On 24/10/07 09:05, in article ,
"Mike..." > wrote:

> Following up to ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> Breast milk is better for
>> babies for a number of reasons - we all know that. But what about
>> Mothers who either cannot (or choose not to) breastfeed their babies and
>> give them bottles of 'formula' instead? I seem to recall that in those
>> cases the bottles/teats used need to be sterilized before feeding baby.
>> Wonder why that is? Could it be that there might be some 'germs' lurking
>> in those bottles/teats? Just curious.
>
> germs != immune system, I think!

AIUI, the danger with saliva contaminating baby food is the risk of stomach
upsets. Stomach upsets which cause d&v cause babies to dehydrate very fast
and can be literally deadly for them. Once the y get to the stage of
grabbing everything and shoving it in their mouths, it all becomes a little
more academic. Tiny babies need scrupulous hygiene. Babies don't receive
immunity to those food bugs from their mother's milk and in any case, not
all mothers feed their babies.


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 24/10/07 09:11, in article , "Giusi"
> wrote:

> "Sacha" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> . uk...
>> I must say that I'm still trying to figure out how taking home food
>> contaminated by dining companions in USA or UK is going to save people
>> from
>> starvation in third world countries.
>> Perhaps a re-distribution of transportable food stuffs would do that, or a
>> bigger contribution of money from wealthy countries to poorer ones? I
>> just
>> can't see that the use of doggy bags by countries that serve oversized
>> portions of food is going to help the starving in e.g. Zimbabwe.
>> --
>> Sacha
>>
> I can say what I think. There is an enormous amount of energy expended in
> producing all food and preparing cooked food. If it can be used for any
> purpose, it should be. Every time you throw out half a steak, a chop or
> really anything edible by you or your pets, you are also throwing out and
> wasting finite resources.
>
> I don't like leftovers, so I don't eat doggy bag contents, but I do serve
> them to my cats who are very pleased and therefore eat less of their cat
> food, which consumes energy resources as well.

Then lobbying for smaller and more manageable portions of food seems to be
the way to go. There is something faintly ridiculous - possibly even rather
distasteful - about a (sometimes) heated discussion about the merits or
otherwise of consuming left overs, while citing third world food shortages.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

"Tim C." > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:50:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Tim C." > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:54:37 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>They haven't had time to build up their immune systems, so one
>>>>has to be careful about "germs".
>>>
>>> They have their immune system provided by mother's milk.
>>
>>Are you saying that on the day they're done nursing, babies' immune
>>systems
>>are complete, and will develop no further?
>
> No of course not, but they don't start at zero either.
>

OK. I was wondering what you meant, because based on your comment, it would
be logical to stop the bus boy carrying used plates, scrape other peoples'
leftovers onto your plate, and feed them to your baby.

The best reason not to contaminate any container of food (of any kind) is to
prevent spoilage. It comes with unintended benefits, like not getting you
sick.

On 24/10/07 10:12, in article ,
"ChattyCathy" > wrote:

> Mike... wrote:
>> Following up to ChattyCathy > wrote:
>>
>>>>> ...Was he breastfed too?
>>>> No idea.
>>> Really? I am surprised. You seem to know everything else about him...
>>
>> his hygiene obsession is well known
>
> Well, I had no idea he was a "clean freak", so it's not *that* well
> known. I've heard his name of course, (wasn't he some rich actor, or had
> something to do with movies?)

Apart from his hygiene obsession, which came later in his life, he was well
known as the designer (with others) and pilot of The Spruce Goose and his
design ideas led to the modern push up, underwired brassière as we know it
now. It was made for Jane Russell who starred in one of his films, The
Outlaw. He was born rich, clever but eccentric to a huge degree.
--
Sacha

In message >, JoeSpareBedroom
> writes
>"Tim C." > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:54:37 +0200, ChattyCathy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>They haven't had time to build up their immune systems, so one
>>>has to be careful about "germs".
>>
>> They have their immune system provided by mother's milk.
>
>Are you saying that on the day they're done nursing, babies' immune systems
>are complete, and will develop no further?
>
>
I don't think that is correct. Breast milk gives them immunities they
would not otherwise have when they are babies. I have only one problem
with breast-feeding - all my kids were breast-fed and my elder son
contracted chicken-pox at the age of four, when my daughter was a baby.
I hoped that she would also get it but she didn't (she had a couple of
spots and that is all) and the doc said it was probably because she was
still immune as a result of being breast-fed. At the age of 13, she got
it big-time
--
June Hughes

