hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP?

Marvel wrote:

>hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP?
>
>
>
>
Not only no.....HELL NO!!! Don't get me started!

Bubba

--
You wanna measure, or you wanna cook?

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:25:02 -0400, Bubba
> wrote:

>Marvel wrote:
>
>>hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN
SYRUP?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Not only no.....HELL NO!!! Don't get me started!
>
>Bubba

Cane Sugar is such a superior product to both of the aforementioned.
Do you remember the really nice taste of Coca Cola when they used
sugar cane as their sugar? But the economics of cane sugar make it
less available than the corn farmers, who grow a zillion acres.

aloha,
Thunder
smithfarms.com
Farmers of 100% Kona Coffee
& other Great Stuff

"smithfarms pure kona" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:25:02 -0400, Bubba
> > wrote:
>
>>Marvel wrote:
>>
>>>hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN
> SYRUP?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Not only no.....HELL NO!!! Don't get me started!
>>
>>Bubba
>
> Cane Sugar is such a superior product to both of the aforementioned.
> Do you remember the really nice taste of Coca Cola when they used
> sugar cane as their sugar? But the economics of cane sugar make it
> less available than the corn farmers, who grow a zillion acres.
>
> aloha,
> Thunder
> smithfarms.com
> Farmers of 100% Kona Coffee
> & other Great Stuff

No, the US sugar lobby that restricts imports and keeps american sugar
prices at several times world prices is the reason. They don't make
those donations to the politicians because they are fans of democracy.

del

In article >, "Del Cecchi" > wrote:
>
>"smithfarms pure kona" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:25:02 -0400, Bubba
>> > wrote:
>>>Marvel wrote:
>>>>hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN
>> SYRUP?
>>>>
>>>Not only no.....HELL NO!!! Don't get me started!
>>
>> Cane Sugar is such a superior product to both of the aforementioned.
>> Do you remember the really nice taste of Coca Cola when they used
>> sugar cane as their sugar? But the economics of cane sugar make it
>> less available than the corn farmers, who grow a zillion acres.
>
>No, the US sugar lobby that restricts imports and keeps american sugar
>prices at several times world prices is the reason. They don't make
>those donations to the politicians because they are fans of democracy.

You're right about "sugar", but if you mean cane sugar then I don't
think that's the real reason for protection (though I'm sure the
pollies will happily accept donations from that group too .

I think it's about protecting the *corn* farmers. At the real world
price of cane sugar, it wouldn't be economic to produce HF corn syrup
in competition. I'm sure there are many more corn farmers than cane
farmers in the USA, and votes count nearly as much as money. (As
long as you've got enough of the latter stashed away of course. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Phred" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Del Cecchi"
> > wrote:
>>
>>"smithfarms pure kona" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:25:02 -0400, Bubba
>>> > wrote:
>>>>Marvel wrote:
>>>>>hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN
>>> SYRUP?
>>>>>
>>>>Not only no.....HELL NO!!! Don't get me started!
>>>
>>> Cane Sugar is such a superior product to both of the aforementioned.
>>> Do you remember the really nice taste of Coca Cola when they used
>>> sugar cane as their sugar? But the economics of cane sugar make it
>>> less available than the corn farmers, who grow a zillion acres.
>>
>>No, the US sugar lobby that restricts imports and keeps american sugar
>>prices at several times world prices is the reason. They don't make
>>those donations to the politicians because they are fans of democracy.
>
> You're right about "sugar", but if you mean cane sugar then I don't
> think that's the real reason for protection (though I'm sure the
> pollies will happily accept donations from that group too .
>
> I think it's about protecting the *corn* farmers. At the real world
> price of cane sugar, it wouldn't be economic to produce HF corn syrup
> in competition. I'm sure there are many more corn farmers than cane
> farmers in the USA, and votes count nearly as much as money. (As
> long as you've got enough of the latter stashed away of course. ;-)
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
> --
> LID

Most corn goes to animal feed. The sugar lobby is made up of beet and
cane sugar growers. Now Cargill may get in there a little to protect
their investment in corn processing but it is mostly the sugar lobby. Do
your own research if you don't believe me. The corn farmers could care
less about the syrup market.

del cecchi
>

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:02:06 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
> wrote:

>
>"smithfarms pure kona" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:25:02 -0400, Bubba
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Marvel wrote:
>>>
>>>>hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN
>> SYRUP?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not only no.....HELL NO!!! Don't get me started!
>>>
>>>Bubba
>>
>> Cane Sugar is such a superior product to both of the
aforementioned.

