On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-7, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> >> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
> >
> >Yes, a paper study looking at lists of ingredients is always the last
> >word in anything.
>
> Depends on the study...no reason to discount such an analysis without
> some specific reasons for it. What are your objections?

Take the source you point us to, below. Consumer Reports is quoted as
saying, "But it was impossible to decode the [nutritional] labels
in a way that would predict nutritional performance in the tests."


> >
> >I remember, decades ago, when Consumer Reports investigated the
> >nutrition of breakfast cereals by feeding them to rats. The
> >most nutritious was Lucky Charms.
>
> It was Cheerios, Special K And A version of Maypo, actually, but hey,
> don't let that stop you....
>
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...28,54236&hl=en

Hon, when have you ever known me to be wrong?
Take a gander at the February, 1981, Consumer Reports. In case you
lack access, the study is referred to he
http://www.feingold.org/PF/archives/1981-05.pdf

> >
> >Apparently this result freaked out the CR poobahs, because the next
> >time breakfast cereals were evaluated,it was based on an ingredient
> >analysis only.
>
> While you are at it, why not back up that claim, too? Hmmm?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cereals.htm
Click on "Nutrition score." No more feeding rats. Just looking
at labels.

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:47:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-7, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>> >> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>> >
>> >Yes, a paper study looking at lists of ingredients is always the last
>> >word in anything.
>>
>> Depends on the study...no reason to discount such an analysis without
>> some specific reasons for it. What are your objections?
>
>Take the source you point us to, below. Consumer Reports is quoted as
>saying, "But it was impossible to decode the [nutritional] labels
>in a way that would predict nutritional performance in the tests."

And that is problematic within their initial study which was one of
feeding because....?

The CU study is from 1974-75 and it was a feeding one- labeling
analysis was rejected due to the above problem.. Nutritional labeling
has changed since then...quite a bit, in fact. That complaint is 40
years old. Times change. Labeling changes.

Try again.


>> >I remember, decades ago, when Consumer Reports investigated the
>> >nutrition of breakfast cereals by feeding them to rats. The
>> >most nutritious was Lucky Charms.
>>
>> It was Cheerios, Special K And A version of Maypo, actually, but hey,
>> don't let that stop you....
>>
>> https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...28,54236&hl=en
>
>Hon, when have you ever known me to be wrong?

How about now, for a start? And if Google Usenet searches still
worked, I could add to this list very easily.

>Take a gander at the February, 1981, Consumer Reports. In case you
>lack access, the study is referred to he
>http://www.feingold.org/PF/archives/1981-05.pdf

Ummm...Feingold Association is a bunch of net-kook freaks. Next you'll
be offering up Mercola and Mehmet Oz, I suppose.....

They are reporting the results incorrectly and using a study years out
of date

Try again.
>
>> >
>> >Apparently this result freaked out the CR poobahs, because the next
>> >time breakfast cereals were evaluated,it was based on an ingredient
>> >analysis only.
>>
>> While you are at it, why not back up that claim, too? Hmmm?
>
>http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cereals.htm
>Click on "Nutrition score." No more feeding rats. Just looking
>at labels.

I asked proof that the rat results so "freaked out the CR poobahs,"
that they used a different testing methodology next time.

I have no qualms about nutritional analysis...I want *you* to prove
the bullshit claim you made that such an analysis was chosen out of CU
being "freaked" by previous results and somehow tailored the next
study to, perhaps, favor the results somehow.

Now go away...."Feingold".....LOL LOL HA HA HA.

On 7/9/2015 9:19 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:47:22 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-7, Boron Elgar wrote:
The United States, to use a quaint old fashioned term, has been invaded
successfully only once, and that was by the Neocons. 9/11 was the only
combat necessary to force the capitulation of large segments of the
American government, which driven by pure greed or authoritarian
impulses deeply at odds with our better traditions, accepted
uncritically the ridiculous “official” story of the September attacks.
Now believing any number of absurd lies is a basic requirement for
success in Washington. I used to think these f$$kers might just die off
before creating total havoc and destroying us, but I guess that was
foolish. Now there are too many highly paid idiots like Friedman
infesting the media to imagine any popular uprising that would force a
purge of these scum bags. I know we don’t have a spotless history, but I
do believe 9/11 probably marked the beginning of the Fall. So there we
have it, a preposterous false narrative like a malignancy, metastasizing
throughout the society as the warfare/welfare state expands breeding
poverty and repression.
--
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers"
-Ronald Reagan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).

On 7/9/2015 3:44 PM, Acme Bully Control wrote:
> The United States, to use a quaint old fashioned term, has been invaded
> successfully only once, and that was by the Neocons.


You're ****ing insane, you commie, hillbilly pedofool!

BODINE FRAUD!