Soy bran?

[John Graem]

Does anyone know of any data on the composition of soy bran?
It's not listed in the USDA or any other database I can
find. One of the supplement companies claims that its soy
bran tablets have 6 times the fiber of wheat bran, but this
can hardly be right, since wheat bran is nearly 50% fiber.
I'm looking for a high-fiber supplement that does not
produce much gas.

[Kamalakar]

"John Graeme" <jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127573963.037780.79900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Does anyone know of any data on the composition of soy bran?
> It's not listed in the USDA or any other database I can
> find. One of the supplement companies claims that its soy
> bran tablets have 6 times the fiber of wheat bran, but this
> can hardly be right, since wheat bran is nearly 50% fiber.
> I'm looking for a high-fiber supplement that does not
> produce much gas.

Rice and oat bran are excellent and have lots of soluble
fiber which is good for lowering cholesterol . Wheat bran
is mostly insoluble fiber which produce flatulence and
heaviness .

Kam

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[gehayw]

John Graeme wrote:
> Does anyone know of any data on the composition of soy bran?
> It's not listed in the USDA or any other database I can
> find. One of the supplement companies claims that its soy
> bran tablets have 6 times the fiber of wheat bran, but this
> can hardly be right, since wheat bran is nearly 50% fiber.
> I'm looking for a high-fiber supplement that does not
> produce much gas.

I read somewhere that, unlike wheat and rice brans, soy bran
has a high glycemic index rating. Rather surprising for a high
fiber product.

[Nick]

geh...@hotmail.com wrote:
> John Graeme wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any data on the composition of soy
> > bran? It's not listed in the USDA or any other database I
> > can find. One of the supplement companies claims that its
> > soy bran tablets have 6 times the fiber of wheat bran, but
> > this can hardly be right, since wheat bran is nearly 50%
> > fiber. I'm looking for a high-fiber supplement that does
> > not produce much gas.
>
> I read somewhere that, unlike wheat and rice brans, soy bran
> has a high glycemic index rating. Rather surprising for a
> high fiber product.

High carbohydate bran? I thought fiber was indigestable?
Get my point?

[Tc]

soy is not real food.

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html

TC

John Graeme wrote:
> Does anyone know of any data on the composition of soy bran?
> It's not listed in the USDA or any other database I can
> find. One of the supplement companies claims that its soy
> bran tablets have 6 times the fiber of wheat bran, but this
> can hardly be right, since wheat bran is nearly 50% fiber.
> I'm looking for a high-fiber supplement that does not
> produce much gas.

[John Graem]

Nick wrote:
> geh...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > John Graeme wrote:
> > > Does anyone know of any data on the composition of soy
> > > bran? It's not listed in the USDA or any other database
> > > I can find. One of the supplement companies claims that
> > > its soy bran tablets have 6 times the fiber of wheat
> > > bran, but this can hardly be right, since wheat bran is
> > > nearly 50% fiber. I'm looking for a high-fiber
> > > supplement that does not produce much gas.
> >
> > I read somewhere that, unlike wheat and rice brans, soy
> > bran has a high glycemic index rating. Rather surprising
> > for a high fiber product.
>
> High carbohydate bran? I thought fiber was indigestable? Get
> my point?

Bran is the outer hull of grains; it is not all fiber. My
question is what percentage fiber soy bran contains, and, if
known, the types of fiber. Wheat bran, for example, is about
43% fiber, and contains a higher percentage of cellulose (an
insoluble fiber), while oat bran is only about 15% fiber. But
I can't find any data for soy bran.

[outsor]

Here we go again, some people are uncapable of learning in the
face of counter facts, which is easy to understand as most
members of lifestyle food cults suffer from the malady. For
each and every item noted in the link below there are multiple
sources of research to show the exact contrary. This is normal
in science where a concensus is still forming. In place of
cherry picking research as this lifestyle food cult does, the
fair and much more useful approach would be to do a survey of
all the research. In the absence of that this can only be seen
as propaganda for the cultists to mummer about, it is not
science where counter facts change minds:

"soy is not real food.

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html"

[Tc]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> Here we go again, some people are uncapable of learning in
> the face of counter facts, which is easy to understand as
> most members of lifestyle food cults suffer from the malady.
> For each and every item noted in the link below there are
> multiple sources of research to show the exact contrary.
> This is normal in science where a concensus is still
> forming. In place of cherry picking research as this
> lifestyle food cult does, the fair and much more useful
> approach would be to do a survey of all the research. In the
> absence of that this can only be seen as propaganda for the
> cultists to mummer about, it is not science where counter
> facts change minds:
>
> "soy is not real food.
>
> http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html"

Soy is and never will be REAL FOOD!

