Peds want soda ban

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Jeff" wrote
But you are still missing some nuitrition, including fiber.

So now you think that water and fiber have nutrition, but sugar
does not! You must not have even received 5 minutes of
nutrition instruction in medical school.

I was talking about drinking juice misses some of the nutrition of eating
the whole fruit, including the fiber in the whole fruit.

It was more like 10 hours, plus what I got in residency.

Sorry for the confusion.

Jeff

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
et...
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
et...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/education/05SODA.html

Soft drinks should be eliminated from schools to help tackle
the
nation's
obesity epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
In a new policy statement, the academy says that pediatricians
should
contact local superintendents and school board members and
"emphasize
the
notion that every school in every district shares a
responsibility
for
the
nutritional health of its students."

Ah, those impetuous peds! Don't they realize that "every school
in
every district" is simply too darn busy attending to its
responsibility
regarding the educational "health" of its students?!?
.....er....um....never mind....

Um, okay, I'm missing the huge affront here.

Schools (administrators, faculty), generally speaking, are failing
at
the *one* task with which few would disagree they're charged:
educating
our youth.

I don't agree and if you begin your argument with an opinion, what
does that do for the logic?

It was SARCASM, Jonathan, for heaven's sake! (FWIW, schools' failure to
adequately teach our youth--to enable them to be considered
"educated"--isn't merely an opinion; considerable research shows it to
be a fact.)

My experience is that my school, and the
school district as a whole, are doing an outstanding job in providing
an education.

How do you know; i.e., on what are you basing your assessment?
Standardized test scores? Graduation rates? Percentage of students
furthering their education? Other means of comparison (to other
schools/districts)? If your student body were switched, en masse, with
that of an inner-city school (one in which the students hail from a
considerably lower socioeconomic background) can you asset, with
certainty, that *those* students would do as well? (IME, kids from
families that place a premium on education--that have high expectations
for their kids' educational success--tend to do well regardless of the
school in which they find themselves.)

Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that schools
are doing a good job.

Fine. We disagree. I think (public) schools, overall, are doing a
mediocre job at best ...and that they're still declining.

I am also of ther opinion that the role of the
school extends well beyond simply teaching the three Rs.

Sorry, that's too vague to respond to adequately; go ahead and
enumerate, if you wish, just what other things (presumably more than
offering additional subjects--"social studies," art, P.E., music, and
the like) you think schools should/ought to be doing, i.e., what other
roles they should be fulfilling.

(I'd settle for simply producing a literate populace;

The literacy rate in the US is 97% - and considering the large
immigrant population, this is a pretty high number.

Whoa! Sorry, Jonathan, but I'll have to ask you to provide a citation
for taht figure. And when I speak of literacy, I'm talking about
"functional literacy," a "...level of literacy which includes not only
reading and writing skills but also numeracy skills. The skills must be
sufficiently advanced to enable the individual to participate fully and
efficiently in activities commonly occurring in his life situation that
require a reasonable capability of communicating by written language."
(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/techno...eflemms94.html) According
to the 1994 National Adult Literacy Survey (a new one's due next year, I
believe), 21-23% (40-44M) of US adults fell into the lowest level (1,
of 5) of literacy while ~50M more were classified as "Level 2." (See
http://nces.ed.gov//naal/resources/e....asp#litskills.) Maybe 97%
of the adult population can sign their names on a document, but that
doesn't mean (by a long shot!) that they *understand* the contents of
the document (let alone the implications of affixing their signature to
it).

"education," IMO, is a personal endeavor.) We (society) have
already
added students' mental/psychological well-being to list of things we
expect schools to achieve/ensure, and now, apparently, the APA wants
to
charge schools with the task of seeing that kids slim down by
(initially)--tada!--banning the sale of soft drinks.

Some schools didn't wait for the APA to address the issue of nutrition
in schools.

No; questions regarding the propriety of schools entering exclusive
contracts (esp. with the marketers of foods/beverages of questionable
nutitional value) arose shortly after they came into vogue.

I don't really
see depriving kids of soda-purchasing opportunities during school
hours as limiting their freedom significantly. As long as
it would be the right of a parent to send a soda to school
with the child, it wouldn't bother me.

Nor I. Do you honestly think, however, that school district
administrators/personnel wouldn't bemoan the lost revenue, or that
the
APA wouldn't prefer that schools totally ban "unhealthy"
foods/beverages
from campuses? ("This school is a 'junk food'-free zone.")