"Sacha" > wrote

> On 24/10/07 09:11, in article , "Giusi"
> > wrote:

>> I don't like leftovers, so I don't eat doggy bag contents, but I do serve
>> them to my cats who are very pleased and therefore eat less of their cat
>> food, which consumes energy resources as well.
>
> Then lobbying for smaller and more manageable portions of food seems to be
> the way to go. There is something faintly ridiculous - possibly even
> rather
> distasteful - about a (sometimes) heated discussion about the merits or
> otherwise of consuming left overs, while citing third world food
> shortages.

Guisi is in Italy, I don't hear much talk about too-large portions
there.

I have eaten out a lot over the years, I enjoy going out to eat. I have
sometimes been served ridiculous portions of food. That's not the
norm. Usually I get more than I would serve myself at home, but not
some astounding pile of food the way people might think. I see
enough travel shows, etc., to see that other countries aren't always
serving people tiny portions, either. I caught Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen
Nightmares in England a couple of days ago, they certainly served
up a large plate of food, too. I'd have taken that steak home. Heh.

nancy

"June Hughes" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, JoeSpareBedroom
> > writes
>>"Tim C." > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:54:37 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>They haven't had time to build up their immune systems, so one
>>>>has to be careful about "germs".
>>>
>>> They have their immune system provided by mother's milk.
>>
>>Are you saying that on the day they're done nursing, babies' immune
>>systems
>>are complete, and will develop no further?
>>
>>
> I don't think that is correct.

I know. I was poking Tim, whose statement implied that breast milk's
benefits negate the need to be careful about not contaminating food.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> "Kate Connally" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tim C." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:46:15 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tim C. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:29:43 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Putting the half a steak left on their *own* plate is a far cry from
>>>>>>>scraping down everyones plate and sticking THAT in a doggy bag
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>>What they are saying is that restos in the US serve huge portions. They
>>>>>take what is left (on their *own* plates home to eat later.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I said, that is a far cry from having the scraping of everyone's
>>>>>plates
>>>>
>>>>I asked why is it a far cry from having the leftovers from other
>>>>people's plates? What is it exactly that you disapprove of?
>>>
>>>
>>>Digestion begins in the mouth. Not everyone cleans their fork before
>>>putting it back on the plate after each mouth visit.
>>
>>Does anyone? Sheesh! You've got to be kidding. Do you
>>actually "clean" your fork after each bite? That is, do you
>>wash it with soap and water after each bite? Or did you mean
>>just wipe it with your napkin after each bite? Equally
>>ridiculous.
>>
>>
>>>So, food is already decomposing on the plate due to transfer of saliva.
>>
>>That is ridiculous. Unless a person drools a lot while
>>eating (and probably not even then), there would not be
>>enough saliva on the fork or spoon to "contaminate" the
>>food on the plate with the next bite, which might not in
>>many cases even touch the other food.
>>
>>
>>>Add germs to the equation,
>>
>>I don't know about you, but I don't have germs. ;-)
>>
>>What do you think about French kissing then?
>>I guess you'd be against it. What with all those
>>germs and the other persons saliva digesting your
>>tongue, etc.
>>
>>
>>>and things get interesting. Maybe you're resistant to the germs already
>>>shared within your household,
>>>but not necessarily to germs from others you're
>>>dining with.
>>>
>>>Whether you take these risks or not depends on the reward involved. For
>>>me, someone's leftovers are
>>>not enough of a reward.
>>
>>Well, no one's making you do it. Go ahead and waste
>>all that food. Who cares that there are people starving
>>in parts of the world - including even in parts of the
>>U.S. and other "first world" countries.
>>
>>Kate
>
>
>
> Every one of your responses or comments indicates a level of stupidity that
> is nothing short of award-winning. Congratulations.

Glad you think so. I'm proud to be thought stupid
by you. Let me know if you need my address to send
me my award.

Kate


--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Alan Holmes wrote:

> Then the people who are giving out huge unwanted portions should be
> prosecuted!

It doesn't cost them much to give bigger portions.
So for a tiny bit more money I get twice the food
and can take home my leftovers and have at least
one more meal out of it. I have rarely encountered
anything that is not good left over, although someone
with different tastes may not order things that make
good leftovers.