TC

[Tc]

TC wrote:
> outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> > Here we go again, some people are uncapable of learning in
> > the face of counter facts, which is easy to understand as
> > most members of lifestyle food cults suffer from the
> > malady. For each and every item noted in the link below
> > there are multiple sources of research to show the exact
> > contrary. This is normal in science where a concensus is
> > still forming. In place of cherry picking research as this
> > lifestyle food cult does, the fair and much more useful
> > approach would be to do a survey of all the research. In
> > the absence of that this can only be seen as propaganda
> > for the cultists to mummer about, it is not science where
> > counter facts change minds:
> >
> > "soy is not real food.
> >
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html"
>
> Soy is and never will be REAL FOOD!
>
> TC

Here is some more interesting reading on soy:

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/home.htm

TC

[Tc]

TC wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> > > Here we go again, some people are uncapable of learning
> > > in the face of counter facts, which is easy to
> > > understand as most members of lifestyle food cults
> > > suffer from the malady. For each and every item noted in
> > > the link below there are multiple sources of research to
> > > show the exact contrary. This is normal in science where
> > > a concensus is still forming. In place of cherry picking
> > > research as this lifestyle food cult does, the fair and
> > > much more useful approach would be to do a survey of all
> > > the research. In the absence of that this can only be
> > > seen as propaganda for the cultists to mummer about, it
> > > is not science where counter facts change minds:
> > >
> > > "soy is not real food.
> > >
> > > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html"
> >
> > Soy is and never will be REAL FOOD!
> >
> > TC
>
> Here is some more interesting reading on soy:
>
> http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/home.htm
>
> TC

more reading about soy:

http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/food/soy_-
story.html

TC

[Tc]

TC wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > TC wrote:
> > > outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> > > > Here we go again, some people are uncapable of
> > > > learning in the face of counter facts, which is easy
> > > > to understand as most members of lifestyle food cults
> > > > suffer from the malady. For each and every item noted
> > > > in the link below there are multiple sources of
> > > > research to show the exact contrary. This is normal in
> > > > science where a concensus is still forming. In place
> > > > of cherry picking research as this lifestyle food cult
> > > > does, the fair and much more useful approach would be
> > > > to do a survey of all the research. In the absence of
> > > > that this can only be seen as propaganda for the
> > > > cultists to mummer about, it is not science where
> > > > counter facts change minds:
> > > >
> > > > "soy is not real food.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html"
> > >
> > > Soy is and never will be REAL FOOD!
> > >
> > > TC
> >
> > Here is some more interesting reading on soy:
> >
> > http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/home.htm
> >
> > TC
>
> more reading about soy:
>
> http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/food/soy_st-
> ory.html
>
> TC

Canary in a coalmine? How about a parrot in the real world?

http://www.theparrotsocietyuk.org/genarticle22.shtml

TC

[Tc]

TC wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > TC wrote:
> > > TC wrote:
> > > > outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> > > > > Here we go again, some people are uncapable of
> > > > > learning in the face of counter facts, which is easy
> > > > > to understand as most members of lifestyle food
> > > > > cults suffer from the malady. For each and every
> > > > > item noted in the link below there are multiple
> > > > > sources of research to show the exact contrary. This
> > > > > is normal in science where a concensus is still
> > > > > forming. In place of cherry picking research as this
> > > > > lifestyle food cult does, the fair and much more
> > > > > useful approach would be to do a survey of all the
> > > > > research. In the absence of that this can only be
> > > > > seen as propaganda for the cultists to mummer about,
> > > > > it is not science where counter facts change minds:
> > > > >
> > > > > "soy is not real food.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html"
> > > >
> > > > Soy is and never will be REAL FOOD!
> > > >
> > > > TC
> > >
> > > Here is some more interesting reading on soy:
> > >
> > > http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/home.htm
> > >
> > > TC
> >
> > more reading about soy:
> >
> > http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/food/soy_-
> > story.html
> >
> > TC
>
> Canary in a coalmine? How about a parrot in the real world?
>
> http://www.theparrotsocietyuk.org/genarticle22.shtml
>
> TC

Keep on reading:

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/soy.htm

TC

[outsor]

"> > > > Soy is and never will be REAL FOOD!"

links snipped

It only adds to my comments, the anti soy web pages cherry
pick from the broad range of research to form their
propaganda. Where are the easy to find research studies
showing the contrary, which in a normal scientific survey
would be covered as well? If soy is not "real" food, what is
it? The greatest use of soy products is as animal food which
shows up on the table in meat and dairy products. This only
continuing evidence of the mindset non-science propaganda of
the lifestyle food cults.

