Re: sugar industry admits that sugar is evil



M

[email protected]

Guest
Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit of a
phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current revisionism
seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and the
original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is evil
but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
substance not "evil" in excess?

>It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in moderation".
>That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
>amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
>logically clear and concise.
>
>TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
Questions:

Is sugar in any way nutritious?

Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?

Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> Yes, we know, not only was it tortured logic but we also have had
> it demonstrated why it is so several times now. A cherry picked bit
of a
> phrase and tortured logic applied to generalize it compounded the
> illogical discourse and is par for the course. The current
revisionism
> seems to indicate that the reality of this is starting to dawn and
the
> original assertion now pulled back,ie. it is not any sugar that is
evil
> but sugar in excess, whatever that is. Is there any nutritiional
> substance not "evil" in excess?
>
> >It wasn't tortured. They said that sugar was not evil "in
moderation".
> >That implies that there is a problem with sugar when consumed in
> >amounts that are not moderate. It makes perfect sense and is very
> >logically clear and concise.
> >
> >TC
 
On 18 Jan 2005 06:55:42 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Questions:
>
>Is sugar in any way nutritious?
>
>Does sugar in any way add anything useful to the diet?
>
>Is sugar completely free of any adverse impact on health?
>
>TC

If it is so evil why is it in your blood? Try exercising sometime and
you will understand its usefulness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back