On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:25:44 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:21:24 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:
>
>>Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:25:33 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:26:09 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the cocoa butter hypothesis is correct but I wouldn't buy any
>>>>>> bloomed chocolate.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't see 99.5% of the chocolate in stores when you buy it.
>>>>
>>>> plenty of bulk chocolate candy is visible at my regular stupidmarket
>>>>
>>>> and then there's See's etc.
>>>
>>> It was inevitable that some dumbass would come along a protest about
>>> the other .5%. Tell you what - you go to the local major grocery
>>> store in your area and count the number of chocolate products you can
>>> see, and the number you can't see. Then get back to me.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>>it's a lot more than .5 percent
>>
>>someone needs a nap!
>
>It's rare to see unwrapped chocolate nowadays, now it's rare to see
>unwrapped and not security sealed anything... Clorox is security
>sealed. 40-50 years ago candy stores sold unwrapped, those days are
>long gone.

Why the HELL do they safety seal Chlorox bleach? Do they really think
someone's gonna slip something toxic in it? I rermember when they
started all this safet sealing crap. It was back when someone put
cyanide in Tylenols, killing severa lpeople as I recall. Then everyone
started safety sealing everything.

I bought some new boullion cubes today. Safety sealed. Ugh!


John Kuthe...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com