On Friday, 24 January 2020 18:48:08 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 24/01/2020 18:09, tabbypurr wrote:

It is so easy to increase recycling rate that with all the talk about it I have to wonder exactly why it's not being done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkj7gZmuuhU

classic All too believable

Too many rules about what can and what cannot be recycled. My local
council has one colour sack for general rubbish and a different coloured
sack for all mixed recycling. Cardboard can be left at the side of the
sacks. Friends living in a different area are required to separate
different recycled products into different containers and cannot leave
cardboard out that still has packing tape, plastics cannot be put into a
plastic bag and have to remain individually loose in a box etc.

I personally shred most junk mail and documents and compost it.Most of
my cardboard waste also goes to the compost heap although I've noticed
recently that after the campaign to use few plastic bags food
manufactures are starting to use plastic coated cardboard which is a
complete PITA to compost as the plastic film doesn't rot and has to be
fished out of the final compost product.

On Friday, 24 January 2020 20:03:31 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Friday, 24 January 2020 13:24:55 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 23 January 2020 18:06:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote

Anoher fact is that during WWII due to rationing the UK city populations
were healtheir than they are today, apart from being killed by bombs that
is.

Myth.

Nope, fact.

They were on average healthier than in 39,

So it isnt a myth.

but we live a good bit longer today than in the 40s.

Irrelevant to whether rationing during WW2 did
see everyone eat considerably more healthily
during that tine. And also got more exercise
growing their own food with plenty of them too.

but we live a good bit longer today than in the 40s.

For other reasons like antibiotics, vaccination,
control of infectious disease and much better
medical treatment of stuff like heart attacks
and strokes, not due to diet.

was this guy dropped on his head or something?

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:12:05 +1100, "Ray" wrote:

snip


No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldn’t naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

Quite, and it's suggested that '1 litre of soya milk uses 752 less
litres of water than 1L of cows milk (or 'baby cow growth fluid').

A soya based 'burger' uses 2192 less litres of water than a beef
burger.

And feeding the people on soya directly is a much better (more
efficient, inc lower methane / waste washout into the waterways / sea)
use of the land than feeding it to beef and us then eating the beef.

This becomes particularly pertinent when global warming reduces the
water available in some areas.

Cheers, T i m

On Friday, 24 January 2020 20:10:27 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:09:15 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

If there is a
facility that disposes of it in a less environmentally damaging way,
then you should make reasonable efforts to do that.

reasonable is the key word there. A crisp packet is of such low value that spending time washing them is entirely unreasonable.

*A* crisp packet maybe, but it doesn't take long to combine it with
many others.

it would take me forever. We don't eat crisps.
If crisp packets were aggregated for parcelled disposal, most other things would be too. The value of the space required would far outstrip the value added by doing this, even if one ignored the extra labour sorting everything.


Burying them in landfill is not damaging, dropping them on the beach is.

Assuming they make it to landfill, as you say, and don't end up
everywhere else.

You chose to buy / take / eat it, you then have to dispose of it
properly.

Now, if you can't engineer it to say drop a wodge of crisp packets
into a local drop off point, as part of your normal journey then maybe
you shouldn't buy them in the first place.

complete nonsequitur.

Only to you.

no it just is. You're putting the trivial before the nontrivial.

You're virtue-fying something of near zero value.

It's nothing to do with any 'value'.

it absolutely is


If everyone took crisp packets to a dedicated recycler the world would be worse off, not better.

BS.

Time

'Time' maintaining the planet?

it's not maintaining the planet at all. The planet is fine whether packets are buried or washed & melted.

energy

When passing?

Even if one is passing, which for most people is not the case, it still takes time & energy.

& money would have been misspent achieving a purely trivial benefit.

Trivial to you I'm guessing. It's not trivial to me, my family or any
of the thousands (millions?) of people who are 'bothering.

If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Moving crisp packets from landfill to a remelt operation is pretty trivial, yes.


The various governments are now making manufacturers factor the
efficient disposal / recycling into their products and some are
obliged to accept products back when we have finished with them (a
feature we have already paid for of course).

See, for too long (since we were all generally well off) we have been
buying stuff with no regard what will happen to it when we are
finished with it and many have been happy to just 'throw stuff away'
when often there isn't such a place. So that means stuff has to be
stored (tyres / fridges), burned or buried in a hole in the ground,
all of which have come back to haunt us.

very little needs to be stored,

I didn't say it needs to be stored, I said it is being stored
*because* there isn't yet a sufficient need or efficient system for
dealing with them in the quantities they are getting.

if it is being stored it's because those in charge of it believe it needs to be stored.

nuclear waste is the main example. But even what little of that I produce doesn't need storing. Burned & buried is not haunting us.

Of course they are. Burning increases pollution and global warming
gasses

2 problems we have little of and none of respectively


(even if it does recoup some of the energy) and burying
requires space and resources and can have negative side effects
(chemical leaching into groundwater and explosive gas buildup),

/every/ disposal option has downsides. Remelt wastes money that could be spent on more useful things.


not to
mention the locking away of resources that may one day be more
valuable than the houses they have built on them.

if so they'll ultimately be mined. It's not a sound argument to not use valuable land now.


What would be better is to not buy the thing in the first place,
repair it if it goes wrong, re-purpose it into something else / useful
or recycle it in it's core components (so it can be recycled more
efficiently).

