Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting total
carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. In
addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar
(sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means
people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and
desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."

Read it he
http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001

I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I
expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is really
"Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.")

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
> total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended.
> In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar
> (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means
> people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and
> desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>
> Read it he
> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>
> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I
> expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is
> really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their
> "brands.")

That's nothing new!

Julie Bove > wrote:

: "Janet" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
: > total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended.
: > In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar
: > (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means
: > people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and
: > desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
: >
: > Read it he
: > http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
: >
: > I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I
: > expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is
: > really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their
: > "brands.")

: That's nothing new!
For many of us it is, at least the Remedy Health Services part.

Wendy

"W. Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>
> : "Janet" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
> : > total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not
> recommended.
> : > In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary
> sugar
> : > (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That
> means
> : > people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates
> and
> : > desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
> : >
> : > Read it he
> : >
> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
> : >
> : > I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of
> ethics I
> : > expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is
> : > really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their
> : > "brands.")
>
> : That's nothing new!
> For many of us it is, at least the Remedy Health Services part.

No, no. I mean the advice!

Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide
feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then maybe,
just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I am not one
to just accept things My local MP etc must be quite sick of me, lol.
But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to think that my
opinions of government policy eventually get heard. Perhaps the same
could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like killfiling. You can't know
what else comes out of there. Make a stand! I won't use that "occupy"
word - shudder

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
> total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not
> recommended. In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for
> ordinary sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total
> calories. That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of
> sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>
> Read it he
> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>
> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of
> ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of
> course, it is really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one
> of their "brands.")
>

Ozgirl wrote:
> Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide
> feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then
> maybe, just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I
> am not one to just accept things My local MP etc must be quite
> sick of me, lol. But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to
> think that my opinions of government policy eventually get heard.
> Perhaps the same could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like
> killfiling. You can't know what else comes out of there. Make a
> stand! I won't use that "occupy" word - shudder

I actually did call their customer service line and register a vociferous
complaint. They carefully do NOT provide a comment forum or email address
where you can register a comment. I am angry enough about it to track down
someone via the JHU website, and will probably do so in the next few days.
(I actually have some connection to JHU, albeit a different branch of the
university.)

On 10/27/2011 5:39 PM, Janet wrote:
> Ozgirl wrote:
>> Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide
>> feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then
>> maybe, just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I
>> am not one to just accept things My local MP etc must be quite
>> sick of me, lol. But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to
>> think that my opinions of government policy eventually get heard.
>> Perhaps the same could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like
>> killfiling. You can't know what else comes out of there. Make a
>> stand! I won't use that "occupy" word - shudder
>
> I actually did call their customer service line and register a vociferous
> complaint. They carefully do NOT provide a comment forum or email address
> where you can register a comment. I am angry enough about it to track down
> someone via the JHU website, and will probably do so in the next few days.
> (I actually have some connection to JHU, albeit a different branch of the
> university.)
>
>
but they know names..........

networking is great

k

Julie Bove wrote:


> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
> more carbs.

There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just fine.
Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was said you
will get my point.

As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you can
find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is obviously
designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I suggest reading
the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How they define it, and
the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
>
>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
>> more carbs.
>
> There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just
> fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was
> said you will get my point.
>
> As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you
> can find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is
> obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I
> suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How
> they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth.

It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a meaningless
book. I'm an atheist!

I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm sure
it didn't say that at all.

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
>>> more carbs.
>>
>> There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just
>> fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what
>> was said you will get my point.
>>
>> As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible:
>> you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want.
>> It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real
>> message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight
>> control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe
>> to it, and so forth.
>
> It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a
> meaningless book. I'm an atheist!
>
> I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm
> sure it didn't say that at all.

I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That is
not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on
their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's
opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification
for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one
part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I suggested
that she go look at another part of it, which says something quite
different.

Since you insist on being literal minded to a degree that doesn't admit the
existence of metaphor or simile, I suggest you go back and reread my posts.
Then show me where I said "more." In fact, a simple glimpse at the thread
title will tell you that I used the word "those."

