Rant Squash.

[Trem]

I did. I got a hobby!

 

[Scouse]

So you're saying you read all 263 pages of it?

Nope. Just the abstract, which is the high level summary of the paper, and the next page. The answers are in there. But Mori's question showed that he hadn't and his subsequent bullshit post showed it (as if he had he'd already have had his answer to it - and if he'd bothered to read his link, like I did, rather than just blindly post it, he'd have realised it wasn't relevant to this discussion).

I know people might want to believe in some great aspartame conspiracy. But in reality there just isn't one. In the volumes we ingest it's probably safe. Certainly a metric fuckton safer than sugar.

 

[Trem]

Fine, my point is I want the choice.

I want to know if it's safe in a hundred years time after humans have been on it without a choice.

 

[MYstIC G]

Nope. Just the abstract, which is the high level summary of the paper, and the next page

So nobody's fucking read it then, because @Trem lies.

Good, so can we all stop posting "I googled something and this is the longest PDF I found or the one from a .gov website" etc etc now because nobody has the intellectual high ground based off "having searched the internet"

 

[Trem]

So nobody's fucking read it then, because @Trem lies.

How dare you

 

[DaGaffer]

So nobody's fucking read it then, because @Trem lies.

Good, so can we all stop posting "I googled something and this is the longest PDF I found or the one from a .gov website" etc etc now because nobody has the intellectual high ground based off "having searched the internet"

What do you actually think the internet is for? Clue, not looking at cat pictures.

It amazes me that "yeah, but you just googled that" is somehow an argument against something. Quick, to the library!

 

[Raven]

I read at least 1 350 page PDF about some random food additive a day.

 

[Trem]

I read at least 1 350 page PDF about some random food additive a day.

As do I, and if I didn't I will now just to piss Meg off

 

[MYstIC G]

What do you actually think the internet is for? Clue, not looking at cat pictures.

It amazes me that "yeah, but you just googled that" is somehow an argument against something. Quick, to the library!

Porn?

Anyway stop talking shit, it's the fact people haven't read the documents, especially those trying to use its existence to to score points, not just about using Google.

 

[DaGaffer]

Porn?

Anyway stop talking shit, it's the fact people haven't read the documents, especially those trying to use its existence to to score points, not just about using Google.

If you don't present evidence, you don't have an argument. If people want to read it or not (and that's what executive summaries are for), their choice.

 

[Scouse]

Anyway stop talking shit, it's the fact people haven't read the documents, especially those trying to use its existence to to score points, not just about using Google.

I did. I read the abstract, which tells you what you need to know in succinct form. I always read something that I post and understand whether it's relevant to the discussion or not and I regularly ask people to specifically read them because, as a matter of course, I'm on here to advance arguments, not to backup my own point of view.

Which is why I didn't respond to Moriath - his post, after not reading mine, was about chemical toxicity at levels unsuitable for human consumption. What the fuck has that got to do with this discussion?

 

[Raven]

.....

So, supermarkets suck for not making available "normal" squash to adults, perfectly capable of making their own choice.

/thread.

 

[Trem]

I'm stressing about it, going to see mum in a minute and I will be using my last bit of juice.

That Drench stuff is nice, might buy a crate of that, or vodka.

 

[Scouse]

adults, perfectly capable of making their own choice.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

It does suck that 2/3rds of adults are clearly not capable of making sensible choices, and are fat or obese, wasting the sensible one's cold hard tax cash and bringing about a lower quality of medical care for all, because the fatties have sucked the money out of the NHS and limited its ability to treat more deserving cases.

And it sucks that the 1/3rd of people who do make the right choices can't buy full-sugar juice. But then, it's unlikely that that 1/3rd cares too much about that teacup-storm.

 

[DaGaffer]

.....

So, supermarkets suck for not making available "normal" squash to adults, perfectly capable of making their own choice.

/thread.

But they do. They call it cordial and there's all kinds. I pointed this out several pages back. Here you go, 7.2g of sugar:
http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/bottlegreen-pomegranate---elderflower-cordial-500ml

NB. Sorry for using the internet to research this. I'll send out my flying monkey research team next time.

 

[Bodhi]

Biggest problem I find with Asparame, is it tastes fucking foul, as do most drinks that contain it.

 

[Raven]

The evidence suggests otherwise.

It does suck that 2/3rds of adults are clearly not capable of making sensible choices, and are fat or obese, wasting the sensible one's cold hard tax cash and bringing about a lower quality of medical care for all, because the fatties have sucked the money out of the NHS and limited its ability to treat more deserving cases.

And it sucks that the 1/3rd of people who do make the right choices can't buy full-sugar juice. But then, it's unlikely that that 1/3rd cares too much about that teacup-storm.

I care that I potentially wont be able to buy proper Ribena in the future.

