The ADL and the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax: Fact and Fiction
National Front
For many Gentile consumers, it comes as a shock to realize that they pay a
Jewish tax on each and every pre-packaged food item with a "U" or "K" stamp on
the package. These are the two main organizations within the United States that
issue Kosher-certification and its accompanying tax, though there are 273 other
Kosher-certification organizations that have other symbols within the U.S.
alone.(1)
The ADL (or Anti-Defamation League), an offshoot of B'nai B'rith that got its
start after the Atlanta chapter head of B'nai B'rith was arrested and convicted
by a jury of murdering a 12-year-old girl, Mary Phagan, in a cruel manner(2),
has long since countered Gentile resentment towards this Rabbinical Kosher
Excise Tax. Typically, the ADL says that such resentment towards the extra fees
paid on food for the rabbis' certification is the hallmark of anti-Semites.
While it stands to reason that in some isolated cases this may in fact be true,
there is a growing concern among many others over these extra fees that Gentile
consumers are forced to pay, particularly with the downward trend of the
economy.
In an article called "The Kosher Tax Hoax," the ADL sought to allay many
Gentiles' fears and concerns over the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. However,
upon reviewing the "facts" presented by B'nai B'rith's ADL, one quickly sees
that it is filled with outright lies or, at best, half-truths.
From the beginning of the ADL's article, it suggests that it is false that
"only a small segment of the American population desires such markings, and
that even the meanings of the labels are guarded secrets deliberately kept from
non-Jews to trick them into paying the 'kosher tax.'"
If you are a typical non-Jewish reader, it is easy to see that both these
statements are true, not false as the ADL claims. Have you personally desired
such markings? And, if it is not a "secret" of sorts, why do they not display a
symbol that makes it clear that a fee is indeed paid to a Jewish organization
for Kosher certification?
Lubomyr Prytulak, a retired Canadian psychology professor, has long argued that
a Star of David (or, Magen David, as it is often called) should also accompany
the Kosher certification to make its meaning well known.(3) This makes sense,
and it would be more fair to Gentile consumers, most of whom are unaware of the
Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. If the ADL and Jewish organizations were
genuinely concerned with honesty, they would have done this long ago.
Jewish organizations do not necessarily seem to be concerned with honesty in
this matter, however. In some advertisements of products bearing "K" or "U"
symbols in magazines, these symbols will often actually be "hidden" or "masked
off." However, when these same items are advertised in Jewish publications,
these symbols might actually be larger and have an arrow pointing to them.(4)
This is, of course, deceptive advertising and goes to show that there are
concerns among Jews or the companies that sell these Kosher products of the
meaning behind these symbols becoming known.
While the ADL suggests that the claim "only a small segment of the American
population desires such markings" is an anti-Semitic lie, the truth speaks
otherwise. In fact, according to the Kosher-certification agency Star-K,
"Integrated Marketing Communications reports that approximately 2.5 million
Jews consume kosher food products."(5) So what about the other 297.5 million
people in the United States? Why are we then forced to pay for their Jewish
religious dietary habits; why are we forced to pay for the Rabbinical Kosher
Excise Tax?
The ADL argues that "the cost to the consumer for this service is a miniscule
fraction of the total production overhead; it is so negligible in practical
terms as to be virtually non-existent." Is this true? I certainly would have no
problems if Jews wanted to certify products as being Kosher or not at entirely
their own costs.
As you might suspect, such talk by the ADL is either an outright lie on its
part or, at best, deceptive. For example, the ADL report cites a
"representative of the Heinz Company." This "representative" reportedly said
that the cost is "so small we can't even calculate it." This Heinz
"representative" also said that the extra business it received more than made
up for the costs associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. Who was this
"representative"? If what he stated was true, why is his name not even given in
the ADL's article for verification? Did this person even exist?
Quite to the contrary of the ADL's article, the Canadian Jewish News of March
20, 2003, has an article with an interesting headline: "Heinz Canada trims
kosher product line." Many of the Canadian Heinz's products were no longer to
be certified Kosher (thereby avoiding the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax,
symbolized by Canada's "COR" - Council of Orthodox Rabbis' marking), although
the products would still be kept Kosher for Jews (out of decency for Jewish
consumers not concerned with whether the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax had been
paid). Apparently, according to (named) Heinz spokeswoman Anna Relyea, this was
done to "keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
customers." The reasons given by Heinz for the decision were due to "how
complex the manufacturing is, what the savings were and so on."(6) In any
event, these costs that were reported by the ADL as being "so small, we can't
even calculate it" could, in fact, be calculated and must have been
significant.
Another item that seems to be deliberately distorted in the favor of the ADL is
a reported "fact" given by the Birds Eye company. According to the ADL's
article, General Food's Birds Eye unit paid only "6.5 millionths (.0000065) of
a cent per item." It would be more interesting to know how much General Foods
itself paid in real dollars altogether for the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax,
but the ADL avoids such talk for obvious reasons. But is the paltry sum of
.0000065 cents per item true?
Again, this seems like a deliberately deceptive move on the ADL's part (or that
of one of its members who was employed at Birds Eye). Does anyone really
believe that a rabbi would fly to Birds Eye foods if he only received 6.5 cents
for each $1 million of business Birds Eye did? If Birds Eye did, say, $100
million in business, that would be a paltry $650.00 in fees by the
certification agency. This wouldn't even pay for the time involved, let alone
travel and paperwork. So is the ADL lying? Probably not. If you'll notice, it
says ".0000065 of a cent per item." I believe that Birds Eye sells corn, peas,
pieces of broccoli, et cetera. In effect, the ADL's "informer" was probably
meaning that every single piece of corn, every single pea, and every single
bean--that is, every "item"--incur the cost of .0000065 cents. Added up, this
then makes sense.
Of course, if the Jewish agency that charges the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax
would care to make available how much it charged this company in real dollars
for the previous year, that would be a start to being honest. But, if you
carefully examine the web, you will not find one company that has reported this
fee to the rabbis. Why is this? From a logical standpoint, it stands to reason
that the rabbis must have some type of confidentiality agreement in which if
the company reveals its cost it is then penalized to a certain extent. What
other reasoning could there be that not one single company discloses its costs
associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax?
The ADL then goes on to cite a company that reportedly had its business
increase as a result of Kosher certification. Is this true? Possibly. One must
keep in mind, however, what Dr. Prytulak refers to as the "Pyramid Scheme" at
his website. In effect, this is how it works: A large company is courted by
Jews, who fill its company heads with promises of a greater market appeal--but
only, of course, if they pay this initially "small fee" (in comparison with the
company's total business) for certification. The company agrees. However, now
the company must buy all its supplies from other "Kosher companies." Aside from
the obvious need to purchase food products from Kosher suppliers, this might
even include the steel for its manufacturing process and the cleaning supplies,
to name a couple other items now considered Kosher. In any event, if the
suppliers do not give the main company a Kosher product, the company cannot do
business with them. (After all, products prepared by lowly Gentile companies do
not meet the Jewish religious dietary standards as set forth by rabbis without
due compensation.) In effect, if your company happens to be one of the
suppliers to another company, you risk much business by failing to abide by the
Jewish standards (and, of course, paying them your accompanying fees).
Is the extra business really there for companies that decide to go Kosher? Not
according to some businesses. The Albuquerque Tribune reported one company
bagel company as wanting to be certified Kosher, but "the expense was more than
the ... bagel company could muster." The owner stated, "We occasionally get
asked for it but not that often." Another company decided to drop its "Star-K
certification after one year." The owner of that company reported, "Kosher
wasn't opening up any markets for me. I thought it was too much for my little
operation."(7)
As you might expect, later in the ADL's article, it spends a significant amount
of its article questioning the "motives" of those who question the motives of
the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. Since the ADL cannot obviously refute the
content of the argument, it has to resort to attacking the organizations and
people who bring forth legitimate arguments against an illegitimate tax that
Gentile consumers are forced to pay, which is unknown to the vast majority of
them. Of course, the ADL itself has a few skeletons in its closet, so to speak.
Books such as "Conspiracy Against Freedom" or "The Ugly Truth about the ADL"
(available from www.addall.com/used ) tell much of the stories kept behind the
headlines.
In an attempt to make the ADL's concerns seem legitimate, it cites Dr. Ed
Fields, who states:
"All of this is superstitious nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with
improving the quality of any food product. Still, this clever scheme of
requiring kosher labeling has become a multi-million dollar business today!"
Obviously, since Dr. Fields says this--and since the ADL makes him out to be a
"bad" person through the use of its personal attacks (for failing to cooperate
with the false-logic that Kosher is somehow wholesome)--we are to believe what
he says is false. But in fact, it is true. What the ADL fails to mention, here,
is that many Jews have corroborated what Dr. Ed Fields has stated, and these
Jews are even cited by Dr. Fields. For example, the Washington Post of 2
November 1987 is cited, quoting orthodox Rabbi Schulem Rubin:
"Kosher doesn't taste any better; Kosher isn't healthier; Kosher doesn't have
less salmonella. You can eat a Holly Farm chicken which sells for 39 cents a
pound on sale and next taste a Kosher chicken selling for $1.69 a pound and not
tell the difference. There's a lot of money to be made. Religion is not based
on logic."
Of course, facts have always been a problem for the ADL, which is why it has
attacked Dr. Fields's character so much. If you cannot refute the argument, the
ADL seemingly reasons, attack the person's character who makes the argument.
The ADL's article then goes on to suggest that Jews are not the only ones who
prefer Kosher. It argues, "Some kosher marketing officials estimate there may
be as many as six million Americans who seek out Kosher foods in the
supermarket. Of these only 1.5 million are Jewish. Moslems and Seventh Day
Adventists also adhere to certain aspects of the Jewish dietary laws." Is this
true? Yes, it certainly is. You see, the article says "some Kosher marketing
officials..." Who are these "Kosher marketing officials"? If you said the ADL,
you might have just won the prize.
While I have not taken the time to see what the Seventh Day Adventists believe,
I looked into if the Muslims found the Kosher certification acceptable as
meeting their religious dietary habits as well. What does the Islamic Food
Council of America have to say about Kosher meeting the religious dietary
requirements of orthodox Muslims, or "Halal," as it is commonly known.
According to the Halal Digest of July 2000, it states,
"Many Kosher producers believe that Muslims accept Kosher as being Halal. In
fact, Muslims do not accept Kosher certification as being a substitute for
Halal certification. Some Muslims may have believed that Kosher slaughter was
similar to Halal, but they are learning that this is not true and are demanding
Halal certified products. Internationally, only proper Halal certification is
acceptable and monitoring agencies are being established to ensure compliance."
There is one major difference (that even I know of) between the Halal method of
slaughter and that of the Kosher method. The Halal method is actually done in a
more humane manner, as it allows the animal to be stunned first. However, this
is not the case with Kosher slaughter, which requires the animal to experience
the full amount of pain and be fully conscious.
Continuing, the ADL then goes on to say that "the bulk of Kosher shoppers
appear to
be consumers who believe the Kosher certification ... means higher quality
food." Is this true? Well, the ADL gives no proof that there are a significant
number of consumers who are non-Jewish and who buy Kosher products because they
"believe" (with the word "believe" being the key-word here) Kosher "means
higher quality food." However, as to the false claim that Kosher is a "higher
quality food," the response to this is best summed up by Rabbi Irving
Silverman, who is cited in the 20 March 1987 edition of The Sun-Sentinel:
"There's one misconception that I'd like to clear up. There's a perception that
Jewish dietary laws are steeped in health considerations. That's not so at all.
It is a commitment to a strict adherence to a tradition. I'm not Kosher because
it's healthier; I'm Kosher because my parents were Kosher, and my grandparents
were Kosher. It's a commitment!"
In conclusion, the ADL admits, rather hesitatingly it appears, that consumers
do, in fact, "pay a higher price" at "Kosher butcher shops." While this is nice
of the ADL to actually concede this relatively minor detail, it does not answer
the greater question: How much are we Gentiles paying for the Rabbinical Kosher
Excise Tax overall? What are the real costs to us as consumers?
This figure of costs associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax is
largely unknown due to Jews not disclosing how much they charge to the various
companies that receive Kosher certification. In perhaps what can only be viewed
as a mistake by the rabbis who oversee the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax, in
1987 they disclosed that they expected Kosher steel to bring them in
$700,000.00 of fees per year.(8)
How much is the total cost today? While the figure is unknown, there are other
things we can tell. For instance, according to Star-K Kosher certification and
EBizAsiaLink, $165 billion worth of food received Kosher certification.(9) But
does this figure also include non-food products such as steel and aluminum
foil, which are not actually Kosher despite the fees that are paid?(10)
Probably not, so the figure may be much greater. Another figure that we can
look at to determine cost is taken from an article appearing in the Detroit
News. It stated that one Kosher certification company brought in an estimated
$20 million.(11) You begin to understand how much money we are talking about
when you realize, as stated at the beginning of this article, that there are
275 such Kosher-certification organizations in the United States, and a total
of 400 worldwide.(12)
It must be recognized that in addition to the fees paid to rabbis for the
Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax, there are other fees that a company might incur
simply in an effort to ensure that its product is indeed Kosher. For example,
they could not process pork on non-Kosher beef on the same equipment as Kosher
beef, lest it be "contaminated." Equipment might then have to be added or
changed. Suppliers might need to be changed. Special training would need to be
administered. Perhaps, even a full-time rabbi might need to be hired to oversee
the production.
The total costs associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax from all this
is certainly in the billions, if not the trillions, of dollars.
Footnotes:
1.) See many of these symbols at Kosher Quest:
http://www.kosherquest.org/html/Reliable_Kosher_Symbols.htm
See article appearing in the Detroit News about the number of Kosher agencies.
It is said that there are total of 400 worldwide, with the vast majority (275)
in the U.S.:
http://www.detnews.com/2001/food/0104/09/c09-208222.htm
2.) While many articles attest to this, the most honest and even-handed book
about the matter is called "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" (New Jersey: New
Horizon Press, 1987). Leo Frank, the Jewish head of Atlanta's B'nai B'rith, had
been convicted by a jury and his appeals were shown to be without merit.
Nowadays, in what appears to be an effort to further divide Blacks and Whites,
the ADL says that racist White Southern racists wrongly convicted the White Jew
Leo Frank in an effort to let the true guilty Black perpetrator of the crime go
free. For obvious reasons, such talk defies logic. Seventy years after the
fact, Jews were able to secure a "pardon" for Frank; of course, one cannot
receive a "pardon" without having been guilty. The pardon was not granted due
to his innocence but, rather, due to the fact that the townspeople decided to
hang Frank for his vicious crime, as the little girl Mary Phagan had been
brutally murdered.
3.) Dr. Prytulak's "Kosher" website can be viewed at www.ukar.org , and from
there there are about 30 pages of links at his website that deal with the
Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax.
4.) The newspaper "The Truth at Last," edited by Dr. Ed Fields, showed one such
example where an ad for Dobie Pad deliberately had its "U" symbol masked off in
a magazine with a mostly non-Jewish readership but not in a publication
intended mostly for Jews. Such deceptive practices should be illegal, according
to "Truth in Advertising Laws." Jews typically engage in ad hominem invectives
when this is pointed out - that is, they try to attack the source that presents
these facts since they cannot refute the facts themselves. In this case, Jews
will say that Dr. Fields is an "anti-Semite, blah, blah, blah..." Even if what
they say is true--and it seems more like he is simply a concerned American
patriot--it does not excuse such practices.
5.) See Star-K's website:
http://www.star-k.org/ind-advantages-market.htm
6.) Canadian Jewish News, March 20, 2003:
http://www.cjnews.com/front5.asp
7.) The Albuquerque [NM] Tribune:
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/business02/072902_business_kosher.shtml
8.) Newsweek, "Hey, Have I Got an Alloy for You!" 23 March 1992, p. 49.
9.) Star-K:
http://www.star-k.org/ind-advantages-market.htm
EBizAsiaLink:
http://www.ebizasialink.com/fairs.asp?ArticleID=2378&SID=156
10.) For a list of items that are not Kosher, see Kosher Quest:
http://www.kosherquest.org/html/kosher_without_supervision.htm
11.) http://www.detnews.com/2001/food/0104/09/c09-208222.htm
12.) See footnote 1.
If you would like to get on this mailing list, respond to this e-mail with the
comment "Zionists suck" in the header.
If you would like to get off it, respond to this e-mail with the comment
"Zionists are God's chosen people" in the header.
See excepts from the video shocking the nation, "Zionist War Crimes: The Case
for the Prosecution." 56K (requires Windows Media Player, usually installed in
most PCs):
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=329340&group=webcast
(NOTE: If you have trouble with the Windows Media Video file that is linked
from the above web page, right-click on it and choose "Save target as…" from
the options available. You can then download it and avoid any buffering
problems.)
Robert Coates
They make crackers, chips and breakfast cereals there under their own brand
and private branding for supermarkets. He says every two weeks they shut
down the line and thoroughly steam clean all the equipment. That is when
the rabbi comes in to certify the plant for the kosher seal on the products.
The rabbi charges $5,000 for the visit. They would do the cleaning in any
event. The justification is that they use animal fats to fry the chips and
dairy solids in the cereals, and they need to certify that they do not come
in contact with each other.
I don't know the capacity of the factory, but it is huge, supplying major
brand products throughout the Midwest. It would stand to reason the cost is
a small fraction of a penny per package. On the other hand, it is $5,000
for about a two hour visit by one person. It is $130,000 a year, but the
company sells millions.
My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a third of
their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it, but
that's what he says.
I have started looking out for kosher seals on packages, and I have found
that with some products (pickles, for example; go figure) it is virtually
impossible to find a product without the seal. Of course, anything made
with pork is safe.
Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as it may
seem. Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to wash
the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim people in
areas with very small muslim populations have been advised by imams that
kosher comes closer to halal than not.
I would never by meat or meat products that were halal or kosher. They are
not any cleaner than conventionally butchered meats, and it is undeniable
that the animals suffer horribly and needlessly.
This reminds me of when I worked for a department store and decided I was
only going to buy American-made garments. After a few weeks of checking
labels, I realized I would end up naked following that rule. We don't
always have choices.
"National Front" <nationa...@aol.comNoHoaxes> wrote in message
news:20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> from the above web page, right-click on it and choose "Save target as."
sailor57
> The ADL and the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax: Fact and Fiction
>
>
I posted the ADL piece(actually, there are several articles).I think
people should read it and decide for themselves.If they have doubts
after reading both theirs and yours, it then becomes a matter of
credibility:who should they believe-the ADL or National Front?
Here is the evidence on National Front's credibility:
The defense rests.
Sheldon Liberman
Robert Coates wrote:
> A friend of mine is a line supervisor at a major food manufacturing plant.
> They make crackers, chips and breakfast cereals there under their own brand
> and private branding for supermarkets. He says every two weeks they shut
> down the line and thoroughly steam clean all the equipment. That is when
> the rabbi comes in to certify the plant for the kosher seal on the products.
> The rabbi charges $5,000 for the visit. They would do the cleaning in any
> event. The justification is that they use animal fats to fry the chips and
> dairy solids in the cereals, and they need to certify that they do not come
> in contact with each other.
>
> I don't know the capacity of the factory, but it is huge, supplying major
> brand products throughout the Midwest. It would stand to reason the cost is
> a small fraction of a penny per package. On the other hand, it is $5,000
> for about a two hour visit by one person. It is $130,000 a year, but the
> company sells millions.
Plus that amount is gross. How much of that goes to the Kosher
supervisor after he's paid for transportation and lodging. Is your
friends plant located in or by a city where a Koshering Agency is likely
to reside? Most are not.
>
> My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a third of
> their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it, but
> that's what he says.
I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish, and the demand by
non-Jews for kosher products is growing. You're right that, within
limits, the cost of koshering a products per unit decrease as more
product is shipped. Try telling the anti-Semites that.
A little know fact about Kosher dietary laws is that insects are just as
forbidden as pork. So, not only does the average consumer have more
comfort against insects per se, but against sanitary conditions
conducive to infestation.
>
> I have started looking out for kosher seals on packages, and I have found
> that with some products (pickles, for example; go figure) it is virtually
> impossible to find a product without the seal. Of course, anything made
> with pork is safe.
What is that supposed to mean? If you're specifically trying to avoid
products that are are kosher, then yes, pork is safe. But, since you
acknowledge that there is no kosher tax and the products have a quality
edge, why seek non kosher products?
>
> Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as it may
> seem. Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to wash
> the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
>
> It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim people in
> areas with very small muslim populations have been advised by imams that
> kosher comes closer to halal than not.
>
Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat. The
Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no problem
with that.
> I would never by meat or meat products that were halal or kosher. They are
> not any cleaner than conventionally butchered meats, and it is undeniable
> that the animals suffer horribly and needlessly.
>
Wrong. They are cleaner by virtue of the fact that kosher products must
be completely drained of blood. While the reason stipulated in the Torah
has nothing to do with health concern (drinking blood was a pagen
ritual), nevertheless impurities that may be contained in the blood do
not pose a problem. Moreover, an animal that has a life threatening
disease is disqualified from kosher ritual slaughter.
As for suffering, the Torah is very explicit that causing animals to
suffer in any way is intolerable. That is why ritual slaughter is a very
skillful art. The knife must be of a certain sharpness and the incision
must be exact as to effect maximum bloodletting (presumably the animal
does not feel it's life ebbing). Moreover, Torah law forbids the
slaughter of a mother and child in the same day.
> This reminds me of when I worked for a department store and decided I was
> only going to buy American-made garments. After a few weeks of checking
> labels, I realized I would end up naked following that rule. We don't
> always have choices.
>
>
I hope I'm reading this wrongly, but if, all other things equal, you
avoid kosher products just to avoid benefiting Jews, then you will end
up ethically naked.
Philip Mathews
"National Front" <nationa...@aol.comNoHoaxes> wrote in message
news:20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> The ADL and the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax: Fact and Fiction
> For many Gentile consumers, it comes as a shock to realize that they pay a
> Jewish tax on each and every pre-packaged food item with a "U" or "K"
stamp on
> the package.
Well it ought to, since your statement is a lie!
Kosher certification is a service for which manufacturers who desire it pay
a fee. It is no different from hundreds of other services manufacturers pay
for, and none of them are a tax.
The costs of this fee are so minor for the vast majority of products that no
affect on the consumer price occurs.
But the decision to seek this service is up to the manufacturer.
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."
Samuel Johnson
webm...@liberman.com
>
This type of conconction tends to be whipped by those with the desire,
but not the ability, to create computer viruses.
>
> For many Gentile consumers, it comes as a shock to realize that they pay a
> Jewish tax on each and every pre-packaged food item with a "U" or "K" stamp on
> the package. These are the two main organizations within the United States that
> issue Kosher-certification and its accompanying tax, though there are 273 other
> Kosher-certification organizations that have other symbols within the U.S.
> alone.(1)
Putz alert....
>
> The ADL (or Anti-Defamation League), an offshoot of B'nai B'rith that got its
> start after the Atlanta chapter head of B'nai B'rith was arrested and convicted
> by a jury of murdering a 12-year-old girl, Mary Phagan, in a cruel manner(2),
> has long since countered Gentile resentment towards this Rabbinical Kosher
> Excise Tax. Typically, the ADL says that such resentment towards the extra fees
> paid on food for the rabbis' certification is the hallmark of anti-Semites.
> While it stands to reason that in some isolated cases this may in fact be true,
> there is a growing concern among many others over these extra fees that Gentile
> consumers are forced to pay, particularly with the downward trend of the
> economy.
Note to readers with open minds: How often have you been "forced" to
pay higher prices off the shelf when comparable national brand
products are within the same reach as the kosher ones?
And why is he mention Mary Phagan in association with kosher symbols?
Her murder took place in 1913. A Jewish man was convicted, even though
a non-Jew confessed before sentencing. The Jew, Leo Franks, was
sentenced to death. John Slaton, the then-governor of Georgia and a
man of impeccable character, reviewed the court transcipts and
realized and inncoent man was going to die. He risked political death
(and real death) by commuting the sentence to life imprisonment, which
would at least keep Franks alive until the truth could be revealed.
Unfortunate, Franks was broken out of prison and hung by vigilantes
before that could happen, and Slaton was forced to leave the state
under a barrage of death threats. Anti-Semitism in action.
Franks was granted full pardon in March 1986.
So reader, this is the mindset you're dealing with in National Front.
>
> In an article called "The Kosher Tax Hoax," the ADL sought to allay many
> Gentiles' fears and concerns over the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. However,
> upon reviewing the "facts" presented by B'nai B'rith's ADL, one quickly sees
> that it is filled with outright lies or, at best, half-truths.
Like the Franks case?
>
> From the beginning of the ADL's article, it suggests that it is false that
> "only a small segment of the American population desires such markings, and
> that even the meanings of the labels are guarded secrets deliberately kept from
> non-Jews to trick them into paying the 'kosher tax.'"
Yes, all Jews are sworn to secrecy. Who snitched?
>
> If you are a typical non-Jewish reader, it is easy to see that both these
> statements are true, not false as the ADL claims. Have you personally desired
> such markings? And, if it is not a "secret" of sorts, why do they not display a
> symbol that makes it clear that a fee is indeed paid to a Jewish organization
> for Kosher certification?
>
I would wager that there are many markings on a can of pasta sauce,
for example, that the average consumer doesn't understand, let alone
demand. Yes, the markings mean that money was paid to a Kosher
Certification agency. But this begs 2 questions: 1) does that cost get
passed on to the consumer, and 2) are Jews the only ones benefitting
from the koshering?
If you answer yes to the first question, you're implying that a price
a company can charge for a product has nothing to do with supply and
demand, only producer costs. Ask the airlines or the oil companies or
the food manufacturing if they agree.
If you answered yes to the second question, then you'd be surpirsed to
learn that most of the demand for Kosher products is from non-Jews,
and that the brisk growth in this market derives almost entirely from
non-Jews. Muslims, vegetarians, Seventh Day Adventists, and
lactose-intolerants are all among the groups of consumers buying
kosher foods. So are many average Americans who take comfort in the
fact that, for instance, insects are just as forbidden to observant
Jews as pork, so that inspector are weary of conditions that make
infestation more likely.
> Lubomyr Prytulak, a retired Canadian psychology professor, has long argued that
> a Star of David (or, Magen David, as it is often called) should also accompany
> the Kosher certification to make its meaning well known.(3) This makes sense,
> and it would be more fair to Gentile consumers, most of whom are unaware of the
> Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. If the ADL and Jewish organizations were
> genuinely concerned with honesty, they would have done this long ago.
>
Nonwithstanding the absurdity of labeling food by which religious or
nationality it's targeted towards, only a real imbecile would consider
it a tax. Are you advocating going through each line item in a
company's expense ledger to make certain that no particular market is
associated with that item? If a company sponsors a gold tournament,
would a non-golfer consider that cost to be a golf tax?
> Jewish organizations do not necessarily seem to be concerned with honesty in
> this matter, however. In some advertisements of products bearing "K" or "U"
> symbols in magazines, these symbols will often actually be "hidden" or "masked
> off." However, when these same items are advertised in Jewish publications,
> these symbols might actually be larger and have an arrow pointing to them.(4)
> This is, of course, deceptive advertising and goes to show that there are
> concerns among Jews or the companies that sell these Kosher products of the
> meaning behind these symbols becoming known.
>
If you're Jewish and keep kosher, you know what the sybols mean. If
your curious and not knowledgealbe, the company will gladly explain
it. If you're honestly disturbed by it, buy another product. If you're
an anti-Semite, then consider the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: The
mind of a bigot is like the pupil of an eye. The more light you pour
upon it, the more it will contract.
> While the ADL suggests that the claim "only a small segment of the American
> population desires such markings" is an anti-Semitic lie, the truth speaks
> otherwise. In fact, according to the Kosher-certification agency Star-K,
> "Integrated Marketing Communications reports that approximately 2.5 million
> Jews consume kosher food products."(5) So what about the other 297.5 million
> people in the United States? Why are we then forced to pay for their Jewish
> religious dietary habits; why are we forced to pay for the Rabbinical Kosher
> Excise Tax?
You're not. There are plenty of other brands you could buy. It's for
that reason that the food companies absorb these cost, for
non-specialy items. Why don't you buy shares in the company and spew
your venom at the annual meeting.
>
> The ADL argues that "the cost to the consumer for this service is a miniscule
> fraction of the total production overhead; it is so negligible in practical
> terms as to be virtually non-existent." Is this true? I certainly would have no
> problems if Jews wanted to certify products as being Kosher or not at entirely
> their own costs.
And what if the food producer wants to pay it as business decision
motivated by the desire to increase market share? Is this so
unfathomable? Jews are only about 1% of the population, and kosher
ones much less. Have all the highly-paid decision makers at Coke,
Phillip Morris, Sara Lee, General Foods, Nabisco, to name but a few,
lost their minds collectively?
>
> As you might suspect, such talk by the ADL is either an outright lie on its
> part or, at best, deceptive. For example, the ADL report cites a
> "representative of the Heinz Company." This "representative" reportedly said
> that the cost is "so small we can't even calculate it." This Heinz
> "representative" also said that the extra business it received more than made
> up for the costs associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. Who was this
> "representative"? If what he stated was true, why is his name not even given in
> the ADL's article for verification? Did this person even exist?
Excuse me, but you're pointing the finger, you furnish the proof.
You're whole thesis is innuendo and conjecture. Where's the beef?
>
> Quite to the contrary of the ADL's article, the Canadian Jewish News of March
> 20, 2003, has an article with an interesting headline: "Heinz Canada trims
> kosher product line." Many of the Canadian Heinz's products were no longer to
> be certified Kosher (thereby avoiding the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax,
> symbolized by Canada's "COR" - Council of Orthodox Rabbis' marking), although
> the products would still be kept Kosher for Jews (out of decency for Jewish
> consumers not concerned with whether the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax had been
> paid). Apparently, according to (named) Heinz spokeswoman Anna Relyea, this was
> done to "keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
> customers." The reasons given by Heinz for the decision were due to "how
> complex the manufacturing is, what the savings were and so on."(6) In any
> event, these costs that were reported by the ADL as being "so small, we can't
> even calculate it" could, in fact, be calculated and must have been
> significant.
>
I'm curious as to how you maintain that the cost of certification can
be both a cost to Heinz and tax on consumers at the same time. Heinz
incurred the cost in attempting to increase revenues. That's what
companies do. It didn't work out; they reversed the decision. On other
products such as Heinz ketchup keep their kosher symbol lest a
consumer switch to Hunt's or some other symbol-bearing brand.
> Another item that seems to be deliberately distorted in the favor of the ADL is
> a reported "fact" given by the Birds Eye company. According to the ADL's
> article, General Food's Birds Eye unit paid only "6.5 millionths (.0000065) of
> a cent per item." It would be more interesting to know how much General Foods
> itself paid in real dollars altogether for the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax,
> but the ADL avoids such talk for obvious reasons. But is the paltry sum of
> .0000065 cents per item true?
The obvious reason, as you call it, is that the amount that a company
pays for certification, or any other financial dealing it has, is
propietary to the company, to disclose or not to disclose as is sees
fit. It's not for the ADL or anyone else to make that decision for
them, and I think you'll find that a Kosher certification company
would lose many clients should they reveal confidential information
about just one. GF has an open book policy on these matters, but
that's their decision.
>
> Again, this seems like a deliberately deceptive move on the ADL's part (or that
> of one of its members who was employed at Birds Eye). Does anyone really
> believe that a rabbi would fly to Birds Eye foods if he only received 6.5 cents
> for each $1 million of business Birds Eye did? If Birds Eye did, say, $100
> million in business, that would be a paltry $650.00 in fees by the
> certification agency. This wouldn't even pay for the time involved, let alone
> travel and paperwork. So is the ADL lying? Probably not. If you'll notice, it
> says ".0000065 of a cent per item." I believe that Birds Eye sells corn, peas,
> pieces of broccoli, et cetera. In effect, the ADL's "informer" was probably
> meaning that every single piece of corn, every single pea, and every single
> bean--that is, every "item"--incur the cost of .0000065 cents. Added up, this
> then makes sense.
Nice going, Sherlock. Except that Bird's Eye's sales is closer to $1
billion than $100 million.
http://www.birdseyefoods.com/scripts/press/view.asp?ID=186
Moreover, many of the company's product do not require kosher
certification.
>
> Of course, if the Jewish agency that charges the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax
> would care to make available how much it charged this company in real dollars
> for the previous year, that would be a start to being honest. But, if you
> carefully examine the web, you will not find one company that has reported this
> fee to the rabbis. Why is this? From a logical standpoint, it stands to reason
> that the rabbis must have some type of confidentiality agreement in which if
> the company reveals its cost it is then penalized to a certain extent. What
> other reasoning could there be that not one single company discloses its costs
> associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax?
Good reasoning. The rabbi should breach their confidentiality
agreements with their customers in order to appease some newsgoup
crackpot?
Right again, Sherlock! You hypothesize that kosher certification
doesn't increase market share and you use an Albequerque bagel company
and some other unspecified small time operation to prove it.
Brilliant!
>
> As you might expect, later in the ADL's article, it spends a significant amount
> of its article questioning the "motives" of those who question the motives of
> the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. Since the ADL cannot obviously refute the
> content of the argument, it has to resort to attacking the organizations and
> people who bring forth legitimate arguments against an illegitimate tax that
> Gentile consumers are forced to pay, which is unknown to the vast majority of
> them. Of course, the ADL itself has a few skeletons in its closet, so to speak.
> Books such as "Conspiracy Against Freedom" or "The Ugly Truth about the ADL"
> (available from www.addall.com/used ) tell much of the stories kept behind the
> headlines.
Two books versus the collective intellegence of the food industry.
Guess where my money rides.
>
> In an attempt to make the ADL's concerns seem legitimate, it cites Dr. Ed
> Fields, who states:
>
> "All of this is superstitious nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with
> improving the quality of any food product. Still, this clever scheme of
> requiring kosher labeling has become a multi-million dollar business today!"
>
Edward Fields is a known neo-Nazi and white supremacist with an IQ
approximately equal to his shoe size.
> Obviously, since Dr. Fields says this--and since the ADL makes him out to be a
> "bad" person through the use of its personal attacks (for failing to cooperate
> with the false-logic that Kosher is somehow wholesome)--we are to believe what
> he says is false. But in fact, it is true. What the ADL fails to mention, here,
> is that many Jews have corroborated what Dr. Ed Fields has stated, and these
> Jews are even cited by Dr. Fields. For example, the Washington Post of 2
> November 1987 is cited, quoting orthodox Rabbi Schulem Rubin:
>
> "Kosher doesn't taste any better; Kosher isn't healthier; Kosher doesn't have
> less salmonella. You can eat a Holly Farm chicken which sells for 39 cents a
> pound on sale and next taste a Kosher chicken selling for $1.69 a pound and not
> tell the difference. There's a lot of money to be made. Religion is not based
> on logic."
See what I mean about Fields' IQ? He complains about kosher costs to
the average consumer, and he cites chicken, which is not marketed to
the non-Jewish community, as his case in point. Chicken and beef
cannot be made kosher without ritual slaughter, which adds to the cost
significantly. Show me a supermarket wher kosher chicken and beef
appear right alongside their non-kosher counterparts, Mr. Fields. Or
is your argument so weak that you need to resort to extreme examples
hoping the average reader won't be able to tell the difference?
Moreover, kosher meats and poultry have every drop of blood drained,
and every piece is salted and washed to remove any blood absorbed in
the tissues. As well, each animal or bird is inspected for diseased
tissue that would disqualify it's being koshered. This drives up
costs, of course, but I would certain acknowledge it potential for
being healthier than its non-Kosher counterparts. And who are you, Mr.
Fields, to tell consumers which selection criteria they should use
when shopping for chicken, beef, or anything else.
>
> Of course, facts have always been a problem for the ADL, which is why it has
> attacked Dr. Fields's character so much. If you cannot refute the argument, the
> ADL seemingly reasons, attack the person's character who makes the argument.
>
Facts seem to be a problem for you, too. Where's any proof of anything
you allege?
> The ADL's article then goes on to suggest that Jews are not the only ones who
> prefer Kosher. It argues, "Some kosher marketing officials estimate there may
> be as many as six million Americans who seek out Kosher foods in the
>
> supermarket. Of these only 1.5 million are Jewish. Moslems and Seventh Day
> Adventists also adhere to certain aspects of the Jewish dietary laws." Is this
> true? Yes, it certainly is. You see, the article says "some Kosher marketing
> officials..." Who are these "Kosher marketing officials"? If you said the ADL,
> you might have just won the prize.
>
Are you denying that Jewish consumers are the minority in the
aggregate kosher market? Sir, your bed in Belleview is ready. Take the
case of Coors brewing, for instance. Regular, unflavored beer, does
not require kosher certification for Jews to be able to drink it. So
it begs the question: why would Coors or Phillip Morris put kosher
symbols on their beer products? Not for the Jews, certianly.
> While I have not taken the time to see what the Seventh Day Adventists believe,
> I looked into if the Muslims found the Kosher certification acceptable as
> meeting their religious dietary habits as well. What does the Islamic Food
> Council of America have to say about Kosher meeting the religious dietary
> requirements of orthodox Muslims, or "Halal," as it is commonly known.
> According to the Halal Digest of July 2000, it states,
>
> "Many Kosher producers believe that Muslims accept Kosher as being Halal. In
> fact, Muslims do not accept Kosher certification as being a substitute for
> Halal certification. Some Muslims may have believed that Kosher slaughter was
> similar to Halal, but they are learning that this is not true and are demanding
> Halal certified products. Internationally, only proper Halal certification is
> acceptable and monitoring agencies are being established to ensure compliance."
>
Anyone who follows the news to any extent knows that there are vast
differences of opinions amoungst Muslic legal authorities over a vast
range of issues. This is true of Judaism as well, but we're discussing
Muslims. There are, for instance, authorities who condemn the murder
of Jews regardless of the circumstances, whereas others openly
advocate killing Jews on sight in any country they are encountered.
That being said, is it really surprising that one publication would
tell its readership not to patronize Jewish business?
The point just made, however valid, is moot. What the legal eagles say
and how their subjects act in the US are tow different things. And US
food producers are obviously more concerned with the latter.
> There is one major difference (that even I know of) between the Halal method of
> slaughter and that of the Kosher method. The Halal method is actually done in a
> more humane manner, as it allows the animal to be stunned first. However, this
> is not the case with Kosher slaughter, which requires the animal to experience
> the full amount of pain and be fully conscious.
>
Totally false, ignoramous. The Torah is so concerned about suffering
of animals that it even forbids the slaughter of an animal and its
young on the same day, even if they are miles apart. A Jew is not
permitted to take an egg from its nest if the mother is present.
Ritual slaughter is meant to be totally painless to the animal. It's a
highly skilled activity which adds cost to the beef, which is why
kosher is more expensive in this one area, WHICH IS WHY KOSHER BEEF IS
NOT MARKETED TO THE BROADER CONSUMERS MARKET.
Why don't you check your facts before making your claims?
> Continuing, the ADL then goes on to say that "the bulk of Kosher shoppers
> appear to
>
> be consumers who believe the Kosher certification ... means higher quality
> food." Is this true? Well, the ADL gives no proof that there are a significant
> number of consumers who are non-Jewish and who buy Kosher products because they
> "believe" (with the word "believe" being the key-word here) Kosher "means
> higher quality food." However, as to the false claim that Kosher is a "higher
> quality food," the response to this is best summed up by Rabbi Irving
> Silverman, who is cited in the 20 March 1987 edition of The Sun-Sentinel:
>
> "There's one misconception that I'd like to clear up. There's a perception that
> Jewish dietary laws are steeped in health considerations. That's not so at all.
> It is a commitment to a strict adherence to a tradition. I'm not Kosher because
> it's healthier; I'm Kosher because my parents were Kosher, and my grandparents
> were Kosher. It's a commitment!"
