artificial rant

Brian Christiansen said:

Technically, I suppose so, but by being caught in a forest fire and being
prepared for food are not the same thing. Something might well eat the
cooked deer, but most likely by some kind of other wild animal, nor was it
"cooked" with the intent of being eaten.

You're just arguing because the wife and kids are out shopping
and you anticipate a slow day, right?

-sw

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:14:04 GMT, Sqwertz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's built into our jeans.

LOL! Jeans, not genes... very good, Steve. I've used that one too.

--
See return address to reply by email

Brian Christiansen said:

"Bobo Bonobo®" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A silly reply to my silly reply. I'd also considered
disabling the deer and shoving thirty bulbs of garlic
up its rectum, and sewing its anus shut before starting the fire.

Why not just use Ron Popeil's solid flavor injector.

My son has a Pocket Fisherman, likely made in the 70s. I just noticed
a week or two ago that they still (again?) make those.

Quoted message said:

Brian Christiansen

--Bryan

Brian Christiansen said:

"notbob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Your logic is flawed. A deer caught in a forest fire is cooked, yet
untouched by man.

Technically, I suppose so, but by being caught in a forest fire and
being prepared for food are not the same thing.

(snippage)

Quoted message said:

If I pick an apple off a tree, is it "natural" in the first place.

However, the tree is most likely in an orchard, which, to some
extent, is an artificial environment.

What, you think apple trees didn't exist before orchards were cultivated?
How on earth (sic) would anyone have thought to plant an orchard if they
hadn't first encountered apples growing in the wild and decided to plant
some seeds?

Quoted message said:

Suppose then I core it and slice it. Is it still "minimally
processed" enough to qualify as "natural?" Or do coring and slicing
somehow not count as processing steps? Does taking it off the tree
count as a processing step, as the apple can't really be eaten until
it is.

Of course you can eat an apple without peeling and coring it. And you don't
have to even pick it off the tree... they will fall off without your
assistance. You're picking at nits, dude. Give it up!

Jill

Brian Christiansen said:

"aem" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When and where do you want any of these words to have more meaning?

I really don't know what I "want" the words to mean, but that does not
change the fact that they are advertising buzz words that have no real
meaning.

So what? Most people know this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How can a shopper use the presence or absence of these words to
inform a buying decision?

Try reading some labels and ignoring what is in big words on the front of
the package?

Quoted message said:

They can't. I think buying decions need to made based on the
following 4 criteria, you may or may not agree with the order I have
put them in:

1. Ingredient list - this is mainly for things you might be allergic
to, such as wheat, soy, MSG, perhaps. Even if you make absolutely
everything from scratch, you still have to avoid stuff that you are
allergic to, pay attention to what a food might be processed with,
etc.

Of course, and that's up to the individual who has the problem. Now you're
turning into the Food Police, watching over what everyone makes from scratch
because they may not know what's in their food ingredients?

Quoted message said:

2. Nutrition label - even if you aren't on a weight-loss diet, or
diabetic, or have some other condition that has special dietary
needs, you do have to be aware of how much fat and calories and other
nutrients you are putting in your mouth. Again, even if you make all
your stuff from scratch, you need to pay attention to the nutrient
value of the stuff you do use.

Actually, if someone doesn't care they certainly do *not* have to pay
attention to the nutritional value of what they eat. If they want to buy
Hamburger Helper and eat it every day it's no skin off my nose. Your "rant"
isn't going to change those people or force them to pay attention to
nutrition.

Quoted message said:

3. Price tag - if you can't afford it, it really doesn't matter what
the ingredient list or nutrition label says.

This I agree with.

Quoted message said:

4. Personal taste - if you don't really like it, it doesn't really
matter what the price is, or what the ingredient list or nutrition
label says.

I also agree with this, slightly.... the question is, why would someone buy
something they don't like? Perhaps they have a spouse/significant
other/children who don't have the same tastes as you do. Then you'd
probably buy stuff you personally don't want to eat and get something for
yourself you *do* like to eat. What's it to ya?

Jill

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What, you think apple trees didn't exist before orchards were cultivated?
How on earth (sic) would anyone have thought to plant an orchard if they
hadn't first encountered apples growing in the wild and decided to plant
some seeds?

