Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- From: "TC" <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Feb 2007 19:34:33 -0800
On Feb 3, 3:49 am, spam...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 07:04:06 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So tell me, do you believe there is some entity called "Nature" or
not? If not, as I would hope, then why are you quoting it?
jack
That is someone elses words, not mine. But most of us would recognize
and understand the point being made.
No, you quoted it. What exactly does it mean? It sounds like the fuzzy
nonsense you subscribe to.
I quoted the entire article. That does not make them my words. You
cannot be that dense, can you? Hang on, you are that dense. Geez, I
forgot who I was responding to for a sec.
Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"
" That's not the way nature set it up."
" That's not the way nature set it up."
" From my perspective, natural fats are still nature's
way of doing it. If nature's fat does something you don't like, try
blending it with a natural fat that you do like, and that's the way to
get to the best solution, as opposed to modifying it, as opposed to
saying, we'll trick nature and make this partially hydrogenated or
fully hydrogenated."
And then, of interest:
"I'm not
saying interesterified fat is bad stuff for sure, but I am saying,
Let's figure out why we saw what we saw, and let's not jump on the
next bandwagon without really having a closer look at what the
possibilities are."
[Good advice! Why don't you take it?]
Hayes is quick to acknowledge the fact that financial support for the
study was provided by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board. Sundram is
employed by the board and Karupaiah worked with the board as a
graduate student. Hayes himself is a member of the Malaysian Palm Oil
Advisory Council.
"It's obviously a conflict of interest; I realize that and I'm not
trying to disguise or hide that," Hayes said.
[Aha, one of your evil conflicts of interest?]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You somehow think that by posting an article, I, for some reason, have
to completely agree with and defend every single minor and
insignificant point in the article. Should I also correct grammatical
mistakes and edit it to dumb it down for your highness?
I assumed that if you posted an article you would be cognisant of the
main thrust, which is obviously that "doing things contrary to NATURE"
was somehow wrong. I merely asked for clarification of the main thrust
of this artcle, but if you say you haven't got s clue what you post
here, we'll leave it at that.
And it is interesting how you industry food cultists grab ahold of any
tiny and insignificant point to argue as if arguing that tiny little
irrelevant point somehow will cause the unrelated larger issue of the
post to be somehow lessened or nullified. That is not how debate
works. You should address the issue being discussed. But, since you
are evading the main point, I can assume that you concede on the main
point.
And that issue is? That anything contrary to "nature" is somehow
wrong? I still don't know what this "nature is.
But, feel free to agree or disagree on any and all tiny irrelevant
points. It's is called freedom of conscience. You don't like the term
"nature". Good for you. You are such an intellectual. Just don't
expect everyone to follow you down every stupid path you chose to
follow, every time to chose to.
Where did I say I don't like "nature" I asked what it was.
But if you don't even know what your article was about...
Why are you be-labouring such an inconsequential point? Possibly to
avoid addressing the issue presented and steering it away from the
issue? Typical food industry cult tactic.
Who is belabouring it, except you? I merely asked what was meant by
this crucial concept in the article you quoted. I seem to have hit one
of your sore spots, sorry.
Again I find myself being asked to answer stupid questions about
stupid stuff that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
Stupid food industry cult nonsense questions.
You figure out for yourself what "nature" means, write it done on a
piece of paper, roll it up into a tight little ball and shove it up
your ass. That is how important your stupid off-topic picayune nit-
picky moronic questions are to me.
So what did you think the thrust of your article was?
But that's ok. When you nitpick like that you automatically concede on
the main point.
Which was?
Which is the new slow poison that is going to get foisted on the
public in the name of getting rid of trans fats and replacing it with
some other highly processed garbage manufactured chemically-altered
vegetable fats.
So you really and truly derived this from that article? Wow, what
planet are you from?
TC - Interplanetary Beef Shill
jack
Go eat some sugar, you moron.
TC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- From: spamfee
- Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- From: TC
- Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- From: spamfee
- Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- From: TC
- Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- From: spamfee
- Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- Prev by Date: SAVE ON LIFE TIME FITNESS PRODUCTS!!! 23-30% lifetime
- Next by Date: Re: A cure for diabetes from 1806?
- Previous by thread: Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- Next by thread: Re: "Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of CVD risk factor effects looms here, too
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
