Peds want soda ban

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"JG" wrote

JG, you have a lot of patience with these morons! Thanks for spelling
it out.

Because of the kids with whom I used to work, I've gotten into the habit
of "connecting the dots" over and over (and over...) again. They may
have had double-digit IQs, but it was obvious that most of them, most of
the time, were eager to learn. Supposedly intelligent adults, on the
other hand, can really tick me off with their pigheadedness. When they
just don't seem to "get it"--not because of a lack of intelligence, but
from a lack of willingness to listen/read with care, or to *think* about
what they have heard/read--they warrant the abasement of having their
erroneous statements pointed out to them in a manner that one would use
to teach a "true" moron.

Yes, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than fruit juice, just as I
said. You can usually tell the low-calorie sodas because they say
"diet" on the can.

See, now you're doing it, too! g

Jonathan tries to disprove a statement about "many sodas" by
showing that some sodas only have slightly fewer calories. Mark P.
tries to claim that "soft drink" means any nonalcoholic beverage.
I guess he thinks that the AAP wants a school ban on all nonalcoholic
beverages, including water, milk, etc. Does he expect all the kids to
stick to beer and wine?

I think maybe Mark P. got confused with the talk of *carbonation*; for
some (unfathomable) reason he transferred his thought processes from
whether soft drinks are carbonated to whether they contain alcohol!

Jeff thinks...

He does?!? (Couldn't resist)

....that water and fiber are nutrients, but that sugar is not.
He also says he had 10 hours on nutrition education in med school.
He doesn't seem to realize that the human body converts sugar
into energy, but not water or fiber. Or maybe he missed the definition
of a nutrient in his first day of nutrition class.

I find it hard to believe he actually even took a nutrition class.

CBI seems to think that if you criticize an AAP opinion on usenet,
then it must be that you don't think that the AAP has any free
speech rights. Perhaps he thinks that only the AAP has free
speech rights to express opinions.

lol. I don't know where he got the notion that I don't think the AAP
has a right to issue its (usually goofy) policy statements and
recommendations. (I actually look forward to them; every time I've read
one that I think HAS to be unsurpassable for its
silliness/pretentiousness, they manage to churn out one that beats it!)

Good work straightening them out. I think that they all either need
to go back to schoool, or to up their ritalin doses.

Hahaha...

"CBI" wrote in message
k.net...

"JG" wrote in message
. ..

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.

Bull****.

THEN PROVE IT(!) (Oh, and nice selective editing of my response!
lol...)

....I just went did a "Google groups" advanced search of misc.kids.health
using "AAP, censored" as search terms and myself ("JG") as the
author....Lookee what was returned (from almost 3 years ago!):

From: JG )
Subject: "All they do is issue advice" (CBI)
Newsgroups: misc.kids.health
Date: 2001-05-01 21:10:29 PST

(CBI):
I still do not understand why you think that
pediatricians should be censored.

(JG):
Give it up, already. I've never said (or even thought) they should be
censored. I'm simply opposed to a plethora of laws that are aimed at
regulating what is often personal (ie, no one else is affected) behavior
and that are costly and/or difficult to enforce and therefore end up
being
largely ignored (eg, seat belt mandates) by a substantial portion of the
population.

Such laws, with their lax enforcement, trivialize *all* laws. What do
you think kids think (learn) when they see all sorts of goofy laws
flouted
without consequence?
======================================

And it looks like I've challenged you to prove this same assertion
before, Chris (which, of course, you failed to do!)...
Using "AAP, censorship" returned:

From: JG )
Subject: "All they do is issue advice" (CBI)
Newsgroups: misc.kids.health
Date: 2001-05-02 17:40:22 PST

(CBI):
...you just think they should not issue possition statements, give
advice
to parents, or advocate in congress. What would you call that, if not
censorship?

(JG):
Put up or shut up time, Chris. You continue to make this accusation
despite my denials. Find and post where I've ever advocated censorship,
or said that they shouldn't issue position statements, give advice to
parents, or advocate in congress.

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...

Roger enjoy's the moving target. In the first post it was a slam on
the AAP statement that it was soda that was the exclusive taregt and
that of course was proved wrong - AAPO addressed the issue of sugar
laden drinks and that includes - by definition and by the AAP's very
own statement, non-carbonated sweetened drinks - FRUIT JUICES
specifically mentioned by name.

exasperated sigh Look, Jonathan (and Mark P., too): The AAP
distinguishes between "fruit drinks" and "fruit juices." By "fruit
drinks," I think it's safe to assume the AAP means beverages such as
(Coca-Cola's) Fruitopia, Hi-C, and Minute Maid punches and lemonades;
fruit *juices*, such as Minute Maid orange juice(s), Disney "100 Acre
Woods" juices, "Minute Maid Blends" and Odwalla juices (all Coca-Cola
products as well), otoh, contain no added sugar. If you carefully read
the AAP's own press release (= NOT a reporter's interpretation),
available at
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm (thanks, Roger),
you'll see that the AAP *does* differentiate between fruit *juices* and
soft drinks:/fruit *drinks*:

"With SOFT DRINKS AND FRUIT DRINKS being sold in vending machines, in
school stores and at school sporting events, their availability is
ubiquitous. While soft drink sales can be a substantial source of income
for school districts, nutritious alternatives such as water, REAL FRUIT
JUICES and low-fat milks are available for vending, and can help
preserve school revenues." (my emphasis) (Do you get it YET, Mark? Your
assertion that the AAP means *any* non-alcoholic beverage when it uses
the term "soft drink" is patently absurd; if that were the case, it
wouldn't use any term--e.g.,
"fruit drink" or "fruit juice"--other than "soft drink"--"soft drink"
would cover them all.)

Roger then argues that soda has a lot fewer calories than fruit juice
- which of course is incorrect - then changes the definition to mean
DIET sodas.

No, Jonathan. Roger stated, "In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer
calories than fruit juice." (Pretty straightforward, I'd say!) This is
true, of course.. *Diet* sodas (there are many of them) ARE sodas, just
as much so as "regular" (sugar-laden) sodas. *YOU* are the one
"weaseling" in this instance (and Mark, bless his heart, apparently dove
in with his inane quibbling when he saw you floundering).

Now, diet sodas, of course, are NOT the target of AAPs
advisory - because they cleary talk about SWEETENED soft drinks AND
SWEETENED fruit juices.

Since when is aspartame--or any "artificial" sweetener--not considered a
"sweetener"? Mind you, I agree the AAP is concerned about
SUGAR-sweetened soft drinks and fruit drinks--but they (sloppily) use
the term "sweetened drinks." (BTW, if the AAP is giving
*diet*--artificially sweetened--sodas a pass, why didn't they include
them in the sentence, "While soft drink sales can be a substantial
source of income for school districts, nutritious alternatives such as
water, real fruit juices and low-fat milks are available for vending,
and can help preserve school revenues." AFAIAC, diet sodas are no less
nutritious than water.)

But Roger get's his spin. By selectively focusing on the soda part of
sweetened drinks and then taking the sweetened out of the soda, he
thinks he has made his point.

You, Jonathan, are the one who's twisted/misinterpreted others'
statements.

[...]

"CBI" wrote in message
k.net...

"bencon" wrote in message
m...
It does no good whatsoever to take
away peoples rights to consume soda, why should we do
that?

14 year old kids do not have a rigth to consume soda if
their parents do not wish them to do so.

Sure, but given that consumption of soft drinks isn't illegal (for
anyone, regardless of age), it isn't gubmnts' (inc. school officials')
job to enforce a parent's directive that his/her kid not drink soda at
school.

The kids
will A. bring their own

Which the parents will have some chance of affecting.

For 14+-year-old kids? Get real. Most have easy access to other
sources of soft drinks (e.g., convenience stores/fast food restaurants)
and the money to buy them.

They
also probably will not be able to bring as muich as they
might buy.

I doubt very few kids consume 2 or 3 cans a day at school.

B. buy it at stores

Which they can't do between classes at most schools.

I don't know much time you spend at your local high school(s), Chris,
but picking up (off-campus) a couple of cans either before school or at
lunchtime (juniors and seniors around here have "open lunch," meaning
they may leave the school grounds at lunchtime) is no problem. At my
daughter's former school, I'd guess 70-80% of the kids took advantage of
the
policy. (It drove me nuts; the nearest fast food places were a 10-12
minute
drive away, and most kids had only 35 minutes for lunch. Talk about
reckless driving! I'm amazed no one, to my knowledge, has been killed
yet.)

and C. begin to view
soda as rebelious,

Soda hasn't been banned. They can still bring it in and
drink it right in front of the teachers and principle so it
would not be much of a form of rebellion.

The only form of "soft drink rebellion" I saw was kids bringing their
own Pepsi (or other non-Coke) drinks into "exclusively Coke" schools...

We
need to teach kids the way to drink these things.

Yes, we do. Not sending them the message that a soda should
be available for consumption all day long and not
undermining the parents ability to control this would be one
small step in the right direction.

Oh, puhleeze! Schools--esp. high schools--tolerate a lot of stuff of
which many parents disapprove. (Better get over it by the time your
kids reach high school age!) This toleration could hardly be considered
"undermining parents' control."

"JG" wrote
JG, you have a lot of patience with these morons! Thanks for spelling
it out.
Because of the kids with whom I used to work, I've gotten into the habit
of "connecting the dots" over and over (and over...) again. They may
have had double-digit IQs, but it was obvious that most of them, most of
the time, were eager to learn. Supposedly intelligent adults, on the
other hand, can really tick me off with their pigheadedness. When they
just don't seem to "get it"--not because of a lack of intelligence, but
from a lack of willingness to listen/read with care, or to *think* about
what they have heard/read--they warrant the abasement of having their
erroneous statements pointed out to them in a manner that one would use
to teach a "true" moron.

These peds amaze me sometimes. Those AAP recommendations
are written as if they are by people with no common sense, and for
people with no common sense. And then the peds here say the goofiest
things about them!

JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message
k.net...

"JG" wrote in message
. ..

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.

Bull****.

THEN PROVE IT(!) (Oh, and nice selective editing of my
response!
lol...)

...I just went did a "Google groups" advanced search of
misc.kids.health using "AAP, censored" as search terms and
myself
("JG") as the author....Lookee what was returned (from
almost 3 years
ago!):

That is because you just don't use the word "censor." It was
a pretty safe search to do since you knew you didn't use the
main search term. But you do regularly express the opinion
that the AAP/peds shouldnot be giving warning ans expressing
their opinions. Searching for someting like this does not
leand itself easily to any specific search term so the
search will involve combing through a lot of posts. So I'll
tell you what - If any regular poster besides you and Roger
has some doubts and would like to see a quote I will take
the time to try to find one. If no one else doubts it then
there is little purpose in my wastingmy time and you should
get the message.

As for your quotes below - there has never been any doubt
that you deny the charge.

--
CBI, MD

"CBI" wrote in message
ink.net...

JG wrote:

[...]

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.

Bull****.

THEN PROVE IT(!) (Oh, and nice selective editing of my
response!
lol...)

...I just went did a "Google groups" advanced search of
misc.kids.health using "AAP, censored" as search terms and
myself
("JG") as the author....Lookee what was returned (from
almost 3 years
ago!):

That is because you just don't use the word "censor."

Yet again you delete material segments of my post!

It was
a pretty safe search to do since you knew you didn't use the
main search term.

Oh, but I HAVE used it--in response to *your* use of it in your
accusations. You've asserted that I've called for the
censorship/silencing/suppression--use any term *you* darn well
please--of the AAP/pediatricians, and I've said, simply, "Prove it."
(You can't, because I've never said peds shouldn't speak out, only that
in many instances they look foolish and condescending when they do.)

But you do regularly express the opinion
that the AAP/peds shouldnot be giving warning ans expressing
their opinions.

Again, I've never said they shouldn't, only that I think it's ridiculous
(for reasons I've previously stated) that, in many instances, they do.

Searching for someting like this does not
leand itself easily to any specific search term so the
search will involve combing through a lot of posts.

Why don't you try using (as search terms) some of the topics on which
I've stated my opinion that it's silly (and/or pointless, and/or
improper) for peds/the AAP to make recommendations (guns, TV viewing
habits, lawn mowing practices, bicycle helmets, ...)?

