It doesn't say "General games discussion" though. Nor have the GOG team set up any rules or guidelines whatsoever against non-game talk, only against bad language.

Oh, I'd love to eat only raw meat. Maybe you can recommend some recipes. The only raw meat I have ever prepared is sushi, carpaccio, kibbeh and a curried variety of kibbeh.

People really object to non-gaming related topics here?
Lame.
If it weren't allowed, gog staff would have jumped in and said something a long time ago.

The current topic is; "News Flash: Nutella isn't actually healthy."

You know, last time you declared someone as asshole (in fact just an 'ass' that time). I declared you had a god complex. To which you got very upset and argued heavily with me. I backed off then because I assumed I'd jumped the gun, but now again here you are judging...

The general topic of GOG is classic video games.

The general answer to such a silly assertion is "no." Actually I don't see what video games have to do with Nutella at all. You seem to be off topic. Do you have anything relevant to contribute?

From the please read sticky:

"Welcome to GOG.com General Discussion. We've created this forum to provide you with a friendly and casual environment to discuss all the topics that are not suitable for other (game-specific) GOG.com forums."

It doesn't say anything about topics being only related to video games
Nutella is a topic not suitable for the other game specific forums, so it is acceptable here.

There are alternates. Here's one... One just ensures that the oil is unrefined, and was pressed not chemically extracted. And that it remains high in the polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids.

That is clearly a more favourable alternative. It even comes in a glass jar by the looks of it. But there is still the environmental impact of harvesting palm oil to be concerned about. Also, I personally just don't enjoy the flavour of chocolate-anything on toast.

All three are awesome but only steamed for me.

As for this, well, yes of course it's a frivolous lawsuit, no question, but I doubt it's as simple as the woman being too stupid to figure out that it was in fact unhealthy. The whole thing reeks of calculation, like pretty much every other frivolous lawsuit out there in fact. The woman found a technicality she could exploit for the courts (in this case, the "false" advertisements), brought it to an at least decent lawyer, and made a mint. Not as much as other people have off of these things, but $3.5 mil is nothing to sneeze at, and certainly not "idiot" material.

It's fine, I already forgave you, gee... Don't be so hard on yourself ;).

If you had the diligence to look into the issue at hand, you'd notice that I'm right. If you did some research, you'd find out that TheJoe has been doing this for quite some time now... raising my frustration level with every unimaginative variation on the same fallacy that he only implicitly tries to lead us to. The last time we had an OVERT discussion of this particular issue, his stance got mauled and shredded, with basically no one left standing on the "this-is-not-the-place" side. He basically went into guerrilla warfare mode from then on, never explicitly bringing his point up but popping up in various threads, leaving a few words that contained a thinly veiled "You shouldn't be discussing this, let me remind of of what this place is called".

The last time you were insulting me, you claimed it's the formal structure (perhaps an air of unwarranted self-importance and pretentiousness) that you find repulsive. I said - very well. There was a philosopher who said that there are two styles of philosophizing - like a preacher and like a jester. I figured you disliked me being the serious preacher, so I ditched that style and started typing out stuff that's more light-hearted, casual in tone, perhaps sarcastic. Instead of alluding to philosophers, I started linking to TheOnion - a satirical website... But there's no pleasing you, is there ?
I seriously have no idea what your expectations of me are but I'd gladly get a second opinion. So far - others don't seem to mind my style; in fact - even when I dread getting an upset reply at some controversial point I've made, most of the time the responding post is either of a GOGer saying "You know - that's actually a good point" or showing me something I've missed in my reasoning... So maybe it's not me, but rather you ?

Nutella also contains the cocoa.

For environmental concerns, there are various public organizations which certify standards. Also standards for wages, and sustainability, and more. But many millions of dollars are spent to keep these standards off of product labeling, and many more millions to wage an opinion war. Monsanto even tried to get the US gov to interfere with foreign nations whose people overwhelmingly choose not to consume GMO's. In the US, they keep that info, and other, off our product labels because they know many of us would choose alternatives. So it is up to us to look beyond the labeling. And buy from those companies which don't rape, pillage, and poison.

Sorry about any confusion: I don't eat Nutella either. I'm only here for the discussion. :P

And unfortunately I can't say I am aware of every terrible thing Monsanto does in your country. I find it easy enough to make most things from scratch (without corn or corn derivatives) anyway. I'm sure I could whip up something Nutella-esque of my own if I really wanted to. All it would take is some quality ingredients and a blender.