In article <38F3AF34.1A329...@jump.net>, Ray Shea <s...@jump.net> wrote:
>Logan Shaw wrote: >> Seriously, I would spend about $1 more per meal at most restaurants if >> they had caffeine-free Dr. Pepper. I don't drink caffeine, and this >> severely limits my choices. I end up ordering water most of the time >> instead of something with the high mark-up most places charge for soft >> drinks.
>Root beer tends to be caffeine-free, and it tickles the same >funny bones as Dr. Pepper & Coke in a way that Sprite doesn't >(like, it goes real good with popcorn for instance).
Root beer is caffeine free naturally, but some brands, like Barq's and Mug, add caffeine "for flavor" or for some other reason (maybe because people expect brownish carbonated liquids to have it or something?).
Unfortunatley, it seems that lots of the time, waiters and waitresses don't know whether the root beer their restaurant serves is caffeinated, so I ask, but probably something like 75% of the time, it turns out it is caffeinated.
But yeah, sometimes it's an option, and when it is, I often take advantage of it.
Whoa, Mug has caffeine??? Are you sure? These are important things a mom needs to know. I thought that Barq's was the only caffeinated RB out there in the local fountains (and in just about every tap in just about every restaurant that serves to kids, dammit).
But the real reason for this post is to yammer about the YUMmy Root Beer at Culver's. Oooooohhhhh. Culllllllverrrrrrr's. Please don't say it's caffeinated.
Aside from Culver's, the best "on-draught" sodas in the area (IMHO) are the ones maintained by RC. Usually those have 7-Up (far superior to yucky syrupy Sprite) and Dad's (caffeine-free, I believe...) Root Beer. I think that Aljon's still gets its service from RC, <?> but I could be wrong. Arby's is another, but the other (locally owned) outlets escape me.
lo...@cs.utexas.edu (Logan Shaw) wrote: > In article <38F3AF34.1A329...@jump.net>, Ray Shea <s...@jump.net> wrote: > >Logan Shaw wrote: > >> Seriously, I would spend about $1 more per meal at most restaurants if > >> they had caffeine-free Dr. Pepper. I don't drink caffeine, and this > >> severely limits my choices. I end up ordering water most of the time > >> instead of something with the high mark-up most places charge for soft > >> drinks.
> >Root beer tends to be caffeine-free, and it tickles the same > >funny bones as Dr. Pepper & Coke in a way that Sprite doesn't > >(like, it goes real good with popcorn for instance).
> Root beer is caffeine free naturally, but some brands, like Barq's and > Mug, add caffeine "for flavor" or for some other reason (maybe because > people expect brownish carbonated liquids to have it or something?).
> Unfortunatley, it seems that lots of the time, waiters and waitresses > don't know whether the root beer their restaurant serves is caffeinated, > so I ask, but probably something like 75% of the time, it turns out it > is caffeinated.
> But yeah, sometimes it's an option, and when it is, I often take > advantage of it.
In article <xmess-1204001058170...@ip54.auschron.com>, xm...@auschron.com
(kate) wrote: > Whoa, Mug has caffeine??? Are you sure? These are important things a mom > needs to know. I thought that Barq's was the only caffeinated RB out there > in the local fountains (and in just about every tap in just about every > restaurant that serves to kids, dammit).
I dont think Mug has caffeine. I remember thinking it was strange they had the slogan "The foam goes straight to your brain", yet had no caffeine (which I assumed this was a reference to).
> Aside from Culver's, the best "on-draught" sodas in the area (IMHO) are > the ones maintained by RC. Usually those have 7-Up (far superior to yucky > syrupy Sprite) and Dad's (caffeine-free, I believe...) Root Beer. I think > that Aljon's still gets its service from RC, <?> but I could be wrong. > Arby's is another, but the other (locally owned) outlets escape me.
>I dont think Mug has caffeine. I remember thinking it was strange they >had the slogan "The foam goes straight to your brain", yet had no caffeine >(which I assumed this was a reference to).
Looks like I'm wrong. I went to www.pepsi.com and searched and found out that it has a "great root beer taste that can't be beat, with no caffeine".
