https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout

or

https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>
>or
>
>https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y

That confirms that there's nothing wrong with gluten unless you're
allergic or oversensitive to it. Of course whole boatloads of people
fool themselves into thinking that they are. And there's a whole
industry that helps them think that and then receives them with open
arms.

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >
> >https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
> >
> >or
> >
> >https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>
> That confirms that there's nothing wrong with gluten unless you're
> allergic or oversensitive to it. Of course whole boatloads of people
> fool themselves into thinking that they are. And there's a whole
> industry that helps them think that and then receives them with open
> arms.

Yes, indeed. There's nothing wrong with gluten unless, of course, there is something wrong with gluten. The important part of that MS clickbait "article" is that non-celiac gluten sensitivity might only affect .5% of the population and is not much of a problem - unless it affects 50% of the population in which case, it's a major public health issue. It's an article that hedges its bets and is all things to all people. How cool is that? Very.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 02:43:23 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>> >
>> >or
>> >
>> >https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>
>> That confirms that there's nothing wrong with gluten unless you're
>> allergic or oversensitive to it. Of course whole boatloads of people
>> fool themselves into thinking that they are. And there's a whole
>> industry that helps them think that and then receives them with open
>> arms.
>
>Yes, indeed. There's nothing wrong with gluten unless, of course, there is something wrong with gluten. The important part of that MS clickbait "article" is that non-celiac gluten sensitivity might only affect .5% of the population and is not much of a problem - unless it affects 50% of the population in which case, it's a major public health issue. It's an article that hedges its bets and is all things to all people. How cool is that? Very.

It's hard to say how many people have a gluten sensitivity if half the
population of any country jump on any bandwagon that drives past. Same
with MSG.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>
>or
>
>https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y


I had written out a long explanation of why half of that article was
good and why the other half was BS but I accidentally closed it before
I sent it. Just know that half of that story is just plain BS.
Especially about the part about a gluten free diet being harmful...

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

I think wheat caused civilization.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>
>> or
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>
>I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>Celiac disease)

Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
incorrect.
>
>"Most people don’t actually need to avoid gluten
>As popular as the gluten-free diet has become, it actually may not
>be necessary for most people, at least according to a 2015 study
>published in the journal Digestion, which found that 86% of those
>who thought they had gluten sensitivity could in fact tolerate it,
>and didn’t notice any changes with a gluten-free diet."

The gluten free diet has been around for over 5 years I think we are
past the "fad stage"
>
>I think even the 14% is overstated - a fluke of the study. 14%
>psyschosomatically willed their symptoms. Or outright lied about
>them.
>
>-sw

It is real real hard to lie when you have and skin problems all of
your life then you go gluten free and it all goes away. Every single
medication, soap, cream, or lotion that you have used has done nothing
at all and then you go gluten free and it just goes away?? Then to top
it all of you eat something that has been cross contaminated with
gluten and all your skin problems reappear for a few days...

People that have no earthly idea what they are even talking about
really should not talk, ever.

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>
>>I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>>except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>>Celiac disease)
>
>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>incorrect.

Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
bread yet.

Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>>
>>> I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>>> except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>>> Celiac disease)
>>
>> Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> incorrect.
>
> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
> bread yet.
>

You probably haven't read the ingredient list yet.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
> wrote:
>
> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
> >incorrect.
>
> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
> bread yet.
>
Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
be eaten. My, my, my.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:

> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
> be eaten. My, my, my.

Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

If people who have trouble digesting milk, keep drinking it, they have
bigger problems than just lactose intolerance.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>
> > Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
> > least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
> > be eaten. My, my, my.
>
> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
>
Really, most?????
>
> Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway.
>
That deserves another my, my, my. But anything over indulged in is not really
great for a person. Yes, lots of people over indulge in bread and pastas.
>
My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.
>
That I think we can agree on.

On 2019-09-29 4:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10,
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
>> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's
>> NOT supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>
> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of
> this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just
> because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make
> it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff.
> Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the
> modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

Well maybe most of the planet doesn't consume all that much milk. There
seems to be something of a racial factor to lactose intolerance.
Europeans tend to have a relatively low rate of lactose intolerance,
about 18-26%. Only about 4% of Swedes are lactose intolerant. Africans
and Asian have rates of 75-95%.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
>Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much
>of the stuff.

Exactly. Before the advent of agriculture and later mechanization,
wheat wasn't really a practical food source due to the difficulty of
collecting and refining it. Now, it's so easy to do that, which also
makes it extremely cheap. It's compounded by millennia of breeding to
increase the starch.

> Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

It's nothing like the same as the original grass species under the
genus Triticum. So, yes.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

Well said

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On 2019-09-29 4:26 p.m., wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>> bread yet.
>>
> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT
> supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>

It is quite a bit longer than that. Humans began cultivating wheat about
10,000 years ago. Humans who cultivated and ate wheat also made a lot
of other significant advances.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:23:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2019-09-29 4:26 p.m., wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>> bread yet.
>>>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
>> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT
>> supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>>
>
>It is quite a bit longer than that. Humans began cultivating wheat about
>10,000 years ago. Humans who cultivated and ate wheat also made a lot
>of other significant advances.