Lost revenue? The ones crying are the candy and soda manufacturers.
Granted, schools do receive a small percentage of sales and get some
copmpensation for allowing advertising. Hardly enough to fund the
schools operating budget. It's Pepsi and Mars that are raising the
biggest barriers.

The largest district in my area apparently gets about $500,000 a year
from their deal with Coca Cola Inc., enough, I'd guess, to pay the
salaries of 17 teachers (or 5 administrators? g). News reports here
didn't quote any Coke representatives, only a district spokeswoman--who
made it very clear that the district wasn't about to ban the sale of
Coke products: "...Colorado Springs largest school district doesn't
agree with the [AAP] recommendation. Elaine Naleski, District 11's
Director of Communications says the machines will stay where they are.
She says removing the machines won't make any difference at all in the
obesity of children, and adds exercise, and sensible eating is the best
solution." (http://krdo.com/DisplayStory.asp?id=6959)

JG, do you think anything ought to be done by any sort of
public servant about the way Americans are ballooning into
giant butterballs?

What's a "public servant"? g

Government can, and should, play a role in safeguarding *public*
health.
I have little objection to bureaucrats monitoring and takng (LEGAL)
measures to mitigate situations that pose a threat to the public at
large. Weight (obesity) is a *private* issue;

Health, with the possible exception of communicable diseases, is a
private issue.

Exactly. Say it a little louder, so Utz, CBI, and Riley can hear
you.g

But as anything, "private" issues have societal
externalities. Moreover, "private" issues set the standard moral and
social fiber.

Again, you're being terribly vague. (Love the liberal- [or is it edu-?]
speak, though!... "externalities"..."social fiber"...)

the gubmnt's only
basis/rationale for intervention in this arena

Is to respond to and support the will of the people.

Which has been ascertained HOW, in this case? Via the whinings of small
groups of people (POOFS--Parents of Overly Fat Students? Anti-corporate
Greenies? The AAP?). These groups may be vocal, but to assert that
they represent "the people" is stretching it a bit, don't you think?
Look, these groups can protest/plead/write letters all they want. Where
were they when their school boards were considering/discussing proposal
to enter into exclusive, multi-year contracts to place soda machines in
the schools, hmmm? Do you honestly think that voters in every district
would vote to ban pop machines if *all* the facts--especially how much
money the district was receiving and the uses to which it was, or could
be, put--were known? I don't.

is the claim that
weight-induced health problems (diabetes, cardiovascular disease,
etc.)
among those receiving public assistance (Medicaid, Medicare) impose
a
financial burden on taxpayers.

If that's what you believe the only rationale to be, you missed the
bigger picture. Many (most?) parents prefer NOT to have junk food and
soda readily available in schools where they may have limited ability
to control their childs access.

Not in my area, apparently. Then again, we're one of the "fittest"
states in the nation (Colorado is the only state in the nation in which
fewer than half of the adults are overweight), as well as one of the
"best educated" (Colorado's number one in the nation for percentage of
residents with a bachelor's degree); we're savvy enough to know that
removing soda machines from schools would be merely a token gesture, and
that it's not their presence that makes kids fat.

I can do it when we are at home and
when we are out as a family - but in school, I need some help. And
that is the ROLE of the school board, the state and local government,
and the parent teacher association.

Fine. If you want to relinquish your/your high schooler's
responsibility (for making healthy choices), so be it. (No wonder the
ability to analyze/synthesize information is declining in the US!)

(This is a separate subject open to
debate. Perhaps public assistance recipients who have a
weight-induced
disease will die younger because of it, thus potentially saving "us"
$$$
in the long run.) At any rate, gubmnt health programs should never
have been instituted in the first place. (Anyone care to cite just
where in the Constitution "public assistance"--publicly funded
assistance to *individuals*--is addressed?)

My PRIVATE health insurance premiums are in part driven by the group
risk - and that includes the lard butt families.

Not a good argument: If you check with your insurer, I bet you'll find
that "lard-butts" are paying higher premiums (as do smokers) because of
their condition.

If you believe that this is all a matter
of personal responsibility, can you describe a plausible
chain of events that leads to each individual butterball
waking up one morning and saying, "Gosh! It's time to
change my entire way of life! No more fast food, no more
TV... I'm going to take responsibility for my life and
start eating healthier food, spending more time exercising,
and teaching my kids to do the same!" Or is it just that
you think anyone who doesn't do the above is better off
prematurely ill or dead?

