Discussion:
Brexit is a golden opportunity for businesses like Tate & Lyle Sugars
(too old to reply)
pamela
2017-11-14 16:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:27:28 +0000, Christie
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:49:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
How are the EU going to make us pay?
It wouldn't need to. The RoW would see to that. No country
would do business with a defaulter.
But we don't legally owe the EU any money - the House of
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41635217
"An in-depth report on this debate, issued by the House of
Lords, acknowledges that there are 'competing
interpretations' on what the UK should pay, but it reaches
the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say
anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable
obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at
all."
"Reality Check Verdict: Leading Brexiteers are fond of saying
that there is no legal obligation on the UK to pay anything
at all to the EU as it departs. If there is no deal under the
Article 50 process that is almost certainly correct as a
strictly legal interpretation, but it is untested."
You're conflating contributions with payments due. When we pay
to the EU what we owe for our previous commitments as a
member, it won't be a "contribution" that we are making, but a
settlement of the outstanding bill. Suppose you as a house
builder get planning permission from the council to build 20
houses and as a condition of that permission you agree to
providing certain infrastructure like roads, a play area and
so on. If you just build the houses then scarper, you're still
obliged to deliver said infrastructure -- or pay money to
the council in lieu so that it can hire another firm to do the
work you defaulted on.
MM
I don't doubt we would act more favourably towards the EU if
they would reciprocate.
What favourable action do you have in mind. Have you got an
example?
Yes, an example would be to more readily agree to pay some of
the money the EU are trying to coerce from us.
But, regrettably, the whole attitude of the EU is atrociously
unfavourable towards us. It was even you who suggested the EU
sees itself as a parent who has to punish us, its child, for
being recalcitrant. It is perfectly clear now that the EUs aim
is to punish Britain. They want to extract from us as much money
as possible by to refusing to negotiate in good faith and, as an
extra benefit for them, making Brexit so calamitous for Britain
that no other country will ever want to leave.
That is true. Before the UK referendum took place the EU made it
clear it would be harsh on us.

They have lond had their pricinicple of "No one is worse for being
in the EU and no one is better being out".
The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk says that
unless the EU27 remain united, "the negotiations will end in our
defeat". So, for the EU this is a battle – not a negotiation to
find mutual benefit.
Tusk needs a kick. I recall the UK putting ina good word and
working for Poland to join. He became power drunk. He gave
Cameron short shrift and lobbed in a big claim for the UK's
divorce money too.
"Brussels does not want a mutually advantageous deal and London
has not realised it … the fallacy lies in the presumption that
those who are conducting the negotiations from Brussels and
their political masters in Berlin and Paris, are interested in
an economic outcome. They're not. They're far more interested in
making an example of Britain so that others around the European
Union get a lesson that anyone who opposes their authority gets
crushed."
Loopy Varoufakis is right on this one. I think I saw him say your
quoted words in an interview (Newsnight perhaps?) now on YouTube.
The Polish foreign minister says that "the EU27 may disagree on
everything but they agree on one thing, which is that the UK
should pay as much as possible for as long as possible".
How can anyone mistake the EU for a 'friend' and 'neighbour'
when it talks about us this way? As much as the EU may love our
money, they actually hate us - and its obvious what their goals
are for these talks.
I disagree. The EU wasa good friend and good neighbour. It
turned nasty when the UK decided not to be close. Furthermore the
UK provides an example of a country leaving the EU which is
certain to upset the EU.
If the EU truly wanted one, we would be free to negotiate on the
basis of mutual interest. Britain still wants to be an ally and
trading partner to the EU. But because of the EUs behaviour so
far, and should it continue in this manner, it has to be in our
interest to keep as much as possible of the money that the EU
wishes to extract from us and pay it to ourselves instead. We
could then use this money to smooth over our transition away
from the EU.
We knew we were outgunned, if that's the word, by the EU before
the referendum took place. How we handle it is another matter.
We are poor at such arrangeemnts and the arrogant manner, divorced
from reality, of the Brexiteers makes it worse.
Ophelia
2017-11-14 19:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:59:19 -0000, Christie
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:27:28 +0000, Christie
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:49:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
<snip>
If the EU truly wanted one, we would be free to negotiate on the basis of
mutual interest. Britain still wants to be an ally and trading partner to
the EU. But because of the EUs behaviour so far, and should it continue
in
this manner, it has to be in our interest to keep as much as possible of
the
money that the EU wishes to extract from us and pay it to ourselves
instead.
We could then use this money to smooth over our transition away from the
EU.
Agreed in your post's entirety.
Thank you. You're proving to be a double-edged sword. :)

