Rant Squash.

[Trem]

I'm lucky, this is the walk literally less than five mins from my house:

In all fairness Ireland is inherently beautiful. The smell of the fires is even magical, pete(SP)

 

[DaGaffer]

In all fairness Ireland is inherently beautiful. The smell of the fires is even magical, pete(SP)

Only around the edges. A lot of the middle bits are boring as fuck, but all of the coastal counties are nice. I actually think inland Ireland is over-and-insensitively farmed; Rural England is prettier than rural Ireland; which surprised the hell out of me when I came to live here.

 

[Scouse]

Only around the edges. A lot of the middle bits are boring as fuck, but all of the coastal counties are nice. I actually think inland Ireland is over-and-insensitively farmed; Rural England is prettier than rural Ireland; which surprised the hell out of me when I came to live here.

Only been to Ireland once. Just recently to Belfast. I noticed that all of the farmer's fields are tiny in comparison to the UK's. I don't get why.

 

[DaGaffer]

Only been to Ireland once. Just recently to Belfast. I noticed that all of the farmer's fields are tiny in comparison to the UK's. I don't get why.

Irish farms are generally pretty small; I think the reason why I find them all a bit dull is because very little woodland exists to break them up; about 8% of Ireland is woodland, versus 12% in the UK, which doesn't sound like much, but you notice it.

 

[CorNokZ]

Squash?

 

[Embattle]

My parents love visiting Ireland, they also have a found spot for Wales as they went there on honeymoon.

My parents used to take us to Cornwall every year for a holiday with my nan and granddad where we stayed in tents on a farm that belonged to my granddads sister which was great, but it isn't as practical to move there due to harder access and less jobs compared to Devon.

 

[dysfunction]

I'm lucky, this is the walk literally less than five mins from my house:

Everywhere in Ireland is only 5mins away from places like that!
Except they don't look like that 363 days a year when there is more of the sea in the air than in the sea!

 

[Lamp]

She's not wearing regulation squash panties
She'll have to remove them.

 

[sayward]

Sorry just cannot read all this thread; however it is very hard to buy sugar free squash in France. If you are ever there get Tesseire fruit syrup in metal bottles. I'm sure it's full sugar.

 

[Moriath]

Sorry just cannot read all this thread; however it is very hard to buy sugar free squash in France. If you are ever there get Tesseire fruit syrup in metal bottles. I'm sure it's full sugar.

I found that going to the supermarket was hard finding diet soda. They dont seek to have the obesity epedemic that we do though

 

[TdC]

Tbh I'd rather drink water than diet soda, even if I have to buy bottled water at ridiculous prices...

 

[fettoken]

Also, aubergine > zucchini

 

[Wij]

Natural sugar is surely better for you than aspartame, surely?

No. Not at all. Read the Wikipedia articles on Aspartame. Also on the other sweeteners such as Sucralose and Saccarin. And the sugar alcohols that are great for your teeth but give you the squits.

 

[Wij]

Asda do some own-brand squash that doesn't use aspartame. It's not got sugar either, but the sweetener they use is a lot better tasting.

Aspartame is the closest taste to sugar in most drinks. Sucralose has to be blended with other sweeteners to round the flavour out. It's a lot better than Aspartame in cakes and such though.

 

[Wij]

I could go through all these studies that prove the opposite.

http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx

However. I guess from your statement you havent read it. And therefore you are quoting data that you dont understand and havent read means that your point is shit

Lol. mercola.com

Skimmed a few on there and saw mice / rat / mice / rat...

Read the studies that showed that this was due to differences between rodents and humans and therefore the studies aren't relevant to human health.

Oh and merola.com again Cracks me up.

 

[Wij]

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.

It's not the same at all. Published science papers are already peer-reviewed by other scientists who know a lot more about the validity of the methodology that you do. If they fail peer-review they don't get through.

I review other people's designs and criticise the shit out of them all the time but then I'm the only person doing the review and I know more about what it should look like than other fuckers. That's not at all like scientific peer-review.

 

[Wij]

have the choice of whether you want sugar or a chemical?

Sucrose is a chemical too.

We also understand perfectly well which amino acids Aspartame breaks down into in the gut and all of those are perfectly normal by-products of other, 'natural' foods.

 

[Scouse]

You need to wind up here more often @Wij. You been on your hols or summat?

 

[Trem]

Whatever conclusion there is there still needs to be a choice for sensible adults.

 

[Scouse]

Whatever conclusion there is there still needs to be a choice for sensible adults.

The choice for sensible adults is to drink water.

