From: unsettled on
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:

> In article <d206e$459e6ffe$cdd084a8$12688(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>,
> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:

>>For heavens sakes. The minute trans fat content is forcibly
>>reduced Crisco will fall in line. Currently their label says
>>1.5 grams per serving. The New York model allows 0.5g per
>>serving. Total fat in Crisco is 12g. They should be able to
>>achieve this reduction without breaking a sweat.

> The talk in this state is not about reducing but banning.

They can and probably should ban the artificial stuff. They won't
ban the trans fats occurring naturally in bovine products.

> This is all noise so that nobody has to work on the real problems.

It isn't, sorry.

>>Legislating what we eat has a very long conservative history.
>>Taxing it is even older.

>>I wish government taxed trans fat sold at retail instead of
>>outright banning it. After all, its just another sin.

> In case you haven't noticed, all food is already taxed through
> delivery costs.

Nope. Not if you go to some farms.

From: Eeyore on


jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:

> In case you haven't noticed, all food is already taxed through
> delivery costs.

That's not a TAX !

Just how far are you prepared to drift away from reality ?

Graham

From: Spehro Pefhany on
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:20:36 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> In case you haven't noticed, all food is already taxed through
>> delivery costs.
>
>That's not a TAX !
>
>Just how far are you prepared to drift away from reality ?
>
>Graham

I don't know the exact details, but it's probably more of an issue in
tax regimes that are not VAT-like since there are inevitably some
sales taxes and fuel taxes embedded in the costs of food. But most
food costs for most people these days are not "basic" so perhaps it's
no big deal.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: T Wake on

<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eno667$8ss_005(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> In article <enm0ff$6ka$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>,
> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>>In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>,
>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you use your wireless telephone,
>>>>> do you believe that conversation is a private communication?
>>>>
>>>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether
>>>>real
> or
>>>>electronic. That's for sure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were
>>>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia
>>>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are
>>>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running.
>>>Little girls learn all about how sound carries.
>>>
>>>
>>>/BAH
>>
>>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read
> first-class
>>mail?
>
> During WWII all mail going and coming from overseas was read.
> Any sensitive words were literally cut out of the letter.
> My uncle married a Tunis who came from a town called Whitehall.
> So his letters would read that he was still in Whitehall which
> was code for a certain area on the African continent.
>
> Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war.

Yes, but who knows when the war against obesity (poverty, child cruelty,
drugs etc) will be won.

It is good that mail can be censored to ensure that no one tries to give
away the location of secret trans-fat stores.

> The news
> reports have not specified which mails are in question nor
> any facts about this news bite from CBS.
>


From: T Wake on

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:459FA617.8739E32F(a)hotmail.com...
>
>
> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war.
>
> With whom ?

Obesity.

Poverty.

Child Cruelty.

Drugs.

Poor interior design.

Pointless bulleted point posts on USENET.

(etc)


:-)