In many cases sure. Also in many cases not.

ATM.

FWIW I'd like to see a comprehensive recycling/repair machine developed. One day it'll happen.


Society is grossly wasteful, but many things really are not worth repairing, repurposing etc.

'Worth' again and by whose standards?

you could always start with the market value

I took an otherwise written-off washing machine that wasn't
economically repairable (by conventional means) and repaired it and it
lasted another 8 years.

You may throw away something that someone else would repair, keep and
use.

heh, it's usually the other way round

And we can consider how recyclable a single use
container might be when we buy something.

Like, you can buy dog food dried in bulk, wet in tins or wet in
plastic pouches. From a quantity and recyclability POV, the plastic
pouches are worse than the tins and large paper sacks.


It's not inherently wrong to bury waste.

That can very much depend on the waste.

In many cases it's currently our best option.

Ah, and that is another topic. ;-)

It takes 'people' to push for change and we hear today that Tesco are
no longer using / selling plastic wrapped multipacks. Once the big
outlets like Tesco stop using such, the manufacturers will stop doing
it and so stop offering it to the other supermarkets.

Sainsbury's sell reusable net bags for you to put / weigh your own
loose produce in. Once people get use to that I dare say they will
stop supplying any fruit / veg in plastic bags, in the way they have
by charging for carrier bags.

Foiled plastic pouches use far less material per 4 pouches than 1 metal tin.

Maybe, but if it takes 6 x the energy to recycle the foil pouches (and
we should till be build a catapult big enough to launch such waste
into the sun g) then the tin wins.

no, we should just not recycle them. That's the sensible option for now.


And there are other differences that far outweigh that issue.

Such as?

cost, whether kitty tolerates eating the same flavour 4 times in a row etc. You know, the genuine issues.

I'm all for better handling of the waste stream, I think what we do now is lousy, but so many people prioritise trivial waste matters far above their real worth, and that is a pointless cost, not a virtue.

I'm sure they will / do, but something is better than nothing, even if
it's not the best thing, as long as it's done correctly.

so vague as to be meaningless


It is so easy to increase recycling rate that with all the talk about it I have to wonder exactly why it's not being done.

Because of the same thing that fuels most of the issues we suffer as a
society, greed, ignorance and selfishness.

Does someone have zero brains, or does no-one even care?

I'm sure a bit of both, but many people do care, even if they don't
have the brains or skills to find out what's the best thing for
themselves.

Our Council gives out very clear leaflets (though every door)
describing in simple terms what things are wanted in the recycling
bins, what things aren't and how to process them.

I would say at least 50% of the bins we pass when walking the dog in
some way fall foul of the 'rules' and so either don't get collected or
contaminate / de-value the waste stream.

As you ask, are these people actually thick? Are we asking too much of
them with the instruction, 'Take the top off the milk bottle before
putting it in the recycling box', or 'flatten all cardboard boxes' ...
because these people simply can't understand *why* they have been
requested so? Or is it they CBA to take the responsibility for their
own waste in a way that allows the council to keep their rates down?

Explaining things once seldom gets the message across. People aren't going to know what the problem is unless collectors leave a label stating clearly what the issue is. The reality is those running such schemes cba to make them work.


Maybe schools should dump religious education and replace them with
classes on *Why* we all need to be a good citizens?

Cheers, T i m

School education needs a huge overhaul imho


NT

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:50:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, 24 January 2020 20:10:27 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:09:15 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

If there is a
facility that disposes of it in a less environmentally damaging way,
then you should make reasonable efforts to do that.

reasonable is the key word there. A crisp packet is of such low value that spending time washing them is entirely unreasonable.

*A* crisp packet maybe, but it doesn't take long to combine it with
many others.

it would take me forever. We don't eat crisps.

;-)

If crisp packets were aggregated for parcelled disposal, most other things would be too.

Many other things a

https://www.terracycle.com/en-GB/brigades

The value of the space required would far outstrip the value added by doing this, even if one ignored the extra labour sorting everything.

See above. Everybody does their 'bit', that's the point.


Burying them in landfill is not damaging, dropping them on the beach is.

Assuming they make it to landfill, as you say, and don't end up
everywhere else.

You chose to buy / take / eat it, you then have to dispose of it
properly.

Now, if you can't engineer it to say drop a wodge of crisp packets
into a local drop off point, as part of your normal journey then maybe
you shouldn't buy them in the first place.

complete nonsequitur.

Only to you.

no it just is. You're putting the trivial before the nontrivial.

So you say.

You're virtue-fying something of near zero value.

It's nothing to do with any 'value'.

it absolutely is

Nope.


If everyone took crisp packets to a dedicated recycler the world would be worse off, not better.

BS.

Time

'Time' maintaining the planet?

it's not maintaining the planet at all. The planet is fine whether packets are buried or washed & melted.

For how long (and we are talking of the planet as the home for human
life, not some other weasel thing).

energy

When passing?

Even if one is passing, which for most people is not the case, it still takes time & energy.

Yes, but relatively little and far less than the alternatives in
effort and cost. Landfill holes don't dig, line, compress, cover,
compress and cap themselves you know?

& money would have been misspent achieving a purely trivial benefit.