Straw man. I don't think it's anyone's, or any group's (private or
public), right to tell individuals *who pose no threat to others*
how to
live their lives (let alone force them adhere to arbitrary
dictates!)--

The APA makes recommendations. So, what is it about freedom of speach
that bothers you so much?

Okay, sure they have a "right" to say virtually anything, to anyone,
that they want. I've stated this on several occasions (threads). What
I (yet again!) find outrageously silly, however, is that the AAP's
apparent belief that it has some sort of special knowledge ("distinctive
competence") regarding a widely discussed issue (weight/obesity, in this
case).

Don't like it when people stare at your
wide load when you waddle down the street?

Sorry, I glide ;-). (Well, not lately; I broke three bones in my left
foot about 4 weeks ago...sigh) If anyone stares, I haven't noticed.
(How would someone know if his/her rear is being stared at, anyway? Do
you pirouette every few steps to see if you're being watched? Wouldn't
that somewhat paranoid?)

do you? Each "individual butterball" must live, or die, by his/her
choices. The gubmnt (and food manufacturers/distributors, including
schools) hasn't made anyone fat; it's not its responsibility to make
anyone healthy, either.

It is their responsibility to support the needs of the people they
represent. In the case of the APA, it is a recommendation that raises
public awareness.

Of what, exactly? That kids are getting fatter? That (some) kids
consume a lot of "empty" calories in the form of soft drinks? That
schools have/use alternative means (other than taxes) of generating
revenue?

In the case of the state of Maine, the mandate came
from a student/parent/nutrition committee - this wasn't something some
loud mouth bureaucrat dreamed up - it was grass roots.

I don't doubt that every state/locale has groups, even lone individuals,
that have "issues" they'd like to see dealt with as *they'd* like. The
nature of politics these days is that so few are actively involved that
those who are get the attention of elected officials and bureaucrats.
That doesn't mean that they (the activists) represent/reflect the wishes
of the majority, however.

I like the idea of how Maine responded to its citizens - and that, Ms
JG, is the role of the gubmt.

No, it's not. The role of government--any government--is to secure the
rights and freedoms of individual citizens. Voters in southern states
("Dixie," perhaps, to you Yankees g) wanted racial segregation.
Voters in Colorado wanted to impede homosexuals' use of the legal
system. Voters in Texas wanted to make homosexual sodomy a crime... Get
it? (You'll find many more examples by simply doing a Google search
using "state laws, overturned, unconstitutional.")

(Jeez, I haven't even brought myself to dropping the "n" yet!)

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message et...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
It is their responsibility to support the needs of the people they
represent. In the case of the AAP, it is a recommendation that raises
public awareness. In the case of the state of Maine, the mandate came
from a student/parent/nutrition committee - this wasn't something some
loud mouth bureaucrat dreamed up - it was grass roots.

The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading
misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than
fruit juice.

No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies
that fruit juices are somnehow better than sweetened soft drinks. I
can't imagine you of all people would post in the absence of actually
having read the AAP policy statement - or?

I can't wait to see you dance around this one.

Here is the relevant excerpt.

"Soft drinks and fruit drinks are sold in vending machines, in school
stores, at school sporting events, and at school fund drives.
"Exclusive pouring rights" contracts, in which the school agrees to
promote one brand exclusively in exchange for money, are being signed
in an increasing number of school districts across the country,30
often with bonus incentives tied to sales.31 Although they are a new
phenomenon, such contracts already have provided schools with more
than $200 million in unrestricted revenue.

Some superintendents, school board members, and principals claim that
the financial gain from soft drink contracts is an unquestioned "win"
for students, schools, communities, and taxpayers.31,32 Parents and
school authorities generally are uninformed about the potential risk
to the health of their children that may be associated with the
unrestricted consumption of soft drinks. The decision regarding which
foods will be sold in schools more often is made by school district
business officers alone rather than with input from local health care
professionals.

Subsidized school lunch programs are associated with a high intake of
dietary protein, complex carbohydrates, dairy products, fruits, and
vegetables.16 The US Department of Agriculture, which oversees the
National School Lunch Program, is concerned that foods with high sugar
content (especially foods of minimal nutritional value, such as soft
drinks) are displacing nutrients within the school lunch program, and
there is evidence to support this.26

There are precedents for using optimal nutrition standards to create a
model district-wide school nutrition policy,33 but this is not yet a
routine practice in most states. The discussion engendered by the
creation of such a policy would be an important first step in
establishing an ideal nutritional environment for students."