Let's see, to quote my my original message, at least the one that pertains:
"I might pick it from a wild apple tree growing in the forest or wherever
they grow, as they must have grown somewhere before
being adapted for agriculture," so I think that I pretty clearly stated that
I do believe that apple trees did indeed exist before orchards were
cultivated, and that they do exist outside of orchards today.

I don't really know what to say here, except perhaps to say, read what I
actually said. I really don't know what to conclude other than you didn't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Suppose then I core it and slice it. Is it still "minimally
processed" enough to qualify as "natural?" Or do coring and slicing
somehow not count as processing steps? Does taking it off the tree
count as a processing step, as the apple can't really be eaten until
it is.

Of course you can eat an apple without peeling and coring it. And you
don't
have to even pick it off the tree... they will fall off without your
assistance.

Uhh...I never said you could not eat an apple without peeling and coring it.
I said "Suppose then I core it and slice it," not that it has to be cored
and sliced to be eaten.

Again, I don't know what to conclude here, because you quoted what I
actually did say, but apparantly did not understand a very simple and direct
English statement, or that you quoted it without actually reading it.
Again, I really don't know what to conclude here other than those two
posssibilities.

Uhh...I also never said that an apple could not fall off the tree. Try
reading my whole example, not just the first few sentences of it, before
commenting on it, as my point was really not about apples.

It was more about processsing steps and natural foods (natural foods: "food
that has undergone minimal processing...," dictionary.com). In other word,
what exactly is the definition of "minimal processing"?

How many steps are required before a food is not "minimally processed" any
more? Is it the nature of those steps more important than the actual
number? If so, how exactly is that nature defined?

Brian Christiansen

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Of course, and that's up to the individual who has the problem. Now
you're
turning into the Food Police, watching over what everyone makes from
scratch
because they may not know what's in their food ingredients?

OK, fine. You don't "have to" be be aware of what you put in foods in foods
you make from scratch or what is on ingredient lists, but it is a bad idea
not to be. I also did not say it should be a law that they have to pay
attention to what they do use, nor that I am going to somehow coerce them
into making wise buying decisions, just that I think that it should be a
criterion for deciding what they should buy.

Quoted message said:

Actually, if someone doesn't care they certainly do *not* have to pay
attention to the nutritional value of what they eat. If they want to buy
Hamburger Helper and eat it every day it's no skin off my nose. Your
"rant"
isn't going to change those people or force them to pay attention to
nutrition.

I never said that anyone "has to" pay attention to nutrition information
about a food, just that I think that nutrition information should be a
guideline in deciding what to buy. I am also not quite so naive as to
believe that a posting on usenet is going to cause people to be more aware
of nutrition, nor do I think that "changing people" is even the purpose of
usenet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4. Personal taste - if you don't really like it, it doesn't really
matter what the price is, or what the ingredient list or nutrition
label says.

I also agree with this, slightly.... the question is, why would someone
buy
something they don't like?

Uhh...I basically said that if they don't like it, they should avoid it.
Suppose a product is easily affordable, has "perfect" nutrition (whatever
that means), and has no ingredients that you are allergic to or causes you
other problems, but you don't like it (such as perhaps liver?). If you
don't like it, why buy it?

Brian Christiansen

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How can a shopper use the presence or absence of these words to
inform a buying decision?

Try reading some labels and ignoring what is in big words on the front of
the package?

I am pretty sure I said this. I think buying decisions should be made on 4
criteria: ingredient list or what the food contains, nutritional
information, price, and personal taste. However, those are the guidelines
that I think should be used, not guidelines that have to be used. What
criteria someone uses is their own decision.

Brian Christiansen

Brian Christiansen said:

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What, you think apple trees didn't exist before orchards were
cultivated? How on earth (sic) would anyone have thought to plant an
orchard if they hadn't first encountered apples growing in the wild
and decided to plant some seeds?

Let's see, to quote my my original message, at least the one that
pertains: "I might pick it from a wild apple tree growing in the
forest or wherever they grow, as they must have grown somewhere before
being adapted for agriculture," so I think that I pretty clearly
stated that I do believe that apple trees did indeed exist before
orchards were cultivated, and that they do exist outside of orchards
today.

I don't really know what to say here, except perhaps to say, read
what I actually said. I really don't know what to conclude other
than you didn't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Suppose then I core it and slice it. Is it still "minimally
processed" enough to qualify as "natural?" Or do coring and slicing
somehow not count as processing steps? Does taking it off the tree
count as a processing step, as the apple can't really be eaten until
it is.