Trivial to you I'm guessing. It's not trivial to me, my family or any
of the thousands (millions?) of people who are 'bothering.

If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Moving crisp packets from landfill to a remelt operation is pretty trivial, yes.

It is, if it's done by the people, just as easy as putting them in a
bin and having a binman carry them to the yard, unload, possibly sort,
reload then from the yard to a landfill site.


The various governments are now making manufacturers factor the
efficient disposal / recycling into their products and some are
obliged to accept products back when we have finished with them (a
feature we have already paid for of course).

See, for too long (since we were all generally well off) we have been
buying stuff with no regard what will happen to it when we are
finished with it and many have been happy to just 'throw stuff away'
when often there isn't such a place. So that means stuff has to be
stored (tyres / fridges), burned or buried in a hole in the ground,
all of which have come back to haunt us.

very little needs to be stored,

I didn't say it needs to be stored, I said it is being stored
*because* there isn't yet a sufficient need or efficient system for
dealing with them in the quantities they are getting.

if it is being stored it's because those in charge of it believe it needs to be stored.

Quite, often till they can work out how to best process it and that
doesn't include burying or burning in many cases.

nuclear waste is the main example. But even what little of that I produce doesn't need storing. Burned & buried is not haunting us.

Of course they are. Burning increases pollution and global warming
gasses

2 problems we have little of and none of respectively

From your POV.


(even if it does recoup some of the energy) and burying
requires space and resources and can have negative side effects
(chemical leaching into groundwater and explosive gas buildup),

/every/ disposal option has downsides.

Of course?

Remelt wastes money that could be spent on more useful things.

From your POV. Others must disagree with you or they wouldn't be doing
it.


not to
mention the locking away of resources that may one day be more
valuable than the houses they have built on them.

if so they'll ultimately be mined.

And so even less efficient than dealing with them today (which is what
they are doing).

It's not a sound argument to not use valuable land now.

Eh?


What would be better is to not buy the thing in the first place,
repair it if it goes wrong, re-purpose it into something else / useful
or recycle it in it's core components (so it can be recycled more
efficiently).

In many cases sure. Also in many cases not.

ATM.

FWIW I'd like to see a comprehensive recycling/repair machine developed. One day it'll happen.

If by 'machine' you mean 'system', if so I agree.

See, years ago, if you pulled down a building, it would nearly all get
dumped. Now, all the materials are separated (steel, copper,
aluminium, plastics) and sold to 1) recycle them and 2) offset the
cost to the demolition firm (they factor this into their pricing of
the job). The concrete gets crushed into a smaller aggregate and
often left on site, sold to the developers to use as a valuable
material. Less vehicles, better for the locals and environment and
less waste all round.


Society is grossly wasteful, but many things really are not worth repairing, repurposing etc.

'Worth' again and by whose standards?

you could always start with the market value

You could, many wouldn't. See, things are often worth more to some
than any monetary value. I could easily have bought a new washing
machine to replace my failing one but instead I took a nearly new (13
months) one that was broken, repaired it and used it for the next 8
years. I didn't do that to save time or money (although I did), I did
it because it was better all round.

I took an otherwise written-off washing machine that wasn't
economically repairable (by conventional means) and repaired it and it
lasted another 8 years.

You may throw away something that someone else would repair, keep and
use.

heh, it's usually the other way round

Well there you go then ... and I'm guessing you don't always do it to
save time or money? A car is a classic example of that were replacing
a small bit can keep all the other bits from having to be recycled.

snip

Foiled plastic pouches use far less material per 4 pouches than 1 metal tin.

Maybe, but if it takes 6 x the energy to recycle the foil pouches (and
we should till be build a catapult big enough to launch such waste
into the sun g) then the tin wins.

no, we should just not recycle them. That's the sensible option for now.

Why, when there is a company that is recycling them 'now'?

https://www.terracycle.com/en-GB/brigades/petfood


And there are other differences that far outweigh that issue.

Such as?

cost, whether kitty tolerates eating the same flavour 4 times in a row etc.

Then get a dog. ;-)

You know, the genuine issues.

Issues that pale into insignificance when we have filled all the holes
with our rubbish and the sky's are black from burning the rest.

I'm all for better handling of the waste stream, I think what we do now is lousy, but so many people prioritise trivial waste matters far above their real worth, and that is a pointless cost, not a virtue.

I'm sure they will / do, but something is better than nothing, even if
it's not the best thing, as long as it's done correctly.

so vague as to be meaningless

Again, I suspect just to you. ;-)


snip

As you ask, are these people actually thick? Are we asking too much of
them with the instruction, 'Take the top off the milk bottle before
putting it in the recycling box', or 'flatten all cardboard boxes' ...
because these people simply can't understand *why* they have been
requested so? Or is it they CBA to take the responsibility for their
own waste in a way that allows the council to keep their rates down?

Explaining things once seldom gets the message across.

Then we need to look closer at our education system?

People aren't going to know what the problem is unless collectors leave a label stating clearly what the issue is.

And they sometimes do.

The reality is those running such schemes cba to make them work.

No, they actually do, by re distributing the leaflets, putting up
advertising, social media and newsletters and the like. They are
desperate to make it work because they need it to work, or risk
putting the rates up and losing votes at the next election.


Maybe schools should dump religious education and replace them with
classes on *Why* we all need to be a good citizens?


