Just Watched "Super Size Me."
 

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> news:aw8He.23077$HV1.22099@fed1read07...
> >

> > Sorry, but you are mistaken. From McD's:
> > French Fries:
> > Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef
> > source), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color).
> > Cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially
> > hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or
> > partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower
> > oil and/or corn oil).
> >
>
> Dextrose is sugar, better known as glucose. You should not speak of things
> you obviously do not know about.

Strictly speaking, dextrose is *a* sugar, but is not "sugar." Usually
when people talk about added sugar in cooking or food they mean
sucrose, not dextrose or other sugars. For instance, you can get
juices that say "no sugar added" because they don't add sucrose, even
though they add lots of other fruit juices to the mix which have
fructose. So when McDonald's says they don't add "sugar" to their
fries, they're correct in the usual sense of the word "sugar."

That's not to say, of course, that french fries aren't loaded with fat
and a lot of other things that are very bad for your health.

I saw "Super Size Me." The filmmaker (can't remember his name) is a
very appealing guy, and is great on camera. Somebody that a lot of
people could imagine being their friend. And his filmmaking style is
easygoing and something that might change minds, not the shrill, angry
feeling you get from a lot of agitprop. Not entirely unlike Michael
Moore in the early days, when he was making good films like "Roger and
Me" instead of ill humored stuff like he makes now. (Yes, I know there
were a lot of problems with "Roger & Me" but it's still leagues ahead
of what he does now.)

The problem with "Super Size Me" is that it's ultimately unconvincing
self promotion. Yes, I realize the filmmaker has some point to make
about how food is marketed, but at the end of the day the subject of
the movie is the filmmaker himself, who is doing this as a way to make
a name for himself. So, he basically does a stunt, in which he
deliberately tries to eat so much that he literally vomits every day
for a month, while eating McDonald's food. Critics can easily dismiss
what he did by staying that eating that much of anything, even if it
was a fat free vegetable diet, would make a person ill - and they'd be
right. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make himself famous,
and I guess in that respect the film is successful. But it's ostensible
reason for being is not convincing at all.

i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if that movie is
good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school. why? maybe they
like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their parents didn't
teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach them but there
is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that segment irked me
so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I saw "Super Size Me." The filmmaker (can't remember his name) is a
> very appealing guy, and is great on camera. Somebody that a lot of
> people could imagine being their friend. And his filmmaking style is
> easygoing and something that might change minds, not the shrill, angry
> feeling you get from a lot of agitprop. Not entirely unlike Michael
> Moore in the early days, when he was making good films like "Roger and
> Me" instead of ill humored stuff like he makes now. (Yes, I know there
> were a lot of problems with "Roger & Me" but it's still leagues ahead
> of what he does now.)
>
> The problem with "Super Size Me" is that it's ultimately unconvincing
> self promotion. Yes, I realize the filmmaker has some point to make
> about how food is marketed, but at the end of the day the subject of
> the movie is the filmmaker himself, who is doing this as a way to make
> a name for himself. So, he basically does a stunt, in which he
> deliberately tries to eat so much that he literally vomits every day
> for a month, while eating McDonald's food. Critics can easily dismiss
> what he did by staying that eating that much of anything, even if it
> was a fat free vegetable diet, would make a person ill - and they'd be
> right. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make himself famous,
> and I guess in that respect the film is successful. But it's ostensible
> reason for being is not convincing at all.
>

"cricket" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if
>that movie is
> good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school.
> why? maybe they
> like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their
> parents didn't
> teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach
> them but there
> is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that
> segment irked me
> so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
====================
Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head.
You guys are just too transparent, killer.



> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I saw "Super Size Me." The filmmaker (can't remember his
>> name) is a
>> very appealing guy, and is great on camera. Somebody that a
>> lot of
>> people could imagine being their friend. And his filmmaking
>> style is
>> easygoing and something that might change minds, not the
>> shrill, angry
>> feeling you get from a lot of agitprop. Not entirely unlike
>> Michael
>> Moore in the early days, when he was making good films like
>> "Roger and
>> Me" instead of ill humored stuff like he makes now. (Yes, I
>> know there
>> were a lot of problems with "Roger & Me" but it's still
>> leagues ahead
>> of what he does now.)
>>
>> The problem with "Super Size Me" is that it's ultimately
>> unconvincing
>> self promotion. Yes, I realize the filmmaker has some point
>> to make
>> about how food is marketed, but at the end of the day the
>> subject of
>> the movie is the filmmaker himself, who is doing this as a way
>> to make
>> a name for himself. So, he basically does a stunt, in which he
>> deliberately tries to eat so much that he literally vomits
>> every day
>> for a month, while eating McDonald's food. Critics can easily
>> dismiss
>> what he did by staying that eating that much of anything, even
>> if it
>> was a fat free vegetable diet, would make a person ill - and
>> they'd be
>> right. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make himself
>> famous,
>> and I guess in that respect the film is successful. But it's
>> ostensible
>> reason for being is not convincing at all.
>>
>
>

"rick" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "cricket" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if that movie
>>is
>> good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school. why? maybe
>> they
>> like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their parents
>> didn't
>> teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach them but
>> there
>> is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that segment irked
>> me
>> so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
> ====================
> Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head. You guys are
> just too transparent, killer.
>
>

The post contained nothing at all about veganism. It is you who are
transparent.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.com...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "cricket" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if
>>>that movie is
>>> good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school.
>>> why? maybe they
>>> like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their
>>> parents didn't
>>> teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach
>>> them but there
>>> is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that
>>> segment irked me
>>> so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
>> ====================
>> Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head.
>> You guys are just too transparent, killer.
>>
>>
>
> The post contained nothing at all about veganism. It is you who
> are transparent.
> =========================
Maybe you should try to keep up with the posters here, eh fool?