I guess I must've assumed Mug would be caffeinated since it's made by PepsiCo and they're somewhat evil.
In article <+++jvpaniagua-1204001418310...@dhcp-74-96.edb.utexas.edu>,
Highlander <+++jvpania...@alumni.utexas.net> wrote: >In article <xmess-1204001058170...@ip54.auschron.com>, xm...@auschron.com >(kate) wrote: >> Aside from Culver's, the best "on-draught" sodas in the area (IMHO) are >> the ones maintained by RC. Usually those have 7-Up (far superior to yucky >> syrupy Sprite) and Dad's (caffeine-free, I believe...) Root Beer. I think >> that Aljon's still gets its service from RC, <?> but I could be wrong. >> Arby's is another, but the other (locally owned) outlets escape me.
>Who has RC besides Arby's?
Does Whataburger? I know that some locations have lots and lots of things on tap, like maybe 15 different things. One of the options is IBC Root Beer, and it's the same price as all the other soft drinks.
Of course, not all locations are the same. I'm thinking of the location on Anderson Ln., just east of Shoal Creek.
> > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO, > > vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes > > for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
> That's kinda like saying a Kosher restaurant should > serve pork for the Gentiles.
Not really. If you have pork in the kitchen, you're not Kosher anymore. I do not recall similar dietary laws for vegetarian dishes. Heck, lots of restaurants offer a few vegetarian items amongst the omnivorous cusine.
> > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO, vegetarian > > restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores who > > want to dine with vegetarians. > Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a > place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either that, or you're making a political statement.
> You have to keep in mind that to many vegetarians, not having meat > around is a matter of principle.
Ah. It seems that my second alternative was the correct one.
> > A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog? Barbecue? > > Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as universal.
> I don't get involve with animal murder. Personally, I feel people who > like meat should eat people. Meat is meat, murder is murder. What's > the diff? Why waste your best friend by putting him six feet under? He > probably tastes like chicken. Yum (cluck cluck cluck)
Sure, but you gleefully participate in the wholesale slaughter of plants, you even name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and consume.
JCS <teeo...@jump.net> wrote in message news:8con40$3db$1@news.jump.net... > Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote in message > news:V6JH4.1264$Nm2.55375@news.swbell.net... > > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO, vegetarian > > restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores who > > want to dine with vegetarians.
> If West Lynn's personnel are like most strict vegetarians, they'd have to > have completely separate pans, dishes, utensils and refrigeration for meat. > Not to mention a (probably new) chef willing to cook meat, waitstaff willing > to serve it, clean up people willing to dispose of it, and a customer base > willing to stomach the smell (which many vegetarians find absolutely > revolting.) My guess is that customers and employees alike would leave in > droves at the sight and smell of charred animal flesh in an erstwhile > vegetarian restaurant.
<chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude from the waiter.
Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless of what their religion may be.
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 11:26:25 -0500, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote: > > [...] IMO, vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of > > with-meat dishes for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
> I think Italian restaurant should offer a few indian dishes for > indian food lovers who want to dine with people eating Italian food.
Many ethnic restaurants offer a few generic choices for this sort of situation (i.e. burgers). The choices tend to be bland but those that will appeal to a wide variety of patrons (thus not Indian.)
But as Jan pointed out, it's more like a religion than a choice, thus the zealotry amongs some vegetarians.
> > > A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog? Barbecue? > > > Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as universal.
> > I don't get involve with animal murder. Personally, I feel people who > > like meat should eat people. Meat is meat, murder is murder. What's > > the diff? Why waste your best friend by putting him six feet under? He > > probably tastes like chicken. Yum (cluck cluck cluck)
> Sure, but you gleefully participate in the wholesale slaughter of plants, > you even > name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and > consume.
I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable living things.
Choosing to be a vegetarian, OTOH, for health reasons makes perfect sense to me. I don't agree, but at least it's not transparently disingenuous and hypocritical.
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote in message > news:FS6J4.4106$Nm2.114189@news.swbell.net... > > Sure, but you gleefully participate in the wholesale slaughter of > > plants, you even > > name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and > > consume.