[Tc]

out...@citynet.net wrote:
> "> > > > Soy is and never will be REAL FOOD!"
>
> links snipped
>
> It only adds to my comments, the anti soy web pages cherry
> pick from the broad range of research to form their
> propaganda. Where are the easy to find research studies
> showing the contrary, which in a normal scientific survey
> would be covered as well? If soy is not "real" food, what is
> it? The greatest use of soy products is as animal food which
> shows up on the table in meat and dairy products. This only
> continuing evidence of the mindset non-science propaganda of
> the lifestyle food cults.

Show me one study that found something positive about soy as a
food for humans that wasn't funded by the soy industry. One.

TC

[outsor]

"Show me one study that found something positive about soy
as a food for humans that wasn't funded by the soy
industry. One."

Aside from your stipulation being irrelevant scientifically,
you are obviously in dire need of some education in the real
world which your now current diet of lifestyle food cult
sources doesn't afford. The one below is not rare in the
least, it was in the news recently so I chose it in its full
version to produce the relevant information:

'Prospective cohort study of soy food consumption and risk of
bone cture among postmenopausal women.'

Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1890-1895.

"CONCLUSION: Soy food consumption may reduce the risk of
fracture in postmenopausal women, particularly among those in
the early years following menopause."

Financial Disclosure: None.^

Funding/Support: This study was supported by research grant^
R01CA70867 from the National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda,^ Md.^

Role of the Sponsor: The funding body had no role in the
design^ and conduct of the study; in the collection,
management, analyses,^ and interpretation of the data; or in
the preparation, review,^ or approval of the manuscript.^

Disclaimer: Dr Shu had full access to all of the data in the^
study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data^
and the accuracy of the data analyses.^

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Center for
Health Services Research, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center,
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn
(Drs Zhang, Shu, Yang, and Zheng); and Department of
Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Shanghai, China (Drs
H. Li, Q. Li, and Gao).

[outsor]

On the soy question I have suggested a survey of all the
science would be a much better resource for someone wanting to
learn about the topic as can be known scientifically. In place
of the lifestyle food cultist cherry picking articles, here is
one such example written in lay language:

"Soy: Health Claims for Soy Protein, Questions About Other
Components"

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html

[Tc]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "Show me one study that found something positive about soy
> as a food for humans that wasn't funded by the soy
> industry. One."
>
> Aside from your stipulation being irrelevant scientifically,
> you are obviously in dire need of some education in the real
> world which your now current diet of lifestyle food cult
> sources doesn't afford. The one below is not rare in the
> least, it was in the news recently so I chose it in its full
> version to produce the relevant information:
>
> 'Prospective cohort study of soy food consumption and risk
> of bone cture among postmenopausal women.'
>
> Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1890-1895.
>
> "CONCLUSION: Soy food consumption may reduce the risk of
> fracture in postmenopausal women, particularly among those
> in the early years following menopause."
>
> Financial Disclosure: None.^
>
> Funding/Support: This study was supported by research grant^
> R01CA70867 from the National Institutes of Health,
> Bethesda,^ Md.^
>
> Role of the Sponsor: The funding body had no role in the
> design^ and conduct of the study; in the collection,
> management, analyses,^ and interpretation of the data; or in
> the preparation, review,^ or approval of the manuscript.^
>
> Disclaimer: Dr Shu had full access to all of the data in
> the^ study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the
> data^ and the accuracy of the data analyses.^
>
> Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Center for
> Health Services Research, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center,
> Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn
> (Drs Zhang, Shu, Yang, and Zheng); and Department of
> Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Shanghai, China
> (Drs H. Li, Q. Li, and Gao).

The study was supported by a grant from NIH. Was this entirely
tax money or was it money "donated" to the NIH for this study?
And was the study entirely funded by the NIH or was it
partially funded by the NIH, and if so, where did the rest of
the funding come from?

