Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity

Dave Head wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:57:52 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote:

In article , Dally
wrote:

In response to an endless series of trolling posts by "Dave Head", Dally
wrote:

The jerk is obviously a troll.

Where does "jerk" come from?

Being a jerk and being a troll go hand in hand. I note that you've
posted to 77 different newsgroups. Did you need a new bunch of posters
with which to argue?

Neil
385/345/200

Dave Head wrote:

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:29:50 -0500, Dally wrote:


Dave Head wrote:


People know they want a Coke or a Pepsi. They buy what they can find on the
shelf. The corporations are making sure they only find (the more expensive) 20
oz bottles.

This really highlights your brain damage.

1. Drink water. OR

Well, if I wanted water, I'd have been drinking water in the 1st place, eh?

Hmmm.... so you buy these products despite there being better choices
(that cost less.) Is it because corporations MADE you?

This is mostly about the availability of snack-type foods on the road. The
home problem is not a problem - I can buy 6 oz. or 8 oz cans of soda if I want
them. I'm talking about people buying refreshments as they drive. In this
area, Virginia, near DC, people have to drive, drive, drive to get anything
done at all. Its a 40 mile round trip to my health club, even. Going to work,
for a lot of people, is a 55 mile 1-way journey. There's a job I could
probably get at another DoD facility, that I heard about last night, that is 55
miles one way.

I just got back from a two hour car ride during which I wanted a snack.
I brought with me some yogurt and granola mixed in a tupperware
container and a bottle of water.

We did stop at one point for a beverage. I had a black coffee.

At no time did I feel any compulsion at all to buy junk food, in
whatever size packaging. There is no compelling reason why ANYONE would
EVER have to stop for a bag of chips in a 7/11. It's not food. It's an
entertainment activity. It is sold as such: excess calories in case you
have them to squander.

People commonly have a refreshment at the start or end of such a drive, or at
least when getting gas, which is often when you're driving these distances.

Travel mugs and thermoses exist for this reason. When I go long
distances I bring my own coffee or tea.

Why
shouldn't they be able to find 155 calorie, 12 oz sodas at convenience stores
at the gas stations?

They can. Buy the 20 ounce version and share it with your travelling
companion. Notice that it comes with a re-sealable top. Look on the
label... right there on the bottle... it says it serves two portions.
So, the law says they have to tell you the portion size, and the law
says everyone has to go to school long enough to learn to read. What
more can we do?

and use a cup to serve 8 ounces when you want it. OR

I can do a lot of things at home, but this isn't a "home" problem, this is a
mobile problem.

This is a brain problem. You haven't figured out that you can plan for
likely scenarios.

3. Buy a 20 ounce soda and throw away half. OR
4. Buy the 8 ounce junior cans they have in grocery stores and
refrigerate them at home and pack them in ice chests for your car.

If I weren't drinking diet, I think I'd actually do that. Its a good
suggestion, althought the ice is expensive on a regular basis.

I have blue ice packs that are re-usable.

But the point is that one has to do such special things to achieve the desired
effect - the intake of a reasonable amount of calories - that most people
won't, and America gets broader.

Most people won't? So corporations are supposed to snatch the bottle
out of their hand?

How about we snatch your car away from you so you can't commute
unhealthy distances. It destroys the environment, gets our guys killed
in Iraq trying to secure oil for you to squander, and gets you fat and
unhealthy from immobility (assuming you don't die messily and require
resources from emergency departments from a car accident.)

Which do you think kills more people: 12 ounce sodas or cars?

You only problem - your ENTIRE problem - is being unable to meet your
own needs with a little forethought. Corporations make money off of
****tards without survival skills - big whoop.

Its not the money so much. Its the fat - it makes them sick eventually, maybe
even kills 'em.

Stupid people do stupid things. A fool and his money are soon parted.

These are human conditions that are not solveable by laws.

You are CHOOSING to be a
non-planning idiot consumer. Your choice. I'd make money off of you, too.

