That Big Egg lobby is relentless and simply rolls over people leaving them mere shells of their former selves.

OMG, Rob. Did my father, the king of really, really bad puns, start hanging out in your brain?

He definitely infested my brother, who, every year, sends me the worst pun filled birthday card he can find.

I was talking to an older friend of mine Ken M and he said that in his day the eggs his dear mother made were half the size of today's eggs. He says the real reason eggs are bigger is because Big Plate has increased the government's specification for plate sizes they didn't want anyone to notice.

What we need is a nutritionist getting sued for causing diabetes type 2.

So now we got the official guidelines which supports nutritionists, so nobody can get sued really cuz "I'm just following the official guidelines". I mean, what gubermint is gonna sue somebody who does exactly what this gubermint says to do, right? But there's a trick. This same gubermint does not say "Thou Shalt Cause Diabetes". The trick is that the application of the official guidelines is done by people. There's a distinction between the advice and the person who gives it. Therefore, whoever causes diabetes - by whatever means, including by following the official guidelines - isn't doing their job right and can get sued for that especially since somebody got sick as a direct consequence of their professional advice.

Think of it as if he was a genuine medical practitioner giving wrong advice and made people sick as a result of this wrong advice. I bet that argument has been used in the case at hand. Well, nutritionists want to be considered equal, yes? Nutritionists therefore are also responsible for the consequences of their professional advice, no matter how official or accepted or standard this advice may be. When it's wrong, it's wrong.

The act of making somebody sick (or of making somebody well) supersedes the act of conforming (or of non-conforming) to guidelines, when considering fault.

Everybody does it, it can't be wrong! Yeah, that's what the judge thinks too.

Heh, Marc. When I used to run Weight Loss Challenges, the week we really emphasized portion control, I brought three dinner plates.

One is from a depression glass pattern, that I use for special meals.

One is from a set that my sister bought in the 70's.

And one is from our current every day dishes.

The increase in size, over the 4 decades from the Depression to the 70's, is noticeable. But the increase from the 70's to now is astonishing. I nearly always use a salad plate for my dinner. It's very slightly smaller than the depression glass dinner plate.

I heard Michael Moore is going to do a movie on Big Plate.

And in the 1950's a bottle of Coca Cola was 6 oz (not 12, 16, 32 or 64!). Coffee was drunk with meals in 6-8 oz cups, not in monster mugs or disposable cups with sippy holes to be carried around all day.

One of Voltaire's quotes that has stayed with me since I first read it: "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

Other applicable Voltaire quotes are:
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere" and "Common sense is not so common"

I've used luncheon plates for dinner plates for many years. After our parents died, my sister wanted the china and gave me what was left of her more casual set bought maybe 10 years ago. The dinner plates are huge - I use them as serving platters. Or as dinner plates if I haven't washed dishes for a few days. Our meals look so small on them.

The same is true for flatware. I have an Oneida stainless set from the 70's, and often thought about replacing it with a more modern looking set, but the size of the spoons and forks nowadays is outrageous - my dinner forks (the tines) are actually shorter than the dessert forks available now, and my soup spoons are smaller than the currently available teaspoons. The new knives are longer too, but not noticeably as much larger as the forks and spoons - not to mention that you don't load the food up on your knife to eat.

I suppose the bigger eating implements were necessary because the smaller size flatware looks somewhat lilliputian next to the bigger plates. I realize that bigger eating implements doesn't mean you necessarily need to take bigger bites, and shovel all the carbs they want you to eat into your face faster, but it's definitely part of the whole trend towards taking bigger bites of bigger meals on bigger plates.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/fn1p...g?cb=1392039953

This gives plate size going from 8.5 to 12 inches since the 60's. I just measured one of our plates--ten inches. Guess we're stuck in the 80's.

The 60's plate is given as holding 800 calories, the 2009 plate as holding 1900 calories. I could stack an a̶w̶f̶u̶l̶ awesome lot of butter on either plate, I'm not sure I'm buying it.

It's times like this that I am grateful for the eternal window of time for editing.

It took reading "40 decades" in my post above three separate times, over the course of half a day, before I noticed it.

40 years. 4 decades.

Maybe there's another way to look at the Big Plate thing. We were encouraged to eat lower calorie density foods. So we went out and got bigger plates.

I use glass dinnerware from the 40's. It was our Passover dinnerware when I was growing up. I just measured the dinner plate. Yup, 9".

Jean