Comments on: meat product http://www.beerdrinker.org/2003/10/23/meat-product/ Beer is Good Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:19:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Veggie beer drinker 2 http://www.beerdrinker.org/2003/10/23/meat-product/comment-page-1/#comment-343 Veggie beer drinker 2 Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:19:51 +0000 http://www.beerdrinker.org/?p=270#comment-343 I was looking into this when i found your post, I have been told that guiness is one of the worst drinks for containing meat products (though i dont know if this is true). Stick to Beck's - it has the ingredients on the label. I was looking into this when i found your post, I have been told that guiness is one of
the worst drinks for containing meat products (though i dont know if this is true). Stick
to Beck’s – it has the ingredients on the label.

]]> By: lat http://www.beerdrinker.org/2003/10/23/meat-product/comment-page-1/#comment-318 lat Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:02:22 +0000 http://www.beerdrinker.org/?p=270#comment-318 Hello, hello. Could somebody please let me know more about meat by products used in beer brewing? I've read about many British brewers using the underbelly of sturgeons as fining agents, which is enough to prompt me to stick to guiness... only if that doesn't have products in it I don't want to know about. Greatly appreciated - Veggie beer drinker Hello, hello. Could somebody please let me know more about meat by products used in beer brewing? I’ve read about many British brewers using the underbelly of sturgeons as fining agents, which is enough to prompt me to stick to guiness… only if that doesn’t have products in it I don’t want to know about. Greatly appreciated
- Veggie beer drinker

]]> By: rick http://www.beerdrinker.org/2003/10/23/meat-product/comment-page-1/#comment-264 rick Fri, 24 Oct 2003 03:08:11 +0000 http://www.beerdrinker.org/?p=270#comment-264 funny...I actually had cut this post somewhat shorter than its original, in which I would have made a few of those points, though I don't agree with all of them: 1) true 2) true. One of the earlier arguments against spam was that it levees the cost of advertisement onto the advertisee though. This is not as apparently true in this time of aol and netzero static pricing, but we still do pay a price. And in other countries where the internet is not as prevalent there is a more noticable bandwidth and cost issue. 3) true, amazingly 4) I agree completely. Mostly. I don't recall cold-calls to the effect, do you enjoy candlelight dinners? Well, how about sticking a candle...? Really. I used to work as abusemaster (best title ever!) for an ISP, which is where I got many of my views on spam. There were some people who would go through the trouble of forwarding all of their spam to me. All five per day. So I'm in agreement about the elitistness of the anti-spam movement. Honestly, I believe that unsolicited email is one of the great instruments that could be used by small businesses to compete with the conglomerates. Unfortunately, as it stands now it is horribly targeted. Sending viagra ads to kids, penis enlargement ads to lesbians, spam is totally without prejudice. The reason that people don't get worked up about a large visible company sending mail is that they know that they most likely signed up for it. Also, there's some assurance that a request to be removed will be honored. On the other hand, there are so many scams and false ads, the nobodies out there are damaged because of tactics like using unsubscribe lists to verify email addresses. funny…I actually had cut this post somewhat shorter than its original, in which I would have made a few of those points, though I don’t agree with all of them:
1) true
2) true. One of the earlier arguments against spam was that it levees the cost of advertisement onto the advertisee though. This is not as apparently true in this time of aol and netzero static pricing, but we still do pay a price. And in other countries where the internet is not as prevalent there is a more noticable bandwidth and cost issue.
3) true, amazingly
4) I agree completely. Mostly. I don’t recall cold-calls to the effect, do you enjoy candlelight dinners? Well, how about sticking a candle…? Really. I used to work as abusemaster (best title ever!) for an ISP, which is where I got many of my views on spam. There were some people who would go through the trouble of forwarding all of their spam to me. All five per day.
So I’m in agreement about the elitistness of the anti-spam movement. Honestly, I believe that unsolicited email is one of the great instruments that could be used by small businesses to compete with the conglomerates. Unfortunately, as it stands now it is horribly targeted. Sending viagra ads to kids, penis enlargement ads to lesbians, spam is totally without prejudice.
The reason that people don’t get worked up about a large visible company sending mail is that they know that they most likely signed up for it. Also, there’s some assurance that a request to be removed will be honored. On the other hand, there are so many scams and false ads, the nobodies out there are damaged because of tactics like using unsubscribe lists to verify email addresses.

]]> By: nader http://www.beerdrinker.org/2003/10/23/meat-product/comment-page-1/#comment-263 nader Fri, 24 Oct 2003 02:41:31 +0000 http://www.beerdrinker.org/?p=270#comment-263 I heard a fairly persuasive defense of spam in one of those guest opinion bits on NPR a few weeks ago. The points went something like this: (1) It produces less paper waste than traditional junk mail; (2) the lower cost of sending spam vs. traditional junk mail lowers the cost advertising in general, which is a boon to small and emerging businesses; (3) It actually works - people do buy, read, etc. the stuff they get spammed with; (4) it's less intrusive than a cold-call [remember the No-Call list?]. They also made the point spam-bashing is somewhat elitist. No one gets mad when they get spam from people they either do, or want to do business with (wouldn't even call it spam, that's just advertising). Example, most people wouldn't care if they got ads for BMWs or Patagonia in their inbox, but get worked up over septic tank treatment or penile enlargements. I heard a fairly persuasive defense of spam in one of those guest opinion bits on NPR a few weeks ago. The points went something like this: (1) It produces less paper waste than traditional junk mail; (2) the lower cost of sending spam vs. traditional junk mail lowers the cost advertising in general, which is a boon to small and emerging businesses; (3) It actually works – people do buy, read, etc. the stuff they get spammed with; (4) it’s less intrusive than a cold-call [remember the No-Call list?].

They also made the point spam-bashing is somewhat elitist. No one gets mad when they get spam from people they either do, or want to do business with (wouldn’t even call it spam, that’s just advertising). Example, most people wouldn’t care if they got ads for BMWs or Patagonia in their inbox, but get worked up over septic tank treatment or penile enlargements.

]]>