"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/03/2013 4:38 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
>>> What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other
>>> people I know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.
>>
>> Isn't it just normal to sometimes crave something sweet?
>>
>>
> Sweet drinks? Not me. I like to eat something sweet at the end of a meal,
> but I do not crave sweet drinks. I rarely drink pop, don't use sugar in
> coffee or tea.

Oh! I can not stand sweetened coffee or tea. I remember ordering iced tea
in Vancouver as a child because they had no diet soda. I was shocked to
find that it was sweetened. At home we only had plain tea. Not sweetened.

Then when we moved to MA, the first time I ordered coffee in a Dunkin'
Donuts, they asked me if I wanted "regular". I foolishly assumed that meant
"black". Nope! Meant cream and sugar. Just yick!

I do like lemon in my tea but it's fine without it too. But no sweeteners
ever.

On Mar 12, 3:19*pm, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:22:13 -0400, Dave Smith
>
> > wrote:
>
> >Educate? *How much education do people need? I admit that it is a long
> >time since I was in elementary school, but I remember being told about
> >eating a balanced diet, about *avoiding *excessive amounts of sugar and
> >fat, and to be sure to eat fruits and vegetables. I see magazine *and
> >newspaper articles about nutrition all the time. There are programs on
> >television about it. Yet, kids these days are fatter than ever.
>
> In some cases, at mealtime mom opens a 2 liter bottle of soda for the
> family to drink. You can teach, but some people don't want to learn.

Remember these billboards Coke ran?

2 x 50 ounce bottles of Coke = "enough for your meal"

http://chasnote.com/wp-content/uploa...Picture-49.png

*shudder*

On Mar 12, 8:00*pm, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 12/03/2013 4:38 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> >>> What a bunch of hooey! *I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other
> >>> people I know have it too. *None of us ever craved diant drinks.
>
> >> Isn't it just normal to sometimes crave something sweet?
>
> > Sweet drinks? Not me. I like to eat something sweet at the end of a meal,
> > but I do not crave sweet drinks. I rarely drink pop, don't use sugar in
> > coffee or tea.
>
> Oh! *I can not stand sweetened coffee or tea. *I remember ordering iced tea
> in Vancouver as a child because they had no diet soda. *I was shocked to
> find that it was sweetened. *At home we only had plain tea. *Not sweetened.
>
> Then when we moved to MA, the first time I ordered coffee in a Dunkin'
> Donuts, they asked me if I wanted "regular". *I foolishly assumed that meant
> "black". *Nope! *Meant cream and sugar. *Just yick!

A regular coffee in Boston means cream, no sugar. This was called a
"Boston coffee" in the Chicago of my youth.

>
> I do like lemon in my tea but it's fine without it too. *But no sweeteners
> ever.

I put one teaspoon in per mug of tea with milk or lemon. Herbal tea
doesn't need sugar, but regular tea tastes bitter to me.

One teaspoon sugar is 15 calories, while a 12 oz can of soda is
120-150 calories. I would NEVER put 8-10 teaspoons of sugar into any
beverage, so I don't understand why the soda makers do.

"spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
news:5778b811-b984-408c-ab57-

One teaspoon sugar is 15 calories, while a 12 oz can of soda is
120-150 calories. I would NEVER put 8-10 teaspoons of sugar into any
beverage, so I don't understand why the soda makers do.


=========

They do it because people buy it and obviously like it that way. I've never
been much of a soda drinker at all, but I did like Pepsi Max to the point
that I was sort of craving it, so I quit drinking it altogether.

Cheri

"spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
...

I put one teaspoon in per mug of tea with milk or lemon. Herbal tea
doesn't need sugar, but regular tea tastes bitter to me.

One teaspoon sugar is 15 calories, while a 12 oz can of soda is
120-150 calories. I would NEVER put 8-10 teaspoons of sugar into any
beverage, so I don't understand why the soda makers do.