>
From where do you derive in all of that that kosher food isn't
healthier? All the Rabbi said was that the commitment to a kosher diet
wasn't health motivated. The truth is that we don't know why the Torah
asks us to keep kosher; it's G-d word and that's good enough for us.
But as previously pointed out, Jewish beef and poultry had the blood
removed from vessel and tissue alike. Moreover, the consumption of
insects is just an forbiddens as the consumption of pork, so kosher
inspectors need to be conscious about even the slightest sign of
infestation. Not any healthier? Guess again.
> In conclusion, the ADL admits, rather hesitatingly it appears, that consumers
> do, in fact, "pay a higher price" at "Kosher butcher shops." While this is nice
> of the ADL to actually concede this relatively minor detail, it does not answer
> the greater question: How much are we Gentiles paying for the Rabbinical Kosher
> Excise Tax overall? What are the real costs to us as consumers?
>
We've admited to higher beef prices and explained why. There's is no
such thing as Kosher tax. Consumers pay no extra for certication and
in many cases pay less.
> This figure of costs associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax is
> largely unknown due to Jews not disclosing how much they charge to the various
> companies that receive Kosher certification. In perhaps what can only be viewed
> as a mistake by the rabbis who oversee the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax, in
> 1987 they disclosed that they expected Kosher steel to bring them in
> $700,000.00 of fees per year.(8)
Kosher steel?
Enough. I've more than debunked your ludicrous notions. Don't buy
kosher. You're not worthy of it.
You are what you eat. Have another ham sandwich. I pesonally never
touch the stuff.
Waldo
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
> References: <20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com>
<oWfOa.27208$Ix2.11497@rwcrnsc54>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 991
> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:20:35 -0400
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.95.128.59
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@sympatico.ca
> X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1057602082 65.95.128.59 (Mon, 07 Jul 2003
14:21:22 EDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:21:22 EDT
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Xref: news.impulse.net alt.revisionism:1048671
The 'supervisor' is likely a peon working for a big Kash-R-Us agency. *IF*
he has to fly AND stay overnight, his wages plus expenses are likely $300 -
$600.00, depending on the travel distance and accomodations (I suppose he'd
have to stay in a hotel with a Kosher restaurant?), with the balance going
to the Kash-R-Us agency.
> Is your
> friends plant located in or by a city where a Koshering Agency is likely
> to reside? Most are not.
Jews (especially the type that perform Kash-R-Us supervision) do tend to
cluster near major metropolitain areas, don't they? Just think of how much
money they'd save if they'd sub-contract their rural work to Baptists!!!
> >
> > My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a third
of
> > their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it, but
> > that's what he says.
It would seem that this guy's friend has been lied to. Who do you suppose
could be spreading such evil falsehoods?
Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo, they
would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case, failure to
Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these companies - and
this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
Talk about a monkey on your back!
> I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
> specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
According to Jewish sources:
44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are purchased
BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are
purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent in the metropolitain New York
area.
Furthermore, 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products
that are purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent at the time of the
Jewish Passover holiday.
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=1186&intcategoryid=6
Waldo
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
> References: <20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com>
<oWfOa.27208$Ix2.11497@rwcrnsc54>
[continued]
>
> A little know fact about Kosher dietary laws is that insects are just as
> forbidden as pork.
Since when aren't locusts insects?
<quote>
"As Rabbi Lauffer, a specialist in kosher laws in the Israeli organization
Ohr Somayach, said, "Not only do locusts not require ritual slaughter, they
may even be eaten alive."
</quote>
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1999/5/995ins.html
Breakfast of champions, eh Sheldon?
> So, not only does the average consumer have more
> comfort against insects per se, but against sanitary conditions
> conducive to infestation.
I'd like to see that assurance from the Kash-R-Us agencies in writing.
>
> >
> > I have started looking out for kosher seals on packages, and I have
found
> > that with some products (pickles, for example; go figure) it is
virtually
> > impossible to find a product without the seal.
"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the MARK, or the name
of the beast, or the number of his name". [ Revelation 13:17]
(Thank G_d I'm not religious!)
> Of course, anything made
> > with pork is safe.
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
"Meddling Jew free"?
> If you're specifically trying to avoid
> products that are are kosher, then yes, pork is safe. But, since you
> acknowledge that there is no kosher tax and the products have a quality
> edge, why seek non kosher products?
Where did he "acknowledge that there is no kosher tax and the products have
a quality
edge"?
> > Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as it may
> > seem.
At least not if you subject yourself to goofy Jewish religious
superstitions.
> > Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to wash
> > the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
One set of china for the milkie foods, one set of china for the meatie
foods, another special set of china for Passover, and one in case the Goyim
can't be shooed away at suppertime - it's complicated and EXPENSIVE to be a
Jew!
Now convert this to the scale of a 100,000 square ft foods production
facility, multiply it by thousands of plants nationwide, and you'll *begin*
to see why Kosher Kosts! ($$$$$$$$)
> >
> > It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim people in
> > areas with very small muslim populations have been advised by imams that
> > kosher comes closer to halal than not.
> >
> Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat.
Please name "Kosher" products OTHER than meats that halal consumers might be
interested in.
> The
> Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no problem
> with that.
Then why do you have a problem with non-Jews wishing to avoid greasing the
palms of the Kosher Kabal, and financing the quirky eating habits of Jews???
> > I would never by meat or meat products that were halal or kosher. They
are
> > not any cleaner than conventionally butchered meats, and it is
undeniable
> > that the animals suffer horribly and needlessly.
> >
> Wrong. They are cleaner by virtue of the fact that kosher products must
> be completely drained of blood.
Might I suggest a centrifuge?
> While the reason stipulated in the Torah
> has nothing to do with health concern (drinking blood was a pagen
> ritual), nevertheless impurities that may be contained in the blood do
> not pose a problem. Moreover, an animal that has a life threatening
> disease is disqualified from kosher ritual slaughter.
Rather, it is disqualified for Kosher Certification - as many of these
diseases would go undetected until *after* the slaughter. Unqualified meats
are then sold by the Jews to the unwitting Goyim - who also wind up
consuming the bulk of the meat from animals that ARE certified as Kosher!
> As for suffering, the Torah is very explicit that causing animals to
> suffer in any way is intolerable.
Then why don't you cruel bastards stun the animals before you cut their
throats?
> That is why ritual slaughter is a very
> skillful art. The knife must be of a certain sharpness and the incision
> must be exact as to effect maximum bloodletting (presumably the animal
> does not feel it's life ebbing).
It must be comforting to know that Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl
didn't suffer when those bastards murdered him.
> Moreover, Torah law forbids the
> slaughter of a mother and child in the same day.
Does this include people, or just animals?
> > This reminds me of when I worked for a department store and decided I
was
> > only going to buy American-made garments. After a few weeks of checking
> > labels, I realized I would end up naked following that rule. We don't
> > always have choices.
> >
> >
> I hope I'm reading this wrongly, but if, all other things equal, you
> avoid kosher products just to avoid benefiting Jews, then you will end
> up ethically naked.
You and your fellow Jews seem to have no problem with working your wiles to
get the Goyim to pay for your silly, superstitious and expensive eating
habits. I can't see why you'd find it offensive that some of your intended
marks would do their best to avoid being victimized by your scheme.
**
Waldo
Observer at Large
Robert Coates
"Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f0a5c3b$0$1...@news.impulse.net...
The plant is in metropolitan Chicago. I am deliberately vague about details
because I don't know if the company considers this information confidential,
and I would not want to cause trouble for a friend.
> Jews (especially the type that perform Kash-R-Us supervision) do tend to
> cluster near major metropolitain areas, don't they? Just think of how much
> money they'd save if they'd sub-contract their rural work to Baptists!!!
He says the man is a rabbi. Again, I don't have access to all the minutae.
It sounds to me like the person works directly for the koshering authority
in the Chicago area. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews in
Chicagoland. I am sure he doesn't have to travel far for this.
>
> > >
> > > My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a third
> of
> > > their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it,
but
> > > that's what he says.
>
>
> It would seem that this guy's friend has been lied to. Who do you suppose
> could be spreading such evil falsehoods?
That's what he told me. He's not a stupid person. Since Jews are less than
3% of the population and most of them don't keep kosher, I think that's a
little high, even if you add in the gentiles who buy kosher for whatever
reason.
> Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
> supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo, they
> would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case, failure
to
> Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these companies - and
> this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
>
> Talk about a monkey on your back!
>
>
> > I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
> > specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
>
> According to Jewish sources:
>
> 44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are purchased
> BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
>
> http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
>
> 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are
> purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent in the metropolitain New York
> area.
>
> Furthermore, 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products
> that are purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent at the time of the
> Jewish Passover holiday.
>
> http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=1186&intcategoryid=6
>
This plant is in the Chicago suburbs. They distribute all over the country.
> > and the demand by
> > non-Jews for kosher products is growing. You're right that, within
> > limits, the cost of koshering a products per unit decrease as more
> > product is shipped. Try telling the anti-Semites that.
> >
> > A little know fact about Kosher dietary laws is that insects are just as
> > forbidden as pork. So, not only does the average consumer have more
> > comfort against insects per se, but against sanitary conditions
> > conducive to infestation.
I think all food producers in this country try their best to run clean,
sanitary facilities. As I said, my friend's plant would do their semiweekly
shut-down and steam cleaning whether they were Kosher-certified or not.
> > >
> > > I have started looking out for kosher seals on packages, and I have
> found
> > > that with some products (pickles, for example; go figure) it is
> virtually
> > > impossible to find a product without the seal. Of course, anything
made
> > > with pork is safe.
> >
> > What is that supposed to mean? If you're specifically trying to avoid
> > products that are are kosher, then yes, pork is safe. But, since you
> > acknowledge that there is no kosher tax and the products have a quality
> > edge, why seek non kosher products?
I meant out of curiousity since I have become aware of this. This thread
has come up on these boards before, and a standard response is "If you don't
like it, don't buy it." My point is you often don't have a choice. I have
a lot of foods in my kitchen with the kosher seals on it (I bought the
pickles). I don't really care one way or the other. But if it matters
enough to someone to avoid buying koshered foods, your choices are
drastically reduced.
> > >
> > > Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as it
may
> > > seem. Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to
> wash
> > > the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
I pointed this out because I have seen dishwasher soap with kosher seals
pointed out as if it were absurd to kosher soap. If it's important to
people to keep kosher, it would be important.
> > > It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim people
in
> > > areas with very small muslim populations have been advised by imams
that
> > > kosher comes closer to halal than not.
> > >
> > Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat. The
> > Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no problem
> > with that.
The difference is not necessarily cleanliness. There are rituals and
prayers said over the animals and meats, and of course Muslims don't use the
same prayers as Jews.
> >
> > > I would never by meat or meat products that were halal or kosher.
They
> are
> > > not any cleaner than conventionally butchered meats, and it is
> undeniable
> > > that the animals suffer horribly and needlessly.
> > >
> > Wrong. They are cleaner by virtue of the fact that kosher products must
> > be completely drained of blood. While the reason stipulated in the Torah
> > has nothing to do with health concern (drinking blood was a pagen
> > ritual), nevertheless impurities that may be contained in the blood do
> > not pose a problem. Moreover, an animal that has a life threatening
> > disease is disqualified from kosher ritual slaughter.
> >
> > As for suffering, the Torah is very explicit that causing animals to
> > suffer in any way is intolerable. That is why ritual slaughter is a very
> > skillful art. The knife must be of a certain sharpness and the incision
> > must be exact as to effect maximum bloodletting (presumably the animal
> > does not feel it's life ebbing). Moreover, Torah law forbids the
> > slaughter of a mother and child in the same day.
Again I see no reason to believe conventional butchers operating under FDA
supervision are not clean and responsible. I prefer steaks cooked medium
rare. Blood in the meat gives it flavor.
Many animal-rights groups--which are in nowise antisemitic, and include many
Jewish members--have protested halal and kosher practices alike. There is a
movement in Britain now to ban the practice altogether. The First Amendment
protects it here. I have done some research into this, NOT relying on
antisemitic sources, and have concluded that there is indeed animal
suffering involved.
> >
> > > This reminds me of when I worked for a department store and decided I
> was
> > > only going to buy American-made garments. After a few weeks of
checking
> > > labels, I realized I would end up naked following that rule. We don't
> > > always have choices.
> > >
> > >
> > I hope I'm reading this wrongly, but if, all other things equal, you
> > avoid kosher products just to avoid benefiting Jews, then you will end
> > up ethically naked.
My point is most people don't understand or read all the fine print and
arcane symbols printed on product labels, and for the most part don't care.
Nearly all the shoes sold in this country are made in China for example. If
you have a political or ethical problem supporting the Chinese government,
you're kind of out of luck buying shoes.
I'm not going to lose sleep if Jews make .00065 cents off of my grocery
dollar. As I said already, I buy what I need. The person who posted the
original article and presumably some of the people who read this thread care
a great deal. For them, the issue is not avoiding some brands. They simply
cannot buy some food items at all.
Sheldon Liberman
It must be nice not to have to bother thinking before speaking. Saves
time, and there's beer in the fridge.
>>Is your
>>friends plant located in or by a city where a Koshering Agency is likely
>>to reside? Most are not.
>
>
>
> Jews (especially the type that perform Kash-R-Us supervision) do tend to
> cluster near major metropolitain areas, don't they? Just think of how much
> money they'd save if they'd sub-contract their rural work to Baptists!!!
>
I'm dazzled by the brilliance of that remark. What can I possibly say to
refute it.
>
>
>>>My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a third
>>
> of
>
>>>their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it, but
>>>that's what he says.
>>
>
>
> It would seem that this guy's friend has been lied to. Who do you suppose
> could be spreading such evil falsehoods?
>
> Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
> supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo, they
> would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case, failure to
> Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these companies - and
> this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
>
> Talk about a monkey on your back!
>
Ooooh....that one circled the rim before falling it for the point.
>
>
>>I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
>>specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
>
>
> According to Jewish sources:
>
> 44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are purchased
> BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
>
> http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
Well, I can see that your skills of reason are surpassed only by your
math skills: 100% - 44% = 56%. that is a ma-jor-i-ty.
>
> 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are
> purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent in the metropolitain New York
> area.
>
> Furthermore, 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products
> that are purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent at the time of the
> Jewish Passover holiday.
>
> http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=1186&intcategoryid=6
>
>
Well thank you. If you subtract the passover expenditures (40% of 44% =
about 18%), which means that non-Jews account for about 74% of the
Kosher market ex-Passover. Even that amount is low because that market
included kosher meats which aren't marketed to the mainstream.
Philip Mathews
> "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
(snip)
> > > My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a third
> of
> > > their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it, but
> > > that's what he says.
> It would seem that this guy's friend has been lied to. Who do you suppose
> could be spreading such evil falsehoods?
Of course Waldo has no idea if any lying has been done, as he
demonstrates with his next statement!
> Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
> supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo, they
> would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case, failure to
> Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these companies - and
> this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
> Talk about a monkey on your back!
Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the standards
requested by the client.
The gall!
> > I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
> > specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
> According to Jewish sources:
>
> 44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are purchased
> BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
> http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
Confirming Mr. Liberman's point.
> 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are
> purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent in the metropolitain New York
> area.
> Furthermore, 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products
> that are purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent at the time of the
> Jewish Passover holiday.
> http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=1186&intcategoryid=6
The article is talking about the roughly $3 billion category of Jews
buying Kosher, not the entire category of Kosher seekers. Therefore,
the 40% of the $3.2 billion sub-group of Jews buying Kosher would
equal $1.28 billion, or about 19% of all monies spent on Kosher
products BECAUSE they are Kosher.
And the article does not support the claim that 40% of all monies
spent on Kosher sought products are spent in the New York metro area.
Since Mr. Liberman's point was correct, I don't know why you
embarrassed yourself misinterpreting statistics.
Actually, I do know why!
(snip)
--
Philip Mathews
Sheldon Liberman
I admire you're not wanting to cause trouble for your friend. By
extension, therfore, you would understand why koshering agencies respect
the rights of their clients to withhold or divulge information as they
see fit, and it's not the place of the agencies to decide for them.
>
>
>
>>Jews (especially the type that perform Kash-R-Us supervision) do tend to
>>cluster near major metropolitain areas, don't they? Just think of how much
>>money they'd save if they'd sub-contract their rural work to Baptists!!!
>
>
> He says the man is a rabbi. Again, I don't have access to all the minutae.
> It sounds to me like the person works directly for the koshering authority
> in the Chicago area. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews in
> Chicagoland. I am sure he doesn't have to travel far for this.
>
I'm sure you're your right about that. And I claim to know how each
kashrut agency structures its fees. I only know that they can't operate
at loss.
>
>
>>>>My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a third
>>>
>>of
>>
>>>>their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it,
>>>
> but
>
>>>>that's what he says.
>>>
>>
>>It would seem that this guy's friend has been lied to. Who do you suppose
>>could be spreading such evil falsehoods?
>
>
> That's what he told me. He's not a stupid person. Since Jews are less than
> 3% of the population and most of them don't keep kosher, I think that's a
> little high, even if you add in the gentiles who buy kosher for whatever
> reason.
>
I guess the actual product in question would have some bearing. I third
would be high for most products, but very low if, for example, they made
matzoh balls. Or Passover products.
>
>>Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
>>supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo, they
>>would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case, failure
>
Further proof that the mouth still functions when the brain is switched off.
I wouldn't be so sure. Trying and succeeding are not quite the same.
Obviously, there are company that fail inspections, whether kosher, FDA,
or otherwise. Sometimes the faults are procedural, other times problems
arise despite best efforts.
>
>>>>I have started looking out for kosher seals on packages, and I have
>>>
>>found
>>
>>>>that with some products (pickles, for example; go figure) it is
>>>
>>virtually
>>
>>>>impossible to find a product without the seal. Of course, anything
>>>
> made
>
>>>>with pork is safe.
>>>
>>>What is that supposed to mean? If you're specifically trying to avoid
>>>products that are are kosher, then yes, pork is safe. But, since you
>>>acknowledge that there is no kosher tax and the products have a quality
>>>edge, why seek non kosher products?
>>
>
> I meant out of curiousity since I have become aware of this. This thread
> has come up on these boards before, and a standard response is "If you don't
> like it, don't buy it." My point is you often don't have a choice. I have
> a lot of foods in my kitchen with the kosher seals on it (I bought the
> pickles). I don't really care one way or the other. But if it matters
> enough to someone to avoid buying koshered foods, your choices are
> drastically reduced.
I think that depends on whether you consider the glass to be half empty
or half full. If there are 5 choices, two of which are kosher, people
might complain that avoiding kashrut reduced choices, but perhaps would
never have complained were there only those three choices to begin with.
I think the actual product also has bearing. The vast majority of beers
have no kosher symbols. But pickles, as you say, do. Perhaps kosher
conscious consumers make up a disproportionate segment of the pickle
market.
My understanding of consumerism in the US, and probably everywhere else,
is that consumers prefer more choices to less. That is why, all things
being equal, the typical consumer would rather have a $100 gift
certificate for Sears than for a shoe store, even though they're each
worth $100.
>
>
>>>>Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as it
>>>
> may
>
>>>>seem. Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to
>>>
>>wash
>>
>>>>the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
>>>
>
> I pointed this out because I have seen dishwasher soap with kosher seals
> pointed out as if it were absurd to kosher soap. If it's important to
> people to keep kosher, it would be important.
>
>
>>>>It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim people
>>>
> in
>
>>>>areas with very small muslim populations have been advised by imams
>>>
> that
>
>>>>kosher comes closer to halal than not.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat. The
>>>Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no problem
>>>with that.
>>
>
> The difference is not necessarily cleanliness. There are rituals and
> prayers said over the animals and meats, and of course Muslims don't use the
> same prayers as Jews.
>
Jews don't say prayers over meats. We say a blessing, which is in fact,
an expression of gratitude for the food, which is the same whether we're
eating beef, coffee, a chocalate bar, or a halibut. Certain foods
require different words to express the same thought, but that gets
complicated. At any rate, whether or not the food is kosher is
independant on any prayer or ritual besides ritual slaughter. I don't
know what Muslims do. I just know that they spend about half as much as
Jews do on kosher products, which I find significant.
>
>>>>I would never by meat or meat products that were halal or kosher.
>>>
> They
>
>>are
>>
>>>>not any cleaner than conventionally butchered meats, and it is
>>>
>>undeniable
>>
>>>>that the animals suffer horribly and needlessly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong. They are cleaner by virtue of the fact that kosher products must
>>>be completely drained of blood. While the reason stipulated in the Torah
>>>has nothing to do with health concern (drinking blood was a pagen
>>>ritual), nevertheless impurities that may be contained in the blood do
>>>not pose a problem. Moreover, an animal that has a life threatening
>>>disease is disqualified from kosher ritual slaughter.
>>>
>>>As for suffering, the Torah is very explicit that causing animals to
>>>suffer in any way is intolerable. That is why ritual slaughter is a very
>>>skillful art. The knife must be of a certain sharpness and the incision
>>>must be exact as to effect maximum bloodletting (presumably the animal
>>>does not feel it's life ebbing). Moreover, Torah law forbids the
>>>slaughter of a mother and child in the same day.
>>
>
> Again I see no reason to believe conventional butchers operating under FDA
> supervision are not clean and responsible. I prefer steaks cooked medium
> rare. Blood in the meat gives it flavor.
>
If that's your preference, I wouldn't argue it. The Torah forbids it to
Jews for reasons that transcend health concerns. Notwithstanding that,
it seems to me that since the blood is used to carry nutrient to cells
and impurities away from cells, I would prefer not eating it even if
permitted.
> Many animal-rights groups--which are in nowise antisemitic, and include many
> Jewish members--have protested halal and kosher practices alike. There is a
> movement in Britain now to ban the practice altogether. The First Amendment
> protects it here. I have done some research into this, NOT relying on
> antisemitic sources, and have concluded that there is indeed animal
> suffering involved.
>
>
I am not suggesting the animal rights groups are anti-Semitic per se,
but I'm sure that there are anti-Semites who join just to try to stick
it to the Jews.
I don't know what research you did, because you chose not to enlighten
us, but, as stated, the Torah does not permit suffering to animals, so
the relience on human reseach, for Jews or Christians who believe, would
be answering to a lower authority.
>>>>This reminds me of when I worked for a department store and decided I
>>>
>>was
>>
>>>>only going to buy American-made garments. After a few weeks of
>>>
> checking
>
>>>>labels, I realized I would end up naked following that rule. We don't
>>>>always have choices.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I hope I'm reading this wrongly, but if, all other things equal, you
>>>avoid kosher products just to avoid benefiting Jews, then you will end
>>>up ethically naked.
>>
>
> My point is most people don't understand or read all the fine print and
> arcane symbols printed on product labels, and for the most part don't care.
> Nearly all the shoes sold in this country are made in China for example. If
> you have a political or ethical problem supporting the Chinese government,
> you're kind of out of luck buying shoes.
I don't know if that's a good example, because I'm sure that there are
plenty of American shoes available, probably at higher prices. But I get
your point. Many people kvetch about kosher symbol but cheerfully buy
Chinese shoes, or clothing made in countries that are known to practice
child labor. It's easy to embrace the idea that kosher foods cost them
more because such a notion is consistent with pre-existing prejudices.
>
> I'm not going to lose sleep if Jews make .00065 cents off of my grocery
> dollar. As I said already, I buy what I need. The person who posted the
> original article and presumably some of the people who read this thread care
> a great deal. For them, the issue is not avoiding some brands. They simply
> cannot buy some food items at all.
I doubt there are too many items without non-kosher alternatives, but
the key issue for me is why they should care about the cost of kashrut
more than the cost of donating to certain charities, or certain
politicians, or money spent to acquire goodwill from amatuer sport
enthusiasts, rugby players, own any other self-interest group.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Robert Coates wrote
in message <4RyOa.7329$Ph3.853@sccrnsc04>:
>"Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3f0a5c3b$0$1...@news.impulse.net...
>> "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
>> > Robert Coates wrote:
<snip to>
>I meant out of curiousity since I have become aware of this. This thread
>has come up on these boards before, and a standard response is "If you don't
>like it, don't buy it." My point is you often don't have a choice. I have
>a lot of foods in my kitchen with the kosher seals on it (I bought the
>pickles). I don't really care one way or the other. But if it matters
>enough to someone to avoid buying koshered foods, your choices are
>drastically reduced.
And why do you think that all of a given type of food might be
certified? Is it maybe because the costs of certification are so
minuscule that there is any increase in cost is more than made up for
by the economies of scale? If not, why do you suppose these bigots
don't get together and market they *own* brand guaranteed not to be
Kosher? If the costs of certification are as much as they claim, they
could price these goods significantly under the market and clean up.
If, OTOH, it's not the pricing but the simple involvement in the
process of the inspector, you have to wonder why this would be a
problem for them. I mean, it's not like the inspector adds Jooosh
cooties or anything...
>> > > It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim people
>> > > in areas with very small muslim populations have been advised by imams
>> > > that kosher comes closer to halal than not.
>> > Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat. The
>> > Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no problem
>> > with that.
>The difference is not necessarily cleanliness. There are rituals and
>prayers said over the animals and meats, and of course Muslims don't use the
>same prayers as Jews.
...because there are no prayers involved in kosher slaughter. It is
my understanding that the only "prayer" said during halal slaughter is
saying the name of Allah as the animal is slaughtered.
>Again I see no reason to believe conventional butchers operating under FDA
>supervision are not clean and responsible. I prefer steaks cooked medium
>rare. Blood in the meat gives it flavor.
"Rare as you dare" is how I usually put it (which gets me a medium
rare steak most places.) I'd prefer you simply scare the cow with a
Bic lighter and serve it...
>Many animal-rights groups--which are in nowise antisemitic, and include many
>Jewish members--have protested halal and kosher practices alike. There is a
>movement in Britain now to ban the practice altogether. The First Amendment
>protects it here. I have done some research into this, NOT relying on
>antisemitic sources, and have concluded that there is indeed animal
>suffering involved.
What sources, and what suffering did you find?
>I'm not going to lose sleep if Jews make .00065 cents off of my grocery
>dollar. As I said already, I buy what I need. The person who posted the
>original article and presumably some of the people who read this thread care
>a great deal. For them, the issue is not avoiding some brands. They simply
>cannot buy some food items at all.
...unless they produce and market their own brands. If it means so
much to them, I wonder why they have not done so?
Steven Mock
news:3f0a722d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
>> References: <20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com>
> <oWfOa.27208$Ix2.11497@rwcrnsc54>
<snip: silly diversion about locusts>
>> So, not only does the average consumer have more
>> comfort against insects per se, but against sanitary conditions
>> conducive to infestation.
>
> I'd like to see that assurance from the Kash-R-Us agencies in writing.
Waldo, you repeatedly and fantasically miss the point.
No, kosher certification is not about cleanliness. But sanitary
conditions are a necessary *pre-condition* to kosher certification.
Certifying agencies will not certify a product as kosher unless they can
be certain of what is going into each item at all times. Maintaining
that certainty requires that the producer maintain a level of cleanliness
sufficient to prevent unknown contaminants of ALL kinds from getting into
the product.
Its very straightforward logic. Or would you like me to put it into
smaller words for you?
<snip: parallel between Jews and the Beast>
>> Of course, anything made
>> > with pork is safe.
>>
>> What is that supposed to mean?
>
> "Meddling Jew free"?
Right. So, once again, Waldo demonstrates that there is no logic behind
this "kosher scam" belief, but merely a visceral hatred of Jews.
>> > Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as it
>> > may seem.
>
> At least not if you subject yourself to goofy Jewish religious
> superstitions.
>
>> > Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to wash
>> > the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
>
> One set of china for the milkie foods, one set of china for the meatie
> foods, another special set of china for Passover, and one in case the
> Goyim can't be shooed away at suppertime - it's complicated and
> EXPENSIVE to be a Jew!
>
> Now convert this to the scale of a 100,000 square ft foods production
> facility, multiply it by thousands of plants nationwide, and you'll
> *begin* to see why Kosher Kosts! ($$$$$$$$)
Amazing how spectacularly Waldo manages to once again miss a simple and
straightforward point.
But hey, if it makes him feel better to stomp his feet and rant, well
rant away.
>> > It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim
>> > people in areas with very small muslim populations have been
>> > advised by imams that kosher comes closer to halal than not.
>> >
>> Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat.
>
> Please name "Kosher" products OTHER than meats that halal consumers
> might be interested in.
We've been through all this before, Waldo. How about any product that
DOESN'T contain meat - which is to say, that is certified dairy or parve,
and therefore guarenteed not to have trace elements or byproducts of
forbidden or improperly slaughtered meats that devout Muslims wish to
avoid. You'd me amazed how many things meat byproducts can get into.
>> The
>> Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no problem
>> with that.
>
> Then why do you have a problem with non-Jews wishing to avoid greasing
> the palms of the Kosher Kabal, and financing the quirky eating habits
> of Jews???
I have no problem with it, Waldo. Consume as you see fit. But we have
just as much right to laugh at you for making stupid purchasing decisions
due to ignorant misconceptions generated by your own superstitious
beliefs and visceral prejudices.
You see, Waldo, the rest of us just buy the products we like best that
cost the least. You're the only one who seems determined to convince us
that is it somehow important to go beyond this simple formula and avoid
products that have been touched by Jew-cooties. You cut quite a pathetic
figure trying so desperately to pretend that this aversion is based on
any manner of logic or reason.
<snip: a few baseless accusations and disgusting asides, with no real
argumentative content>
Steven Mock
--
"I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger
Waldo
"Philip Mathews" <phil...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6bd4de7.03070...@posting.google.com...
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f0a5c3b$0$1...@news.impulse.net>...
>
> > "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a
third
> > of
> > > > their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it,
but
> > > > that's what he says.
>
>
> > It would seem that this guy's friend has been lied to. Who do you
suppose
> > could be spreading such evil falsehoods?
>
> Of course Waldo has no idea if any lying has been done, as he
> demonstrates with his next statement!
It's called honesty, Philip. That you'd fail to grasp the concept comes as
no surprise.
> > Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
> > supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo, they
> > would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case,
failure to
> > Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these companies -
and
> > this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
>
> > Talk about a monkey on your back!
>
> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the standards
> requested by the client.
>
> The gall!
Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is* rather
sickening, isn't it?
> > > I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
> > > specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
>
> > According to Jewish sources:
> >
> > 44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are purchased
> > BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
>
> > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
>
> Confirming Mr. Liberman's point.
Of course. But surely you aren't STILL trying to downplay the significance
of Jewish buyers in the Kosher market, are you Philip?
The foods market in the US is circa $450 billion. 1/3 ($150 billion) of the
US foods market is reportedly Kosher Certified.
http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/retailsales.htm
Of this $150 billion, only about 4.5% ($6.75 billion) is actually purchased
by ANYONE who gives a shit whether or not these products are Kosher
certified.
http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
I'd say the fact that Jews account for 44% of that $6.75 billion is rather
significant, wouldn't you Philthy?
> > 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are
> > purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent in the metropolitain New
York
> > area.
>
> > Furthermore, 40% of all of all monies spent on Kosher certified products
> > that are purchased BECAUSE they are Kosher are spent at the time of the
> > Jewish Passover holiday.
>
> > http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=1186&intcategoryid=6
>
> The article is talking about the roughly $3 billion category of Jews
> buying Kosher, not the entire category of Kosher seekers.
Don't you get tired of having your Judaeophilic nose rubbed in the shit you
spew, Philthy?
The article in question was written in **1999**. Click on this link
http://www.jta.org/search_advanced.asp?blnsearch=1&blndate=1&strsearch=koshe
r&strdate=
Got it? Good. Now, hold down the little key marked "Ctrl", and press the
letter "F" on your keyboard. In the little box that appears, type the word
"supermarket", and press the "enter" key. Do you see the article that is
highlighted? You'll note that the date of the article is 02/12/1999. Now,
click on the link, and see if that article looks familiar.
Next, click on the following link:
http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/dollarsspentconsumr.htm
You'll note that the link leads to a chart, and the heading for that chart
reads "Dollars Spent By Consumers Who
Look For Kosher Products". Now, look on the left-hand side of the chart.
About half way down, you'll see the number "1998". That number refers to the
YEAR 1998, Philip.
Got it? Good. Now follow the little horizontal line next to the year 1998 to
the right, and you'll see "$3.5 bil.", which refers to *three and one-half
billion dollars*. This is the amount of money that was supposedly spent by
ALL "Consumers Who Look For Kosher Products" in the year 1998, which ended
some two months before the article was written.
NOT just Jews who keep Kosher, not Jews in general, but EVERYONE who looks
for the Kosher label on the goodies they buy, be they Jew, Muslim,
Vegetarian, lactose intolerant, or just bone-stupid!
Therefore, when the article said "kosher food accounts for $3.2 billion
worth of food sales each year -- and more than 40 percent of that is spent
on food for Passover", it MEANT that MORE than 40% of **ALL** dollars spent
on Kosher foods for Koshers sake is spent (by Jews) on food for Passover.
Is there any part of the above explanation that your lying weasel brain
fails to understand, Philip?
> Therefore,
> the 40% of the $3.2 billion sub-group of Jews buying Kosher would
> equal $1.28 billion, or about 19% of all monies spent on Kosher
> products BECAUSE they are Kosher.
LOL! You're twisting in the wind, little Turd. But don't let me interrupt
your self destructive frenzy, it's most amusing!~
> And the article does not support the claim that 40% of all monies
> spent on Kosher sought products are spent in the New York metro area.
Actually, I accidentally sent that post prematurely. Here's the link to the
article proving that 40% of all Kosher certified goods that are bought for
Kosher's sake are purchased in the New York metro area:
http://www.okkosher.com/Content.asp?ID=189
<quote>
"The biggest reason there's been an increase in the sales of kosher foods is
that supermarkets have recognized the value of kosher foods, and have
exposed more people to kosher foods," said Menachem Lubinsky, president and
CEO of Integrated Marketing Communications, a company that specializes in
kosher and Jewish products.
Some 40 percent of these sales come from the New York metropolitan area,
said Lubinsky, whose firm produces Kosherfest, a trade show featuring kosher
products."
</quote>
Did you catch that, Philthy? Here's the smoking gun again: "Some 40 percent
of these sales come from the New York metropolitan area".
Surely you remember Mr. Lubinsky, don't you Philip?
> Since Mr. Liberman's point was correct, I don't know why you
> embarrassed yourself misinterpreting statistics.
Get a wet-nap and wipe that Kosher egg from your pathetic face, Philthy.
> Actually, I do know why!
Do you get some sort of sick thrill from being humiliated on Usenet, Philip?
Steven Mock
news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
>> standards requested by the client.
>>
>> The gall!
>
> Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
> rather sickening, isn't it?
As Waldo once again demonstrates that his position is informed by nothing
more than a visceral hatred of Jews.
Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its clients
want.
Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute a
Jew gets involved.
Philip Mathews
> "Philip Mathews" <phil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:c6bd4de7.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<3f0a5c3b$0$1...@news.impulse.net>...
> >
> > > "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > > > My friend says the company believes they could lose as much as a
> third
> of
> > > > > their business without the kosher seal. Personally, I don't see it,
> but
> > > > > that's what he says.
> >
> >
> > > It would seem that this guy's friend has been lied to. Who do you
> suppose
> > > could be spreading such evil falsehoods?
> >
> > Of course Waldo has no idea if any lying has been done, as he
> > demonstrates with his next statement!
> It's called honesty, Philip. That you'd fail to grasp the concept comes as
> no surprise.
It's called spewing lies in service of your mindless, cowardly hatred,
"Waldo".
> > > Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
> > > supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo, they
> > > would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case,
> failure to
> > > Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these companies -
> and
> > > this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
>
> > > Talk about a monkey on your back!
> > Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the standards
> > requested by the client.
> > The gall!
> Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is* rather
> sickening, isn't it?
The industry is doing no such thing. Individually companies are doing
what is in their best interest. The value of the products is
irrelevant, but it does give you a nice big number to use, since you
are unable to otherwise support your lie that Kosher certification is
expensive.
> > > > I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
> > > > specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
>
> > > According to Jewish sources:
> > >
> > > 44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are purchased
> > > BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
>
> > > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
> >
> > Confirming Mr. Liberman's point.
> Of course. But surely you aren't STILL trying to downplay the significance
> of Jewish buyers in the Kosher market, are you Philip?
I am merely correcting your attempt to erroneously play up Jewish
buyers.
> The foods market in the US is circa $450 billion. 1/3 ($150 billion) of the
> US foods market is reportedly Kosher Certified.
> http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/retailsales.htm
> Of this $150 billion, only about 4.5% ($6.75 billion) is actually purchased
> by ANYONE who gives a shit whether or not these products are Kosher
> certified.
100% of the $450 billion is purchased by people who don't give a shit
if they ever see another television commercial.
That's another decision made by manufacturer's, which is their
prerogative.
> http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
> I'd say the fact that Jews account for 44% of that $6.75 billion is rather
> significant, wouldn't you Philthy?
I'd say it's more significant that 66% is accounted for by non-Jews.
Yes, why you are using 5 year old data when you know that the Kosher
market is approaching twice the $3.5 billion size and is clearly not
the result of a doubling of the Kosher for Passover sales?
Of course I know the answer. You're not interested in an accurate
picture of the market today, but only in your fixation with Jews.
> > Therefore,
> > the 40% of the $3.2 billion sub-group of Jews buying Kosher would
> > equal $1.28 billion, or about 19% of all monies spent on Kosher
> > products BECAUSE they are Kosher.
> LOL! You're twisting in the wind, little Turd. But don't let me interrupt
> your self destructive frenzy, it's most amusing!~
If you want to contend that the Kosher for Passover market doubled
between 1998 and 2002, be my guest. But I suspect intelligent people
will see the rapid growth of non Passover purchases between those
years accounting for a growth from $3.5 billion to $6.7 billion, with
a significant drop in the percentage accounted for by Passover
purchases.
> > And the article does not support the claim that 40% of all monies
> > spent on Kosher sought products are spent in the New York metro area.
> Actually, I accidentally sent that post prematurely. Here's the link to the
> article proving that 40% of all Kosher certified goods that are bought for
> Kosher's sake are purchased in the New York metro area:
> http://www.okkosher.com/Content.asp?ID=189
>
> <quote>
>
> "The biggest reason there's been an increase in the sales of kosher foods is
> that supermarkets have recognized the value of kosher foods, and have
> exposed more people to kosher foods," said Menachem Lubinsky, president and
> CEO of Integrated Marketing Communications, a company that specializes in
> kosher and Jewish products.
>
> Some 40 percent of these sales come from the New York metropolitan area,
> said Lubinsky, whose firm produces Kosherfest, a trade show featuring kosher
> products."
>
> </quote>
>
> Did you catch that, Philthy? Here's the smoking gun again: "Some 40 percent
> of these sales come from the New York metropolitan area".
>
> Surely you remember Mr. Lubinsky, don't you Philip?
I do.
The quote you give is not form Lubinsky, but from the writer of the
article.
But at least you provided some support for this statement, whatever
significance it has.
> > Since Mr. Liberman's point was correct, I don't know why you
> > embarrassed yourself misinterpreting statistics.
> Get a wet-nap and wipe that Kosher egg from your pathetic face, Philthy.
Unfortunately for you, "Waldo", you've once again shown your
willingness to be dishonest in your efforts to malign Jews.
Using 5 year old data in a category which is growing rapidly, and
broadening its appeal, when you know the substantial growth in that
time is not driven by Passover purchases, just provides another
indication of your character.
Unless, that is, you want to contend that Kosher for Passover
purchases increased by nearly 100% in four years!
--
Philip Mathews
sailor57
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> >> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
> >> standards requested by the client.
> >>
> >> The gall!
> >
> > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> > billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
> > rather sickening, isn't it?
