your upcoming menu.

On 6/28/2013 4:24 PM, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:16:11 -0600, casa bona wrote:
>
>> No wonder they're so popular then.
>
> No I wonder as they have neither good food or service.

I've had precisely the opposite experience.

>> Their food is quite good for the fast food segment, try again.
>
> No, I would put it right at about mcdonalds level, which is at the bottom
> of the list.

Then you reveal only your on incapability to judge food fairly.

>> Guess what...you don't factor, any of you.
>
> You can repeat that again and again ad nauseum, like all those
> restaurants that end up on those save my restaurant shows... bad PR will,
> especially word of mouth is deadly... Hmmm... just drove past the
> shitpotle they just opened... sign on the door and empty parking
> lot...looks like that didn't last long... so it is not all sunshine.

And where is this store located?

> I and my group do matter as we spread negative word of mouth to others.
> That spreads to others and so on... it doesn't take much bad PR like this
> kill a restaurant.

You drastically overvalue your efforts.

>> That's because you came into this discussion uneducated, and likely will
>> leave it so, despite my best efforts, oh well...
>> http://www.qdoba.com/
>
> Never heard of them, not a one in any of the states I travel to.

That's why your narrative on Chipotle is not useful, you lack awareness
of the actual market comps for this sort of restaurant.

>> I'll just bet...
>
> Eat all kinds of things but mexican/hispanic/latin cuisine is mostly not
> to my liking. Beef it is what is for dinner! I mostly make this at home
> from or Taco Bell since the drive thru is close.

If you dislike Mexican cuisine then Toxic Hell would be the spot to go...

>> Toxic Hell is hardly "better" by any standard, even one as lax as yours.
>
> Taco Bell is great compared to shitpotle, with the exception of those
> products containing beans and/or rice and those hideous doritos taco
> shells. Tried one, threw it out after 2 bites.. disgusting. Give me just
> a plain Taco Supreme any day. I love doritos, but as a taco shell... pass.

On that last observation we can agree.

>> And they put beans in almost all their burritos.
>
> And I don't eat them. Gee imagine that... which is why I never get
> burritos unless I make them at home since every one wants to stuff beans
> and/or rice in them... NO!

You can order them without either one at Chipotle.

>> You're an unmitigated fool.
>
> Your just a fool following the shitpotle and other PR for these similar
> companies.

I went with actual market metrics, not PR.

On 6/29/2013 10:40 AM, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear wrote:
> Hmmm...maybe thats why I don't like their food... who wants to eat carbs
> with all that gasoline. That must have been what caused the bad
> taste..Maybe I could do some of those fire breather tricks after eating
> their food...
>
> The point being I wouldn't know a carb from what ever other term. I know
> meat, dairy, cheese, bread... I choose to be ignorant to these terms
> because I do not care, have not, and will not ever care about them.

Carb = carbohydrate.

Their food can also be served in a bowl over rice (also a carb) or over
lettuce or grilled veggies.

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:41:03 GMT, Fuzz Wuzzy Bear
> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:08:22 -0600, casa bona wrote:
>
> > Carb = carbohydrate.
>
> Where is the carbohydrate section of the local Krogers/Publix/Walmart/
> Target/Giant Eagle/Shop n Save?
>
> I don't know what it is, don't care what it is. I eat what I like,
> period. It doesn't matter if it is "healthy."
>
> Most of the public doesn't know and more importantly DOES NOT GIVE A
> ****. They like me go to the store and get steak, potatoes, milk, eggs,
> bread, etc... they don't look for the carbohydrate section to get a
> carbosteak or what ever it is... and those that do are more likely to
> shop at Whole Foods or like which panders to these type of whackos.u
>

You not only don't give a ****, you don't have a clue.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila