copefan
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 09:51
|
its easy eat what the fuck you like and let it be your own choice.
I like JO he's a good guy!
If you fancy a burger go for it! (but make your own!)
If you fancy a nice fresh salad then stuff it in your gob!
just don't over do it!
there will always be someone trying to nick your cash so why get uptight about it.... getting stressed about stuff is just as bad as eating mac donalds shite!
the latest one is Healthy Organic Eco Friendly stuff....... but you have to weigh up the pro's and con's for yourself!
yes its expensive, yes it should be affordable to all, but its not!
business is business and everyone has to make money or what would be the point! (and don't have a go for that remark! its a fact of life!) maybe some are making more than they should but again that's the way it will always be.......
but even if you buy the stuff can yo be sure its doing some good!
|
handofdave
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 10:51
|
This thread has gotten a bit nasty.
Why don't we all just agree that for our health, there are sensible ways to eat that don't require we follow manifestos from diet gurus. Stay off the junk food, but hell, if you fancy some from time to time, don't feel like a fallen soul. There's far worse 'crimes' than indulging in a bag of crisps.
I get a chuckle out of the constant war of positions taken by all these hucksters... who usually have a book or a line of overpriced supplements to sell.
I remember once being told by a couple who'd gotten into macrobiotics that spinach was bad for you. Wha?
My wife and I are hoping to buy up a lonely little third-of-an-acre piece of property next to our house at some point (hopefully before someone else gets the same idea) and turn much of it into veg gardens, perhaps get a couple chickens. Grow our own and quit giving our money to big agro. In the meantime, I'm not thinking with every bite I take about the politics or the calories or whatever. That sort of obsessive worrying can definitely make you sick!
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 11:05
|
|
Well, you're not going to have to worry about any of it after 2012.
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 11:18
|
|
handofdave wrote: Why don't we all just agree that...
Because the point of the original post is that you are an elitist bourgeois property-owning fuck? Hence the nastiness.
|
handofdave
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 11:37
|
|
anthonyqkiernan wrote: handofdave wrote: Why don't we all just agree that...
Because the point of the original post is that you are an elitist bourgeois property-owning fuck? Hence the nastiness.
Whatever your response to that original post, I don't see anything resembling what you're saying.
Jeebus, if I'm an elitist bourgeois property owning fuck, with my little house I'll be paying off until I'm seventy years old... what does that make the people I know with half million dollar houses? Fascist tyrants?
|
Merrick
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 14:01
|
|
mole wrote: One day we will die... you can not prevent it.
No, but can do things to encourage or discourage it.
Yes we will all die. Does that mean that walking along the street is as sensible as driving the wrong way up the M1 with my eyes closed?
And it's not just about the ultimate lack of health, but what happens while we're still alive. You exhort people to 'enjoy life', in which case shouldn't we be discouraging people from eating badly. I presume people who get out of breath easily, have reduced brain function and diabetes aren't really enjoying those things.
mole wrote: Con artists specializing in Healthy eathing target and exploit the most vulnerable among us, often children, teens and low income consumers.
And what about the other, far larger, con artists who spend far more targeting children and the like? Why do you think McDonald's have a clown and came up with giving toys away with happy meals? (and called them something as infantile and glib as 'happy meals'?)
Regarding the far greater and more serious problem of promoting unhealthy food as cool, I couldn't put it better myself;
mole wrote: Unfortunately, there’s a great deal of complacency and ignorance about this fraud. Many professionals shrug it off as not their concern. Consumers seldom complain.
Regulatory agencies plead budget constraints and more pressing problems. But we can no longer afford to be complacent
|
Merrick
|
Make sense or go away
Feb 01, 2008, 14:09
|
You are way out of order.
If someone has resorted to calling you names, pick them up on it individually and specifically.
Responding to a post that *didn't* call you names by insulting everyone on the board is not only not going to get you any redress or win you the argument, it is actually going to *encourage* resorting to name-calling and broad-brush attacks.
This thread has had a lot of intelligent counterpoints to yours, almost all of which you've failed to comment on. You then come back and say most people here are too childish to have a proper debate.
If the same post went down better elsewhere, perhaps that's because you haven't gotten round to comparing the people there to genocidal missionaries.
Outbursts like that are not going to make anything any better for anyone. They have no place on this or any other forum.
You don't know why you waste time and energy here?
I think others are asking the same question.
|
dodge one
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 15:50
|
|
anthonyqkiernan wrote: handofdave wrote: Why don't we all just agree that...
Because the point of the original post is that you are an elitist bourgeois property-owning fuck? Hence the nastiness.
Unless i've taken this reply grossly out of context, What the Phuck?
|
handofdave
|
Edited Feb 01, 2008, 16:14
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 16:12
|
|
dodge one wrote: anthonyqkiernan wrote: handofdave wrote: Why don't we all just agree that...
Because the point of the original post is that you are an elitist bourgeois property-owning fuck? Hence the nastiness.
Unless i've taken this reply grossly out of context, What the Phuck?
I believe AQK was making reference to some alleged opinion by mole regarding property owners as being 'elitist bourgeois property-owning fucks'. I must have missed something, tho, as I don't see anything of the sort in that original post in this thread.
Maybe he's recalling something mole said in another thread?
Fuck if I know, but this conversation seems to have been doomed from the start.
And if someone does want to call me an elitist bourgeois property-owning fuck, let 'em do it themselves.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: The Jamie Oliver Swindle -
Feb 01, 2008, 16:17
|
I think aqk's response was possibly more to do with the content in these posts than the original one:
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/u_know/topic/45856/threaded/573097
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/u_know/topic/45856/threaded/573114
|