I would much rather have 2 or more meals for virtually
the same money as a smaller single-meal portion would cost.
I've never minded leftovers and in some cases prefer them.

Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Sacha wrote:

> On 23/10/07 23:08, in article ,
> "Alan Holmes" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Kate Connally" > wrote in message
...
>
> <snip>
>
>>The reason food is wasted, is that the providers are too stupid to realise
>>that it is not a good idea to offer HUGE portions which are not wanted, if
>>they were to allow teh customer to take however much they wanted, much waste
>>would stop.
>>
>>
>>>Who cares that there are people starving
>>>in parts of the world - including even in parts of the
>>>U.S. and other "first world" countries.
>>
>>Then the people who are giving out huge unwanted portions should be
>>prosecuted!
>>
>
>
> I must say that I'm still trying to figure out how taking home food
> contaminated by dining companions in USA or UK is going to save people from
> starvation in third world countries.
> Perhaps a re-distribution of transportable food stuffs would do that, or a
> bigger contribution of money from wealthy countries to poorer ones? I just
> can't see that the use of doggy bags by countries that serve oversized
> portions of food is going to help the starving in e.g. Zimbabwe.

Well, not by itself. But if I have leftovers that's one
less meal I have to buy food for at home. So that food is
then technically available for someone else. Of course there
is still the problem of getting that unneeded food from here
to Zimbabwe. That's another problem that has to be solved.
But the point is that is that extra food is bought, cooked,
and then thrown away here, then that just means that that much
less food is available for the possible use of others who need
it, if only there were some way to get it to them. That needs
to be worked on. In the meantime even though we may not be able
to get the food to the needy it's still obscene to me that it
should just be thrown away.

Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

"Kate Connally" > wrote in message
...
> Sacha wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/07 23:08, in article ,
>> "Alan Holmes" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Kate Connally" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>The reason food is wasted, is that the providers are too stupid to
>>>realise
>>>that it is not a good idea to offer HUGE portions which are not wanted,
>>>if
>>>they were to allow teh customer to take however much they wanted, much
>>>waste
>>>would stop.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Who cares that there are people starving
>>>>in parts of the world - including even in parts of the
>>>>U.S. and other "first world" countries.
>>>
>>>Then the people who are giving out huge unwanted portions should be
>>>prosecuted!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I must say that I'm still trying to figure out how taking home food
>> contaminated by dining companions in USA or UK is going to save people
>> from
>> starvation in third world countries.
>> Perhaps a re-distribution of transportable food stuffs would do that, or
>> a
>> bigger contribution of money from wealthy countries to poorer ones? I
>> just
>> can't see that the use of doggy bags by countries that serve oversized
>> portions of food is going to help the starving in e.g. Zimbabwe.
>
> Well, not by itself. But if I have leftovers that's one
> less meal I have to buy food for at home. So that food is
> then technically available for someone else. Of course there
> is still the problem of getting that unneeded food from here
> to Zimbabwe. That's another problem that has to be solved.
> But the point is that is that extra food is bought, cooked,
> and then thrown away here, then that just means that that much
> less food is available for the possible use of others who need
> it, if only there were some way to get it to them. That needs
> to be worked on. In the meantime even though we may not be able
> to get the food to the needy it's still obscene to me that it
> should just be thrown away.
>
> Kate


Getting the food "there" is easy. Distributing it is another matter
entirely. Too bad we're too busy fighting the wrong war in the wrong
country.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...19&Cr=chad&Cr1

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:38:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>
>I know. I was poking Tim, whose statement implied that breast milk's
>benefits negate the need to be careful about not contaminating food.

It did read like that, looking back. I was getting at the implication
that (all) babies are totally unprotected.

"Tim C." > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:38:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>I know. I was poking Tim, whose statement implied that breast milk's
>>benefits negate the need to be careful about not contaminating food.
>
> It did read like that, looking back. I was getting at the implication
> that (all) babies are totally unprotected.

Guilty. Bailiff - whack his pee pee!

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Tim C. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:50:28 +0200, ChattyCathy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Careful yes. Obsessive no, or you'll end up like Howard Hughes but
>>>> without the money.
>>> Howard Hughes was "obsessive"? Didn't know that. ...
>>
>>
>> If you call sitting in one part of his hotel room and issuing memos to
>> his staff on the most hygenic way to open a can of fruit normal....
>>
>>> ...Was he breastfed too?
>>
>> No idea.
>
> Really? I am surprised. You seem to know everything else about him...