>
> As Waldo once again demonstrates that his position is informed by nothing
> more than a visceral hatred of Jews.
In view of the way he acts, I have serious doubts that he has any
viscera left.
>
> Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its clients
> want.
>
> Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute a
> Jew gets involved.
It does if you have swastikas covering your ears and eyes .Waldo has
trouble seeing reality. Every time he blinks, he sees Adolf.
>
> Steven Mock
Waldo
> news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> >> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
> >> standards requested by the client.
> >>
> >> The gall!
> >
> > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> > billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
> > rather sickening, isn't it?
>
<snipped: Nasal whining>
>
> Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its clients
> want.
Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that its 'clients'
(consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to Kosher certify
most of its products - and that is why they're dumping the bulk of the COR
meddling.
> Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute a
> Jew gets involved.
Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only became
'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim unwittingly pay
the high costs of complying with their ancient and archaic religious
superstitions.
This too shall pass, Mr. Mock.
Philip Mathews
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B3128EA410...@206.172.150.13...
> > "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> > news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> > >> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
> > >> standards requested by the client.
> > >>
> > >> The gall!
> > > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> > > billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
> > > rather sickening, isn't it?
> <snipped: Nasal whining>
> > Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its clients
> > want.
> Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that its
'clients'
> (consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to Kosher certify
> most of its products - and that is why they're dumping the bulk of the COR
> meddling.
You mean the certification service they asked to be provided in the first
place.
Only in the mind of a dull Jew hater would the request for a service be
called meddling.
But Heinz Canada's decision demonstrates once again that manufacturers make
the decision to certify or not certify based on their expert judgement of
its benefits.
> > Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute a
> > Jew gets involved.
> Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only became
> 'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim unwittingly pay
> the high costs of complying with their ancient and archaic religious
> superstitions.
No scheme was concocted, except in your cowardly little brain, "Waldo".
Manufacturers determine the costs of their products by the choices they
make.
> This too shall pass, Mr. Mock.
What, your stupidity?
Sheldon Liberman
Waldo wrote:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B3128EA410...@206.172.150.13...
>
>>"Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>>news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>>
>>
>>>>Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
>>>>standards requested by the client.
>>>>
>>>>The gall!
>>>
>>>Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
>>>billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
>>>rather sickening, isn't it?
>>
>
> <snipped: Nasal whining>
>
>>Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its clients
>>want.
>
>
>
> Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that its 'clients'
> (consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to Kosher certify
> most of its products - and that is why they're dumping the bulk of the COR
> meddling.
It figures you would use the one firm to drop kosher certification to
make your point, and turn a blind eye to the much greater number of
firms who are adding kosher symbols. Racial bias at work.
And you even lie to make that point. Here is the exact quote: 'According
to company spokesperson Anna Relyea, the move stemmed from a desire to
"keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
customers."'
Notice the use of the word "costs", not "prices". Your own example
belies your theory of consumers paying the kosher freight. Those
products were moving selling enough to sufficient reduce fixed costs per
unit, thus they were uneconomic. Ketchup and other Heinz products do
enough business.
As for COR meddling, if that's the case, why doesn't Heinz drop all
kosher supervision?
BTW, I would hypothesis that some companies drop their kashrut before
the kashrut agency drops them. Better, from a corporate image
standpoint, so drop kosher and throw in some line about costs that to
say they were about to receive a failing grade.
>
>
>>Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute a
>>Jew gets involved.
>
>
> Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only became
> 'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim unwittingly pay
> the high costs of complying with their ancient and archaic religious
> superstitions.
No scheme. No goyim paying higher prices. No archaic superstition.
You're a bonehead.
Waldo
Red-faced, shaking and gibbering with rage, "Philip Mathews"
<phil...@aol.com> wrote:
What 'lies', you Philthy Turd?
> > > > Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
> > > > supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo,
they
> > > > would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case,
> > failure to
> > > > Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these
companies -
> > and
> > > > this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
> >
> > > > Talk about a monkey on your back!
>
> > > Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the standards
> > > requested by the client.
>
> > > The gall!
>
>
> > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> > billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
rather
> > sickening, isn't it?
>
> The industry is doing no such thing. Individually companies are doing
> what is in their best interest.
Rather, they are doing what they have been *led to believe* is in their best
interest - not unlike marks in a con-game.
> The value of the products is irrelevant,
Irrelevant? Since 1996, the supply of KC goodies has increased by a factor
of 3.66, while the (supposed) demand has increased only by a factor of 2.21.
IOW, supply is GREATLY outpacing demand, and every dollar spent on Kosher
Certification is producing a smaller and smaller return for the
manufacturers, and is generating less and less profit (or, as in the case if
Heinz Canada, Kosher is diving further and further into the RED).
> but it does give you a nice big number to use, since you
> are unable to otherwise support your lie that Kosher certification is
> expensive.
Twist and spin, Philthy. Twist and spin.
> > > > > I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
> > > > > specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
> >
> > > > According to Jewish sources:
> > > >
> > > > 44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are
purchased
> > > > BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
> >
> > > > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
> > >
> > > Confirming Mr. Liberman's point.
>
>
> > Of course. But surely you aren't STILL trying to downplay the
significance
> > of Jewish buyers in the Kosher market, are you Philip?
>
> I am merely correcting your attempt to erroneously play up Jewish
> buyers.
No need to play anything up, Philthy.
> > The foods market in the US is circa $450 billion. 1/3 ($150 billion) of
the
> > US foods market is reportedly Kosher Certified.
>
> > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/retailsales.htm
>
> > Of this $150 billion, only about 4.5% ($6.75 billion) is actually
purchased
> > by ANYONE who gives a shit whether or not these products are Kosher
> > certified.
>
> 100% of the $450 billion is purchased by people who don't give a shit
> if they ever see another television commercial.
Boy, are you stupid or what?
> That's another decision made by manufacturer's, which is their
> prerogative.
>
> > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
>
>
> > I'd say the fact that Jews account for 44% of that $6.75 billion is
rather
> > significant, wouldn't you Philthy?
>
> I'd say it's more significant that 66% is accounted for by non-Jews.
Really? Why?
Because it's the most recent data I've encountered.
Why do you, your buddies and the ADL refer to a *28* year-old article when
trying to JUSTIFY Kosher Certification, and downplay the costs associated
therewith, Philthy?
And speaking of that 28 year-old article, do you recall this little
exchange, Philthy? You didn't seem to have a problem with the age of the
information THEN!
_____________________________
>> >> This is untrue. Evidence of the infinitesimal cost of Kosher
certification
>> >> was
>> >> presented and Waldo declared it too old!!
>> >
>> >Too old is an UNDERSTATEMENT.
>>
>> No, too old is a ridiculous statement.
>
>I sometimes wonder if your participation here is just for the sake of
finger
>exercises. Part of a physical therapy program, perhaps?
Unable to explain why the age of the evidence is an issue, I see!
>> >The dubious articles were written in 1975.
>>
>> The Washington Post article cited talked about the results of Entenmanns
>> 1981
>> decision. It was the Times article that was 1975. But more importantly,
you
>> haven't shown why the date of the information is relevant.
___________________________________
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3B633ADB@Ma
ilAndNews.com&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Twisting and squirming, Philthy?
> when you know that the Kosher
> market is approaching twice the $3.5 billion size and is clearly not
> the result of a doubling of the Kosher for Passover sales?
Now how do you know that, Philthy? What makes you think that there hasn't
been a massive "Jewish Identity Movement" sweeping the nation, that the
Lubavitchers haven't been stirring up a Messianic Mania among Jews,
resulting in orgiastic mass gorgings of Kosher-for-Passover tidbits at
Grandma's house?
> Of course I know the answer. You're not interested in an accurate
> picture of the market today, but only in your fixation with Jews.
But we notice that, as usual, you offer NOTHING in useful information.
You're nothing but a pathetic little denier, Philthy.
> > > Therefore,
> > > the 40% of the $3.2 billion sub-group of Jews buying Kosher would
> > > equal $1.28 billion, or about 19% of all monies spent on Kosher
> > > products BECAUSE they are Kosher.
>
> > LOL! You're twisting in the wind, little Turd. But don't let me
interrupt
> > your self destructive frenzy, it's most amusing!~
>
> If you want to contend that the Kosher for Passover market doubled
> between 1998 and 2002, be my guest. But I suspect intelligent people
> will see the rapid growth of non Passover purchases between those
> years accounting for a growth from $3.5 billion to $6.7 billion, with
> a significant drop in the percentage accounted for by Passover
> purchases.
"Intelligent people" would expect you to back up your bald assertions with
facts and cites - which you NEVER do, because in the VAST majority of cases,
you CAN'T. You just twist, spin and dodge.
Between 1998 and 2002, the number of Kosher Certified packaged products grew
from 45,000 to 75,000 - an increase of over 66%. No doubt MANY of these
products are certified Kosher for Passover - (here are a few)
http://www.kashrut.com/Passover/crc2003products/
- and this would encourage the noshers to purchase MANY items for the
holiday that they otherwise would have made at home or done without.
The latest known data shows that 40% of all monies spent on Kosher goodies
for Kosher's sake are spent at Passover. If you wish to contest this, back
it up with FACTS and CITES, Philip.
Lisa Marsh, the (likely Jewish) writer of the article, which is featured at
the OK Kash-R-Us Agency's website, attributed the statement to Mr.
Lubinsky, you pernicious Turd.
Earlier you proved that the Star-K agency LIED about Kosher statistics. Are
you now going to call the OK agency a liar as well? Who's next? The OU???
I'm starting to wonder if your really an anti-Semitic agent provocateur!
> But at least you provided some support for this statement, whatever
> significance it has.
It is quite significant to any company or plant that produces a product that
is not distributed to the NY Metro area - you're missing out on 40% of the
alleged advantage that Kosher Certification allegedly offers.
>
> > > Since Mr. Liberman's point was correct, I don't know why you
> > > embarrassed yourself misinterpreting statistics.
>
> > Get a wet-nap and wipe that Kosher egg from your pathetic face, Philthy.
>
> Unfortunately for you, "Waldo", you've once again shown your
> willingness to be dishonest in your efforts to malign Jews.
Look who's talking, Mr. Undercover Nazi!
> Using 5 year old data in a category which is growing rapidly, and
> broadening its appeal, when you know the substantial growth in that
> time is not driven by Passover purchases, just provides another
> indication of your character.
Enough of your bald assertions. Give us facts and cites, Philthy.
> Unless, that is, you want to contend that Kosher for Passover
> purchases increased by nearly 100% in four years!
There is no doubt that the sales of packaged products that are certified
Kosher for Passover and were purchased for that purpose have increased
dramatically over the past four years. The only question is how much. And
even if, despite the introduction of **thirty-thousand new Kosher Certified
products** during that period, the dollars spent at Passover remained
STATIC, Passover sales would STILL account for over 20% of ALL Kosher
Certified goods purchased for Kosher's sake.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3f0ccfa3$0$1...@news.impulse.net> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 9
Jul 2003 19:27:43 -0700, "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B3128EA410...@206.172.150.13...
> > "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> > news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> > >> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
> > >> standards requested by the client.
> > >> The gall!
> > > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune
> > > of $150 billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal
> > > whiners *is* rather sickening, isn't it?
> <snipped: Nasal whining>
> > Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its
> > clients want.
> Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that its
> 'clients' (consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to
> Kosher certify most of its products - and that is why they're
> dumping the bulk of the COR meddling.
So, you're saying companies *do* have a choice in whether their
products are certfied kosher.
So what's the porblem then?
> > Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the
> > minute a Jew gets involved.
> Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go.
Does the word "duh" mean anything to you?
> Kosher only became
> 'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim
> unwittingly pay the high costs of complying with their ancient and
> archaic religious superstitions.
Except Heinz?
> This too shall pass, Mr. Mock.
Got a little wind, have you?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPw0S4pQgvG272fn9EQJrogCgv6VsjuAwiL0nWN9CqxKGCxPyJIEAn3Vj
NJ9fR4wYPmArYDw/wYXg7YiQ
=8GBT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Philip Mathews
> Red-faced, shaking and gibbering with rage, "Philip Mathews"
> <phil...@aol.com> wrote:
Oh Waldo, the rage is all yours, as is the spittle which proceeds from
your mouth.
Read through the recent url of your posts!
> > > > > Then again, he did say that the company does private label work for
> > > > > supermarkets, and if these have made deals with the Kosher diablo,
> they
> > > > > would insist that the products be certified. If this be the case,
> failure to
> > > > > Kosher Certify could cost them their contracts with these
> companies -
> and
> > > > > this could very well account for 1/3 of their business.
>
> > > > > Talk about a monkey on your back!
>
> > > > Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the standards
> > > > requested by the client.
>
> > > > The gall!
> >
> >
> > > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> > > billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
> rather
> > > sickening, isn't it?
> > The industry is doing no such thing. Individually companies are doing
> > what is in their best interest.
> Rather, they are doing what they have been *led to believe* is in their best
> interest - not unlike marks in a con-game.
A decision they are qualified to make. You are not. You have neither
the training nor knowledge to make such decisions for them. You have
only your mindless hatred. Companies are subjected to the sales
pitches of all service companies they do business with. They know how
to evaluate such proposals.
> > The value of the products is irrelevant,
> Irrelevant?
Yes, your use of the $150 billion figure in this discussion is
irrelevant.
(snip)
> > but it does give you a nice big number to use, since you
> > are unable to otherwise support your lie that Kosher certification is
> > expensive.
> Twist and spin, Philthy. Twist and spin.
Says the little man who can't support his case about Kosher costs!!
> > > > > > I don't know about a third, but certainly most consumers who
> > > > > > specifically by products with the seal are not Jewish,
>
> > > > > According to Jewish sources:
> > > > >
> > > > > 44% of all monies spent on Kosher certified products that are
> purchased
> > > > > BECAUSE they are Kosher is spent by Jews.
>
> > > > > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
> > > >
> > > > Confirming Mr. Liberman's point.
> >
> >
> > > Of course. But surely you aren't STILL trying to downplay the
> significance
> > > of Jewish buyers in the Kosher market, are you Philip?
> > I am merely correcting your attempt to erroneously play up Jewish
> > buyers.
> No need to play anything up, Philthy.
That's correct. But your agenda requires it of you.
> > > The foods market in the US is circa $450 billion. 1/3 ($150 billion) of
> the
> > > US foods market is reportedly Kosher Certified.
>
> > > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/retailsales.htm
>
> > > Of this $150 billion, only about 4.5% ($6.75 billion) is actually
> purchased
> > > by ANYONE who gives a shit whether or not these products are Kosher
> > > certified.
> >
> > 100% of the $450 billion is purchased by people who don't give a shit
> > if they ever see another television commercial.
> Boy, are you stupid or what?
Hehe!
Confronted with your own logic, you resort to the only thing you know
how to do.
> > That's another decision made by manufacturer's, which is their
> > prerogative.
> >
> > > http://www.koshertoday.com/resourcecenter/charts/scopeandsize.htm
> > > I'd say the fact that Jews account for 44% of that $6.75 billion is
> rather
> > > significant, wouldn't you Philthy?
> >
> > I'd say it's more significant that 66% is accounted for by non-Jews.
> Really? Why?
Because it indicates that the majority of Kosher sales are to
non-Jews, which accounts for the growth of the category and thereby
helps expose your antisemitic attempts to mischaracterize Kosher
certification.
But you know this category is very dynamic, and yet you didn't tell
anyone it was five year old data. It is outdated, as you well know.
> Why do you, your buddies and the ADL refer to a *28* year-old article when
> trying to JUSTIFY Kosher Certification, and downplay the costs associated
> therewith, Philthy?
Not the same thing at all. Your data is category data, rendered moot
by a rapidly changing dynamic. There is no evidence that the cost of
certification on a per unit basis has undergone any such equivalent
change.
(snip)
> > when you know that the Kosher
> > market is approaching twice the $3.5 billion size and is clearly not
> > the result of a doubling of the Kosher for Passover sales?
> Now how do you know that, Philthy? What makes you think that there hasn't
> been a massive "Jewish Identity Movement" sweeping the nation, that the
> Lubavitchers haven't been stirring up a Messianic Mania among Jews,
> resulting in orgiastic mass gorgings of Kosher-for-Passover tidbits at
> Grandma's house?
Common sense.
The category has almost doubled. More than 1.5 million buyers have
been added to Kosher purchasers, and yet the Jewish population is flat
or declining. The growth trends for other users are positive. If the
growth rates projected for Kosher are realized, the percentage spent
during Passover will decline. When the data is updated, the Passover
percentage will decline.
> > Of course I know the answer. You're not interested in an accurate
> > picture of the market today, but only in your fixation with Jews.
>
>
> But we notice that, as usual, you offer NOTHING in useful information.
> You're nothing but a pathetic little denier, Philthy.
Do you want me to offer 5 year old, useless data, "Waldo"?
> > > > Therefore,
> > > > the 40% of the $3.2 billion sub-group of Jews buying Kosher would
> > > > equal $1.28 billion, or about 19% of all monies spent on Kosher
> > > > products BECAUSE they are Kosher.
>
> > > LOL! You're twisting in the wind, little Turd. But don't let me
> interrupt
> > > your self destructive frenzy, it's most amusing!~
> >
> > If you want to contend that the Kosher for Passover market doubled
> > between 1998 and 2002, be my guest. But I suspect intelligent people
> > will see the rapid growth of non Passover purchases between those
> > years accounting for a growth from $3.5 billion to $6.7 billion, with
> > a significant drop in the percentage accounted for by Passover
> > purchases.
> "Intelligent people" would expect you to back up your bald assertions with
> facts and cites - which you NEVER do, because in the VAST majority of cases,
> you CAN'T. You just twist, spin and dodge.
I'm afraid your lying. It is you who have been unable over a few years
now to support your basic charge that Kosher is expensive, and costs
consumers money.
> Between 1998 and 2002, the number of Kosher Certified packaged products grew
> from 45,000 to 75,000 - an increase of over 66%. No doubt MANY of these
> products are certified Kosher for Passover - (here are a few)
This data is irrelevant, since you don't how many are certified for
Passover. No doubt most are not.
> http://www.kashrut.com/Passover/crc2003products/
>
> - and this would encourage the noshers to purchase MANY items for the
> holiday that they otherwise would have made at home or done without.
>
> The latest known data shows that 40% of all monies spent on Kosher goodies
> for Kosher's sake are spent at Passover. If you wish to contest this, back
> it up with FACTS and CITES, Philip.
I've already addressed this. The latest data is moot given the
dynamics of the category.
That's correct. So my point stands.
> Earlier you proved that the Star-K agency LIED about Kosher statistics.
No I didn't. That was just you jumping through hoops trying to hide
the fact that you can't show that certification is expensive or costs
consumers in most instances.
>
> I'm starting to wonder if your really an anti-Semitic agent provocateur!
Since when would an anonymous Jew hater like yourself need provoking?
> > But at least you provided some support for this statement, whatever
> > significance it has.
> It is quite significant to any company or plant that produces a product that
> is not distributed to the NY Metro area - you're missing out on 40% of the
> alleged advantage that Kosher Certification allegedly offers.
But it is not significant to our topic.
> > > > Since Mr. Liberman's point was correct, I don't know why you
> > > > embarrassed yourself misinterpreting statistics.
>
> > > Get a wet-nap and wipe that Kosher egg from your pathetic face, Philthy.
> > Unfortunately for you, "Waldo", you've once again shown your
> > willingness to be dishonest in your efforts to malign Jews.
> Look who's talking, Mr. Undercover Nazi!
Time to wipe, "Waldo".
> > Using 5 year old data in a category which is growing rapidly, and
> > broadening its appeal, when you know the substantial growth in that
> > time is not driven by Passover purchases, just provides another
> > indication of your character.
> Enough of your bald assertions. Give us facts and cites, Philthy.
Your data is out of date.
> > Unless, that is, you want to contend that Kosher for Passover
> > purchases increased by nearly 100% in four years!
> There is no doubt that the sales of packaged products that are certified
> Kosher for Passover and were purchased for that purpose have increased
> dramatically over the past four years. The only question is how much.
And you have no data that the increase was 100%, which is what would
be required for Passover sales to remain at 40% of total.
Once again, Waldo has failed in his hate-filled efforts to prove
Kosher certification as something nefarious.
(snip)
--
Philip Mathews
Steven Mock
news:3f0ccfa3$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B3128EA410...@206.172.150.13...
>> Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its clients
>> want.
>
> Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that its
> 'clients' (consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to
> Kosher certify most of its products - and that is why they're dumping
> the bulk of the COR meddling.
>
>> Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the
>> minute a Jew gets involved.
>
> Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only
> became 'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim
> unwittingly pay the high costs of complying with their ancient and
> archaic religious superstitions.
Right. So, Waldo, having given up any and all pretense of trying to
*prove* this claim that non-Jewish consumers are somehow forced to
subsidize the costs of kosher certification, is now content to just keep
stomping his feet and repeating it as though doing so accomplishes
anything other than to display his abject ignorance of the basic
principles of economics.
Stay stupid, Waldo.
sailor57
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f0d12d6$0$1...@news.impulse.net>...
>
> > Red-faced, shaking and gibbering with rage, "Philip Mathews"
> > <phil...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Oh Waldo, the rage is all yours, as is the spittle which proceeds from
> your mouth.
>
I find it hard to believe that someone like Waldope with no conscience
can be honestly angry about anything. He has no pride or dignity. How
can he feel indignation?
Sheldon Liberman
I think it more likely a sad tale of a pathic soul who can find
acceptance only within the confines of a newgroup dedicate to hatred of
Jews. Dig deep, and you'll find a textbook case of Sinai envy.
sailor57
The Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, but that was not
Anti-Semitism. It was punishment for the Jews rebellion-the Romans did
that to all who opposed them.
In the ancient world, there was no religious tolerance.Wars were
fought in the Middle East and Europe over religion. The Pope had his
own army in Michaelangelo's time.The Puritans came here to escape
persecution for their faith. The idea of religious tolerance came
about in the 18th century when our Constitution was written, written
by people who had witnessed persecution of different faiths in Europe.
Anti-Semitism persisted in Europe because the Jews were a small
minority and they were different.They were used as scapegoats by
unscrupulous politicians and Hitler was not the first one to do
that.The Czars were surrounded by people who used it for their own
ends. A scapegoat is useful to a politician if he has problems he
cannot solve-he simply blames them on the Jews, a minority too small
to fight back. If his subjects are gullible enough and ignorant
enough, they will believe the nonsense. It is natural for humans to be
suspicious of anyone different than they are. In Germany, it was
traditional to not question authority. So, when Hitler comes to power
and blames things on the Jews, his subjects go along.
Waldo
>
>
> Waldo wrote:
> > "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93B3128EA410...@206.172.150.13...
> >
> >>"Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> >>news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
> >>>>standards requested by the client.
> >>>>
> >>>>The gall!
> >>>
> >>>Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune of $150
> >>>billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal whiners *is*
> >>>rather sickening, isn't it?
> >>
> >
> > <snipped: Nasal whining>
> >
> >>Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its clients
> >>want.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that its
'clients'
> > (consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to Kosher certify
> > most of its products - and that is why they're dumping the bulk of the
COR
> > meddling.
>
> It figures you would use the one firm to drop kosher certification to
> make your point,
"the one firm", Sheldon? Many firms have dumped the Kosher Kabal. Heinz
Canada is noteworthy because:
(A) Heinz Canada is a large player;
(B) Its parent company (Heinz USA) was among the FIRST major national brands
to adopt Kosher Certification, and indeed was instrumental in the formation
of the OU Kash-R-Us agency, has been cited by the ADL as having said that
the costs of Kosher is "so small we can't even calculate it" (a bald faced
lie) and
(C) Because most of the products it dumped (tomato sauces and paste, tomato
soup, vinegar, mustard, etc) were of the type that Kosher Cheerleaders tout
as 'easy' and 'cheap' to certify. In fact they claim that Kosher
Certification of these types of products costs companies LESS THAN NOTHING
to certify, as the increased market share MORE than pays for certification,
and even LOWERS the retail price of goods!
> and turn a blind eye to the much greater number of
> firms who are adding kosher symbols.
Are you too stupid (or too dishonest) to see that this was part of the
problem? Quoting KosherTodayOnline:
"The Heinz [de-certification] move comes after many large companies in
Canada have added kosher certification, including Coca Cola which is now
certified by the COR."
http://www.koshertoday.com/weekly%20news%20archives/2002/120902.htm
Too many fishermen angling after a finite number of fish in a small pond.
And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all costs
associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits the size of
Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely powerful, strident, vicious
and vindictive group - just to save a few hundred thousand dollars.
> Racial bias at work.
So you claim that Jews are a race? Don't worry, tomorrow you'll be howling
that it's a 'religion', a 'tribe', a 'nation' or a 'people' - whatever suits
your agenda of the moment.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the (Lubavitcher) Rabbi Menachem
Mendel Schneerson: Jews are a 'species'.
> And you even lie to make that point. Here is the exact quote: 'According
> to company spokesperson Anna Relyea, the move stemmed from a desire to
> "keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
> customers."'
>
> Notice the use of the word "costs", not "prices".
Yes, and here's a further quote from the article, Sheldon:
"Relyea called the Canadian marketplace a "very competitive retail trade
environment," one that keeps the company "under continual pressure to keep
costs down to remain competitive."
Keeping "costs down to remain competitive" means keeping costs down to keep
PRICES down.
Are you so stump ignorant of the world of business that you don't understand
that an increase in per unit *costs* must at SOME POINT be passed on to the
consumer in the form of INCREASED PRICES?
Surely you can't be this stupid, Sheldon, so I'll give you the benefit of
the doubt, and assume that you - like the vast majority of the Jews /
Judaeophiles that post here - are simply shamelessly dishonest, willing to
stoop to ANY level in the defense of your pernicious little tribe.
> Your own example
> belies your theory of consumers paying the kosher freight.
"Kosher freight"??? What are you talking about? The end consumer ultimately
pays the cost of ALL freight.
> Those
> products were moving selling enough to sufficient reduce fixed costs per
> unit, thus they were uneconomic. Ketchup and other Heinz products do
> enough business.
The above makes no sense. Care to try again?
> As for COR meddling, if that's the case, why doesn't Heinz drop all
> kosher supervision?
Good question. Do you suppose they might fear being labeled as anti-Semites
(Heil Heinzler!), and being attacked by every Jewish pundit in every Jewish
owned (which is virtually ALL) media outlet in Canada?
> BTW, I would hypothesis that some companies drop their kashrut before
> the kashrut agency drops them. Better, from a corporate image
> standpoint, so drop kosher and throw in some line about costs that to
> say they were about to receive a failing grade.
There is no such thing as a "failing grade" for a company producing Kosher
products, Mister Expert. Each product is certified by the Kash-R-Us agency
as Kosher, or it is not. If the company, whether intentionally or
inadvertently labels a non-certified product as Kosher, or mis-labels a
Kosher product (i.e.: a missing 'D' on a product containing trace amounts of
dairy products, etc) the Kash-R-Us agencies force a recall.
($$$$$$$)
> >
> >
> >>Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute a
> >>Jew gets involved.
> >
> >
> > Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only became
> > 'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim unwittingly
pay
> > the high costs of complying with their ancient and archaic religious
> > superstitions.
>
> No scheme.
Sez you.
> No goyim paying higher prices.
At least not for most Heinz Canada products - not anymore! O:-(>
> No archaic superstition.
Correction: Nothing BUT archaic superstition.
> You're a bonehead.
And you've been trounced, Sheldon.
Waldo
"John Morris" <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
news:hi4qgv8tdt22i3hsi...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <3f0ccfa3$0$1...@news.impulse.net> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 9
> Jul 2003 19:27:43 -0700, "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93B3128EA410...@206.172.150.13...
>
> > > "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> > > >> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to the
> > > >> standards requested by the client.
>
> > > >> The gall!
>
> > > > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the tune
> > > > of $150 billion in products) to please a handful of pushy nasal
> > > > whiners *is* rather sickening, isn't it?
>
> > <snipped: Nasal whining>
>
> > > Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its
> > > clients want.
>
> > Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that its
> > 'clients' (consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to
> > Kosher certify most of its products - and that is why they're
> > dumping the bulk of the COR meddling.
>
> So, you're saying companies *do* have a choice in whether their
> products are certfied kosher.
I have never said otherwise. Others that have 'choices' are smokers,
gamblers, drunk drivers, drug abusers . . .
> So what's the porblem then?
Would you have a 'porblem' with the government mandating a big fat 'Star of
David' (blue in a white field, please) with the word JEW in the center
accompanying any Kash-R-Us symbol on any Kosher Certified packaged product -
you know, to help inform consumers - thereby giving THEM a 'choice'???
> > > Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the
> > > minute a Jew gets involved.
>
> > Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go.
>
> Does the word "duh" mean anything to you?
I think of it every time I read your commentary, Mr. Morris.
> > Kosher only became
> > 'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim
> > unwittingly pay the high costs of complying with their ancient and
> > archaic religious superstitions.
>
> Except Heinz?
No, Heinz played a major role in the laying of the Kosts of Kosher on the
backs of the Gentiles - and I'm quite certain that they profited handsomely
from their complicity - for a time. But the balances are tipping: The greedy
Kash-R-Us agencies are working their tails off to get EVERY foods
manufacturer on the Kosher bandwagon, and as the Kosher pie gets cut into
smaller and smaller slices, the returns for each company slow to a trickle,
while the costs of producing a Kosher Certified product steadily RISE.
Think of Heinz as a harbinger - in both the rise and fall of the Kosher
Kabal - that is, unless Jews can successfully 'convince' Heinz to change
their policy via political, media or bureaucratic PRESSURE.
Two notable quotes from the article:
"Heinz jarred baby foods are also no longer kosher, and Heinz - as the
federal Competition Bureau noted three years ago when it investigated the
company for anti-competitive practices in the sector - is the sole supplier
of jarred baby food in Canada."
"Meanwhile, COR is asking consumers to continue contacting Heinz to express
their concerns.
> > This too shall pass, Mr. Mock.
>
> Got a little wind, have you?
It's an ill wind that doesn't blow some good for SOMEONE, Mr. Morris, and
the crash of the Kosher Kabal would indeed be good news for most consumers.
Waldo
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f0a722d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> > "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
> >> References: <20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com>
> > <oWfOa.27208$Ix2.11497@rwcrnsc54>
> <snip: silly diversion about locusts>
Sheldon lies - Steven can't defend - Steven snips. Standard operational
procedure.
Well, that's lunch!
___________________________
"I must admit that eating a locust was not an experience that I would hasten
to repeat. They were served whole, neatly arranged on a plate. According to
the instructions, I removed the locust's wings and legs, and unscrewed its
head. Then, with my face screwed up in repulsion, I ate it. Like many
candies, it was crunchy on the outside with a chewy center. But all that I
could think at the time was, Yeuuuuchhh, I'm eating a bug!!!"
___________________________
http://www.zootorah.com/essays/feast.html
(See photos at bottom of page)
> >> So, not only does the average consumer have more
> >> comfort against insects per se, but against sanitary conditions
> >> conducive to infestation.
> >
> > I'd like to see that assurance from the Kash-R-Us agencies in writing.
>
> Waldo, you repeatedly and fantasically miss the point.
And you continually beat a dead Kosher horse.
<snip redundancy about how Jews are the ultimate authority on cleanliness>
> <snip: parallel between Jews and the Beast>
ROTFL!!!!!
> >> Of course, anything made
> >> > with pork is safe.
> >>
> >> What is that supposed to mean?
> >
> > "Meddling Jew free"?
>
> Right. So, once again, Waldo demonstrates that there is no logic behind
> this "kosher scam" belief, but merely a visceral hatred of Jews.
God, you're full of it, Mock.
> >> > Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as it
> >> > may seem.
> >
> > At least not if you subject yourself to goofy Jewish religious
> > superstitions.
> >
> >> > Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to wash
> >> > the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
> >
> > One set of china for the milkie foods, one set of china for the meatie
> > foods, another special set of china for Passover, and one in case the
> > Goyim can't be shooed away at suppertime - it's complicated and
> > EXPENSIVE to be a Jew!
> >
> > Now convert this to the scale of a 100,000 square ft foods production
> > facility, multiply it by thousands of plants nationwide, and you'll
> > *begin* to see why Kosher Kosts! ($$$$$$$$)
>
> Amazing how spectacularly Waldo manages to once again miss a simple and
> straightforward point.
I didn't miss his point, I EXPANDED on it, demonstrating how the expense of
the cultural weirdness of Jewish superstition has been foisted onto the
American consumer. What if Jews had a 'law' against stepping on the cracks
in a sidewalk? Brooklyn would look like it had been taken over by a pack of
Jack Rabbits in Black!
> But hey, if it makes him feel better to stomp his feet and rant, well
> rant away.
>
> >> > It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim
> >> > people in areas with very small muslim populations have been
> >> > advised by imams that kosher comes closer to halal than not.
> >> >
> >> Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat.
> >
> > Please name "Kosher" products OTHER than meats that halal consumers
> > might be interested in.
>
> We've been through all this before, Waldo. How about any product that
> DOESN'T contain meat - which is to say, that is certified dairy or parve,
> and therefore guarenteed not to have trace elements or byproducts of
> forbidden or improperly slaughtered meats that devout Muslims wish to
> avoid. You'd me amazed how many things meat byproducts can get into.
Muslims avoid alcohol. Jews don't. A Kosher symbol offers Muslims NO
guarantee that a product does not contain trace amounts of alcohol.
Gelatin - INCLUDING KOSHER GELATIN - is forbidden to Muslims.
> >> The
> >> Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no problem
> >> with that.
> >
> > Then why do you have a problem with non-Jews wishing to avoid greasing
> > the palms of the Kosher Kabal, and financing the quirky eating habits
> > of Jews???
>
> I have no problem with it, Waldo. Consume as you see fit. But we have
> just as much right to laugh at you for making stupid purchasing decisions
> due to ignorant misconceptions generated by your own superstitious
> beliefs
My superstitious beliefs? MY SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS???
Name ONE, you lying monkey scrotum!
> and visceral prejudices.
>
> You see, Waldo, the rest of us just buy the products we like best that
> cost the least.
Not your superstitious Jew buddies, Steve. They're busy wringing their hands
and pulling their hair out because SOMEONE put a DAIRY SPOON in the
dishwasher with the MEAT DISHES!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!
> You're the only one who seems determined to convince us
> that is it somehow important to go beyond this simple formula and avoid
> products that have been touched by Jew-cooties.
Pardon me, but fuck you, moron. I have never mentioned 'jew-cooties' or made
any inference that foods are somehow 'contaminated' by Kosher supervision.
The fact that you make such accusations shows that you're nothing but an
ethnocentric eccentric, desperate to defend your tribe at any cost.
Despicable.
> You cut quite a pathetic
> figure trying so desperately to pretend that this aversion is based on
> any manner of logic or reason.
When was the last time you provided any information that could - even as a
stretch - pretend to defend your Tribe's Kosher machinations, Mock?
Your last name suits you uncannily well.
Steven Mock
news:3f0e61f1$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B28BAF23A2...@206.172.150.13...
>> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3f0a722d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>>
>> > "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:3F09B9F3...@sympatico.ca...
>> >> References: <20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com>
>> > <oWfOa.27208$Ix2.11497@rwcrnsc54>
>
>> <snip: silly diversion about locusts>
>
> Sheldon lies - Steven can't defend - Steven snips. Standard
> operational procedure.
>
> Well, that's lunch!
Wait a minute, Waldo, didn't I already deal with this bullshit?
Oh yeah.
<repost>
But it is silliness, Waldo. You're trying to catch Mr. Liberman on a
technicality that has nothing whatsoever to so with the substance of
his argument, so as to give yourself an excuse to avoid and distract
from the argument itself.
I, for one, don't know anything about kosher regulations relating to
locusts. I, too, was under the impression that insects of all kinds
were forbidden according to Jewish dietary law. However, even if you
have found an exception to this rule (probably just by googling
"kosher insects" and seeing what came up), this in no way affects the
crux of the argument which is this:
Given that insects, in general, are forbidden according to Jewish
dietary law, to the point that even contact with a forbidden insect
renders a product unkosher, then, unless locusts are an integral part
of the product put there intentionally by a producer, consumers - both
Jewish and non-Jewish - can be reasonably confident that a
kosher-certified product has been produced in an infestation-free
environment.
Have you any response to this argument, Waldo?
</repost>
What was that about cutting and dodging Waldo?
<snicker>
Steven Mock
news:3f0e61f1$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>> >> So, not only does the average consumer have more
>> >> comfort against insects per se, but against sanitary conditions
>> >> conducive to infestation.
>> >
>> > I'd like to see that assurance from the Kash-R-Us agencies in
>> > writing.
>>
>> Waldo, you repeatedly and fantasically miss the point.
>
> And you continually beat a dead Kosher horse.
>
> <snip redundancy about how Jews are the ultimate authority on
> cleanliness>
Which is not at all what I said.
Waldo can't answer the point. Waldo snips. Waldo runs.
<repost>
No, kosher certification is not about cleanliness. But sanitary
conditions are a necessary *pre-condition* to kosher certification.
Certifying agencies will not certify a product as kosher unless they can
be certain of what is going into each item at all times. Maintaining
that certainty requires that the producer maintain a level of cleanliness
sufficient to prevent unknown contaminants of ALL kinds from getting into
the product.
Its very straightforward logic. Or would you like me to put it into
smaller words for you?
</repost>
Tell me, Waldo, is there anything about this argument that doesn't make
sense? Or do you concede that when either Jews or non-Jews buy a kosher
product it is perfectly reasonable for them to consider the kosher
certification as an added assurance of a clean production environment.
<cue: ranting>
Steven Mock
news:3f0e61f1$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>> >> > Putting a kosher seal on dishwasher detergent is not so nutty as
>> >> > it may seem.
>> >
>> > At least not if you subject yourself to goofy Jewish religious
>> > superstitions.
>> >
>> >> > Many soaps are made with animal byproducts. If it is used to
>> >> > wash the dairy-only dishes that would be a problem.
>> >
>> > One set of china for the milkie foods, one set of china for the
>> > meatie foods, another special set of china for Passover, and one in
>> > case the Goyim can't be shooed away at suppertime - it's
>> > complicated and EXPENSIVE to be a Jew!
>> >
>> > Now convert this to the scale of a 100,000 square ft foods
>> > production facility, multiply it by thousands of plants nationwide,
>> > and you'll *begin* to see why Kosher Kosts! ($$$$$$$$)
>>
>> Amazing how spectacularly Waldo manages to once again miss a simple
>> and straightforward point.
>
> I didn't miss his point, I EXPANDED on it, demonstrating how the
> expense of the cultural weirdness of Jewish superstition has been
> foisted onto the American consumer. What if Jews had a 'law' against
> stepping on the cracks in a sidewalk? Brooklyn would look like it had
> been taken over by a pack of Jack Rabbits in Black!
I still fail to see how any of this expands on the point which was made
which is this: that given the need to avoid animal byproducts implicit in
Jewish religious law (and whether you personally have respect for the
religion in question is beside the point) it is not at all weird for
products like dishwasher detergent to require kosher certification.
Its a very simple point. I still don't see the point in spinning it into
anything else.
>> >> > It is true halal and kosher are not the same. However, muslim
>> >> > people in areas with very small muslim populations have been
>> >> > advised by imams that kosher comes closer to halal than not.
>> >> >
>> >> Kosher actually surpasses halal in most goods, certainly for meat.
>> >
>> > Please name "Kosher" products OTHER than meats that halal consumers
>> > might be interested in.
>>
>> We've been through all this before, Waldo. How about any product
>> that DOESN'T contain meat - which is to say, that is certified dairy
>> or parve, and therefore guarenteed not to have trace elements or
>> byproducts of forbidden or improperly slaughtered meats that devout
>> Muslims wish to avoid. You'd me amazed how many things meat
>> byproducts can get into.
