Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Nancy Young wrote:
> I haven't noticed anyone saying they thought their taxes would > go down, guess I missed that. I see people saying that the money > should go towards nutritional food, not Twinkies. I also see that > some people who really need the help are not able to get it despite > a long history of working hard, where other people seem to know > how to work the system. I may have started with the comment about a couple of ginormous welfare mother and daughter cows, with carts (plural) full of soda pop and junk food. They were both way too fat to work, and the amount of junk food they were buying must have added up to a hell of a lot and IMO would only make their problems worse. > Only someone really optimistic would think that their taxes would go > down if welfare was eliminated, and I don't think anyone here said > one word that welfare should be. I resent any portion of the taxes I pay going to support someone who is just too damned laze to work. I am equally opposed to it going to crooked contractors, and to a lot of other things that I consider to be wasteful. I certainly don't expect my taxes to go down if they cut off all the deadbeats. The money would just be diverted to some other program. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
In article
>, Lena B Katz > wrote: > Teaching computer skills is a very different idea from running the > computers at full capacity. I'm talking something like 100% CPU usage, > with a pretty heavy load on the hard drives as well. Anything serious > would probably do it... but I can't see a junior high school doing > anythign serious. It's not very different at all, when talking about energy consumption. The CRTs always use the same amount of energy when they are on, whether the image is still or moving. CPUs are always running at 100% when they are on. It doesn't matter whether they are doing anything useful or not, they still run 100%. The hard disks on a desktop spin 100% of the time, unless the CPU unit is in sleep mode. If the hard disk isn't being accessed, then the heads don't move, but the disk still spins. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California, USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Food Snob wrote: > > ~patches~ wrote: >> Food Snob wrote: >> >>> Meghan Noecker wrote: >>> >>>> As it is, I love beef and cheese, but I wouldn't consider them very healthy. >>>> >>> >>> Beef and cheese are healthy, but only if your diet also includes lots >>> of green, leafy vegetables as well. >> >> Bull! Lean beef and cheeses are great sources of protein and are >> healthy if like everything else ate in moderation irregardless of your >> other dietary intake. > > I guess if you specify "lean" beef, I'll give you that, but your body > needs only so much protein, and too much is not good for you. cite yer f*ckin sources. Here's a hint: try medline! as it so happens, I don't like fat. gives me gas. doesn't mean it ain't a hell of an energy food. Also doesn't mean i didn't eat it on that fifty mile hike i took last year. > Luckily, > when you are on protein overload, that beautiful T-bone won't seem > appealing. (Carbs aren't like that. The more you eat, the more you > crave.) Almost no one in developed countries gets inadequate amounts > of protein. Well, except vegans. "the more you eat, the more you crave" is purely a symptom of eating too fast. You can do the same thing with meat. > As far as cheese goes, it's high in saturated fat. Not a terrible > thing, like trans-fats, but less than ideal. As far as low fat cheeses > go, you can have my share. I know that I eat too much saturated fat, > and I'm under no illusion that it's a healthy thing to do. Why do you believe this? > I wonder how many people who believe that "everything in moderation" is > the best policy are fat people. ****. you're really tryin' to insult people, ain't ya. don't be tryin to tell me you ain't overweight, so you're allowed to call other people fat. > Are you overweight? How about others > reading this? One of the keys to good health is lots of greens. I'm not in peak condition. I highly doubt i'm overweight. And I _don't eat greens_. Now, explain to me the value of greens, in terms that I can grok. The only reason i can think of to tell someone to eat lettuce, or cucumber or green pepper is to reduce their caloric intake through stuffing themselves with non-nutrient based, non caloric foods. Lena |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Lena B Katz > wrote in
: > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Food Snob wrote: > >> Are you overweight? How about others >> reading this? One of the keys to good health is lots of greens. > > I'm not in peak condition. I highly doubt i'm overweight. And I > _don't eat greens_. > > Now, explain to me the value of greens, in terms that I can grok. The > only reason i can think of to tell someone to eat lettuce, or cucumber > or green pepper is to reduce their caloric intake through stuffing > themselves with non-nutrient based, non caloric foods. The value of greens is much the same as the value of reds, oranges, yellows and such - fruits and vegetables provide vitamins, minerals, fibre and various phytochemicals in varying amounts. I must say that if someone says "greens" to me, I'm more inclined to think of green leafy vegetables such as spinach, or of things like broccoli, rather than cucumber or green capsicum. Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens. Cucumber also would, I think, have minimal levels of nutrients, being mostly water. Spinach, on the other hand, is a source of vitamins (incl C, A & E) folate, fibre and phytochemicals. Green capsicum is a source of vitamin C I believe. -- Rhonda Anderson Cranebrook, NSW, Australia |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Rhonda Anderson wrote: > Lena B Katz > wrote in > : > >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Food Snob wrote: >> >>> Are you overweight? How about others >>> reading this? One of the keys to good health is lots of greens. >> >> I'm not in peak condition. I highly doubt i'm overweight. And I >> _don't eat greens_. >> >> Now, explain to me the value of greens, in terms that I can grok. The >> only reason i can think of to tell someone to eat lettuce, or cucumber >> or green pepper is to reduce their caloric intake through stuffing >> themselves with non-nutrient based, non caloric foods. > > The value of greens is much the same as the value of reds, oranges, > yellows and such - fruits and vegetables provide vitamins, minerals, > fibre and various phytochemicals in varying amounts. I get much more antioxidants -"phytochemicals" if you will, from a single cup of my homebrewed coffee than i could from eating the RDA of any vegetable you could name. What exactly does fiber do to help you? > I must say that if someone says "greens" to me, I'm more inclined to > think of green leafy vegetables such as spinach, or of things like > broccoli, rather than cucumber or green capsicum. Spinach, to a large portion of people, is poisonous. And most of the minerals you get from canned spinach come from the can, not the vegetable (thank you oxalic acid...) To the original poster: You'll get about as much value out of eating banannas (which are a hell of a bargain), as you will from eating brocolli. > Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not > true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens. Cucumber > also would, I think, have minimal levels of nutrients, being mostly > water. Spinach, on the other hand, is a source of vitamins (incl C, A & > E) folate, fibre and phytochemicals. Green capsicum is a source of > vitamin C I believe. vitamin E, i believe, is present in most milk, as is vitamin A. By eating I think practically any cereal, you can get vitamin C. In short, there are perfectly good sources of all of these vitamins that aren't vegetables. Lena |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Lena B Katz wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, ~patches~ wrote: > > > Food Snob wrote: > > > >> Meghan Noecker wrote: > >> > >>> As it is, I love beef and cheese, but I wouldn't consider them very > >>> healthy. > >>> > >> > >> Beef and cheese are healthy, but only if your diet also includes lots > >> of green, leafy vegetables as well. > > > > Bull! Lean beef and cheeses are great sources of protein and are healthy if > > like everything else ate in moderation irregardless of your other dietary > > intake. > > green leafy veggies? Name the nutrients, then show where they arent found > in beef. How about vitamin A? Vitamin C? Fiber? Folate? Check http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ I've seen some idiots on this NG, but you're way up at the top of the list. I think most kids learned how to use apostrophes in 2nd or 3rd grade. > > Lena --Bryan |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
In article >,
Lena B Katz > wrote: > What exactly does fiber do to help you? Try going without it and report back to us on the results. On second thought, *don't* report back to us, just keep it to yourself. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California, USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
In article >,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote: > Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not > true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens. We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional wasteland. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California, USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Dan Abel wrote:
> > Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not > > true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens. > > We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have > a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes > significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional > wasteland. > > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ Not a wasteland, but there is not a lot of food value to it. First of all, it is almost all water, almost 96%. A serving of it will provide 6% of the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A , 3% of the RDA for Vtamin C, 1% of the RDA for calcium and iron. It contains some other vitamins and minerals. There is very little energy in it, but it is a decent source of fibre. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Dan Abel > wrote in
