lookin

I had trouble finding Matrix's post too, after I first checked in last night. One minute the headline was right there, the next minute I couldn't find it again. Finally realized that there were a lot of posts in a very short time, and it dropped down half a page in the twinkling of an eye. Anyway, confusion followed, issue resolved, and here we all are back in the tent again none the worse for wear. At least I hope we're none the worse for wear. How we treat each other when one of us is struggling a bit, or asking for a little support, or looking for validation that our posts are important, goes a long way in defining what this site is all about. There are plenty of places one can go to kick and be kicked. I vote we keep this site more of a sanctuary where folks can come for a break from all that. And maybe a nice piece babka. Enjoy ! !

I can sure relate to your experiences, including eating after a personal loss, losing weight twice and gaining even more back, and poor eating habits while working and commuting. The one thing that really helped me was to change my focus from big short-term changes to small long-term changes. Both times I went on a diet that dropped weight quickly, I started feeling deprived and couldn't wait until it was over so I could return to my old ways, which then put the weight back on, plus more. I found that a small permanent change, like a short daily walk, or substituting pretzels for potato chips, or switching to low-fat milk, was much more effective. I lost only a pound every week or two, but they stayed off. It took a couple of years to lose the weight I wanted to, but it was from permanent changes that weren't hard to stick with, so the weight hasn't come back. Don't know if any of this will resonate with you but, for me, the keys were to avoid feeling deprived, and to realize that a little exercise is as good as a little eating change, and both are even better. The trick was to find something I could stick with for the rest of my life. (Also, don't know if you saw my response to your Denver post, but, if the researchers are right, you should soon be losing a few pounds without lifting a finger. )

I fully agree with MsGuy! I love the pictures, but don't say so often enough. One reason is not enough fresh ways to say 'Thank you", and another is the worry of public exposure as a - well, you know. Thank you! Thank you! Thank You!

Seeing as how TY and OZ were kind enough to give us brand spanking new Health, Nutrition and Fitness Forum, I'm going to schlep a few thoughts down there. I figure the exercise will do me good.

Worth noting that Matrix's recently discarded PoP'ems contain not only Xanthan Gum, but Cellulose Gum, Guar Gum, and Carob Bean Gum as well. Why so many gums, you may ask, especially in a foodstuff not intended for blowing bubbles? It turns out that these gums are meant to replace various fats, like butter, while retaining some semblance of what the food chemists refer to as "mouthfeel". They impart a 'slippery' quality to the food like fat does and, in excess, can give one the sensation of slurping on a slug. "Good", you may say, "butter's fattening anyway, and I'm glad these chemists are finding ways to get rid of it." And you may have a point. If your cardiologist has told you not to have so much as a pat of butter ever again, then a cocktail of gums, artificial flavor, and artificial color may be just what the doctor ordered. But my guess is the wholesale replacement of natural ingredients with ersatz compounds straight from the lab has little to do with better nutrition, and lots to do with the increasing industrialization of our food supply. The donuts your great grandmother lovingly served up would not fare well moving through the factories and distribution systems that deliver a box of PoP'ems to your grocery basket. First, they'd be way too expensive. Real butter, real vanilla, and real chocolate cost real money, and the folks at Entenmann's understand that a six dollar box of donut holes is not going to be a big seller. Hardened soybean oil and artificial flavor and artificial color are lots cheaper, and look enough like the real thing that folks are willing to fork over three or four bucks at the checkout stand to give them a try. After they discover, as Matrix did, that they taste like waxy marbles, they may not buy another box, and they may even throw some away, but at least that one box got sold. And there are plenty of kids whining at Mom to buy the next one. Another reason is the manufacturing process itself. Real butter has to be well cared for, while on its way to the factory, and while there. Rancid butter can contaminate other ingredients and, at the wrong temperature, it can slow down the machinery. Oils and gums are far more stable, and keep things flowing smoothly. But the primary reason behind the move to fake foods, in my opinion, is the extensive distribution system they have to move through to get to us. A century ago when William Entenmann and his horse were delivering baked goods in Brooklyn, real butter was an option. His donuts were typically eaten the day they were made, or soon after. Even after he expanded throughout New England, there were rarely more than a few days between manufacture and consumption. His products just didn't have enough time to get stale or moldy. But when Entenmann's expanded nationwide forty years ago, a couple of new problems appeared. First, the products would have to travel thousands of miles to towns where the temperature could easily top a hundred degrees. And second, they'd have to ride in trucks, sit in large grocery warehouses, and wait on supermarket shelves for weeks and maybe months before somebody picked them up and brought them home. So the food chemists dosed them with preservatives and/or replaced natural ingredients with artificial ingredients that could survive a year in the desert without any noticeable effect. Welcome to the foods we eat today. Some years ago, I started reading ingredients labels on most everything I pick up at the supermarket. Often, especially with 'fun foods', it's enough to make me put them back on the shelf. Although I've never seen any research to back it up, I have a theory that the industrialization of our food supply is one reason, and perhaps the primary one, that the U. S. is in the midst of an obesity epidemic. My theory is that, in an effort to get the nutrients our bodies require, we are forced to eat much more fake food than we would if we were eating real food that delivered real nutrition. PS: Entenmann's isn't the worst offender, by far, and they still appreciate the appeal of real butter. In fact, to this day, they make an All Butter Pound Cake that appeals to the consumer who's looking for some real food. But, I've read that it's best if eaten within a week or so and, even then, look what they've had to dose it with to move it through our distribution system: Ingredients: Sugar, Bleached Wheat Flour, Eggs, Butter, Nonfat Milk, Water, Modified Food Starch (Corn, Rice), High Fructose Corn Syrup, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Baking Soda, Monocalcium Phosphate), Salt, Sorbitan Monostearate, Artificial Flavor, Preservatives (Potassium Sorbate, Sorbic Acid, Sodium Propionate), Polysorbate 60, Xanthan Gum, Mono-And Diglycerides, Wheat Gluten, Guar Gum, Propylene Glycol Monoesters, Oat Fiber, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Caramel Color, Soy Lecithin. Yikes!