So it's brain food!

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>> bread yet.
>>
>Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>be eaten. My, my, my.


Read more, talk less

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On 2019-09-29 4:27 p.m., wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>>> you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>>> supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>> bread yet.
>>>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>
> Read more,

But not books by quacks!

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 5:27:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Read more, talk less
>
Yes, I heartily concur, you should read more, a LOT more and a LOT less talk.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>> bread yet.
>>
>Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>be eaten. My, my, my.

Yes, only 2000 years. Glad you acknowledged that. Wheat is grass seed,
and was never a part of the human diet until the advent of agriculture
made it a viable source of food. And he said "supposed to be eaten"
not your embellished "NOT supposed to be eaten"

A lot of common foodstuffs are not supposed to be eaten. That's not to
say you can't eat them without a problem manifesting itself.

On 2019-09-29 7:09 p.m., Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT),
> " > wrote:

>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
>> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's
>> NOT supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>
> Yes, only 2000 years. Glad you acknowledged that. Wheat is grass
> seed, and was never a part of the human diet until the advent of
> agriculture made it a viable source of food. And he said "supposed to
> be eaten" not your embellished "NOT supposed to be eaten"

It is a lot more than 2000 years. It was part of the human diet before
agriculture. Agriculture was the domestication of wild plant/seed
they were already eating.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:09:53 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>> >incorrect.
>>>
>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>> bread yet.
>>>
>>Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>>least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>>be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>Yes, only 2000 years. Glad you acknowledged that. Wheat is grass seed,
>and was never a part of the human diet until the advent of agriculture
>made it a viable source of food. And he said "supposed to be eaten"
>not your embellished "NOT supposed to be eaten"
>
>A lot of common foodstuffs are not supposed to be eaten. That's not to
>say you can't eat them without a problem manifesting itself.

More nonsense. Can people with real or imagined sensitivities stop
acting as if everybody else has their problems as well?

Just read the ingredient list

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>> bread yet.
>>
>Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>be eaten. My, my, my.

I am not the expert
https://www.amazon.com/Plant-Paradox.../dp/B01IMYGX8S

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>>> you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>>> supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>> bread yet.
>>>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
> I am not the expert


You most certainly are not. Its good that you recognize that.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:08:00 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>>
>>>I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>>>except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>>>Celiac disease)
>>
>>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>incorrect.
>
>Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>bread yet.

If you look at how plants spread their seeds to propagate the species
you may understand. Fruits place the seeds inside the fruit so they
will be eaten and later pooped out at a different place and that is
how the plant reproduces. Plants like wheat barley and rye simply drop
their seeds directly down and have no outer protective coating. What
they do have it proteins inside them that deter things from eating
them so that the seeds will fall or be carried a short distance with
the wind and then take root that way. Some of these proteins,
for instance gluten, are bad for the gut and cause problems. Since
wheat has been around so long and it is so easy to grow and distribute
humans have been able to evolve to where the gluten is tolerated. But
every human has the chance to have problems with gluten or at least
have children or grandchildren that will have a problem with gluten
and/or other proteins in foods.

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:27:01 -0500,
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:08:00 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>bread yet.
>
>If you look at how plants spread their seeds to propagate the species
>you may understand. Fruits place the seeds inside the fruit so they
>will be eaten and later pooped out at a different place and that is
>how the plant reproduces. Plants like wheat barley and rye simply drop
>their seeds directly down and have no outer protective coating. What
>they do have it proteins inside them that deter things from eating
>them so that the seeds will fall or be carried a short distance with
>the wind and then take root that way. Some of these proteins,
> for instance gluten, are bad for the gut and cause problems. Since
>wheat has been around so long and it is so easy to grow and distribute
>humans have been able to evolve to where the gluten is tolerated. But
>every human has the chance to have problems with gluten or at least
>have children or grandchildren that will have a problem with gluten
>and/or other proteins in foods.

Well, if I ever develop a problem with gluten, i'll start avoiding it.
But until then, I love bread.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:00:30 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:27:01 -0500,
wrote:
>
>> for instance gluten, are bad for the gut and cause problems. Since
>> wheat has been around so long and it is so easy to grow and distribute
>> humans have been able to evolve to where the gluten is tolerated. But
>> every human has the chance to have problems with gluten or at least
>> have children or grandchildren that will have a problem with gluten
>> and/or other proteins in foods.
>
>So you're saying the humans have only been able to eat wheat because
>for 1000+ of years we got sick from it and eventually adapted to it?
>And that your branch of the family tree is just much lower on the
>evolutionary tree than the rest of modern World?
>
>And that proteins are bad for us?
>
>And that only fruits and vegetables with seeds and that birds can
>eat are acceptable to humans?
>
>And that... it's hard to tell what all you're implying here but
>you're full of shit every time you post anything. Stick to your
>"Relationships" and "metaphysics" (because it ain't physics) posts
>on Quora.
>
>ObFood: I'm smoking my weekly tri-tip right now before it starts
>raining again. All my pictures are gluten free:
>https://postimg.cc/gallery/pwxf8w3y/
>
>-sw

What???