: > In article >, > Rhonda Anderson > wrote: > > >> Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is >> not true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens. > > > We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact > have a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, > sometimes significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a > nutritional wasteland. Perhaps I should have worded it differently - iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value compared to other leafy greens. > > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ > I looked at this and also did a little more research. Iceberg does have more nutritional value than I (and many others) had believed, although I don't know if I'd call it "a lot" compared to other vegies I eat. I do enjoy iceberg for the crunch. However, in terms of nutritional bang for my bite <g> I think I'd still choose other greens. Certainly, though, if someone would eat no other greens then it would be far better that they be eating iceberg lettuce than no greens at all. -- Rhonda Anderson Cranebrook, NSW, Australia |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Nancy Young wrote:
> "Peter A" > wrote > >> In article >, >> says... > >>> I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that >>> are of >>> the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare >>> programs >>> were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. > > > I haven't noticed anyone saying they thought their taxes would > go down, guess I missed that. I see people saying that the money > should go towards nutritional food, not Twinkies. I also see that > some people who really need the help are not able to get it despite > a long history of working hard, where other people seem to know > how to work the system. > > Apparently if you're single, you are SOL if you need some help buying > food, for instance. Along those lines, I think that's where a lot of > the disgruntlement comes into play. > > Only someone really optimistic would think that their taxes would go > down if welfare was eliminated, and I don't think anyone here said > one word that welfare should be. > > nancy I think the real point when taxes were mentioned was not that taxes would go down. The point is food stamps are funded by our tax dollars. So yeah, why should someone use them to buy twinkies and soda? The taxpayers should have some say. And don't give me that whine about "then the kids couldn't have any treats". Not so. There are plenty of necessary items (like toilet paper) and unnecessary items (like beer) that aren't covered by food stamps. If recipients can come up with money to by toilet paper, beer, etc. they can surely buy a box of twinkies without using food stamps. Jill |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Janet Bostwick wrote:
> "Peter A" > wrote in message > ... >> In article >, >> says... >>>> This is a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or proposition. >>>> You do not simply ignore waste in one area, because it occurs in >>>> another. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ranee >>> I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that >>> are of >>> the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare >>> programs >>> were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. If you are >>> going to scrutinize welfare waste and vote(you should) how you >>> think your welfare money should be spent, you should also >>> scrutinize other areas of government >>> waste and vote to correct that as well. Bitching about individual >>> examples >>> of welfare waste is an easy thing to do. Paying attention to what >>> is going >>> on in local, state and federal government and participating to make >>> changes >>> that work is harder. >>> Janet >>> >> >> I agree 100%. If you are against government waste then you should >> rail against the worst waste, which is certainly not in welfare >> programs. Some people are really against welfare, but because that >> sounds mean they convince themselves that they are really against >> "waste." >> >> >> -- >> Peter Aitken > It's interesting to read the comments about how an individual doesn't > qualify for a particular welfare program that would help them to > survive or better themselves, yet the same individual wants to screw > down benefits to others -- never realizing that the more you restrict > the welfare programs the less is available to help people like them > in marginal circumstances. Janet If the individual already doesn't qualify it won't hurt them one bit if the regulations are tightened to prevent abuse of the system by others. The individual still isn't going to qualify. Jill |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote: > Dan Abel wrote: > > > > Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not > > > true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens. > > > > We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have > > a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes > > significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional > > wasteland. > > > > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ > > Not a wasteland, but there is not a lot of food value to it. First of all, > it is almost all water, almost 96%. Unlike romaine, which has almost no water in it. Romaine has a little tiny bit less than 95% water, which of course is far less than 96%. :-( > A serving of it will provide 6% of the > recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A , 3% of the RDA for Vtamin C, 1% > of the RDA for calcium and iron. It contains some other vitamins and > minerals. There is very little energy in it, but it is a decent source of > fibre. It doesn't do too well with the vitamins. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California, USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
