|
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
I can't seem to get those pictures of Tom's fat family outta my mind.
Maybe if I tell you all my pet peeve you'll all know why it bothers me so seeing people cripple and sicken themselves like that. It used to be that people in my generation just said : "Leave 'em alone, if they wanna be fat it's their right to be fat." Not any more! Nyut uh! My generation's paying for all their Medicare that takes care off all their health problems. Problems they wouldn't have it they weren't so freakin' fat. Just like cigarette smokers who sue tobacco companies because they got cancer fatties won't admit they're the ones to blame. Their problem is they can't shut their pie-holes. They ate so much because they're gluttons. The Bible even says gluttony is a sin. Do they care. Not a chance. They eat like hogs til they get so fat they can't do anything physical for a good time. The only good time they can have is to sit their obesity down to another big fattening meal. Then just like in Tom's photos they lie around and let the weight pack on. Is this even considered *human* behavior? It's more like how ticks behave. The result is the typical American family. Tom's is the typical American family, I'm afraid to say. It's disgusting. It's even worse that my generation has to pay for the results of their gluttony. They're aughta be a law. And how about the way they slow the whole world down. Ever get behind one of them in a Supermarket? Forget about getting around them. They're so fat they block the whole aisle. Some of them have to sit in those electric carts while they push a full shopping cart and they stop you and ask you to get some sugary or greasy thing from the top shelf. Pathetic and disgusting. And the fat women are the worse. They wear some kind of big and tall man's slacks and a XXXXXXXL tee shirt that they keep pulling down to try to disguise the five or six rolls of fat that bulge around what should be their waist line. Makes me wanna hurl. Now, I know it ain't PC to say these things. But by all that's holy somebody's gotta start the ball rolling before these fatties eat every penny of what they take outta our paychecks. They'll be nothing left for us. Next thing ya know they'll have to double and triple the withholding. And just because a bunch of fatties don't have any interest other than eating. Cheers, Ellen (nobody calls me a fat chick) |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... I can't seem to get those pictures of Tom's fat family outta my mind. Maybe if I tell you all my pet peeve you'll all know why it bothers me so seeing people cripple and sicken themselves like that. It used to be that people in my generation just said : "Leave 'em alone, if they wanna be fat it's their right to be fat." Not any more! Nyut uh! My generation's paying for all their Medicare that takes care off all their health problems. Problems they wouldn't have it they weren't so freakin' fat. Just like cigarette smokers who sue tobacco companies because they got cancer fatties won't admit they're the ones to blame. Their problem is they can't shut their pie-holes. They ate so much because they're gluttons. The Bible even says gluttony is a sin. Do they care. Not a chance. They eat like hogs til they get so fat they can't do anything physical for a good time. The only good time they can have is to sit their obesity down to another big fattening meal. Then just like in Tom's photos they lie around and let the weight pack on. Is this even considered *human* behavior? It's more like how ticks behave. The result is the typical American family. Tom's is the typical American family, I'm afraid to say. It's disgusting. It's even worse that my generation has to pay for the results of their gluttony. They're aughta be a law. And how about the way they slow the whole world down. Ever get behind one of them in a Supermarket? Forget about getting around them. They're so fat they block the whole aisle. Some of them have to sit in those electric carts while they push a full shopping cart and they stop you and ask you to get some sugary or greasy thing from the top shelf. Pathetic and disgusting. And the fat women are the worse. They wear some kind of big and tall man's slacks and a XXXXXXXL tee shirt that they keep pulling down to try to disguise the five or six rolls of fat that bulge around what should be their waist line. Makes me wanna hurl. Now, I know it ain't PC to say these things. But by all that's holy somebody's gotta start the ball rolling before these fatties eat every penny of what they take outta our paychecks. They'll be nothing left for us. Next thing ya know they'll have to double and triple the withholding. And just because a bunch of fatties don't have any interest other than eating. Cheers, Ellen (nobody calls me a fat chick) Large numbers of Fatties can only exist because of excessive government regulation and socialism. Most of those fatties are on group health insurance or government run health programs. The health risks of these behemoths are pooled with non fatties. If the government would end medicare, medicaid and undo the tax benefits of non qualifying group health insurance programs and make the fatties pay for true risks and consequences of their own health problems they would see the skinny real fast. We don't need to raise taxes on fast food or regulate what people eat. We simply must do less and let individuals do more for themselves. The American health care system is not the problem, for it is the best in the history of the world. It is American health that is the problem which is the result of lifestyle choices and the removal of responsibility. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Gilligan wrote:
Large numbers of Fatties can only exist because of excessive government regulation and socialism. Most of those fatties are on group health insurance or government run health programs. The health risks of these behemoths are pooled with non fatties. If the government would end medicare, medicaid and undo the tax benefits of non qualifying group health insurance programs and make the fatties pay for true risks and consequences of their own health problems they would see the skinny real fast. I doubt it. They would just whine louder. After all, they truly don't believe it's their own fault. We don't need to raise taxes on fast food or regulate what people eat. We simply must do less and let individuals do more for themselves. How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements 24/7? How about lowering the tariff protection on sugar, so it's a bit less profitable to push the stuff into everything? The American health care system is not the problem, for it is the best in the history of the world. It is American health that is the problem which is the result of lifestyle choices and the removal of responsibility. 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. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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. Did I say that? At most, I suggested that the gov't banning competition & free markets from the sugar business had helped create the situation of Americans consuming such tremendous amounts of sugar. I got the idea you were in favor of free markets? In the ideal world, people would look at the advertisements for cheesburgers & fatty salty snacks and say "no thanks, I'm not hungry just now." In the real world, advertising works. Kinda scary if you think about it. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Almost right... ban excessively fat profits.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:06:06 -0500, DSK said: It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making lots of money Ah, Doug has the solution again. Don't ban fat--ban profits. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Ah, Dave goes for the ad-hominem again.