The article from Remedy, puporting to be from JHU, quotes various
authorities in stating that it is dangerous to go below 130 gms of carb per
day in the long term. I would venture to guess that would mean that the vast
majority of T2 diabetics who are controlling their HBA1C below 6 using diet,
exercise, and perhaps metformin, would indeed have to eat significantly more
carbs to meet their recomendation. It certainly would mean that for me.

But frankly, I think the ultimate goal of Remedy Health Systems and big
pharma and all of the medical industrial establishment is to make big $$.
And one of the best ways to do that is to push T2s on to expensive
medications. They aren't going to make big $$ if T2s control their BGs
without taking all of those expensive drugs that, according to studies,
perform no better than the cheap generic: metformin.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
>>>> more carbs.
>>>
>>> There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just
>>> fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what
>>> was said you will get my point.
>>>
>>> As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible:
>>> you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want.
>>> It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real
>>> message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight
>>> control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe
>>> to it, and so forth.
>>
>> It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a
>> meaningless book. I'm an atheist!
>>
>> I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm
>> sure it didn't say that at all.
>
> I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That
> is not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on
> their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's
> opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification
> for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one
> part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I
> suggested that she go look at another part of it, which says something
> quite different.
>
> Since you insist on being literal minded to a degree that doesn't admit
> the existence of metaphor or simile, I suggest you go back and reread my
> posts. Then show me where I said "more." In fact, a simple glimpse at the
> thread title will tell you that I used the word "those."
>
> The article from Remedy, puporting to be from JHU, quotes various
> authorities in stating that it is dangerous to go below 130 gms of carb
> per day in the long term. I would venture to guess that would mean that
> the vast majority of T2 diabetics who are controlling their HBA1C below 6
> using diet, exercise, and perhaps metformin, would indeed have to eat
> significantly more carbs to meet their recomendation. It certainly would
> mean that for me.
>
> But frankly, I think the ultimate goal of Remedy Health Systems and big
> pharma and all of the medical industrial establishment is to make big $$.
> And one of the best ways to do that is to push T2s on to expensive
> medications. They aren't going to make big $$ if T2s control their BGs
> without taking all of those expensive drugs that, according to studies,
> perform no better than the cheap generic: metformin.

I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has gone
on for so long now I can't remember who said what.

On 10/29/2011 8:20 AM, Janet wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
[snip]
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
[snip]
> I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That is
> not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on
> their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's
> opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification
> for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one
> part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I suggested
> that she go look at another part of it, which says something quite
> different.

The ADA website USED to say that about 130 g of carbs a day
was required to supply the needs of the brain, back in the
days when they assumed that because the low-fat, no-sugar
diet worked somewhat for controlling diabetes, no funding
for any research to check if a low-carb diet worked better
was useful.

Since then, research funded elsewhere has shown that most
of the brain can switch to using fats for its energy, but
not all of it, and the liver can convert proteins into
glucose more than fast enough to supply the portions of
the brain that can't switch over.

The ADA is now SLOWLY moving toward accepting low-carb
diets as an alternative, but hasn't reached the point of
recommending it yet - except on their users forum, where
more users recommend it than those that recommend the
older diet.

Robert Miles

Julie Bove wrote:

<snip>

> I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has
> gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what.

I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17 posts
when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me...

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has
>> gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what.
>
> I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17
> posts when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me...

You said "Eat Those Carbs!" And I know somebody said they said to eat more
carbs.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has
>>> gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what.
>>
>> I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17
>> posts when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me...
>
> You said "Eat Those Carbs!" And I know somebody said they said to eat
> more carbs.

Here you go! Susan said this!

"Yes, the ADA used to have a statement on their site, "eat more starches,
they're good for you!""

I used two quote marks on some of it because I was quoting Susan and she was
apparently quoting the ADA. Whether they actually said that or not I do not
know. I kind of think not.

To which I told her something to the extent of... Get over it! They no
longer say that.