School education needs a huge overhaul imho

On that we agree 100% then. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 24 January 2020 20:03:31 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Friday, 24 January 2020 13:24:55 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 23 January 2020 18:06:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote

Anoher fact is that during WWII due to rationing the UK city
populations
were healtheir than they are today, apart from being killed by bombs
that
is.

Myth.

Nope, fact.

They were on average healthier than in 39,

So it isnt a myth.

but we live a good bit longer today than in the 40s.

Irrelevant to whether rationing during WW2 did
see everyone eat considerably more healthily
during that tine. And also got more exercise
growing their own food with plenty of them too.

but we live a good bit longer today than in the 40s.

For other reasons like antibiotics, vaccination,
control of infectious disease and much better
medical treatment of stuff like heart attacks
and strokes, not due to diet.

was this guy dropped on his head or something?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On 22/01/2020 19:05, Bill Wright wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 14:04:29 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 22/01/2020 12:30, T i m wrote:

p.s. Since I saw it mentioned here, we care saving crisp / snack
packets as I believe Walkers will take them is 5kg batches. We are
looking for a good way to store them as they can take up a bit of room
unless compressed somehow (and we don't want to knot them up as I'm
not sure how they re-process them).



How long does it take to collect 5 kg of crisp bags? And do they really
recycle them, or just burn them?

They just burn them. Obviously. They aren't going to fill them with crisps and glue them shut are they? It's ridiculous what some people do just to make themselves feel good.


I think most of the collection points are at schools and the kids are
told that the packets will be recycled.

It keeps them happy.


--
Adam

alan_m wrote:

So far the total number of retuned crisp packets are equivalent to
around 1 days worth of UK production of crisps/packets.

I thought my ears were deceiving me yesterday, when I heard on the radio
about Tesco removing plastic outer wrappers from multibuy tins,
supposedly this was going to save 350 *MILLION* tonnes of plastic per year!

The BBC have now corrected this to 350 tonnes on their website, The
Independent is still going with the 350 million number, did Tesco ****
up the press release?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tesco-plastic-packaging-tins-pollution-environment-waste-a9299791.html

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:17:06 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


was this guy dropped on his head or something?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

YOU certainly keep bull****ting your way FAST into your grave, you abnormal
senile trolling pest!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:28:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:


snip


You are just too naive to have a constructive discussion with on this topic.

This is the classic response with left brainers, those with cognitive
bias, they think *they* are the only ones with the right answers, the
right POV when *because* of their restricted views they are often the
furthest from such.

So what they then do is the hit-n-run / peanut gallery thing and then
run away (to lick their wounds, not because they concede they could be
wrong, but because they don't understand why everyone doesn't roll
over and agree with them). ;-(

No wonder they never learn anything (especially how other people can
see things differently to them and be right).

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 03:39:48 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

I think most of the collection points are at schools and the kids are
told that the packets will be recycled.

Do you have proof that they aren't then?

It keeps them happy.

As does the money they earn for the school for doing so.

But you knew that didn't you?

Cheers, T i m

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:28:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:


snip


You are just too naive to have a constructive discussion with on this topic.

This is the classic response with left brainers, those with cognitive
bias, they think *they* are the only ones with the right answers, the
right POV when *because* of their restricted views they are often the
furthest from such.

So what they then do is the hit-n-run / peanut gallery thing and then
run away (to lick their wounds, not because they concede they could be
wrong, but because they don't understand why everyone doesn't roll
over and agree with them). ;-(

No wonder they never learn anything (especially how other people can
see things differently to them and be right).

Cheers, T i m


Pffft! Pots & kettles OCD i m !
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:16:19 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Jimk
wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:28:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:


snip


You are just too naive to have a constructive discussion with on this topic.

This is the classic response with left brainers, those with cognitive
bias, they think *they* are the only ones with the right answers, the
right POV when *because* of their restricted views they are often the
furthest from such.

So what they then do is the hit-n-run / peanut gallery thing and then
run away (to lick their wounds, not because they concede they could be
wrong, but because they don't understand why everyone doesn't roll
over and agree with them). ;-(

No wonder they never learn anything (especially how other people can
see things differently to them and be right).



Pffft! Pots & kettles OCD i m !

And that's all you can offer is it Jimmy? (Oh, and I know the answer
to that btw).

I wonder at what point you (and your kind) will work out the
difference between ****ter and a *discussion* group?


Cheers, T i m

On 24/01/2020 23:12, Ray wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ray
wrote:

But its hard to claim that whats done to produce reasonably
spreadable margarine is particularly natural.

You could say that about butter if you were so inclined.

Take cream, shake, add salt.Â* Pretty sure thats a long way off
margarine
production.

Leave out the salt.

Why?

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldnt naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

It's natural for 35% of humans.

--
Max Demian

On 24/01/2020 14:30, alan_m wrote:
On 24/01/2020 13:40, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:21:17 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products is
labelled unsweetened?

You aren't very bright are you?

"* contains naturally occurring sugars"

So why the label unsweetened on one carton and not the other two?
Naturally occurring sugar added to two products and not the other?

You do seemÂ* to be lacking some knowledge about how food labelling
works. Call sugar something else and add a label saying no added sugar.

They could describe a bag of sugar as "no added sugar" if they wanted to.