Dave wrote: Identifying you as the person making the argument is not the same as attacking you personally for making it. Really? Let's see... did you identify me as the person making the argument- yes, no problem there. Did you mis-state the argument that I proposed, so as to make my suggestion (and me, by inference) seem stupid? Yes... somewhat of a problem there. Was your statement intended to be vituperative rather than part of a logical sequence? Yes. QED Did I say that? The implication is clearly that there is something wrong with businesses' wanting to make a profit. Not at all. Not much of a stretch then to say the solution is to ban making a profit. Only if you intend to be insulting... especially since that was in no way even remotely suggested by my actual words. I got the idea you were in favor of free markets? Well, I do have this funny idea that raising the price of an item generally reduces the quantity demanded rather than increasing the quantity demanded. It does so, with the normal range of goods & in the absence of other market inputs. Addressing the first point, sugar is an good that creates it's own demand. The more of it people eat, the more they want, and there is a very high upper limit on that consumption... you can continue to eat sugar after all your teeth fall out, but the poor nutrition will not kill you for many decades. Addressing the second point, if sugar sellers could maximize their profit by reducing prices so as to increase consumption, why would they lobby to have a tariff barrier in the first place? Remember that funny graph with two lines making an X in the middle of it? A bit old-fashioned, no doubt. And not particularly accurate in reflecting this particular situation. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:06:06 -0500, DSK wrote:
Gilligan wrote: Large numbers of Fatties can only exist because of excessive government regulation and socialism. Most of those fatties are on group health insurance or government run health programs. The health risks of these behemoths are pooled with non fatties. If the government would end medicare, medicaid and undo the tax benefits of non qualifying group health insurance programs and make the fatties pay for true risks and consequences of their own health problems they would see the skinny real fast. I doubt it. They would just whine louder. After all, they truly don't believe it's their own fault. We don't need to raise taxes on fast food or regulate what people eat. We simply must do less and let individuals do more for themselves. How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements 24/7? How about lowering the tariff protection on sugar, so it's a bit less profitable to push the stuff into everything? The American health care system is not the problem, for it is the best in the history of the world. It is American health that is the problem which is the result of lifestyle choices and the removal of responsibility. 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. With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat more? I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run 30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation. I can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight. But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good. (Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify) I don't need the Government to tell me what they are. After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs on the taboo list for many years. Frank DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Capt. JG wrote: Almost right... ban excessively fat profits. Commie. Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:06:06 -0500, DSK said: It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making lots of money Ah, Doug has the solution again. Don't ban fat--ban profits. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Frank Boettcher wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were many who did not have food in the world...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... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:01:38 -0500, DSK said: Before I begin, let me say I couldn't agree with you more that tariffs on sugar, like tariffs on most if not all goods are poor policy and should be abandoned. What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, thus still using the product so that sugar beet and cane farmers can still market their crops, but lowering the harmful aspects of sugar....it's a win/win situation... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
katy wrote:
What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. //Walt |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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. Frank Boettcher wrote: With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat more? ??? This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float, but how do they stay on top of the water?" Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion. Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this. Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue. ... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself. Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social norms... it's what everybody else is doing... ... Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question advertised claims of products they like. Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run 30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation. If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is. ... I can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight. But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good. (Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify) You just haven't had it when it's cooked right. ... I don't need the Government to tell me what they are. Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress to spend *less* money on any given issue. ... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs on the taboo list for many years. And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for one minute. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Dave wrote:
Before I begin, let me say I couldn't agree with you more that tariffs on sugar, like tariffs on most if not all goods are poor policy and should be abandoned. Agreeing with a condemned libby-rull? Wow Dave you're sliding down in the world. .... sugar is an good that creates it's own demand. The more of it people eat, the more they want, and there is a very high upper limit on that consumption... The first sentence is utter nonsense. Nothing creates its own demand. Well, it's an observable fact. Deny it all you want, doesn't change a thing. ... What you mean to say is that the demand curve is relatively flat. Not at all. If I meant to say that, that's what I would have said. ... That is, increasing the price by any given amount has only a small impact on the quantity demanded. What you're groping towards is a definition of elasticy vs inelasticity. But that's not the case. Refined sugar is a relatively new product. They've known how to make it for centruies, since cultivation of cane sugar was known. But it wasn't until well into the industrial age that people acquired a taste for it. Add to this, the huge number of market studies of sugary foods & drinks... there is no effective upper limit & people who buy them tend to buy more. In fact, I can think of two studies I've read the briefs on, wherein families given free sugary products went out and tripled their purchase of similar goods immediately after the study ended. Finally, let me refer you to Say's Law. Addressing the second point, if sugar sellers could maximize their profit by reducing prices so as to increase consumption, why would they lobby to have a tariff barrier in the first place? Because the tariff shifts the supply curve by eliminating from the market those foreign sellers whose marginal cost exceeds the free market price plus tariff. But the shift of the supply curve doesn't change the demand, and it doesn't change the shape of the curve. You're missing the basic point that the supply curves & demand curves for sugar... for a population that is accustomed to consuming it... is not the traditional slightly curved X shape from Econ 101. Remember that funny graph with two lines making an X in the middle of it? A bit old-fashioned, no doubt. And not particularly accurate in reflecting this particular situation. Tell me where I'm wrong. Wrong? Well, telling me "nonsense" is wrong. But your description of price effects & demand response is inaccurate. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
