On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:43:55 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>
>>>>LurfysMa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
>>>>>and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
>>>>>the carcass and set aside. The carcass including neck, feet, a few
>>>>>giblets,
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
>>>>damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background info
>>>>you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise, making
>>>>bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying instead of
>>>>doing it right the first time...
>>>>
>>>>>Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>>>>
>>>>Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.
>>>>
>>>>>I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
>>>>>or do I need to wait?
>>>>
>>>>It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
>>>>to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
>>>>deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.
>>>>
>>>>>When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
>>>>>ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
>>>>>what proportions?
>>>>
>>>>Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.
>>>>
>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>sheesh
>>>
>> Sad, isn't it?
>
><sob> It's one of the blights of our modern era that one can't simply
>shoot people that think differently. Why when we were kids...
>
>> In fact, the OP has been investigating what goes into
>> making various dishes before executing them.
>
>Lovely. I guess that's why there were so many questions about what to do
>*after* thoroughly screwing it up, right?
>
> > For example, before
>> asking on rfc, he (the OP is male) looked for recipes for beef stew
>> and found hundreds with different proportions and flavorings. Because
>> it was so confusing, he then posted a request on rfc asking for advice
>> and general guidelines for stew from people who have experience. He
>> got quite a bit of helpful advice from regulars, including one to
>> experiment rather than use a recipe. All of those previous replies
>> were quite nice and pleasant.
>
>One kind of situation. Not like the stock one at all. But hey, Curly Sue
>is still upset with me from the last time we tangled. Little sidelong
>swipe, right? Just another small try at a poke?
>
>> On the other hand, Pastorio ignored the OPs requests for advice
>> *before* making the stock, and instead decided to respond afterwards
>> with derision.
>
>It's a singular astonishment that you feel you can alter history just by
>writing things. Did it escape your note that the thread began with an
>inquiry about chicken feet for stock and that I replied in rather
>lengthy detail? Slipped right by you, did it? My *seven* replies all
>giving technical information about stocks and making them? Missed them,
>did you?
>
>And when the OP started a new thread - this one - where most of that
>advice was ignored and a lot of guesswork went into making a crap broth
>not even fit for animals and I still added more information, I guess
>that slipped past you, too, right? I note you both focussed on the part
>you find so desperately improper but seem to have zoomed right past the
>small textbook on stockmaking I posted. What a surprise.
>
>You two demonstrate the sad triumph of form over content.
>
>> So it's not that he couldn't be bothered to answer
>> -look at how much time he spent- but that it's more fun for him to
>> criticize after the fact and look like a such a hot shot in the
>> mirror.
>
>If you had the brains of the chicken that died to make a pot of crap
>broth, you'd actually read what you wrote and scratch it out before
>anyone else saw it. In the case of sincere questers who had done some
>preliminary reading or listening, I wrote lots of information. And even
>in the case of the bonehead who plunged ahead with stock making
>stupidly, I still offered a lot of information. But I also explained why
>it was stupid. And it was.
>
>I'd like to say I'm sorry it distresses you, but I can't. You've shown
>yourself to be more caught up in ego than education.
>
>> And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
>> answer to this
>
>Like the ad says about that investment house, "You got it the
>old-fashioned way. You earned it."
>
>But it's especially cute of you to try to use someone else's post to get
>back at me from your last humiliation.
>
>Did you offer much information about stocks? Did MG? Oh...
>
>Pastorio

I found Bob's informative series on stocks to be pure gold. As long as
he keeps doing that sort of thing, he can insult me anytime he wants.


Rodney Myrvaagnes J 36 Gjo/a


Kansas--working to become a science-free zone