>No, the US sugar lobby that restricts imports and keeps american
sugar
>prices at several times world prices is the reason. They don't make
>those donations to the politicians because they are fans of
democracy.
>
>del
>

Agreed. I was going to rant about farm subsidies. As a farmer, with
NO subsidies, I do think of those mega- acre farmers who are paid, one
way or the otter and then make healthy political contributions and
then skew the natural economics.

In Hawaii the value of the real estate that cane was grown on, became
more valuable than the artificially supported product, along with the
union that made our agricultural workers among the highest paid
agricultural workers in the whole US-there went most of our sugar cane
fields.

aloha
Thunder
smithfarms.com
Farmers of 100% Kona Coffee
& other Great Stuff

In article >,
"Del Cecchi" > wrote:
>"Phred" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "Del Cecchi"
>> > wrote:
[...]
>>>No, the US sugar lobby that restricts imports and keeps american sugar
>>>prices at several times world prices is the reason. They don't make
>>>those donations to the politicians because they are fans of democracy.
>>
>> You're right about "sugar", but if you mean cane sugar then I don't
>> think that's the real reason for protection (though I'm sure the
>> pollies will happily accept donations from that group too .
>>
>> I think it's about protecting the *corn* farmers. At the real world
>> price of cane sugar, it wouldn't be economic to produce HF corn syrup
>> in competition. I'm sure there are many more corn farmers than cane
>> farmers in the USA, and votes count nearly as much as money. (As
>> long as you've got enough of the latter stashed away of course. ;-)
>
>Most corn goes to animal feed. The sugar lobby is made up of beet and
>cane sugar growers. Now Cargill may get in there a little to protect
>their investment in corn processing but it is mostly the sugar lobby. Do
>your own research if you don't believe me. The corn farmers could care
>less about the syrup market.

G'day mate, I'm happy to accept your clarification. [Pun unintended.]

But now I'm wondering [completely OT] about your "could care
less". My initial reaction was: Why could they care less?
Here, at least in this part of Oz, we would say "couldn't care less";
and that makes more logical sense to me in this context. So, I'm left
wondering... Is your usage idiomatic, or is it simply a case of E&OE?

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

_.-In rec.food.cooking, Marvel wrote the following -._
> hello, everyone, is corn syrup the same as : HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP?

First: don't type in all caps.
Second: See this link:
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html
Third: google knows all.

--
.-')) fauxascii.com ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson

Phred wrote:
> In article >,
> "Del Cecchi" > wrote:
>
>>"Phred" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Del Cecchi"
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>No, the US sugar lobby that restricts imports and keeps american sugar
>>>>prices at several times world prices is the reason. They don't make
>>>>those donations to the politicians because they are fans of democracy.
>>>
>>>You're right about "sugar", but if you mean cane sugar then I don't
>>>think that's the real reason for protection (though I'm sure the
>>>pollies will happily accept donations from that group too .
>>>
>>>I think it's about protecting the *corn* farmers. At the real world
>>>price of cane sugar, it wouldn't be economic to produce HF corn syrup
>>>in competition. I'm sure there are many more corn farmers than cane
>>>farmers in the USA, and votes count nearly as much as money. (As
>>>long as you've got enough of the latter stashed away of course. ;-)
>>
>>Most corn goes to animal feed. The sugar lobby is made up of beet and
>>cane sugar growers. Now Cargill may get in there a little to protect
>>their investment in corn processing but it is mostly the sugar lobby. Do
>>your own research if you don't believe me. The corn farmers could care
>>less about the syrup market.
>
>
> G'day mate, I'm happy to accept your clarification. [Pun unintended.]
>
> But now I'm wondering [completely OT] about your "could care
> less". My initial reaction was: Why could they care less?
> Here, at least in this part of Oz, we would say "couldn't care less";
> and that makes more logical sense to me in this context. So, I'm left
> wondering... Is your usage idiomatic, or is it simply a case of E&OE?
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>

A combination of idiomatic american and sloppiness on my part.

Clearly "couldn't care less" is more correct

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:23:16 -0500, Del Cecchi
> wrote:

>Phred wrote:
>> In article >,

>> But now I'm wondering [completely OT] about your "could care
>> less". My initial reaction was: Why could they care less?
>> Here, at least in this part of Oz, we would say "couldn't care less";
>> and that makes more logical sense to me in this context. So, I'm left
>> wondering... Is your usage idiomatic, or is it simply a case of E&OE?
>>
>> Cheers, Phred.
>>
>
>A combination of idiomatic american and sloppiness on my part.
>
>Clearly "couldn't care less" is more correct

<some snippage above>

"Couldn't care less" is not *more* correct. It *is* correct.