So the ADA did not say to eat more carbs or starches. Nor did they say "Eat
those carbs!" I believe they said you should not eat less than 130 grams of
carb. To which I replied that this is not new news. People have been
quoting this from various sources for many years. And some would even argue
that eating 130 grams of carb is low carb. Certainly it is less carbs than
the average American and probably the average person in many other countries
would eat in a day. I know when my diet was mainly beans and rice or beans
and pasta, with a lunch of say...peas, corn and potatoes, I was eating about
that many carbs in a meal!

as a beleiver your statement about the bible has merit, Lee
"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
>>>> more carbs.
>>>
>>> There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just
>>> fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what
>>> was said you will get my point.
>>>
>>> As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible:
>>> you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want.
>>> It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real
>>> message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight
>>> control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe
>>> to it, and so forth.
>>
>> It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a
>> meaningless book. I'm an atheist!
>>
>> I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm
>> sure it didn't say that at all.
>
> I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That
> is not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on
> their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's
> opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification
> for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one
> part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I
> suggested that she go look at another part of it, which says something
> quite different.
>
> Since you insist on being literal minded to a degree that doesn't admit
> the existence of metaphor or simile, I suggest you go back and reread my
> posts. Then show me where I said "more." In fact, a simple glimpse at the
> thread title will tell you that I used the word "those."
>
> The article from Remedy, puporting to be from JHU, quotes various
> authorities in stating that it is dangerous to go below 130 gms of carb
> per day in the long term. I would venture to guess that would mean that
> the vast majority of T2 diabetics who are controlling their HBA1C below 6
> using diet, exercise, and perhaps metformin, would indeed have to eat
> significantly more carbs to meet their recomendation. It certainly would
> mean that for me.
>
> But frankly, I think the ultimate goal of Remedy Health Systems and big
> pharma and all of the medical industrial establishment is to make big $$.
> And one of the best ways to do that is to push T2s on to expensive
> medications. They aren't going to make big $$ if T2s control their BGs
> without taking all of those expensive drugs that, according to studies,
> perform no better than the cheap generic: metformin.
>

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This
>>> has gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what.
>>
>> I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of
>> 17 posts when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me...
>
> You said "Eat Those Carbs!"

Which is what I already said, fer chrissakes.

>And I know somebody said they said to
> eat more carbs.

You are conflating my posts with someone else's. I suggest that you consider
reading more carefully before going on the attack the next time.

Ozgirl wrote:

<snip>

> But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know how
> to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference. Mocking
> isn't subtle.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Ozgirl wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know how
>> to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference. Mocking
>> isn't subtle.
>
> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>

Ozgirl wrote:

>
> But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know how to
> spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference. Mocking isn't
> subtle.

I know several wallahs and they don't feel mocked ... they are all from
India :-)

In article >,
"Janet" > wrote:

> Ozgirl wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know how
> > to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference. Mocking
> > isn't subtle.
>
> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>

It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the joke?

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

"Peppermint Patootie" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Janet" > wrote:
>
>> Ozgirl wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know how
>> > to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference. Mocking
>> > isn't subtle.
>>
>> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>
>
> It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
> written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the joke?

To me it isn't a joke at all. It's just mocking.

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Peppermint Patootie" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >,
>> "Janet" > wrote:
>>
>>> Ozgirl wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know
>>>> how to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference.
>>>> Mocking isn't subtle.
>>>
>>> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>
>>
>> It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
>> written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the
>> joke?
>
> To me it isn't a joke at all. It's just mocking.

You only say that because Susan said it. There is no logical reason to say
that "wallah" is "mocking" and "viola" isn't.

"Peppermint Patootie" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Janet" > wrote:
>
>> Ozgirl wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know
>> > how
>> > to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference.
>> > Mocking
>> > isn't subtle.
>>
>> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>
>
> It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
> written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the joke?