So you don't mind offering too-big portions of everything, while removing the
more healthy-sized portions of the same foods and drinks (this removal of the
more-correct choice being the _real_ crime) to America and thus having a
negative impact on the overall health of the Nation?

Look in that 7/11 again. Are there a few apples and oranges in a basket
by the cash register? How about bottles of cold refreshing bottled
water? Can you find some trail mix? How about a protein bar?

There is no crime here. There's just stupidity.

Dally

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:17:56 GMT, (The Queen of Cans and
Jars) wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

Yes, the home environment is much easier to control.

I work full-time and go to school part-time and I have no problem
whatsoever making appropriate food choices.

We can all make it work, by working harder at it ourselves. The point is, that
America would be better off it it didn't require this extra effort to make the
right thing happen.

You're lazy and ignorant. That's no one else's fault but your own.

Oh, well, now there you go, enjoying usenet again - its fun to say stuff in a
newsgroup that if someone were standing in front of you, you might find
yourself swallowing a few teeth. Kinda like PETA choosing blue-haired old
ladies to splash blood on their furs, while ignoring people like Snoop Dog, or
the Hells Angels, either of which might just bust a cap in their ass...

Dave Head wrote:

We can all make it work, by working harder at it ourselves.

Then why are you bitching so much about something you freely admit
(finally!) is completely within your own control?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:18:59 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Head writes:

So, I take it you think the corporations are blameless ...

Yes.

... and that people _should_ have to struggle to find the healthier
choice when they inconveniently remove it from the shelves in 2
out of 3 stores...

They don't have to. It's not what you eat, it's how much of it you
eat. You can eat anything you want as long as you don't _overeat_.

Well, if you buy peanuts in too-big a bag, then the likelihood of overeating
goes way up. We've already heard some people here admit that they can
_usually_ but not _always_ handle a ration of 20 almonds from a 3 lb bag, and
not be able to do the same thing with pecans. At least while traveling,
wouldn't it be nice to buy almonds in an appropriate size for a snack, so that
there are about 20 almonds in it? Sure it would.

Dave Head

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:46:39 -0500, Dally wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

So, I take it you think the corporations are blameless, and that people
_should_ have to struggle to find the healthier choice when they inconveniently
remove it from the shelves in 2 out of 3 stores...

YES! You got it!

Corporations are not responsible for misuse of their products.

That statement would be worth exploring further, such as maybe a gun company
marketing a handgun to your 13 year old, if there weren't already laws against
it...

With the
possible exception of cigarettes, which have no reasonable usage.

Many people choose to drink or eat for entertainment. They also choose
to watch too much satellite television and take a job requireing a 55
minute drive. All of these lifestyle choices are problematic, but
individually each one of them is manageable. It isn't the corporations
job to identify how each consumer should and should not use their product.

A store will stock what a store can sell. If your complaint is that
7/11 isn't stocking smaller packages then this is NOT the corporation's
fault, this is the fault of consumers who didn't choose to buy it there.
(Perhaps because only idiots would buy snack food at 7/11 and the
smart money is in bulk buying at the health food store.)

You are shopping at stores frequented by idiots and complaining that
they're treating you like idiots. Meanwhile, you continue to pay them.

Look in the mirror, dude.

Dally

Dave Head wrote:

Oh, well, now there you go, enjoying usenet again - its fun to say stuff
in a newsgroup that if someone were standing in front of you, you might
find yourself swallowing a few teeth.

By the way, threatening to punch a woman is in extremely poor taste.
But then you'd already know that if you weren't so ****ing ignorant,
wouldn't you?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:58:26 -0500, Dally wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:29:50 -0500, Dally wrote:


Dave Head wrote:


People know they want a Coke or a Pepsi. They buy what they can find on the
shelf. The corporations are making sure they only find (the more expensive) 20
oz bottles.

This really highlights your brain damage.

1. Drink water. OR

Well, if I wanted water, I'd have been drinking water in the 1st place, eh?

Hmmm.... so you buy these products despite there being better choices
(that cost less.) Is it because corporations MADE you?