 

[leggy]

If you don't present evidence, you don't have an argument. If people want to read it or not (and that's what executive summaries are for), their choice.

Agreed .. but if you present the evidence, it's a good idea to know what it actually concludes first.

The abstract is all very well but it doesn't always detail how the study was performed.

If you're the presenter.. Know what you're presenting.

 

[Scouse]

Agreed .. but if you present the evidence, it's a good idea to know what it actually concludes first.

The conclusion's in the abstract. And if you want to critique the methodology then stop being lazy and go and do the work yourself - it'll take you weeks. I'm prepared to accept the findings of the European Food Safety Authority without a tinfoil hat.

What you're actually doing is whining and ignoring the fact that, even if the artificial sweetener in question does turn out against all evidence to be dangerous, sugar in the quantities that are in our foods IS dangerous - and having very real and hugely detrimental effects on our population. Meanwhile big business is selling dross foodstuffs made palletable by massive quantities of industrially produced sugar and we're effectively spending our tax on subsidising them by paying for the cleanup via the NHS.

I care that I potentially wont be able to buy proper Ribena in the future.

That used to be my cordial of choice. Bloody loved it. But once I totted up how many calories got wasted on that instead of solid food I reluctantly gave it up.

Now I can't touch it. It's so sickly it's disgusting. And I think that tells a story in and of itself. :shrug:

 

[leggy]

The conclusion's in the abstract. And if you want to critique the methodology then stop being lazy and go and do the work yourself - it'll take you weeks. I'm prepared to accept the findings of the European Food Safety Authority without a tinfoil hat.

THEIR conclusion is in the abstract, I agree. But no sensible person with an interest in the subject accepts an abstract's conclusion without reading the fucking text and subtext. THAT's lazy. Abstracts are for programme managers and directors who don't have the time to read the full document (and aren't interested in the content anyway - only the budgetary implications).

What you're saying is that anyone with an opinion and a half a mind to question some of the bullshit which is fed to us on a daily basis are lazy because they didn't do the work themselves? Utter poppycock. You have an opinion on everything, so you must be lazy if you didn't do the work yourself.

Critiquing the methodology is FUNDAMENTAL to understanding if a study is worth listenting to or not. It's not lazy or whining, it's called due diligence.

What you're actually doing is whining and ignoring the fact that, even if the artificial sweetener in question does turn out against all evidence to be dangerous, sugar in the quantities that are in our foods IS dangerous - and having very real and hugely detrimental effects on our population. Meanwhile big business is selling dross foodstuffs made palletable by massive quantities of industrially produced sugar and we're effectively spending our tax on subsidising them by paying for the cleanup via the NHS.

I never said sugar wasn't dangerous. I think sweetners of any description are killing us all slowly and I don't give a fuck because it'll be something else that kills me.

 

[leggy]

Let me provide a smaller example. I'm an engineer and I'm forced to subcontract a lot of manufacture and construction as I can't physically do it myself. On a daily basis, I study designs and critique EVERYTHING that comes my way. If I didn't, I couldn't be confident that the final product wouldn't explode/fall down/cause an earthquake.

Does this make me lazy because I didn't do the designs myself? No, it makes me fucking good at my job.

 

[MYstIC G]

NB. Sorry for using the internet to research this. I'll send out my flying monkey research team next time.

You're such a condescending prick @DaGaffer so much so that I'm at the point that I would have rather seen you and/or @Scouse fucking off than @old.Tohtori, yes that's right I'd rather that Toht was spouting nonsense everywhere than read more of your bullshit.

Once again it's not about using the internet for research, it's about not reading stuff and then presenting it as the source of all truth on a subject. It's been put even better below:

THEIR conclusion is in the abstract, I agree. But no sensible person with an interest in the subject accepts an abstract's conclusion without reading the fucking text and subtext. THAT's lazy.

Thank you @leggy for restoring my faith in some of the membership here.

 

[Moriath]

I did. I read the abstract, which tells you what you need to know in succinct form. I always read something that I post and understand whether it's relevant to the discussion or not and I regularly ask people to specifically read them because, as a matter of course, I'm on here to advance arguments, not to backup my own point of view.

Which is why I didn't respond to Moriath - his post, after not reading mine, was about chemical toxicity at levels unsuitable for human consumption. What the fuck has that got to do with this discussion?

But you said it was safe. Defacto. Nothing more. My post showed that it wasnt safe if you had too much. So it does become toxic if your body cant deal with it quick enough. Which would explain why some people who are sensitive more than normal to its effects could experience side effects.

Btw. Read doctoring data. Great book. Shows that more of the studies done for medicine and published are a crock of shit. Even the peer reviewed etc. especially those. So quoting papers like this means that they support the general bias most of the time. As the studies against the general bias dont get funded.

