On May 17, 11:59*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
notbob > wrote:

> >A statement I never made.
> >Not only is your reading comprehension abysmal, but it appears you are
> >not above lying like a rug to make yer point.
>
> My reading comprehension is fine. *You seemed to think it was okay
> to refer to kidney beans as red beans, citing one recipe and
> one wikipedia entry. *You continue to slide sideways.
>
> The wikipedia entry is wrong, and for all you know the Prudhomme
> recipe is wrong too -- often, food editors make substitutions
> before publishing a chef's recipe. *(A common one being substituting
> a more well-known ingredient for the one in the original recipe.)


As an unbiased outsider who read the comments in question from both
of you, it's just a misunderstanding - perhaps a wanted one, but a
misunderstanding non the less. The notbob guy never said the red
beans were kidney beans. He did call kidney beans red beans though,
and they are red, so from that the misunderstanding grew. So, unless
you guys actually enjoy arguing with each other - and from the tone of
your exchange I suspect you do - in the meantime please accept my
unbiased outside opinion on this matter which is that both of you are
guilty of reading too fast (I'm guilty of that too), while already
concocting in your responses in your head - but I'm going to drop
those charges as I believe there is room for growth from both of you.
Now get the hell out of this court and don't let me see either one of
you in here again.

TJ