I sure hope, I say, I sure hope he ain't talkin' about me !

Dunno why, but for some months I've been fantasizing about a role switch between Obama and Clinton. With agreement from both, she runs for President in 2012 and 2016, while he fills the Secretary of State slot for eight years. He then runs for his second term as President in 2020. She gets the Presidency while she's young enough, and he gets some needed international experience and the chance to build some much-needed bridges. And we get the best of both worlds. Best for me, anyway. I expect others will be less pleased.

There was a time right around ten o'clock when the on-line number at the top of the page hit 63. I'm not sure where everybody was lurking or if they made it to this thread but, just in case, I've taken the liberty of hiding a couple of Easter eggs for the believers amongst us.

Yoo-Hoo! Is anybody here?

I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight.

'Scuse me, any of you guys see which way this thread went?

Why not take a look at what's in the little suckers and then decide? Frosted PoP'ems Ingredients: Sugar, Enriched Wheat Flour [Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Reduced Iron, Niacin, Thiamin Mononitrate (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid], Water, Palm Oil, Soybean Oil, Nonfat Milk, Glycerin, Egg Yolk Powder, Leavening (Baking Soda, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Aluminum Phosphate), Soy Flour, Natural & Artificial Flavor, Cornstarch, Corn Syrup Solids, Pregelatinized Wheat Starch, Salt, Dextrose, Calcium Carbonate, Soy Lecithin, Xanthan Gum, Calcium Sulfate, Mono- And Diglycerides, Polysorbate 60, Potassium Sorbate (Preservative), Cellulose Gum, Guar Gum, Wheat Germ, Beta Carotene (Color), Nutmeg Oil, Agar, Carob Bean Gum, Sodium Phosphate, Caramel Color. They may be brown, but there's not a speck of chocolate to be found. (Probably true for Ralph Woods' butt hole as well, but I'll bet it's all natural flavor and mighty sweet too. )

You're right. Great collection of info all in one place. Thanks!

I read it! Mere minutes before TY heaved a brick through it, I saw it and I liked it. You always have the good stuff, and this one was about a snit I once got into that you couldn't quite recall. Nor can I but, not to worry, there's plenty more where that came from. And, of course, I'd love to know what mischief you got into whilst Flirting 4 Free. I've been trying to figure out a delicate way to ask. You've probably flirted your way up to St. Petersburg by now, nyet? Meanwhile, I was over in the engineering school, struggling through differential calculus and worse. Not much exegesis going on at my end of the quad. On the plus side, I can usually figure out within a degree or two how they're hanging.