 

[Moriath]

The evidence suggests otherwise.

It does suck that 2/3rds of adults are clearly not capable of making sensible choices, and are fat or obese, wasting the sensible one's cold hard tax cash and bringing about a lower quality of medical care for all, because the fatties have sucked the money out of the NHS and limited its ability to treat more deserving cases.

And it sucks that the 1/3rd of people who do make the right choices can't buy full-sugar juice. But then, it's unlikely that that 1/3rd cares too much about that teacup-storm.

100% of adults make their own choices and live their life the way they want. Give them the information and let them get on with it. Why make 2/3 unhappy to suit the rest who are sanctamoniously pushing their chosen lifestyle on the rest.

 

[Raven]

That used to be my cordial of choice. Bloody loved it. But once I totted up how many calories got wasted on that instead of solid food I reluctantly gave it up.

You still drink beer though, I presume? Eat red meat?

You can't be condescending over the odd glass of flavoursome drink and not the other, its just twattish.

As an adult, I choose what I want to eat or drink, if I want a couple of glasses of Ribena a week then I damn well will do.

It sounds like you just want a nanny state and to be told what to do and when, shame.

 

[Scouse]

Critiquing the methodology is FUNDAMENTAL to understanding if a study is worth listenting to or not. It's not lazy or whining, it's called due diligence.

Well, if you want to critique their methodology then fucking DO IT. As I said in my last post before you got shouty.

Otherwise, present some evidence that the sweetener in question IS dangerous, in the quantities we're talking about - and rebuff their findings.

It seems that you've all the time in the world to do it and want to hold people to the very highest standards on an internet forum debate - which is either admirable, or the sign of someone who, once presented with evidence in contravention of their belief that they are unable to disagree with, starts talking twaddle...

I think sweetners of any description are killing us all slowly and I don't give a fuck because it'll be something else that kills me.

Post the evidence that leads you to that conclusion and contradicts mine, or STFU tbh.

Does this make me lazy because I didn't do the designs myself? No, it makes me fucking good at my job.

You get paid to do that all day. This is Freddyshouse.

@MYstIC G - I can see his point, but this isn't the European Food Safety organisation - this is an internet forum - and requiring someone to do actual science before his posts are taken seriously enough to actually rebuff (that leggy still hasn't done with anything other than shouting) is plainly ridiculous. The work's been done for us. I've presented it. Rebuff or knob off is the correct response

 

[Scouse]

It sounds like you just want a nanny state and to be told what to do and when, shame.

Show me where I said that. You can't. In fact, you can see in this thread me clearly stating that I think the nanny state sucks. I'm just stating what is.

As for beer and red meat? I try to moderate. Just like I do with all foodstuffs. I also exercise. Which is why I'm part of the 1/3rd of the population that isn't overweight. But the fact is that 2/3rds of the population are and the NHS is being bled dry by them.

What do you propose to do about that? Or don't you really care - and your bi-weekly ribena hit (lol) is worth more than a fucked NHS and you just want to rage against people who point out that inconvenient truth?

 

[Scouse]

100% of adults make their own choices and live their life the way they want. Give them the information and let them get on with it. Why make 2/3 unhappy to suit the rest who are sanctamoniously pushing their chosen lifestyle on the rest.

Why should the healthy ones pay their taxes for a substandard NHS that can't treat them properly because lazy fatties who can't keep their cavernous maws shut long enough to stop their ever expanding wastelines and sugar-filled bloodstream from causing them to fill up all the beds and soak up all the money for drugs?

I've no problem with fatties being happy - but they can fucking pay for it instead of sponging off people who have self-restraint.


Edit: Actually, maybe a massive sugar tax is the way to go? I hate unnecessarily taxing shit and I'm staunchly for freedom of choice. But doing nothing isn't working.

 

[Moriath]

You still drink beer though, I presume? Eat red meat?

You can't be condescending over the odd glass of flavoursome drink and not the other, its just twattish.

As an adult, I choose what I want to eat or drink, if I want a couple of glasses of Ribena a week then I damn well will do.

It sounds like you just want a nanny state and to be told what to do and when, shame.

Cause apparently the nanny state he is wanting works along side his philosophy of life. It would be different if it was forcing him to do stuff he didnt want to.

Btw anyone watch jamie on sugar last night. A big advert for parents being parents and not giving kids what they want all the time.

 

[Scouse]

THEIR conclusion is in the abstract, I agree.

Yep. The qualified scientists who spend their well-trained lives performing just this sort of analysis and conclusion.

But no sensible person with an interest in the subject accepts an abstract's conclusion without reading the fucking text and subtext

So, leggy the engineer and Scouse the internet twat are more qualified to come to better conclusions than the actual scientists?


No. The abstract is for you and me. Period.