TC

[Tc]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> On the soy question I have suggested a survey of all the
> science would be a much better resource for someone wanting
> to learn about the topic as can be known scientifically. In
> place of the lifestyle food cultist cherry picking articles,
> here is one such example written in lay language:
>
> "Soy: Health Claims for Soy Protein, Questions About Other
> Components"
>
> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html

The FDA is hardly the epitome of scientific integrity and
honesty. They are just salespeople from the industry they
are supposed to regulate. If you are trying to make a case
based on the science, you had better find a better source
than the FDA.

TC

[outsor]

"The FDA is hardly the epitome of scientific integrity and
honesty. They are just salespeople from the industry they are
supposed to regulate. If you are trying to make a case based
on the science, you had better"

I'm making no scientific poit, only an example of a source
that surveys all the science about soy and how it came to
make guidelines for use in food. Your opinion of the fda is
irrelevant, if there is error in their survey then show it,
otherwise who cares about your reaction. If you would care
to provide another source which surveys all the research,
let's see it.

[outsor]

"The study was supported by a grant from NIH. Was this
entirely tax money or was it money "donated" to the NIH for
this study? And was the study entirely funded by the NIH or
was it partially funded by the NIH, and if so, where did the
rest of the funding come from?"

You asked, I provided, your rhetorical questions are
irrelevant to your original request. If you are interested
to know about the contents of the grant then do your own
homework. If you are interested in knowing sources of nih
funds then do your own homework. This is all public
information, do your own home work. Just because you can
ask questions doesn't change the results, you asked and you
were answered fully and your lifestyle food cult conspiracy
clouded views have been addressed, again reminding you it
is irrelevant to the science of soy and health. There are
thousands of soy studies, this one is not rare, that is the
education you have now been provided, but knowing that
facts will not cloud your thinking, your education will no
doubt continue.

[Tc]

You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of
nonsense? that is laughable.

TC

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "The study was supported by a grant from NIH. Was this
> entirely tax money or was it money "donated" to the NIH for
> this study? And was the study entirely funded by the NIH or
> was it partially funded by the NIH, and if so, where did the
> rest of the funding come from?"
>
> You asked, I provided, your rhetorical questions are
> irrelevant to your original request. If you are interested
> to know about the contents of the grant then do your own
> homework. If you are interested in knowing sources of nih
> funds then do your own homework. This is all public
> information, do your own home work. Just because you can ask
> questions doesn't change the results, you asked and you were
> answered fully and your lifestyle food cult conspiracy
> clouded views have been addressed, again reminding you it is
> irrelevant to the science of soy and health. There are
> thousands of soy studies, this one is not rare, that is the
> education you have now been provided, but knowing that facts
> will not cloud your thinking, your education will no doubt
> continue.

[Tc]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "The FDA is hardly the epitome of scientific integrity and
> honesty. They are just salespeople from the industry they
> are supposed to regulate. If you are trying to make a case
> based on the science, you had better"
>
>
> I'm making no scientific poit, only an example of a source
> that surveys all the science about soy and how it came to
> make guidelines for use in food. Your opinion of the fda is
> irrelevant, if there is error in their survey then show it,
> otherwise who cares about your reaction. If you would care
> to provide another source which surveys all the research,
> let's see it.

You are using a proven corrupt arm of the food industry to
provide "science" to prove your point. You can't build a house
on a foundation of sand and expect it to hold up. It doesn't
stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

TC

[outsor]

"You are using a proven corrupt arm of the food industry to
provide "science" to prove your point. You can't build a house
on a foundation of sand and expect it to hold up. It doesn't
stand up to even cursory scrutiny."

I'm presenting that page that happenes to be a fda one to
show an example of how a survey of all of the research on soy
can be done. It is in contrast to the lifestyle food cult
pages you present which cherry pick only those which agree
with themselves. Again, if you have another example of a
source which reviews all the research then let us see it.
This smear by association is irrelevant. If their science is
flawed then show us how by counter examples from sources not
devoted to a lifestyle food cult propaganda mill. The science
done on soy is independent of the fda, we need not even
mention it to make the scientific case for its health
benefits, and cautions as well. Your opinion of the fda is
proof of nothing but what it says about you and how you reach
non scientific conclusions. If one wants opinions, go to the
nearest tavern any night of the week.

[outsor]

"You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of
nonsense? that is laughable."