> I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me > about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't > stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable > living things.
Yep. Plants just don't have faces, I guess. IMO, it's the typical kind of incomplete analysis that leads to a great deal of the misguided activism that we observe in our society... as bad as the "feel good" politics that these same folks often complain about.
> Choosing to be a vegetarian, OTOH, for health reasons makes perfect > sense to me. I don't agree, but at least it's not transparently > disingenuous and hypocritical.
> > > > A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog? > Barbecue? > > > > Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as universal.
> > > I don't get involve with animal murder. Personally, I feel people > who > > > like meat should eat people. Meat is meat, murder is murder. > What's > > > the diff? Why waste your best friend by putting him six feet under? > He > > > probably tastes like chicken. Yum (cluck cluck cluck)
> > Sure, but you gleefully participate in the wholesale slaughter of > plants, > > you even > > name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and > > consume.
> I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me > about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't > stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable > living things.
Well, one huge difference is that many, if not most, plant foods evolved specifically to attract a hungry herbivore as a means of seed dispersal... fruits, seeds, nuts, grains. Can't think of any similar adaptations in the animal world.
Reminds of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and the animal that was bred to want to be eaten, and was, according to Doug Adams, "capable of saying so clearly and distinctly."
"Bahahahaaaaa.... sir, can I interest you in parts of my body?" -- jan
> JCS <teeo...@jump.net> wrote in message news:8con40$3db$1@news.jump.net... > > Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote in message > > news:V6JH4.1264$Nm2.55375@news.swbell.net... > > > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO, > > > vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat > > > dishes for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
> > If West Lynn's personnel are like most strict vegetarians, they'd have > > to have completely separate pans, dishes, utensils and refrigeration > > for meat. Not to mention a (probably new) chef willing to cook > > meat, waitstaff willing to serve it, clean up people willing to dispose > > of it, and a customer base willing to stomach the smell (which many > > vegetarians find absolutely revolting.) My guess is that customers > > and employees alike would leave in droves at the sight and smell of > > charred animal flesh in an erstwhile vegetarian restaurant.
> <chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I > went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a > vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude > from the waiter.
I do fail to understand why vegetarians get the grief they do. Sure, evidence suggests that humans are basically omnivores, meaning we've evolved to eat anything we can capture and hold down. But by comparison to the bizarre meat-and-oil centered diet most Westerners are raised to, vegetarianism is an adaptive norm.
> Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless of > what their religion may be.
You said something about "a huge load of attitude"... ? -- jan
In article <oR6J4.4105$Nm2.113...@news.swbell.net>,
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote: >the_austin_cars <the_austin_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:38EFA2E1.6178@yahoo.com... >> Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a >> place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
>"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either that, >or you're making a political statement.
Is it possible for you to believe that they just don't like the smell of meat? Or do they have to have the same preferences as you?
As a kid, my parents had to coerce me to eat my vegetables, because I didn't like them. My sister was the other way around. She ate all her vegetables (and fruits) without any convincing, but she ate her meat only because our parents made her.
Gradually, as she got older, she found herself eating just chicken and fish, because she preferred them to red meat. Eventually, that trailed off too. I talked to her one time about it, and she said that on a few occasions she tried eating meat, but found she liked it even less because she hadn't had any of it in a while and was thus not acclimated to it.
So, today she's a vegetarian. Not for moral or health reasons, but because she doesn't like meat. And guess what: she finds the smell of it distasteful. In fact, she was chosen for a focus group when they were building Central Market and she suggested they lay it out so that nobody had to go through the meat section if they didn't want to, because of the smell.
So, if I were a vegetarian and I went to a vegetarian restaurant, one of the attractions would be that I wouldn't have to smell meat.
It would be a lot like if there were restaurants that sold food that was entirely free of celery, lima beans, and squash. I pretty much hate those foods enough that a guarantee that I wouldn't even have to smell them would be worth something to me.
Now, if you add in the moral dimension, the smell of meat becomes (for some people) objectionable for two independent reasons. Since vegetarian restaurants are there to serve people who find it objectionable, it only makes sense for them to cater to what those people want.