For adults who want to drink sugary water, buy cordial. There's still loads on sale. I went to tesco the other day and there was shitloads of full-sugar cordial. Just not robinsons and all that crap.


Edit: And why is it when @Wij tells you that sugar's a chemical too does he get an "informative" but you ignored me when I spelled the same out plainly

 

[dysfunction]

Because your explanation is a complicated 3 page windbag?

 

[Trem]

Edit: And why is it when @Wij tells you that sugar's a chemical too does he get an "informative" but you ignored me when I spelled the same out plainly

Because I am at different levels of drunk when I read FH and you are a Scouser and what Dys said probably.




Edit - there is one choice in our Tesco and it's a horrible Britvic cordial, honestly just the one.

 

[Moriath]

It's not the same at all. Published science papers are already peer-reviewed by other scientists who know a lot more about the validity of the methodology that you do. If they fail peer-review they don't get through.

I review other people's designs and criticise the shit out of them all the time but then I'm the only person doing the review and I know more about what it should look like than other fuckers. That's not at all like scientific peer-review.

Peer review is bullshit

All science studies are aiming for an outcome and the only way they get published is if they adhere to the peer reviewers bias

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability not the validity of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

Richard horton editor of the lancet.

 

[Moriath]

The choice for sensible adults is to drink water.

For adults who want to drink sugary water, buy cordial. There's still loads on sale. I went to tesco the other day and there was shitloads of full-sugar cordial. Just not robinsons and all that crap.


Edit: And why is it when @Wij tells you that sugar's a chemical too does he get an "informative" but you ignored me when I spelled the same out plainly

Wverythings a fucking chemical.. Its all made up of elements. Or it wouldnt be here. Its if it is a natural chemical our bodies have become adapted to over thousands of years. Or one that has been synthesised in the last 100

 

[Scouse]

Peer review is bullshit

All science studies are aiming for an outcome

Take a good long look in the mirror @Moriath. You're doing exactly what you're mistakenly accusing science of doing - cherry picking examples that suit your beliefs.

Only you would take that leader for the lancet - which is a scientific journal transparently and openly calling for improvements to a system it acknowleges is flawed - and use it to claim that all science is shite. (We can demonstrably prove that it isn't - because it works. If it was what you continually claim it to be then we'd still be stuck in the dark ages).


To quote the man, your opinions on science are biased, unjust, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

 

[Trem]

I'm going to click informative now for your posts you sensitive little snow flake @Scouse

 

[Wij]

Its if it is a natural chemical our bodies have become adapted to over thousands of years.

Of course, like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-Amanitin

 

[Wij]

Peer review is bullshit

All science studies are aiming for an outcome and the only way they get published is if they adhere to the peer reviewers bias

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability not the validity of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

Richard horton editor of the lancet.

Process not perfect therefore science no better than making-shit-up argument. Nice.

Making-shit-up didn't put men on the moon or come up with a polio vaccine.

 

[Wij]

You need to wind up here more often @Wij. You been on your hols or summat?

I have actually but mainly I'm just busy sorry Two small kids. Wife. In-contract. Wanking. The usual.

 

[Moriath]

Take a good long look in the mirror @Moriath. You're doing exactly what you're mistakenly accusing science of doing - cherry picking examples that suit your beliefs.

Only you would take that leader for the lancet - which is a scientific journal transparently and openly calling for improvements to a system it acknowleges is flawed - and use it to claim that all science is shite. (We can demonstrably prove that it isn't - because it works. If it was what you continually claim it to be then we'd still be stuck in the dark ages).


To quote the man, your opinions on science are biased, unjust, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

‘Reviewers face the unavoidable temptation to accept or reject new evidence and ideas, not on the basis of scientific merit, but on the extent to which they agree or disagree with the public positions taken by experts on these matters.’”

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_124166.htm David L Sackett. “The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption.” BMJ. (May 6, 2000).

Medical science is full of bias and the whole system is flawed, from colesterol causing heart attacks to the bmi scores being plucked out of thin air. And many in between.

Of course the physical attributes of a person, anatomy and such is pretty standard, but when it comes to causation and what is good or not good for us etc. most studies are flawed. Few are double blind, meta studies leave out studies that would be unhelpful to the fact they are trying to prove. Etc etc

Im not saying what we have hasnt pushed things somewhat over the years. But there have also been studies and general held beliefs that have killed thousands as well. Science isnt the god of all things and it is flawed and we need a better system for making sure the money goes not just on research that reflects the 'experts' hypothosis. But also on those that seek to disprove. As only then can we be sure the experts aree right