--
Max Demian

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:57:37 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

snip

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldn’t naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

It's natural for 35% of humans.

Not to drink the lactate of another species it isn't?

We might do it, but it's not 'natural' and it's especially not natural
after we have weaned?

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 11:04:51 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 24/01/2020 14:30, alan_m wrote:
On 24/01/2020 13:40, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:21:17 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products is
labelled unsweetened?

You aren't very bright are you?

"* contains naturally occurring sugars"

So why the label unsweetened on one carton and not the other two?
Naturally occurring sugar added to two products and not the other?

You do seem* to be lacking some knowledge about how food labelling
works. Call sugar something else and add a label saying no added sugar.

They could describe a bag of sugar as "no added sugar" if they wanted to.

Quite. ;-)

I think he's getting confused between 'Unsweetened' / 'No added
sugar(s)' and 'Sugar free'.

I think he is saying that the Alpro Oat original contains 'natural
sugars' :

"Our Oat drink is a great source of plant fibre and contains no added
sugars*. One taste and you’ll know, our oats are oatstanding! GOOD FOR
YOU**

* contains naturally occurring sugars

Naturally Lactose Free
100% plant-based
Vegetarian
Naturally low in fat
Naturally low in saturated fat
Without added sugars or sweeteners.
Rich in Fibre
A source of calcium. Contains vitamins B2, B12 and D."



.... and the Alpro Oat Unsweetened:

"It’s rich in fibre and calcium, with no sugars and absolutely no
sweeteners.

Naturally Lactose Free
100% plant-based
Vegetarian
Naturally low in fat
Naturally low in saturated fat
Sugar free
Without added sugars or sweeteners.
Rich in Fibre
A source of calcium. Contains vitamins B2, B12 and D.
Source of calcium and vitamins D and B12. Vitamin B12 contributes
to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue."

https://www.alpro.com/uk/products/dr.../oat-original/

So I'm guessing he wonders why it's not called 'Sugar free' ... ?

The problem with that is some people then assume it has artificial
sweeteners when it doesn't (either).


Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 25 January 2020 09:46:04 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:28:21 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

You are just too naive to have a constructive discussion with on this topic.

This is the classic response with left brainers, those with cognitive
bias, they think *they* are the only ones with the right answers, the
right POV when *because* of their restricted views they are often the
furthest from such.

So what they then do is the hit-n-run / peanut gallery thing and then
run away (to lick their wounds, not because they concede they could be
wrong, but because they don't understand why everyone doesn't roll
over and agree with them). ;-(

No wonder they never learn anything (especially how other people can
see things differently to them and be right).

Cheers, T i m

I guess that's one way to confirm what I said Have a good day.

T i m Wrote in message:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:16:19 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Jimk
wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:28:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:


snip


You are just too naive to have a constructive discussion with on this topic.

This is the classic response with left brainers, those with cognitive
bias, they think *they* are the only ones with the right answers, the
right POV when *because* of their restricted views they are often the
furthest from such.

So what they then do is the hit-n-run / peanut gallery thing and then
run away (to lick their wounds, not because they concede they could be
wrong, but because they don't understand why everyone doesn't roll
over and agree with them). ;-(

No wonder they never learn anything (especially how other people can
see things differently to them and be right).



Pffft! Pots & kettles OCD i m !

And that's all you can offer is it Jimmy? (Oh, and I know the answer
to that btw).

It's pretty much all I'm going to waste on ****s like you OCD i m ;-)

I wonder at what point you (and your kind) will work out the
difference between ****ter and a *discussion* group?

Go on tell us about all your left/right brainer apolitical
theories again ....

Oh and that gloop you put in all your tyres....

Oh and the other **** you inevitably feel the need to drone on
about at length...

Discussion?! Yawn! You're a bore mate.

It's UK.D-I-Y not UK.D-I-M - stick with the subject or stfu FFS...

--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 11:53:00 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Jimk
wrote:

snip

And that's all you can offer is it Jimmy? (Oh, and I know the answer
to that btw).

It's pretty much all I'm going to waste on ****s like you OCD i m ;-)

Thank goodness!

I wonder at what point you (and your kind) will work out the
difference between ****ter and a *discussion* group?

Go on tell us about all your left/right brainer apolitical
theories again ....

Glad to hear you were taking note.

Oh and that gloop you put in all your tyres....

.... Hanging on my every word ...

Oh and the other **** you inevitably feel the need to drone on
about at length...

.... and you just can't help reading ...

Discussion?!

Yeah, you should try it sometime.

Yawn! You're a bore mate.

What, too stupid to work a killfile Jimmy?

It's UK.D-I-Y not UK.D-I-M - stick with the subject or stfu FFS...

Oh, like you do and everyone else does (but you don't feel the need to
comment on for some reason)?

I'd ask someone to show you how you make a killfile work if I were
you, as reading everything I type is obviously way too stressful for
you. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 25/01/2020 09:52, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 03:39:48 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

I think most of the collection points are at schools and the kids are
told that the packets will be recycled.

Do you have proof that they aren't then?

It keeps them happy.

As does the money they earn for the school for doing so.

But you knew that didn't you?

Cheers, T i m


Maybe enough to pay for three new pencils for the school then?

--
Adam

On 25/01/2020 12:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 11:53:00 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Jimk
wrote:

snip

And that's all you can offer is it Jimmy? (Oh, and I know the answer
to that btw).