katysails wrote:
What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Walt wrote: Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. With squirty cheese on top. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Walt wrote:
katy wrote: What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. //Walt I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served people and they never knew it wasn't sugar... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
katysails wrote: What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Walt wrote: Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. With squirty cheese on top. DSK If you were saying Natrasweet or saccharin, I could understand...SPlenda does not have a chemical aftertaste and withstands temperature change, which Nutrasweet does not...and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like Nutrasweet... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:51:31 -0500, DSK wrote:
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. Frank Boettcher wrote: With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat more? ??? This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float, but how do they stay on top of the water?" Not a good analogy. Advertising your wares as a choice among others does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that particular commodity just because it is advertised. Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion. Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this. Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue. ... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself. Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social norms... it's what everybody else is doing... ... Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question advertised claims of products they like. Not me. I don't believe any of them. Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run 30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation. If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is. I'm back. Went 7 because I felt good. That's how I do it. set a target mileage and then increase or decrease it based on how I feel. Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions. At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health benefits...... ... I can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight. But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good. (Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify) You just haven't had it when it's cooked right. ... I don't need the Government to tell me what they are. Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress to spend *less* money on any given issue. ... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs on the taboo list for many years. And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for one minute. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Frank Boettcher wrote:
... Advertising your wares as a choice among others does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that particular commodity just because it is advertised. Sure. Who the heck does that? Advertises their product "as a choice among others" that is. And a given advertisement may or may not work on any given individual. However, if you truly believe that the millions of dollars Anheuser-Busch Corp spends on advertising has nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars that large numbers of people spend on Budweiser, then you need to take a good look at the world around you. Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions. At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health benefits...... Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I know a lot of runners... some my age, and some younger... who are suffering badly from deteriorating feet & knees. Maybe it's a coincidence. Are you taking glucosamine? DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, katy
wrote: Frank Boettcher wrote: How about letting individuals be less subjected to food I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were many who did not have food in the world...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... My Grandmothers were both depression mothers who used the same tactics on my parents. Fortunately, they had had enough of it and let us just eat till we were full. Their contribution to nutrition was not being well to do. In the late forties and fifties, when I was a kid, things processed and emerging junk foods cost more than simple and live foods. With six kids in the family they just didn't buy them so we ate a healthy diet by default. Today, everyone can afford junk food. That may be too bad. What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff. Frank |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:50:52 -0500, DSK wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote: ... Advertising your wares as a choice among others does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that particular commodity just because it is advertised. Sure. Who the heck does that? Advertises their product "as a choice among others" that is. And a given advertisement may or may not work on any given individual. However, if you truly believe that the millions of dollars Anheuser-Busch Corp spends on advertising has nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars that large numbers of people spend on Budweiser, then you need to take a good look at the world around you. Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller, Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them buy or consume more beer. Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions. At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health benefits...... Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I know a lot of runners... some my age, and some younger... who are suffering badly from deteriorating feet & knees. Maybe it's a coincidence. Are you taking glucosamine? No, I'm not (taking glucosamine), although I think it may be beneficial. And I only have the studies, my personal history, and individuals in the local running community who mirror the studies positive findings to go by. Could be the chicken and the egg. Those who don't have problems keep running, those that do, stop, and the studies only look at current runners. I never thought about it much, however my mother kept calling worrying about the same thing, so I started to look for studies to send her. It worked, she no longer worries about it. Frank DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller, Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them buy or consume more beer. I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you saying that that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't make people paranoid about bad breath? Car ads don't glorify fast driving (and roads with no traffic)? Perhaps I should ask you to explain what effect you think advertising *does* have. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, katy wrote: Frank Boettcher wrote: How about letting individuals be less subjected to food I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were many who did not have food in the world...