When is mocking the less educated ever a joke? If this happened in a
workplace there would be hell to play.
Why do a small few in here continually justify discrimination. Would you
be so ready to overlook people who mocked your sexual preferences? I
think not. You spat the dummy over a misintepretation of Susan's words
about something that you were very sensitive about . People often can't
help their lack of education and shouldn't be the butt off jokes by
small minded people who think they are better than them for some reason.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Peppermint Patootie" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> In article >,
>>> "Janet" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ozgirl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know
>>>>> how to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference.
>>>>> Mocking isn't subtle.
>>>>
>>>> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>
>>>
>>> It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
>>> written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the
>>> joke?
>>
>> To me it isn't a joke at all. It's just mocking.
>
> You only say that because Susan said it. There is no logical reason to say
> that "wallah" is "mocking" and "viola" isn't.

Well I am not naming names but other people have said it here before, and
likely before you came here. Those people did not strike me as being overly
intelligent and couldn't spell for beans. When they said it I hadn't a clue
what they meant and had to really mull it over only to realize finally what
they thought they were saying. I do not think those people said it as a
joke. I honestly think they thought that was the spelling of it.

I didn't say that "wallah" is mocking and "viola" isn't. But "viola" could
certainly be a typo.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Peppermint Patootie" > wrote in
>> message
>> news
>>> In article >,
>>> "Janet" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ozgirl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know
>>>>> how to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference.
>>>>> Mocking isn't subtle.
>>>>
>>>> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>
>>>
>>> It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
>>> written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the
>>> joke?
>>
>> To me it isn't a joke at all. It's just mocking.
>
> You only say that because Susan said it. There is no logical reason to
> say that "wallah" is "mocking" and "viola" isn't.

She explained another place where and why she wrote it and it was
clearly at the expense of others. For all that she likes to call people
stupid and ignorant she is ignorant of common decency herself. Mocking
is mocking whoever does it. People get howled down in newsgroups these
days for being grammar/spelling police so its apparent that many do not
like to see her kind of behaviour whether it be mocking or ridicule of
bad spelling etc. She has obviously found a show that fits and is
wearing it. Very sad for a supposedly well educated woman who refers to
herself as compassionate towards those less privileged than herself.

"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Peppermint Patootie" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >,
>> "Janet" > wrote:
>>
>>> Ozgirl wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> > But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know how
>>> > to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference. Mocking
>>> > isn't subtle.
>>>
>>> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>
>>
>> It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
>> written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the joke?
>
> When is mocking the less educated ever a joke? If this happened in a
> workplace there would be hell to play.
> Why do a small few in here continually justify discrimination. Would you
> be so ready to overlook people who mocked your sexual preferences? I think
> not. You spat the dummy over a misintepretation of Susan's words about
> something that you were very sensitive about . People often can't help
> their lack of education and shouldn't be the butt off jokes by small
> minded people who think they are better than them for some reason.

In my book it isn't a joke. It's like the person who says something really
nasty and rude to you and then when you get upset they laugh and say they
were just joking.

As I said to Janet, others here have used the spelling of "wallah" before
and I honestly think they didn't know any better. I am not naming any names
but you have been here long enough that you probably remember. To me to
have someone deliberately spell it wrong is making fun of those people.

In my family we might mis-say something or even mis-spell it when we are
mocking ourselves. For instance when we can't figure out how to do
something that should be easy to do but we can't figure it out we might
finally say, "Oh! I dood it! I dood it!" Instead of "I did it." But in
that case we are not mocking someone else. We are mocking ourselves.

"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message

>> You only say that because Susan said it. There is no logical reason to
>> say that "wallah" is "mocking" and "viola" isn't.
>
> She explained another place where and why she wrote it and it was clearly
> at the expense of others. For all that she likes to call people stupid
> and ignorant she is ignorant of common decency herself. Mocking is mocking
> whoever does it. People get howled down in newsgroups these days for being
> grammar/spelling police so its apparent that many do not like to see her
> kind of behaviour whether it be mocking or ridicule of bad spelling etc.
> She has obviously found a show that fits and is wearing it. Very sad for a
> supposedly well educated woman who refers to herself as compassionate
> towards those less privileged than herself.