==

duhhhh lol
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Ophelia
2017-11-14 19:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:59:19 -0000, Christie
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:27:28 +0000, Christie
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:49:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
<snip>
If the EU truly wanted one, we would be free to negotiate on the basis of
mutual interest. Britain still wants to be an ally and trading partner to
the EU. But because of the EUs behaviour so far, and should it continue
in
this manner, it has to be in our interest to keep as much as possible of
the
money that the EU wishes to extract from us and pay it to ourselves
instead.
We could then use this money to smooth over our transition away from the
EU.
Agreed in your post's entirety.
Thank you. You're proving to be a double-edged sword. :)

==

duhhhh lol
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-14 19:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:27:28 +0000, Christie
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:49:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
How are the EU going to make us pay?
It wouldn't need to. The RoW would see to that. No country
would do business with a defaulter.
But we don't legally owe the EU any money - the House of
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41635217
"An in-depth report on this debate, issued by the House of
Lords, acknowledges that there are 'competing
interpretations' on what the UK should pay, but it reaches
the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say
anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable
obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at
all."
"Reality Check Verdict: Leading Brexiteers are fond of saying
that there is no legal obligation on the UK to pay anything
at all to the EU as it departs. If there is no deal under the
Article 50 process that is almost certainly correct as a
strictly legal interpretation, but it is untested."
You're conflating contributions with payments due. When we pay
to the EU what we owe for our previous commitments as a
member, it won't be a "contribution" that we are making, but a
settlement of the outstanding bill. Suppose you as a house
builder get planning permission from the council to build 20
houses and as a condition of that permission you agree to
providing certain infrastructure like roads, a play area and
so on. If you just build the houses then scarper, you're still
obliged to deliver said infrastructure -- or pay money to
the council in lieu so that it can hire another firm to do the
work you defaulted on.
MM
I don't doubt we would act more favourably towards the EU if
they would reciprocate.
What favourable action do you have in mind. Have you got an
example?
Yes, an example would be to more readily agree to pay some of
the money the EU are trying to coerce from us.
But, regrettably, the whole attitude of the EU is atrociously
unfavourable towards us. It was even you who suggested the EU
sees itself as a parent who has to punish us, its child, for
being recalcitrant. It is perfectly clear now that the EUs aim
is to punish Britain. They want to extract from us as much money
as possible by to refusing to negotiate in good faith and, as an
extra benefit for them, making Brexit so calamitous for Britain
that no other country will ever want to leave.
That is true. Before the UK referendum took place the EU made it
clear it would be harsh on us.
They have lond had their pricinicple of "No one is worse for being
in the EU and no one is better being out".
The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk says that
unless the EU27 remain united, "the negotiations will end in our
defeat". So, for the EU this is a battle =E2=80=93 not a negotiation =
to
Post by pamela
find mutual benefit.
Tusk needs a kick. I recall the UK putting ina good word and
working for Poland to join. He became power drunk. He gave
Cameron short shrift and lobbed in a big claim for the UK's
divorce money too.
"Brussels does not want a mutually advantageous deal and London
has not realised it =E2=80=A6 the fallacy lies in the presumption tha=
t
Post by pamela
those who are conducting the negotiations from Brussels and
their political masters in Berlin and Paris, are interested in
an economic outcome. They're not. They're far more interested in
making an example of Britain so that others around the European
Union get a lesson that anyone who opposes their authority gets
crushed."
Loopy Varoufakis is right on this one. I think I saw him say your
quoted words in an interview (Newsnight perhaps?) now on YouTube.
The Polish foreign minister says that "the EU27 may disagree on
everything but they agree on one thing, which is that the UK
should pay as much as possible for as long as possible".
How can anyone mistake the EU for a 'friend' and 'neighbour'
when it talks about us this way? As much as the EU may love our
money, they actually hate us - and its obvious what their goals
are for these talks.
I disagree. The EU wasa good friend and good neighbour. It
turned nasty when the UK decided not to be close. Furthermore the
UK provides an example of a country leaving the EU which is
certain to upset the EU.
If the EU truly wanted one, we would be free to negotiate on the
basis of mutual interest. Britain still wants to be an ally and
trading partner to the EU. But because of the EUs behaviour so
far, and should it continue in this manner, it has to be in our
interest to keep as much as possible of the money that the EU
wishes to extract from us and pay it to ourselves instead. We
could then use this money to smooth over our transition away
from the EU.
We knew we were outgunned, if that's the word, by the EU before
the referendum took place. How we handle it is another matter.
We are poor at such arrangeemnts and the arrogant manner, divorced
from reality, of the Brexiteers makes it worse.
Why shouldn't we be arrogant with the arrogant EU parliament?

-- =

Never have I seen a word as accurate as politics.
Poly meaning many, and tic being a blood-sucking thing.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-14 19:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:10:13 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 17:41:05 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
The vote has been cast, you can't just go back on it.
Yes, you can.The government could decide today, perfectly legally, to
bin Brexit, whilst reminding people like you that the referendum was
not binding.
You're a fucking idiot. So if 70% of us voted Labour, and the Tories said "Sorry, we want to stay in power, we won't let them into number 10", you'd be ok with it?
That would be unconstitutional, so no. But you're trying to make us
believe in your land of make-believe that a referendum is the
equivalent of an election.
It isn't. An election result is never advisory, but a referendum
result is, unless expressly stated otherwise in the legislation that
set up the referendum.
There's no point in a referendum if it isn't binding.
--
A study in Scotland showed that the kind of male face a woman finds attractive can differ depending where a woman is in her menstrual cycle.
For instance, if she is ovulating they are attracted to men with rugged, masculine features.
If she is menstruating she is more prone to be attracted to a man with scissors shoved in his temple.
MM
2017-11-15 10:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:18:41 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
There's no point in a referendum if it isn't binding.
Well, then! You've just confirmed that there was no point to the EU
referendum, since the result was NOT binding.

Thanks! Well noted.

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-18 15:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:18:41 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
There's no point in a referendum if it isn't binding.
Well, then! You've just confirmed that there was no point to the EU
referendum, since the result was NOT binding.
Thanks! Well noted.
You're confusing whether there should have been one with whether it was done properly.
--
Pub sign: Liquor in the front, poker in the rear.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-14 19:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:35:29 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
There are EU regulations which the UK adheres to.
Name one.
Working Time Directive?
Do you want the Withdrawal Bill to scrap that, then?
Yes.
--
How many potheads does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the bulb against the socket, and the other to smoke up until the room starts spinning.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-14 19:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:11:06 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 21:03:57 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
There are EU regulations which the UK adheres to.
There are also lots of UK regulations which the UK adheres to.
But they were decided upon only by Brits.
Are you defending nationalism now?
Of course, why wouldn't I? If you're not a nationalist, please leave on the next banana boat.
Did you notice how nationalism is bad for world peace?
No.
--
How many potheads does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the bulb against the socket, and the other to smoke up until the room starts spinning.
The Peeler
2017-11-14 20:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:19:30 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Did you notice how nationalism is bad for world peace?
No.
But did you notice that everyone considers you a complete idiot, Birdbrain?
--
Rob Morley about Birdbrain:
"He's a perennial idiot"
MID: <***@Mars>
--
JoeyDee to Birdbrain
"I apologize for thinking you were a jerk. You're just someone with an IQ
lower than your age, and I accept that as a reason for your comments."
MID: <***@news.eternal-september.org>
--
Sam Plusnet about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson Sword" LOL):
"He's just desperate to be noticed. Any attention will do, no matter how
negative it may be."
MID: <***@brightview.co.uk>
--
***@gmail.com asking Birdbrain:
"What, were you dropped on your head as a child?"
MID: <58ddfad5-d9a5-4031-b91f-***@googlegroups.com>
--
Christie addressing endlessly driveling Birdbrain Macaw (now "James
Wilkinson" LOL):
"What are you resurrecting that old post of mine for? It's from last
month some time. You're like a dog who's just dug up an old bone they
hid in the garden until they were ready to have another go at it."
MID: <***@news.eternal-september.org>
--
Mr Pounder's fitting description of Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are a well known fool, a tosser, a pillock, a stupid unemployable
sponging failure who will always live alone and will die alone. You will not
be missed."
MID: <orree6$on2$***@dont-email.me>
--
Richard to pathetic wanker Hucker:
"You haven't bred?
Only useful thing you've done in your pathetic existence."
MID: <orvctf$l5m$***@gioia.aioe.org>
--
***@snyder.on.ca about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
""not the sharpest knife in the drawer"'s parents sure made a serious
mistake having him born alive -- A total waste of oxygen, food, space,
and bandwidth."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
--
Mr Pounder exposing sociopathic Birdbrain:
"You will always be a lonely sociopath living in a shithole with no hot
running water with loads of stinking cats and a few parrots."
MID: <os5m1i$8m1$***@dont-email.me>
--
francis about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"He seems to have a reputation as someone of limited intelligence"
MID: <cf06cdd9-8bb8-469c-800a-***@googlegroups.com>
--
Peter Moylan about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"If people like JWS didn't exist, we would have to find some other way to
explain the concept of "invincible ignorance"."
MID: <otofc8$tbg$***@dont-email.me>
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-14 19:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's hardly my fault if the term is (medically) ambiguous as well as
generally unknown
This is why parents don't allow children to run with scissors.
Microsoft Word used to warn you not to do that as one of it's hints. A colleague was very upset that it was belittling her.
--
Every time I sink ten pints, I turn into a woman. I start talking bollocks and can't drive.
MM
2017-11-15 10:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:32:06 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
It's hardly my fault if the term is (medically) ambiguous as well as
generally unknown
This is why parents don't allow children to run with scissors.
Microsoft Word used to warn you not to do that as one of it's hints. A colleague was very upset that it was belittling her.
Presumably your colleague was not a child, though.

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-18 14:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:32:06 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
It's hardly my fault if the term is (medically) ambiguous as well as
generally unknown
This is why parents don't allow children to run with scissors.
Microsoft Word used to warn you not to do that as one of it's hints. A colleague was very upset that it was belittling her.
Presumably your colleague was not a child, though.
It's not up to M$ to teach children common sense. And what proportion of Word users are children? (Where children = people under the age of 5, as everyone over that age knows what scissors are).
--
The female gangbang world record is held by Lisa Sparks who had sex with 919 men on October 16, 2004 in Warsaw, Poland as part of the Third Annual World Gangbang Championship and Eroticon 2004
MM
2017-11-15 10:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:46:22 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:22:20 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:19:26 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
It's a bloody crap energy reserve. It should be able to provide energy at the same rate as we need to consume it. What's the point if we lack the energy to hunt an animal because we haven't eaten in a few days? That's precisely when we need energy!
Nature is ONLY interested in providing the next generation on the
basis of survival of the fittest. If you've proved you're not fit to
carry on, then nature will simply say, be gone! It doesn't care, you
see, who lives or dies. It cares only about the ones who survive.
And as just said, but you didn't bother answering, our system is rubbish, and it's
surprising a better one didn't win out in evolution. Consider this, you're living in
the wild and food is short, you haven't eaten in three days. But you have plenty
fat reserves. You now need to run at full speed to catch an animal, then fight it
with all your strength, or you don't get your next meal. But you can't, because fat
reserves are too slow at producing energy.
Don't forget that nature will always hold something in reserve just to
keep the heart ticking and the brain working. What would be the point
of providing your leg muscles with enough energy to chase and kill
that animal if your eyesight had already failed and you kept
blundering into trees or boulders?
Because person A can use his reserves at full power when needed, catches his next meal, and refuels completely. Person B can sit around doing nothing but surviving, but can't catch any food, so eventually starves to death.
But you already established that nature will NOT use up all fat
reserves, even if your muscles will not survive the chase for food!
(Person A)

Person B does nothing, therefore *conserves* his energy stocks and
*can* therefore catch any food available. He survives and is thus the
more sensible of the two.

That's evolution for ya!

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-18 15:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:46:22 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:22:20 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:19:26 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
It's a bloody crap energy reserve. It should be able to provide energy at the same rate as we need to consume it. What's the point if we lack the energy to hunt an animal because we haven't eaten in a few days? That's precisely when we need energy!
Nature is ONLY interested in providing the next generation on the
basis of survival of the fittest. If you've proved you're not fit to
carry on, then nature will simply say, be gone! It doesn't care, you
see, who lives or dies. It cares only about the ones who survive.
And as just said, but you didn't bother answering, our system is rubbish, and it's
surprising a better one didn't win out in evolution. Consider this, you're living in
the wild and food is short, you haven't eaten in three days. But you have plenty
fat reserves. You now need to run at full speed to catch an animal, then fight it
with all your strength, or you don't get your next meal. But you can't, because fat
reserves are too slow at producing energy.
Don't forget that nature will always hold something in reserve just to
keep the heart ticking and the brain working. What would be the point
of providing your leg muscles with enough energy to chase and kill
that animal if your eyesight had already failed and you kept
blundering into trees or boulders?
Because person A can use his reserves at full power when needed, catches his next meal, and refuels completely. Person B can sit around doing nothing but surviving, but can't catch any food, so eventually starves to death.
But you already established that nature will NOT use up all fat
reserves, even if your muscles will not survive the chase for food!
(Person A)
Person B does nothing, therefore *conserves* his energy stocks and
*can* therefore catch any food available. He survives and is thus the
more sensible of the two.
That's evolution for ya!
No, person A gets the next animal to eat. Person B never has enough energy to catch more food, and should therefore die.
--
Why do our kids have to take the Iowa Test for Basic Skills?
Why can't we have a Georgia Test of Basic Skills with questions like,
"Bubba's got three cars and he done traded for two more. How many cement blocks is Bubba gonna need?"
MM
2017-11-15 10:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:45:14 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:20:18 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:49:02 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
You don't put 100 litres of petrol in your car when it only needs 50 do you?
What a strange comment! It's not "the car" that "needs" fuel, it's YOU
who are driving somewhere in it.
So, on that basis, do you put in 5 litres to do your local shopping,
another 5 litres to visit the inlaws, and make yet another trip to the
petrol station if you're on your way to relatives?
What I do is just fill the damn tank! Then when it's close to empty, I
fill it again.
A car petrol tank can feed petrol as fast as required to the engine. Our fat reserves cannot.
But humans designed cars. Humans didn't design evolution.
200,000 fucking years and we still haven't evolved properly.
Evolution of humans started a heck of a lot earlier than 200,000 years
ago! Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.

MM
Christie
2017-11-15 11:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
MM wrote:

<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."

https://www.quora.com/Are-babies-ever-born-with-gills-or-tails
Ophelia
2017-11-15 12:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Christie" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

MM wrote:

<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."

https://www.quora.com/Are-babies-ever-born-with-gills-or-tails

==

lol
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
pensive hamster
2017-11-15 16:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://www.quora.com/Are-babies-ever-born-with-gills-or-tails
lol
Humans born with gills and tails are called mermaids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid#Reported_sightings
MM
2017-11-16 11:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/

Scroll down and search the text.

MM
Christie
2017-11-16 14:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."

Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-16 20:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christie
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
I heard a long time ago that it was possible to breathe water or something similar. It was either special fluid they could use for divers instead of gas, or it was certain people who could learn to breathe actual water, I can't remember which. Or it could have been that babies can actually breathe water as that's what they do in the womb.
--
Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creator of human intelligence.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-16 21:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Christie
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
I heard a long time ago that it was possible to breathe water or something similar. It was either special fluid they could use for divers instead of gas, or it was certain people who could learn to breathe actual water, I can't remember which. Or it could have been that babies can actually breathe water as that's what they do in the womb.
Oh dear James - unborn babies are respire through the placenta and don't breath until the water is expelled from their lungs in the moment after birth.

Human lungs would be hopelessly adapted to breath water, even if you could oxygenate it enough, both mechanically and because of the rapid osmotic crisis it would cause.

OTOH frogs hatch out with [external] gills, I have seen this first hand.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-16 23:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 16 November 2017 20:40:55 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wro=
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gill=
s
Post by MM
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confir=
mation for
Post by MM
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for =
a human
Post by MM
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we=
-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Post by MM
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioni=
ng)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in queryin=
g your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm neve=
r likely
to forget... try as I may.
I heard a long time ago that it was possible to breathe water or some=
thing similar. It was either special fluid they could use for divers in=
stead of gas, or it was certain people who could learn to breathe actual=
water, I can't remember which. Or it could have been that babies can a=
ctually breathe water as that's what they do in the womb.
Oh dear James - unborn babies are respire through the placenta and don=
't breath until the water is expelled from their lungs in the moment aft=
er birth.
Human lungs would be hopelessly adapted to breath water, even if you c=
ould oxygenate it enough, both mechanically and because of the rapid osm=
otic crisis it would cause.
OTOH frogs hatch out with [external] gills, I have seen this first han=
d.

I said I wasn't sure which it was, but I definitely heard it was possibl=
e (I don't see why we can't, all you have to do is stop the lungs from c=
oughing, and provide a liquid which has oxygen richer than the blood, so=
the oxygen passes through the lung walls by osmosis). It might have be=
en this:

https://gizmodo.com/can-humans-breathe-liquid-1156138301

"The substance is a perfluorocarbon (PFC), a synthetic liquid fluorinate=
d hydrocarbon=E2=80=94clear, odorless, chemically and biologically inert=
, with a low surface tension and high O2/CO2 carrying capacity. PFCs can=
hold as much as three times the oxygen and four times the carbon dioxid=
e as human blood. They also act as very efficient heat exchanges. This m=
akes PFCs ideal for use as a liquid ventilation (LV) medium for medical =
applications.

Research into liquid ventilation (when you breathe an oxygen-rich liquid=
instead of air) and PFCs began in earnest immediately following the end=
of the first World War, when doctors studying treatment of poison gas i=
nhalation began applying saline solutions to test subjects' (in this cas=
e, dogs) lungs. PFCs themselves were developed in the early 1940s as par=
t of the Manhattan Project. They were dubbed "Joe=E2=80=99s stuff."

However it wasn't until the 1960s that the field really took off. It was=
the height of the Cold War and the US military needed a way to increase=
the escape depth from the numerous submarines it had parked around the =
globe in the event of a catastrophic systems failure. In 1962, Dr. Johan=
nes A. Kylstra and his team from Duke University showed that mice could =
be conditioned to breathe an oxygenated saline solution pressurized to 1=
60 atmospheres (or 1 mile below sea level), although they just died a fe=
w minutes later from respiratory acidosis (carbon dioxide poisoning). Th=
e system was far from perfect, but illustrated that such a technique was=
indeed possible, albeit not yet plausible.

Subsequent experiments performed by Leland C. Clark, Jr. and Frank Golla=
n showed that mice could breathe PFCs under normal atmospheric condition=
s, rats could remain submerged for up to 20 hours, and cats could last w=
eeks. Their study also employed silicone oils as an alternative to PFCs =
but, as it turns out, silicone oil is really toxic to mammals (but only =
after returning to breathing normal air). PFCs are currently the only ac=
ceptable liquid ventilation medium we know of.

In 1989, human trials began in Philadelphia. Several near-death infants =
suffering from severe respiratory distress were administered total liqui=
d ventilation=E2=80=94completely filling the lungs with PFC fluid vs fil=
ling them to their functional residual capacity=E2=80=94and showed some =
remarkable physiological improvements, including lung compliance and gas=
exchange. And that might just be the trick."

-- =

You need only two tools in life. WD-40 and duck tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-17 10:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Christie
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
I heard a long time ago that it was possible to breathe water or something similar. It was either special fluid they could use for divers instead of gas, or it was certain people who could learn to breathe actual water, I can't remember which. Or it could have been that babies can actually breathe water as that's what they do in the womb.
Oh dear James - unborn babies are respire through the placenta and don't breath until the water is expelled from their lungs in the moment after birth.
Human lungs would be hopelessly adapted to breath water, even if you could oxygenate it enough, both mechanically and because of the rapid osmotic crisis it would cause.
OTOH frogs hatch out with [external] gills, I have seen this first hand.
https://gizmodo.com/can-humans-breathe-liquid-1156138301
"The substance is a perfluorocarbon (PFC), a synthetic liquid fluorinated hydrocarbon—clear, odorless, chemically and biologically inert, with a low surface tension and high O2/CO2 carrying capacity. PFCs can hold as much as three times the oxygen and four times the carbon dioxide as human blood. They also act as very efficient heat exchanges. This makes PFCs ideal for use as a liquid ventilation (LV) medium for medical applications.
Research into liquid ventilation (when you breathe an oxygen-rich liquid instead of air) and PFCs began in earnest immediately following the end of the first World War, when doctors studying treatment of poison gas inhalation began applying saline solutions to test subjects' (in this case, dogs) lungs. PFCs themselves were developed in the early 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project. They were dubbed "Joe’s stuff."
However it wasn't until the 1960s that the field really took off. It was the height of the Cold War and the US military needed a way to increase the escape depth from the numerous submarines it had parked around the globe in the event of a catastrophic systems failure. In 1962, Dr. Johannes A. Kylstra and his team from Duke University showed that mice could be conditioned to breathe an oxygenated saline solution pressurized to 160 atmospheres (or 1 mile below sea level), although they just died a few minutes later from respiratory acidosis (carbon dioxide poisoning). The system was far from perfect, but illustrated that such a technique was indeed possible, albeit not yet plausible.
Subsequent experiments performed by Leland C. Clark, Jr. and Frank Gollan showed that mice could breathe PFCs under normal atmospheric conditions, rats could remain submerged for up to 20 hours, and cats could last weeks. Their study also employed silicone oils as an alternative to PFCs but, as it turns out, silicone oil is really toxic to mammals (but only after returning to breathing normal air). PFCs are currently the only acceptable liquid ventilation medium we know of.
In 1989, human trials began in Philadelphia. Several near-death infants suffering from severe respiratory distress were administered total liquid ventilation—completely filling the lungs with PFC fluid vs filling them to their functional residual capacity—and showed some remarkable physiological improvements, including lung compliance and gas exchange. And that might just be the trick."
--
You need only two tools in life. WD-40 and duck tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape.
PFC is not water. Suffocation / drowning aside, if you fill the lungs with water then the body will rapidly absorb it by osmosis and rather more slowly loose electrolytes - death within hours IME.