I think the issue goes well beyond party affiliations. In my opinion, it goes to the heart of what we U. S. citizens are prepared to give up, just on the government's say so. We know a bunch about one side of the equation: giving up privacy is a one-way road. It doesn't come back again. Plus, a little invasion of privacy is always followed by a little more. It's been a long time since anyone in the government, Republican or Democrat, has said, "We finally have enough information; we don't need any more." The cost side of the equation seems clear to me. It's the benefit side of the equation that I am not at all clear on: what do we get in return? Just for grins, let's say that every email, text, twitter, and tweet was instantly decrypted and scrolled across the bottom of every TV screen in the country, and let's say that every single phone conversation was tapped and blared from loudspeakers in the center of towns all across America. Would anyone from the government step up and say. "At last! We've now got the tools to stop terrorism in its tracks!"? Of course not. Instead, with each new incursion on privacy, we get federal folderol like: "We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security." What the hell does that even mean? Is it worth trading our remaining pockets of privacy for? I understand we got hit hard on 9/11, and I understand that we're all willing to pay a price to keep it from happening again. But I think it's now time to begin the cost-benefit discussion on how much we give up and for what return. Voluntary silence at this point, I'm afraid, can lead to enforced silence down the road. For the most part, Republicans and Democrats alike are tagging along and not asking the questions that desperately need asking. I think it's up to us, as U. S. citizens, to challenge our elected officials to engage in this debate, to open discussions with those around us, and to support private groups who are taking the privacy issue seriously. If we leave it up to the politicians, I think the anti-privacy laws will be in place long before we realize what we've lost. [/rant]

MsGuy, I doubt you have a bad bone in your body; well, not until Ralph Woods comes calling anyway. I tried to add an extra smiley in my earlier post to better convey intent but, what with one thing and another, the edit period snapped shut on me. Never heard 'exegesis' before this thread, and appreciate the definition and cultural context. Especially grateful to learn of its opposite, 'eisegesis', which I expect will come in handy during a political thread one day. By the by, what brings you here at this late hour?

Ban Politics? I'd definitely hate to see that. I don't care where the topics reside, but to declare them taboo would take a big nick out of the Forums for me. I'll admit that politics doesn't have a big forum here, by tradition perhaps. And perhaps because political discussions often find their way into threads. That has to be another one of my favorite things about this website: the fact that political opinions can be expressed freely without knee jerk attacks. I think there's getting to be a poster culture here that allows for differences of opinion, without the issuance of fatwas. More than that, I respect the thoughtfulness that many here put into their political posts. I actually do read many posters here with my eyes open for new info and new insights. I'd hate to lose that.

Indeed it was, and a very humble mea culpa! When I used it above, I must have forgotten reading it in your post from last week, or you'd have received well-deserved attribution. Imagine, me forgetting something!

As well it should be! Not to pry, but did this happy event take place in a club or in a more - er - 'intimate' setting?

And for not defining chazerai I get potched?

Sounds fine, but wouldn't that take a lot of work? I'm really happy with the way you guys run this website, and I like the fact that you participate fully in the forums. I'd hate to see you spend your time on housekeeping chores, and not be able to enjoy the site yourselves. Not sure what issues it would avoid, and it sounds like you've thought this through more thoroughly than I have. In all events, I'll be fine with whatever you decide. As they say, different strokes for different folks.

I love the pictures! I'll be happy looking at them no matter where they appear. Is there a problem, though, with a separate forum? It seems to me they would stand out better on their own, but maybe I'm missing something. Anybody care to smarten up a chump?

I would too. Splitting them off would also keep topics on the main page of both forums for a longer time. In addition to Lucky's Place, we could have The Zipper Zone. Good point. Another of my favorite things about this website is the ability to upload pictures, in addition to linking to pictures from other websites. To have those uploaded pictures appear in the post without logging in would, as you say, be another good way to attract new viewers. Great ideas, Matrix!

From the article: "Keep in mind that investors ultimately bought a deal almost exclusively based on the rating, and not the issuer's decision [regarding] what loans to put in or what loans not to put in," Cecala said. "Historically there's been very little recourse back to the issuer for problems with securities down the road and the bottom line is if you can get it past the ratings services you're more or less home free." The three big credit rating agencies that dominate the market -- Standard and Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings -- had a chance to use Clayton's information during this time, but declined, Johnson testified. Not yet taking their share of the responsibility, in my opinion, the credit rating agencies put the lipstick on these pigs and provided cover for the issuers. They then proceed to duck responsibilty by saying they relied on information provided by the issuer, who paid them for the rating. I think the whole cockamamie system is due for another refresh.