>
> Muslims avoid alcohol. Jews don't. A Kosher symbol offers Muslims NO
> guarantee that a product does not contain trace amounts of alcohol.
Do you have a point here, Waldo?
> Gelatin - INCLUDING KOSHER GELATIN - is forbidden to Muslims.
Do you have a point here, Waldo?
Allow me to repeat the point you apparently failed to understand.
Muslims use the kosher certification to assure themselves that products
they are buying to not contain meat. Any product that is certified dairy
or parve, and therefore guarenteed not to have trace elements or
byproducts of forbidden or improperly slaughtered meats that devout
Muslims wish to avoid.
Kosher products certified dairy or parve will not contain gelatin of any
kind. And if Muslims wish to avoid alchohol as well, they can do so
without too much trouble. How does this in any way effect the point that
I have made?
>> >> The
>> >> Muslims would prefer to put money in Muslim hands. I have no
>> >> problem with that.
>> >
>> > Then why do you have a problem with non-Jews wishing to avoid
>> > greasing the palms of the Kosher Kabal, and financing the quirky
>> > eating habits of Jews???
>>
>> I have no problem with it, Waldo. Consume as you see fit. But we
>> have just as much right to laugh at you for making stupid purchasing
>> decisions due to ignorant misconceptions generated by your own
>> superstitious beliefs
>
> My superstitious beliefs? MY SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS???
>
> Name ONE, you lying monkey scrotum!
Your belief in the inherent evil of Jews. In a secret kabal of Jews that
are conspiring to further some set of nefarious goals whevever you turn.
It is an entirely self-referential circular belief system for which you
see vindication everywhere, much as the religious fundamentalist can't
understand why everyone doesn't believe in God whenever they see a sunset
or a flower growing.
This "kosher scam" bender you go on every now and then is a classic
example. You have yet to offer any evidence whatsoever that kosher
certification is any different than any other business transaction (and
don't just start ranting that I'm lying when I say this - it is a fact).
You nonetheless use it is evidence of how sneaky and deceitful Jews are,
while the only evidence you produce in support of your belief in this
scam is predicated on the pre-existing belief that Jews are inherently
deceitful.
<snip: a whole lot of meaningless yelling>
Steven Mock
news:3f0e440d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all costs
> associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits the size
> of Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely powerful,
> strident, vicious and vindictive group - just to save a few hundred
> thousand dollars.
Here is classic evidence of the point I just made earlier. Waldo's entire
argument is based on speculations stemming from his prexisting prejudices
against Jews.
Yet it is only in his imagination that the question of whether to kosher
certify or not is considered anything other than a business decision. I
don't see any Jews getting offended by Heinz decision, outside of Waldo's
paranoid delusions.
Steven Mock
@news.impulse.net:
> Too many fishermen angling after a finite number of fish in a small pond.
In other words, open competition in a free economy.
Steven Mock
news:3f0e440d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Relyea called the Canadian marketplace a "very competitive retail
> trade environment," one that keeps the company "under continual
> pressure to keep costs down to remain competitive."
>
> Keeping "costs down to remain competitive" means keeping costs down to
> keep PRICES down.
>
> Are you so stump ignorant of the world of business that you don't
> understand that an increase in per unit *costs* must at SOME POINT be
> passed on to the consumer in the form of INCREASED PRICES?
LOL!
Waldo we've been at this two years. When are you going to finally get it
through your thick head?
The price of a good is not a factor of production costs. The price of a
good is set by the market.
Market. MAR - KET. Can you say, "market", Waldo?
But, no, Waldo, I believe you CAN be this stupid, so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume that you - like the vast majority of
anti-Semites that post here - are content to wallow in your ignorance
rather than learning the first thing about economics. In short, that
your stupidity absolves you from the alternative conclusion - that you
are shamelessly dishonest and willing to stoop to ANY level in the
defense of your pernicious ideology.
I just can't believe you've been willing to embarass yourself so
continiously and loudly for so many years.
Steven Mock
news:3f0e440d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>> As for COR meddling, if that's the case, why doesn't Heinz drop all
>> kosher supervision?
>
> Good question. Do you suppose they might fear being labeled as
> anti-Semites (Heil Heinzler!), and being attacked by every Jewish
> pundit in every Jewish owned (which is virtually ALL) media outlet in
> Canada?
Why don't you present the first piece of evidence that they have been. Or
that anyone else who has dropped kosher certification ever was.
You will fail. That's because you're the only idiot left who still thinks
that this is anything other than a business decision.
Steven Mock
news:3f0e4e55$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>> So what's the porblem then?
>
> Would you have a 'porblem' with the government mandating a big fat
> 'Star of David' (blue in a white field, please) with the word JEW in
> the center accompanying any Kash-R-Us symbol on any Kosher Certified
> packaged product - you know, to help inform consumers - thereby giving
> THEM a 'choice'???
So are you saying that the government should intervene in what is otherwise
a free economic transaction? So you are a communist, then.
Steven Mock
news:3f0e4e55$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> Think of Heinz as a harbinger - in both the rise and fall of the
> Kosher Kabal - that is, unless Jews can successfully 'convince' Heinz
> to change their policy via political, media or bureaucratic PRESSURE.
>
> Two notable quotes from the article:
>
> "Heinz jarred baby foods are also no longer kosher, and Heinz - as the
> federal Competition Bureau noted three years ago when it investigated
> the company for anti-competitive practices in the sector - is the sole
> supplier of jarred baby food in Canada."
>
> "Meanwhile, COR is asking consumers to continue contacting Heinz to
> express their concerns.
Is it really possible that Waldo could be this much of a nutbar?
I'm frankly at a loss for words here.
Sheldon Liberman
What business school you graduate from? [McGill 83]Heinz dropped kashrut
on certain products because the extra cost to them wasn't justified by
the increase in revenue. Did Heinz drop the price on products that are
no longer kosher?
If, as you suggest, the company is taking a stand against forced
kashrut, why wouldn't they drop koshering all products?
On the contrary, look at all the produts they currently certify from the
parent company web site: http://www.heinz.com/jsp/kosher.jsp
>
>
>>and turn a blind eye to the much greater number of
>>firms who are adding kosher symbols.
>
>
>
> Are you too stupid (or too dishonest) to see that this was part of the
> problem? Quoting KosherTodayOnline:
If there's one thing I'm certain about, it's that I'm smarter than you.
In fact, you, Knoll, Knight, the "Rev", and all the other trolls that
pollute cyberspace don't equal one of myself, John Morris, Partick
Keenan, Phillip Mathews, or anyone else that actually contribute
sensible commentary to this group.
>
> "The Heinz [de-certification] move comes after many large companies in
> Canada have added kosher certification, including Coca Cola which is now
> certified by the COR."
>
> http://www.koshertoday.com/weekly%20news%20archives/2002/120902.htm
>
>
> Too many fishermen angling after a finite number of fish in a small pond.
>
> And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all costs
> associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits the size of
> Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely powerful, strident, vicious
> and vindictive group - just to save a few hundred thousand dollars.
>
Then it's a good thing they don't to market their goods in here, isn't
it. I'll bet their executives sleep at night rather than stay up
considering ways to offend people.
>
>
>>Racial bias at work.
>
>
>
> So you claim that Jews are a race? Don't worry, tomorrow you'll be howling
> that it's a 'religion', a 'tribe', a 'nation' or a 'people' - whatever suits
> your agenda of the moment.
Thank you for conceding my point, which is what you do each time you
resort to semantics rather than argue the significance of the words
themselves. Do you find the word bigotry a better fit? I have no problem
with that.
>
> Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the (Lubavitcher) Rabbi Menachem
> Mendel Schneerson: Jews are a 'species'.
>
>
And you are a fecies.
>
>>And you even lie to make that point. Here is the exact quote: 'According
>>to company spokesperson Anna Relyea, the move stemmed from a desire to
>>"keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
>>customers."'
>>
>>Notice the use of the word "costs", not "prices".
>
>
> Yes, and here's a further quote from the article, Sheldon:
>
> "Relyea called the Canadian marketplace a "very competitive retail trade
> environment," one that keeps the company "under continual pressure to keep
> costs down to remain competitive."
>
> Keeping "costs down to remain competitive" means keeping costs down to keep
> PRICES down.
{laughing out loud} If that was all it meant, then the company can be
really compititive by dropping its price below its costs.
When the market for a given product is competitive, then the producer
must accept whatever price the aggregate market dictates to it. The only
way it stays competitive is by keeping costs low enough that the profit
margin it earn, as a percentage of the capital commited to it. If, for
example, the company's return on invested capital (ROIC) was only 5%,
then it might as well shut down operations completely and put the
capital into treasury bonds which pay more with less risk.
>
> Are you so stump ignorant of the world of business that you don't understand
> that an increase in per unit *costs* must at SOME POINT be passed on to the
> consumer in the form of INCREASED PRICES?
No, that ignorance is yours. I'm an investment analyst and economist,
and I think I would have heard about your theory by now if it was the
right one. Companies can only pass on increased costs if it has pricing
power in the marketplace.
To illustrate, would you fly New York to Chicago for more money on one
airline just because that airline has a higher cost structure than one
charging a lower fare, all other things equal? Maybe you would, a fool
and his money and all that, but most people wouldn't. Airline fares are
market driven, which is why airline try so desparately to control costs
by investing in more fuel efficient planes, use forward contracts to
gain cost stability, and bargain toughly with labor unions.
>
> Surely you can't be this stupid, Sheldon, so I'll give you the benefit of
> the doubt, and assume that you - like the vast majority of the Jews /
> Judaeophiles that post here - are simply shamelessly dishonest, willing to
> stoop to ANY level in the defense of your pernicious little tribe.
>
That's the only reason I even answer these inane posts. Arguing with a
fool is pointless. Defending my people against false claims is worthwhile.
>
>
>>Your own example
>>belies your theory of consumers paying the kosher freight.
>
>
>
> "Kosher freight"??? What are you talking about? The end consumer ultimately
> pays the cost of ALL freight.
>
In a compititive business like food, the consumer pays what the market
tells it. How the revenues get distributed amongst the various factor of
production, ie labor, capital, etc. is what the manufactures try to control.
>
>>Those
>>products were moving selling enough to sufficient reduce fixed costs per
>>unit, thus they were uneconomic. Ketchup and other Heinz products do
>>enough business.
>
>
>
> The above makes no sense. Care to try again?
>
Sure. Certian products are more responsive to being kosher than others.
This is because the volume increase brings down overall cost per unit,
thus raising the margin on that product to acceptable levels. If Heinz
Tomato Sauce is a product that doesn't move faster because it's kosher,
then the cost of kashrut is superflous and the kosher symbol may be
dropped. For certain products this is the case, for others not. This
isn't an indictment against certification, just a business decision.
>
>
>>As for COR meddling, if that's the case, why doesn't Heinz drop all
>>kosher supervision?
>
>
>
> Good question. Do you suppose they might fear being labeled as anti-Semites
> (Heil Heinzler!), and being attacked by every Jewish pundit in every Jewish
> owned (which is virtually ALL) media outlet in Canada?
>
>
Yes, the Jews are organizing a rally for next Monday to protest Heinz's
decision. {eyes rolled upward}.
>
>>BTW, I would hypothesis that some companies drop their kashrut before
>>the kashrut agency drops them. Better, from a corporate image
>>standpoint, so drop kosher and throw in some line about costs that to
>>say they were about to receive a failing grade.
>
>
>
> There is no such thing as a "failing grade" for a company producing Kosher
> products, Mister Expert. Each product is certified by the Kash-R-Us agency
> as Kosher, or it is not. If the company, whether intentionally or
> inadvertently labels a non-certified product as Kosher, or mis-labels a
> Kosher product (i.e.: a missing 'D' on a product containing trace amounts of
> dairy products, etc) the Kash-R-Us agencies force a recall.
>
> ($$$$$$$)
>
You know, shit is so full of you. Here's a sample of a COR Notice:
July 4, 2003 / 4 Tammuz 5763
THE KASHRUTH COUNCIL OF CANADA (COR)
WISHES TO ADVISE THAT
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY SPRAGUE FOODS LTD.
EVEN WHEN BEARING THE COR 386 IS NO LONGER UNDER COR CERTIFICATION.
PRODUCTS INCLUDE VARIOUS BRAND NAMES OF BEANS, LENTILS, SOUPS AND
CHICK PEAS.
ANY BRAND NAME WHICH BEARS COR 386 SHOULD NOT BE USED.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute a
>>>>Jew gets involved.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only became
>>>'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim unwittingly
>>
> pay
>
>>>the high costs of complying with their ancient and archaic religious
>>>superstitions.
>>
>>No scheme.
>
>
> Sez you.
>
You're charge. Where's your proof?
>
>>No goyim paying higher prices.
>
>
> At least not for most Heinz Canada products - not anymore! O:-(>
Again, taking one example and falsely extrapolating.
>
>>No archaic superstition.
>
>
> Correction: Nothing BUT archaic superstition.
I suppose a dog would look at its owner, going to the bathroom always
the in the sameplace, and always pushing down on a small lever,
apparently just to hear the unusual sound it makes. To the dog, its
master be either very superstition or just plain insane. It has no other
explanation for why he doesn't just poop anywhere he feel like, as it
does. Well, Waldo, maybe that's exactly what you do do with your do-do,
at least the 10% of it that is not distributed to this newsgroup.
Well, Waldo, fortunately you're part of the lunatic fringe. Wisdo, comes
from recognizing superiority and learning from it, not from trying to
bring it down to your level. Life for some people meaning beyond Miller
time, Monster Truck Rally, and how to insult someone whose shoes
YOU'D like to be in.
>
>
>>You're a bonehead.
>
>
> And you've been trounced, Sheldon.
If it gives you pleasure to think so, be my guest.
Waldo
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f0e440d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> > And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all costs
> > associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits the size
> > of Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely powerful,
> > strident, vicious and vindictive group - just to save a few hundred
> > thousand dollars.
>
> Here is classic evidence of the point I just made earlier. Waldo's entire
> argument is based on speculations stemming from his prexisting prejudices
> against Jews.
Squaaaawk! Polly wanna Kosher cracker? Squaaaawk!
> Yet it is only in his imagination that the question of whether to kosher
> certify or not is considered anything other than a business decision.
Of course Heinz Canada made business decision - a decision to tie off a
cash-bleeding artery.
> I don't see any Jews getting offended by Heinz decision, outside of
Waldo's
> paranoid delusions.
Here's an idea, Steve: Why don't you contact the COR, and convince them to
organize and take up collections via the Canadian synagogues to pay for the
kosts of keeping Heinz Canada Kosher out of the Jews' own pockets?
Do it for the baby Jews, Steve. For the baby Jews. (You wouldn't want them
to be stuck with eating imported Beech Nut baby food, would you?
Waldo
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f0e440d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> > "Relyea called the Canadian marketplace a "very competitive retail
> > trade environment," one that keeps the company "under continual
> > pressure to keep costs down to remain competitive."
> >
> > Keeping "costs down to remain competitive" means keeping costs down to
> > keep PRICES down.
> >
> > Are you so stump ignorant of the world of business that you don't
> > understand that an increase in per unit *costs* must at SOME POINT be
> > passed on to the consumer in the form of INCREASED PRICES?
>
> LOL!
>
> Waldo we've been at this two years. When are you going to finally get it
> through your thick head?
>
> The price of a good is not a factor of production costs. The price of a
> good is set by the market.
>
> Market. MAR - KET. Can you say, "market", Waldo?
Yes, Steve - the price of goods is set by the MAR - KET, and Heinz products
weren't selling well in the Canadian MAR - KET because they couldn't COM -
PETE, because the high Kosts of Kosher (for one) were forcing them to either
raise PRI - CES (consumers won't buy) or operate at a LOSS (investors go
ape-shit). The solution they found was to PLUCK the KO - SHER LEACH from the
necks of most of their PRO - DUCTS, thereby cutting COSTS, and allowing them
to lower PRI - CES so that they could better COM - PETE in the Canadian
MAR - KET.
There. A free lesson in market economics. I just saved your mother thousands
of dollars in tuition fees.
> But, no, Waldo, I believe you CAN be this stupid, so I will give you the
> benefit of the doubt and assume that you - like the vast majority of
> anti-Semites that post here - are content to wallow in your ignorance
> rather than learning the first thing about economics. In short, that
> your stupidity absolves you from the alternative conclusion - that you
> are shamelessly dishonest and willing to stoop to ANY level in the
> defense of your pernicious ideology.
Gee. Did you write that all by yourself?
Steven Mock
>>>Racial bias at work.
>>
>> So you claim that Jews are a race? Don't worry, tomorrow you'll be
>> howling that it's a 'religion', a 'tribe', a 'nation' or a 'people' -
>> whatever suits your agenda of the moment.
>
> Thank you for conceding my point, which is what you do each time you
> resort to semantics rather than argue the significance of the words
> themselves. Do you find the word bigotry a better fit? I have no
> problem with that.
Actually, it isn't inappropriate to refer to Waldo's discourse as racial
bias. Even if Jews are not a race, he considers them one and hates them
as one. Hence his is a form a racial bias.
What Jews really are is irrelevant. Since when we refer to racism, we
are referring to *Waldo's* beliefs, all that matters in defining and
labelling his discourse is what he belives they are.
Racism, by its nature, is delusional. A delusion doesn't cease to be a
delusion because it doesn't happen to be true.
Steven Mock
news:3f0ee57e$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B57280F946...@206.172.150.14...
>> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3f0e440d$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>>
>> > And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all
>> > costs associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits
>> > the size of Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely
>> > powerful, strident, vicious and vindictive group - just to save a
>> > few hundred thousand dollars.
>>
>> Here is classic evidence of the point I just made earlier. Waldo's
>> entire argument is based on speculations stemming from his prexisting
>> prejudices against Jews.
>
> Squaaaawk! Polly wanna Kosher cracker? Squaaaawk!
So, I see you have no defence against my observation then. Your point
above is meaningless unless one approaches it with the pre-existing
belief that Jews have the 1) means, and 2) desire to force a company into
making a decision contrary to their business interests.
The facts on the ground demonstrate that they have neither, as evidenced
by the fact that, contrary to your delusions, no one has ever tried to
employ pressure of that kind in order to compel a company to kosher
certify a product.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Or do another parrot impression.
Your call.
>> Yet it is only in his imagination that the question of whether to
>> kosher certify or not is considered anything other than a business
>> decision.
>
> Of course Heinz Canada made business decision - a decision to tie off
> a cash-bleeding artery.
Which, stripped of overheated Waldonian rhetoric, means: a decision to
maximise profits.
Again, I fail to see where the problem is, or how you think this is
different from any other business decision.
>> I don't see any Jews getting offended by Heinz decision, outside of
>> Waldo's paranoid delusions.
>
> Here's an idea, Steve: Why don't you contact the COR, and convince
> them to organize and take up collections via the Canadian synagogues
> to pay for the kosts of keeping Heinz Canada Kosher out of the Jews'
> own pockets?
Why should I or they care, Waldo? If it is not in Heinz Canada's
interest to certify certain products, they shouldn't do it, and no one
but you is suggesting otherwise. If, on the other hand, it IS in their
interest to certify other products, then doing so is evidently not a
financial burden on either them nor the consumer.
But keep squacking though. Its funny.
Steven Mock
news:3f0ee8e4$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
I appeal to the great gods of Usenet: How, of HOW is it humanly possible
to debate with someone so deranged as to think that this makes any sense
at all?
Once again, Waldo. The price of a good is set by the market. MAR - KET.
Can you say, "market", Waldo?
Do you know what this means, Waldo? No? Okay. I'll tell you.
In a perfectly competative environment (and the food industry comes damn
close) the firm does not set the price of the good. The price is
therefore not a factor of the production costs. Companies can increase
their revenues by reducing production costs. But if production costs go
up, they will not increase the price of their good higher than the price
set by market equillibrium. If they were to do so, they would lose even
more money since, as you observe, consumers will buy less of the product
under those conditions.
Hence your claim that kosher certification EVER costs the end consumer
proves to be the product of diseased mind.
Heinz has come to the conclusion that for certain (and clearly not all)
of their products, the added business of the kosher market was not worth
the cost of certification. Therefore, they discontinued certification
for those products. A simple business decision like any other. Kind of
like if they elected to close a factory in a region of the country that
was becoming relatively less populous (is the fact that they ever had a
factory there at all evidence that the people in that region are
pernicious liars who manipulated them into putting it there in the first
place? Hardly.)
A business decision. And for all of your rhetoric about leaches and what
not, you have failed to present any evidence that it is anything else.
> There. A free lesson in market economics. I just saved your mother
> thousands of dollars in tuition fees.
Waldo, I may not be an economist like Mr. Liberman. I took only one
economics course many years ago. Yet what I just described to you was
explained to us in the very first lecture, and solely of a means of
establishing that we have the basic logical background necessary to
understand everything that was to follow.
I really suggest that you learn the first thing about economics before
you presume to lecture anyone else on it. You'd make a complete
blithering fool of yourself far less often.
>> But, no, Waldo, I believe you CAN be this stupid, so I will give you
>> the benefit of the doubt and assume that you - like the vast majority
>> of anti-Semites that post here - are content to wallow in your
>> ignorance rather than learning the first thing about economics. In
>> short, that your stupidity absolves you from the alternative
>> conclusion - that you are shamelessly dishonest and willing to stoop
>> to ANY level in the defense of your pernicious ideology.
>
> Gee. Did you write that all by yourself?
No. But I did successfully demonstrate that anyone can spew rhetoric in
lieu of a point. (which is to say, you're not special, Waldo).
Philip Mathews
Totally destroying poor "Waldo's" idiotic thesis that food manufacturers are
unable to assess a cost benefit of Kosher certification, but are at the
mercy of slick sales pitches!!
Heinz
> Canada is noteworthy because:
> (A) Heinz Canada is a large player;
The size of company is irrelevant. It is the size of the market for each
individual sku to be certified which determines whether certification is of
value.
> (B) Its parent company (Heinz USA) was among the FIRST major national
brands
> to adopt Kosher Certification, and indeed was instrumental in the
formation
> of the OU Kash-R-Us agency, has been cited by the ADL as having said that
> the costs of Kosher is "so small we can't even calculate it" (a bald faced
> lie) and
It's parent company is keeping all Kosher certification, because each of its
certified sku's serves a very large market, compared to Canada a gigantic
market.
So any significance you see if false.
> (C) Because most of the products it dumped (tomato sauces and paste,
tomato
> soup, vinegar, mustard, etc) were of the type that Kosher Cheerleaders
tout
> as 'easy' and 'cheap' to certify. In fact they claim that Kosher
> Certification of these types of products costs companies LESS THAN NOTHING
> to certify, as the increased market share MORE than pays for
certification,
> and even LOWERS the retail price of goods!
More of the same. The analysis involves the difficulty, and thus cost, to
certify and the size of the opportunity.
Heinz Canada has made a mistake, particularly with respect to its jar baby
food. It will almost certainly lose market share in some of its categories,
and I predict a reversal for at least some of these products.
But let's not forget that Heinz Canada's actions refute "Waldo's" claims
about the decision making process for Kosher certification.
(snip)
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."
Samuel Johnson
Steven Mock
news:3f0ee8e4$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> Yes, Steve - the price of goods is set by the MAR - KET, and Heinz
> products weren't selling well in the Canadian MAR - KET because they
> couldn't COM - PETE, because the high Kosts of Kosher (for one) were
> forcing them to either raise PRI - CES (consumers won't buy) or
> operate at a LOSS (investors go ape-shit). The solution they found was
> to PLUCK the KO - SHER LEACH from the necks of most of their PRO -
> DUCTS, thereby cutting COSTS, and allowing them to lower PRI - CES so
> that they could better COM - PETE in the Canadian MAR - KET.
>
> There. A free lesson in market economics. I just saved your mother
> thousands of dollars in tuition fees.
Alright then, Waldo. Let's say you're right. Let's say that this
moronic formula really IS the way the market works, and you're the first
economic genius to prove it. Yes, indeed, the cost of kosher
certification (even when it is not offset by revenue) really does force
companies to raise the price of their goods above the values set by the
market. And yes, discontinuing kosher certification indeed allows them
to lower the prices of those goods, thereby enabling them to better
compete.
Well, I suppose this latest development offers you an excellent
opportunity to prove it. All you have to do is find any one of these
Heinz products that has discontinued kosher certification and show us
that it has gone down in price as a consequence.
Come on, Waldo. Its hero time. I'm sure it won't be hard at all, since
kosher is such an obvious and massive burdern, as you say. Now that
Heinz has shaken off the kosher leviathan, I'm sure their baked beans
will absolutely *plunge* in price. And Heinz will, no doubt, do their
best to spread the word by advertising this massive drop in the price of
their goods. And since they will be so much more competitive as a result
of these lower costs and lower prices, their stocks will soar, and you
will have proven now and forever more that kosher certification is an
unconscionable burdern artificially imposed on unwilling companies by
those evil Jews.
Oh wait, what's that I hear? Nothing's happening. Baked beans still
cost the same as they did yesterday. No great rally on Heinz stocks. No
Jewish advocacy organizations accusing anyone of anti-Semitism over it...
I guess it was all in Waldo's head then. Imagine that.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3f0e4e55$0$1...@news.impulse.net> in alt.revisionism, on Thu, 10
Jul 2003 22:40:41 -0700, "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> "John Morris" <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> news:hi4qgv8tdt22i3hsi...@4ax.com...
> > In <3f0ccfa3$0$1...@news.impulse.net> in alt.revisionism, on Wed,
> > 9 Jul 2003 19:27:43 -0700, "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns93B3128EA410...@206.172.150.13...
> > > > "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> > > > news:3f0ba905$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> > > > >> Yeah, imagine, a private label manufacturer producing to
> > > > >> the standards requested by the client.
> > > > >> The gall!
> > > > > Yes, the idea of the US foods industry kowtowing (to the
> > > > > tune of $150 billion in products) to please a handful of
> > > > > pushy nasal whiners *is* rather sickening, isn't it?
> > > <snipped: Nasal whining>
> > > > Waldo, to stay in business, a company has to produce what its
> > > > clients want.
> > > Yes, and apparently Heinz Canada (for one) has discovered that
> > > its 'clients' (consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it
> > > costs to Kosher certify most of its products - and that is why
> > > they're dumping the bulk of the COR meddling.
> > So, you're saying companies *do* have a choice in whether their
> > products are certfied kosher.
> I have never said otherwise.
But you have also said that major food producers are coerced by their
fear of being branded antisemites (which really doesn't explain
similar but non-kosher brands).
Perhaps you don't know what you are trying.
> Others that have 'choices' are smokers,
> gamblers, drunk drivers, drug abusers . . .
So now major food producers are addicted to kosher certification,
that they just can't help themselves.
It really seems that you are grasping at straws here to save a reason
to hate Jews.
> > So what's the porblem then?
> Would you have a 'porblem' with the government mandating a big fat
> 'Star of David' (blue in a white field, please) with the word JEW
> in the center accompanying any Kash-R-Us symbol on any Kosher
> Certified packaged product - you know, to help inform consumers -
> thereby giving THEM a 'choice'???
I would have no problem with it if at all if it were one of the
conditions of the contract the private business and the kosher
certification organization.
But you seem to think that we Gentiles must be awfully stupid if we
have to be warned that food might be kosher. But basically I don't
care whether the food is kosher certified. It doesn't enter into my
decision to buy a particular brand. I base my purchase decisions on
a balance between quality and price. I suspect the same is true for
almost everyone except the very few people like you who need invent
reasons to hate Jews.
> > > > Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister
> > > > the minute a Jew gets involved.
> > > Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go.
> > Does the word "duh" mean anything to you?
> I think of it every time I read your commentary, Mr. Morris.
I can see where intelligence and common sense would leave you baffled
especially when you are apt to produce such profound observations as,
"Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go."
So a major producer such as Heinz is so fearful of being branded
antisemitic that they're not going to produce kosher -certified baby
food any more. Is that you're trying to say?
You know, for all the sense your argument is making, you might as
well be smashing your forehead on your keyboard as trying to form
coherent sentences.
> > > This too shall pass, Mr. Mock.
> > Got a little wind, have you?
> It's an ill wind that doesn't blow some good for SOMEONE, Mr.
> Morris, and the crash of the Kosher Kabal would indeed be good news
> for most consumers.
Well, so you keep saying, but "because I say so" is not a
particularly convincing argument. You seem to have reached the point
where you are trying to convince yourself and failing extravagantly
even at that.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPw9LrJQgvG272fn9EQIcYwCbBJ08BY2umId41njFMpnJUsRpkKkAoKjn
tAl8GGNmNSYt1bNxs+ymrTCb
=ZRRp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Waldo
I correct what I said earlier: I just saved your mother from *wasting*
thousands of dollars in tuition fees. You're a simpleton, Steve.
> Do you know what this means, Waldo? No? Okay. I'll tell you.
>
> In a perfectly competative environment (and the food industry comes damn
> close) the firm does not set the price of the good. The price is
> therefore not a factor of the production costs.
Ok, Mr. Strawman, where did I imply that the price WAS a factor in
production costs? You're a dishonest weasel, Mr. Mock.
> Companies can increase
> their revenues by reducing production costs.
Damn. You're a genius.
> But if production costs go
> up, they will not increase the price of their good higher than the price
> set by market equillibrium.
No shit. Can you say "keep costs down to remain competitive"???
For a business to thrive, revenues *must* exceed expenses. If this is not
happening, the business must Increase revenues, cut costs, (or both) or
fold.
In Heinz Canada's case, raising prices was clearly *not* an acceptable
option, so they were forced to cut costs, and when companies determine the
need to cut costs, they tend to target areas that will give them the best
results with the least detrimental side effects.
Heinz Canada apparently knew that the Kosher Supervision on most of their
products was a losing game well *before* they made the decision to cut the
rabbis off. Witness a quote from Heinz Spokesperson Anna Relyea:
"This was done after a lot of careful consideration," she said. "Only when
there were no other options available did we decide to remove the
designations."
IOW, they knew that Kosher was a loser, but floated it as long as they
could - as a courtesy to the powerful and hypersensitive Jewish community.
Of course this straw-man argument of yours was all bullshit anyway, since I
noted at the outset that the company would be forced to raise prices,
operate at a loss, or cut costs. Heinz Canada chose the latter, and part of
that cost cutting involved telling most of the Kash-R-Us Kommandants to hit
the road.
> If they were to do so, they would lose even
> more money since, as you observe, consumers will buy less of the product
> under those conditions.
So exactly WHAT is it about my previous statement that you are PRETENDING to
be at odds with?
> Hence your claim that kosher certification EVER costs the end consumer
> proves to be the product of diseased mind.
Talk about a failure to comprehend basic economics! Where do you think the
money to pay the Kosher Kowboys came from in the FIRST PLACE? Did the Jewish
Tooth-Fairy leave a check under the CEO's pillow every month? NO! It came
from REVENUES generated by the sale of goods - from CONSUMERS, every last
dime.
If (and I do mean *if*) the Kosher certification generated enough additional
revenue from sales to offset the Kosts of Kosher Certification, they would
certainly keep it.
If the Kosher Certification were breaking even, or operating at a small
loss, they would STILL likely keep it - as cutting the loss might not be
worth offending the 'good will' of the Jewish community.
But in this case, the company clearly found that the Kosher Certification of
most of their products was a MAJOR hemorrhage that needed to be stopped -
regardless of any negative response from the Jews.
From the CJN article:
______________________
"He [Rabbi Levin] said he is optimistic some Canadian Heinz products may
become kosher again soon.
"We've asked Heinz to revisit [the decision]," he said.
[...]
"Meanwhile, COR is asking consumers to continue contacting Heinz to express
their concerns.
"Hopefully," said Rabbi Levin, "we can get some of the products back on
line."
______________________
So the Jews are encouraged to call Heinz and indignantly demand that they
reinstate Kosher Certification - AT A LOSS???
Of course it would NEVER occur to the Jews that they themselves should bear
the costs of their culinary curiosties - paying the COR and the associated
costs incurred by Heinz directly from synagogue collections. THAT would be
entirely contrary to the Jewish tradition of milking the Goyim.
> Heinz has come to the conclusion that for certain (and clearly not all)
> of their products, the added business of the kosher market was not worth
> the cost of certification.
How much money do you suppose they were losing on the certification of these
products each year? A few hundred? A few thousand? A few HUNDRED thousand?
More?
It must have been a pretty HEALTHY chunk of change - in this age of
Political Correctness run amok, a company such as Heinz weighs its options
VERY carefully before making a move that will almost *certainly* be
considered VERY offensive to an ethnic minority - *especially* when the
minority in question is JEWS.
<cue ranting>
> Therefore, they discontinued certification
> for those products. A simple business decision like any other. Kind of
> like if they elected to close a factory in a region of the country that
> was becoming relatively less populous (is the fact that they ever had a
> factory there at all evidence that the people in that region are
> pernicious liars who manipulated them into putting it there in the first
> place? Hardly.)
>
> A business decision. And for all of your rhetoric about leaches and what
> not, you have failed to present any evidence that it is anything else.
Of course it was a business decision - one that was certainly made with a
great deal of trepidation.
Consider this: Why did Heinz drop certification on nearly ALL of their
product line at ONCE? Do you suppose that last year, Kosher was a BIG payoff
for *all* of these products, and this year, it suddenly became a big loser?
No way.
Why wasn't certification dropped on these products gradually - one by one -
as each in turn became unprofitable? Could it be that
(A) Heinz hadn't scrutinized the actual expense that was involved in
Kashering these products, and didn't realize until recently that they were
taking a major HIT? or
(B) Heinz DID realize that they were losing money by Kashering these
products, but were eating the loss for the sake of Political Correctness
until the losses became so big that they HAD to cut the programs?
Or maybe you have another idea?
> > There. A free lesson in market economics. I just saved your mother
> > thousands of dollars in tuition fees.
>
> Waldo, I may not be an economist like Mr. Liberman.
From what I've seen of Lieberman's offerings, you should be *grateful* that
you're not an economist *like* he is.
> I took only one
> economics course many years ago. Yet what I just described to you was
> explained to us in the very first lecture,
Let me guess: The title of the lecture was: "How to Build and then
Deconstruct a Strawman Argument", right?
> and solely of a means of
> establishing that we have the basic logical background necessary to
> understand everything that was to follow.
>
> I really suggest that you learn the first thing about economics before
> you presume to lecture anyone else on it. You'd make a complete
> blithering fool of yourself far less often.
Your Chutzpaic Shamelessness is simply amazing! You're a credit to the
age-old traditions of your Tribe, Mr. Mock!
> >> But, no, Waldo, I believe you CAN be this stupid, so I will give you
> >> the benefit of the doubt and assume that you - like the vast majority
> >> of anti-Semites that post here - are content to wallow in your
> >> ignorance rather than learning the first thing about economics. In
> >> short, that your stupidity absolves you from the alternative
> >> conclusion - that you are shamelessly dishonest and willing to stoop
> >> to ANY level in the defense of your pernicious ideology.
> >
> > Gee. Did you write that all by yourself?
>
> No. But I did successfully demonstrate that anyone can spew rhetoric in
> lieu of a point.
You do that with nearly every post you make, Steve.
Waldo
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f0ee8e4$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> > Yes, Steve - the price of goods is set by the MAR - KET, and Heinz
> > products weren't selling well in the Canadian MAR - KET because they
> > couldn't COM - PETE, because the high Kosts of Kosher (for one) were
> > forcing them to either raise PRI - CES (consumers won't buy) or
> > operate at a LOSS (investors go ape-shit). The solution they found was
> > to PLUCK the KO - SHER LEACH from the necks of most of their PRO -
> > DUCTS, thereby cutting COSTS, and allowing them to lower PRI - CES so
> > that they could better COM - PETE in the Canadian MAR - KET.
> >
> > There. A free lesson in market economics. I just saved your mother
> > thousands of dollars in tuition fees.
>
> Alright then, Waldo. Let's say you're right.
Of course I'm right.
> Let's say that this
> moronic formula really IS the way the market works,
Of course it is.
> and you're the first
> economic genius to prove it. Yes, indeed, the cost of kosher
> certification (even when it is not offset by revenue) really does force
> companies to raise the price of their goods above the values set by the
> market.
Gee. Did I say that? No, YOU said that. I said:
"the high Kosts of Kosher (for one) were forcing them to either raise PRI -
CES (consumers won't buy) or
operate at a LOSS (investors go ape-shit). The solution they found was to
PLUCK the KO - SHER LEACH from the necks of most of their PRO - DUCTS,
thereby cutting COSTS, and allowing them to lower PRI - CES so that they
could better COM - PETE in the Canadian MAR - KET."
In hindsight (in consideration of your desperate nit-picking), if I were to
re-write the above, I would replace "lower prices" with "maintain
competitive pricing".
Is THAT what all of your whining is about, fool?
> And yes, discontinuing kosher certification indeed allows them
> to lower the prices of those goods,
Rather, allows them to maintain *competitive pricing*.
> thereby enabling them to better
> compete.
>
> Well, I suppose this latest development offers you an excellent
> opportunity to prove it.
I don't have to prove anything, Mr. Mock. Heinz has *already* proven this by
making what was no doubt a carefully weighed and VERY politically sensitive
decision.
> All you have to do is find any one of these
> Heinz products that has discontinued kosher certification and show us
> that it has gone down in price as a consequence.
I'll consider the fact that Heinz - having freed themselves from the yoke of
Kosher - continues to produce and offer these formerly certified products
evidence enough, thank you.
> Come on, Waldo. Its hero time. I'm sure it won't be hard at all, since
> kosher is such an obvious and massive burdern, as you say.
Done.
<cue applause>
> Now that
> Heinz has shaken off the kosher leviathan, I'm sure their baked beans
> will absolutely *plunge* in price.
I doubt it - but at least they'll be able to continue to make them - and at
a decent profit.
If you were Heinz, would you prefer to manufacture non-Kosher Baked Beans,
or Kosher Nothings?
> And Heinz will, no doubt, do their
> best to spread the word by advertising this massive drop in the price of
> their goods.
Political correctness will assure that this issue will remain low-key
(unless the Jews decide to play the "anti-Semite Card"), but you can be sure
that OTHER companies will quietly take notice - and unless the Jews manage
to find a way to use their considerable political, financial and media clout
to stealthily retaliate against Heinz, you can bet that MANY other companies
will soon follow suit.
> And since they will be so much more competitive as a result
> of these lower costs and lower prices, their stocks will soar, and you
> will have proven now and forever more that kosher certification is an
> unconscionable burdern artificially imposed on unwilling companies by
> those evil Jews.
You have a flair for highly theatrical drama, Mr. Mock. It's a pity that
Vaudeville met its demise some time ago.
> Oh wait, what's that I hear? Nothing's happening. Baked beans still
> cost the same as they did yesterday.
Perhaps. But Heinz will still be making them *tomorrow* - and at a higher
PROFIT.
I guess your Kosher Keeping Kanadian Komerades will have to buy Bush's baked
beans. And I'm sure that Heinz will be crying at the loss of their
business - crying all the way to the bank!
Philip Mathews
And "Waldo" has no idea if this was the situation facing Heinz Canada.
> In Heinz Canada's case, raising prices was clearly *not* an acceptable
> option, so they were forced to cut costs, and when companies determine the
> need to cut costs, they tend to target areas that will give them the best
> results with the least detrimental side effects.
Not necessarily. If they are already operating very efficiency and still
need to cut costs, they may cut whereever they can.
> Heinz Canada apparently knew that the Kosher Supervision on most of their
> products was a losing game well *before* they made the decision to cut the
> rabbis off. Witness a quote from Heinz Spokesperson Anna Relyea:
> "This was done after a lot of careful consideration," she said. "Only when
> there were no other options available did we decide to remove the
> designations."
The statement indicates they studied the issue for some time before making a
decision, not that they had made a decision well before about the value of
Kosher certification. "Waldo" shamelessly distorts again.
