Bob Pastorio wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Charles Gifford wrote:
>>
>>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford
>>>> when
>>>> P. dove in, not the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> jim
>>>
>>>
>>> Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that you
>>> first addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post
>>> because it did not seem to require any comment from me. Bob responded
>>> very well to your post.
>>> Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to as Bob
>>> covered them well.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>> Does not change the fact that I did not start the problem with P., he
>> did.
>
>
> Hey shitwit JimLane. Here's the URL for the thread where you've been so
> grievously put upon. <http://tinyurl.com/2drcz>
>
> Read for content and tone, particularly your posts. I wrote what I did
> in reply to a rather shallow, clearly erroneous, combative note of
> yours. It seems to be more important to you to "win" something than to
> actually engage in discourse.
>
> You argue like a child by introducing irrelevancies and slippery
> qualifications with little regard for anything approaching truth or
> balance. After the "I didn't start it" ploy becomes too transparent, I
> expect your version of "I'm rubber; you're glue" to make its way here.
>
> Quit whining.
>
> Pastorio
>

Still waiting for that verifiable, peer-reviewed research that supports
your claim that small amounts of additional salt from salted butter are
undetectable in taste by people.


jim