On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:15:02 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>the schools are bound by law to provide an education for all children,
>making reasonable accommodations as necessary. banning peanut butter
>does not seem unreasonable. your precious kids can stuff their faces
>at home.

It is *unreasonable* to ban peanut butter in lunches sent from home
because the district/school is infringing on the right of parents to
make reasonable food choices for their children. If a district/school
did that, it could be taken to court and forced to provide free
lunches to those it has banned the food (preposition alert) from. It
is *reasonable* when a school/district voluntarily eliminates peanut
products in foods offered to the general student body. It is also
*reasonable* to expect parents of the affected student to teach their
child about the food allegy and how to avoid food products that
contain it.

It also stands to reason that when notified of a potentially *severe*
reaction in a classmate, other students parents will *freely* choose
not to send peanut products in with their children. Banning a common
food because it causes an allergic reaction in relatively few students
districtwide is not the best way to win friends and influence people.
Raising their level of awareness is.


--

A husband is someone who takes out the trash and gives the impression he just cleaned the whole house.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:14:03 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:58:19 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2007-08-11, jmcquown > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You know what? It's not my responsibility to deal with YOUR kids'
>>>>> allergies. it's your responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> responsibility fer cryin' out loud. Everything is NOT everyone
>>>>> elses' fault. Sheesh, you have some nerve to blame me for whatever
>>>>> your kids are dealing with. ******.
>>>>
>>>> Give 'em Hell, Jill!!
>>>>
>>>> Based on the bizarre logic some of these folks espouse, all the
>>>> other kids in school should be forced to shave their heads because
>>>> my granddaughters caught lice in school.
>>>>
>>>> Buncha pussy schools.
>>>
>>> I think you might feel a little different if your grandaughters were
>>> at risk of death.
>>>
>>
>> but they are, every day, at home.
>
>I don't understand Blake, please will you explain?
>
Sharp objects in the kitchen, potentially fatal allergic reaction to
certain foods, choke on something, fall down the stairs.... the list
goes on.


--

A husband is someone who takes out the trash and gives the impression he just cleaned the whole house.

"blake murphy" > wrote

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:08:46 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:

>>"John Kane" > wrote
>>
>>> Peanuts kill people. Even the residue (oils perhaps?) transfered from
>>> a hand to a surface can be picked up and cause a deadly reaction.
>>> Unfortunately serious peanut allergies are very common in children.
>>
>>While I do understand that peanut allergies can be deadly,
>>what exactly do these children do after school? Do they avoid
>>all public places? I know there are peanuts at the mall. What
>>happens when they get to college, the real world is not going to
>>ban peanuts because someone might have an allergy. Airlines
>>aside.

> it's not exactly a choice whether or not to go to school.

That wasn't my question.

nancy

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:14:03 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:58:19 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>> On 2007-08-11, jmcquown > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You know what? It's not my responsibility to deal with YOUR
>>>>>> kids' allergies. it's your responsibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> responsibility fer cryin' out loud. Everything is NOT everyone
>>>>>> elses' fault. Sheesh, you have some nerve to blame me for
>>>>>> whatever your kids are dealing with. ******.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give 'em Hell, Jill!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the bizarre logic some of these folks espouse, all the
>>>>> other kids in school should be forced to shave their heads because
>>>>> my granddaughters caught lice in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Buncha pussy schools.
>>>>
>>>> I think you might feel a little different if your grandaughters
>>>> were at risk of death.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but they are, every day, at home.
>>
>> I don't understand Blake, please will you explain?
>>
> Sharp objects in the kitchen, potentially fatal allergic reaction to
> certain foods, choke on something, fall down the stairs.... the list
> goes on.

I understand. Thanks

sf wrote:

> It also stands to reason that when notified of a potentially *severe*
> reaction in a classmate, other students parents will *freely* choose
> not to send peanut products in with their children. Banning a common
> food because it causes an allergic reaction in relatively few students
> districtwide is not the best way to win friends and influence people.
> Raising their level of awareness is.

I think I heard about one school that kept a "peanut free" table for all
the kids with allergies to eat at. They knew their tablemates wouldn't
be bringing in anything tht would bother them. Sounds like a great
compromise to me.