In article <%V6J4.4109$Nm2.114...@news.swbell.net>,
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote: ><chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I >went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a >vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude >from the waiter.
Ask any vegetarian if they've even gotten a negative response from a waiter or waitress when they tried to order stuff *without* meat at a restaurant that serves meat. No, they usually don't get a moral tirade, but sometimes the waiter/waitress (or cook) is unwilling to be accomodating, and sometimes they get looked down upon or laughed at.
So what's the difference between the "anyone who eats meat is a murderer" and "anyone who doesn't eat meat is stupid and they should just be normal like me" attitude?
In article <0e7J4.84802$17.1880...@news4.giganews.com>,
Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote: >I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me >about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't >stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable >living things.
>Choosing to be a vegetarian, OTOH, for health reasons makes perfect >sense to me. I don't agree, but at least it's not transparently >disingenuous and hypocritical.
I don't eat veal (or live goldfish, or numerous other "delicacies") because I feel that although most meat is O.K., the way these foods are produced is inhumane.
Does that automatically make me transparently disingenuous and hypocritical?
In article <0e7J4.84802$17.1880...@news4.giganews.com>,
Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote: >I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me >about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't >stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable >living things.
You're absolutely right! Down with specieism! Specieism MUST be [ahem] ROOTED OUT of our society!
Why did you know that right at this very moment, the University of Texas at Austin SEGREGATES its biology classes? Yes, that's right! Instead of living in a SPECIESBLIND world, we live in one where one class of subject matter goes by the name ZOOLOGY, but another, totally INNOCENT class of subject matter is forced to endure the OBLOQUY of being called by the derogatory name BOTANY. This INJUSTICE must be STOPPED!
Will this even END? I feel the University of Texas should institute a subject matter desegregation policy IMMEDIATELY! If we all work together, then one day soon PLANTS will no longer be forced to move to the back of the [cough cough] SYLLABUS while the ANIMALS sit at the front!
If you agree, come show your support for this WORTHY CAUSE by demonstrating with me at an ANTI-SPECIEISM rally to be held on the West Mall the SIXTH TUESDAY of THIS MONTH at 13:00am!
> In article <0e7J4.84802$17.1880...@news4.giganews.com>, > Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote: > >I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me > >about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't > >stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable > >living things.
> You're absolutely right! Down with specieism! Specieism MUST be > [ahem] ROOTED OUT of our society!
> Why did you know that right at this very moment, the University of > Texas at Austin SEGREGATES its biology classes? Yes, that's right! > Instead of living in a SPECIESBLIND world, we live in one where one > class of subject matter goes by the name ZOOLOGY, but another, totally > INNOCENT class of subject matter is forced to endure the OBLOQUY of > being called by the derogatory name BOTANY. This INJUSTICE must be > STOPPED!
> Will this even END? I feel the University of Texas should institute a > subject matter desegregation policy IMMEDIATELY!
They've already done it. The botany and zoology departments no longer exist, many of their fields having been integrated into a new department called "Integrative Biology." How did you see so clearly into the past? :-)
> If we all work > together, then one day soon PLANTS will no longer be forced to move to > the back of the [cough cough] SYLLABUS while the ANIMALS sit at the > front!
Heh, he... actually, UT Botany was invariably ranked #1 or #2 nationally, higher than zoo. :-)
> If you agree, come show your support for this WORTHY CAUSE by > demonstrating with me at an ANTI-SPECIEISM rally to be held on the West > Mall the SIXTH TUESDAY of THIS MONTH at 13:00am!
Yep, us people and us artichokes and us acellular slime molds must all come together as friends, because it's good to eat a friend, my friend. -- jan
JCS <teeo...@jump.net> wrote in message news:8d31ph$cv9$1@news.jump.net... > Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote in message > news:%V6J4.4109$Nm2.114195@news.swbell.net... > > <chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I > > went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a > > vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude > > from the waiter.