It's pretty much all I'm going to waste on ****s like you OCD i m ;-)

Thank goodness!

I wonder at what point you (and your kind) will work out the
difference between ****ter and a *discussion* group?

Go on tell us about all your left/right brainer apolitical
theories again ....

Glad to hear you were taking note.

Oh and that gloop you put in all your tyres....

... Hanging on my every word ...

Oh and the other **** you inevitably feel the need to drone on
about at length...

... and you just can't help reading ...

Discussion?!

Yeah, you should try it sometime.

Yawn! You're a bore mate.

What, too stupid to work a killfile Jimmy?

It's UK.D-I-Y not UK.D-I-M - stick with the subject or stfu FFS...

Oh, like you do and everyone else does (but you don't feel the need to
comment on for some reason)?

I'd ask someone to show you how you make a killfile work if I were
you, as reading everything I type is obviously way too stressful for
you. ;-)



I like reading your posts.

It's nice to know that your carers allow you to use the internet and
that you are not locked up in a padded cell all day.


--
Adam

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:54:58 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 25/01/2020 09:52, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 03:39:48 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

I think most of the collection points are at schools and the kids are
told that the packets will be recycled.

Do you have proof that they aren't then?

It keeps them happy.

As does the money they earn for the school for doing so.

But you knew that didn't you?


Maybe enough to pay for three new pencils for the school then?

Guessing again Adam?

So, say there are ~1000 kids in a secondary school and they produce
500 crisp packets a day (plus what they might each bring in from home
/ elsewhere), I'm sure they would soon have the minimum quantity of
5kg.

"5 kilograms = 1000 TerraCycle® points"
"8 kilograms = 1,600 TerraCycle® points"

"1 TerraCycle® point is worth 1 penny."

So 8kg would yield them 1600 pennies or £16.

You can get a box of ~96 2B pencils off Amazon for £15.98 (free next
day delivery with Prime).

And irrespective of what they actually get, it's pretty well all win.

The kids win when they eat the crisps (that they were going to do
anyway, unhealthy or otherwise), we all benefit if the packets don't
get burnt, go into landfill or blow around the countryside, Walkers
win some PR and recoup some of the recycling costs when they sell the
products they make from said recycled plastics and the schools /
charities win with they get a bit of cashback.

What's to dislike?

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 13:10:28 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

I like reading your posts.

Aww, that's nice Adam. ;-)

It's nice to know that your carers allow you to use the internet and
that you are not locked up in a padded cell all day.

Oh how we laughed ... (don't give up yer day job).

But thanks for playing! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 25/01/2020 14:22, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:54:58 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 25/01/2020 09:52, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 03:39:48 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

I think most of the collection points are at schools and the kids are
told that the packets will be recycled.

Do you have proof that they aren't then?

It keeps them happy.

As does the money they earn for the school for doing so.

But you knew that didn't you?


Maybe enough to pay for three new pencils for the school then?

Guessing again Adam?

So, say there are ~1000 kids in a secondary school and they produce
500 crisp packets a day (plus what they might each bring in from home
/ elsewhere), I'm sure they would soon have the minimum quantity of
5kg.

"5 kilograms = 1000 TerraCycle® points"
"8 kilograms = 1,600 TerraCycle® points"

"1 TerraCycle® point is worth 1 penny."

So 8kg would yield them 1600 pennies or £16.

You can get a box of ~96 2B pencils off Amazon for £15.98 (free next
day delivery with Prime).

And irrespective of what they actually get, it's pretty well all win.

The kids win when they eat the crisps (that they were going to do
anyway, unhealthy or otherwise), we all benefit if the packets don't
get burnt, go into landfill or blow around the countryside, Walkers
win some PR and recoup some of the recycling costs when they sell the
products they make from said recycled plastics and the schools /
charities win with they get a bit of cashback.

What's to dislike?


You.


--
Adam

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 14:39:44 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

The kids win when they eat the crisps (that they were going to do
anyway, unhealthy or otherwise), we all benefit if the packets don't
get burnt, go into landfill or blow around the countryside, Walkers
win some PR and recoup some of the recycling costs when they sell the
products they make from said recycled plastics and the schools /
charities win with they get a bit of cashback.

What's to dislike?


You.

Ere, Adam, you like guessing stuff and little quizzes here, see if you
can guess just how many fcuks I don't give! ;-)

Now, where *does* all that paint go ... ?


Cheers, T i m

On 25/01/2020 09:52, T i m wrote:

As does the money they earn for the school for doing so.

But you knew that didn't you?

It probably cost more (salary + materials) for a teacher to supervise,
package up 5kg of crisp wrappers, print out a postage label and contact
the carrier than the school gets back from Walkers.

approx 2200 empty packets = 5kg minimum weight package to send to
Walkers for rewards = £10


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Ray
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ray
wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
alan_m wrote:

On 24/01/2020 13:40, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:21:17 +0000, alan_m

wrote:

How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products is
labelled unsweetened?

You aren't very bright are you?

"* contains naturally occurring sugars"

So why the label unsweetened on one carton and not the other two?
Naturally occurring sugar added to two products and not the other?

You do seem to be lacking some knowledge about how food labelling
works. Call sugar something else and add a label saying no added
sugar.

