chembake wrote:

We don't have much to discuss.

Pastorio

>We don't have much to discuss.
>So you don't know about the magazine?

I think I have seen a specimen of that magazine...in my past visit to
the university library ....but did not get my interest to browse
it...Maybe ....as I already understood what culinology means.....What
is the need for more details then?....

chembake wrote:

>>We don't have much to discuss.
>>So you don't know about the magazine?
>
> I think I have seen a specimen of that magazine...in my past visit to
> the university library ....but did not get my interest to browse
> it...Maybe ....as I already understood what culinology means.....What
> is the need for more details then?....

What a profoundly ridiculous thing to say.

Pastorio

LOL! lick your wounds Bob!

chembake wrote:
> LOL! lick your wounds Bob!

Sure. Let's see...

So when I said you were insulting and you denied it and then insulted
more, that was an example of your sincerity and honesty, right? Or maybe
an attempt to wound, but sneakily, as I pointed out...

You talk like a Luddite, showing your deep unprofessionalism and your
proud ignorance, and I'm wounded? You don't know much food science
beyond water activity, but think you do and try to peddle the flawed
understanding here, and I'm wounded? You proudly exclaim that you don't
read books or professional publications, and I'm wounded? Your logic is
even worse than your phony, out-dated professionalism.

Could you be more of a clownish moron?

That's a rhetorical question. Don't bother your pretty little head about it.

Pastorio

LOL! shallow bob don't cry....okay...