"It's being bitter but patient with your own bitterness so you could learn
to be wise, and be kind, and be returned to whatever innocence you might
have once had before you became bitter."

~Crescent Dragonwagon, The Year it Rained

I who dont have a dog in this fight have said that I have said wah lah and
heard it said that way ..much more then ive heard vy oh lah..

neither is mocking anyone

dislike anyone ya like all ya like but the whole thing was and still is
silly

KROM


"Ozgirl" wrote in message ...



"Peppermint Patootie" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Janet" > wrote:
>
>> Ozgirl wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > But viola isn't mocking. Wallah is as most people who don't know how
>> > to spell voila will write it as they hear it. Big difference. Mocking
>> > isn't subtle.
>>
>> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. <G>
>
> It began as an audible joke. Possibly when it is translated into
> written form it becomes more difficult for some to recognize the joke?

When is mocking the less educated ever a joke? If this happened in a
workplace there would be hell to play.
Why do a small few in here continually justify discrimination. Would you
be so ready to overlook people who mocked your sexual preferences? I
think not. You spat the dummy over a misintepretation of Susan's words
about something that you were very sensitive about . People often can't
help their lack of education and shouldn't be the butt off jokes by
small minded people who think they are better than them for some reason.

"KROM" > wrote in message ...
>I who don't have a dog in this fight have said that I have said wah lah and
>heard it said that way ..much more then ive heard vy oh lah..
>
> neither is mocking anyone
>
> dislike anyone ya like all ya like but the whole thing was and still is
> silly

Why would *anyone* pronounce it that way? There is no "w" in it. Doesn't
anyone take French any more?

"KROM" > wrote in message ...
>I who dont have a dog in this fight have said that I have said wah lah and
>heard it said that way ..much more then ive heard vy oh lah..
>
> neither is mocking anyone
>
> dislike anyone ya like all ya like but the whole thing was and still is
> silly
>
> KROM

Yep, we haven't posted any recipes in here for a while now, just
bickering...it's becoming like ASD, and all we need to complete the picture
is ABC to join the newsgroup. I'll start by posting an old standby recipe
that goes around from time to time. Don't know who started the recipe. There
should be some really good holiday recipes out there this time of year. :-)

CHOCOLATE OMELET

1 tablespoon butter for pan/or Pam

2 large eggs
1 TBS plus 1 tsp cocoa
2 TBS cream or canned milk
3-4 packets equal, or sweetener of choice

Mix thoroughly with a hand mixer. In an 8", buttered skillet, over medium
heat, let the mixture cook, undisturbed, until almost set then remove it
from the burner and cover the skillet. This causes the eggs to expand much
like a souffle, but not that high.

Cheri wrote:


> Yep, we haven't posted any recipes in here for a while now, just
> bickering...it's becoming like ASD, and all we need to complete the
> picture is ABC to join the newsgroup. I'll start by posting an old standby
> recipe that goes around from time to time. Don't know who started the
> recipe. There should be some really good holiday recipes out there this
> time of year. :-)

well - not a holiday recipe, but an old standby for an autumn dinner.
I leave the weight/measure conversion to the metrically challenged.

Serves 4:

1.2 kg beef, use a cut that can simmer for a long time to get tender.
About 1.5 liters water, 1 tsp salt

Cut meat in quite large pieces, cover with water in a pan, bring to a boil,
skim well if you want a clear broth, otherwise leave the extra protein in
the pot. Add the greens from a leek and let simmer for an hour and a half.

In the meantime cut 150 g cabbage in thin slices, dice 3 carrots and 100 g
celeriac and/or parsley root, and slice the rest of the leek.
Add vegetables to the pot, let simmer for 10 minutes,then strain off .5
liters (or use cube bouillon) to make a sauce.
Add vinegar, sweetener, salt and pepper to taste.

The usual procedure is now to remove the meat and some of the vegetables
from the soup, serve soup separately, followed by sliced meat and the rest
of the vegetables with the onion sauce.

Non-diabetics have potatoes along with this, I have a sweet potato or
fauxtatoes :-)

Last time I made this I had all the vegetables ready cut, forgot to tell the
wife that the chopped onion was for sauce - she put it in the soup and it
was delicious!