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... My Grandmothers were both depression mothers who used the same tactics on my parents. Fortunately, they had had enough of it and let us just eat till we were full. Their contribution to nutrition was not being well to do. In the late forties and fifties, when I was a kid, things processed and emerging junk foods cost more than simple and live foods. With six kids in the family they just didn't buy them so we ate a healthy diet by default. Today, everyone can afford junk food. That may be too bad. 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... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote: Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller, Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them buy or consume more beer. I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you saying that that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't make people paranoid about bad breath? Car ads don't glorify fast driving (and roads with no traffic)? Perhaps I should ask you to explain what effect you think advertising *does* have. DSK Wellm I can tell you one thing..I am NOT diving off a balciny just so I don't get white stuff from antiperspirant on my dress! |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
War profiteer.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message ups.com... Capt. JG wrote: Almost right... ban excessively fat profits. Commie. Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:06:06 -0500, DSK said: It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making lots of money Ah, Doug has the solution again. Don't ban fat--ban profits. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:43:46 -0500, DSK wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote: Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller, Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them buy or consume more beer. I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you saying that that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't make people paranoid about bad breath? Car ads don't glorify fast driving (and roads with no traffic)? Perhaps I should ask you to explain what effect you think advertising *does* have. Nope I'm saying that you won't necessarily eat more food because of advertising, but you certainly might be swayed into eating the wrong food, disallowing room for the right food. If you have made a choice of what car to buy as a result of advertising or your own method for making that decision you don't go out and buy three more because they are advertised. And no, if you stopped all advertising cold I believe those people who drive fast would continue to do so. Despite the fact that I don't think they work in most cases, If you think you have halitosis and need a mouthwash, you don't buy every brand available because they are advertised. And I don't believe the advertising causes you to think you have bad breath (paranoia). I believe bad breath preceded mouthwash. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Madison Avenue, just don't believe they are a primary cause for or more appropriately an excuse for an individuals lack of personal responsibility or discipline. You say it works and maybe it does, however, It doesn't work on me so I don't have that perspective. I generally purchase to fill a need, and am affected by advertising to the extent that it provides a source to be evaluated. I never, ever, believe the ad. without the additional evaluation. Frank DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"DSK" wrote in message ... Frank Boettcher wrote: Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller, Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them buy or consume more beer. I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you saying that that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't make people paranoid about bad breath? Car ads don't glorify fast driving (and roads with no traffic)? Perhaps I should ask you to explain what effect you think advertising *does* have. DSK Well then, let's advertise crime and poverty away! As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race, I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place. Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all. We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn. That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn: But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breath of Mind, So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind. We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace, Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place; But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome. With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch. They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch. They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings. So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things. When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know." On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife) Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith, And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "The Wages of Sin is Death." In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "If you don't work you die." Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew, And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not God that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four- And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more. As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man- There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:- That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire; And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Dave wrote:
I'm not missing it. I agree with your first sentence, as assumed that was the case. I'm simply not persuaded that your second sentence is true. My view on that score is significantly colored by the fact that virtually every advocate of regulating one product or another earnestly argues that his particular hobby horse should be regulated because it is uniquely exempt from the usual laws of supply and demand. But of course! Every product *is* unique... not exempt from the laws of supply & demand, but with it's own unique curve fit. Does that mean more regulation is good? In some cases, yes. DDT & Agent Orange, for example, should be banned. Galbraith, before he was discredited, made a career of arguing that supply and demand had been repealed by the emergence of sophisticated advertising. sigh just can't give up the political posturing, can you? If Galbraith has been discredited, that's front-page news. You could be rich & famous. However, I'm confident that he hasn't been discredited at all, in reality. And your misquoting again, although this time I will assume it's from bad memory rather than ulterior motive. Galbraith said (and demostrated rather satisfactorily) that advertising shifts demand, which in turn skews supply (for many types of goods) because of economies of scale. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Nowadays people get offended if you question
advertised claims of products they like. Dave wrote: That is a phenomenon I haven't experienced. Is it a Southern thing? Oh, you've experienced it plenty. In fact you've participated vigorously. You just haven't been paying attention... or aren't willing to admit it, depending. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"katy" wrote : katy wrote: What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. //Walt I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served people and they never knew it wasn't sugar... 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. 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. Seahag |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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.... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com