I mean i love me a cheese coney from skyline w/ sauce mustard cheese and hot sauce ..

.. but they still doesn't compare to a footlong hotdog from RAY'S FREEZE on east state street in athens ?

BANG !! .. OH BABY WHAT A BIG TIME FOOTLONG !!

^^^^THIS^^^^ The world did not need Pepsi. All their product competition accomplished was Pepsi, which sucks, at way too many restaurants and entertainment venues as they underbid (price), overbid (fee) Coke - THE REAL THING!

You ARE completely right, but if you don't tell her about my typo I won't either! ;-)

Cheeseball. Take a dip w/a cracker every Bean 3 ball heave. Should only take 2 games within a week to get through that cheeseball.....

Or:

http://www.foodnetwork.com/topics/blue-cheese.html

JSF, only one of the links to that site that you provided actually lead to a video that would play on my computer. Not sure what the problem was; however, what I did watch was hysterical attempts to scare folks by taking all kinds of studies out of context and then stringing together one kind of provocative statement after another without any real context.

Though I don't agree with everything in them, here are few links with information presented in a little less hysterical fashion. Some of this information is actually based on peer-reviewed studies quoted in context:

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/04/12/artif...

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm397711...

http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Side--Side-Comparisons-Ar...

http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/sweeteners-ar...

There is no reasonable way you could watch a video from that site and think it's hysterical. Did you click on "sources cited"? Because everything on the site is sourced.

Your links are weak. The most substantive thing is "they don't cause cancer," which is not an argument anyone is making anymore. They do not address the fact the brain regards sugar and sugar substitutes differently and this difference may be causing us to overconsume when using substitutes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096409

Oh, and they could cause glucose intolerance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231862

JSF, your last links appeared to be good scientific studies, sans hysteria, so we are making some progress. The first link has some interesting info on the difference in brain response to sucrose vs sucralose. It posits a theoretical reason -- due to different levels of stimulation of particular portions of the brain -- why artificial sweeteners might not satisfy one's "sweet tooth" and lead to more consumption of sucrose in other forms. Over the years, I've read a number of clinical studies that have looked at this phenomenon and the results have been very mixed. My conclusion is that it probably occurs in some people and not others. I remember one study that showed that people who consumed aspartame over compensated and then consumed more sucrose than they would have otherwise. It was not a particularly well-done study and was kind of an outlier.

Here's the portion of the link in question that I found interesting: "(3) sucrose elicits a stronger brain response in the anterior insula, frontal operculum, striatum and anterior cingulate, compared to sucralose; (4) only sucrose, but not sucralose, stimulation engages dopaminergic midbrain areas in relation to the behavioral pleasantness response. Thus, brain response distinguishes the caloric from the non-caloric sweetener, although the conscious mind could not. This could have important implications on how effective artificial sweeteners are in their ability to substitute sugar intake."

Now, the other link was problematical. It did not indicate the type of artificial sweetener being studied, but one of the related links on the bottom seems to indicate that it was saccharin. This is the most questionable of all artificial sweeteners available in the U.S. Results related to it probably don't apply to the others. A number of years ago the FDA wanted to ban saccharin in the U.S. There was a public outcry. Congress pressured the FDA to backdown, and saccharin was allowed to be continued to used in the US for some purposes. Do you have a link to the full article rather than just the abstract?

Here's an interesting link on the subject, particularly toward the end in the section on quantity of consumption considered safe. Your one or two bottles of diet beverage a day -- which several posters had mentioned -- is nowhere near the upper limit:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/Food...

(steam coming out my ears)

Who the hell turned this fun difference of petty opinion thread into a huge debate? There is no topic I debate more in than the fear mongering anti-GMO movement...But I refuse to take part in destroying this thread.

Instead, circling back to the Coke/Pepsi discussion...Come on RSB, every good product needs a competitor to push them on innovation, price, etc. It is possible to despise Pepsi but see their value. If you think the original is the only way to go, I hope you only drive Ford cars and use MySpace.

I eat fresh and eat local all the time. My wife is a regular shopper at the Athens Farmer's Market. Just came back from a meal at Purple Chopsticks. However, the fear-mongering in this thread is just getting over the top. The FDA may have its flaws, but it is the best such governmental body in the world. But, as another poster said, this is probably not the place to debate this matter.

but it is the best such governmental body in the world.

wow.

All we got to do now is figure out who is the best such pg in Athens.

jaaron simmons ?

The devolution into scientific mumbo jumbo is unprofessional. There's a reason this board has rules.

Chemtrails.