Now for the second part of your statement -



In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than
fruit juice.
Let's do the math, shall we?

1 cup (8 oz) Apple juice - 117 calories plus 129% of the Vit C RDA (is
that what they still call it?)

OJ - 112

Club soda - 0 calories.

Cola - 13 calories per ounce
Lemon Lime (7-up) - 12 calories per ounce

Not exactly a lot fewer - well, maybe club soda....

OK - so, now what. You say that the AAP endorses fruit drinks (not)
and soda has a lot less calories than fruit juice (again, NOT.)

That would be the two wrongs make a right spin? Go for it.

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading
misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than
fruit juice.
No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies
that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks.

The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he

AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED
In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider
restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems
that result from overconsumption.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm

The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices.

In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than
fruit juice.
Let's do the math, shall we?
1 cup (8 oz) Apple juice - 117 calories plus 129% of the Vit C RDA (is
that what they still call it?)
OJ - 112
Club soda - 0 calories.
Cola - 13 calories per ounce
Lemon Lime (7-up) - 12 calories per ounce

So in your examples, all sodas have few calories per ounce than all
fruit juice. Plus Diet Coke and Diet 7-up have a lot fewer calories.
IME, most soda vending machines carry at least one diet soda.
Thanks for doing the math.

"CBI" wrote in message
om...

The APA makes recommendations. So, what is it about freedom of
speach
that bothers you so much?

That is the million dollar question, isn't it? She has a pattern of
only being in favor of free speach that she agrees with. Apparently,
everyone else should just zip it.

Gratuitous (and egregious) dig, Chris? I'm rather surprised. (Bad day?
No dog to kick?) You know damn well (and if you claim that you don't,
search the mkh archives) that I've said, repeatedly, the AAP can issue
all the recommendations and policy statements it wants; I've never
called for censorship. What I *have* stated is that I overwhelmingly
find its recommendations to be incredibly redundant (= unnecessary),
frequently silly (the "Duh!" recommendations), and often smacking of
condescension.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading
misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than
fruit juice.
No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies
that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks.

The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he

AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED
In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy
of
Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider
restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems
that result from overconsumption.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm

The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices.

Are you claiming that "soft drinks" does not include fruit juices? If so,
read:

http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/htm...oductTypes.htm

From Wordsmyth...

1. a nonalcoholic beverage, esp. one that is carbonated; soda or soda pop.

From Encarta on-line:


soft drink

noun

cold nonalcoholic drink: any nonalcoholic and usually carbonated beverage,
usually served chilled


And there are others. See Ask Jeeves for more definitions.

However, all state the same thing, carbonation is NOT required for something
to be a "soft drink". What IS required, is the absence of alcohol.

Thus, the AAP statement clearly addresses fruit juices.

Next dodge?

"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" wrote
in message news
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading
misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening
than
fruit juice.
No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation
implies
that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks.

The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he

AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED
In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American
Academy
of
Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider
restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health
problems
that result from overconsumption.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm

The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices.

Are you claiming that "soft drinks" does not include fruit juices? If
so,
read:

http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/htm...oductTypes.htm

G Stretching across the pond to grab a definiition you like, Mark?
Rather pointless; US/UK terminology varies cosiderably. Want to discuss
"biscuits"?

From Wordsmyth...

1. a nonalcoholic beverage, esp. one that is carbonated; soda or soda
pop.

From Encarta on-line:

soft drink

noun

cold nonalcoholic drink: any nonalcoholic and usually carbonated
beverage,
usually served chilled

And there are others. See Ask Jeeves for more definitions.

However, all state the same thing, carbonation is NOT required for
something
to be a "soft drink". What IS required, is the absence of alcohol.

Thus, the AAP statement clearly addresses fruit juices.

Next dodge?

I honestly can't believe you're going to such extremes to try to prove
Roger wrong. I use www.dictionary.com frequently (daily); two
definitions for "soft drink" were returned:

soft drink
n. In both senses also called soda pop, also called regionally cold
drink, drink, pop1, soda, soda water, tonic.
1.. A nonalcoholic, flavored, carbonated beverage, usually
commercially prepared and sold in bottles or cans.
2.. A serving of this beverage. See Regional Note at tonic.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

(Guess you missed *that* one, eh? ...or did you find it and discard it?)

and

soft drink
n : nonalcoholic beverage (usually carbonated)

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

I think you've just jumped into the lead for the 2004 "Quibble, quibble,
quibble" (similar to a turkey's gobble) award!