"Bjørn Steensrud" > wrote in message
...
> Cheri wrote:
>
>
>> Yep, we haven't posted any recipes in here for a while now, just
>> bickering...it's becoming like ASD, and all we need to complete the
>> picture is ABC to join the newsgroup. I'll start by posting an old
>> standby
>> recipe that goes around from time to time. Don't know who started the
>> recipe. There should be some really good holiday recipes out there this
>> time of year. :-)
>
> well - not a holiday recipe, but an old standby for an autumn dinner.
> I leave the weight/measure conversion to the metrically challenged.
>
> Serves 4:
>
> 1.2 kg beef, use a cut that can simmer for a long time to get tender.
> About 1.5 liters water, 1 tsp salt
>
> Cut meat in quite large pieces, cover with water in a pan, bring to a
> boil,
> skim well if you want a clear broth, otherwise leave the extra protein in
> the pot. Add the greens from a leek and let simmer for an hour and a half.
>
> In the meantime cut 150 g cabbage in thin slices, dice 3 carrots and 100 g
> celeriac and/or parsley root, and slice the rest of the leek.
> Add vegetables to the pot, let simmer for 10 minutes,then strain off .5
> liters (or use cube bouillon) to make a sauce.
> Add vinegar, sweetener, salt and pepper to taste.
>
> The usual procedure is now to remove the meat and some of the vegetables
> from the soup, serve soup separately, followed by sliced meat and the rest
> of the vegetables with the onion sauce.
>
> Non-diabetics have potatoes along with this, I have a sweet potato or
> fauxtatoes :-)
>
> Last time I made this I had all the vegetables ready cut, forgot to tell
> the
> wife that the chopped onion was for sauce - she put it in the soup and it
> was delicious!
>

This sounds really good. It's starting to get cold around here and will
definitely make it.

Cheri

Bjørn Steensrud wrote:


Oops - sauce description got chopped off:

> Add vegetables to the pot, let simmer for 10 minutes,then strain off .5
> liters (or use cube bouillon) to make a sauce.

Chop finely 1 medium onion, add to the half liter of broth and bring to a
boil.
Stir 2 tbsp wheat flour into 0.5 dl cold water, mix well,
whisk into the half liter of hot broth. Simmer for 10 minutes.

> Add vinegar, sweetener, salt and pepper to taste.

I made some awesome dill pickle and onion slices this week!

yum!

KROM


"Cheri" wrote in message ...

"KROM" > wrote in message ...
>I who dont have a dog in this fight have said that I have said wah lah and
>heard it said that way ..much more then ive heard vy oh lah..
>
> neither is mocking anyone
>
> dislike anyone ya like all ya like but the whole thing was and still is
> silly
>
> KROM

Yep, we haven't posted any recipes in here for a while now, just
bickering...it's becoming like ASD, and all we need to complete the picture
is ABC to join the newsgroup. I'll start by posting an old standby recipe
that goes around from time to time. Don't know who started the recipe. There
should be some really good holiday recipes out there this time of year. :-)

CHOCOLATE OMELET

1 tablespoon butter for pan/or Pam

2 large eggs
1 TBS plus 1 tsp cocoa
2 TBS cream or canned milk
3-4 packets equal, or sweetener of choice

Mix thoroughly with a hand mixer. In an 8", buttered skillet, over medium
heat, let the mixture cook, undisturbed, until almost set then remove it
from the burner and cover the skillet. This causes the eggs to expand much
like a souffle, but not that high.