On Aug 11, 12:32 pm, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:29 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® >
> wrote:
>
> >People just copy and paste stuff they find on web pages. Obviously,
> >little thought goes into most of those kind of posts. In the *olden
> >days* it would have been called, "wasting bandwidth."
>
> BS

Unfortunately, Ms Unknown Person, it is true.
>
--Bryan

One time on Usenet, notbob > said:
> On 2007-08-11, blake murphy > wrote:
>
> > does not seem unreasonable.
>
> It seems the height of lunacy.
>
> > your precious kids can stuff their faces at home.
>
> Oh, you don't think children should be allowed to eat during the day.
> Do you? Are you prevented from taking sustenence during your work
> day? Is peanut butter banned in your sack lunch?

How common is this banning of PB I wonder? DS (now 10) usually buys
a hot lunch. But when we go on a field trip, hot lunchers can make
their own (we usually do) or choose a school-provided cold lunch which
often consists of, yes it's true, a PB & J sandwich. They're those
frozen Smuckers things, which must be very convenient for the kitchen
staff. He prefers turkey or ham on sourdough...

--
Jani in WA

"John Kane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 10, 12:14 am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>> ms. tonya wrote:
>> >> sf wrote:
>> >>
<snip several comments>.
>>
>> I never heard of anything as ridiculous as banning peanut butter because
>> a
>> small number of students might be allergic to it.
>
> Peanuts kill people. Even the residue (oils perhaps?) transfered from
> a hand to a surface can be picked up and cause a deadly reaction.
> Unfortunately serious peanut allergies are very common in children.
> Schools are just trying to protect vunerable children. The suspension
> may have been a bit heavy handed but the same probably would have
> happened if the child had carried a firearm to school and it might
> have been less dangerous since you would need to point the gun at
> someone.
>
> John Kane Kingston ON Canada
>
>
>
>> It was my bread and
>> butter (so to speak) when I was in elementary school. No one I ever
>> attended classes with (and we're talking schools from New Jersey to
>> southern
>> California and a lot of places in between) had any problem with peanuts
>> or
>> peanut butter. Treat the kid with medication for an allergy; don't
>> deprive
>> the entire population of something that is a lunch classic.
>>
>> Jill
> =======================

Nathan's day-care (before and after school care) has a VERY strict policy on
banning all peanut and peanut products but his school does not ( but then
again, we may get a notice on that in the coming weeks).

Cyndi

Christine Dabney wrote:

> I would love to try sweetbreads someday. I had a bite of some off a
> friend's dinner plate a few years ago...we were at a fancy
> restaurant...and they were good.

We tried them at Bouchon in Napa Valley and fell in love with them
(and each other!) It was our first date ...

> How's Lin adjusting to life in northern Cal?

Like the Loverboy song title "Lovin' Every Minute Of It!" It really is
heaven for me. Could use a few friends up this way, but Bob takes
pretty good care of me. (Hey, Tammy! We still need to get together!)

I made the Wild Boar Chops with a Ted Nugent recipe that Bob found for
me. It's a similar version of Victor Sack's, extremely tasty and very
easy to make. Of course, we tweaked the Nugent recipe a bit.

Are you ready for your Cook-In? Wish we could make it!

So, when can we expect you in NorCal again?

--Lin

Victor Sack wrote:

> I'd be happy to oblige and will indeed provide a recipe I like, but
> there is a potential problem... Is it real, i.e. imported, wild boar
> you got? Wild boar is not native to America and what is often referred
> to under that name there is actually either feral, originally domestic
> pig, or peccary/javelina. If that is the case here, I won't be much
> help, as I have never tasted either kind of meat and cannot say if it is
> at all similar to wild boar.
>
> European wild boar is not a gamy or very strongly tasting meat as a
> rule, especially if the animal is not too old.

I pulled the nasty wrappings out of the trash JUST FOR YOU! ;-)

The packaging says: Wild Boar Chop from Feral Swine. It came from a
place called Durham Ranch in Reno, NV that does specialize in
specialty and exotic meats.

http://www.fbworld.com/durhamranch.htm

It does have a U.S. inspection stamp on it, but not sure if it came
from out of the country. It's not so far-fetched to think that it may
have been hunted and killed there in the Sierras. It wasn't gamy
tasting at all, as I expected it would be. The chops were small, but
very rich. At $10.69 a pound, they should be. The recipe we used was
similar to yours and I was very pleased with the results.

