From: Earl Evleth on
On 30/01/10 19:51, in article 5L6dnT6hJbU84vnWnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d(a),
"John Rennie" <john-rennie(a)> wrote:

> That tendency is found in poor countries
> as well as rich.

In general I agree. Our experience in looking at
people on the streets in Ghana was that there
few obsese people. That may have been the case
for people moving around since the fat don't
move a lot.


From: John Rennie on
Earl Evleth wrote:
> On 30/01/10 15:56, in article 4B6448B9.1EF8426F(a), "Bill Bonde
> {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuyltinafpant(a)> wrote:
>>> I had a friend whose knees gave out.
>> While this is certainly possible, there are new views that this is
>> in fact indicative of problems that modern man has with running,
>> not problems with humans running in general.
> As one gets older various problems show up. Joint areas start going,
> most people have a back problem, arthritic conditions develop.
> Orthopedics is big with geriatrics. My brother had both
> hips sockets replaced, one nephew in his 60s just had a knee
> replaced. Overweight elderly have joints problems.
>>> As somebody said once, "when I get the urge to exercise, I lie
>>> down until it goes away"
>> It's the sort of thing that Grocho Marx would say, isn't it?
> No, I heard it from a British actor (Robert Morley who had a soft and pudgy
> look to him anyway but died in his 80s). One internet citation is attributed
> to Robert M. Hutchins, former President of the University of Chicago. He
> died at 78 (born in 1899) which is a bit above the average of his era.
> I identify you with Morley since he was "particularly effective when cast as
> a pompous windbag "

I always find it a wee bit strange that your most effective insults
apply almost equally to yourself. :-)

>> Filthy buses, smog filled air, few trees, concrete as far as the
>> eye can see, that's the city. People who live in the suburbs might
>> have plenty of clean air, birds, trees, grass, wild animals
>> wandering about, that sort of thing.
> And don't exercise. City people are less fat that the suburban
> population. But that is class dependent. The negative part of
> urban existence is the concentration of the poor, who generally
> have poorer health, even in a system which has socialized medicine.
> In the US the difference is severe and shown especially in the
> infant mortality rates.
From: John Rennie on
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:
>> You've said that. I still don't see the inequality.
> One party eats out at a restaurant ten times a month instead of eleven, and
> the other party ends up living on a sidewalk. Does that seem like equality to
> you?
>> If the worker goes to another job, is that relevant?
> No, unless the next job is guaranteed by the previous employer.
>> The worker has the set of total jobs available.
> No, the worker has only an extremely small number of jobs available, or none.
>> If you allow him access to those but refuse
>> to allow an employer to fire (or lay off or let go) someone, then
>> it would seem the inequality is the other way.
> Employers are free to fire. Employees are free to strike.
>> It's "collective" bargaining. This means that the quality and
>> effort one person puts in is paid not on his merit but on the
>> average merit of the group.
> For unskilled occupations, this is a net win for the employee.
>> I think I called that "extortion".
> No more so than threatening to fire an employee if he doesn't behave in a
> certain way.
>> I don't see how that's equal.
> It forces employers to reflect at least as much upon firing someone as
> employees reflect upon any decision to resign.

Time for you to realise, that is if you haven't already, that you
are arguing with a person who does not live in the real world.
Although we know absolutely nothing about Bill's life outside
Usenet we have ascertained that he doesn't work, lives in the UK
and spends much of his time sending messages to a number of news
groups. Sometimes he does send the odd decent message which
I suppose helps to excuse much of the quite insane rubbish that
he posts regularly. Oh, I mustn't forget - he's an expert on old
From: John Rennie on
Magda wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:26:59 +0100, in, Earl Evleth <evleth(a)>
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
> ... On 30/01/10 19:46, in article xt6dnXdk4Onm4_nWnZ2dnUVZ8jti4p2d(a),
> ... "John Rennie" <john-rennie(a)> wrote:
> ...
> ... > And both those classes eat better food.
> ...
> ... American eating habits are somewhat influenced by TV advertising.
> ... Junk foods have high profits and get a big play. Poor kids
> ... see the ads and get their parents to buy the item.
> ...
> ... This brain washing even extends higher. We still remember when
> ... a new breakfast cereal came on the market when our daughter
> ... was young. It was called "Banana Wackies" and pushed by a crazy
> ... looking animal pushing in one one of the programs our
> ... daughter watched. She bugged us to get it and we did.
> ... One bite and she refused to eat the rest, its banana odor
> ... was too powerful. We tried to give it to our dog who refused
> ... it too! This was of course and experimental marketing try
> ... by whoever, and it failed and was off the market in a couple
> ... of days.
> ...
> ... Various junk food providers have to fight for shelf space
> ... in the markets, and if a product does not sell they lose
> ... their shelf space. So brain washing advertising is
> ... essential in the business.
> ...
> ... An American super market will have a large section devoted
> ... to breakfast cereal. Both Donna and my generation were brought
> ... up on Wheaties, Cornflakes, etc. which are eated with milk
> ... and lots of sugar. In retrospect it was a poor diet
> ... but basically breakfast is not that an interesting meal.
> ... Donna has it better than me, she gets a healthy slice
> ... of smoked salmon every morning, a good dose of omega 3
> ... and a low blood cholesterol. I have orange juice and
> ... a croissant with jam + coffee. When traveling in the USA
> ... we gorge on unhealthy bacon and eggs, but that is
> ... brief. We have not had breakfast cereals in 30 years or
> ... more and they don't represent to us a comfort food
> ... from our youths.
> When I was 10, all skin and bones, I bugged my folks to get me cornflakes. I ate it every
> morning for about a month - and then I found out I had gained a pound. That did it, I
> never touched "breakfast cereal" again in my life.
> If you ask me, cereal serves one and only one purpose: fattening up cattle.

Out of interest does your blanket hatred of cereals include
shredded wheat and good old porridge oats?
From: Earl Evleth on
On 31/01/10 11:20, in article lYednde-S4DxxPjWnZ2dnUVZ7vli4p2d(a),
"John Rennie" <john-rennie(a)> wrote:

> Out of interest does your blanket hatred of cereals include
> shredded wheat and good old porridge oats?

Actually I likeed them. I preferred hot Cream of Wheat
or hot Oatmeal. They use to come in packages of 10 single portions
of different cold cereals. I did not favor (nor dislike) shredded
wheat, but it was my last choice. I liked the brand taste. Oatmeal
was great with brown sugar. But it is loading on the sugar
which is the worst part of the use of these breakfast foods.

Worse was probably pancakes, butter and syrup, especially
maple. Pure teeth rotting sugar.