Of course you can eat an apple without peeling and coring it. And
you don't
have to even pick it off the tree... they will fall off without your
assistance.

Uhh...I never said you could not eat an apple without peeling and
coring it. I said "Suppose then I core it and slice it," not that it
has to be cored and sliced to be eaten.

Again, I don't know what to conclude here, because you quoted what I
actually did say, but apparantly did not understand a very simple and
direct English statement, or that you quoted it without actually
reading it. Again, I really don't know what to conclude here other
than those two posssibilities.

Uhh...I also never said that an apple could not fall off the tree.
Try reading my whole example, not just the first few sentences of it,
before commenting on it, as my point was really not about apples.

It was more about processsing steps and natural foods (natural foods:
"food that has undergone minimal processing...," dictionary.com). In
other word, what exactly is the definition of "minimal processing"?

How many steps are required before a food is not "minimally
processed" any more? Is it the nature of those steps more important
than the actual number? If so, how exactly is that nature defined?

Brian Christiansen

How about this? You're beating a dead horse. No one here seems to agree
that *everything* prepared in some way or cooked in some way is
"artificial". Do you consider butchering a hog and cutting off the leg
portion which contains the actual HAM is artificial? You seem to think the
extent of ham is what's available from Hillshire Farms.

Jill

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How about this? You're beating a dead horse. No one here seems to agree
that *everything* prepared in some way or cooked in some way is
"artificial". Do you consider butchering a hog and cutting off the leg
portion which contains the actual HAM is artificial? You seem to think
the
extent of ham is what's available from Hillshire Farms.

First, I never said that anywhere, nor do I think I even implied it.

Second, the hog was most likely raised at a feedlot or somplace like that
and it was most likely selectively bred for yield, fat content, whatever (it
could be a wild boar or something like that, but it most likely is not), and
that very much makes it artificial (dictionary.com: "made by human skill;
produced by humans", merriam webster online: "humanly contrived often on a
natural model "😉.

Third, I know of no other animal besides man that performs the act of
butchering other than man, making it an artificial process. A lion in the
wild that tears up a wildebeast into its seperate limbs for later eating,
might be considered to be doing a form of butchering, but that is hardly the
same thing as what goes on in a butcher shop or in a kitchen.

Ham, whether from a package in a store, or homemade, is very much an
artificial product, and noone, not you, not "notbob", not the guy that can
only seem to express a difference of opinion by resorting to personal
insults, nor anyone else, has said one word to convince me otherwise. The
actual muscle may not be artificial, but the product that people actually
eat is artificial.

Brian Christiansen

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Brian Christiansen" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Third, I know of no other animal besides man that performs the act of
butchering other than man, making it an artificial process. A lion in the
wild that tears up a wildebeast into its seperate limbs for later eating,
might be considered to be doing a form of butchering, but that is
hardly the
same thing as what goes on in a butcher shop or in a kitchen.

Pet cats which eat their small- mammal kills, butcher them with
amazing precision, carefully excising various digestive organs such as
liver and stomach, (unbroken) which they never eat. We just find them
lying in the floor :-( I would expect bigger cats to do the same.

Janet

"Janet Baraclough" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pet cats which eat their small- mammal kills, butcher them with
amazing precision, carefully excising various digestive organs such as
liver and stomach, (unbroken) which they never eat. We just find them
lying in the floor :-( I would expect bigger cats to do the same.

I hate cats, so I never knew this, but it hardly makes what goes on in a
butcher shop a "natural" process.

Brian CHristiansen

Janet Baraclough said:

Pet cats which eat their small- mammal kills, butcher them with
amazing precision, carefully excising various digestive organs such as
liver and stomach, (unbroken) which they never eat. We just find them
lying in the floor :-( I would expect bigger cats to do the same.

Actually large cats eat the stomach contents of grazers. That way they
get partially-digested vegetable matter that their systems can handle,
which aids in their overall diet.

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Janet Baraclough said:

Pet cats which eat their small- mammal kills, butcher them with
amazing precision, carefully excising various digestive organs such as
liver and stomach, (unbroken) which they never eat. We just find them
lying in the floor :-( I would expect bigger cats to do the same.

Actually large cats eat the stomach contents of grazers. That way they
get partially-digested vegetable matter that their systems can handle,
which aids in their overall diet.

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)