> IOW, they knew that Kosher was a loser, but floated it as long as they
> could - as a courtesy to the powerful and hypersensitive Jewish community.
A complete fantasy concocted by our anonymous Jew hater!
> Of course this straw-man argument of yours was all bullshit anyway, since
I
> noted at the outset that the company would be forced to raise prices,
> operate at a loss, or cut costs. Heinz Canada chose the latter, and part
of
> that cost cutting involved telling most of the Kash-R-Us Kommandants to
hit
> the road.
But there is no indication the decision was made to remain profitable. These
decisions are most often made to remain competitive, or to maximize profits,
not prevent losses.
(snip)
> But in this case, the company clearly found that the Kosher Certification
of
> most of their products was a MAJOR hemorrhage that needed to be stopped -
> regardless of any negative response from the Jews.
There is no indication they found major problems. They were on a cost
cutting spree. I'm sure there were other cuts as well. It is not unusual for
companies to be in a position where they must cut even expenses that are
considered valid.
(snip)
> > Heinz has come to the conclusion that for certain (and clearly not all)
> > of their products, the added business of the kosher market was not worth
> > the cost of certification.
> How much money do you suppose they were losing on the certification of
these
> products each year? A few hundred? A few thousand? A few HUNDRED thousand?
> More?
> It must have been a pretty HEALTHY chunk of change - in this age of
> Political Correctness run amok, a company such as Heinz weighs its options
> VERY carefully before making a move that will almost *certainly* be
> considered VERY offensive to an ethnic minority - *especially* when the
> minority in question is JEWS.
More speculation motivated by "Waldo's" Jew hatred. The fact that an expense
was cut does not mean it was large. It may have been part of a number of
cuts.
> <cue ranting>
> > Therefore, they discontinued certification
> > for those products. A simple business decision like any other. Kind of
> > like if they elected to close a factory in a region of the country that
> > was becoming relatively less populous (is the fact that they ever had a
> > factory there at all evidence that the people in that region are
> > pernicious liars who manipulated them into putting it there in the first
> > place? Hardly.)
> > A business decision. And for all of your rhetoric about leaches and
what
> > not, you have failed to present any evidence that it is anything else.
> Of course it was a business decision - one that was certainly made with a
> great deal of trepidation.
> Consider this: Why did Heinz drop certification on nearly ALL of their
> product line at ONCE? Do you suppose that last year, Kosher was a BIG
payoff
> for *all* of these products, and this year, it suddenly became a big
loser?
The likely answer is it is not considered a loser. When a company needing to
cut costs cuts its advertising budget, does that mean the advertising budget
was a loser? Of course not. Companies occasionally find themselves in the
position of needing to cut costs. Intelligent business people, in contrast
to drooling Jew haters, sometimes must make cuts in the short term that
might even hurt them in the long term.
Certification was dropped from tomato sauce, tomato paste, vinegar, mustard,
beans and jarred baby food. It was maintained on infant cereal, ketchup, and
tomato juice. So nearly all were not dropped.
> No way.
> Why wasn't certification dropped on these products gradually - one by
one -
> as each in turn became unprofitable?
Because they needed to cut costs.They assessed the benefits of certification
in light of their goals and found some justified and others not.
>Could it be that
> (A) Heinz hadn't scrutinized the actual expense that was involved in
> Kashering these products, and didn't realize until recently that they were
> taking a major HIT? or
LOL!
> (B) Heinz DID realize that they were losing money by Kashering these
> products, but were eating the loss for the sake of Political Correctness
> until the losses became so big that they HAD to cut the programs?
> Or maybe you have another idea?
That they need to cut costs irrespective of the potential benefits of the
expense. This sometimes happens. Companies may be having problems for a
number of reasons. The cuts they make in such circumstances are often not
directly related to the cause, but represent actions that can be taken.
The idea that there were "big losses" in Kosher certification is just your
pipe dream.
> > > There. A free lesson in market economics. I just saved your mother
> > > thousands of dollars in tuition fees.
> >
> > Waldo, I may not be an economist like Mr. Liberman.
> From what I've seen of Lieberman's offerings, you should be *grateful*
that
> you're not an economist *like* he is.
Except for the fact that you are not qualified to judge.
We don't know the full details behind Heinz Canada's decision to drop Kosher
certification for some of its items. Canada is a small market, after all,
and the economics are likely different than in the US. What we do know from
this is that businesses do make considered decisions about Kosher
certification, in contrast to the silly notion offered by "Waldo" that
businessman are just dupes being sold a bill of goods by Jews.
Steven Mock
news:3f0fb0a4$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B589E3E838...@207.35.177.134...
>> Once again, Waldo. The price of a good is set by the market. MAR -
>> KET. Can you say, "market", Waldo?
>
> I correct what I said earlier: I just saved your mother from *wasting*
> thousands of dollars in tuition fees. You're a simpleton, Steve.
Waldo, I take it as a compliment to be called a simpleton by the most
brazen fool on Usenet. LOL!
>> Do you know what this means, Waldo? No? Okay. I'll tell you.
>>
>> In a perfectly competative environment (and the food industry comes
>> damn close) the firm does not set the price of the good. The price is
>> therefore not a factor of the production costs.
>
> Ok, Mr. Strawman, where did I imply that the price WAS a factor in
> production costs? You're a dishonest weasel, Mr. Mock.
Case in point, Waldo. I did to claim that you said that price was a
factor IN production, costs. My quoted text clearly says that you claim
price to be a factor OF production costs.
"in"... "of"
Two different words with very different meanings, simpleton.
>> Companies can increase
>> their revenues by reducing production costs.
>
> Damn. You're a genius.
>
>> But if production costs go
>> up, they will not increase the price of their good higher than the
>> price set by market equillibrium.
>
> No shit. Can you say "keep costs down to remain competitive"???
>
> For a business to thrive, revenues *must* exceed expenses. If this is
> not happening, the business must Increase revenues, cut costs, (or
> both) or fold.
>
> In Heinz Canada's case, raising prices was clearly *not* an acceptable
> option, so they were forced to cut costs, and when companies determine
> the need to cut costs, they tend to target areas that will give them
> the best results with the least detrimental side effects.
Okay. All of this makes perfect sense, and contains no suggestion
whatsoever that the original decision to kosher certify the products was
based on any sort of scam. So far, it looks like the way business is
done.
Now let's see if we can disentagle the documented facts from the
fantasies that Waldo naturally reads into them...
> Heinz Canada apparently knew that the Kosher Supervision on most of
> their products was a losing game well *before* they made the decision
> to cut the rabbis off. Witness a quote from Heinz Spokesperson Anna
> Relyea:
>
> "This was done after a lot of careful consideration," she said. "Only
> when there were no other options available did we decide to remove the
> designations."
No. Nothing there about knowing that "kosher was a losing game" (and
remember, we are not talking in general here, but only for particular
products) before making the decision to "cut the rabbis off". Evidently,
they explored numerous possible ways to maximize profits, and choose this
as the best one.
> IOW, they knew that Kosher was a loser, but floated it as long as they
> could - as a courtesy to the powerful and hypersensitive Jewish
> community.
No. Nothing there about a powerful and hypersensitive Jewish community.
Waldo's hallucinating again.
Naturally, a company who wants to maximize profits will consider any
possibility that involves retaining a particular market. In the end they
decided that, in these particular cases, it wasn't worth the expense.
Thereby proving the argument that I have been making on this subject all
along.
> Of course this straw-man argument of yours was all bullshit anyway,
> since I noted at the outset that the company would be forced to raise
> prices, operate at a loss, or cut costs.
No, at the very "outset" of this argument you made the claim that the
non-Jewish consumer ultimately pays the costs of kosher certification.
If you're admitting now that you were too much of a dullard with regards
to economics to realize that this makes no logical sense whatsoever, I
accept your apology.
>> Hence your claim that kosher certification EVER costs the end
>> consumer proves to be the product of diseased mind.
>
> Talk about a failure to comprehend basic economics! Where do you think
> the money to pay the Kosher Kowboys came from in the FIRST PLACE? Did
> the Jewish Tooth-Fairy leave a check under the CEO's pillow every
> month? NO! It came from REVENUES generated by the sale of goods - from
> CONSUMERS, every last dime.
Waldo. Try and concentrate. If the price of a good remains the same
regardless of whether its kosher certified or not, then kosher
certification costs the end consumer nothing.
The only person who stands to win or lose is the producer. If the
revenue stemming from certification is less than the cost, the producer
loses, and hence discontinues the certification, as Heinz just did for
the products you mentioned. If the revenue generated by kosher
certification is greater than the cost, the producer makes money, and
continues with certification, as Heinz is doing for their remaining
kosher products.
Its a very simple concept, Waldo. Shout when you understand.
<snip: I'll get to the rest later if I feel like it>
Waldo
I don't divulge such information on Usenet. And what has that to do with the
claims of the Defenders of Kosher?
> Heinz dropped kashrut
> on certain products because the extra cost to them wasn't justified by
> the increase in revenue.
Obviously.
> Did Heinz drop the price on products that are
> no longer kosher?
I believe that the goal was to lower costs, allowing them to retain
competitive pricing *and* profitability.
> If, as you suggest, the company is taking a stand against forced
> kashrut,
Where did I suggest that? What kind of drugs did you take while at McGill?
> why wouldn't they drop koshering all products?
>
> On the contrary, look at all the produts they currently certify from the
> parent company web site: http://www.heinz.com/jsp/kosher.jsp
The website is for the PARENT company - US division. Different market,
different circumstances. But don't be surprised if they soon follow suit.
(Then again, let's consider economy of scale: There are a whole lot more
Goyim to help absorb the Kosts of Kosher in the US!)
> >
> >>and turn a blind eye to the much greater number of
> >>firms who are adding kosher symbols.
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you too stupid (or too dishonest) to see that this was part of the
> > problem? Quoting KosherTodayOnline:
>
> If there's one thing I'm certain about, it's that I'm smarter than you.
Ok. So you're dishonest.
> In fact, you, Knoll, Knight, the "Rev", and all the other trolls that
> pollute cyberspace
Knight? "Black Knight" aka "Joe Bruno"??? He's a Jew - and he's on YOUR
side, dimwit!
> don't equal one of myself, John Morris, Partick
> Keenan, Phillip Mathews, or anyone else that actually contribute
> sensible commentary to this group.
Clearly you have confused 'smart' with 'cunning', 'deceptive', 'dastardly',
'chutzpah', and similar traits so highly valued by the members of your
tribe.
> >
> > "The Heinz [de-certification] move comes after many large companies in
> > Canada have added kosher certification, including Coca Cola which is now
> > certified by the COR."
> >
> > http://www.koshertoday.com/weekly%20news%20archives/2002/120902.htm
> >
> >
> > Too many fishermen angling after a finite number of fish in a small
pond.
> >
> > And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all costs
> > associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits the size
of
> > Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely powerful, strident,
vicious
> > and vindictive group - just to save a few hundred thousand dollars.
> >
>
> Then it's a good thing they don't to market their goods in here, isn't
> it. I'll bet their executives sleep at night rather than stay up
> considering ways to offend people.
Are you ready call me a 'Nazi' yet?
> >
> >
> >>Racial bias at work.
> >
> >
> >
> > So you claim that Jews are a race? Don't worry, tomorrow you'll be
howling
> > that it's a 'religion', a 'tribe', a 'nation' or a 'people' - whatever
suits
> > your agenda of the moment.
>
> Thank you for conceding my point,
What point?
> which is what you do each time you
> resort to semantics rather than argue the significance of the words
> themselves. Do you find the word bigotry a better fit? I have no problem
> with that.
Can you think of a group of people who are more bigoted than are Jews?
> >
> > Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the (Lubavitcher) Rabbi Menachem
> > Mendel Schneerson: Jews are a 'species'.
> >
> >
> And you are a fecies.
LOL!
So, do you agree with Shcneerson, or don't you? Try being honest!
> >
> >>And you even lie to make that point. Here is the exact quote: 'According
> >>to company spokesperson Anna Relyea, the move stemmed from a desire to
> >>"keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
> >>customers."'
> >>
> >>Notice the use of the word "costs", not "prices".
> >
> >
> > Yes, and here's a further quote from the article, Sheldon:
> >
> > "Relyea called the Canadian marketplace a "very competitive retail trade
> > environment," one that keeps the company "under continual pressure to
keep
> > costs down to remain competitive."
> >
> > Keeping "costs down to remain competitive" means keeping costs down to
keep
> > PRICES down.
>
> {laughing out loud} If that was all it meant, then the company can be
> really compititive by dropping its price below its costs.
Er, not for long, Sheldie.
I don't know where you're working now, but I'll gladly hire you if you'd be
willing to pay *me*, say, $100k per year.
Deal?
> When the market for a given product is competitive, then the producer
> must accept whatever price the aggregate market dictates to it.
Right - and he would find it difficult to do so - *and* remain in business -
if he cannot keep his prices low enough to maintain a margin that will
sustain his operations.
> The only
> way it stays competitive is by keeping costs low enough that the profit
> margin it earn, as a percentage of the capital committed to it. If, for
> example, the company's return on invested capital (ROIC) was only 5%,
> then it might as well shut down operations completely and put the
> capital into treasury bonds which pay more with less risk.
Congratulations on stating the obvious, Sheldon.
> > Are you so stump ignorant of the world of business that you don't
understand
> > that an increase in per unit *costs* must at SOME POINT be passed on to
the
> > consumer in the form of INCREASED PRICES?
>
> No, that ignorance is yours. I'm an investment analyst and economist,
God help your clients.
> and I think I would have heard about your theory by now if it was the
> right one. Companies can only pass on increased costs if it has pricing
> power in the marketplace.
True. This leaves them three options: Raise prices anyway, and hope that
competitors follow suit (as they often do); cut costs (as Heinz Canada did
by axing the Kosher Kabal); or fold.
> To illustrate, would you fly New York to Chicago for more money on one
> airline just because that airline has a higher cost structure than one
> charging a lower fare, all other things equal?
Would you - if they served Kosher meals?
> Maybe you would, a fool
> and his money and all that, but most people wouldn't. Airline fares are
> market driven, which is why airline try so desparately to control costs
> by investing in more fuel efficient planes, use forward contracts to
> gain cost stability, and bargain toughly with labor unions.
Once again, this is all elementary - which is why we will likely see MANY
other major foods manufacturers follow the lead of Heinz Canada in cutting
their Kosher lines.
> >
> > Surely you can't be this stupid, Sheldon, so I'll give you the benefit
of
> > the doubt, and assume that you - like the vast majority of the Jews /
> > Judaeophiles that post here - are simply shamelessly dishonest, willing
to
> > stoop to ANY level in the defense of your pernicious little tribe.
> >
>
> That's the only reason I even answer these inane posts. Arguing with a
> fool is pointless. Defending my people against false claims is worthwhile.
Which 'false claims' do you think you're defending against?
> >
> >
> >>Your own example
> >>belies your theory of consumers paying the kosher freight.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Kosher freight"??? What are you talking about? The end consumer
ultimately
> > pays the cost of ALL freight.
> >
> In a compititive business like food, the consumer pays what the market
> tells it. How the revenues get distributed amongst the various factor of
> production, ie labor, capital, etc. is what the manufactures try to
control.
You're attempts to baffle with bullshit aside, dollars are dollars, and
costs are costs, *including* freight, and ALL of these MUST at some point
be recouped via revenue generated by SALES, otherwise the company goes
belly-up.
Get it?
> >
> >>Those
> >>products were moving selling enough to sufficient reduce fixed costs per
> >>unit, thus they were uneconomic. Ketchup and other Heinz products do
> >>enough business.
> >
> >
> >
> > The above makes no sense. Care to try again?
> >
> Sure. Certian products are more responsive to being kosher than others.
True. For instance, the market for non-Kosher Matzoh Balls has GOT to be
piss-poor.
> This is because the volume increase brings down overall cost per unit,
> thus raising the margin on that product to acceptable levels. If Heinz
> Tomato Sauce is a product that doesn't move faster because it's kosher,
Not only does a product have to move 'faster', it has to generate enough
extra revenue to cover ALL costs associated with Kosher supervision -
including Kash-R-Us fees, ingredients costs, extra labor, down time, 'Kosher
Recalls', administrative costs, etc. Otherwise Kosher is a LOSS.
Large markets such as the US are more suited to Kosher because there are a
LOT more Goyim to help absorb these costs.
> then the cost of kashrut is superflous and the kosher symbol may be
> dropped. For certain products this is the case, for others not. This
> isn't an indictment against certification, just a business decision.
>
> >
> >>As for COR meddling, if that's the case, why doesn't Heinz drop all
> >>kosher supervision?
> >
> >
> >
> > Good question. Do you suppose they might fear being labeled as
anti-Semites
> > (Heil Heinzler!), and being attacked by every Jewish pundit in every
Jewish
> > owned (which is virtually ALL) media outlet in Canada?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, the Jews are organizing a rally for next Monday to protest Heinz's
> decision. {eyes rolled upward}.
And why would that be a surprise? Comparatively MINUSCULE events regularly
have had Jews frothing at the mouth.
> >>BTW, I would hypothesis that some companies drop their kashrut before
> >>the kashrut agency drops them. Better, from a corporate image
> >>standpoint, so drop kosher and throw in some line about costs that to
> >>say they were about to receive a failing grade.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no such thing as a "failing grade" for a company producing
Kosher
> > products, Mister Expert. Each product is certified by the Kash-R-Us
agency
> > as Kosher, or it is not. If the company, whether intentionally or
> > inadvertently labels a non-certified product as Kosher, or mis-labels a
> > Kosher product (i.e.: a missing 'D' on a product containing trace
amounts of
> > dairy products, etc) the Kash-R-Us agencies force a recall.
> >
> > ($$$$$$$)
> >
> You know, shit is so full of you. Here's a sample of a COR Notice:
>
> July 4, 2003 / 4 Tammuz 5763
>
>
> THE KASHRUTH COUNCIL OF CANADA (COR)
> WISHES TO ADVISE THAT
> PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY SPRAGUE FOODS LTD.
> EVEN WHEN BEARING THE COR 386 IS NO LONGER UNDER COR CERTIFICATION.
>
> PRODUCTS INCLUDE VARIOUS BRAND NAMES OF BEANS, LENTILS, SOUPS AND
> CHICK PEAS.
> ANY BRAND NAME WHICH BEARS COR 386 SHOULD NOT BE USED.
There is NO indication as to WHY certification was dropped / withdrawn. NO
HINT of a "failing grade", or even of any "Kosher Violation". For all we
know the company may have switched agencies, or simply plucked the Kosher
Tick altogether - judging that it was a losing proposition.
Try again, Sheldon.
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute
a
> >>>>Jew gets involved.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only became
> >>>'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim unwittingly
> >>
> > pay
> >
> >>>the high costs of complying with their ancient and archaic religious
> >>>superstitions.
> >>
> >>No scheme.
> >
> >
> > Sez you.
> >
> You're charge. Where's your proof?
>
> >
> >>No goyim paying higher prices.
> >
> >
> > At least not for most Heinz Canada products - not anymore! O:-(>
>
> Again, taking one example and falsely extrapolating.
Nor for SPRAGUE FOODS LTD, as you cited above.
> >
> >>No archaic superstition.
> >
> >
> > Correction: Nothing BUT archaic superstition.
>
> I suppose a dog would look at its owner, going to the bathroom always
> the in the sameplace, and always pushing down on a small lever,
> apparently just to hear the unusual sound it makes.
Hmmm. Equating Kosher laws with taking a dump. Interesting analogy, Sheldon,
and strangely appropriate.
<Sheldon's confused chest-beating flushed>
Steven Mock
@news.impulse.net:
>> which is what you do each time you
>> resort to semantics rather than argue the significance of the words
>> themselves. Do you find the word bigotry a better fit? I have no problem
>> with that.
>
> Can you think of a group of people who are more bigoted than are Jews?
Yes. Bigots.
To accuse any group of people collectively of bigotry is itself an act of
bigotry, Waldo.
Steven Mock
news:3f102630$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>> Maybe you would, a fool
>> and his money and all that, but most people wouldn't. Airline fares
>> are market driven, which is why airline try so desparately to control
>> costs by investing in more fuel efficient planes, use forward
>> contracts to gain cost stability, and bargain toughly with labor
>> unions.
>
> Once again, this is all elementary - which is why we will likely see
> MANY other major foods manufacturers follow the lead of Heinz Canada
> in cutting their Kosher lines.
ALL kosher lines, Waldo? Including the ones that are still making them
money?
What evidence do you have that this decision by Heinz represents some
dramatic new trend? That it doesn't reflect simply the way businesses
make decisions about things such as kosher certification, and, indeed,
the way that they have been making such decisions all along.
You still have yet to prove that there is some evil kabal of Jews behind
this anywhere.
Steven Mock
news:3f102630$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> Large markets such as the US are more suited to Kosher because there
> are a LOT more Goyim to help absorb these costs.
Waldo, do me a favour and explain to us how this assertion makes any sense
at all.
Thank you.
Steven Mock
blinkered ideologues like Waldo. The reason, and the only reason, is
that I have something of an interest in the nature of closed belief
systems and the sort of discourse used to prop them up. Waldo is a
classic example of this dynamic, and it is never more evident then when
he's on one of these benders about the alleged "kosher scam".
What follows is an excellent example. Waldo filters the most innocuous
and straightforward facts through his prexisting belief in a vastly
powerful and perfidious Jewish conspiracy, then uses what results as
evidence to support his belief if a vastly powerful and perfideous Jewish
conspiracy. He thereafter believes - yes, fervently believes - that he
has produced proof conclusive to every reader (sufficient to call anyone
who accuses him of not producing evidence a liar), while the majority of
us simply stratch our heads and shrug.
Let us examine this example of misleading discourse by differentiating
between the cited facts and the declusions that Waldo believes naturally
follow from them...
"Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:3f0fb0a4$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B589E3E838...@207.35.177.134...
>> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3f0ee8e4$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> From the CJN article:
>
> ______________________
>
> "He [Rabbi Levin] said he is optimistic some Canadian Heinz products
> may become kosher again soon.
> "We've asked Heinz to revisit [the decision]," he said.
>
> [...]
>
> "Meanwhile, COR is asking consumers to continue contacting Heinz to
> express their concerns.
> "Hopefully," said Rabbi Levin, "we can get some of the products back
> on line."
>
> ______________________
Fact: this rabbi from COR regrets the fact that Heinz Canada has
discontinued certification on certain products, hopes that these products
will get back on the line at some point, and encourages Jews who consume
these products to contact Heinz in order to impress on them that the
market for these products is still there.
> So the Jews are encouraged to call Heinz and indignantly demand that
> they reinstate Kosher Certification - AT A LOSS???
Waldo's delusion: that it is the desire of the Jews to compel Heinz to
operate at a loss.
> Of course it would NEVER occur to the Jews that they themselves should
> bear the costs of their culinary curiosties - paying the COR and the
> associated costs incurred by Heinz directly from synagogue
> collections. THAT would be entirely contrary to the Jewish tradition
> of milking the Goyim.
Waldo's delusion: that it is Jewish tradition to "milk the Goyim".
>> Heinz has come to the conclusion that for certain (and clearly not
>> all) of their products, the added business of the kosher market was
>> not worth the cost of certification.
>
> How much money do you suppose they were losing on the certification of
> these products each year? A few hundred? A few thousand? A few HUNDRED
> thousand? More?
>
> It must have been a pretty HEALTHY chunk of change - in this age of
> Political Correctness run amok, a company such as Heinz weighs its
> options VERY carefully before making a move that will almost
> *certainly* be considered VERY offensive to an ethnic minority -
> *especially* when the minority in question is JEWS.
Waldo's delusion: that the losses experienced by Heinz just MUST have
been massive, seeing as Jews are vastly powerful and will be collossaly
offended by this decision. Yet Waldo offers no evidence that such a
decision has ever been taken as an offense by the Jewish community.
Tell me something, Waldo. If a television station discontinues airing a
particular show, why do you think they do it? Chances are, because the
show was unpopular and was not bringing in sufficient advertising
revenue. Does this mean that the show was a pernicious leach, costing
them massive amounts of money having been forced upon the station by the
evil wiles of its fans? No. The station tried it, and it didn't work.
That simple.
And if you happened to like that show, and regretted its being cancelled,
what would you do? You might call the station to express your opinion.
Does that mean that you are personally offended by the decision and are
trying to apply your vast political power to force them into doing
something against their interests? No, you are just trying to tell the
station that the market for the show really is there and will continue to
be there in the future. Your call, and those of others, may effect their
decision. It may not. But in the end, it is a business decision.
Nothing more.
Yes. That you are reading all sorts of delusions into the simple fact
that they discontinued certification all at once.
The fact that they did so indicates, in fact, that there were not massive
losses involved, else they would have done so sooner for the products
that were losing so much money. After all, you have offered no
indication of how long these particular products were kosher certified to
begin with. Perhaps a certain period of time had elapsed, sufficient for
them to do a study of the effects of kosher certification. They found
certification to be profitable for some products, unprofitable for
others. So - get this - they continued certifying the profitable ones
and discontinued the unprofitable ones. Seems like a perfectly sensible
way of doing business.
No evidence of pernicious Jews lying to the company. No evidence of
massive losses. No evidence of "great trepidation". No evidence of
political pressure along the lines of "Political Correctness". These are
still all in your head.
<snip: a few randomn insults>
Steven Mock
news:3f0fbda1$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B5C03D62AD...@207.35.177.134...
>> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3f0ee8e4$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>>
>> > Yes, Steve - the price of goods is set by the MAR - KET, and Heinz
>> > products weren't selling well in the Canadian MAR - KET because
>> > they couldn't COM - PETE, because the high Kosts of Kosher (for
>> > one) were forcing them to either raise PRI - CES (consumers won't
>> > buy) or operate at a LOSS (investors go ape-shit). The solution
>> > they found was to PLUCK the KO - SHER LEACH from the necks of most
>> > of their PRO - DUCTS, thereby cutting COSTS, and allowing them to
>> > lower PRI - CES so that they could better COM - PETE in the
>> > Canadian MAR - KET.
>> >
>> > There. A free lesson in market economics. I just saved your mother
>> > thousands of dollars in tuition fees.
>>
>> Alright then, Waldo. Let's say you're right.
>
> Of course I'm right.
Watch what happens, folks.
>> Let's say that this
>> moronic formula really IS the way the market works,
>
> Of course it is.
Watch what happens, folks.
>> and you're the first
>> economic genius to prove it. Yes, indeed, the cost of kosher
>> certification (even when it is not offset by revenue) really does
>> force companies to raise the price of their goods above the values
>> set by the market.
>
> Gee. Did I say that? No, YOU said that. I said:
>
> "the high Kosts of Kosher (for one) were forcing them to either raise
> PRI - CES (consumers won't buy) or
> operate at a LOSS (investors go ape-shit). The solution they found was
> to PLUCK the KO - SHER LEACH from the necks of most of their PRO -
> DUCTS, thereby cutting COSTS, and allowing them to lower PRI - CES so
> that they could better COM - PETE in the Canadian MAR - KET."
Right. Allow me to focus in on the relevant part:
"... thereby cutting COSTS, and allowing them to lower PRI - CES..."
How do I make this any simpler for you Waldo? You are saying that
cutting costs allows a company to lower prices. In short, that prices
are a factor of costs.
Of course, I think you are starting, on some level at least, to realize
just how moronic this really is. So now, while asserting that you are
right, you are doing your best to weasel your way around what you
actually said. Let's see how well you do.
> In hindsight (in consideration of your desperate nit-picking), if I
> were to re-write the above, I would replace "lower prices" with
> "maintain competitive pricing".
I don't see how this makes any difference. All you are doing is saying
the same thing in vaguer terms. It still appears to be your claim that
price is a factor of production cost.
>> And yes, discontinuing kosher certification indeed allows them
>> to lower the prices of those goods,
>
> Rather, allows them to maintain *competitive pricing*.
Whatever the hell you mean by that.
>> thereby enabling them to better compete.
>>
>> Well, I suppose this latest development offers you an excellent
>> opportunity to prove it.
>
> I don't have to prove anything, Mr. Mock.
Not surprising.
> Heinz has *already* proven
> this by making what was no doubt a carefully weighed and VERY
> politically sensitive decision.
WHAT have they proven, Waldo? You have offered no evidence that politics
entered into the decision at all. The only thing that was weighed was
cost and benefit.
Let me remind you what your original claim with regards to kosher
certification was, Waldo. Your claim was that the cost of certification
ends up driving the price of a good up and is therefore is borne by non-
Jewish consumers. So here's your big chance, Waldo. Now don't shirk it.
Obviously, Heinz' decision to de-certify certain of its products will
cause the price of those products to drop to more *competative* prices.
Well, is it happening or not?
Of course, Waldo is weaseling out of having to produce the evidence that
would most certainly be there if he were right. Since he knows full well
that the price of a product will remain the same regardless of whether
its kosher certified or not.
>> All you have to do is find any one of these
>> Heinz products that has discontinued kosher certification and show us
>> that it has gone down in price as a consequence.
>
> I'll consider the fact that Heinz - having freed themselves from the
> yoke of Kosher - continues to produce and offer these formerly
> certified products evidence enough, thank you.
Evidence of what, pray tell?
>> Come on, Waldo. Its hero time. I'm sure it won't be hard at all,
>> since kosher is such an obvious and massive burdern, as you say.
>
> Done.
>
> <cue applause>
Really? I don't see you citing a drop in the price of a single product.
So for all your bravado, I guess its proven that kosher costs the
consumer NOTHING.
>> Now that
>> Heinz has shaken off the kosher leviathan, I'm sure their baked beans
>> will absolutely *plunge* in price.
>
> I doubt it - but at least they'll be able to continue to make them -
> and at a decent profit.
>
> If you were Heinz, would you prefer to manufacture non-Kosher Baked
> Beans, or Kosher Nothings?
What are you jibbering about now, Waldo? I'm perfectly willing to
acknowledge that the fact that Heinz discontinued kosher certification on
these particular products indicates that they believed they would make
MORE money without it than with it. But you have offered no grounds for
this goofball assertion that they were making NO money or LOSING money
when these items were certified... that they would not have been able to
continue producing these items at a profit were they to remain certified.
Just where are these particular delusions coming from?
>> And Heinz will, no doubt, do their
>> best to spread the word by advertising this massive drop in the price
>> of their goods.
>
> Political correctness will assure that this issue will remain low-key
> (unless the Jews decide to play the "anti-Semite Card"), but you can
> be sure that OTHER companies will quietly take notice - and unless the
> Jews manage to find a way to use their considerable political,
> financial and media clout to stealthily retaliate against Heinz, you
> can bet that MANY other companies will soon follow suit.
Yes, I'm sure ALL companies will continue to make decisions about kosher
certification on the basis of a simple cost-benefit analysis, just as
Heinz did. This stuff about Political Correctness, financial and media
clout, and stealthful relaliation, however, is evidently from your vivid
imagination.
>> And since they will be so much more competitive as a result
>> of these lower costs and lower prices, their stocks will soar, and
>> you will have proven now and forever more that kosher certification
>> is an unconscionable burdern artificially imposed on unwilling
>> companies by those evil Jews.
>
> You have a flair for highly theatrical drama, Mr. Mock. It's a pity
> that Vaudeville met its demise some time ago.
>
>> Oh wait, what's that I hear? Nothing's happening. Baked beans still
>> cost the same as they did yesterday.
>
> Perhaps. But Heinz will still be making them *tomorrow* - and at a
> higher PROFIT.
A slightly higher profit, perhaps. The notion that they were operating
at a loss before appears to be from your delusions.
As Waldo flees the field, abdicating his responsibility for proving his
case and casting insults and anti-Semitic delusions in his wake. Yet
given the classic opportunity provided by the de-certification of certain
Heinz products, he won't even try to substantiate his claim that kosher
costs non-Jewish consumers money.
Because he knows he can't.
> I guess your Kosher Keeping Kanadian Komerades will have to buy Bush's
> baked beans.
No big hardship. Frankly, I can't imagine that anyone - Jew or Gentile -
cares about the matter as much as you do.
> And I'm sure that Heinz will be crying at the loss of
> their business - crying all the way to the bank!
Maybe. We'll see. I, for one, don't make pronouncements based on what
I'd like to believe. I stick to the facts themselves.
Waldo
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f102630$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> >> Maybe you would, a fool
> >> and his money and all that, but most people wouldn't. Airline fares
> >> are market driven, which is why airline try so desparately to control
> >> costs by investing in more fuel efficient planes, use forward
> >> contracts to gain cost stability, and bargain toughly with labor
> >> unions.
> >
> > Once again, this is all elementary - which is why we will likely see
> > MANY other major foods manufacturers follow the lead of Heinz Canada
> > in cutting their Kosher lines.
>
> ALL kosher lines, Waldo? Including the ones that are still making them
> money?
Do you *see* the word 'ALL' in the paragraph *I* wrote above, Mr. Mock? I
have to wonder whether the strawmen you create are the result of your
hallucinations of non-existent words in the text that others have written -
figments conjured up by your warped mind in its effort to make these
statements fit some pre-conceived notion of what you THINK someone might
say.
Then again, you could just be a shamelessly dishonest prick.
Applying Occam's Razor, the latter is likely the answer.
> What evidence do you have that this decision by Heinz represents some
> dramatic new trend?
"Dramatic" is *your* word.
(1) If Heinz had concluded that they were realizing a profit - even a SMALL
profit - that could be directly attributed to Kosher Certifiying the
products they recently dumped from their Kosher list, they would NEVER have
dumped that certification.
If Heinz was not realizing a profit from the certification of these
products, it stands to reason that Kosher is not pulling it's weight for
*other* companies who produce similar certified products for similar
markets.
(2) As you and your Kosher Kissing Kohorts have repeatedly pointed out,
there are *some* types of products that are *relatively* 'easy and cheap' to
certify (note the qualifier: RELATIVELY), and as it happens, MOST of the
products that Heinz dumped (i.e. vinegar, mustard, tomato sauce, tomato
Juice, etc.) WOULD have been *relatively* 'easy and cheap' to certify - yet
they dumped them ANYWAY. (obviously, *relatively* 'cheap and easy' is in the
eye of the beholder).
If these *relatively* 'cheap and easy' products were not pulling their
weight for Heinz, it is reasonable to assume that they would not do so for
other companies, especially when it comes to *relatively* 'costly and
expensive' items (i.e., products containing milk or meat, or products that
are produced in facilities / on equipment that also handle milk or meat
products).
Does it not stand to reason that other companies (especially in light of
Heinz recent move) would ALSO scrutinize their Kosher programs, and
(assuming that Jews do not form a massive retaliation) pluck the Kosher tick
as well?
Of course there IS the possibility that Heinz was a unique case. It could be
that
(A) Jews didn't like Heinz products to begin with, and rarely bought them
*in spite* of the fact that they were certified, or
(B) the COR had singled out Heinz for some reason, and was screwing them
with MUCH tighter scrutiny and MUCH higher certification fees than they did
and OTHER manufacturers. . . but I doubt it. I believe that Heinz, upon
careful review of the costs / benefits, finally realized that Kosher
certification on these lines was causing them to hemorrhage cash, elected to
cauterize the wounds.
Other companies are no doubt paying close attention to the Jews' reactions,
and will likely follow suit.
> That it doesn't reflect simply the way businesses
> make decisions about things such as kosher certification, and, indeed,
> the way that they have been making such decisions all along.
Then WHY oh WHY didn't Heinz cut the certification of the products one by
one, as each in turn became unprofitable, Mr. Mock? Why so MANY products all
at the SAME TIME?
> You still have yet to prove that there is some evil kabal of Jews behind
> this anywhere.
Well, I'm glad to see that you have finally conceded all of the *other*
points on this topic.
Steven Mock
news:3f110706$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93B67ED612F6...@207.35.177.134...
>> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3f102630$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>>
>> >> Maybe you would, a fool
>> >> and his money and all that, but most people wouldn't. Airline
>> >> fares are market driven, which is why airline try so desparately
>> >> to control costs by investing in more fuel efficient planes, use
>> >> forward contracts to gain cost stability, and bargain toughly with
>> >> labor unions.
>> >
>> > Once again, this is all elementary - which is why we will likely
>> > see MANY other major foods manufacturers follow the lead of Heinz
>> > Canada in cutting their Kosher lines.
>>
>> ALL kosher lines, Waldo? Including the ones that are still making
>> them money?
>
> Do you *see* the word 'ALL' in the paragraph *I* wrote above, Mr.
> Mock? I have to wonder whether the strawmen you create are the result
> of your hallucinations of non-existent words in the text that others
> have written - figments conjured up by your warped mind in its effort
> to make these statements fit some pre-conceived notion of what you
> THINK someone might say.
No Waldo. But your argument makes no sense whatsoever unless the word
ALL is implied. That's why I asked the question, so please wipe off the
spittle and address the point.
You see, if Heinz cancelled some of their kosher lines because they were
not making them money, the implication is that they have continued the
rest because those others WERE making them money.
Which is basically what I've been saying about kosher certification all
along. We're still waiting for you to explain just what this decision by
Heinz is supposed to prove in your little universe.
> Then again, you could just be a shamelessly dishonest prick.
>
> Applying Occam's Razor, the latter is likely the answer.
>
>> What evidence do you have that this decision by Heinz represents some
>> dramatic new trend?
>
> "Dramatic" is *your* word.
It's my word. But its an accurate description of the way that you depict
the decision. You have explicitly cited it as some kind of a turning
point. I see no evidence that it is.
> (1) If Heinz had concluded that they were realizing a profit - even a
> SMALL profit - that could be directly attributed to Kosher Certifiying
> the products they recently dumped from their Kosher list, they would
> NEVER have dumped that certification.
Fair enough. Hence they discontinued it. Thus far this fits very well
with my formula: companies kosher certify products when doing so makes
them money, and don't do so when they don't.
If you apply Occam's Razor properly (which is to say, coming up with the
simplest explanation that DOESN'T require additional assumptions), this
is the simplest explanation for Heinz' decision. The rest is just your
ranting.
> If Heinz was not realizing a profit from the certification of these
> products, it stands to reason that Kosher is not pulling it's weight
> for *other* companies who produce similar certified products for
> similar markets.
Maybe, maybe not. You can't just declare it to be so because its what
you'd like to believe. You haven't even shown that there ARE other
companies producing similar certified products on the mass market (ie.
not exclusively for the kosher market)? You seem to be jumping to
convenient conclusions here, Waldo.
If there are such products being produced by other companies, I'm sure
those companies will be pleased by Heinz' decision. A greater share of
the kosher market for them.
> (2) As you and your Kosher Kissing Kohorts have repeatedly pointed
> out, there are *some* types of products that are *relatively* 'easy
> and cheap' to certify (note the qualifier: RELATIVELY), and as it
> happens, MOST of the products that Heinz dumped (i.e. vinegar,
> mustard, tomato sauce, tomato Juice, etc.) WOULD have been
> *relatively* 'easy and cheap' to certify - yet they dumped them
> ANYWAY. (obviously, *relatively* 'cheap and easy' is in the eye of the
> beholder).
Um... Waldo, when were you certified as a masgiach? I would not be
nearly as confident as you are in declaring which products are easy to
certify and which not, and I, unlike yourself, am actually reasonably
familiar with Jewish law on the matter. Where did you acquire your
esoteric knowledge into Jewish dietary law?
> If these *relatively* 'cheap and easy' products were not pulling their
> weight for Heinz, it is reasonable to assume that they would not do so
> for other companies, especially when it comes to *relatively* 'costly
> and expensive' items (i.e., products containing milk or meat, or
> products that are produced in facilities / on equipment that also
> handle milk or meat products).
>
> Does it not stand to reason that other companies (especially in light
> of Heinz recent move) would ALSO scrutinize their Kosher programs, and
> (assuming that Jews do not form a massive retaliation) pluck the
> Kosher tick as well?