When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal post
moving of introducing new questions is a dead end. You asked
for an example of a non food industry funded study on soy
showing health benefits and one was provided. Now being in a
corner we see this kind of squirming and whining as a
response. Asked and answered, full proof given, next question
please, as we continue your education; all the time going
slowly so as not to create too much confusion when presented
with facts that undermine the lifestyle food cult propaganda.

[Tc]

out...@citynet.net wrote:
> "You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of
> nonsense? that is laughable."
>
> When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal
> post moving of introducing new questions is a dead end. You
> asked for an example of a non food industry funded study on
> soy showing health benefits and one was provided. Now being
> in a corner we see this kind of squirming and whining as a
> response. Asked and answered, full proof given, next
> question please, as we continue your education; all the time
> going slowly so as not to create too much confusion when
> presented with facts that undermine the lifestyle food cult
> propaganda.

You still haven't shown me a study that is clearly devoid of
industry influence.

TC

[Doug Frees]

<outsor@citynet.net> wrote in message
news:43395db6$0$280$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> "You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of
> nonsense? that is laughable."
>
> When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal
> post moving of introducing new questions is a dead end. You
> asked for an example of a non food industry funded study on
> soy showing health benefits and one was provided. Now being
> in a corner we see this kind of squirming and whining as a
> response. Asked and answered, full proof given, next
> question please, as we continue your education; all the time
> going slowly so as not to create too much confusion when
> presented with facts that undermine the lifestyle food cult
> propaganda.

This is classic TC. Every study you show that counters his
position he then claims that the study was funded by the devil
incarnate. He is not just a cynic but a ludicrous cynic. He
thinks achieves legitimacy with his "bad guy behind every
study." With such fanatic assumptions, make you wonder how he
sleeps at night. Hmm, maybe he doesn't.

Put him in your kill file.

-DF

[outsor]

"You still haven't shown me a study that is clearly devoid of
industry influence."

O please, this continued whining and squirming is getting
embarrassing now. I provided the complete confirmation that is
the standard of ama publishing. The present and past head of
the ama were part of what is now a spreading practice of
making sure any influence or connection that could suggest
interference in research is declared, they are very hard
headed about this now. I can't however confirm that the
author's grandmother doesn't eat soy based foods and has
twisted her grandson's arm to show a biased research result,
you sure got me on that one. If you want to demonstrate a
problem it is now for you to do so, as said before, do your
own homework and stop whining. I 'm sure you have already done
a google on the author's name and came up empty handed to show
conflict and this is what we get from that frustration.

[Tc]

Who do you work for?

TC

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "You still haven't shown me a study that is clearly devoid
> of industry influence."
>
> O please, this continued whining and squirming is getting
> embarrassing now. I provided the complete confirmation that
> is the standard of ama publishing. The present and past head
> of the ama were part of what is now a spreading practice of
> making sure any influence or connection that could suggest
> interference in research is declared, they are very hard
> headed about this now. I can't however confirm that the
> author's grandmother doesn't eat soy based foods and has
> twisted her grandson's arm to show a biased research result,
> you sure got me on that one. If you want to demonstrate a
> problem it is now for you to do so, as said before, do your
> own homework and stop whining. I 'm sure you have already
> done a google on the author's name and came up empty handed
> to show conflict and this is what we get from that
> frustration.

[Jt]

On 27 Sep 2005 09:33:39 -0700, "TC"
<tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Who do you work for?
>
>TC
>

You lost

[Tc]

jt wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2005 09:33:39 -0700, "TC"
> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Who do you work for?
> >
> >TC
> >
>
> You lost

Notice how quiet he/she got when I put that question to
him/her? I'd like an answer, or would that be too
incriminating, hence the silence? Obviously I won.

TC

[Tc]

Doug Freese wrote:
> <outsor@citynet.net> wrote in message
> news:43395db6$0$280$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> > "You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of
> > nonsense? that is laughable."
> >
> > When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal
> > post moving of introducing new questions is a dead end.
> > You asked for an example of a non food industry funded
> > study on soy showing health benefits and one was provided.
> > Now being in a corner we see this kind of squirming and
> > whining as a response. Asked and answered, full proof
> > given, next question please, as we continue your
> > education; all the time going slowly so as not to create
> > too much confusion when presented with facts that
> > undermine the lifestyle food cult propaganda.
>
> This is classic TC. Every study you show that counters his
> position he then claims that the study was funded by the
> devil incarnate. He is not just a cynic but a ludicrous
> cynic. He thinks achieves legitimacy with his "bad guy
> behind every study." With such fanatic assumptions, make you
> wonder how he sleeps at night. Hmm, maybe he doesn't.
>
> Put him in your kill file.
>
> -DF