--Lin

"The Truthful Assh0le" > wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 11, 12:32 pm, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:29 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® >
> wrote:
>
> >People just copy and paste stuff they find on web pages. Obviously,
> >little thought goes into most of those kind of posts. In the *olden
> >days* it would have been called, "wasting bandwidth."
>
> BS

Unfortunately, Ms Unknown Person, it is true.
>
--Bryan

So Bryan, if someone finds a recipe on the web, regardless of Crisco,
Miracle Whip, Cheez Whiz or whatever other ingredients you're adverse to,
even if the recipe is from the girl of your dreams, Julia Child, and that
person tries the recipe, likes it and wants to share it here, it shouldn't
be posted because it lacks creativity on the poster's part?

On Aug 11, 7:14 pm, "Paco's Tacos" > wrote:
> "The Truthful Assh0le" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
> On Aug 11, 12:32 pm, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:29 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® >
> > wrote:
>
> > >People just copy and paste stuff they find on web pages. Obviously,
> > >little thought goes into most of those kind of posts. In the *olden
> > >days* it would have been called, "wasting bandwidth."
>
> > BS
>
> Unfortunately, Ms Unknown Person, it is true.
>
> --Bryan
>
> So Bryan, if someone finds a recipe on the web, regardless of Crisco,
> Miracle Whip, Cheez Whiz or whatever other ingredients you're adverse to,
> even if the recipe is from the girl of your dreams, Julia Child, and that
> person tries the recipe, likes it and wants to share it here, it shouldn't
> be posted because it lacks creativity on the poster's part?

If it is done with care, that's fine. It's obvious to me and I think
most others, that people often do not do it with care, but with
sloppiness/laziness. Do you think that the OP even bothered to pay
attention to the recipe she was posting? Isn't the disjunction of
"school lunchbox food" and "serve immediately" pretty obvious to
anyone who is paying attention?

I had to laugh with you calling JC "the girl of [my] dreams." I like
her as a person (from what I know of her from interviews, etc.) than
even as a cook. She has a real lustiness about her. When I was a
young boy, "the girl of [my] dreams." was Barbara Eden, from I dream
of Jeannie (the actress, not the character). In later years it was
Ally McBeal (this time the character more than the actress, Callista
Flockhart).
I'm very shallow sometimes, especially about pretty women. These days
there are a couple of real dolls on the TV, Katherine Heigl, currently
on Grey's Anatomy, and A.J. Cook, currently on Criminal Minds. A.J.
Cook was also in the movie, The Virgin Suicides, where her beauty was
eclipsed by Kirsten Dunst, who was about as beautiful in that movie as
I can even imagine any girl being. From that point, Dunst became
progressively less attractive, while Cook became even more stunning.
Heigl has also gotten prettier since Roswell, where she was #2 hottie.

--Bryan

notbob wrote:
> On 2007-08-11, Puester > wrote:
>
>> No one is suggesting shaved heads, but I do know of local classrooms
>> where nearly everyone has shaved his/her head in sympathy with a
>> classmate or teacher who lost all hair due to chemo. Is that pussy, too?
>
> C'mon, Gloria. You are talking about a completely unrelated issue
> that has absolutely nothing to due with subject under discussion.
>
> nb


I wasn't the one who brought up head shaving, and as far as I'm
concerned both issues are related by what might be called teaching
compassion for others.

gloria p

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:10:14 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-08-11, blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>> back when no when squawked at saying the lord's prayer and the pledge
>> of allegiance (don't forget 'under god'!) every day, and it was
>> perfectly o.k. for the principal to whale on kids with a paddle. ah,
>> the good old days!
>>
>> but you probably think that was o.k., too.
>
>Yep. But, let me guess ....you don't.
>
>nb

um, no. and right now those things are against the law. sucks to be
you, doesn't it?

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:14:03 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:58:19 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2007-08-11, jmcquown > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You know what? It's not my responsibility to deal with YOUR kids'
>>>>> allergies. it's your responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> responsibility fer cryin' out loud. Everything is NOT everyone
>>>>> elses' fault. Sheesh, you have some nerve to blame me for whatever
>>>>> your kids are dealing with. ******.
>>>>
>>>> Give 'em Hell, Jill!!
>>>>
>>>> Based on the bizarre logic some of these folks espouse, all the
>>>> other kids in school should be forced to shave their heads because
>>>> my granddaughters caught lice in school.
>>>>
>>>> Buncha pussy schools.
>>>
>>> I think you might feel a little different if your grandaughters were
>>> at risk of death.
>>>
>>
>> but they are, every day, at home.
>
>I don't understand Blake, please will you explain?
>

i think nb's grandchildren are safer at school than with him at home.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:20:29 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-08-11, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> does not seem unreasonable.
>
>It seems the height of lunacy.
>
to a lunatic it might seem so.