Ah yes. So you *are* substituting random, self-serving speculation for
evidence. Fair enough, and true to form.
<snip: a whole lot more self serving speculation>
>> That it doesn't reflect simply the way businesses
>> make decisions about things such as kosher certification, and,
>> indeed, the way that they have been making such decisions all along.
>
> Then WHY oh WHY didn't Heinz cut the certification of the products one
> by one, as each in turn became unprofitable, Mr. Mock? Why so MANY
> products all at the SAME TIME?
What the hell are you jibbering about now, Waldo? I have already
answered this lame excuse for an argument.
If these products really were losing them massive amounts of money, they
would have discontinued each of them immediately as that became evident.
The fact that they made this move all at once indicates that the losses
were extremely minor - that it took a concerted effort to study the sales
of these products in order to determine whether kosher certification was
a cost or a benefit for each. They found certification to be profitable
for some products, unprofitable for others. So - get this - they
continued certifying the profitable ones and discontinued the
unprofitable ones. Seems like a perfectly sensible way of doing
business, your delusions notwithstanding.
>> You still have yet to prove that there is some evil kabal of Jews
>> behind this anywhere.
>
> Well, I'm glad to see that you have finally conceded all of the
> *other* points on this topic.
I have yet to see you make one. You're pretty much all over the board
here, flailing in a vain effort to find some reason to justify this pet
libel of yours in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I concede only one thing: that companies kosher certify products when
doing so makes them money, they do not when it does not.
That is all this Heinz case proves. The rest is typical Waldonian
delusion.
Sheldon Liberman
In other words, you're uneduced. Please wait while I recover from the shock.
The detractors of Kosher certification claim that the non-Jews are
unjustly paying the cost. Ergo, I would say that a little economic
theory would be aprospos in this circumstance.
Once more with feeling: If kosher certification, or any other marketing
decision, stimulates sales at a given price point, then the manufactures
total fixed costs get spread over a larger quantity of goods sold.
Therefore, total costs per unit decrease. Do the math. If koshering
increases total demand for a product, which market research indicates to
be the case, then producer costs should decrease. Critics say koshering
increases prices. If anything, prices should go down because producer
costs go down. But since prices are market driven in competitive
industries, producer savings tend to go the earnings line, which is what
the producers had in mind to begin with (d-uh!)
>
>
>>Heinz dropped kashrut
>>on certain products because the extra cost to them wasn't justified by
>>the increase in revenue.
>
>
>
> Obviously.
>
>
>
>>Did Heinz drop the price on products that are
>>no longer kosher?
>
>
>
> I believe that the goal was to lower costs, allowing them to retain
> competitive pricing *and* profitability.
In other words, no. Thank you.
>
>
>
>>If, as you suggest, the company is taking a stand against forced
>>kashrut,
>
>
>
> Where did I suggest that? What kind of drugs did you take while at McGill?
>
No drugs. Just sangria. You're quote:
>>>>>(consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to Kosher
>>>>
> certify
>
>>>>>most of its products - and that is why they're dumping the bulk of the
>>>>
>>>COR
>>>
>>>
>>>>>meddling."
Meddling: unwanted intrusion. Not a simple business decision with
indifference to the motivation of parties involved.
>
>
>>why wouldn't they drop koshering all products?
>>
>>On the contrary, look at all the produts they currently certify from the
>>parent company web site: http://www.heinz.com/jsp/kosher.jsp
>
>
>
> The website is for the PARENT company - US division. Different market,
> different circumstances. But don't be surprised if they soon follow suit.
> (Then again, let's consider economy of scale: There are a whole lot more
> Goyim to help absorb the Kosts of Kosher in the US!)
>
Well, since you put it THAT way, what are you talking about?
>
>
>>>>and turn a blind eye to the much greater number of
>>>>firms who are adding kosher symbols.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you too stupid (or too dishonest) to see that this was part of the
>>>problem? Quoting KosherTodayOnline:
>>
>>If there's one thing I'm certain about, it's that I'm smarter than you.
>
>
>
> Ok. So you're dishonest.
You're a nice guy. Now THAT'S dishonest.
>
>
>
>>In fact, you, Knoll, Knight, the "Rev", and all the other trolls that
>>pollute cyberspace
>
>
>
> Knight? "Black Knight" aka "Joe Bruno"??? He's a Jew - and he's on YOUR
> side, dimwit!
Really? The John Knight who writes: Keep your day job, Sheldon. We
don't need any more jew comedians, and
neither does Madagascar http://christianparty.net/poll.htm
John Knight
and who also takes credit for: The jews are the biggest crooks in world
history, with their holocaust hoax
enabling them to suck $1.5 TRILLION out of American taxpayers, based on
their "sympathy" for 6 million dead jews who were still alive and well
after WWII:
If this guy's my side, I rather he switch loyalties. Dimwit.
>>don't equal one of myself, John Morris, Partick
>>Keenan, Phillip Mathews, or anyone else that actually contribute
>>sensible commentary to this group.
>
>
>
> Clearly you have confused 'smart' with 'cunning', 'deceptive', 'dastardly',
> 'chutzpah', and similar traits so highly valued by the members of your
> tribe.
Clearly, you hate Jews because you know you can't accomplish what they
seem to. You are, in fact, complimenting them. Thank you.
>
>
>
>>>"The Heinz [de-certification] move comes after many large companies in
>>>Canada have added kosher certification, including Coca Cola which is now
>>>certified by the COR."
>>>
>>>http://www.koshertoday.com/weekly%20news%20archives/2002/120902.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>Too many fishermen angling after a finite number of fish in a small
>>
> pond.
>
>>>And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all costs
>>>associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits the size
>>
> of
>
>>>Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely powerful, strident,
>>
> vicious
>
>>>and vindictive group - just to save a few hundred thousand dollars.
>>>
>>
>>Then it's a good thing they don't to market their goods in here, isn't
>>it. I'll bet their executives sleep at night rather than stay up
>>considering ways to offend people.
>
>
>
> Are you ready call me a 'Nazi' yet?
>
I wouldn't be totally shocked to discover you to be a Nazi sympathizer.
But since I have nothing but your apparent anti-Semitic balm to go on, I
would not make such a claim.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Racial bias at work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So you claim that Jews are a race? Don't worry, tomorrow you'll be
>>
> howling
>
>>>that it's a 'religion', a 'tribe', a 'nation' or a 'people' - whatever
>>
> suits
>
>>>your agenda of the moment.
>>
>>Thank you for conceding my point,
>
>
>
> What point?
>
>
That you harbor racial bias. In defence, you attack the semantics of my
words, not their meaning.
>
>>which is what you do each time you
>>resort to semantics rather than argue the significance of the words
>>themselves. Do you find the word bigotry a better fit? I have no problem
>>with that.
>
>
>
> Can you think of a group of people who are more bigoted than are Jews?
>
Hello Mr. Pot. I'm Mr. Kettle, and you're black.
>
>
>>>Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the (Lubavitcher) Rabbi Menachem
>>>Mendel Schneerson: Jews are a 'species'.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And you are a fecies.
>
>
>
> LOL!
>
> So, do you agree with Shcneerson, or don't you? Try being honest!
>
I don't agree or disagree, since you chose to include the words and not
their context. One thing I can be sure of is that it was derogatory.
>
>
>>>>And you even lie to make that point. Here is the exact quote: 'According
>>>>to company spokesperson Anna Relyea, the move stemmed from a desire to
>>>>"keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
>>>>customers."'
>>>>
>>>>Notice the use of the word "costs", not "prices".
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, and here's a further quote from the article, Sheldon:
>>>
>>>"Relyea called the Canadian marketplace a "very competitive retail trade
>>>environment," one that keeps the company "under continual pressure to
>>
> keep
>
>>>costs down to remain competitive."
>>>
>>>Keeping "costs down to remain competitive" means keeping costs down to
>>
> keep
>
>>>PRICES down.
>>
>>{laughing out loud} If that was all it meant, then the company can be
>>really compititive by dropping its price below its costs.
>
>
>
> Er, not for long, Sheldie.
What are you defending, keeping down prices to remain competitive, or
keeping down cost? There's a difference?
>
> I don't know where you're working now, but I'll gladly hire you if you'd be
> willing to pay *me*, say, $100k per year.
>
> Deal?
>
>
Another hike over the quarterback's head.
>
>>When the market for a given product is competitive, then the producer
>>must accept whatever price the aggregate market dictates to it.
>
>
>
> Right - and he would find it difficult to do so - *and* remain in business -
> if he cannot keep his prices low enough to maintain a margin that will
> sustain his operations.
>
>
Assuming he price discetion. Otherwise, the question is, can he increase
sales at the given price point to maintain margin at least equal to his
cost of capital.
>
>>The only
>>way it stays competitive is by keeping costs low enough that the profit
>>margin it earn, as a percentage of the capital committed to it. If, for
>>example, the company's return on invested capital (ROIC) was only 5%,
>>then it might as well shut down operations completely and put the
>>capital into treasury bonds which pay more with less risk.
>
>
>
> Congratulations on stating the obvious, Sheldon.
>
I'm trying to be context sensitive, Waldo.
>
>
>
>>>Are you so stump ignorant of the world of business that you don't
>>
> understand
>
>>>that an increase in per unit *costs* must at SOME POINT be passed on to
>>
> the
>
>>>consumer in the form of INCREASED PRICES?
>>
>>No, that ignorance is yours. I'm an investment analyst and economist,
>
>
>
> God help your clients.
And you.
>
>
>
>>and I think I would have heard about your theory by now if it was the
>>right one. Companies can only pass on increased costs if it has pricing
>>power in the marketplace.
>
>
>
> True. This leaves them three options: Raise prices anyway, and hope that
> competitors follow suit (as they often do); cut costs (as Heinz Canada did
> by axing the Kosher Kabal); or fold.
>
Raising prices in a tightly competitive market is the riskiest option.
Cost cutting is by far the most relied upon means of maintaining
competitive posture. But those cost cuts aren't indiscriminant. Cutting
the Kosher symbol will reduce revenues and costs. The company predicts
the net result.
>
>
>>To illustrate, would you fly New York to Chicago for more money on one
>>airline just because that airline has a higher cost structure than one
>>charging a lower fare, all other things equal?
>
>
>
> Would you - if they served Kosher meals?
>
Again, deflecting the point, thereby conceding it.
>
>
>>Maybe you would, a fool
>>and his money and all that, but most people wouldn't. Airline fares are
>>market driven, which is why airline try so desparately to control costs
>>by investing in more fuel efficient planes, use forward contracts to
>>gain cost stability, and bargain toughly with labor unions.
>
>
>
> Once again, this is all elementary - which is why we will likely see MANY
> other major foods manufacturers follow the lead of Heinz Canada in cutting
> their Kosher lines.
Good. Then we shall have some concrete evidence of the absurdity of your
argument. Not that we need it.
>
>
>
>>>Surely you can't be this stupid, Sheldon, so I'll give you the benefit
>>
> of
>
>>>the doubt, and assume that you - like the vast majority of the Jews /
>>>Judaeophiles that post here - are simply shamelessly dishonest, willing
>>
> to
>
>>>stoop to ANY level in the defense of your pernicious little tribe.
>>>
>>
>>That's the only reason I even answer these inane posts. Arguing with a
>>fool is pointless. Defending my people against false claims is worthwhile.
>
>
>
> Which 'false claims' do you think you're defending against?
>
>
That non-Jews pay more for nationally marketed food products with kosher
symbols. Pay attention.
>
>>>
>>>>Your own example
>>>>belies your theory of consumers paying the kosher freight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Kosher freight"??? What are you talking about? The end consumer
>>
> ultimately
>
>>>pays the cost of ALL freight.
>>>
>>
>>In a compititive business like food, the consumer pays what the market
>>tells it. How the revenues get distributed amongst the various factor of
>>production, ie labor, capital, etc. is what the manufactures try to
>
> control.
>
>
> You're attempts to baffle with bullshit aside, dollars are dollars, and
> costs are costs, *including* freight, and ALL of these MUST at some point
> be recouped via revenue generated by SALES, otherwise the company goes
> belly-up.
>
Economics 101. Take the course. Every decision a company makes is an
attempt to increase sales without increasing costs comensurately.
Including kahsering.
> Get it?
>
>
>
>>>>Those
>>>>products were moving selling enough to sufficient reduce fixed costs per
>>>>unit, thus they were uneconomic. Ketchup and other Heinz products do
>>>>enough business.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The above makes no sense. Care to try again?
>>>
>>
>>Sure. Certian products are more responsive to being kosher than others.
>
>
>
> True. For instance, the market for non-Kosher Matzoh Balls has GOT to be
> piss-poor.
>
Right. So how many producers are their in that market?
>
>
>>This is because the volume increase brings down overall cost per unit,
>>thus raising the margin on that product to acceptable levels. If Heinz
>>Tomato Sauce is a product that doesn't move faster because it's kosher,
>
>
>
> Not only does a product have to move 'faster', it has to generate enough
> extra revenue to cover ALL costs associated with Kosher supervision -
> including Kash-R-Us fees, ingredients costs, extra labor, down time, 'Kosher
> Recalls', administrative costs, etc. Otherwise Kosher is a LOSS.
Isn't it your contention that kosher is a loss anyway? Heinz dropped
kashrut because it's costs were relatively high; the same machines used
to produce regular beans were also used to product pork and beans. Then
there's down time. On the other hand, in the manufacture of say,
Coca-Cola, there is nothing inherently unkosher about the process or any
ingredient, thus their cost of kashrut would be on a lower scale.
>
> Large markets such as the US are more suited to Kosher because there are a
> LOT more Goyim to help absorb these costs.
>
You have yet to demonstrate that goyim absorb any costs.
>
>
>>then the cost of kashrut is superflous and the kosher symbol may be
>>dropped. For certain products this is the case, for others not. This
>>isn't an indictment against certification, just a business decision.
>>
>>
>>>>As for COR meddling, if that's the case, why doesn't Heinz drop all
>>>>kosher supervision?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Good question. Do you suppose they might fear being labeled as
>>
> anti-Semites
>
>>>(Heil Heinzler!), and being attacked by every Jewish pundit in every
>>
> Jewish
>
>>>owned (which is virtually ALL) media outlet in Canada?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, the Jews are organizing a rally for next Monday to protest Heinz's
>>decision. {eyes rolled upward}.
>
>
>
> And why would that be a surprise? Comparatively MINUSCULE events regularly
> have had Jews frothing at the mouth.
>
Please provide examples of such "MINUSCULE" events.
I would say that the fact that the company would still continue to
display the kosher symbol on the products even without valid
certification implies that it wants to be recognized as kosher without
the consent of COR provides justification for my point. False
advertising can be costly, as McDonald's just found out.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>Its a simple concept. It doesn't magically become sinister the minute
>>>>>
> a
>
>>>>>>Jew gets involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jews have been 'involved' in Kosher from the get-go. Kosher only became
>>>>>'sinister' when Jews concocted a scheme to have the Goyim unwittingly
>>>>
>>>pay
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the high costs of complying with their ancient and archaic religious
>>>>>superstitions.
>>>>
>>>>No scheme.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sez you.
>>>
>>
>>You're charge. Where's your proof?
>>
>>
>>>>No goyim paying higher prices.
>>>
>>>
>>>At least not for most Heinz Canada products - not anymore! O:-(>
>>
>>Again, taking one example and falsely extrapolating.
>
>
>
> Nor for SPRAGUE FOODS LTD, as you cited above.
>
>
>
Nor for a host of companies. You imply all that's needed for
certification is the willingness to pay for it. I say that's not true.
Where's YOUR proof?
>>>>No archaic superstition.
>>>
>>>
>>>Correction: Nothing BUT archaic superstition.
>>
>>I suppose a dog would look at its owner, going to the bathroom always
>>the in the sameplace, and always pushing down on a small lever,
>>apparently just to hear the unusual sound it makes.
>
>
>
> Hmmm. Equating Kosher laws with taking a dump. Interesting analogy, Sheldon,
> and strangely appropriate.
>
> <Sheldon's confused chest-beating flushed>
>
Once again, veering away from the main point, thereby proving it. In
different words, then, the more limited a person's mental faculties, the
more likely he is to attribute that which he doesn't understand to
superstition or nonsense. You don't understand Jews keeping kosher, thus
it has to be superstition. QED.
Steven Mock
>>>What business school you graduate from? [McGill 83]
>>
>> I don't divulge such information on Usenet. And what has that to do
>> with the claims of the Defenders of Kosher?
>
> In other words, you're uneduced. Please wait while I recover from the
> shock.
>
> The detractors of Kosher certification claim that the non-Jews are
> unjustly paying the cost. Ergo, I would say that a little economic
> theory would be aprospos in this circumstance.
>
> Once more with feeling: If kosher certification, or any other
> marketing decision, stimulates sales at a given price point, then the
> manufactures total fixed costs get spread over a larger quantity of
> goods sold. Therefore, total costs per unit decrease. Do the math. If
> koshering increases total demand for a product, which market research
> indicates to be the case, then producer costs should decrease. Critics
> say koshering increases prices. If anything, prices should go down
> because producer costs go down. But since prices are market driven in
> competitive industries, producer savings tend to go the earnings line,
> which is what the producers had in mind to begin with (d-uh!)
Give it up, Mr. Liberman. I tried to explain this to Waldo two years ago
<3508599e.01080...@posting.google.com> and several times since
(eg: <3c426d38$0$1...@news.impulse.net>).
He didn't get it then. He won't get it now.
sailor57
>
<deletia>
I haven't used "Black Knight" for months.Looks like more of Waldo's
lies.
Some months back, Waldo was praising and defending Nazi Germany in a
dispute with me. He isn't honest enough to admit he's a Nazi.You don't
have to wear a swastika armband to have Nazi views. The KKK has the
same views.
Waldo's ignorance surfaces again.The Hebrews were divided into 12
tribes.Jews are
not made up of tribes.Not all Jews are Hebrews.At the point they left
Egypt, the Hebrews were not Jews yet.That came in front of Mounta
Sinai later. Waldrip is a fund of silly misinformation.
It isn't superstition. It's religion.See Leviticus Chapter 11. If
Leviticus is "superstition", so are Jesus Christ and his crucifixion
in the New Testament. It's faith, for heaven's sake.
I caution you, Sheldon. Waldo has no interest in facts. He is a troll
whose favorite pastime is baiting people.He'll do anything to get your
goat, including lying, putting words in your mouth, and badmouthing
religion-he does it to Christianity, too.
I urge you to divest yourself of the idea that you can convince him of
anything.
Even if he thought you were right, he'd NEVER admit it.Notice how he
keeps changing the subject? He's trying to find a nerve he can hit to
get you pissed off.I don't play his dumb game anymore.
>
>
> > **
> >
>
Sheldon Liberman
bigotry as a means of amusement and self-actualization.
I look upon him as the Colonel Klink of the usenet. But he's useful in
that he puts a persona to anti-semitism, and a somewhat absurd one at
that. I think he causes greater harm than good to whatever he espouses
which is the only reason I chose to engage him.
>>>
>>Once again, veering away from the main point, thereby proving it. In
>>different words, then, the more limited a person's mental faculties, the
>>more likely he is to attribute that which he doesn't understand to
>>superstition or nonsense. You don't understand Jews keeping kosher, thus
>>it has to be superstition. QED.
>
>
> It isn't superstition. It's religion.See Leviticus Chapter 11. If
> Leviticus is "superstition", so are Jesus Christ and his crucifixion
> in the New Testament. It's faith, for heaven's sake.
I don't believe in superstition or faith, just what is verifiable.
it's no less than the Torah requires of us.
>
> I caution you, Sheldon. Waldo has no interest in facts. He is a troll
> whose favorite pastime is baiting people.He'll do anything to get your
> goat, including lying, putting words in your mouth, and badmouthing
> religion-he does it to Christianity, too.
Of course. But he's not bright enough to realize that the longer he
rants, the brighter the light he shines on the very target of his bile.
>
> I urge you to divest yourself of the idea that you can convince him of
> anything.
> Even if he thought you were right, he'd NEVER admit it.Notice how he
> keeps changing the subject? He's trying to find a nerve he can hit to
> get you pissed off.I don't play his dumb game anymore.
>
I think we've past the point where he considers me to know whereof I
speak. He begrudgingly concedes points to me by attacking my use of
words or Judaism in general, where a couterpoint would be expected.
>>
>>>**
>>>
>>
Waldo
No, in other words, the details of my life are none of your business.
Besides, you wouldn't believe me anyway.
> Please wait while I recover from the shock.
>
> The detractors of Kosher certification claim that the non-Jews are
> unjustly paying the cost.
It was not the claims of the detractors, but the DEFENDERS of Kosher
Certification that inspired you to proclaim your alleged affiliation with
McGill, Sheldon, and as I stated above, these have claimed that Kosher
Certification costs companies LESS THAN NOTHING to certify, as the increased
market share MORE than pays for certification, and even LOWERS the retail
price of goods.
So how do you answer their claim, mister expert?
> Ergo, I would say that a little economic
> theory would be aprospos in this circumstance.
Theories are lovely, Sheldon. Have you ever gotten your feet wet? Put *your*
money where your mouth is?
> Once more with feeling: If kosher certification,
Note the key word here: *IF*.
> or any other marketing
> decision, stimulates sales at a given price point, then the manufactures
> total fixed costs get spread over a larger quantity of goods sold.
> Therefore, total costs per unit decrease.
Only if the "gross" profit derived from these aditional sales is sufficient
to offset the total costs associated with Kosher Certification, or any other
marketing
strategy, Mr. Theoretician.
> Do the math.
I have: If profits generated by a given marketing strategy *exceed* all
costs associated with that strategy, it is a profitable venture. If profits
generated by that marketing strategy fall short of all expenses associated
with that strategy, it is a LOSER.
> If koshering
> increases total demand for a product, which market research indicates to
> be the case, then producer costs should decrease.
Not necessarily. See above.
> Critics say koshering
> increases prices. If anything, prices should go down because producer
> costs go down.
Not necessarily. See above.
> But since prices are market driven in competitive
> industries, producer savings tend to go the earnings line,
Again, not necessarily: Price incentives are one of the most effective
marketing strategies known, and a reductuction in *costs* passed on to the
consumer in the form of a lower *price* is amost certain to translate into
an increased market share - particularly if this lower price is widely
promoted as such. This larger market share can translate into profits that
reach above and beyond the simple cost savings.
Ever hear of Wal-Mart?
> which is what
> the producers had in mind to begin with (d-uh!)
'D-uh!' is right, Sheldon. You're not a very effective promotion tool for
McGill,
you know.
> >
> >
> >>Heinz dropped kashrut
> >>on certain products because the extra cost to them wasn't justified by
> >>the increase in revenue.
> >
> >
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Did Heinz drop the price on products that are
> >>no longer kosher?
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that the goal was to lower costs, allowing them to retain
> > competitive pricing *and* profitability.
>
> In other words, no. Thank you.
In other words, it allowed them to continue to compete - PROFITABLY. Do you
know what happens to companies when they cannot maintain competitive pricing
AND profitability?
Ever hear of Wal-Mart's EX-competitors?
> >
> >
> >
> >>If, as you suggest, the company is taking a stand against forced
> >>kashrut,
> >
> >
> >
> > Where did I suggest that? What kind of drugs did you take while at
McGill?
> >
> No drugs. Just sangria. You're quote:
> >>>>>(consumers) DON'T want to pay the extra money it costs to Kosher
> >>>>
> > certify
> >
> >>>>>most of its products - and that is why they're dumping the bulk of
the
> >>>>
> >>>COR
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>meddling."
>
> Meddling: unwanted intrusion. Not a simple business decision with
> indifference to the motivation of parties involved.
Familiarity breeds contempt?
Apparently the Wascally Wabbis wore out their welcome, eh Sheldon?
> >
> >>why wouldn't they drop koshering all products?
> >>
> >>On the contrary, look at all the produts they currently certify from the
> >>parent company web site: http://www.heinz.com/jsp/kosher.jsp
> >
> >
> > The website is for the PARENT company - US division. Different market,
> > different circumstances. But don't be surprised if they soon follow
suit.
> > (Then again, let's consider economy of scale: There are a whole lot more
> > Goyim to help absorb the Kosts of Kosher in the US!)
> >
>
> Well, since you put it THAT way, what are you talking about?
I suppose this is your way of conceding a point?
> >
> >
> >>>>and turn a blind eye to the much greater number of
> >>>>firms who are adding kosher symbols.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Are you too stupid (or too dishonest) to see that this was part of the
> >>>problem? Quoting KosherTodayOnline:
> >>
> >>If there's one thing I'm certain about, it's that I'm smarter than you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok. So you're dishonest.
>
> You're a nice guy. Now THAT'S dishonest.
Define "nice guy".
> >
> >
> >
> >>In fact, you, Knoll, Knight, the "Rev", and all the other trolls that
> >>pollute cyberspace
> >
> >
> >
> > Knight? "Black Knight" aka "Joe Bruno"??? He's a Jew - and he's on YOUR
> > side, dimwit!
>
> Really? The John Knight who writes: Keep your day job, Sheldon. We
> don't need any more jew comedians, and
> neither does Madagascar http://christianparty.net/poll.htm
Never heard of him. (Sounds like he gives good advice, though!)
> John Knight
> and who also takes credit for: The jews are the biggest crooks in world
> history, with their holocaust hoax
> enabling them to suck $1.5 TRILLION out of American taxpayers, based on
> their "sympathy" for 6 million dead jews who were still alive and well
> after WWII:
>
> If this guy's my side, I rather he switch loyalties. Dimwit.
Why do you Jews find it so damn difficult to acknowledge the scams of your
fellow tribesmen? Sometimes I start to wonder whether you actually BELIEVE
the crap you spew.
As for "Knight", I thought you were talking about "Black Knight" aka
"Sailor57" aka "Joe Bruno", aka "Dobrai" aka . . . who can follow the name
changes of this Usenet drag-queen?
> >>don't equal one of myself, John Morris, Partick
> >>Keenan, Phillip Mathews, or anyone else that actually contribute
> >>sensible commentary to this group.
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly you have confused 'smart' with 'cunning', 'deceptive',
'dastardly',
> > 'chutzpah', and similar traits so highly valued by the members of your
> > tribe.
>
> Clearly, you hate Jews because you know you can't accomplish what they
> seem to. You are, in fact, complimenting them. Thank you.
Newsflash, Sheldon: Mathews, Morris and Keenan all DISCLAIM being Jewish.
Oh, and your mother lied to you when she told you that Goyim dislike Jews
because they "envy" them, (LOL!) but if believing this makes you feel
better about you and yours, feel free to carry on.
> >
> >>>"The Heinz [de-certification] move comes after many large companies in
> >>>Canada have added kosher certification, including Coca Cola which is
now
> >>>certified by the COR."
> >>>
> >>>http://www.koshertoday.com/weekly%20news%20archives/2002/120902.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Too many fishermen angling after a finite number of fish in a small
> >>
> > pond.
> >
> >>>And it is interesting to note that Kosher Certification (and all costs
> >>>associated therewith) must have been a HUGE expense - outfits the size
> >>
> > of
> >
> >>>Heinz would not risk offending Jews - a uniquely powerful, strident,
> >>
> > vicious
> >
> >>>and vindictive group - just to save a few hundred thousand dollars.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Then it's a good thing they don't to market their goods in here, isn't
> >>it. I'll bet their executives sleep at night rather than stay up
> >>considering ways to offend people.
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you ready call me a 'Nazi' yet?
> >
>
> I wouldn't be totally shocked to discover you to be a Nazi sympathizer.
> But since I have nothing but your apparent anti-Semitic balm to go on, I
> would not make such a claim.
Good for you, Sheldon.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>Racial bias at work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So you claim that Jews are a race? Don't worry, tomorrow you'll be
> >>
> > howling
> >
> >>>that it's a 'religion', a 'tribe', a 'nation' or a 'people' - whatever
> >>
> > suits
> >
> >>>your agenda of the moment.
> >>
> >>Thank you for conceding my point,
> >
> >
> >
> > What point?
> >
> >
> That you harbor racial bias. In defence, you attack the semantics of my
> words, not their meaning.
I quote your words:
"Meddling: unwanted intrusion. Not a simple business decision with
indifference to the motivation of parties involved."
Attacking semantics.
> >
> >>which is what you do each time you
> >>resort to semantics rather than argue the significance of the words
> >>themselves. Do you find the word bigotry a better fit? I have no problem
> >>with that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you think of a group of people who are more bigoted than are Jews?
> >
>
> Hello Mr. Pot. I'm Mr. Kettle, and you're black.
Ah, so you admit to being a bigot. Feels good not to have to try to hide it,
doesn't it?
There are two kinds of people in the world, Sheldon: Honest (admitted)
bigots, and bigots who deny / lie about their bigotry. Apparently you and I
are HONEST
bigots, though in opposing camps.
And you thought we had nothing in common!
(BTW, Mr. Kettle: I'm NOT Black.)
> >
> >
> >>>Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the (Lubavitcher) Rabbi Menachem
> >>>Mendel Schneerson: Jews are a 'species'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>And you are a fecies.
> >
> >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > So, do you agree with Shcneerson, or don't you? Try being honest!
> >
> I don't agree or disagree, since you chose to include the words and not
> their context. One thing I can be sure of is that it was derogatory.
Here it is in context:
<quote>
_________________________________
" The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the
common expression: "Let us differentiate." Thus, we do not have a case of
profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we
have a case of "let us differentiate" between totally different species.
This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is
of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of
the world ... The Old Rabbi [a pseudonym for one of the holy Lubovitch
rabbis] explained that the passage in Chapter 49 of Hatanya [the basic book
of Chabad]: "And you have chosen us" [the Jews] means specifically that the
Jewish body was chosen [by God], because a choice is thus made between
outwardly similar things. The Jewish body "looks as if it were in substance
similar to bodies of non-Jews," but the meaning ... is that the bodies only
seem to be similar in material substance, outward look and superficial
quality. The difference of the inner quality, however, is so great that the
bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the
reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in
attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews] "
"their bodies are in vain." . . . An even greater difference exists in
regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul
comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.
. .
*[The "satanic spheres" are also called "kelipot" - Waldo note]*
[...]
" A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is
the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only
to serve the Jews." In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
[Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the
sake of the Jews, who are called the "beginning." This means everything, all
developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the "heavens and the
earth - are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews,
because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the
divine] aim."
__________________________
</quote>
So do you agree or disagree, Sheldon?
> >
> >>>>And you even lie to make that point. Here is the exact quote:
'According
> >>>>to company spokesperson Anna Relyea, the move stemmed from a desire to
> >>>>"keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
> >>>>customers."'
> >>>>
> >>>>Notice the use of the word "costs", not "prices".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes, and here's a further quote from the article, Sheldon:
> >>>
> >>>"Relyea called the Canadian marketplace a "very competitive retail
trade
> >>>environment," one that keeps the company "under continual pressure to
> >>
> > keep
> >
> >>>costs down to remain competitive."
> >>>
> >>>Keeping "costs down to remain competitive" means keeping costs down to
> >>
> > keep
> >
> >>>PRICES down.
> >>
> >>{laughing out loud} If that was all it meant, then the company can be
> >>really compititive by dropping its price below its costs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Er, not for long, Sheldie.
>
> What are you defending, keeping down prices to remain competitive, or
> keeping down cost? There's a difference?
You can't have the former without the latter.
> >
> > I don't know where you're working now, but I'll gladly hire you if you'd
be
> > willing to pay *me*, say, $100k per year.
> >
> > Deal?
> >
> >
> Another hike over the quarterback's head.
Sorry. Henceforth I'll try to use analogies you can understand.
> >
> >>When the market for a given product is competitive, then the producer
> >>must accept whatever price the aggregate market dictates to it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Right - and he would find it difficult to do so - *and* remain in
business -
> > if he cannot keep his prices low enough to maintain a margin that will
> > sustain his operations.
> >
> >
> Assuming he price discetion. Otherwise, the question is, can he increase
> sales at the given price point to maintain margin at least equal to his
> cost of capital.
Or he can cut costs - as Heinz Canada did by axing most of their Kosher
programs.
>
> >
> >>The only
> >>way it stays competitive is by keeping costs low enough that the profit
> >>margin it earn, as a percentage of the capital committed to it. If, for
> >>example, the company's return on invested capital (ROIC) was only 5%,
> >>then it might as well shut down operations completely and put the
> >>capital into treasury bonds which pay more with less risk.
> >
> >
> >
> > Congratulations on stating the obvious, Sheldon.
> >
> I'm trying to be context sensitive, Waldo.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Are you so stump ignorant of the world of business that you don't
> >>
> > understand
> >
> >>>that an increase in per unit *costs* must at SOME POINT be passed on to
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>consumer in the form of INCREASED PRICES?
> >>
> >>No, that ignorance is yours. I'm an investment analyst and economist,
> >
> >
> >
> > God help your clients.
>
> And you.
Thanks, Sheldon.
> >
> >
> >
> >>and I think I would have heard about your theory by now if it was the
> >>right one. Companies can only pass on increased costs if it has pricing
> >>power in the marketplace.
> >
> >
> >
> > True. This leaves them three options: Raise prices anyway, and hope that
> > competitors follow suit (as they often do); cut costs (as Heinz Canada
did
> > by axing the Kosher Kabal); or fold.
> >
> Raising prices in a tightly competitive market is the riskiest option.
Agreed, but it happens all the time.
> Cost cutting is by far the most relied upon means of maintaining
> competitive posture. But those cost cuts aren't indiscriminant. Cutting
> the Kosher symbol will reduce revenues and costs. The company predicts
> the net result.
True. I hope that Heinz Canada has taken into consideration the tight-knit
nature of the Jewish community - they could be facing a greater loss of
sales than they had anticipated - I imagine that a great number of Jews who
rarely if *ever* buy Kosher for Kosher's sake will be shunning Heinz
products in a sort of unofficial boycott against what they perceive as being
an affront against their tribe.
Don't you think?
> >
> >>To illustrate, would you fly New York to Chicago for more money on one
> >>airline just because that airline has a higher cost structure than one
> >>charging a lower fare, all other things equal?
> >
> >
> >
> > Would you - if they served Kosher meals?
> >
>
> Again, deflecting the point, thereby conceding it.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Maybe you would, a fool
> >>and his money and all that, but most people wouldn't. Airline fares are
> >>market driven, which is why airline try so desparately to control costs
> >>by investing in more fuel efficient planes, use forward contracts to
> >>gain cost stability, and bargain toughly with labor unions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Once again, this is all elementary - which is why we will likely see
MANY
> > other major foods manufacturers follow the lead of Heinz Canada in
cutting
> > their Kosher lines.
>
> Good. Then we shall have some concrete evidence of the absurdity of your
> argument. Not that we need it.
Er, how will OTHER companies cutting their Kosher lines provide "concrete
evidence of the absurdity" of my argument?
> >
> >>>Surely you can't be this stupid, Sheldon, so I'll give you the benefit
> >>
> > of
> >
> >>>the doubt, and assume that you - like the vast majority of the Jews /
> >>>Judaeophiles that post here - are simply shamelessly dishonest, willing
> >>
> > to
> >
> >>>stoop to ANY level in the defense of your pernicious little tribe.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's the only reason I even answer these inane posts. Arguing with a
> >>fool is pointless. Defending my people against false claims is
worthwhile.
> >
> >
> >
> > Which 'false claims' do you think you're defending against?
> >
> >
> That non-Jews pay more for nationally marketed food products with kosher
> symbols. Pay attention.
Someone is paying the Jews to oversee Kosher supervision of these products.
Someone is ALSO paying for all of the incidental costs associated with
meeting the demands laid down by the Rabbis to qualify for Kosher
supervision. This all adds up to a VERY healthy chunk of change.
Now, if so-called "Kosher Consumers" are buying enough of these products
*specifically because they ARE Kosher* to pay for ALL of these expenses (at
the manufacturer level), then non Jews are not subsidizing the Kosher Kabal.
If however, (as in the case of Heinz Canada) so-called "Kosher Consumers"
are NOT buying enough of these products *specifically because they ARE
Kosher* to pay for ALL of these expenses (at the manufacturer level), then
non Jews are INDEED subsidizing the Kosher Kabal, and obviously, this
deficit will, at some point, be manifested in the form of higher prices.
Defend away.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>Your own example
> >>>>belies your theory of consumers paying the kosher freight.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Kosher freight"??? What are you talking about? The end consumer
> >>
> > ultimately
> >
> >>>pays the cost of ALL freight.
> >>>
> >>
> >>In a compititive business like food, the consumer pays what the market
> >>tells it. How the revenues get distributed amongst the various factor of
> >>production, ie labor, capital, etc. is what the manufactures try to
> >
> > control.
> >
> >
> > You're attempts to baffle with bullshit aside, dollars are dollars, and
> > costs are costs, *including* freight, and ALL of these MUST at some
point
> > be recouped via revenue generated by SALES, otherwise the company goes
> > belly-up.
> >
> Economics 101. Take the course. Every decision a company makes is an
> attempt to increase sales without increasing costs comensurately.
> Including kahsering.
Irrelevant. Do consumers ultimately pay the costs of freight or don't they?
>
> > Get it?
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>Those
> >>>>products were moving selling enough to sufficient reduce fixed costs
per
> >>>>unit, thus they were uneconomic. Ketchup and other Heinz products do
> >>>>enough business.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The above makes no sense. Care to try again?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sure. Certian products are more responsive to being kosher than others.
> >
> >
> >
> > True. For instance, the market for non-Kosher Matzoh Balls has GOT to be
> > piss-poor.
> >
>
> Right. So how many producers are their in that market?
Likely none. Who in their right mind would look for a Kosher seal on a
bottle of drinking water? The seal is there, the company is clearly paying
the Rabbinical Racketeers - is it increasing sales?
> >
> >>This is because the volume increase brings down overall cost per unit,
> >>thus raising the margin on that product to acceptable levels. If Heinz
> >>Tomato Sauce is a product that doesn't move faster because it's kosher,
> >
> >
> >
> > Not only does a product have to move 'faster', it has to generate enough
> > extra revenue to cover ALL costs associated with Kosher supervision -
> > including Kash-R-Us fees, ingredients costs, extra labor, down time,
'Kosher
> > Recalls', administrative costs, etc. Otherwise Kosher is a LOSS.
>
> Isn't it your contention that kosher is a loss anyway?
No it isn't. Never has been. Obviously on certain products (and especially
in certain geographic markets) Kosher pays - particularly if the seal is on
a product targeted at the Jewish niche market.
However, on the whole (i.e. general merchandise foods targeted at the
broader population) I believe that Kosher certification is a loser - a
siphon on the US foods industry that becomes part of higher aggregate costs
which are ALWAYS eventually passed on to the consumer - 95%+ of which have
NO interest in Kosher whatsoever.
> Heinz dropped
> kashrut because it's costs were relatively high;
Compared to what?
> the same machines used
> to produce regular beans were also used to product pork and beans.
> Then there's down time.
Were the same machines used to produce mustard and 'Pork and Mustard'?
Tomato sauce and 'Pork and Tomato Sauce'? Vinegar and 'Pork and Vinegar'?
Why were these products dropped, Sheldon?
> On the other hand, in the manufacture of say,
> Coca-Cola, there is nothing inherently unkosher about the process or any
> ingredient, thus their cost of kashrut would be on a lower scale.
Maybe you can tell us what is "inherently unkosher'" about the ingredients
of mustard, vinegar, tomato sauce or tomato juice?
> >
> > Large markets such as the US are more suited to Kosher because there are
a
> > LOT more Goyim to help absorb these costs.
> >
>
> You have yet to demonstrate that goyim absorb any costs.