>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
>

Of all the ricks I've known, "rick" is the rickiest.

>
>"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
r.com...
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "cricket" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if
>>>>that movie is
>>>> good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school.
>>>> why? maybe they
>>>> like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their
>>>> parents didn't
>>>> teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach
>>>> them but there
>>>> is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that
>>>> segment irked me
>>>> so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
>>> ====================
>>> Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head.
>>> You guys are just too transparent, killer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The post contained nothing at all about veganism. It is you who
>> are transparent.
>> =========================
>Maybe you should try to keep up with the posters here, eh fool?

I don't think vegans are really "fools." That's not fair. I think
they're just miseducated. GO REDS!


>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>>
>>
>

Well, so far you've heard my voice
But I've brought some friends along
And next on the mike is my man "Peter Aitken"
Come on, "Peter Aitken", sing that song!

>Uh check it out:
>
>"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "cricket" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if that movie
>>>is
>>> good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school. why? maybe
>>> they
>>> like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their parents
>>> didn't
>>> teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach them but
>>> there
>>> is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that segment irked
>>> me
>>> so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
>> ====================
>> Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head. You guys are
>> just too transparent, killer.
>>
>>
>
>The post contained nothing at all about veganism. It is you who are
>transparent.

Probly because he's not getting enough protein, lol.

cricket wrote:
> i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if that movie is
> good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school. why? maybe they
> like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their parents didn't
> teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach them but there
> is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that segment irked me
> so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.

You vegan misanthropes can't restrain your misplaced emotions OR hide
your contempt for others. Maybe you should try to explain where you
really grew up instead of telling us of your violent streak.

I am a simple farm girl from
Quebec, we are esily confused.
- "cricket" 8/7/2005

Clearly so because four days later you wrote:

i grew up on a farm in ohio.
- "cricket" 8/11/2005

Be that as it may, McD's isn't just a place where weight can be gained.
The Associated Press reported today about people who lost weight on a
sort of reverse "supersize me" plan:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Inspired by the documentary "Super Size Me," Merab
Morgan decided to give a fast-food-only diet a try. The construction
worker and mother of two ate only at McDonald's for 90 days - and
dropped 37 pounds in the process.

It was a vastly different outcome than what happened in the documentary
to filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, who put on 30 pounds and saw his health
deteriorate after 5,000 calories a day of nothing but McDonald's food.

Morgan, from Raleigh, thought the documentary had unfairly targeted the
world's largest restaurant company, implying that the obese were victims
of a careless corporate giant. People are responsible for what they eat,
she said, not restaurants. The problem with a McDonald's-only diet isn't
what's on the menu, but the choices made from it, she said.

Rest of article at:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8BU16T88.html

<...>

"rick" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "cricket" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if
> >that movie is
> > good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school.
> > why? maybe they
> > like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their
> > parents didn't
> > teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach
> > them but there
> > is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that
> > segment irked me
> > so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
> ====================
> Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head.
> You guys are just too transparent, killer.

wtf mate? are you refering to my impulse to slaughter a lunch lady? i don't
know why vegitarianism and my lunch lady rampage have anything in common.

>
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> I saw "Super Size Me." The filmmaker (can't remember his
> >> name) is a
> >> very appealing guy, and is great on camera. Somebody that a
> >> lot of
> >> people could imagine being their friend. And his filmmaking
> >> style is
> >> easygoing and something that might change minds, not the
> >> shrill, angry
> >> feeling you get from a lot of agitprop. Not entirely unlike
> >> Michael
> >> Moore in the early days, when he was making good films like
> >> "Roger and
> >> Me" instead of ill humored stuff like he makes now. (Yes, I
> >> know there
> >> were a lot of problems with "Roger & Me" but it's still
> >> leagues ahead
> >> of what he does now.)
> >>
> >> The problem with "Super Size Me" is that it's ultimately
> >> unconvincing
> >> self promotion. Yes, I realize the filmmaker has some point
> >> to make
> >> about how food is marketed, but at the end of the day the
> >> subject of
> >> the movie is the filmmaker himself, who is doing this as a way
> >> to make
> >> a name for himself. So, he basically does a stunt, in which he
> >> deliberately tries to eat so much that he literally vomits
> >> every day
> >> for a month, while eating McDonald's food. Critics can easily
> >> dismiss
> >> what he did by staying that eating that much of anything, even
> >> if it
> >> was a fat free vegetable diet, would make a person ill - and
> >> they'd be
> >> right. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make himself
> >> famous,
> >> and I guess in that respect the film is successful. But it's
> >> ostensible
> >> reason for being is not convincing at all.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"cricket" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "cricket" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if
>> >that movie is
>> > good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school.
>> > why? maybe they
>> > like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their
>> > parents didn't
>> > teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach
>> > them but there
>> > is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that
>> > segment irked me
>> > so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
>> ====================
>> Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head.
>> You guys are just too transparent, killer.
>
> wtf mate? are you refering to my impulse to slaughter a lunch
> lady? i don't
> know why vegitarianism and my lunch lady rampage have anything
> in common.
> ====================
Because veggie loons try to claim they feel such empathy and
compassion for animals. They pretend that none die for their
food. But when faced with a real situation, your hatred comes
out and exposes you for the hypocrite you are.