I am saying that humans and all animals for that matter are constantly
evolving. Their DNA is constantly mutating and changing adjusting to
the environment and what we eat

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On 2019-09-30 5:01 p.m., wrote:

> I am saying that humans and all animals for that matter are constantly
> evolving. Their DNA is constantly mutating and changing adjusting to
> the environment and what we eat
>
I think you should read a book on evolution! You clearly don't have a
grasp of the theory.

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 23:52:59 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:01:28 -0500,
wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:00:30 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:27:01 -0500,
wrote:
>>>
>>>> for instance gluten, are bad for the gut and cause problems. Since
>>>> wheat has been around so long and it is so easy to grow and distribute
>>>> humans have been able to evolve to where the gluten is tolerated. But
>>>> every human has the chance to have problems with gluten or at least
>>>> have children or grandchildren that will have a problem with gluten
>>>> and/or other proteins in foods.
>>>
>>>So you're saying the humans have only been able to eat wheat because
>>>for 1000+ of years we got sick from it and eventually adapted to it?
>>>And that your branch of the family tree is just much lower on the
>>>evolutionary tree than the rest of modern World?
>>>
>>>And that proteins are bad for us?
>>>
>>>And that only fruits and vegetables with seeds and that birds can
>>>eat are acceptable to humans?
>>>
>>>And that... it's hard to tell what all you're implying here but
>>>you're full of shit every time you post anything. Stick to your
>>>"Relationships" and "metaphysics" (because it ain't physics) posts
>>>on Quora.
>>>
>>>ObFood: I'm smoking my weekly tri-tip right now before it starts
>>>raining again. All my pictures are gluten free:
>>>https://postimg.cc/gallery/pwxf8w3y/
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>> What???
>>
>> I am saying that humans and all animals for that matter are constantly
>> evolving. Their DNA is constantly mutating and changing adjusting to
>> the environment and what we eat
>
>So you're saying we had to mutate to be able to tolerate wheat? POr
>that we're mutating against eating wheat becase nobody was having
>problems with it?
>
>Oh, never mind. Trying to get you to make sense is pointless.
>
>-sw

In the book plant paradox it talks about that. It is not me that is
not making sense, it is you (as in all of those disagreeing with me)
That have no ****ing clue what you are even trying to say or even what
subject we are talking about.

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:27:01 -0500,
> wrote:
>
> > for instance gluten, are bad for the gut and cause problems. Since
> > wheat has been around so long and it is so easy to grow and distribute
> > humans have been able to evolve to where the gluten is tolerated. But
> > every human has the chance to have problems with gluten or at least
> > have children or grandchildren that will have a problem with gluten
> > and/or other proteins in foods.

Only in the same sense that every human being (and their descendents)
also has the chance to get kidnapped, win the lottery, marry royalty,
and live in Bothell.

Not necessarily in that order.

Janet UK

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:

>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>incorrect.

Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:05:36 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:
>
>>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>incorrect.
>
>Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat

Good, the kooks have found each other Happy kooking!

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
> wrote:
>
> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
> >incorrect.
>
> Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat

Alcohol's not supposed to be consumed, either. It's a poison.

Cindy Hamilton

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 02:50:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat
>
>Alcohol's not supposed to be consumed, either. It's a poison.

Now we'll get a post by someone with an alcohol allergy who starts
telling us we can't have any alcohol because they can't. Some people
are the centre of their universe.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 02:50:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat
>
>Alcohol's not supposed to be consumed, either. It's a poison.

Thanks for the obtuse analogy.

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 6:58:44 AM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 02:50:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
> >> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
> >> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
> >> >incorrect.
> >>
> >> Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat
> >
> >Alcohol's not supposed to be consumed, either. It's a poison.
>
> Thanks for the obtuse analogy.

Chile peppers. They survive the avian gut but not the mammalian gut.
Therefore, they produce a chemical that mammals find annoying (but
birds don't).

We're not supposed to eat chile peppers.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
> > >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
> > >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
> > >incorrect.
> >
> > Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat
>
> Alcohol's not supposed to be consumed, either. It's a poison.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

The heck with that. "Choose your poison."

Note: I have always felt that taking straight shots of something
flammable wasn't such a good idea. Better/safer diluted in a mix
of choice. (maybe?)

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:03:24 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> > >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> > >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> > >incorrect.
>> >
>> > Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat
>>
>> Alcohol's not supposed to be consumed, either. It's a poison.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>The heck with that. "Choose your poison."
>
>Note: I have always felt that taking straight shots of something
>flammable wasn't such a good idea. Better/safer diluted in a mix
>of choice. (maybe?)

Yeah, add some sugar.