In article >,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote: > Dan Abel > wrote in > : > > > In article >, > > Rhonda Anderson > wrote: > > > > > >> Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is > >> not true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens. > > > > > > We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact > > have a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, > > sometimes significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a > > nutritional wasteland. > > Perhaps I should have worded it differently - iceberg lettuce has very > little nutritional value compared to other leafy greens. > > > > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ > > > > I looked at this and also did a little more research. Iceberg does have > more nutritional value than I (and many others) had believed, although I > don't know if I'd call it "a lot" compared to other vegies I eat. I do > enjoy iceberg for the crunch. However, in terms of nutritional bang for > my bite <g> I think I'd still choose other greens. Iceberg lettuce doesn't fare well when compared to other lettuces or veggies, nutritionally. I just don't like seeing "very little nutrional value", because that isn't true, especially when compared to junk food. Once in a while I prefer the texture of iceberg for certain purposes. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California, USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
Meghan Noecker wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:57:45 -0500, Dave Smith > > wrote: > >> Meghan Noecker wrote: >> >>> Minimum wage is NOT going to fix the problem. >>> >>> First of all, minimum wage is for starter jobs. Everybody has to >>> start somewhere. They are not meant to be lifetime jobs. >> > Most of the businesses complaining are those that hire starting > employees, hence the minimum wage. And the cost to the company is > higher than the wage. For example, the employer pays a fee for health > coverage (if they offer it). That fee is based on the wage, so that > also goes up when the minimum wage goes up. > Ahem. You don't know a damned thing about group health insurance. The insurance premiums are *not* based on employee wages. It's called "spread of risk". Premiums for group health are determined based on the number of lives to be covered, not on what they earn. The premiums do not increase if their wages go up. The premiums are also based on the level of risk of the business. Ask me how I know. I'm a licensed health insurance agent and worked for years in the business in one form or another. If you have a company of 30 people, the spread of risk (to the insurance company) is lower than if you insure a group of 5 people. Chances are 1 out of five are going to have a major health problem. On the other hand, 1 out of thirty, better odds. Jill |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
In article >,
"Janet Bostwick" > wrote: > I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that are of > the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare programs > were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. If you are going to > scrutinize welfare waste and vote(you should) how you think your welfare > money should be spent, you should also scrutinize other areas of government > waste and vote to correct that as well. Bitching about individual examples > of welfare waste is an easy thing to do. Paying attention to what is going > on in local, state and federal government and participating to make changes > that work is harder. I don't think anyone suggested that taxes would be lower, nor that welfare be eliminated, nor that other examples of waste should be tolerated. It wasn't relevant to the discussion to bring in other examples of government waste. Governments waste money. I just wish that there were ways to at least eliminate abuse from being part of the system. Regards, Ranee Remove do not & spam to e-mail me. "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/ |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Food snob?
In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote: > I haven't noticed anyone saying they thought their taxes would > go down, guess I missed that. I see people saying that the money > should go towards nutritional food, not Twinkies. I also see that > some people who really need the help are not able to get it despite > a long history of working hard, where other people seem to know > how to work the system. Exactly. > Apparently if you're single, you are SOL if you need some help buying > food, for instance. Along those lines, I think that's where a lot of the > disgruntlement comes into play. If you are single with kids, you can make a killing, especially since it is so easy not to report income from a live in. > Only someone really optimistic would think that their taxes would go > down if welfare was eliminated, and I don't think anyone here said > one word that welfare should be. I don't think anyone did, but I may have missed it. Regards, Ranee Remove do not & spam to e-mail me. "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Food Snob | General Cooking | |||
Food snob? | General Cooking | |||
You Might Be a Food Snob If ... | General Cooking | |||
What is a snob? Food or otherwise... | General Cooking | |||
I'm a food snob!!! | General Cooking |