it's not you. it's me. i don't like you.
kisrael: the sidebar is the best part
kisrael: baby pictures as soon as we get them
kisrael: I whine, you feel better
kisrael: Read it somewhere else first
kisrael: bizarre in-jokes and diet tips
kisrael: the quicker, slicker clicker-pumper
kisrael: amazing what you can do with notepad
kisrael: safety goggle required (change in graphic required)
kisrael: privacy is dead

Ok, I could go on, but I have to get more housework done for the baby.
----EB Sun Jun 11 08:19:04 2006
whatever happened to
--Nick B Sun Jun 11 12:20:44 2006
Ugh... I just read "The Queen of Cans and Jars" thread on Wow, Kirk. That one can talk cross purposes with the best of them.  You state your willingness to modify your current WOE, by trying to take control of your intake quantity within your current diet. QCJ comes along and rather nastily says, "Convert or perish!" 

Sounds like somebody is rather low on blood sugar. But not all of it can be blamed on QCJ. Kirk, just because you are on a diet doesn't mean you should feed the left overs to the trolls :)
----EB Sun Jun 11 12:26:39 2006
what about- the man, the myth, the legend
--Candi Sun Jun 11 14:01:20 2006 the man, the myth, the penchant for interminable introspective rambling
--Kirk Sun Jun 11 14:07:43 2006
Nick B... good point! The domain is still mine, but I haven't been paying much attention to its proper hosting. is an amusing joke but not very practical in many ways.
--Kirk Sun Jun 11 14:08:29 2006
heh, I've read to mid-thread and the Queen of Cans and Jars is indeed an absolutist. Ugh! She writes like she talks, which is certainly going go be loaded with sanctimony. Example: "I'm sure you just think I'm being mean, but I've been reading this group
for years now and rest assured that the long term successes? Are far
fewer than the failures." The question mark doesn't make sense in a written context, but indicates a verbal rise in tenor, indicating she's about to drop a rhetorical hammer. It's as ugly to read as it is to synthesize the emotion behind it. 
--LAN3 Sun Jun 11 17:30:39 2006
Sweet & Low gives you cancer, doesn't it? I'd rather die of a heart attack than from cancer, any day.
--The_Lex Sun Jun 11 19:03:58 2006
No, Sweet & Low does not give you cancer, and you should be careful about making such statements, even on the internet. If S&L gave you cancer, it would be swarming with lawyers and the FDA would've pulled it by now. Since it's a food additive and not a drug, the FDA doesn't have to weigh any positives that might offset the negative aspects of a sweetener that gives you cancer, and selfish lawyers who would sue in this case never ever weigh the possible positives that might offset even the tiniest most rare negative.

I believe that Aspartame is the particular sweetener that allegedly gave cancer to lab rats, but they received massive doses that a human could not practically manage without deliberation.
--LAN3 Mon Jun 12 12:37:12 2006
Actually, according to wikipedia, it's only relatively recently that the FDA and Congress had de-regulated saccharin, which is the main ingredient of Sweet n Low.

1991 - The FDA withdraws its 1977 proposal to ban saccharin
2000 - US Congress repeals law requring that sacchrin products carry health warning labels

But be careful not to eat the Canadian Sweet n Low, even though I guess it's illegal for non-diabetics to have the stuff.

As for the libel aspects of my comment, I wasn't making a statement, I was questioning and trying to verify.

But nonetheless, you make a good point to watch out what I say while on the Web. Especially on, apparently a popular blog.
--The_Lex Mon Jun 12 22:22:38 2006

Comments Disabled... (Thanks Dirty Rotten Spammers)
Feel free to write kirkjerk at gmail dot com!