Anybody holding two cans of tomato soup can see any differences between products. It requires no special training except the capacity to read.

And a capacity to calculate. You used the word "ratio" in your previous post. That would probably cause the eyes of 75% of this country to glaze over.

I did concede that I had the advantage of a pretty terrific mom. However, any person who possesses even slight critical thinking skills can read and learn about the nutritional values of food and its impact on the body.

OK, there we have obstacle number one. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think critical thinking skills are in short supply these days. I believe you are being overly optimistic about the ability of people to recognize when they *don't* know something, and to seek out answers. Intellectual curiosity isn't highly valued in this country.

Regarding your personal revelation about the spatula and its cousins, I did not know that. Perhaps I overstated the influence of my mother. So, there is a thing called a "pancake turner?" You learn something new every day.

Or don't, as the case may be. My point was, after three separate Home Ec classes -- at least the form they took when I was in high school -- I still couldn't tell you what constituted a serving size of any given foodstuff, nor could I tell you how many calories were contained therin OR what amount of physical activity would be required to zero out my total calorie intake for the day.

I still maintain that the majority of Americans have access to potentially healthy groceries. Thanks to you, your disposable income and gentrification, the minority who didn't is shrinking. Thanks for solidifying my position (and, inadvertently, expanding the nutrtional options of your less affluent neighbors).

I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of "gentrification." I'm not. This it the third neighborhood I've lived in here where it's happened, because I keep having to move when my rent goes up. Within two years my neighborhood will be almost completely devoid of working-class and even middle-class people. As people with money move in and buy up property, property values and rents rise. Locals are priced out of their homes, and they will move out to still-cheaper neighborhoods with their crappy grocery stores. When the average income level rises to a certain point, Shaws or Stop & Shop will buy Market Basket, re-do the entire place, put an organic foods aisle in there, three "international foods" aisles, a sushi bar, and a cheese cask. The folks who shop at Market Basket now sure as hell won't be shopping there in two years; they won't be able to afford it.

Again, anybody can make the choice to exercise--they need only the will to do so. I would hardly call that "mocking cruelty."

I called talking about your "CHOICE!" to live within biking distance of your work mocking cruelty, and I stand by it.

As far as your request for personal information...

I'm not interested in your personal life, I'm interested in your financial situation. I'm also interested in your educational background, because I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you make more money and have more, or higher quality, education than the average American.

As far as my being kind in my personal life, I recognize that one can cultivate an online personality that can be very different from how they may conduct themselves in the "real world." It is sort of fun to provoke reactionary loons on message boards not unlike this one. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to identify the difference as well.

Actually, I'm pretty much on the level. The biggest difference is that I'm a little more circumspect in my usage of the word "cunt", which I use in real life a little more sparingly than I do here.

In 2000, only 28 states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent. By 2005, only 4 states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent, while 17 states had prevalence rates equal to or greater than 25 percent, with 3 of those having prevalences equal to or greater than 30 percent (Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia). The obesity epidemic, on the scale we see now, is a relatively new phenomenon, statistically speaking, and it coincides with the rise of computer/internet usage. I stand by my original claim and have successfully provided data to support it. Can you do the same with your perspective?

The core of your thesis is that obesity rates have a correlation with computer and internet usage, but you have provided no statistics whatsoever to back up your assertion! Where are your numbers regarding computer ownership and usage, and internet access and usage? Do you really think that Louisiana, Mississippia, and West Virginia also have the highest rate of computer and internet usage to correlate with their increasing girth?

On the contrary, poor nutrition and obesity seem to correlate more closely with low and moderate income levels -- not the people most likely to be shelling out their money on internet access. If I were you, I'd look at three distinct economic downturns -- one in the mid-80s, another in the early 90s, and a third beginning in 2002. Look at the closing of factories, the offshoring of things like call center jobs (which had been housed in some of those states you cite), and the "Wal-Mart"-ification of the Midwest and rural South with its subsequent depression of wages and centralization of food distribution.

I will say that I am a little turned on by your ferocity. Could you provide your vital statistics? Maybe in another ten years we could go out together.

No, thanks. I once spent two years someone equally smug and condescending. I see no need to do it again.

I really am a nice guy.

Yeah, he thought so too.