_____________

probably to overpower the acidity.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:05:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael OConnor
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>The US Government has proven it can't do Big things efficiently, the
>>US Postal Service is a case in point as it is billions of dollars in
>>debt, yet Fed Ex and UPS make a profit because they have to answer to
>>their shareholders and keep an eye on their bottom line instead of
>>having their own printing press to compensate for poor management.
>>
>
> The sad fact is, the USPS cannot govern itself. It answers to
> Congress and they are one of the reasons they are in the red. They
> are now forced to fully fund their pensions (as they probably should
> have been doing) but not allowed to raise prices. They are not
> allowed to cut back and close money losing locations like UPS or Fed
> Ex would do. Or lay off a lot of not needed workers.


Fully fund their pensions for *75 years* - that means they are paying
pensions for employees not yet born. The PO was in the black before they
imnposed that law and would still be had they not. The wingnuts hate unions
and the USPS is the biggest of them all. They would destory an absolutely
essential service just to win a political victory. They'll be the first to
scream when the price of a FedEx stamp is 10 bucks to mail a letter across
town.

In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> Not everything that we need will turn a profit in some corporation. It
> takes government to do what cannot be done by business. Building bridges is
> not something a private company will ever do, for example. Your entire
> life, all of it, everything you have and enjoy every single day is directly
> the result of your government. Don't believe it? Just try Somalia on for
> size if you want a taste of real "free markets."

Isn't it interesting that two grown men may consider the other's
political point of view as complete tripe? We're there. Never the twain
shall meet. I personally wish you well.

never political leo

"Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> Not everything that we need will turn a profit in some corporation. It
>> takes government to do what cannot be done by business. Building bridges
>> is
>> not something a private company will ever do, for example. Your entire
>> life, all of it, everything you have and enjoy every single day is
>> directly
>> the result of your government. Don't believe it? Just try Somalia on for
>> size if you want a taste of real "free markets."
>
> Isn't it interesting that two grown men may consider the other's
> political point of view as complete tripe? We're there. Never the twain
> shall meet. I personally wish you well.
>
> never political leo

permission to swipe and reuse your last post? I can see it coming in very
handy, very often.

In article >,
"Pico Rico" > wrote:

> permission to swipe and reuse your last post? I can see it coming in very
> handy, very often.

Permission granted of course! I'm flattered.

leo

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>
>>> Not everything that we need will turn a profit in some corporation. It
>>> takes government to do what cannot be done by business. Building
>>> bridges is
>>> not something a private company will ever do, for example. Your entire
>>> life, all of it, everything you have and enjoy every single day is
>>> directly
>>> the result of your government. Don't believe it? Just try Somalia on
>>> for
>>> size if you want a taste of real "free markets."
>>
>> Isn't it interesting that two grown men may consider the other's
>> political point of view as complete tripe? We're there. Never the twain
>> shall meet. I personally wish you well.
>>
>> never political leo
>
> permission to swipe and reuse your last post? I can see it coming in very
> handy, very often.

Lazy.

Here's a challenge; name anything - anything in your life. Take your pick.
I will demonstrate how you would not have that without the government you
have. In one way or another, it's all tied together. You could not even
own a piece of string were it not for the fact that you have a government
that established laws saying you could own a piece of string and give you a
mechanism to enforce that right.

I can hear the heads popping like popcorn as I type this.

"Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Pico Rico" > wrote:
>
>> permission to swipe and reuse your last post? I can see it coming in
>> very
>> handy, very often.
>
> Permission granted of course! I'm flattered.

It's how he got through school. Calm down. You're too cheap.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not everything that we need will turn a profit in some corporation. It
>>>> takes government to do what cannot be done by business. Building
>>>> bridges is
>>>> not something a private company will ever do, for example. Your entire
>>>> life, all of it, everything you have and enjoy every single day is
>>>> directly
>>>> the result of your government. Don't believe it? Just try Somalia on
>>>> for
>>>> size if you want a taste of real "free markets."
>>>
>>> Isn't it interesting that two grown men may consider the other's
>>> political point of view as complete tripe? We're there. Never the twain
>>> shall meet. I personally wish you well.
>>>
>>> never political leo
>>
>> permission to swipe and reuse your last post? I can see it coming in
>> very handy, very often.
>
> Lazy.
>
> Here's a challenge; name anything - anything in your life. Take your
> pick. I will demonstrate how you would not have that without the
> government you have. In one way or another, it's all tied together. You
> could not even own a piece of string were it not for the fact that you
> have a government that established laws saying you could own a piece of
> string and give you a mechanism to enforce that right.
>
> I can hear the heads popping like popcorn as I type this.
>
>

"The subjects can own a piece of string act of 1790".