>>
>> > > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> I saw "Super Size Me." The filmmaker (can't remember his
>> >> name) is a
>> >> very appealing guy, and is great on camera. Somebody that a
>> >> lot of
>> >> people could imagine being their friend. And his
>> >> filmmaking
>> >> style is
>> >> easygoing and something that might change minds, not the
>> >> shrill, angry
>> >> feeling you get from a lot of agitprop. Not entirely
>> >> unlike
>> >> Michael
>> >> Moore in the early days, when he was making good films like
>> >> "Roger and
>> >> Me" instead of ill humored stuff like he makes now. (Yes,
>> >> I
>> >> know there
>> >> were a lot of problems with "Roger & Me" but it's still
>> >> leagues ahead
>> >> of what he does now.)
>> >>
>> >> The problem with "Super Size Me" is that it's ultimately
>> >> unconvincing
>> >> self promotion. Yes, I realize the filmmaker has some
>> >> point
>> >> to make
>> >> about how food is marketed, but at the end of the day the
>> >> subject of
>> >> the movie is the filmmaker himself, who is doing this as a
>> >> way
>> >> to make
>> >> a name for himself. So, he basically does a stunt, in which
>> >> he
>> >> deliberately tries to eat so much that he literally vomits
>> >> every day
>> >> for a month, while eating McDonald's food. Critics can
>> >> easily
>> >> dismiss
>> >> what he did by staying that eating that much of anything,
>> >> even
>> >> if it
>> >> was a fat free vegetable diet, would make a person ill -
>> >> and
>> >> they'd be
>> >> right. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make
>> >> himself
>> >> famous,
>> >> and I guess in that respect the film is successful. But
>> >> it's
>> >> ostensible
>> >> reason for being is not convincing at all.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

cricket wrote:

> "rick" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>"cricket" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>>i will again come back with the segment on public schools. if
>>>that movie is
>>>good for nothing else it shows that kids eat crap in school.
>>>why? maybe they
>>>like crap, maybe the schools didn't teach them, maybe their
>>>parents didn't
>>>teach them (more then likely) maybe their parents did teach
>>>them but there
>>>is nothing better to eat or to even try (most likely) that
>>>segment irked me
>>>so much i wanted to beat the crap out of a lunch lady.
>>
>>====================
>>Ahhh, the typical vegan compassion again rears its ugly head.
>>You guys are just too transparent, killer.
>
>
> wtf mate? are you refering to my impulse to slaughter a lunch lady? i don't
> know why vegitarianism and my lunch lady rampage have anything in common.

He sees it as abusing children.
He said he said he had impulse. We have many impulses. Abusing
children should naturally bring out an impulse. Feeding them junk food
he obviously considers abuse.




>
>
> wrote in message
egroups.com...
>>>
>>>>I saw "Super Size Me." The filmmaker (can't remember his
>>>>name) is a
>>>>very appealing guy, and is great on camera. Somebody that a
>>>>lot of
>>>>people could imagine being their friend. And his filmmaking
>>>>style is
>>>>easygoing and something that might change minds, not the
>>>>shrill, angry
>>>>feeling you get from a lot of agitprop. Not entirely unlike
>>>>Michael
>>>>Moore in the early days, when he was making good films like
>>>>"Roger and
>>>>Me" instead of ill humored stuff like he makes now. (Yes, I
>>>>know there
>>>>were a lot of problems with "Roger & Me" but it's still
>>>>leagues ahead
>>>>of what he does now.)
>>>>
>>>>The problem with "Super Size Me" is that it's ultimately
>>>>unconvincing
>>>>self promotion. Yes, I realize the filmmaker has some point
>>>>to make
>>>>about how food is marketed, but at the end of the day the
>>>>subject of
>>>>the movie is the filmmaker himself, who is doing this as a way
>>>>to make
>>>>a name for himself. So, he basically does a stunt, in which he
>>>>deliberately tries to eat so much that he literally vomits
>>>>every day
>>>>for a month, while eating McDonald's food. Critics can easily
>>>>dismiss
>>>>what he did by staying that eating that much of anything, even
>>>>if it
>>>>was a fat free vegetable diet, would make a person ill - and
>>>>they'd be
>>>>right. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make himself
>>>>famous,
>>>>and I guess in that respect the film is successful. But it's
>>>>ostensible
>>>>reason for being is not convincing at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>