aem wrote:

> On Mar 14, 4:30�pm, Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>
>>Its not so much that im surprised or amazed that anyone would try to
>>suggest that not only what i write but where i write is in any way
>>inappropriate �as much as i am curious as to why it should matter so
>>much to you "Melba" that you could not only interpret my comments as in
>>any way inappropriately placed but that you felt the need to express
>>such a thought publicly, as i read it, as a criticism of my description
>>of a dish with similar ingredients and baked rather than fried?
>
>
> Are you really this dense, not to mention pompous?

You hadn't noticed?

> All she is gently
> and humorously suggesting is that the dishes you and the other poster
> describe might be good and tasty but they don't meet the ordinary
> definition of "hash". Like many other dishes, this one is defined not
> just by its ingredients but by its mode of cooking.

Yeah but the mere fact of doing that seems a bit odd to me. Like what
does it matter that i was tweaking the subject, changing its flow
somewhat? its a very tasty dish and there have been several threads on
it here comparing the French "a la boulangiere" and the Italian
"Tuscano" versions of potato wrapped meat dishes.

Were talking meat and potatoes here, and other than when talking to
Royalty, changing the subject in a conversation is usually acceptable,
especially when any change is just a variation on a theme.

So you can see why i was a bit confused by an accusation of being
inappropriate.
>
>
>> .... i don't get the joke,
>
>
> More than you know..... -aem

It goes to a theory of humour that maintains "all humour is based on
suffering" that's why i had mine surgically removed
--
JL
>