>> your precious kids can stuff their faces at home.
>
>Oh, you don't think children should be allowed to eat during the day.
>Do you? Are you prevented from taking sustenence during your work
>day? Is peanut butter banned in your sack lunch?
>
>nb

the kids are allowed to eat (at certain times), just not peanut
butter. adults are presumably more careful about potential exposure
than young children are, and thus are under their own control, not in
an *in loco parentis* situation.

if you want your kids to eat peanut butter all day, home-school them.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:28:24 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-08-11, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> it's not exactly a choice whether or not to go to school.
>
>Yeah, it is!!

they have to go to school or you have to home-school them (and in most
places, meet some minimal standards to do that.) at least that's true
everywhere in the u.s. that i know about.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> back when no when squawked at saying the lord's prayer and the pledge
> of allegiance (don't forget 'under god'!) every day, and it was
> perfectly o.k. for the principal to whale on kids with a paddle.

An orca paddle?

M-W

wale
transitive verb
: to mark (as the skin) with welts

---

Sheldon Sperm

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:14:03 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:58:19 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>> On 2007-08-11, jmcquown > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You know what? It's not my responsibility to deal with YOUR kids'
>>>>>> allergies. it's your responsibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> responsibility fer cryin' out loud. Everything is NOT everyone
>>>>>> elses' fault. Sheesh, you have some nerve to blame me for whatever
>>>>>> your kids are dealing with. ******.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give 'em Hell, Jill!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the bizarre logic some of these folks espouse, all the
>>>>> other kids in school should be forced to shave their heads because
>>>>> my granddaughters caught lice in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Buncha pussy schools.
>>>>
>>>> I think you might feel a little different if your grandaughters were
>>>> at risk of death.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but they are, every day, at home.
>>
>>I don't understand Blake, please will you explain?
>>
>
> i think nb's grandchildren are safer at school than with him at home.

ahhh yes

On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:10:14 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>>> back when no when squawked at saying the lord's prayer and the pledge
>>> of allegiance (don't forget 'under god'!) every day, and it was
>>> perfectly o.k. for the principal to whale on kids with a paddle. ah,
>>> the good old days!
>>>
>>> but you probably think that was o.k., too.
>>
>>Yep. But, let me guess ....you don't.

> um, no. and right now those things are against the law. sucks to be
> you, doesn't it?

No, actually. I'm quite happy to be me. What sucks is today's kids
who do anything they like because they've never experienced any level
of discipline and are absolved of all resonsibility for their actions
by gutless permisive parents.

nb

On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:

> i think nb's grandchildren are safer at school than with him at home.

Now, that's a damn fool thing to say. Why would you make such an
asinine statement?

nb

On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:

> they have to go to school or you have to home-school them....

"Or"?? Danged if that don't sound exactly like a choice.

nb

On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:

> an *in loco parentis* situation.

That's pretty much the crux of it. How many kids you got in school,
Blake?

nb

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:53:04 -0700, Lin >
wrote:

>Christine Dabney wrote:
>
>> I would love to try sweetbreads someday. I had a bite of some off a
>> friend's dinner plate a few years ago...we were at a fancy
>> restaurant...and they were good.
>
>We tried them at Bouchon in Napa Valley and fell in love with them
>(and each other!) It was our first date ...

He took you to Bouchon on your first date?! Too cool.

>> How's Lin adjusting to life in northern Cal?
>
>Like the Loverboy song title "Lovin' Every Minute Of It!" It really is
>heaven for me. Could use a few friends up this way, but Bob takes
>pretty good care of me. (Hey, Tammy! We still need to get together!)

I'm game! (er, well you know) I'll email you.

>I made the Wild Boar Chops with a Ted Nugent recipe that Bob found for
>me. It's a similar version of Victor Sack's, extremely tasty and very
>easy to make. Of course, we tweaked the Nugent recipe a bit.

Can't say as I've ever had wild boar chops. Ted Nugent's recipe? Now
this DOES sound intriguing!

>Are you ready for your Cook-In? Wish we could make it!
>
>So, when can we expect you in NorCal again?

She can't stay away from NorCal and she knows it.

TammyM

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:48:07 GMT, (TammyM) wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:53:04 -0700, Lin >
>wrote:

>>Are you ready for your Cook-In? Wish we could make it!

