General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1081 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default 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.


  #1082 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default 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
  #1083 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default 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
  #1084 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 446
Default 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
  #1086 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default 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
  #1088 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 452
Default 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

  #1089 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default 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
  #1090 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default 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


  #1091 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default 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.

  #1092 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 446
Default 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
  #1093 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,726
Default 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


  #1094 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,726
Default 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


  #1095 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default 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


  #1096 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default 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
  #1097 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,726
Default 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


  #1098 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default 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/
  #1099 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Food Snob OmManiPadmeOmelet General Cooking 12 27-03-2006 08:58 PM
Food snob? Crabby Angel General Cooking 0 18-03-2006 07:36 PM
You Might Be a Food Snob If ... Damsel General Cooking 497 21-05-2005 08:34 PM
What is a snob? Food or otherwise... Bob (this one) General Cooking 70 15-05-2005 01:05 AM
I'm a food snob!!! Nancy Young General Cooking 33 12-05-2005 12:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"