On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:02:40 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:31:53 +1300, "~misfit~"
> wrote:
>
>>Because my newsreader pulled in 75 thousand old posts and I quickly scanned
>>through before morking them all read. Do you have a problem with that? I
>>didn't compell you to read it.
>>--
>Why are you compelled to respond to threads that are dead? Please
>note this is an active group unlike most on usenet. We don't need
>anyone responding to past threads just to keep the ng alive.

Nothing wrong about responding to an old thread (a thread about
"sandwiches" can never be dead), but the poster should be compelled to
add something new/unique rather than start an argument about the
definition of sandwhich or be told in no uncertain terms to STFU!

Anyone else scrape away the icing and refill Oreo sammiches with PB n'
orange marmalade... can build chocolate snap cookie sandwiches too.
What would yoose suggest as sandwich fillings for vanilla snaps,
ginger snaps?