"JG" wrote in message
. ..
"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" wrote
in message news
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading
misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening
than
fruit juice.
No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation
implies
that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks.

The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he

AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED
In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American
Academy
of
Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider
restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health
problems
that result from overconsumption.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm

The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices.

Are you claiming that "soft drinks" does not include fruit juices? If
so,
read:

http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/htm...oductTypes.htm

G Stretching across the pond to grab a definiition you like, Mark?
Rather pointless; US/UK terminology varies cosiderably. Want to discuss
"biscuits"?

Sometimes, you cracker me up. However, knowing your inclinations, I went
further....

From Wordsmyth...

1. a nonalcoholic beverage, esp. one that is carbonated; soda or soda
pop.

From Encarta on-line:

soft drink

noun

cold nonalcoholic drink: any nonalcoholic and usually carbonated
beverage,
usually served chilled

And there are others. See Ask Jeeves for more definitions.

However, all state the same thing, carbonation is NOT required for
something
to be a "soft drink". What IS required, is the absence of alcohol.

Thus, the AAP statement clearly addresses fruit juices.

Next dodge?

I honestly can't believe you're going to such extremes to try to prove
Roger wrong.

I was doing the "Roger Shuffle". Remember his extensive writing on the
definition of "addiction?"

I use www.dictionary.com frequently (daily); two
definitions for "soft drink" were returned:

soft drink
n. In both senses also called soda pop, also called regionally cold
drink, drink, pop1, soda, soda water, tonic.
1.. A nonalcoholic, flavored, carbonated beverage, usually
commercially prepared and sold in bottles or cans.
2.. A serving of this beverage. See Regional Note at tonic.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

(Guess you missed *that* one, eh? ...or did you find it and discard it?)

As I pointed out, there were others. The American Heritage Dictionary, as
returned by AskJeeves, any your source, also mentions that the beverage is
*non-alcoholic*.

Also, note that if you link to "cold drink" on AskJeeves, the AH dictionary
returns:

cold drink

NOUN: 1. A drink, as of water, served or taken cold. 2. Chiefly Southern
U.S. See soft drink. See Regional Note at tonic.

Wow! Water.

AFAIAC, Roger was being Roger and using a sematic argument. I point out that
it is subject to interpretation.





and

soft drink
n : nonalcoholic beverage (usually carbonated)

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

I think you've just jumped into the lead for the 2004 "Quibble, quibble,
quibble" (similar to a turkey's gobble) award!

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message et...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading
misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than
fruit juice.
No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies
that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks.

The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he

AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED
In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider
restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems
that result from overconsumption.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm

The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices.

The complaint is about sweetened drinks including fruit juices.

You are shameless. Did you read the policy? Did you read the
recommendation?

Do you know what a sweetened drink IS? The recommendation was to
remove vending machines that sold sweetened drinks - INCLUDING soft
drnks and sweetened fruit juices.

In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than
fruit juice.
Let's do the math, shall we?
1 cup (8 oz) Apple juice - 117 calories plus 129% of the Vit C RDA (is
that what they still call it?)
OJ - 112
Club soda - 0 calories.
Cola - 13 calories per ounce
Lemon Lime (7-up) - 12 calories per ounce

So in your examples, all sodas have few calories per ounce than all
fruit juice. Plus Diet Coke and Diet 7-up have a lot fewer calories.
IME, most soda vending machines carry at least one diet soda.
Thanks for doing the math.

So Roger thinks "a lot fewer" calories is 1 or 2 calories per ounce.
Whoopeee. Nice spin. I can see your diet - well doc, I reduced my
caloric intake A LOT - from 3000 to 2700 per day - why am I not losing
weight?

js

"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" wrote
in message news
AFAIAC, Roger was being Roger and using a sematic argument. I point
out that
it is subject to interpretation.

Quibblequibblequibble....quibblequibblequibble...q uibblequibblequibble..
..

Your argument that Roger was trying to what, pull one over on readers?
....play semantic games? ...shuffle? ...prevaricate? is both petty and
unprovable. FWIW, when someone around here says "soft drink," it's
taken by everyone I know to mean a carbonated, non-alcoholic beverage.