Getting there!!!!
>>
>>So, when can we expect you in NorCal again?

Hopefully by next summer. If I can extend my contract here for the
rest of the year, and then the spring, I will be trying to get back
there by summer. If I can only extend it to mid January, then I
hopefully will be heading up that way for a contract for the winter. >
>She can't stay away from NorCal and she knows it.

Yep, you're right.

I am planning on moving back to northern California by early 2009, if
I can help it. New Mexico is beautiful and I love it, but it isn't
northern California. My heart is truly there.

When I do get back, plan for the mother of all
cook-ins/housewarming...when I find a house.

Christine
>
>TammyM

Lin > wrote:

> I pulled the nasty wrappings out of the trash JUST FOR YOU! ;-)

Heh, thanks!

> The packaging says: Wild Boar Chop from Feral Swine. It came from a
> place called Durham Ranch in Reno, NV that does specialize in
> specialty and exotic meats.
>
> http://www.fbworld.com/durhamranch.htm
>
> It does have a U.S. inspection stamp on it, but not sure if it came
> from out of the country. It's not so far-fetched to think that it may
> have been hunted and killed there in the Sierras.

Very probably. In Texas, locally hunted wild boar appears on quite a
few restaurant menus.

> It wasn't gamy
> tasting at all, as I expected it would be. The chops were small, but
> very rich. At $10.69 a pound, they should be. The recipe we used was
> similar to yours and I was very pleased with the results.

Sounds like the taste of feral pigs is similar to that of the European
wild boar. $10.69 a pound would be considered very good value in
western Europe.

Victor

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:11:07 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

>Lin > wrote:
>
>> I pulled the nasty wrappings out of the trash JUST FOR YOU! ;-)
>
>Heh, thanks!
>
>> The packaging says: Wild Boar Chop from Feral Swine. It came from a
>> place called Durham Ranch in Reno, NV that does specialize in
>> specialty and exotic meats.
>>
>> http://www.fbworld.com/durhamranch.htm
>>
>> It does have a U.S. inspection stamp on it, but not sure if it came
>> from out of the country. It's not so far-fetched to think that it may
>> have been hunted and killed there in the Sierras.
>
>Very probably. In Texas, locally hunted wild boar appears on quite a
>few restaurant menus.

Some folks shoot them around here, but some take them alive. It's my
understanding that the feral hogs served in restaurants around DFW are
taken alive to be slaughtered at government approved slaughter houses.
It has to do with Food and Drug regulations here in the States.

Anybody who captures a wild hog alive has my respect. They are very
smart, they are aggressive, and they are omnivores, if you get my
drift.
>
>> It wasn't gamy
>> tasting at all, as I expected it would be. The chops were small, but
>> very rich. At $10.69 a pound, they should be. The recipe we used was
>> similar to yours and I was very pleased with the results.
>
>Sounds like the taste of feral pigs is similar to that of the European
>wild boar. $10.69 a pound would be considered very good value in
>western Europe.
>
I'd imagine that feral pigs are genetically very similar to wild boar.
Feral hogs around here are descended from pigs that escaped from farms
over the past century or so and have bred as they would without human
interference so they have reverted to the ur-hogs they were originally
bred from (by humans). It appears to be much the same as with dogs,
who, left to breed as they will, produce much the same offspring in
Calcutta as they do in Cow Hill, TX within a few generations. I'm
assuming that domesticated swine are descended from the same species
you call wild boar in Europe, of course, and that may not be true.

The hogs' diet, on the other hand is another matter. In the wild,
they eat what they can. American pork doesn't stand a chance by
contrast. A pig that gets his fill of acorns and snakes and
grasshoppers just has to taste better than a factory-farmed, grain-fed
industrial product.

That's been my experience with pastured pork hereabouts, anyway.
--

modom

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:38:58 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> i think nb's grandchildren are safer at school than with him at home.
>
>Now, that's a damn fool thing to say. Why would you make such an
>asinine statement?
>
>nb

um, to make fun of you? that would be my guess.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:48:10 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> an *in loco parentis* situation.
>
>That's pretty much the crux of it. How many kids you got in school,
>Blake?
>
>nb

none, thank god. but what does that have to do with it?