So I'll
tell you what - If any regular poster besides you and Roger
has some doubts and would like to see a quote I will take
the time to try to find one. If no one else doubts it then
there is little purpose in my wastingmy time and you should
get the message.

The only message that's being delivered, loud and clear, is that you're
a friggin' liar--one who's maligned/vilified another with an accusation
that, when asked to substantiate, posts some nonsense about "well, if no
one (else) asks me to prove it, it's obviously true." Do you really
think readers are that stupid?

As for your quotes below - there has never been any doubt
that you deny the charge.

Yes, I deny it. I even find it libelous. You've been asked to prove
(repeatedly!) that I've called for/advocated the censorship of the
AAP/peds ...and you CAN'T, because it's a lie.

JG

Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
-- Laertius Diogenes

"JG" wrote
The only message that's being delivered, loud and clear, is that you're
a friggin' liar--one who's maligned/vilified another with an accusation
that, when asked to substantiate, posts some nonsense about ...

Yes, it shows that CBI is a liar or a moron, or both. You are not the
only one who has been down this road. He appears to lack the
cognitive ability to distinguish ordinary English words like "critic"
and "censor". You can call him on his lies, and he will complain that
he cannot find the exact quotes; if you find them for him, then he
will complain that you are using the dictionary definitions of the words!

Besides CBI's willingness to libel you, his comments also reveal his
pediatrician mindset. He is offended that anyone would dare criticize
the AAP. Peds like to take these pronouncements as if they were
the gospel truth, and he thinks that your criticism is interfering with
the orderly indoctrination of peds.

AAP/peds ...and you CAN'T, because it's a lie.

Of course CBI cannot defend his lies.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
. net...
"JG" wrote
The only message that's being delivered, loud and clear, is that
you're
a friggin' liar--one who's maligned/vilified another with an
accusation
that, when asked to substantiate, posts some nonsense about ...

Yes, it shows that CBI is a liar or a moron, or both.

I think both. g What kind of reasoning is "If no one asks me to prove
it, ipso facto, it's true"?

You are not the
only one who has been down this road. He appears to lack the
cognitive ability to distinguish ordinary English words like "critic"
and "censor".

LOL...I remember the "critic" discussion. g

You can call him on his lies, and he will complain that
he cannot find the exact quotes; if you find them for him, then he
will complain that you are using the dictionary definitions of the
words!

Hahaha. He'd last all of about 30 seconds in a high school debate.

Besides CBI's willingness to libel you, his comments also reveal his
pediatrician mindset. He is offended that anyone would dare criticize
the AAP. Peds like to take these pronouncements as if they were
the gospel truth, and he thinks that your criticism is interfering
with
the orderly indoctrination of peds.

"Orderly indoctrination"...good description. Tantamount to
brainwashing.

From another of your posts:
"These peds amaze me sometimes. Those AAP recommendations are written as
if they are by people with no common sense, and for people with no
common sense."

It's the latter that really gets me. The AAP's policy statements and
recommendations--at least those about safety issues--don't impart any
earth-shattering news; indeed, the "well, duh!" information they contain
invariably has been "officially" known (and promulgated) long before the
AAP has ratified it, which leads one to question why the AAP's
"policy/recommendation committee" believes the AAP needs to reiterate
it. Two possible answers/reasons come to mind: (1) Pediatricians
genuinely believe that parents are tuned-out dolts in dire need of being
led, step-by-step, through the intricacies of parenthood; and/or (2)
that information (Watch out for your kids when you're mowing the lawn!)
is more credible/authentic when it comes from a physician. (Talk about
audacity!)

"JG" wrote
Yes, it shows that CBI is a liar or a moron, or both.
I think both. g

He is certainly innumerate and lacks basic verbal skills.
And he makes accusations that he cannot substantiate.

Two possible answers/reasons come to mind: (1) Pediatricians
genuinely believe that parents are tuned-out dolts in dire need of being
led, step-by-step, through the intricacies of parenthood; and/or (2)
that information (Watch out for your kids when you're mowing the lawn!)
is more credible/authentic when it comes from a physician. (Talk about
audacity!)

I think that the Iowans just detected that sort of annoying arrogance
in Howard Dean, MD. g