I buy a satisfying drink in diet form so I don't have to worry about the 250
calories that others buying the "real" Coke or Pepsi have to worry about.

This is mostly about the availability of snack-type foods on the road. The
home problem is not a problem - I can buy 6 oz. or 8 oz cans of soda if I want
them. I'm talking about people buying refreshments as they drive. In this
area, Virginia, near DC, people have to drive, drive, drive to get anything
done at all. Its a 40 mile round trip to my health club, even. Going to work,
for a lot of people, is a 55 mile 1-way journey. There's a job I could
probably get at another DoD facility, that I heard about last night, that is 55
miles one way.

I just got back from a two hour car ride during which I wanted a snack.
I brought with me some yogurt and granola mixed in a tupperware
container and a bottle of water.

Great.

And I find appropriate-sized bags of nuts and either a right-sized or too-big
soft drink in diet form. One of the reasons I like to do it that way is that I
don't then have to keep a stock of this sort of food around the house where I
might be tempted to eat (too much) of it.

We did stop at one point for a beverage. I had a black coffee.

At no time did I feel any compulsion at all to buy junk food,

Nuts and even legumes (which peanuts are) are not junk food.

in
whatever size packaging. There is no compelling reason why ANYONE would
EVER have to stop for a bag of chips in a 7/11. It's not food.

Chips usually make me hungrier.

It's an
entertainment activity. It is sold as such: excess calories in case you
have them to squander.

People commonly have a refreshment at the start or end of such a drive, or at
least when getting gas, which is often when you're driving these distances.

Travel mugs and thermoses exist for this reason. When I go long
distances I bring my own coffee or tea.

Try to "thermos" a carbonated soft drink and see if it isn't "flat" at the end
of the day.

Why
shouldn't they be able to find 155 calorie, 12 oz sodas at convenience stores
at the gas stations?

They can. Buy the 20 ounce version and share it with your travelling
companion.

What travelling companion?

Notice that it comes with a re-sealable top. Look on the
label... right there on the bottle... it says it serves two portions.

Well, at least they're honest about it. But reseal it, go into work, come out,
and try to drink the rest of it and it's about the same temperature as the
water in a clogged, sun-baked rain gutter. Hot, that is.

So, the law says they have to tell you the portion size, and the law
says everyone has to go to school long enough to learn to read. What
more can we do?

Sell it in a reasonable-sized portion, perhaps?

and use a cup to serve 8 ounces when you want it. OR

I can do a lot of things at home, but this isn't a "home" problem, this is a
mobile problem.

This is a brain problem. You haven't figured out that you can plan for
likely scenarios.

But why should the corporations be creating these problems for us, instead of
helping us solve them?

3. Buy a 20 ounce soda and throw away half. OR
4. Buy the 8 ounce junior cans they have in grocery stores and
refrigerate them at home and pack them in ice chests for your car.

If I weren't drinking diet, I think I'd actually do that. Its a good
suggestion, althought the ice is expensive on a regular basis.

I have blue ice packs that are re-usable.

You think the electricity to convert 'em from blue water to blue ice overnight
is free?

But the point is that one has to do such special things to achieve the desired
effect - the intake of a reasonable amount of calories - that most people
won't, and America gets broader.

Most people won't? So corporations are supposed to snatch the bottle
out of their hand?

Naw, just sell 'em a reasonably sized bottle.

How about we snatch your car away from you so you can't commute
unhealthy distances. It destroys the environment, gets our guys killed
in Iraq trying to secure oil for you to squander, and gets you fat and
unhealthy from immobility (assuming you don't die messily and require
resources from emergency departments from a car accident.)

Which do you think kills more people: 12 ounce sodas or cars?

Well, I dunno, really. How many people die every year as a result of being
overweight? I believe that the chances are very good that they exceed the
40,000 or so that die in cars.


You only problem - your ENTIRE problem - is being unable to meet your
own needs with a little forethought. Corporations make money off of
****tards without survival skills - big whoop.

Its not the money so much. Its the fat - it makes them sick eventually, maybe
even kills 'em.