It always surprises me at the number of purportedly educated people
who say, "I could care less" when they mean the exact opposite. It
certainly isn't "idiomatic american" <sic> as much as it is simply
incorrect, not *less* correct. It either is or isn't correct, you see.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> It always surprises me at the number of purportedly educated people
> who say, "I could care less" when they mean the exact opposite. It
> certainly isn't "idiomatic american" <sic> as much as it is simply
> incorrect, not *less* correct. It either is or isn't correct, you see.

When spoken in a suitably sarcastic tone, I believe that "I could care
less" has a place in American usage.

Of course, that place is probably not on Usenet.

Cindy Hamilton

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> "Couldn't care less" is not *more* correct. It *is* correct.


Nope. "Could care less" is idiomatically, although not literally,
correct. That is, it is used more frequently than the form you prefer
and is understood by the people using and hearing it.

The etymology of "could care less" vs. "couldn't care less" is shrouded
in mystery, and subject of much debate, but the bottom line is that
either form is correct.




Brian

On 29 Jun 2005 09:25:25 -0700, "Default User"
> wrote:
>
>Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
>> "Couldn't care less" is not *more* correct. It *is* correct.
>
>
>Nope. "Could care less" is idiomatically, although not literally,
>correct. That is, it is used more frequently than the form you prefer
>and is understood by the people using and hearing it.
>
>The etymology of "could care less" vs. "couldn't care less" is shrouded
>in mystery, and subject of much debate, but the bottom line is that
>either form is correct.

And you are dead wrong, and I rather doubt that there are more
ignorant people using "could care less" than the correct "couldn't
care less." Either the meaning is clear or it isn't. "Could care less"
means what it says, as "couldn't care less" means what *it* says.
Sloppy language is sloppy language. It is not "shrouded in mystery" or
a "subject of much debate." It either is what it means or it isn't.
And only one form is correct if you mean that one <teeth clenching>
Could Not Care Less. Parse it out, for cryin' out loud.

If I said to you, "I could give you ten dollars," does this mean that
there is no way in h*ll you're getting $10 from me? If I said, "I
could get there by Friday," does this mean that there is no way I
could get there by Friday?

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:45:50 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> On 29 Jun 2005 09:25:25 -0700, "Default User"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> >
> >> "Couldn't care less" is not *more* correct. It *is* correct.
> >
> >
> >Nope. "Could care less" is idiomatically, although not literally,
> >correct. That is, it is used more frequently than the form you prefer
> >and is understood by the people using and hearing it.
> >
> >The etymology of "could care less" vs. "couldn't care less" is shrouded
> >in mystery, and subject of much debate, but the bottom line is that
> >either form is correct.
>
> And you are dead wrong, and I rather doubt that there are more
> ignorant people using "could care less" than the correct "couldn't
> care less." Either the meaning is clear or it isn't. "Could care less"
> means what it says, as "couldn't care less" means what *it* says.

I use them interchangably, but couldn't is preferable for me.
"Could care less" implies you have the ability, but have stopped.
"Couldn't care less" implies there is nothing left.

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2005 09:25:25 -0700, "Default User"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> >
> >> "Couldn't care less" is not *more* correct. It *is* correct.
> >
> >
> >Nope. "Could care less" is idiomatically, although not literally,
> >correct. That is, it is used more frequently than the form you prefer
> >and is understood by the people using and hearing it.
> >
> >The etymology of "could care less" vs. "couldn't care less" is shrouded
> >in mystery, and subject of much debate, but the bottom line is that
> >either form is correct.
>
> And you are dead wrong, and I rather doubt that there are more
> ignorant people using "could care less" than the correct "couldn't
> care less."

The one you claim is correct is very rarely used in actual practice.

Believe me, this topic has been hashed out by everyone from
professional grammarians to the newsgroup alt.usage.english.

The bottom line is, no one is entirely sure how "could care less"
became the dominant form, but it has. It's both understood and used by
the majority of people. Language fanatics cringe, but the populace at
large could care less

That's the way language, especially English is. Look up some of the
meaning shifts of words in the past. It happens, whether some people
like it or not.



Brian

On 1 Jul 2005 10:27:35 -0700, "Default User" >
wrote:

>The one you claim is correct is very rarely used in actual practice.

Wrong again.
>
>Believe me, this topic has been hashed out by everyone from
>professional grammarians to the newsgroup alt.usage.english.

Wrong is still wrong, even with the alphabet tacked on behind one's
name.

>The bottom line is, no one is entirely sure how "could care less"
>became the dominant form, but it has. It's both understood and used by
>the majority of people. Language fanatics cringe, but the populace at
>large could care less
>
>That's the way language, especially English is. Look up some of the
>meaning shifts of words in the past. It happens, whether some people
>like it or not.

Here - have a look at this, esp. the last paragraph.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"