> I do fail to understand why vegetarians get the grief they do. Sure, > evidence suggests that humans are basically omnivores, meaning we've evolved > to eat anything we can capture and hold down. But by comparison to the > bizarre meat-and-oil centered diet most Westerners are raised to, > vegetarianism is an adaptive norm.
I've got no problem with the diet... I've got a problem with the preaching that often accompanies it.
> > Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless of > > what their religion may be.
> You said something about "a huge load of attitude"... ?
> In article <oR6J4.4105$Nm2.113...@news.swbell.net>, > Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote: > >the_austin_cars <the_austin_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:38EFA2E1.6178@yahoo.com... > >> Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a > >> place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
> >"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either that, > >or you're making a political statement.
> Is it possible for you to believe that they just don't like the smell > of meat? Or do they have to have the same preferences as you?
If so, that's what they could have said. The "smell of death" is the type of high drama that is typical of the vegetarians I find irritating. Let me be clear: I have no problem with their preference, my problem is with the preaching.
> As a kid, my parents had to coerce me to eat my vegetables, because I > didn't like them. My sister was the other way around. She ate all her > vegetables (and fruits) without any convincing, but she ate her meat > only because our parents made her.
> Gradually, as she got older, she found herself eating just chicken and > fish, because she preferred them to red meat. Eventually, that trailed > off too. I talked to her one time about it, and she said that on a few > occasions she tried eating meat, but found she liked it even less > because she hadn't had any of it in a while and was thus not acclimated > to it.
I know folks like this. Like you, I took more to meat than to vegetables.
> So, today she's a vegetarian. Not for moral or health reasons, but > because she doesn't like meat. And guess what: she finds the smell of > it distasteful. In fact, she was chosen for a focus group when they > were building Central Market and she suggested they lay it out so that > nobody had to go through the meat section if they didn't want to, > because of the smell.
Interesting.
> So, if I were a vegetarian and I went to a vegetarian restaurant, one > of the attractions would be that I wouldn't have to smell meat.
Hmmm... I wonder how common your sister's preference is? In other words, would they lose more business or gain more if they added meat to the menu?
> It would be a lot like if there were restaurants that sold food that > was entirely free of celery, lima beans, and squash. I pretty much > hate those foods enough that a guarantee that I wouldn't even have to > smell them would be worth something to me.
I'm OK with celery, but am not fans of the other two. And there are plenty of other things I dislike. But having 'em on a plate across the table is no big deal.
I guess this is just a natural step in our current society, the chant of "I am Offended, and I Must Be Appeased." We've become a rather sickeningly self-centered group.
> Now, if you add in the moral dimension, the smell of meat becomes (for > some people) objectionable for two independent reasons. Since > vegetarian restaurants are there to serve people who find it > objectionable, it only makes sense for them to cater to what those > people want.
> In article <%V6J4.4109$Nm2.114...@news.swbell.net>, > Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote: > ><chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I > >went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a > >vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude > >from the waiter.
> Ask any vegetarian if they've even gotten a negative response from a > waiter or waitress when they tried to order stuff *without* meat at a > restaurant that serves meat. No, they usually don't get a moral > tirade, but sometimes the waiter/waitress (or cook) is unwilling to be > accomodating, and sometimes they get looked down upon or laughed at.
> So what's the difference between the "anyone who eats meat is a > murderer" and "anyone who doesn't eat meat is stupid and they should > just be normal like me" attitude?
Both are silly attitudes. But the presence of one does not justify the presence of the other.
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:00:17 -0500, Dusty Rhodes > <te...@texas.net> wrote: > > I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers > > me about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I > > can't stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less > > valuable living things.
> Come to think of it - that reminds me of what bothers me about the > whole "shooting people people is murder" meat eating crowd. It's > their blatant specieism I can't stand. How typically humanistic to > assume animals are less valuable living things.
<te...@texas.net> wrote: > I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers > me about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I > can't stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less > valuable living things.
Come to think of it - that reminds me of what bothers me about the whole "shooting people people is murder" meat eating crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't stand. How typically humanistic to assume animals are less valuable living things.
___________________________________________________________________________ o...@cs.utexas.edu soli deo gloria
|