Stupid people do stupid things. A fool and his money are soon parted.

Yep.

These are human conditions that are not solveable by laws.

Oh, God, I don't want yet another law... sure would like to see the
corporations do the right thing, tho, and not try to sell people inherently
unhealthy portions of their foods and drinks.

You are CHOOSING to be a
non-planning idiot consumer. Your choice. I'd make money off of you, too.

So you don't mind offering too-big portions of everything, while removing the
more healthy-sized portions of the same foods and drinks (this removal of the
more-correct choice being the _real_ crime) to America and thus having a
negative impact on the overall health of the Nation?

Look in that 7/11 again. Are there a few apples and oranges in a basket
by the cash register? How about bottles of cold refreshing bottled
water? Can you find some trail mix? How about a protein bar?

Prolly. Would sure like a right-sized bag of peanuts, tho...

There is no crime here. There's just stupidity.

Yep.

Dave Head

Dally

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:22:14 GMT, The Historian wrote:

Dave Head wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:57:52 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote:

In article , Dally
wrote:

In response to an endless series of trolling posts by "Dave Head", Dally
wrote:

The jerk is obviously a troll.

Where does "jerk" come from?

Being a jerk and being a troll go hand in hand. I note that you've
posted to 77 different newsgroups. Did you need a new bunch of posters
with which to argue?

Neil
385/345/200

77 eh? Probably a result of responding to a lot of posts that were crossposted
themselves, plus I've been on usenet a long time anyway.

What do you call "trolling"? I just have had this idea that, due to the
lawsuits that places like McDonalds have been getting (unjustly in those cases,
I think) that the concept that some corporations might actually be contributing
to the problem that the lawsuits mis-targeted at McDonalds. I wanted to
discuss it, and chose this group as a probable place where other people might
like to discuss it too.

Dave Head

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:51:07 -0600, Annie Benson Lennaman
wrote:


I'll give Dave some credit for starting one of the more active threads
I've seen on ASD for a while (though I have gone a few days at a time
without checking in).

I always think its fun discussing new ideas, although it seems some others
don't enjoy it.

So far, I've haven't seen anyone whom I would say is flat out
agreeing with Dave. So, just to play devil's advocate, I will. Dave, I
agree with you. Corporations are greedy and manipulating the public to
overeat by only stocking large serving size snacks in convenience stores
where motor bound commuters are trapped by a lack of choice.

Ok, now we both feel that way. Um, so? Unless you support a massive
government action to force said companies to sell smaller sized packages
at these convenience stores, often at the expense of having shelf space
for their large, better selling packages, there really isn't much that
can be done about it.

It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world, but we don't seem to
be that lucky. We have to deal the best we can, even though these
corporations are intentionally making us fat in order to maximize their
profit margins. Unless you are willing to attempt to start a grassroots
campaign to force the companies to stop this corporate irresponsibility,
all you're doing is indulging in fruitless whining about it. Let me
know what action, if any, you actually plan on taking, and I'll be happy
to join in. As long as it doesn't inconvenience me any more than I
already am in being forced to deal with too large snack issue when I
commute to work (and I do have a 45 minute drive, each way, so I am
definitely in your target audience).

Yeah, well, if I had received a more positive response to this idea, it might
have been worth a bunch of us to actually catalog these incidents of lack of
choice that promote situational overeating, we might have all then written some
letters suggesting that they make room for some "right-sized" portions too.
But, since I don't seem to have much positive response, and _sure_ wouldn't
want to get the government involved in this (which would also be unlikely to
respond, giving the underwhelming positive response here) I guess the status
quo will continue.

And of course I was also just curious as to whether others had thought the same
way as I did about the subject.

Annie

As of 03-10-06: 258/197.5/140 Standing at 5 foot 4.

60.5 pounds lost. 57.5 left to go. Started February/07/05

Hey, way to go, Annie, Hope you can say it's all gone by this time next year.
Keep it up - we're all rooting for you.

Dave Head

Come visit my weight-loss web site, Annie Takes Off.
http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/DietFrontPage.html

Nice website.