More than 70% of the science coming out of the US is industry
funded. Industry does not put money into anything without
expecting a quantifiable return on investment (ROI in
financial-speak). There is nothing cynical about understanding
the direct ramifications of industry funding on the "science"
they fund. It is common sense. Anyone who suggests that
industry funds studies with millions of their hard-earned
dollars without influencing and affecting the outcome of the
studies must be either completely naive and stupid or they
stand to benefit directly by taking such a stand. The simple
fact is that money talks, especially in the US.

TC

[Tc]

TC wrote:
> Who do you work for?

Sure got quiet in here all of a sudden.

TC

[outsor]

"> >Who do you work for?
> >
> >TC
> >
>
> You lost

Notice how quiet he/she got when I put that question to
him/her? I'd like an answer, or would that be too
incriminating, hence the silence? Obviously I won.

No and no amount of red herring questions will change it. You
asked, you were answered, you came out swinging and fell flat
on your face, fini. My grandmother doesn't work for any food
industry group.

[Tc]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "> >Who do you work for?
> > >
> > >TC
> > >
> >
> > You lost
>
> Notice how quiet he/she got when I put that question to
> him/her? I'd like an answer, or would that be too
> incriminating, hence the silence? Obviously I won.
>
> No and no amount of red herring questions will change it.
> You asked, you were answered, you came out swinging and fell
> flat on your face, fini. My grandmother doesn't work for any
> food industry group.

I will concede defeat.... just as soon as you tell us who you
work for and what interests you have in the food industry.

TC

[outsor]

"I will concede defeat.... just as soon as you tell us who you
work for and what interests you have in the food industry."

Concession neither required or requested, simple observation
suffices. I have intrest in the food industry as a daily
consumer. My grandmother is implicated however as she sold
some canned things from her garden.

[Tc]

out...@citynet.net wrote:
> "I will concede defeat.... just as soon as you tell us who
> you work for and what interests you have in the food
> industry."
>
> Concession neither required or requested, simple observation
> suffices. I have intrest in the food industry as a daily
> consumer. My grandmother is implicated however as she sold
> some canned things from her garden.

You say that you have intrest in the food industry as a daily
consumer but you do not explicitly say that you have no other
interest. Pretty sneaky language.

TC

[outsor]

"You say that you have intrest in the food industry as a daily
consumer but you do not explicitly say that you have no other
interest. Pretty sneaky language."

That's the way we daily consumers are, explicitly sneaky.

[Tc]

out...@citynet.net wrote:
> "You say that you have intrest in the food industry as a
> daily consumer but you do not explicitly say that you have
> no other interest. Pretty sneaky language."
>
> That's the way we daily consumers are, explicitly sneaky.

Correction, that is how you industry whores are, explicitly
sneaky and dishonest.

TC

[outsor]

"Correction, that is how you industry whores are, explicitly
sneaky and dishonest."

I take great exception to this, this has gone too far, how
dare you say this. No one should be allowed to slander whores
like this.

[Tc]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "Correction, that is how you industry whores are, explicitly
> sneaky and dishonest."
>
> I take great exception to this, this has gone too far, how
> dare you say this. No one should be allowed to slander
> whores like this.

I know, it kinda adds another underserved level of nastiness
to the already maligned reputation of prostitutes.

TC

[outsor]

"I know, it kinda adds another underserved level of nastiness
to the already maligned reputation of prostitutes."

Prostitutes, who said anything about them, it is the slander
of whores we daily consumers find most objectionable.
Prostitutes eat soy products and are by definition not to be
relied upon for anything.

[Tc]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "I know, it kinda adds another underserved level of
> nastiness to the already maligned reputation of
> prostitutes."
>
>
> Prostitutes, who said anything about them, it is the slander
> of whores we daily consumers find most objectionable.
> Prostitutes eat soy products and are by definition not to be
> relied upon for anything.

... and you still have evaded the question ...

TC

[outsor]

"... and you still have evaded the question ..."

Stop, I can't take the pressure anymore, I am not now nor have
I ever been a member of the communist party. But, please
please please don't ask me if I'm still beating my wife.