Soya (or other grain such as oats) contains vey ltiile free sugar,
but
apple joice is added to the not-unsweetened one. Which does contain
various sweet-tasting sugers.

Why a purely mechanical extract of suigar cane is not "natural" is
a
bit of a mystery to me

Yep.

- especially as olive oil is obtained by a rather
similar process, and is, apparently, natural.

AFAiCS the only thing that is not "natural" is witchcraft.

But its hard to claim that whats done to produce reasonably
spreadable margarine is particularly natural.

You could say that about butter if you were so inclined.

Take cream, shake, add salt. Pretty sure thats a long way off
margarine
production.

Leave out the salt.

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldnt naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

Ah, so you are agreeing with me that butter is no more natural than
margarine.

No I am not. Churning and salt is nothing even remotely
like the hydrogenation of liquid fats from plants to make
a spreadable margarine. In spades when comparing olive
oil with margarine.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/01/2020 23:12, Ray wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ray
wrote:

But its hard to claim that whats done to produce reasonably
spreadable margarine is particularly natural.

You could say that about butter if you were so inclined.

Take cream, shake, add salt. Pretty sure thats a long way off
margarine
production.

Leave out the salt.

Why?

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldnt naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

It's natural for 35% of humans.

Not past the age of about 12 months or so.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 02:59:03 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile Ozzietard's troll****

02:59??? And you are up and trolling ALREADY, you senile cretin?

Can't you even TRY to hide how miserable you are, you clinically insane
trolling senile asshole?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 02:48:43 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

No I am not.

Oh, yes, you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole, senile Rodent! So, when did start
with your trolling tonight again? I'm soon gonna find out! BG

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2020 12:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 11:53:00 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Jimk
wrote:

snip

And that's all you can offer is it Jimmy? (Oh, and I know the answer
to that btw).

It's pretty much all I'm going to waste on ****s like you OCD i m ;-)

Thank goodness!

I wonder at what point you (and your kind) will work out the
difference between ****ter and a *discussion* group?

Go on tell us about all your left/right brainer apolitical
theories again ....

Glad to hear you were taking note.

Oh and that gloop you put in all your tyres....

... Hanging on my every word ...

Oh and the other **** you inevitably feel the need to drone on
about at length...

... and you just can't help reading ...

Discussion?!

Yeah, you should try it sometime.

Yawn! You're a bore mate.

What, too stupid to work a killfile Jimmy?

It's UK.D-I-Y not UK.D-I-M - stick with the subject or stfu FFS...

Oh, like you do and everyone else does (but you don't feel the need to
comment on for some reason)?

I'd ask someone to show you how you make a killfile work if I were
you, as reading everything I type is obviously way too stressful for
you. ;-)



I like reading your posts.

It's nice to know that your carers allow you to use the internet and that
you are not locked up in a padded cell all day.

Rather like the old Bedlam where visitors were allowed to poke
a stick at the loonys chained to the wall for a bit of entertainment.

Cept now we can do it from the comfort of our homes or sofas
in the case of Brian with no real risk of getting bitten by the rabid.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 03:43:29 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH subnormal senile idiot's troll****

03:43? LOL Your first post tonight was at 02:43!!! You REALLY know no shame
AT ALL, eh, senile cretin?

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 25/01/2020 14:50, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 14:39:44 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

The kids win when they eat the crisps (that they were going to do
anyway, unhealthy or otherwise), we all benefit if the packets don't
get burnt, go into landfill or blow around the countryside, Walkers
win some PR and recoup some of the recycling costs when they sell the
products they make from said recycled plastics and the schools /
charities win with they get a bit of cashback.

What's to dislike?


You.

Ere, Adam, you like guessing stuff and little quizzes here, see if you
can guess just how many fcuks I don't give! ;-)

Now, where *does* all that paint go ... ?


Cheers, T i m


No idea where the paint goes? I was wondering how you can walk carrying
such a big chip on your shoulder.

--
Adam

On 25/01/2020 11:11, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:57:37 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

snip

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldnt naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

It's natural for 35% of humans.

Not to drink the lactate of another species it isn't?

We might do it, but it's not 'natural' and it's especially not natural
after we have weaned?

As natural as eating a mixed diet of plants and animals. It's what we
do, and have done for thousands of years, and as a consequence our
digestion can do it. "Lactase persistence" (as it is called) evolved in
select populations about 8,000-10,000 years ago.

You'll be saying that cooking food isn't 'natural' next.

--
Max Demian

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 18:11:57 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

Now, where *does* all that paint go ... ?


No idea where the paint goes?

Strange?

I was wondering how you can walk carrying
such a big chip on your shoulder.

I can walk fine Adam (broad shoulders and thanks for asking) and I'm
glad to hear I'm living rent free in your head. ;-)

We having fun yet?

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 18:15:15 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 25/01/2020 11:11, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:57:37 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

snip

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldn’t naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

It's natural for 35% of humans.

Not to drink the lactate of another species it isn't?

We might do it, but it's not 'natural' and it's especially not natural
after we have weaned?

As natural as eating a mixed diet of plants and animals.

How come? After we wean we (humans) go onto solids (typically plants
and animals) but we don't generally go back to our mothers milk?