No this does not happen in embryos because the amniotic fluid is roughly the same concentration in the womb as the mother and the foetus (and not so coincidentally the concentration of the oceans hundreds of millions of years ago).
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-18 12:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 16 November 2017 23:11:27 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wro=
On Thursday, 16 November 2017 20:40:55 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword =
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with g=
ills
Post by MM
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any con=
firmation for
Post by MM
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible f=
or a human
Post by MM
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins=
-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Post by MM
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functi=
oning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in quer=
ying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm n=
ever likely
to forget... try as I may.
I heard a long time ago that it was possible to breathe water or s=
omething similar. It was either special fluid they could use for divers=
instead of gas, or it was certain people who could learn to breathe act=
ual water, I can't remember which. Or it could have been that babies ca=
n actually breathe water as that's what they do in the womb.
Oh dear James - unborn babies are respire through the placenta and =
don't breath until the water is expelled from their lungs in the moment =
after birth.
Human lungs would be hopelessly adapted to breath water, even if yo=
u could oxygenate it enough, both mechanically and because of the rapid =
osmotic crisis it would cause.
OTOH frogs hatch out with [external] gills, I have seen this first =
hand.
I said I wasn't sure which it was, but I definitely heard it was poss=
ible (I don't see why we can't, all you have to do is stop the lungs fro=
m coughing, and provide a liquid which has oxygen richer than the blood,=
so the oxygen passes through the lung walls by osmosis). It might have=
https://gizmodo.com/can-humans-breathe-liquid-1156138301
"The substance is a perfluorocarbon (PFC), a synthetic liquid fluorin=
ated hydrocarbon=E2=80=94clear, odorless, chemically and biologically in=
ert, with a low surface tension and high O2/CO2 carrying capacity. PFCs =
can hold as much as three times the oxygen and four times the carbon dio=
xide as human blood. They also act as very efficient heat exchanges. Thi=
s makes PFCs ideal for use as a liquid ventilation (LV) medium for medic=
al applications.
Research into liquid ventilation (when you breathe an oxygen-rich liq=
uid instead of air) and PFCs began in earnest immediately following the =
end of the first World War, when doctors studying treatment of poison ga=
s inhalation began applying saline solutions to test subjects' (in this =
case, dogs) lungs. PFCs themselves were developed in the early 1940s as =
part of the Manhattan Project. They were dubbed "Joe=E2=80=99s stuff."
However it wasn't until the 1960s that the field really took off. It =
was the height of the Cold War and the US military needed a way to incre=
ase the escape depth from the numerous submarines it had parked around t=
he globe in the event of a catastrophic systems failure. In 1962, Dr. Jo=
hannes A. Kylstra and his team from Duke University showed that mice cou=
ld be conditioned to breathe an oxygenated saline solution pressurized t=
o 160 atmospheres (or 1 mile below sea level), although they just died a=
few minutes later from respiratory acidosis (carbon dioxide poisoning).=
The system was far from perfect, but illustrated that such a technique =
was indeed possible, albeit not yet plausible.
Subsequent experiments performed by Leland C. Clark, Jr. and Frank Go=
llan showed that mice could breathe PFCs under normal atmospheric condit=
ions, rats could remain submerged for up to 20 hours, and cats could las=
t weeks. Their study also employed silicone oils as an alternative to PF=
Cs but, as it turns out, silicone oil is really toxic to mammals (but on=
ly after returning to breathing normal air). PFCs are currently the only=
acceptable liquid ventilation medium we know of.
In 1989, human trials began in Philadelphia. Several near-death infan=
ts suffering from severe respiratory distress were administered total li=
quid ventilation=E2=80=94completely filling the lungs with PFC fluid vs =
filling them to their functional residual capacity=E2=80=94and showed so=
me remarkable physiological improvements, including lung compliance and =
gas exchange. And that might just be the trick."
--
You need only two tools in life. WD-40 and duck tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape.
PFC is not water. Suffocation / drowning aside, if you fill the lungs=
with water then the body will rapidly absorb it by osmosis and rather m=
ore slowly loose electrolytes - death within hours IME.
No this does not happen in embryos because the amniotic fluid is rough=
ly the same concentration in the womb as the mother and the foetus (and =
not so coincidentally the concentration of the oceans hundreds of millio=
ns of years ago).

I've always wondered why we can't just take the oxygen from the water. =
Is it of a lower concentration than we need in our blood? How do fish m=
anage?

-- =

John Montagu: "Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or=
of the pox."
Samuel Foote: "That will depend my lord, on whether I embrace your lords=
hip's principles or your mistress."
The Peeler
2017-11-16 22:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Christie
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
I heard a long time ago that it was possible to breathe water or
something similar. It was either special fluid they could use for divers
instead of gas, or it was certain people who could learn to breathe
actual water, I can't remember which. Or it could have been that babies
can actually breathe water as that's what they do in the womb.
BINGO! QUOTEWORTHY again, you fucked up nutter! THANKS!
--
More from Birdbrain's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic "mind":
"Why do people get upset about getting punched on the nose? It's only as bad
as falling off your bike."
MID: <***@red.lan>

Yes, he really said it! LMAO!
MM
2017-11-17 10:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:30:38 +0000, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
I don't understand why people apparently do not know this already.
Here's another fact: In the womb in the early stages of human embryo
development, the eyes are on each side of the "head", then they wander
around to face the front.

Also note where the eyes are on a fish or a bird. Them's our
ancestors! This is why I don't believe in religion of any kind.

