NRR: Girl In Coffee Shop This Morning

Interested Looker wrote:

There was a really hot girl in the coffee shop this morning who initiated a conversation with me. I was interested in her up until she chose the regular, white, table sugar over the Sugar in the Raw packets.

With the obvious health benefits surrounding raw sugar over refined sugar, why would she do this? I am suspicious of people who use refined sugar and wheat. There is just no reason to do so, particularly if both are offered for free.

I just feel as though a big part of my life is based on healthy, sustainable foods, and I don't want to date a junk food girl.

Is this a mistake?

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for this type of behaviour. I agree with you that she is not worth your time. Hopefully you smacked her upside the head and told her to repent her sugar sins. We just don't have time for these types of people.

She should be worried about potential brain and throat cancer issues due to your excessive use of your Blackberry, as well as carpel tunnel issues. Really, with all the research nowadays, why would anyone risk their health like that? I think she's better off without you.

Author: Interested Looker

Subject: RE: NRR: Girl In Coffee Shop This Morning

Message:

Here is a pic I got of her with my iphone:

http://bit.ly/2JWwuC

barf

Jesus Christ man. I know a beautiful, intelligent, athletic, educated woman who uses refined sugar in her coffee. She has no issues at all. She's like the perfect person.

Interested Looker wrote:

Here is a pic I got of her with my iphone:

http://bit.ly/2JWwuC

Thank you, this puts the whole discussion in perspective.

Flagpole wrote:

That's $2,007.50 per year on coffee, or the equivalent of a decent vacation or $964,647.46 if invested from age 22 to age 65 at 9% annual return.

Haha! Sent that to one coffee addicted friend already and still laughing! Great post!

Interested Looker wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

In all seriousness though, if you're judging a woman like that when you're not even dating her...dude, you might just die alone.

That is what I am worried about. Thanks for spelling it out. I am going to be on the lookout for her.

_______________________________________________________

In the likely event she shoots you down there is a lovely woman residing in the best school district in the Columbus, OH area who is very lonely and "needy". I think you would have a shot at her.

Apparenly her husband spends all his time pontificating on stocks and investing and on weekends plays cover tunes with the other dorks in his "band".

Word has it that he also has a full-sized Scott Fry doll attached to a skateboard that he takes to the local track and rolls down the straight away. He then out kicks the Fry doll to the finish line.

As the police were taking him away he was screaming at the doll: "HOW DOES THAT TASTE, BEE-OTCH????!!!!"

uh. thanks for killing the thread.

Pantman wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

That's $2,007.50 per year on coffee, or the equivalent of a decent vacation or $964,647.46 if invested from age 22 to age 65 at 9% annual return.

Haha! Sent that to one coffee addicted friend already and still laughing! Great post!

Glad you liked it Pantman. While the math is correct and I do actually greatly consider all purchases I make, I'm not about to suggest people remove all pleasures from their lives. Someone wants to spend $2000 or more a year on coffee then more power to them; not what I would do, but to each his own.

Sandwich wrote:

7e6 wrote:

This is roughly equivalent to "the obvious health benefits of filtered cigarettes over unfiltered."

I don't think I understand... Is it also similar to "The obvious environmental benefits of hybrid cars vs. traditional gasoline."

One is better than the other. Choose the better option.

No, it's not quite similar, because to talk about *health* "benefits" while discussing sugar (or cigarettes) can be misleading.

No form of sugar (or tobacco cigarette) has been shown to *benefit* the health. To say that something is (maybe) a little less likely to kill you is not the same as saying that it's beneficial.

7e6 wrote:

No form of sugar (or tobacco cigarette) has been shown to *benefit* the health. To say that something is (maybe) a little less likely to kill you is not the same as saying that it's beneficial.

So it is the same. No form of gasoline emission has been proven to be better for the environment.

So what that other guy said is EXACTLY like the sugar conundrum.

Anyway, raw sugar does have health benefits. The benefits come from the fact that raw sugar maintains its molasses content.

Go jump off of a bridge, Mr. Know It All.

Oiled Body wrote:

So it is the same. No form of gasoline emission has been proven to be better for the environment.

So what that other guy said is EXACTLY like the sugar conundrum.

Anyway, raw sugar does have health benefits. The benefits come from the fact that raw sugar maintains its molasses content.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=118

Go jump off of a bridge, Mr. Know It All.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 7e6 got PWN3D!!!!!!!!!11!!1eleventy!!1

probably banned wrote:

uh. thanks for killing the thread.

No problem Willy. Thanks for having no sense of humor and reporting me to the mods.

Interested Looker wrote:

There was a really hot girl in the coffee shop this morning who initiated a conversation with me. I was interested in her up until she chose the regular, white, table sugar over the Sugar in the Raw packets.

You drink coffee, and are concerned with someone using sugar?

Her comment that she "lost" her blackberry was a hint, that you should "lose" yours.