On 11/5/2011 3:40 AM, Julie Bove wrote:

> Why would *anyone* pronounce it that way? There is no "w" in it. Doesn't
> anyone take French any more?

i've seen wah lah and heard wah lah used in day to day conversations

similar to my saying mahvellous! to good news

i do know how to spell marvellous and voila! but mahvellous gives the
word an accent that i'm looking for

wah lah!

kate

because depending on the regional dialect it very well could have a "w" in
it, regional makes a huge difference, Lee, only commenting on the sounds,
not the mocking part
"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "KROM" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I who don't have a dog in this fight have said that I have said wah lah
>>and heard it said that way ..much more then ive heard vy oh lah..
>>
>> neither is mocking anyone
>>
>> dislike anyone ya like all ya like but the whole thing was and still is
>> silly
>
> Why would *anyone* pronounce it that way? There is no "w" in it. Doesn't
> anyone take French any more?
>

interesting, thanks, Lee
"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "KROM" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I who don't have a dog in this fight have said that I have said wah lah
>>and heard it said that way ..much more then ive heard vy oh lah..
>>
>> neither is mocking anyone
>>
>> dislike anyone ya like all ya like but the whole thing was and still is
>> silly
>>
>> KROM
>
> Yep, we haven't posted any recipes in here for a while now, just
> bickering...it's becoming like ASD, and all we need to complete the
> picture is ABC to join the newsgroup. I'll start by posting an old standby
> recipe that goes around from time to time. Don't know who started the
> recipe. There should be some really good holiday recipes out there this
> time of year. :-)
>
> CHOCOLATE OMELET
>
> 1 tablespoon butter for pan/or Pam
>
> 2 large eggs
> 1 TBS plus 1 tsp cocoa
> 2 TBS cream or canned milk
> 3-4 packets equal, or sweetener of choice
>
> Mix thoroughly with a hand mixer. In an 8", buttered skillet, over medium
> heat, let the mixture cook, undisturbed, until almost set then remove it
> from the burner and cover the skillet. This causes the eggs to expand much
> like a souffle, but not that high.
>
>

nice we do this, or similar a lot, except i use the crock pot, Lee
"Bjørn Steensrud" > wrote in message
...
> Cheri wrote:
>
>
>> Yep, we haven't posted any recipes in here for a while now, just
>> bickering...it's becoming like ASD, and all we need to complete the
>> picture is ABC to join the newsgroup. I'll start by posting an old
>> standby
>> recipe that goes around from time to time. Don't know who started the
>> recipe. There should be some really good holiday recipes out there this
>> time of year. :-)
>
> well - not a holiday recipe, but an old standby for an autumn dinner.
> I leave the weight/measure conversion to the metrically challenged.
>
> Serves 4:
>
> 1.2 kg beef, use a cut that can simmer for a long time to get tender.
> About 1.5 liters water, 1 tsp salt
>
> Cut meat in quite large pieces, cover with water in a pan, bring to a
> boil,
> skim well if you want a clear broth, otherwise leave the extra protein in
> the pot. Add the greens from a leek and let simmer for an hour and a half.
>
> In the meantime cut 150 g cabbage in thin slices, dice 3 carrots and 100 g
> celeriac and/or parsley root, and slice the rest of the leek.
> Add vegetables to the pot, let simmer for 10 minutes,then strain off .5
> liters (or use cube bouillon) to make a sauce.
> Add vinegar, sweetener, salt and pepper to taste.
>
> The usual procedure is now to remove the meat and some of the vegetables
> from the soup, serve soup separately, followed by sliced meat and the rest
> of the vegetables with the onion sauce.
>
> Non-diabetics have potatoes along with this, I have a sweet potato or
> fauxtatoes :-)
>
> Last time I made this I had all the vegetables ready cut, forgot to tell
> the
> wife that the chopped onion was for sauce - she put it in the soup and it
> was delicious!
>
>

even better Lee
"Bjørn Steensrud" > wrote in message
news
> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>
>
> Oops - sauce description got chopped off:
>
>> Add vegetables to the pot, let simmer for 10 minutes,then strain off .5
>> liters (or use cube bouillon) to make a sauce.
>
> Chop finely 1 medium onion, add to the half liter of broth and bring to a
> boil.
> Stir 2 tbsp wheat flour into 0.5 dl cold water, mix well,
> whisk into the half liter of hot broth. Simmer for 10 minutes.
>
>> Add vinegar, sweetener, salt and pepper to taste.
>
>