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:42:59 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> they have to go to school or you have to home-school them....
>
>"Or"?? Danged if that don't sound exactly like a choice.
>
>nb

fine. then as i said home-school the little peanut-loving *******s.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:35:08 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-08-12, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:10:14 -0500, notbob > wrote:
>
>>>> back when no when squawked at saying the lord's prayer and the pledge
>>>> of allegiance (don't forget 'under god'!) every day, and it was
>>>> perfectly o.k. for the principal to whale on kids with a paddle. ah,
>>>> the good old days!
>>>>
>>>> but you probably think that was o.k., too.
>>>
>>>Yep. But, let me guess ....you don't.
>
>> um, no. and right now those things are against the law. sucks to be
>> you, doesn't it?
>
>No, actually. I'm quite happy to be me. What sucks is today's kids
>who do anything they like because they've never experienced any level
>of discipline and are absolved of all resonsibility for their actions
>by gutless permisive parents.
>
>nb

but forcing non-christians to say the lord's prayer and having
children beaten by the principal is o.k.? that'll make the kids
self-reliant, by god.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:48:07 GMT, (TammyM) wrote:

>
>I'm game! (er, well you know) I'll email you.

that's what the naked lady said to the hunter, so he shot her.

your pal,
blake

On 2007-08-13, blake murphy > wrote:

> fine. then as i said home-school the little peanut-loving *******s.

Works equally well for the peanut plagued pipsqueaks, too.

modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:

> Anybody who captures a wild hog alive has my respect. They are very
> smart, they are aggressive, and they are omnivores, if you get my
> drift.

Indeed. I wonder how exactly they do it.

> I'm
> assuming that domesticated swine are descended from the same species
> you call wild boar in Europe, of course, and that may not be true.

That is almost certainly true, at least as far as most experts writing
on the subject are concerned.

> The hogs' diet, on the other hand is another matter. In the wild,
> they eat what they can. American pork doesn't stand a chance by
> contrast. A pig that gets his fill of acorns and snakes and
> grasshoppers just has to taste better than a factory-farmed, grain-fed
> industrial product.
>
> That's been my experience with pastured pork hereabouts, anyway.

This is not much different here, either, except that, fortunately, there
appears to be no special effort to produce particularly lean pork. Yet.

Victor

Just got the first disc of "Roswell" in the mail (Netflix).
What a cool old series 1999-2002.
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Roswell...isc_1/60033638

This: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Profit_Season_1/70035337
is even better. One of the best shows ever on TV.

--Bryan

On Aug 11, 7:53 pm, The Truthful Assh0le > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 7:14 pm, "Paco's Tacos" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The Truthful Assh0le" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
> > On Aug 11, 12:32 pm, sf wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:29 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >People just copy and paste stuff they find on web pages. Obviously,
> > > >little thought goes into most of those kind of posts. In the *olden
> > > >days* it would have been called, "wasting bandwidth."
>
> > > BS
>
> > Unfortunately, Ms Unknown Person, it is true.
>
> > --Bryan
>
> > So Bryan, if someone finds a recipe on the web, regardless of Crisco,
> > Miracle Whip, Cheez Whiz or whatever other ingredients you're adverse to,
> > even if the recipe is from the girl of your dreams, Julia Child, and that
> > person tries the recipe, likes it and wants to share it here, it shouldn't
> > be posted because it lacks creativity on the poster's part?
>
> If it is done with care, that's fine. It's obvious to me and I think
> most others, that people often do not do it with care, but with
> sloppiness/laziness. Do you think that the OP even bothered to pay
> attention to the recipe she was posting? Isn't the disjunction of
> "school lunchbox food" and "serve immediately" pretty obvious to
> anyone who is paying attention?
>
> I had to laugh with you calling JC "the girl of [my] dreams." I like
> her as a person (from what I know of her from interviews, etc.) than
> even as a cook. She has a real lustiness about her. When I was a
> young boy, "the girl of [my] dreams." was Barbara Eden, from I dream
> of Jeannie (the actress, not the character). In later years it was
> Ally McBeal (this time the character more than the actress, Callista
> Flockhart).
> I'm very shallow sometimes, especially about pretty women. These days
> there are a couple of real dolls on the TV, KatherineHeigl, currently
> on Grey's Anatomy, and A.J. Cook, currently on Criminal Minds. A.J.
> Cook was also in the movie, The Virgin Suicides, where her beauty was
> eclipsed by Kirsten Dunst, who was about as beautiful in that movie as
> I can even imagine any girl being. From that point, Dunst became
> progressively less attractive, while Cook became even more stunning.Heiglhas also gotten prettier since Roswell, where she was #2 hottie.
>
> --Bryan