>
> >
> >
> >>then the cost of kashrut is superflous and the kosher symbol may be
> >>dropped. For certain products this is the case, for others not. This
> >>isn't an indictment against certification, just a business decision.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>As for COR meddling, if that's the case, why doesn't Heinz drop all
> >>>>kosher supervision?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Good question. Do you suppose they might fear being labeled as
> >>
> > anti-Semites
> >
> >>>(Heil Heinzler!), and being attacked by every Jewish pundit in every
> >>
> > Jewish
> >
> >>>owned (which is virtually ALL) media outlet in Canada?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yes, the Jews are organizing a rally for next Monday to protest Heinz's
> >>decision. {eyes rolled upward}.
> >
> >
> >
> > And why would that be a surprise? Comparatively MINUSCULE events
regularly
> > have had Jews frothing at the mouth.
> >
> Please provide examples of such "MINUSCULE" events.
Zundel... The Americn Indian official who recently made comments that caused
the Jews to go into a full blown hissy fit...
You're either stupid or full of shit, Sheldon. There was no mention of the
company *continuing* to display an unauthorized COR symbol - the COR would
SUE THEIR ASSES OFF, and you know it! Any product bearing COR symbols on the
labels would have likely been from goods produced / distributed BEFORE the
company cut the COR loose, or (possibly) during the trasnsition period.
As *IF* the company were trying to fool the poor baby Jews into beliving
their products were Kosher without greasing the palms of the Rabbis - AS
IF!!!!!
> False
> advertising can be costly, as McDonald's just found out.
What 'false advertising', Sheldon? Show EVIDENCE. Did McDonalds EVER claim
that their fries were vegetarian, let alone bloody KOSHER? Hmmmmm??? You
can't show that they did, because they DIDN'T.
The McDonalds lawsuit was as bogus as the Jew who was a principal in that
suit. What Jew who even PRETENDS to keep Kosher would be caught DEAD in a
McDonalds??? The whole restaurant is treif, for Moses' sake!!!
Sleasy Jews using sleasy shyster lawyers to work yet another dirty,
underhanded scam. So what else is new?
In your dreams. (Do you dream in Yiddish, Sheldon?)
> In
> different words, then, the more limited a person's mental faculties, the
> more likely he is to attribute that which he doesn't understand to
> superstition or nonsense.
Er, you've got it backwards, Sheldon: the more limited a person's mental
faculties, (or back-water his social structure) the more likely he is *buy
into* superstition or nonsense.
The god you and your tribe *think* you worship is a vicious, cruel,
vindictive monster - a bloodthirsty, genocidal, bigoted bastard. (Shall I
quote chapter and verse???) It is little wonder why your tribe's morals are
all fucked up.
> You don't understand Jews keeping kosher, thus
> it has to be superstition. QED.
Oh, I understand, Sheldon. Some Jewish moron from antiquity ate some moldy
rye grain, and in his hallucinations, thought he heard what he *thought* was
a god tell him not to seethe a kid in its mothers milk - which later Jews
perceived to mean that one should NEVER eat milkie product with meatie
products - EVER - and then some Jew (likely a tableware dealer) decided that
Jews should have THREE sets of dishes (what could HIS motives have been?)
one set for meats, one for dairy, and a *special* set just for Passover
(shall I go on?)
I understand your superstitions very well, Sheldon, and you're not unique:
Catholics have their Eucharist, Hindus have their cows, Muslims have their
Mecca-facing head-banging, and Mormons had (have?) their multiple-wife
banging - there are people out there that are rolling on the floor in mass
mania, spouting gibberish and calling it "speaking in tongues', sticking
pins in dolls and handling rattlesnakes - all in the name of what THEY
happen to think is their god, and all of which each can justify in their OWN
MINDS as well as you can your goofy-assed Kosher Kustoms.
The difference is - these OTHER people have not organized a plot to get
EVERYONE ELSE to pay for their snake handling, floor rolling, head banging,
or pin-sticking, multiple-wife banging, etc., whereas Jews HAVE schemed a
way to get other to pay for *their* silly superstitions.
Get a grip, Sheldon.
sailor57
> The ADL and the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax: Fact and Fiction
<deletia>
>
If there is truly a "Kosher Excise Tax", you will find it here:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99517,00.html
The IRS are the people who administer the tax laws, you know.They
provide forms, education, collection and enforcement.
If you can't find it listed specifically, you can contact the IRS from
this same website and ask them.
It might interest you to know I've been a CPA since 1969 and never
collected, charged, paid or submitted to the IRS anything called a
"Kosher Excise Tax".
Why don't you go into a market and buy a Kosher product?When you pay
for it at the register, analyze your receipt for the item(taxes are
listed separately) or ask the cashier how much "Kosher Excise Tax"you
have to pay on that item.
Steven Mock
news:3f16573c$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> Why do you Jews find it so damn difficult to acknowledge the scams of
> your fellow tribesmen? Sometimes I start to wonder whether you
> actually BELIEVE the crap you spew.
Waldo, when are you going to get it through your thick head that just
because you say there is a scam, no matter if you believe in it with
every fibre of your being, it doesn't mean that there IS one, nor does it
mean we are covering one up simply by saying that there isn't.
You insist that kosher certification is a loss rather than a benefit to
the producers who seek it. You have offered no evidence that this is the
case. Indeed, you have presented plenty of evidence that kosher
certification on a product is only maintained when it is in the interests
of producers to do so.
You insist that non-Jews end up subsidizing the cost of kosher
certification. You can't explain how, or present an example of this
actually occuring.
You insist that the reasons that producers seek kosher certification,
despite this loss you believe they suffer as a result, is because they
are being fooled by powerful Jews. You offer no evidence that this
occurs, save for your belief that Jews are dishonest.
What is it we're supposedly failing to acknowledge, Waldo?
Steven Mock
news:3f16573c$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F119FBB...@sympatico.ca...
<snip>
>> The detractors of Kosher certification claim that the non-Jews are
>> unjustly paying the cost.
>
> It was not the claims of the detractors, but the DEFENDERS of Kosher
> Certification that inspired you to proclaim your alleged affiliation
> with McGill, Sheldon, and as I stated above, these have claimed that
> Kosher Certification costs companies LESS THAN NOTHING to certify, as
> the increased market share MORE than pays for certification, and even
> LOWERS the retail price of goods.
>
> So how do you answer their claim, mister expert?
He already did, Waldo. Were you not paying attention, or did you just
not understand. Allow me to reiterate:
<repost>
If kosher certification, or any other marketing decision, stimulates
sales at a given price point, then the manufactures total fixed costs get
spread over a larger quantity of goods sold. Therefore, total costs per
unit decrease. Do the math. If koshering increases total demand for a
product, which market research indicates to be the case, then producer
costs should decrease. Critics say koshering increases prices. If
anything, prices should go down because producer costs go down. But since
prices are market driven in competitive industries, producer savings tend
to go the earnings line, which is what the producers had in mind to begin
with (d-uh!)
</repost>
If you're having trouble with the big words and abstract concepts, Mr.
Liberman explains it in even clearer terms to Mr. Bellinger elsewhere.
"... an investment in market expansion, whether by kashrut or by
posting billobards at the St. Patrick's Day parade, is meant to increase
sales volume. When that happens, fixed costs are spread over more goods,
so that the average cost per units should decrease."
Then again, I also tried to explain it to you some two years ago in
<3508599e.01080...@posting.google.com>
<quote>
There are two types of costs that companies face in producing a product -
fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs are the infrastructure
required to do business - rent for the factory, equipment costs, etc.
Variable costs are the costs of materials required to manufacture the
product. Fixed costs remain roughly the same regardless of how much of
the product is produced. Variable costs are dependant on the scale of
production. For example, if you're making widgets out of clay, you will
need to buy more clay the more widgets you're making, but the cost of the
widget factory will remain the same. Consequently, in order to make
money a business must recover its fixed costs. But once that threshold
is reached, each additional unit can be produced at a lower cost than the
last, as the fixed costs account for a lower proportion of the total
costs of production.
Okay, let's say it costs $1000 to open a widget factory, and $1 to buy
the materials needed to make each widget. If you're making 1000 widgets,
then the total cost of production is $2000 and the unit cost of producing
each widget is $2. If you sell your widgets for $3 then you've made a
profit per unit of $1.
Now, if you make 10,000 widgets, then the total cost of production is
$11,000, but the unit cost if $1.10 - considerably less. If you sell
your widgets for the same $3, you make a profit per unit of $1.90 - or,
alternately, you can sell your widgets for only $2.10 and make the same
$1 profit.
Now obviously this is a simplified example. Fixed costs can go up if the
scale of production increases tremendously (ie. if a new factory is
needed), but to a considerably lesser extent than variable costs.
Regardless, the marginal cost of production decreases with an increased
scale of production.
It is for this reason that large companies who decide to kosherize a
product can produce these products at a considerably lower cost than
smaller companies selling to the kosher niche market. And it is for this
reason that, where the fixed costs of kosher certification are not very
high, it is in their interest to do so so as to increase their market.
</quote>
>> Once more with feeling: If kosher certification,
>
> Note the key word here: *IF*.
Yes, Waldo. IF.
You see, none of us are arguing that kosher certification is ALWAYS in
the interests of the producer. It is for some products under some
conditions, it isn't for other products other other conditions. We are
explaining the conditions under which it is.
Now, here's the part you don't seem to be able to grasp. If kosher
certification is profitable for some products under some conditions, and
unprofitable for other products under other conditions, for which sort of
product under which conditions do you think a food producer will want to
kosher certify and which not?
Take your time. Feel free to use both hands and a flashlight.
>> or any other marketing
>> decision, stimulates sales at a given price point, then the
>> manufactures total fixed costs get spread over a larger quantity of
>> goods sold. Therefore, total costs per unit decrease.
>
> Only if the "gross" profit derived from these aditional sales is
> sufficient to offset the total costs associated with Kosher
> Certification, or any other marketing strategy, Mr. Theoretician.
Right, Waldo. You get it. Very good.
>> Do the math.
>
> I have: If profits generated by a given marketing strategy *exceed*
> all costs associated with that strategy, it is a profitable venture.
> If profits generated by that marketing strategy fall short of all
> expenses associated with that strategy, it is a LOSER.
Exactly, Waldo. You get it. Very good. Now, baby steps to the next
logical conclusion. In the former case, the company will seek to kosher
certify the product in order realize those profits. In the latter case,
it will not and thereby avoid the loss.
There, now was that so hard?
Steven Mock
@news.impulse.net:
> I quote your words:
>
> "Meddling: unwanted intrusion. Not a simple business decision with
> indifference to the motivation of parties involved."
>
> Attacking semantics.
That is not semantics, Waldo. He is pointing out, in this line, that you
have presented no evidence that meddling occurs.
Your ability to say it doesn't make it true, Waldo.
Steven Mock
@news.impulse.net:
> There are two kinds of people in the world, Sheldon: Honest (admitted)
> bigots, and bigots who deny / lie about their bigotry.
In short, Waldo's bigoted world-view is SO internalized, he finds it
inconceivable that anyone could see the world in any other way.
Thus when he encounters someone who does, the fact that they appear to is
proof enough that that person is a liar.
Steven Mock
news:3f16573c$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>> > Which 'false claims' do you think you're defending against?
>>
>> That non-Jews pay more for nationally marketed food products with
>> kosher symbols. Pay attention.
>
> Someone is paying the Jews to oversee Kosher supervision of these
> products. Someone is ALSO paying for all of the incidental costs
> associated with meeting the demands laid down by the Rabbis to qualify
> for Kosher supervision. This all adds up to a VERY healthy chunk of
> change.
>
> Now, if so-called "Kosher Consumers" are buying enough of these
> products *specifically because they ARE Kosher* to pay for ALL of
> these expenses (at the manufacturer level), then non Jews are not
> subsidizing the Kosher Kabal.
>
> If however, (as in the case of Heinz Canada) so-called "Kosher
> Consumers" are NOT buying enough of these products *specifically
> because they ARE Kosher* to pay for ALL of these expenses (at the
> manufacturer level), then non Jews are INDEED subsidizing the Kosher
> Kabal, and obviously, this deficit will, at some point, be manifested
> in the form of higher prices.
>
> Defend away.
Easy.
Note the key word here: *IF*.
Steven Mock
Debunks1
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 7/17/2003 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns93BB871D7E88...@206.172.150.14>
Well you can disprove the contention by posting the relative fees involved,
right?
steve wolk
"Debunks1" <debu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com...
It's YOUR contention, Joebbels. Do your own legwork for once.
--
Who's your publisher, Joebbels?
Steven Mock
news:20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com:
>>Subject: Re: The ADL and the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax: Fact and
>>Fiction From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>Date: 7/17/2003 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <Xns93BB871D7E88...@206.172.150.14>
>>
>>"Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>>news:3f16573c$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
>>> Now, if so-called "Kosher Consumers" are buying enough of these
>>> products *specifically because they ARE Kosher* to pay for ALL of
>>> these expenses (at the manufacturer level), then non Jews are not
>>> subsidizing the Kosher Kabal.
>>>
>>> If however, (as in the case of Heinz Canada) so-called "Kosher
>>> Consumers" are NOT buying enough of these products *specifically
>>> because they ARE Kosher* to pay for ALL of these expenses (at the
>>> manufacturer level), then non Jews are INDEED subsidizing the Kosher
>>> Kabal, and obviously, this deficit will, at some point, be
>>> manifested in the form of higher prices.
>>>
>>> Defend away.
>>
>>Easy.
>>
>>Note the key word here: *IF*.
>>
>>Steven Mock
>>--
>
> Well you can disprove the contention by posting the relative fees
> involved, right?
You miss the point Joe. What the fees are is irrelevant. The fees could
be a billion dollars. If the company made a billion and one dollars in
added revenue as a consequence of kosher certification, it would still be
in their interests.
The issue is whether the benefits outweigh the costs (which include those
fees). If they do not, then for what other reason would companies seek
kosher certification?
Can you answer?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
in message <20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com>:
>Well you can disprove the contention by posting the relative fees involved,
>right?
You're the one that claimed to have them, joe-joe.
Have you found the financials for the Little Theater on the Square?
sailor57
> nationa...@aol.comNoHoaxes (National Front) wrote in message news:<20030707091347...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> >
> This type of conconction tends to be whipped by those with the desire,
> but not the ability, to create computer viruses.
If there is a "Kosher Excise Tax", the IRS should be able to confirm
it, since excise taxes are their responsibility:
I searched the website and found NO mention of it.Why don't doubters
contact the IRS directly and ask them?It can be done thru the website
I posted.
<deletia>
>
> >
>.
>
> Note to readers with open minds: How often have you been "forced" to
> pay higher prices off the shelf when comparable national brand
> products are within the same reach as the kosher ones?
>
> And why is he mention Mary Phagan in association with kosher symbols?
> Her murder took place in 1913. A Jewish man was convicted, even though
> a non-Jew confessed before sentencing. The Jew, Leo Franks, was
> sentenced to death. John Slaton, the then-governor of Georgia and a
> man of impeccable character, reviewed the court transcipts and
> realized and inncoent man was going to die. He risked political death
> (and real death) by commuting the sentence to life imprisonment, which
> would at least keep Franks alive until the truth could be revealed.
> Unfortunate, Franks was broken out of prison and hung by vigilantes
> before that could happen, and Slaton was forced to leave the state
> under a barrage of death threats. Anti-Semitism in action.
>
> Franks was granted full pardon in March 1986.
>
> So reader, this is the mindset you're dealing with in National Front.
> >
> > In an article called "The Kosher Tax Hoax," the ADL sought to allay many
> > Gentiles' fears and concerns over the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. However,
> > upon reviewing the "facts" presented by B'nai B'rith's ADL, one quickly sees
> > that it is filled with outright lies or, at best, half-truths.
>
> Like the Franks case?
> >
> > From the beginning of the ADL's article, it suggests that it is false that
> > "only a small segment of the American population desires such markings, and
> > that even the meanings of the labels are guarded secrets deliberately kept from
> > non-Jews to trick them into paying the 'kosher tax.'"
>
> Yes, all Jews are sworn to secrecy. Who snitched?
Is Leviticus Chapter 11 classified Top Secret?I thought Christians
read the King James Bible, too.
>
> >
> > If you are a typical non-Jewish reader, it is easy to see that both these
> > statements are true, not false as the ADL claims. Have you personally desired
> > such markings? And, if it is not a "secret" of sorts, why do they not display a
> > symbol that makes it clear that a fee is indeed paid to a Jewish organization
> > for Kosher certification?
> >
> I would wager that there are many markings on a can of pasta sauce,
> for example, that the average consumer doesn't understand, let alone
> demand. Yes, the markings mean that money was paid to a Kosher
> Certification agency. But this begs 2 questions: 1) does that cost get
> passed on to the consumer, and 2) are Jews the only ones benefitting
> from the koshering?
>
> If you answer yes to the first question, you're implying that a price
> a company can charge for a product has nothing to do with supply and
> demand, only producer costs. Ask the airlines or the oil companies or
> the food manufacturing if they agree.
>
> If you answered yes to the second question, then you'd be surpirsed to
> learn that most of the demand for Kosher products is from non-Jews,
> and that the brisk growth in this market derives almost entirely from
> non-Jews. Muslims, vegetarians, Seventh Day Adventists, and
> lactose-intolerants are all among the groups of consumers buying
> kosher foods. So are many average Americans who take comfort in the
> fact that, for instance, insects are just as forbidden to observant
> Jews as pork, so that inspector are weary of conditions that make
> infestation more likely.
>
>
>
> > Lubomyr Prytulak, a retired Canadian psychology professor, has long argued that
> > a Star of David (or, Magen David, as it is often called) should also accompany
> > the Kosher certification to make its meaning well known.(3) This makes sense,
> > and it would be more fair to Gentile consumers, most of whom are unaware of the
> > Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. If the ADL and Jewish organizations were
> > genuinely concerned with honesty, they would have done this long ago.
> >
>
> Nonwithstanding the absurdity of labeling food by which religious or
> nationality it's targeted towards, only a real imbecile would consider
> it a tax. Are you advocating going through each line item in a
> company's expense ledger to make certain that no particular market is
> associated with that item? If a company sponsors a gold tournament,
> would a non-golfer consider that cost to be a golf tax?
>
> > Jewish organizations do not necessarily seem to be concerned with honesty in
> > this matter, however. In some advertisements of products bearing "K" or "U"
> > symbols in magazines, these symbols will often actually be "hidden" or "masked
> > off." However, when these same items are advertised in Jewish publications,
> > these symbols might actually be larger and have an arrow pointing to them.(4)
> > This is, of course, deceptive advertising and goes to show that there are
> > concerns among Jews or the companies that sell these Kosher products of the
> > meaning behind these symbols becoming known.
> >
> If you're Jewish and keep kosher, you know what the sybols mean. If
> your curious and not knowledgealbe, the company will gladly explain
> it. If you're honestly disturbed by it, buy another product. If you're
> an anti-Semite, then consider the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: The
> mind of a bigot is like the pupil of an eye. The more light you pour
> upon it, the more it will contract.
>
> > While the ADL suggests that the claim "only a small segment of the American
> > population desires such markings" is an anti-Semitic lie, the truth speaks
> > otherwise. In fact, according to the Kosher-certification agency Star-K,
> > "Integrated Marketing Communications reports that approximately 2.5 million
> > Jews consume kosher food products."(5) So what about the other 297.5 million
> > people in the United States? Why are we then forced to pay for their Jewish
> > religious dietary habits; why are we forced to pay for the Rabbinical Kosher
> > Excise Tax?
>
> You're not. There are plenty of other brands you could buy. It's for
> that reason that the food companies absorb these cost, for
> non-specialy items. Why don't you buy shares in the company and spew
> your venom at the annual meeting.
>
> >
> > The ADL argues that "the cost to the consumer for this service is a miniscule
> > fraction of the total production overhead; it is so negligible in practical
> > terms as to be virtually non-existent." Is this true? I certainly would have no
> > problems if Jews wanted to certify products as being Kosher or not at entirely
> > their own costs.
>
> And what if the food producer wants to pay it as business decision
> motivated by the desire to increase market share? Is this so
> unfathomable? Jews are only about 1% of the population, and kosher
> ones much less. Have all the highly-paid decision makers at Coke,
> Phillip Morris, Sara Lee, General Foods, Nabisco, to name but a few,
> lost their minds collectively?
>
> >
> > As you might suspect, such talk by the ADL is either an outright lie on its
> > part or, at best, deceptive. For example, the ADL report cites a
> > "representative of the Heinz Company." This "representative" reportedly said
> > that the cost is "so small we can't even calculate it." This Heinz
> > "representative" also said that the extra business it received more than made
> > up for the costs associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. Who was this
> > "representative"? If what he stated was true, why is his name not even given in
> > the ADL's article for verification? Did this person even exist?
>
> Excuse me, but you're pointing the finger, you furnish the proof.
> You're whole thesis is innuendo and conjecture. Where's the beef?
>
> >
> > Quite to the contrary of the ADL's article, the Canadian Jewish News of March
> > 20, 2003, has an article with an interesting headline: "Heinz Canada trims
> > kosher product line." Many of the Canadian Heinz's products were no longer to
> > be certified Kosher (thereby avoiding the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax,
> > symbolized by Canada's "COR" - Council of Orthodox Rabbis' marking), although
> > the products would still be kept Kosher for Jews (out of decency for Jewish
> > consumers not concerned with whether the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax had been
> > paid). Apparently, according to (named) Heinz spokeswoman Anna Relyea, this was
> > done to "keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our
> > customers." The reasons given by Heinz for the decision were due to "how
> > complex the manufacturing is, what the savings were and so on."(6) In any
> > event, these costs that were reported by the ADL as being "so small, we can't
> > even calculate it" could, in fact, be calculated and must have been
> > significant.
> >
> I'm curious as to how you maintain that the cost of certification can
> be both a cost to Heinz and tax on consumers at the same time. Heinz
> incurred the cost in attempting to increase revenues. That's what
> companies do. It didn't work out; they reversed the decision. On other
> products such as Heinz ketchup keep their kosher symbol lest a
> consumer switch to Hunt's or some other symbol-bearing brand.
>
> > Another item that seems to be deliberately distorted in the favor of the ADL is
> > a reported "fact" given by the Birds Eye company. According to the ADL's
> > article, General Food's Birds Eye unit paid only "6.5 millionths (.0000065) of
> > a cent per item." It would be more interesting to know how much General Foods
> > itself paid in real dollars altogether for the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax,
> > but the ADL avoids such talk for obvious reasons. But is the paltry sum of
> > .0000065 cents per item true?
>
> The obvious reason, as you call it, is that the amount that a company
> pays for certification, or any other financial dealing it has, is
> propietary to the company, to disclose or not to disclose as is sees
> fit. It's not for the ADL or anyone else to make that decision for
> them, and I think you'll find that a Kosher certification company
> would lose many clients should they reveal confidential information
> about just one. GF has an open book policy on these matters, but
> that's their decision.
> >
> > Again, this seems like a deliberately deceptive move on the ADL's part (or that
> > of one of its members who was employed at Birds Eye). Does anyone really
> > believe that a rabbi would fly to Birds Eye foods if he only received 6.5 cents
> > for each $1 million of business Birds Eye did? If Birds Eye did, say, $100
> > million in business, that would be a paltry $650.00 in fees by the
> > certification agency. This wouldn't even pay for the time involved, let alone
> > travel and paperwork. So is the ADL lying? Probably not. If you'll notice, it
> > says ".0000065 of a cent per item." I believe that Birds Eye sells corn, peas,
> > pieces of broccoli, et cetera. In effect, the ADL's "informer" was probably
> > meaning that every single piece of corn, every single pea, and every single
> > bean--that is, every "item"--incur the cost of .0000065 cents. Added up, this
> > then makes sense.
>
> Nice going, Sherlock. Except that Bird's Eye's sales is closer to $1
> billion than $100 million.
> http://www.birdseyefoods.com/scripts/press/view.asp?ID=186
> Moreover, many of the company's product do not require kosher
> certification.
>
> >
> > Of course, if the Jewish agency that charges the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax
> > would care to make available how much it charged this company in real dollars
> > for the previous year, that would be a start to being honest. But, if you
> > carefully examine the web, you will not find one company that has reported this
> > fee to the rabbis. Why is this? From a logical standpoint, it stands to reason
> > that the rabbis must have some type of confidentiality agreement in which if
> > the company reveals its cost it is then penalized to a certain extent. What
> > other reasoning could there be that not one single company discloses its costs
> > associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax?
>
> Good reasoning. The rabbi should breach their confidentiality
> agreements with their customers in order to appease some newsgoup
> crackpot?
> >
> > The ADL then goes on to cite a company that reportedly had its business
> > increase as a result of Kosher certification. Is this true? Possibly. One must
> > keep in mind, however, what Dr. Prytulak refers to as the "Pyramid Scheme" at
> > his website. In effect, this is how it works: A large company is courted by
> > Jews, who fill its company heads with promises of a greater market appeal--but
> > only, of course, if they pay this initially "small fee" (in comparison with the
> > company's total business) for certification. The company agrees. However, now
> > the company must buy all its supplies from other "Kosher companies." Aside from
> > the obvious need to purchase food products from Kosher suppliers, this might
> > even include the steel for its manufacturing process and the cleaning supplies,
> > to name a couple other items now considered Kosher. In any event, if the
> > suppliers do not give the main company a Kosher product, the company cannot do
> > business with them. (After all, products prepared by lowly Gentile companies do
> > not meet the Jewish religious dietary standards as set forth by rabbis without
> > due compensation.) In effect, if your company happens to be one of the
> > suppliers to another company, you risk much business by failing to abide by the
> > Jewish standards (and, of course, paying them your accompanying fees).
> >
> > Is the extra business really there for companies that decide to go Kosher? Not
> > according to some businesses. The Albuquerque Tribune reported one company
> > bagel company as wanting to be certified Kosher, but "the expense was more than
> > the ... bagel company could muster." The owner stated, "We occasionally get
> > asked for it but not that often." Another company decided to drop its "Star-K
> > certification after one year." The owner of that company reported, "Kosher
> > wasn't opening up any markets for me. I thought it was too much for my little
> > operation."(7)
>
> Right again, Sherlock! You hypothesize that kosher certification
> doesn't increase market share and you use an Albequerque bagel company
> and some other unspecified small time operation to prove it.
> Brilliant!
>
> >
> > As you might expect, later in the ADL's article, it spends a significant amount
> > of its article questioning the "motives" of those who question the motives of
> > the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax. Since the ADL cannot obviously refute the
> > content of the argument, it has to resort to attacking the organizations and
> > people who bring forth legitimate arguments against an illegitimate tax that
> > Gentile consumers are forced to pay, which is unknown to the vast majority of
> > them. Of course, the ADL itself has a few skeletons in its closet, so to speak.
> > Books such as "Conspiracy Against Freedom" or "The Ugly Truth about the ADL"
> > (available from www.addall.com/used ) tell much of the stories kept behind the
> > headlines.
>
> Two books versus the collective intellegence of the food industry.
> Guess where my money rides.
>
> >
> > In an attempt to make the ADL's concerns seem legitimate, it cites Dr. Ed
> > Fields, who states:
> >
> > "All of this is superstitious nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with
> > improving the quality of any food product. Still, this clever scheme of
> > requiring kosher labeling has become a multi-million dollar business today!"
> >
> Edward Fields is a known neo-Nazi and white supremacist with an IQ
> approximately equal to his shoe size.
>
> > Obviously, since Dr. Fields says this--and since the ADL makes him out to be a
> > "bad" person through the use of its personal attacks (for failing to cooperate
> > with the false-logic that Kosher is somehow wholesome)--we are to believe what
> > he says is false. But in fact, it is true. What the ADL fails to mention, here,
> > is that many Jews have corroborated what Dr. Ed Fields has stated, and these
> > Jews are even cited by Dr. Fields. For example, the Washington Post of 2
> > November 1987 is cited, quoting orthodox Rabbi Schulem Rubin:
> >
> > "Kosher doesn't taste any better; Kosher isn't healthier; Kosher doesn't have
> > less salmonella. You can eat a Holly Farm chicken which sells for 39 cents a
> > pound on sale and next taste a Kosher chicken selling for $1.69 a pound and not
> > tell the difference. There's a lot of money to be made. Religion is not based
> > on logic."
>
> See what I mean about Fields' IQ? He complains about kosher costs to
> the average consumer, and he cites chicken, which is not marketed to
> the non-Jewish community, as his case in point. Chicken and beef
> cannot be made kosher without ritual slaughter, which adds to the cost
> significantly. Show me a supermarket wher kosher chicken and beef
> appear right alongside their non-kosher counterparts, Mr. Fields. Or
> is your argument so weak that you need to resort to extreme examples
> hoping the average reader won't be able to tell the difference?
>
> Moreover, kosher meats and poultry have every drop of blood drained,
> and every piece is salted and washed to remove any blood absorbed in
> the tissues. As well, each animal or bird is inspected for diseased
> tissue that would disqualify it's being koshered. This drives up
> costs, of course, but I would certain acknowledge it potential for
> being healthier than its non-Kosher counterparts. And who are you, Mr.
> Fields, to tell consumers which selection criteria they should use
> when shopping for chicken, beef, or anything else.
>
> >
> > Of course, facts have always been a problem for the ADL, which is why it has
> > attacked Dr. Fields's character so much. If you cannot refute the argument, the
> > ADL seemingly reasons, attack the person's character who makes the argument.
> >
>
> Facts seem to be a problem for you, too. Where's any proof of anything
> you allege?
>
> > The ADL's article then goes on to suggest that Jews are not the only ones who
> > prefer Kosher. It argues, "Some kosher marketing officials estimate there may
> > be as many as six million Americans who seek out Kosher foods in the
> >
> > supermarket. Of these only 1.5 million are Jewish. Moslems and Seventh Day
> > Adventists also adhere to certain aspects of the Jewish dietary laws." Is this
> > true? Yes, it certainly is. You see, the article says "some Kosher marketing
> > officials..." Who are these "Kosher marketing officials"? If you said the ADL,
> > you might have just won the prize.
> >
> Are you denying that Jewish consumers are the minority in the
> aggregate kosher market? Sir, your bed in Belleview is ready. Take the
> case of Coors brewing, for instance. Regular, unflavored beer, does
> not require kosher certification for Jews to be able to drink it. So
> it begs the question: why would Coors or Phillip Morris put kosher
> symbols on their beer products? Not for the Jews, certianly.
>
>
>
> > While I have not taken the time to see what the Seventh Day Adventists believe,
I have. A friend of mine is an SDA. He says they keep strictly
Kosher.He's the one who showed me where in the Old Testament to find
the diet restrictions. It's Leviticus, Chapter 11.Clickey:
http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Leviticus/11.html
> > I looked into if the Muslims found the Kosher certification acceptable as
> > meeting their religious dietary habits as well. What does the Islamic Food
> > Council of America have to say about Kosher meeting the religious dietary
> > requirements of orthodox Muslims, or "Halal," as it is commonly known.
> > According to the Halal Digest of July 2000, it states,
> >
> > "Many Kosher producers believe that Muslims accept Kosher as being Halal. In
> > fact, Muslims do not accept Kosher certification as being a substitute for
> > Halal certification. Some Muslims may have believed that Kosher slaughter was
> > similar to Halal, but they are learning that this is not true and are demanding
> > Halal certified products. Internationally, only proper Halal certification is
> > acceptable and monitoring agencies are being established to ensure compliance."
> >
> Anyone who follows the news to any extent knows that there are vast
> differences of opinions amoungst Muslic legal authorities over a vast
> range of issues. This is true of Judaism as well, but we're discussing
> Muslims. There are, for instance, authorities who condemn the murder
> of Jews regardless of the circumstances, whereas others openly
> advocate killing Jews on sight in any country they are encountered.
> That being said, is it really surprising that one publication would
> tell its readership not to patronize Jewish business?
>
> The point just made, however valid, is moot. What the legal eagles say
> and how their subjects act in the US are tow different things. And US
> food producers are obviously more concerned with the latter.
>
> > There is one major difference (that even I know of) between the Halal method of
> > slaughter and that of the Kosher method. The Halal method is actually done in a
> > more humane manner, as it allows the animal to be stunned first. However, this
> > is not the case with Kosher slaughter, which requires the animal to experience
> > the full amount of pain and be fully conscious.
> >
> Totally false, ignoramous. The Torah is so concerned about suffering
> of animals that it even forbids the slaughter of an animal and its
> young on the same day, even if they are miles apart. A Jew is not
> permitted to take an egg from its nest if the mother is present.
> Ritual slaughter is meant to be totally painless to the animal. It's a
> highly skilled activity which adds cost to the beef, which is why
> kosher is more expensive in this one area, WHICH IS WHY KOSHER BEEF IS
> NOT MARKETED TO THE BROADER CONSUMERS MARKET.
>
> Why don't you check your facts before making your claims?
>
> > Continuing, the ADL then goes on to say that "the bulk of Kosher shoppers
> > appear to
> >
> > be consumers who believe the Kosher certification ... means higher quality
> > food." Is this true? Well, the ADL gives no proof that there are a significant
> > number of consumers who are non-Jewish and who buy Kosher products because they
> > "believe" (with the word "believe" being the key-word here) Kosher "means
> > higher quality food." However, as to the false claim that Kosher is a "higher
> > quality food," the response to this is best summed up by Rabbi Irving
> > Silverman, who is cited in the 20 March 1987 edition of The Sun-Sentinel:
> >
> > "There's one misconception that I'd like to clear up. There's a perception that
> > Jewish dietary laws are steeped in health considerations. That's not so at all.
> > It is a commitment to a strict adherence to a tradition. I'm not Kosher because
> > it's healthier; I'm Kosher because my parents were Kosher, and my grandparents
> > were Kosher. It's a commitment!"
See Leviticus, Chapter 11.It's religion and God himself proclaimed it.
>
> > This figure of costs associated with the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax is
> > largely unknown due to Jews not disclosing how much they charge to the various
> > companies that receive Kosher certification. In perhaps what can only be viewed
> > as a mistake by the rabbis who oversee the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax, in
> > 1987 they disclosed that they expected Kosher steel to bring them in
> > $700,000.00 of fees per year.(8)
>
> Kosher steel?
See Leviticus, above-it applies only to FOOD.
>
>
Debunks1
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Message-id: <Xns93BBBE81CE8D...@207.35.177.134>
You could not be more wrong, Steve. The entire point under discussion here
concerns the fees which are paid out by companies to rabbis. Practically
every single person I have ever spoken to regarding this issue expressed their
concerns over the fees involved, which they imagine runs into multimillions of
dollars. If it is possible for you to post the actual figures involved in this
business, why don't you just do it and put an end to the controversy and
criticism once and for all?
From the standpoint of the critic, it appears as if people are deliberately
trying to hide or suppress the actual figures involved in kosher certification.
I for one would love to see you or any other informed individual post
verifiable figures in this regard, and would be most relieved if you could put
this item to rest once and for all.
Debunks1
>Date: 7/17/2003 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2b7482e6f32649a8...@free.teranews.com>
>
>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
> in message <20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com>:
>
>>Well you can disprove the contention by posting the relative fees involved,
>>right?
>
>You're the one that claimed to have them, joe-joe.
>
No, Rogie, I never claimed to have them. I claimed only to have examined some
files pertaining to kosher certification. Insteading of whining about what I
do or do not have or claim to have, why don't you exercise a little gumption
and post the figures on your own, if you can obtain them.
Charles Don Hall
news:20030717210209...@mb-m19.aol.com:
>>You miss the point Joe. What the fees are is irrelevant.
>
> You could not be more wrong, Steve. The entire point under discussion
> here concerns the fees which are paid out by companies to rabbis.
> Practically every single person I have ever spoken to regarding this
> issue expressed their concerns over the fees involved, which they
> imagine runs into multimillions of dollars. If it is possible for you
> to post the actual figures involved in this business, why don't you
> just do it and put an end to the controversy and criticism once and for
> all?
Well, speaking for myself, the reason I don't post the numbers is because I
don't care enough to write the companies and ask.
I mean, when I buy groceries, the only things I look at are price, quality,
corporate reputation, and whether or not it's dolphin-safe. I frankly don't
care how much money a company spends on TV commercials or kosher
certification or soap for the executive washroom. That's all irrelevant to
me as a consumer.
The only people who *do* care about the cost of kosher certification are the
company accountants (who don't post to alt.revisionism) and the anti-semites
(who are too lazy and stupid to do the research). And you, I guess, since
you claim that you're not an anti-semite.
So it looks like the ball's in your court. If you're not going to do the
research, then it's not going to get done.
Are you going to do the research?
--
======================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher
======================================
sailor57
The basis for Kosher requirements comes from the Old Testament:
http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Leviticus/11.html
Seventh Day Adventists follow the rules, too.Not all Jews keep Kosher.
Steven Mock
news:20030717210209...@mb-m19.aol.com:
What you imagine is irrelevant, Joe (though amusing). But it is you who
fails to understand. The "rabbis" operation runs according to the same
rules of the market as does any other business. They cannot charge more
than their services are worth, or else no one would purchase their
services, now, would they? And if they are charging what their services
are worth to the companies that contract them - whatever it is that may
be - then what is the problem?
> If it is possible for you
> to post the actual figures involved in this business, why don't you
> just do it and put an end to the controversy and criticism once and
> for all?
I do not know the actual figures. Nor do I care. Nor have you explained
to us why any sane, rational person would.
John Morris
on 18 Jul 2003 01:04:08 GMT, debu...@aol.com (Debunks1) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: The ADL and the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax: Fact and Fiction
> >From: Roger roger@.
> >Date: 7/17/2003 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <2b7482e6f32649a8...@free.teranews.com>
> >
> >In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> > (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> > someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
> > in message <20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com>:
> >
> >>Well you can disprove the contention by posting the relative fees involved,
> >>right?
> >
> >You're the one that claimed to have them, joe-joe.
> No, Rogie, I never claimed to have them. I claimed only to have examined some
> files pertaining to kosher certification.
Stop lying, Joe. You have claimed that kosher certification costs
consumers a great deal of money. You offered as proof of your claim a
well-known antisemitic hoax.
> Insteading of whining about what I
> do or do not have or claim to have, why don't you
Why don't you for a change? Why not just for a refreshing change of
pace, do a little research before posting your idiotic claims? You
might make a fool of yourself a little less often.
> exercise a little gumption
> and post the figures on your own, if you can obtain them.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
Waldo
It is interesting to note that Mr. Mock believed that it would work to his
advantage to post my reply *without* referencing the statement to which I
was replying.
Restoring the context:
Sheldon had written:
<quote>
" John Knight
and who also takes credit for: The jews are the biggest crooks in world
history, with their holocaust hoax
enabling them to suck $1.5 TRILLION out of American taxpayers, based on
their "sympathy" for 6 million dead jews who were still alive and well
after WWII:
If this guy's my side, I rather he switch loyalties. Dimwit"
</quote>
Now that we're back in context, let's continue.
> > Why do you Jews find it so damn difficult to acknowledge the scams of
> > your fellow tribesmen? Sometimes I start to wonder whether you
> > actually BELIEVE the crap you spew.
>
> Waldo, when are you going to get it through your thick head that just
> because you say there is a scam, no matter if you believe in it with
> every fibre of your being, it doesn't mean that there IS one, nor does it
> mean we are covering one up simply by saying that there isn't.
Regardless of whether or not one chooses to blindly believe every jot and
tittle of every tenet of the excathedral Holocaust dogma, there is no doubt
that Jews have milked - and CONTINUE to milk this issue to the point that it
has become an EMBARRASSMENT to clear thinking Jews and their supporters.
Jews and their shysters have shamelessly worked every conceivable angle of
the so-called "Holocaust" - and ABUSED the memory of those who actually DID
suffer by exploiting them to serve the social, political and financial goals
of both Jews and the Jewish State.
It would seem that Jews have a (genetic?) predisposition toward addiction -
addiction to POWER: They don't know when to stop - even if failure to do so
will lead to their calamity, as it has over and over throughout their
history.