It's what we
do,

It's what some do yes. Many cultures consider it strange.

and have done for thousands of years,

True, but not with all sorts of chemicals in the milk, or with it
pasteurised, homogenised and 'skimmed'?

and as a consequence our
digestion can do it.

'Some peoples' digestion can do it.

"Lactase persistence" (as it is called) evolved in
select populations about 8,000-10,000 years ago.

Because that was about the time some people(s) started drinking milk
*after* weaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

"The majority of people around the world remain lactase
nonpersistent,[1] and consequently are affected by varying degrees of
lactose intolerance as adults."

You'll be saying that cooking food isn't 'natural' next.

Why will I?

The point is, we (humans (and most other mammals)) stop drinking our
mothers milk when we wean and go onto solids. If we were to continue
drinking milk it makes more sense to do so from our own species (at
least)!

We learned to cook some foods (~2 *Million* years ago) because we
could then eat and / or extract more calories from easier it and so
doing so was far from unnatural (it was part of our evolution).

I'm not aware of many people who are allergic to cooked food but many
are allergic to milk (after weaning). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Ray wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Ray
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ray
wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
alan_m wrote:

On 24/01/2020 13:40, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:21:17 +0000, alan_m

wrote:

How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products is
labelled unsweetened?

You aren't very bright are you?

"* contains naturally occurring sugars"

So why the label unsweetened on one carton and not the other two?
Naturally occurring sugar added to two products and not the other?

You do seem to be lacking some knowledge about how food labelling
works. Call sugar something else and add a label saying no added
sugar.

Soya (or other grain such as oats) contains vey ltiile free sugar,
but
apple joice is added to the not-unsweetened one. Which does contain
various sweet-tasting sugers.

Why a purely mechanical extract of suigar cane is not "natural" is
a
bit of a mystery to me

Yep.

- especially as olive oil is obtained by a rather
similar process, and is, apparently, natural.

AFAiCS the only thing that is not "natural" is witchcraft.

But its hard to claim that whats done to produce reasonably
spreadable margarine is particularly natural.

You could say that about butter if you were so inclined.

Take cream, shake, add salt. Pretty sure that's a long way off
margarine
production.

Leave out the salt.

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldn't naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

Ah, so you are agreeing with me that butter is no more natural than
margarine.

No I am not. Churning and salt is nothing even remotely
like the hydrogenation of liquid fats from plants to make
a spreadable margarine. In spades when comparing olive
oil with margarine.

I don't think they hydrogenate oil to make margarine any more. It has
become medically unfashionable. They instead use higher melting point
fats in the first place, chiefly the ecologically disastrous (allegedly)
palm oil.


--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Ray wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Ray
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ray

wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
alan_m wrote:

On 24/01/2020 13:40, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:21:17 +0000, alan_m

wrote:

How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products
is
labelled unsweetened?

You aren't very bright are you?

"* contains naturally occurring sugars"

So why the label unsweetened on one carton and not the other
two?
Naturally occurring sugar added to two products and not the
other?

You do seem to be lacking some knowledge about how food
labelling
works. Call sugar something else and add a label saying no added
sugar.

Soya (or other grain such as oats) contains vey ltiile free
sugar,
but
apple joice is added to the not-unsweetened one. Which does
contain
various sweet-tasting sugers.

Why a purely mechanical extract of suigar cane is not "natural"
is
a
bit of a mystery to me

Yep.

- especially as olive oil is obtained by a rather
similar process, and is, apparently, natural.

AFAiCS the only thing that is not "natural" is witchcraft.

But its hard to claim that whats done to produce reasonably
spreadable margarine is particularly natural.

You could say that about butter if you were so inclined.

Take cream, shake, add salt. Pretty sure that's a long way off
margarine
production.

Leave out the salt.

No thanks, its much more natural than breeding cows to
produce lots of milk when they arent calving and drinking
what humans wouldn't naturally be consuming after about
the age of 12 months or so, let alone making butter from it.

Ah, so you are agreeing with me that butter is no more natural than
margarine.

No I am not. Churning and salt is nothing even remotely
like the hydrogenation of liquid fats from plants to make
a spreadable margarine. In spades when comparing olive
oil with margarine.

I don't think they hydrogenate oil to make margarine any more.

There is no other way to make oils into a spreadable margarine.

It has become medically unfashionable. They instead
use higher melting point fats in the first place,

Not possible when most of what comes from plants are oils.

chiefly the ecologically disastrous (allegedly) palm oil.

Palm oil is used in some cooking but isnt what margarine is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margar...turing_process

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 15:06:03 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 25/01/2020 09:52, T i m wrote:

As does the money they earn for the school for doing so.

But you knew that didn't you?

It probably cost more (salary + materials) for a teacher to supervise,
package up 5kg of crisp wrappers, print out a postage label and contact
the carrier than the school gets back from Walkers.

If you cost such things that way or are you just scraping the bottom
of the barrel now? How much 'supervision' do you think such a thing
would take, if it's supervised at all. And why a teacher, why not a
student, parent or other volunteer? Have you never been to a school
fundraising thing and seen how much work they often do just to raise a
tenner?

approx 2200 empty packets = 5kg minimum weight package to send to
Walkers for rewards = £10

Yup and with a secondary school with ~1000 students, and people using
it as a drop off point, how long before it's way more than 5kg?

Why are you so against this?

Cheers, T i m