MM
Bod
2017-11-17 10:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:30:38 +0000, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
I don't understand why people apparently do not know this already.
Here's another fact: In the womb in the early stages of human embryo
development, the eyes are on each side of the "head", then they wander
around to face the front.
Also note where the eyes are on a fish or a bird. Them's our
ancestors! This is why I don't believe in religion of any kind.
MM
Blimey! I'm agreeing with MM.
--
Bod
Bod
2017-11-17 10:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:30:38 +0000, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by MM
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:28:07 +0000, Christie
<snip>
Post by MM
Humans evolved from fish. Indeed, some babies are born with gills
even today.
MM
Nah, that last bit is decidedly fishy! I couldn't find any confirmation for
it on Google. On the contrary, it appears: "It is impossible for a human
baby to be born with gills."
https://christophereppig.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/human-origins-we-are-apes-and-also-fish/
Scroll down and search the text.
MM
Hmm... it says: "In rare cases, babies are born with (non-functioning)
gills."
Okay, it would be churlish not to give you that one. And in querying your
assertion I now have an example of human vestigiality that I'm never likely
to forget... try as I may.
I don't understand why people apparently do not know this already.
Here's another fact: In the womb in the early stages of human embryo
development, the eyes are on each side of the "head", then they wander
around to face the front.
Also note where the eyes are on a fish or a bird. Them's our
ancestors! This is why I don't believe in religion of any kind.
MM
--
Bod
MM
2017-11-15 10:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:43:57 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:59:52 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
If we continue the way we're going, we'll have diet fruit. It'll be against government regulations to eat an apple straight from the tree, lest you consume too much deadly sugar.
Well, you shouldn't do that anyway. You should wash all fruit before
consumption, unl;ess it's peeled.
Which of course removes all the sugar.
Does a washed apple no longer taste sweet?
And you're talking bullshit, do you think animals wash their food?
Animals' immune systems have evolved differently than in humans.
Certain tribes in South America keep pigs whose main diet is the
excrement produced by the tribe's bottoms, yet the pigs thrive.
Rabbits, too, eat shit as a reqular practice to aid digestion. Their
own.

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-18 14:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:43:57 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:59:52 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
If we continue the way we're going, we'll have diet fruit. It'll be against government regulations to eat an apple straight from the tree, lest you consume too much deadly sugar.
Well, you shouldn't do that anyway. You should wash all fruit before
consumption, unl;ess it's peeled.
Which of course removes all the sugar.
Does a washed apple no longer taste sweet?
You're the one that suggested washing.
Post by MM
And you're talking bullshit, do you think animals wash their food?
Animals' immune systems have evolved differently than in humans.
Certain tribes in South America keep pigs whose main diet is the
excrement produced by the tribe's bottoms, yet the pigs thrive.
Rabbits, too, eat shit as a reqular practice to aid digestion. Their
own.
Humans have a very good immune system, or they do unless your parents wrapped you in cotton wool and didn't let you play outside.
--
"Sir, your daughter says she loves me, she can't live without me, and wants to marry me."
"And you're asking my permission to marry her?"
"No, I'm asking you to make her leave me the hell alone!!"
MM
2017-11-15 10:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:53:04 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:59:10 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Calories in a pound of sugar: 1755
Calories in a pound of pork: 1098
Calories in a pound of bread: 1202
Why don't you listen to facts? Sugar is bad for you. It does nothing
for you, except provide excess calories from which you get fat.
Those three figures are pretty similar.
No, they're not. Sugar contains 60% more calories than pork, pound for
pound.
So not even twice as much. And why would you eat the same number of pounds of sugar as you would pork? Pork is a food in itself, sugar is an ingredient.
Yep, exactly. Pork contains numerous food nutrients, fat, protein and
amino acids. Want to remind me what sugar contains apart from
calories?

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-18 13:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:53:04 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:59:10 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Calories in a pound of sugar: 1755
Calories in a pound of pork: 1098
Calories in a pound of bread: 1202
Why don't you listen to facts? Sugar is bad for you. It does nothing
for you, except provide excess calories from which you get fat.
Those three figures are pretty similar.
No, they're not. Sugar contains 60% more calories than pork, pound for
pound.
So not even twice as much. And why would you eat the same number of pounds of sugar as you would pork? Pork is a food in itself, sugar is an ingredient.
Yep, exactly. Pork contains numerous food nutrients, fat, protein and
amino acids. Want to remind me what sugar contains apart from
calories?
Like I said, we don't eat sugar by itself. We eat things containing sugar. Sugar is a component, why do you keep confusing food with ingredients? Should we stop using flour? Try eating flour on it's own.
--
Before you set out on a journey, ring your local radio station and say there's a terrible congestion on your road. Everybody avoids it and it's clear for you! -- Jack Dee
MM
2017-11-19 10:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:51:28 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Like I said, we don't eat sugar by itself. We eat things containing sugar.
Sugar is a component, why do you keep confusing food with ingredients?
Should we stop using flour? Try eating flour on it's own.
I'm not confusing anything. Ingredients ARE food. Flour on its own is
probably not very palatable, but if you were trapped under a building
after an earthquake for two weeks, that flour would probably keep you
alive.

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-19 15:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:51:28 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Like I said, we don't eat sugar by itself. We eat things containing sugar.
Sugar is a component, why do you keep confusing food with ingredients?
Should we stop using flour? Try eating flour on it's own.
I'm not confusing anything. Ingredients ARE food. Flour on its own is
probably not very palatable, but if you were trapped under a building
after an earthquake for two weeks, that flour would probably keep you
alive.
Which is irrelevant for everyday consumption. When you said sugar has more calories per pound than pork, that was utterly meaningless.
--
I spent a couple of hours defrosting the fridge last night, or "foreplay" as she likes to call it.
Loading...