MG wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>>MG wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>
>>>>MG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>>>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other
>>>>>peoples' experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of
>>>>>information out there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>>>
>>>>No. Not always. Rarely, actually. Just when they put on as determined a
>>>>show as this not to actually learn, in a reasonably systematic way, what
>>>>the hell they're doing. And, I know you'll be surprised about this, but
>>>>there are things called "cook-books" (not completely sure of the
>>>>spelling) that contain directions and explanations to guide the
>>>>processes. And are written from "other peoples' experiences" as seems so
>>>>important to you.
>>>>
>>>>Chicken stock is one of the simpler things to do in a kitchen. Very few
>>>>steps. Rather than blunder around screwing it up like the OP did,
>>>>wasting, time, energy, money, and our time as well, literally two minutes
>>>>spent reading a recipe from a cookbook would have answered all the
>>>>questions raised.
>>>>
>>>>It's a rather stupid laziness - especially intellectual - that makes a
>>>>person take all the time spent posting and cooking and screwing around
>>>>RATHER than just looking in a book or wandering into the vast,
>>>>incomprehensible, scary "Google-verse or whatever." Gawd...
>>>>
>>>>Are you two related?
>>>>
>>>>>sheesh
>>>>
>>>>Sheesh this.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't see too many helpful bits of information from you, or did I miss
>>>>something? Perhaps you neglected to note the replies I gave the person
>>>>and to what depth. Did you have anything to actually contribute to the
>>>>thread?
>>>>
>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>so because I didn't offer any advice to the OP re how to make a decent
>>>stock, my opinion about anything else in this thread doesn't count?
>>
>>No. Because you're a net nanny, fatuous in vision and standards, and
>>because you're a scolding nag. Your only opinion in this thread has been
>>about me and let's see if you can grasp a simple notion. I don't care what
>>you think of me. Given your lack of any other contribution, I see no
>>redeeming features, hence dismissal.
>>
>>I replied directly to your objections/questions in that first noisome post
>>of yours. How is it that it all zoomed past you so thoroughly?
>>
>>>think a lot of yourself
>>
>>Not really. But I think little of fools. Do go back up and read my
>>explanation at the top of this note. It explains it all very clearly.
>>
>>>anyone can make mistakes, even following an apparently tried and true
>>>recipe...the recipe itself might have a printing error, the person might
>>>be distracted by something else more important in their lives than a dead
>>>chook (or bones in this case) or whatever...I don't think making is a
>>>decent stock is SO important a thing in life that someone should be
>>>berated for getting it wrong
>>
>>Do you actually have anything to contribute or will you merely continue to
>>confabulate like this? Read the crap you just wrote and compare it with
>>what actually happened and see if your dudgeon has even the remotest
>>scintilla of merit. Somebody went off half-cocked and created a bullshit
>>broth not worth eating *because* he did nothing intelligent towards
>>getting the job done right before doing it. He didn't make mistakes
>>following a recipe; no typos; no misstatements in the directions he was
>>trying to follow. He wasn't following *any* directions. He was guessing
>>and fumbling, violating good sanitation practices creating potential
>>hazards for him and his family, ruining what could have been good food and
>>then asking how to fix a terminal case *of his negligent doing.* Smart,
>>huh...?
>>
>>All your might-be's and could-have-been's don't diminish the actual
>>events. I see you want to continue this and I'll be happy to comply, but
>>I'm growing as tired of your vacuity as I was of that OP's intellectual
>>laziness and I may soon begin to speak sharply to you and make you cross
>>with me. Neither of us would like that.
>>
>>
>>>and yes, I do know how to make a decent stock, but it was a process of
>>>trial and error to get it the way I like it, and I don't make it entirely
>>>the same way my chef father did, or my (great Italian cook) mother does
>>
>>Who cares? Did you nag them, too, with your might-be and could-be view of
>>the universe? Did you make excuses for negligent strangers then, too?
>>
>>Please. Killfile me. Your blood pressure will benefit. You'll sleep
>>better. I won't teach you anything new that you'll have to give me credit
>>for so I'll get all conceited, and be like HelloOo, and all. What's not to
>>like?
>>
>>No, seriously...
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> wow, barely had to bait the hook roflmao

Puhleeeeze. This is rich enough to leave untrimmed.

Get yourself all up in a fussy snit, complain to the group at large,
whine about "why can't we all just get along" ... and when your paltry
participation and particular pointlessness is spotlighted, you take the
last-resort retreat of "Hey, I wuz trolling all the time"...

That laughter rings as hollow as your thinking.

Give it up, Zippy. It's even more transparent than your ideas.

Pastorio