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not everything that we need will turn a profit in some corporation.
>>>>> It
>>>>> takes government to do what cannot be done by business. Building
>>>>> bridges is
>>>>> not something a private company will ever do, for example. Your
>>>>> entire
>>>>> life, all of it, everything you have and enjoy every single day is
>>>>> directly
>>>>> the result of your government. Don't believe it? Just try Somalia on
>>>>> for
>>>>> size if you want a taste of real "free markets."
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it interesting that two grown men may consider the other's
>>>> political point of view as complete tripe? We're there. Never the twain
>>>> shall meet. I personally wish you well.
>>>>
>>>> never political leo
>>>
>>> permission to swipe and reuse your last post? I can see it coming in
>>> very handy, very often.
>>
>> Lazy.
>>
>> Here's a challenge; name anything - anything in your life. Take your
>> pick. I will demonstrate how you would not have that without the
>> government you have. In one way or another, it's all tied together. You
>> could not even own a piece of string were it not for the fact that you
>> have a government that established laws saying you could own a piece of
>> string and give you a mechanism to enforce that right.
>>
>> I can hear the heads popping like popcorn as I type this.
>>
>>
>
> "The subjects can own a piece of string act of 1790".

Piece of fTring Act I believe.


>

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> No way does a handful of raisins even weigh that much let alone contain more
> sugar. And raisins have nutritional value and fiber. Soda has nothing.

Raisins: CARB ALERT!

G.

On 2013-03-14, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> Try again. A 2-Liter of Mtn Dew has 250 grams of sugar/carbs. Jolt
> has 217. Hardly twice as much as Coca cola at 211 and Pepsi at 224.

The original was "All the sugar and twice the caffeine.". They've
been bought and traded several times. Wiki does not say when they
changed to HFCS. As I understand it, Jolt is a ghost of its former
original self ...which made a killer rum 'n coke.

nb

On 2013-03-13 23:25:38 +0000, Leonard Blaisdell said:

> In article >,
> "Pico Rico" > wrote:
>
>> permission to swipe and reuse your last post? I can see it coming in very
>> handy, very often.
>
> Permission granted of course! I'm flattered.

Flattery is the right word. Two men disagreeing is hardly a blinding
revelation.

On 3/12/13 9:30 AM, The Cook wrote:

> There is a source for Coke made with sugar. It comes from Mexico and
> some Costco stores carry it. I used to be able to get it at my
> Costco store but no longer.

You can buy Kosher coke now in the stores. It comes with the yellow cap.
It is made with cane sugar. I bought it at Publix last week.

On 3/12/2013 10:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:01:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:

>> Something seems to have worked because there are far few smokers now
>> than there used to be.
>
> Less people are starting. Buying smokes is more difficult for the
> under 18 crowd, more cancer education, less peer pressure as there are
> less smoking peers to learn from.
>
I see less people smoking at work but it could be many of those who
smoke don't do it during business hours. Our company prohibits smoking
on company grounds, though it doesn't stop some people and it didn't
stop me back when I smoked. Others did it, so there was no enforcement.
The ones who don't have their careers in mind and don't want to be
seen doing it.

The weird thing is that probably 1 in 2 cars I see on the road when I'm
out have someone with a cigarette hanging out of the window. Seems like
there's still a lot of smokers to me.

>> I can tell you that I used to smoke, gave it up
>> for a long time, made the mistake of thinking I could have the
>> occasional cigarette and then started up again, quit, started again and
>> quit again.
>
> Once I quit, that was it. I've been tempted, but I've heard too many
> stories of people that after some years tried one cigarette and then
> went pack to their old pack a day habit. Sitting here writing about
> it, I think a good smoke might be nice and it has been almost 40 years
> since I stopped. Too addictive to take a chance.
>
I've had that passing thought, too, that I can smoke one once in a
while. I haven't tempted fate by giving in to that.

>
> The last time was helped by the introduction of the
>> harmonized sales tax which saw about 70 cents added to the cost of a
>> package of cigarettes. It came into effect July 1, about three years
>> ago. That was it for me. I didn't buy any more.
>
> Good for you!
>
Ditto!