This too will bite you on the ass, and when it does, you probably won't
learn your lesson. You'll just carry on with your age-old habits, and blame
all of your troubles on mean old Waldo and the others who tried to slap some
sense into you.
> You insist that kosher certification is a loss rather than a benefit to
> the producers who seek it.
See what happens when you quote out of context, Steve? I was responding to a
statement made about the Holocaust Industry, and you're pursuing it as
though I were addressing the Kosher issue.
And no, I don't "insist that kosher certification is a loss rather than a
benefit to the producers who seek it". rather, I believe that, while Kosher
Certification can and does benefit companies under certain circumstances, it
creates a negative cash flow for most companies when they elect to certify
products that target the broader consumer market.
There is little doubt that Kosher pays for some niche products and / or in
some geographic areas (i.e. New York).
But you're a dishonest little twit, and you're trying to infer that I claim
that Kosher *never* pays, when you know damn well that this is not - and
never HAS been my contention.
> You have offered no evidence that this is the
> case.
Why would I offer evidence to prove claims that you *falsely* attribute to
me, my slippery little skink?
I have brought forth copious amounts of information on this subject - nearly
all of it from Jewish / Kosher industry sources - which you cannot possibly
impeach. You and yours, OTOH, have produced NOTHING in the area of discovery
that would back your position, but you are left floundering and flailing,
declaring that the material I quote doesn't *really* mean what it says,
insisting that Kosher MUST be profitable else companies "wouldn't do it",
all the while grumbling "Jew Hater" under your breath.
Insisting that Kosher Certification was a veritable cash machine, those on y
our side of the table demanded REPEATEDLY that I show ONE company who has
EVER found Kosher Certification to be unprofitable, and abandoned
certification for their products, and when Heinz Canada's abandonment of
certification on MOST of their product line came to light (thanks NF!), you
respond with "See? We told you that companies have a choice" (or words to
that effect), as if I had ever claimed otherwise.
> Indeed, you have presented plenty of evidence that kosher
> certification on a product is only maintained when it is in the interests
> of producers to do so.
Here Mr. Mock counts his loss as a victory. Go figure.
> You insist that non-Jews end up subsidizing the cost of kosher
> certification.
Under many if not most circumstances. Yes.
> You can't explain how,
Rather, either you're too obtuse to understand, or too dishonest to
acknowledge my explanations.
> or present an example of this
> actually occuring.
Clearly Kosher Certification was causing Heinz Canada to LOSE MONEY on most
of the products for which they recently abandoned Certification: (Can you
say NEG-A-TIVE CASH FLOW, Steve?) and SOMEONE was paying for those losses.
If it wasn't non-Jews, it *must* have been Jews, right?
Now, suppose you tell us exactly *which* JEWS were paying for the deficit
that Heinz Canada incurred as a result of these Kosher losses? C'mon, Steve!
WHICH JEWS WERE PAYING?
> You insist that the reasons that producers seek kosher certification,
> despite this loss you believe they suffer as a result, is because they
> are being fooled by powerful Jews.
"Fooled by powerful Jews"? Did I say that, or are you putting words in my
mouth (again) in order to build yet another strawman?
Do I believe that the Kash-R-Us outfits use deceptive marketing techniques
to woo their clientele into biting the Kosher hook? Yes, I do. And I believe
that the crux of that deception is in their depiction of the size, scope and
nature of the so-called "Kosher Consumer market", and that there is
deception via omission regarding which types of products each particular
segment of the "Kosher Consumer market" might find appealing.
Of course, your response would be that "companies know these things" via
their own research, and if they're too stupid to figure this out on their
own, they deserve to get screwed.
Caveat emptor, eh, Steve?
> You offer no evidence that this
> occurs, save for your belief that Jews are dishonest.
Jews have a well-earned reputation for being - well, to put it kindly -
'shrewd' businessmen - *especially* in their dealings with non-Jews. You've
heard the clichés: "Jewed me down on the price"; "Count your fingers after
you shake hands with a Jew", etc. Did you think that people just made this
stuff up to harass your brethren and besmirch their reputation?
> What is it we're supposedly failing to acknowledge, Waldo?
The unusually rotund rose colored elephant on your sofa, Steve.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <Xns93BBBE81CE8D...@207.35.177.134> in
alt.revisionism, on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:34:49 GMT, Steven Mock
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
> debu...@aol.com (Debunks1) wrote in
> news:20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com:
He's already answered. He says that naive and unwary Gentile
corporate managers have been duped by Jewish "inveighling" [sic].
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPxevApQgvG272fn9EQJ2NwCgz4yE/dSTgLbKTLfRJoVHd3EzhfgAoPY/
3QyftLfg8KYqaGjgks6MtLRX
=pU6V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Waldo
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f16573c$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
> > "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3F119FBB...@sympatico.ca...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The detractors of Kosher certification claim that the non-Jews are
> >> unjustly paying the cost.
> >
> > It was not the claims of the detractors, but the DEFENDERS of Kosher
> > Certification that inspired you to proclaim your alleged affiliation
> > with McGill, Sheldon, and as I stated above, these have claimed that
> > Kosher Certification costs companies LESS THAN NOTHING to certify, as
> > the increased market share MORE than pays for certification, and even
> > LOWERS the retail price of goods.
> >
> > So how do you answer their claim, mister expert?
>
> He already did, Waldo. Were you not paying attention, or did you just
> not understand. Allow me to reiterate:
Why did you cut my responses, Mr. Mock?
Here, allow me to cut the bullshit you had to go and dig for when the SAME
material *with* my responses were right there on the page you were
responding to.
< begin corrected repost>
__________________________________
> Once more with feeling: If kosher certification,
Note the key word here: *IF*.
> or any other marketing
> decision, stimulates sales at a given price point, then the manufactures
> total fixed costs get spread over a larger quantity of goods sold.
> Therefore, total costs per unit decrease.
Only if the "gross" profit derived from these additional sales is sufficient
to offset the total costs associated with Kosher Certification, or any other
marketing
strategy, Mr. Theoretician.
> Do the math.
I have: If profits generated by a given marketing strategy *exceed* all
costs associated with that strategy, it is a profitable venture. If profits
generated by that marketing strategy fall short of all expenses associated
with that strategy, it is a LOSER.
> If koshering
> increases total demand for a product, which market research indicates to
> be the case, then producer costs should decrease.
Not necessarily. See above.
> Critics say koshering
> increases prices. If anything, prices should go down because producer
> costs go down.
Not necessarily. See above.
> But since prices are market driven in competitive
> industries, producer savings tend to go the earnings line,
Again, not necessarily: Price incentives are one of the most effective
marketing strategies known, and a redetection in *costs* passed on to the
consumer in the form of a lower *price* is almost certain to translate into
an increased market share - particularly if this lower price is widely
promoted as such. This larger market share can translate into profits that
reach above and beyond the simple cost savings.
Ever hear of Wal-Mart?
> which is what
> the producers had in mind to begin with (d-uh!)
'D-uh!' is right, Sheldon. You're not a very effective promotion tool for
McGill, you know.
__________________________________
</ corrected repost>
Now, was there some point you were trying to make, Mr. Mock?
> If you're having trouble with the big words and abstract concepts, Mr.
> Liberman explains it in even clearer terms to Mr. Bellinger elsewhere.
>
> "... an investment in market expansion, whether by kashrut or by
> posting billobards at the St. Patrick's Day parade, is meant to increase
> sales volume.
That's what it is MEANT to do. Whether it DOES or not is the point in
question.
> When that happens,
Rather, *if* that happens...
> fixed costs are spread over more goods,
> so that the average cost per units should decrease."
But there is a factor that both Sheldon and our Mr. Mock conveniently fail
to address: That any and all costs associated with the "investment in market
expansion" - whether it be Kosher Certification, billboards or a two-hour
late-night infomercial - MUST be deducted from any gross gains credited to
the endeavor before any tangible benefits can be realized.
IOW, Steve, the company has to reap more profit from a given campaign than
it spends in executing that campaign, otherwise, they're LOSING MONEY.
> Then again, I also tried to explain it to you some two years ago in
> <3508599e.01080...@posting.google.com>
Sniped: Long, boring and faulty lecture on widget production.
Listen up, Steve: The only thing that matters is the bottom line: Does the
Kosher Certification of Widgets create ENOUGH additional sales to generate
ENOUGH profit to pay off the Rabbis and the costs associated with meeting
their silly, superstitious demands? And can the company discern whether
fluctuations in their market can be attributed to Kosher Certification?
Say Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in June. In July, sales
skyrocket. The Rabbi says "See? I told you that Kosher Certification would
pay off! G_d blesses those that bless his Chosen People! By the way, where's
that check?"
Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in in September. In December,
sales plummet. The Rabbi says "Oy Vey!!! What did you expect? Who buys ice
cream bars in the winter, anyway?!? Sheesh! You know, you're lucky that you
went Kosher - without the Jewish market to prop you up, things could be
REALLY ugly! By the way, where's that check?"
> >> Once more with feeling: If kosher certification,
> >
> > Note the key word here: *IF*.
>
> Yes, Waldo. IF.
>
> You see, none of us are arguing that kosher certification is ALWAYS in
> the interests of the producer.
Since when?
> It is for some products under some
> conditions, it isn't for other products other other conditions. We are
> explaining the conditions under which it is.
>
> Now, here's the part you don't seem to be able to grasp. If kosher
> certification is profitable for some products under some conditions, and
> unprofitable for other products under other conditions, for which sort of
> product under which conditions do you think a food producer will want to
> kosher certify and which not?
>
> Take your time. Feel free to use both hands and a flashlight.
As in, it supposedly IS profitable for Heinz Canada's ketchup, but NOT for
their tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar. Right?
Now suppose you tell us WHY. Is ketchup easier / cheaper to certify than
tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar? Do Kosher Keeping Jews have
a particular fondness for ketchup, and an aversion to tomato sauce, tomato
paste, mustard and vinegar?
Take your time. Feel free to use the Talmud, the Torah, a gaggle of bearded
guys in dark suits and funny round hats, and copious amounts of the bullshit
you regularly sling.
> >> or any other marketing
> >> decision, stimulates sales at a given price point, then the
> >> manufactures total fixed costs get spread over a larger quantity of
> >> goods sold. Therefore, total costs per unit decrease.
> >
> > Only if the "gross" profit derived from these aditional sales is
> > sufficient to offset the total costs associated with Kosher
> > Certification, or any other marketing strategy, Mr. Theoretician.
>
> Right, Waldo. You get it. Very good.
>
> >> Do the math.
> >
> > I have: If profits generated by a given marketing strategy *exceed*
> > all costs associated with that strategy, it is a profitable venture.
> > If profits generated by that marketing strategy fall short of all
> > expenses associated with that strategy, it is a LOSER.
>
> Exactly, Waldo. You get it. Very good. Now, baby steps to the next
> logical conclusion. In the former case, the company will seek to kosher
> certify the product in order realize those profits. In the latter case,
> it will not and thereby avoid the loss.
Answer the questions regarding the ketchup, tomato sauce, tomato paste,
mustard and vinegar, Mr. Mock.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 7/17/2003 3:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns93BBBE81CE8D...@207.35.177.134>
>>debu...@aol.com (Debunks1) wrote in
>>news:20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com:
>>>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>>>Date: 7/17/2003 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <Xns93BB871D7E88...@206.172.150.14>
>>>>"Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:3f16573c$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>>>>> Now, if so-called "Kosher Consumers" are buying enough of these
>>>>> products *specifically because they ARE Kosher* to pay for ALL of
>>>>> these expenses (at the manufacturer level), then non Jews are not
>>>>> subsidizing the Kosher Kabal.
>>>>>
>>>>> If however, (as in the case of Heinz Canada) so-called "Kosher
>>>>> Consumers" are NOT buying enough of these products *specifically
>>>>> because they ARE Kosher* to pay for ALL of these expenses (at the
>>>>> manufacturer level), then non Jews are INDEED subsidizing the Kosher
>>>>> Kabal, and obviously, this deficit will, at some point, be
>>>>> manifested in the form of higher prices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Defend away.
>>>>Easy.
>>>>
>>>>Note the key word here: *IF*.
>>> Well you can disprove the contention by posting the relative fees
>>> involved, right?
>>You miss the point Joe. What the fees are is irrelevant.
>You could not be more wrong, Steve. The entire point under discussion here
>concerns the fees which are paid out by companies to rabbis.
And whether those fees increase the price to consumers -- something
you have claimed to be absolute truth, but have been singularly unable
to prove is the case.
>Practically
>every single person I have ever spoken to regarding this issue expressed their
>concerns over the fees involved, which they imagine runs into multimillions of
>dollars.
Of course, that no one except Waldo and the shame of Belleville have
expressed those concerns here seems to have slipped what passes for
joe-joe's mind.
>If it is possible for you to post the actual figures involved in this
>business, why don't you just do it and put an end to the controversy and
>criticism once and for all?
Maybe because it's *your* claim, and therefore *your* responsibility
to document it?
>From the standpoint of the critic, it appears as if people are deliberately
>trying to hide or suppress the actual figures involved in kosher certification.
And from the standpoint of a rational person, it appears as if you are
making accusations for which you have no factual support.
> I for one would love to see you or any other informed individual post
>verifiable figures in this regard, and would be most relieved if you could put
>this item to rest once and for all.
But don't try muddying the waters with none of your Jooosh fancy talk
about economies of scale or nothing -- joe-joe knows that's all just
lies.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 7/17/2003 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2b7482e6f32649a8...@free.teranews.com>
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>> in message <20030717181114...@mb-m01.aol.com>:
>>>Well you can disprove the contention by posting the relative fees involved,
>>>right?
>>You're the one that claimed to have them, joe-joe.
>No, Rogie, I never claimed to have them.
Yes, you did -- you claimed to have examined the books of several
companies and thereby determined the truth of your assertions.
Then when confronted on the matter, claimed that you had not carefully
read the question to which you responded with this lie.
Of course, you have *yet* to tell us what you thought the question
*was* that you were responding to...
>I claimed only to have examined some
>files pertaining to kosher certification. Insteading of whining about what I
>do or do not have or claim to have, why don't you exercise a little gumption
>and post the figures on your own, if you can obtain them.
Instead of whining about my pointing out your lies, why don't *you*
exercise a little gumption and post the figures? After all, it is
*your* claim...
Steven Mock
> "Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns93BB843B6DB0...@206.172.150.14...
> > "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> > news:3f16573c$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> >
> > > "Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3F119FBB...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> The detractors of Kosher certification claim that the non-Jews are
> > >> unjustly paying the cost.
> > >
> > > It was not the claims of the detractors, but the DEFENDERS of Kosher
> > > Certification that inspired you to proclaim your alleged affiliation
> > > with McGill, Sheldon, and as I stated above, these have claimed that
> > > Kosher Certification costs companies LESS THAN NOTHING to certify, as
> > > the increased market share MORE than pays for certification, and even
> > > LOWERS the retail price of goods.
> > >
> > > So how do you answer their claim, mister expert?
> >
> > He already did, Waldo. Were you not paying attention, or did you just
> > not understand. Allow me to reiterate:
>
> Why did you cut my responses, Mr. Mock?
I didn't Waldo. Indeed, you can see me responding to the very section
you repost right here at the bottom of this post.
Well, I suppose that at a loss for an intelligent response, you're
back to your usual tactics of baseless accusations of dishonesty,
followed by reposting copious amounts of the same meaningless tripe
that was already discredited. Fair enough.
<snip: repost, addressed below>
> > If you're having trouble with the big words and abstract concepts, Mr.
> > Liberman explains it in even clearer terms to Mr. Bellinger elsewhere.
> >
> > "... an investment in market expansion, whether by kashrut or by
> > posting billobards at the St. Patrick's Day parade, is meant to increase
> > sales volume.
>
> That's what it is MEANT to do. Whether it DOES or not is the point in
> question.
And your personal ignorance of whether it does or not is supposed to
prove what exactly?
> > When that happens,
>
> Rather, *if* that happens...
Whatever.
> > fixed costs are spread over more goods,
> > so that the average cost per units should decrease."
>
> But there is a factor that both Sheldon and our Mr. Mock conveniently fail
> to address: That any and all costs associated with the "investment in market
> expansion" - whether it be Kosher Certification, billboards or a two-hour
> late-night infomercial - MUST be deducted from any gross gains credited to
> the endeavor before any tangible benefits can be realized.
>
> IOW, Steve, the company has to reap more profit from a given campaign than
> it spends in executing that campaign, otherwise, they're LOSING MONEY.
Why do you say we fail to address this? Obviously, Waldo, when the
costs associated with an investment in market expansion outweigh the
benefits, the result is an overall loss.
When this occurs, one would expect the company to decide against the
investment in question, or to discontinue it. Waldo has yet to
demonstrate how or why we should think this same common-sense rule
doesn't apply to kosher certification as well as it does to any other
sort of investment in market expansion. Indeed, all of the evidence
he has presented thus far suggests that it does.
> > Then again, I also tried to explain it to you some two years ago in
> > <3508599e.01080...@posting.google.com>
>
> Sniped: Long, boring and faulty lecture on widget production.
Translation: I don't understand it therefore it can't be important.
> Listen up, Steve: The only thing that matters is the bottom line:
Fair enough. My point is that you show very little understanding of
what factors go into producing that bottom line. For example, while
on a simplistic level your formula of straightforward costs vs.
benefits as the basis for the calculation of whether kosher
certification is in the interests of producers makes sense, you fail
to comprehend many of the factors that contribute to the "benefits"
category, the decreasing marginal cost of production that accompanies
market expansion being one of them.
> Does the
> Kosher Certification of Widgets create ENOUGH additional sales to generate
> ENOUGH profit to pay off the Rabbis and the costs associated with meeting
> their silly, superstitious demands?
A widget is a fictional product used in a hypothetical example. The
correct answer to this question in the real world would be: for some
products yes, for other no.
Now which sort of product do you think is more likely to be
kosher-certified then?
> And can the company discern whether
> fluctuations in their market can be attributed to Kosher Certification?
With 100% accuracy? No. But the same is true for any marketing
strategy. One thing I am certain of, however, is that the companies
in question know more about the marketing of their products than you
or I.
> Say Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in June. In July, sales
> skyrocket. The Rabbi says "See? I told you that Kosher Certification would
> pay off! G_d blesses those that bless his Chosen People! By the way, where's
> that check?"
>
> Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in in September. In December,
> sales plummet. The Rabbi says "Oy Vey!!! What did you expect? Who buys ice
> cream bars in the winter, anyway?!? Sheesh! You know, you're lucky that you
> went Kosher - without the Jewish market to prop you up, things could be
> REALLY ugly! By the way, where's that check?"
In short, the only evidence you have is a hypothetical argument that
relies on your prexisting prejudice that Jews are dishonest and
non-Jews are naive when it comes to business. My point all along.
> > >> Once more with feeling: If kosher certification,
> > >
> > > Note the key word here: *IF*.
> >
> > Yes, Waldo. IF.
> >
> > You see, none of us are arguing that kosher certification is ALWAYS in
> > the interests of the producer.
>
> Since when?
Since always. Kosher meat and most basic dairy products are sold at
higher prices solely to the niche market, because they are
considerably more expensive to produce.
> > It is for some products under some
> > conditions, it isn't for other products other other conditions. We are
> > explaining the conditions under which it is.
> >
> > Now, here's the part you don't seem to be able to grasp. If kosher
> > certification is profitable for some products under some conditions, and
> > unprofitable for other products under other conditions, for which sort of
> > product under which conditions do you think a food producer will want to
> > kosher certify and which not?
> >
> > Take your time. Feel free to use both hands and a flashlight.
>
> As in, it supposedly IS profitable for Heinz Canada's ketchup, but NOT for
> their tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar. Right?
Apparently so. Why do you find this so hard to believe?
> Now suppose you tell us WHY. Is ketchup easier / cheaper to certify than
> tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar? Do Kosher Keeping Jews have
> a particular fondness for ketchup, and an aversion to tomato sauce, tomato
> paste, mustard and vinegar?
>
> Take your time. Feel free to use the Talmud, the Torah, a gaggle of bearded
> guys in dark suits and funny round hats, and copious amounts of the bullshit
> you regularly sling.
Like yourself, I can only speculate, but there are many plausible
reasons. Personally, I would guess that it has more to do with the
market than with the cost of certification. After all, ketchup is one
of Heinz' flagship products. Produced on a much larger scale than the
other products you mention, it is far better able to compete in terms
of price and quality than existing kosher alternatives, and thus has a
more consistent and assured market. Whereas tomato sauce, tomato
paste, mustard and vinegar are produced on a smaller scale, and are
faced with tighter competition from comperable products even in the
kosher market. It makes perfect sense to me, your sneering
notwithstanding.
Now, back to my original question. Seeing as you have acknowledged
that kosher certification can be profitable for some products under
some conditions, and I have acknowledged that it isn't for other
products other other conditions, for which sort of product under which
conditions do you think a food producer will want to kosher certify
and which not?
I know its a hard question. But I'll probably be out of commission
for the next 2 weeks or so, so you'll have plenty of time to think it
over.
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
<snip: Waldo on why Jews deserve to be victimized>
> > You insist that kosher certification is a loss rather than a benefit to
> > the producers who seek it.
>
> See what happens when you quote out of context, Steve? I was responding to a
> statement made about the Holocaust Industry, and you're pursuing it as
> though I were addressing the Kosher issue.
I suppose I wasn't reading very carefully. I didn't realize that you
were responding directly to Mr. Knight's statement that Mr. Liberman
had produced solely to prove that he was an anti-Semite. I thought
you were just venting.
> And no, I don't "insist that kosher certification is a loss rather than a
> benefit to the producers who seek it". rather, I believe that, while Kosher
> Certification can and does benefit companies under certain circumstances, it
> creates a negative cash flow for most companies when they elect to certify
> products that target the broader consumer market.
>
> There is little doubt that Kosher pays for some niche products and / or in
> some geographic areas (i.e. New York).
>
> But you're a dishonest little twit, and you're trying to infer that I claim
> that Kosher *never* pays, when you know damn well that this is not - and
> never HAS been my contention.
The truth is, Waldo, that I have a very hard time following your
waffling on this matter. When I point out that you have acknowledged
that kosher certification is profitable under some circumstances you
call me liar. When I imply that your argument is that kosher
certification can be characterized in general as a loss, you call me a
liar.
I think you don't really know what you're arguing anymore, Waldo. So
calling me a liar is pretty much all you have left.
> > You have offered no evidence that this is the
> > case.
>
> Why would I offer evidence to prove claims that you *falsely* attribute to
> me, my slippery little skink?
>
> I have brought forth copious amounts of information on this subject - nearly
> all of it from Jewish / Kosher industry sources - which you cannot possibly
> impeach.
Once again, Waldo, its not the information itself that we have a
problem with. Its the rather amusing way that you read things into
the information that just aren't there.
You post the total figure of sales to kosher consumers in the United
States, and claim that you have proven that kosher couldn't possibly
be profitable to the whole of the food industry, despite the fact that
you have offered no indication that you have any idea of its costs.
You post excerpts from the webites of kosher certifying organizations
offering straightforward information about their services, along-side
your rants about what liars there are, and claim to have cited
unimpeachable evidence that they are perpetrating a scam.
You refer to a large company discontinuing kosher certification on
certain products when they felt it was in their interests to do so,
and claim this to be evidence that companies kosher certify their
products when its not in their interests.
The rest of us just shrug our shoulders and wonder what you're trying
to get at.
> Insisting that Kosher Certification was a veritable cash machine, those on y
> our side of the table demanded REPEATEDLY that I show ONE company who has
> EVER found Kosher Certification to be unprofitable, and abandoned
> certification for their products,
Ah, but no one ever made that demand. The demand was for evidence
that a company kosher certifies a product when it is not in their
interests. Not evidence that they don't.
How to I make this any simpler, Waldo. You see, there are two kind of
products - products that are kosher certified and products that are
not. If you would like to prove that kosher certification is a scam,
you will have to prove this case with regards to products that *are*
kosher certified. You have provided an example relating to products
that, evidently, are not. Do you get it yet?
> and when Heinz Canada's abandonment of
> certification on MOST of their product line came to light (thanks NF!), you
> respond with "See? We told you that companies have a choice" (or words to
> that effect), as if I had ever claimed otherwise.
Fine. So if companies have a choice, and evidently use that choice to
do whatever they feel to be in their best financial interests, then
where is the problem?
> > Indeed, you have presented plenty of evidence that kosher
> > certification on a product is only maintained when it is in the interests
> > of producers to do so.
>
> Here Mr. Mock counts his loss as a victory. Go figure.
You have yet to explain to us just what this decision on the part of
Heinz to de-certify certain products means in your private little
universe. You see, to me, it means something very simple. That
kosher certification is kept by a company on a product only when it is
in their financial interests, and is dropped when its not.
Personally, I see this as an entirely sensible and normal way of doing
business, and fail to see just what your problem is.
> > You insist that non-Jews end up subsidizing the cost of kosher
> > certification.
>
> Under many if not most circumstances. Yes.
>
> > You can't explain how,
>
> Rather, either you're too obtuse to understand, or too dishonest to
> acknowledge my explanations.
Talk about non-responsive.
> > or present an example of this actually occuring.
>
> Clearly Kosher Certification was causing Heinz Canada to LOSE MONEY on most
> of the products for which they recently abandoned Certification: (Can you
> say NEG-A-TIVE CASH FLOW, Steve?) and SOMEONE was paying for those losses.
> If it wasn't non-Jews, it *must* have been Jews, right?
Negative cash flow? Please. If kosher certification was not making
money for certain products, it was the company that could stand to
make more without it than with it. Hence they discontinued it,
correcting the imbalance. The company tried a new marketing strategy
- it worked in some cases and made them money, didn't work in other
cases in which case they discontinued it. This is the way people do
business in the real world. Why do you only freak out about it when
there are Jews involved?
> > You insist that the reasons that producers seek kosher certification,
> > despite this loss you believe they suffer as a result, is because they
> > are being fooled by powerful Jews.
>
> "Fooled by powerful Jews"? Did I say that, or are you putting words in my
> mouth (again) in order to build yet another strawman?
No, you've pretty much said that on several occasions. In any case,
you argument rests on the belief that kosher certifying agencies have
the means to coerce or fool the largest food companies in the world
into making decisions against their business interests, and you have
claimed (though not demonstrated) such coersion and deciet several
times in the past. Indeed, you do so again directly below.
> Do I believe that the Kash-R-Us outfits use deceptive marketing techniques
> to woo their clientele into biting the Kosher hook? Yes, I do. And I believe
> that the crux of that deception is in their depiction of the size, scope and
> nature of the so-called "Kosher Consumer market", and that there is
> deception via omission regarding which types of products each particular
> segment of the "Kosher Consumer market" might find appealing.
I know you believe that Waldo. Indeed, it has become a key tenet of
you faith.
> Of course, your response would be that "companies know these things" via
> their own research,
I'm pretty sure that they know better than you do.
> and if they're too stupid to figure this out on their
> own, they deserve to get screwed.
>
> Caveat emptor, eh, Steve?
>
> > You offer no evidence that this
> > occurs, save for your belief that Jews are dishonest.
>
> Jews have a well-earned reputation for being - well, to put it kindly -
> 'shrewd' businessmen - *especially* in their dealings with non-Jews. You've
> heard the clichés: "Jewed me down on the price"; "Count your fingers after
> you shake hands with a Jew", etc. Did you think that people just made this
> stuff up to harass your brethren and besmirch their reputation?
I guess my point is made then. Your argument rests on the bedrock of
your prejudices - without those prejudices, it has no foundation.
Steven Mock
Charles Don Hall
news:3f17c416$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
> Say Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in June. In July, sales
> skyrocket. The Rabbi says "See? I told you that Kosher Certification
> would pay off! G_d blesses those that bless his Chosen People! By the
> way, where's that check?"
>
> Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in in September. In
> December, sales plummet. The Rabbi says "Oy Vey!!! What did you
> expect? Who buys ice cream bars in the winter, anyway?!? Sheesh! You
> know, you're lucky that you went Kosher - without the Jewish market to
> prop you up, things could be REALLY ugly! By the way, where's that
> check?"
Is this "Leroy" character a simpleton who doesn't understand that
correlation doesn't imply causation?
If he is, then I seriously doubt that a rabbi got a chance to offer him
kosher certification. He probably got bankrupted during his first week in
business, by salesmen selling aluminum siding and lion repellent and magic
beans.
But if he's not a simpleton, then he probably understands that sales depend
on a variety of factors. So he won't just blindly take the rabbi's word that
kosher certification brought him increased sales. He'll do the calculations
himself. (Was the June-July sales increase greater than in previous years
with similar weather? Has he gained market share? Is he seeing a
disproportionate increase in sales to areas with a high kosher-keeping
population?)
Or are you saying that rabbis can emit some sort of mysterious Z-rays that
turn otherwise rational businessmen into simpletons? I'll grant that rabbis
have that effect on anti-semites, but normal human beings seem to be immune
to it.
[...]
>> As in, it supposedly IS profitable for Heinz Canada's ketchup, but NOT
>> for their tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar. Right?
>
> Now suppose you tell us WHY. Is ketchup easier / cheaper to certify
> than tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar?
Apparently so, since Heinz Canada gets kosher certification for catsup but
not for those other products.
Some possible reasons:
1) Heinz makes more catsup than other condiments, so the per-unit cost of
certification for catsup is less (due to economies of scale).
2) Heinz is the leading brand of catsup, but has stiff competition in the
other markets. So they can capture a large share of the market for kosher
catsup, but a smaller share of the market for other kosher condiments. Maybe
their share of the kosher market is so small that it's not worth persuing?
> Do Kosher Keeping
> Jews have a particular fondness for ketchup, and an aversion to tomato
> sauce, tomato paste, mustard and vinegar?
Well, I think that catsup is more popular than the other condiments...not
just among Jews, but among Gentiles as well. Of course that doesn't mean
that people have "an aversion" to the other condiments; they just don't buy
as much of them.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Now, why do *you* think that Heinz is keep certification for the one product
line?
I think we'll have to rule out the fantasy that they were tricked into
getting kosher certification, and that they've finally seen through the
deceit. I mean, if they found out that they'd been defrauded, they would
have dropped kosher certification for *all* their product lines, right? And
they would have filed suit for fraud, right?
Debunks1
>From: sailor...@yahoo.com (sailor57)
>Date: 7/17/2003 7:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <aca9dd48.0307...@posting.google.com>
DUH!
Debunks1
>Date: 7/18/2003 2:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3f17c416$0$1...@news.impulse.net>
LOL! I think this is one of the funniest exchanges I have ever read in this
forum~ hats off to you, Waldeaux, whoever you are...
steve wolk
Oh look! A Jew-baiting menage-a-deux, with Joebbels doing the sucking (up).
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: The ADL and the Rabbinical Kosher Excise Tax: Fact and Fiction
> >From: "Waldo" Wald...@hushmail.com
> >Date: 7/18/2003 2:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3f17c416$0$1...@news.impulse.net>
> >
> >> > all costs associated with that strategy, it is a profitable venture.
> >> > If profits generated by that marketing strategy fall short of all
> >> > expenses associated with that strategy, it is a LOSER.
> >>
> >> Exactly, Waldo. You get it. Very good. Now, baby steps to the next
> >> logical conclusion. In the former case, the company will seek to kosher
> >> certify the product in order realize those profits. In the latter case,
> >> it will not and thereby avoid the loss.
> >
> >Answer the questions regarding the ketchup, tomato sauce, tomato paste,
> >mustard and vinegar, Mr. Mock.
> >
> >**
> >
> >Waldo
> >
> >Observer at Large
>
> LOL! I think this is one of the funniest exchanges I have ever read in this
> forum~ hats off to you, Waldeaux, whoever you are...
And I notice you didn't have anything to say about my rather
straightforward response either.
Stay stupid, Joe.
Steven Mock
Waldo
"Charles Don Hall" <cdhall_public_remove_this@and_this_pobox.com> wrote in
message news:Xns93BCB9DF1...@216.254.95.101...
> "Waldo" <Wald...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f17c416$0$1...@news.impulse.net:
>
>
> > Say Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in June. In July, sales
> > skyrocket. The Rabbi says "See? I told you that Kosher Certification
> > would pay off! G_d blesses those that bless his Chosen People! By the
> > way, where's that check?"
> >
> > Leroy's Ice cream bars decides to go Kosher in in September. In
> > December, sales plummet. The Rabbi says "Oy Vey!!! What did you
> > expect? Who buys ice cream bars in the winter, anyway?!? Sheesh! You
> > know, you're lucky that you went Kosher - without the Jewish market to
> > prop you up, things could be REALLY ugly! By the way, where's that
> > check?"
>
> Is this "Leroy" character a simpleton who doesn't understand that
> correlation doesn't imply causation?
Don't pick on poor Leroy, Charles. If he's lending more credence than he
ought to the hype put out by the Kash-R-Us industry, he's probably in good
company - after all, he's just joined ranks with some 9,000 plants producing
some 75,000 products, all chasing after a relatively paltry $6.7 billion in
business, which if it cost them NOTHING, would only yield circa $500 million
potential profits.
But it doesn't cost them *nothing*, does it Charles?
> If he is, then I seriously doubt that a rabbi got a chance to offer him
> kosher certification. He probably got bankrupted during his first week in
> business, by salesmen selling aluminum siding and lion repellent
"Lie repellant" may have been a good investment, don't you think?
> and magic beans.
These beans weren't by chance produced on equipment that *also* produces
*non-magic* beans, were they? (This could render even the magic beans
non-magic if the equipment had not been shut down, given a "Mashrus
Cleaning" under the supervision of Mash-R-Us Magis, and then left to stand
idle for 24 hours before production began!)
> But if he's not a simpleton, then he probably understands that sales
depend
> on a variety of factors.
Yes - the influence of those magic beans, for instance.
> So he won't just blindly take the rabbi's word that
> kosher certification brought him increased sales. He'll do the
calculations
> himself. (Was the June-July sales increase greater than in previous years
> with similar weather? Has he gained market share? Is he seeing a
> disproportionate increase in sales to areas with a high kosher-keeping
> population?)
Also - has his distribution expanded / contracted / changed? How have his
other promotional factors affected sales? What about the promotional
campaigns / distribution of competing brands? What about shelf space
allocation in the retail venues? And how *did* the Jews find out that the
little Kash-R-Us mark is now on the package, when it clearly wasn't before?
Aside from Metro New York, can you name the areas in the US that have a
"high kosher-keeping population"?
> Or are you saying that rabbis can emit some sort of mysterious Z-rays that
> turn otherwise rational businessmen into simpletons?
More likely K-rays, or quite possibly H-rays.
> I'll grant that rabbis
> have that effect on anti-semites, but normal human beings seem to be
immune
> to it.
Would you kindly define "normal human beings", and point to some well known
examples of these elusive creatures?
> [...]
>
> >> As in, it supposedly IS profitable for Heinz Canada's ketchup, but NOT
> >> for their tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar. Right?
> >
> > Now suppose you tell us WHY. Is ketchup easier / cheaper to certify
> > than tomato sauce, tomato paste, mustard or vinegar?
>
> Apparently so, since Heinz Canada gets kosher certification for catsup but
> not for those other products.
Rather, Heinz Canada CONTINUES TO GET kosher certification for catsup but NO
LONGER gets certification for those other products.
> Some possible reasons:
>
> 1) Heinz makes more catsup than other condiments,
Heinz certainly makes a LOT of ketchup, don't they?.
> so the per-unit cost of
> certification for catsup is less (due to economies of scale).
Why do I get the feeling that you're only considering the costs of the
Kash-R-Us fees themselves, and ignoring all of the incidental costs
associated with meeting the demands of the Rabbis?
> 2) Heinz is the leading brand of catsup, but has stiff competition in the
> other markets.
Frankly, I'd be VERY surprised to learn that Heinz vinegar is not the best
selling brand in the world.
> So they can capture a large share of the market for kosher
> catsup, but a smaller share of the market for other kosher condiments.
Maybe
> their share of the kosher market is so small that it's not worth persuing?
Bingo. In fact, I'd say that Kosher was probably *marginally* profitable at
best for Heinz Canada (not many Jews in Canada - maybe 300 - 350,000 and
shrinking?) and when the Rabbis successfully sold their services to Heinz
competitors, well - Heinz gave them the Kosher Finger.
> Do Kosher Keeping
> > Jews have a particular fondness for ketchup, and an aversion to tomato
> > sauce, tomato paste, mustard and vinegar?
>
> Well, I think that catsup is more popular than the other condiments...not
> just among Jews, but among Gentiles as well. Of course that doesn't mean
> that people have "an aversion" to the other condiments; they just don't
buy
> as much of them.
>
>
> Anyway, that's the way I see it.
>
> Now, why do *you* think that Heinz is keep certification for the one
product
> line?
I found the answer to that question in my refrigerator, on the Heinz Ketchup
bottle: Just below the ingredients list, the label states: "MADE IN CANADA",
and bears the mark of the OU. Here is an interesting article on tomatoes,
Canada, ketchup and Heinz:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business_world/1885425.stm
As I am writing from (and buying ketchup in) California, that should tell us
something: That a good portion of Heinz Ketchup production is for the
*export* market - to the USA, and Heinz USA has NOT (yet) dumped any of its
Kosher certifications.
But here is a puzzler extraordinaire: Heinz Canada makes Kosher ketchup, and
the manufacture of Kosher ketchup requires that EACH AND EVERY INGREDIENT be
separately and individually Kosher Certified. A key ingredient of ketchup is
DISTILLED VINEGAR, and Heinz Canada just DUMPED their certification on the
vinegar that they manufacture!
Now, Vinegar is a touchy subject when it comes to Kosher...
http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-palate-vinegar.htm
...and there is NO WAY IN HELL that the Kash-R-Us Rabbis at the COR or the
OU are going to allow their little mark to appear on Heinz (or anyone
else's) ketchup label unless the vinegar therein has been Kosher Certified.
NO WAY.
So where is Heinz Canada getting the vinegar that they use in their Kosher
ketchup? Are they *importing* it from Kosher Certified vinegar plants of
Heinz USA ($$$$$)? Are they *buying* it from COMPETITIVE Kosher Certified
makers of vinegar in Canada or elsewhere ($$$$$)?
Heinz is still making vinegar. In fact, Heinz uses one HELL of a LOT of
vinegar - in Heinz Beans, Jack Daniel'sŽ Grilling Sauces, Heinz Sauces,
Heinz Pickles, Heinz Peppers, Heinz Relish, Heinz Salad Dressings, Heinz Fat
Free Salad Dressings, Heinz Vinegar (of course) Heinz Ketchup, Heinz
Mustard, Heinz Mayonnaise,
Heinz Tomato Products, etc. In fact, I'll bet that Heinz uses more vinegar
in their recipes than any other single ingredient - with the possible
exception of water.
So if Heinz is still making Kosher Certified ketchup, and still using
vinegar (one hell of a LOT of vinegar) in that ketchup, why would they dump
their certification on their OWN vinegar, and outsource ($$$$$)???
> I think we'll have to rule out the fantasy that they were tricked into
> getting kosher certification, and that they've finally seen through the
> deceit.
Is that what you think, Charles?
> I mean, if they found out that they'd been defrauded,
Fraud? There is a difference between deceit (aka crafty salesmanship) and
*fraud*, Charles.
> they would
> have dropped kosher certification for *all* their product lines, right?
And
> they would have filed suit for fraud, right?
Remember when that car salesman told you that _if_ you bought that sporty
little red convertible, that you'd get lots of dates? - so you bought it,
and the girls STILL wouldn't look at you? Did you sue that salesman for
"fraud", Charles?
So why do you suppose Heinz Canada dumped the Kosher certification on their
vinegar, Charles? And where do you suppose they're getting the vinegar that
they're using to make their Kosher ketchup?