Seahag wrote:
Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!

Seahag

"katy" wrote in message
...

Frank Boettcher wrote:

..could never figure out how my

eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in
China...I was all for packing the stuff up and shipping
it to Taiwan...


What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

You haven't had my Mom's....her goulash was bad, too....we
ate a ot oif what we planted in the garden and then put up
each simmer and what my Dad caught fishing and
hunting...my maternal gramma supplied eggs and
chickens...even though we were no longer farmers in any
sense of the word, my Dad never got over being a farmer...



hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

"katy" wrote:
Seahag wrote:
Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!
hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had
that sort of puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning
thing going on. Mind you, his mother invented the food
'deflavorizer'.

S

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly the
food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video games
and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear to be
only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny state.
I prefer the former.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
...
DSK said:
It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money


Dave wrote:
Ah, Doug has the solution again. Don't ban fat--ban profits.

Ah, Dave goes for the ad-hominem again.

??? Identifying you as the individual who posed the issue is a personal
attack?

Max

"katy" wrote in message
...

. . .and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like
Nutrasweet...

Yeah, but think how well-preserved you'd be with Nutrasweet.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly the
food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear
to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny
state. I prefer the former.


Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions now...
just da facts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that
pushed the current system into place, so I'm not going to
say how to push things in a different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.


.... Certainly the
food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems
are in place. You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from
Frank B who seems to believe that advertising is just a
curious way corporations have of disposing excess dollars.


.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No
advertising cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how
much is healthy" then yes, that would be nannyism.

If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by
taxation, for example in a way similar to how research &
development is encouraged by tax rules, then that would not
be nannyism and might tilt the system away from heavy
advertising.




It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video games
and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear to be
only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny state.
I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being
intentionally obtuse, or your blinders are strapped on a
little too tight, or you're stupider than I'd have given you
credit for.


Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions now...
just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising
works. Personal responsibility also works, when it is present.

DSK

Dave wrote:
While in law school I shared an apartment with a guy who had taken one or
more of Galbraith's courses, and I was thus regaled at great length with
Galbraith's theories. Today I regard him as one with a great talent for
getting his name in print, but otherwise a footnote, and many share that
view.


William F. Buckley not among them. But hey, he's just
another liberal pencil-neck elitist wanna-be, right


But I guess he still has at least one disciple--DSK

Let me put it this way... Do you have some other theory to
explain why lots of very smart & capable corporate
executives chose to spend billions of dollars on
advertising? Galbraith's explanation is closest to the mark
so far, but you're welcome to take a swing.

The fact that you have political prejudices against
Galbraith are proof of the stupidity of prejudice, not the
stupidity of Galbraith.

DSK

I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served
people and they never knew it wasn't sugar...


Maybe they were too polite to tell you? Maybe the horrid
aftertaste was disguised by all that jalapeno?


Seahag wrote:
sugar's a quick burn sort of thing. Think of the
quantitudes of fats Americans chow down at every turn. And
then have to ":jog" off again.

Yep, Atkins had at least one thing right... the type of
calories makes a difference.


I had lunch at a place in
Miami that the meal had to have weighed at least 10lbs. on
the plate. It was gross. What was worse was just throwing
all that untouched mountain of food away.


A lot of people have also been conditioned to not throw food
away. I'm working on not buying it in the first place...
saves money too.

DSK

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly
the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear
to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny
state. I prefer the former.


Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.

My last sentence was an opinion, based on the observation that the nanny
state does little to encourage self-reliance and motivation. To the
contrary, in those countries, such as Norway, where people have
cradle-to-grave provision by the government, the creative juices just don't
seem to flow very copiously. When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country,
but stagnant.

Max