I thought that was rather well known.

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tim C. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:46:15 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim C. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:29:43 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting the half a steak left on their *own* plate is a far cry
>>>>>> from scraping down everyones plate and sticking THAT in a doggy
>>>>>> bag
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> What they are saying is that restos in the US serve huge portions.
>>>> They take what is left (on their *own* plates home to eat later.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, that is a far cry from having the scraping of everyone's
>>>> plates
>>>
>>> I asked why is it a far cry from having the leftovers from other
>>> people's plates? What is it exactly that you disapprove of?
>>
>> I am referring to Janet's mail asking if it were ok to serve the
>> scrapings from others' plates.
>>
>> The point was that the people who talked about that were in face,
>> taking food from their own plate to take home. They never have
>> regarded scrapings from other plates as ok.
>
> I have never known anyone to do that.
>
> When we lived in NYC, some of the Italian places (but not all),
> served HUGE portions of pasta. What we learned to do was ask for a
> container at the start of the meal. We would then take some of the
> food from our plates and put it in the container before we started
> eating.

Therein lies the difference. The inference in the question is is you've
each eaten half the meal from each bowl/plate you scrape it all into one
container and take it home. All piled together. No, if you each want to
take a bit home you generally ask for separate containers. I agree you
should ask for separate containers. Yours goes in one, his goes in the
other.

In my case, I'll take out a pen and label each container. This usually
isn't necessary since we don't always order the same thing. A simple glance
will often tell you, "That one is yours." There's absolutely nothing wrong
with reheating leftovers, whether they are from a restaurant or your own
plate at home. From the original thread on rfc, there seems to be a social
stigma attached to taking home with you what you've already paid for but
couldn't finish eating. Not someone elses' food, your own food. I don't
understand that.

Jill

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
news:9JJTi.2080$Y23.1992@trndny04...
>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tim C. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:50:28 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Careful yes. Obsessive no, or you'll end up like Howard Hughes but
>>>>> without the money.
>>>> Howard Hughes was "obsessive"? Didn't know that. ...
>>>
>>>
>>> If you call sitting in one part of his hotel room and issuing memos to
>>> his staff on the most hygenic way to open a can of fruit normal....
>>>
>>>> ...Was he breastfed too?
>>>
>>> No idea.
>>
>> Really? I am surprised. You seem to know everything else about him...
>
> I thought that was rather well known.
>

You may be conversing with some from that generation which reads little or
nothing. History will soon be obliterated.

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Heh. "Odd behaviour" seems to go hand-in-hand with lots of money (or do we
> just hear about it because they are 'rich and famous'?)
>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy
>

I'd say we heard about HIS problems because he was 'rich and famous.' I
doubt that odd behaviour is restricted to having money; perhaps it would
even keep people from becoming rich and famous in the first place.

For my money,
Dee Dee

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> news:9JJTi.2080$Y23.1992@trndny04...
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Tim C. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:50:28 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Careful yes. Obsessive no, or you'll end up like Howard Hughes but
>>>>>> without the money.
>>>>> Howard Hughes was "obsessive"? Didn't know that. ...
>>>>
>>>> If you call sitting in one part of his hotel room and issuing memos to
>>>> his staff on the most hygenic way to open a can of fruit normal....
>>>>
>>>>> ...Was he breastfed too?
>>>> No idea.
>>> Really? I am surprised. You seem to know everything else about him...
>> I thought that was rather well known.
>>
>
> You may be conversing with some from that generation which reads little or
> nothing. History will soon be obliterated.
>
>
I dropped History in my third year of high school, because we were given
a choice between that subject and Physics and Chemistry... If I'd known
how upset you are because I don't know too much about Howard Hughes, I
would have taken History instead. <Cathy slaps herself on the wrist>.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You may be conversing with some from that generation which reads little
>> or nothing. History will soon be obliterated.
> I dropped History in my third year of high school, because we were given a
> choice between that subject and Physics and Chemistry... If I'd known how
> upset you are because I don't know too much about Howard Hughes, I would
> have taken History instead. <Cathy slaps herself on the wrist>.
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy


I doubt that there would have been much more than a sentence in a history
book about HH, maybe in "aviation."; perhaps in a theatre/drama class book.

If I had a brain, it would have been "Physics and Chemistry." History books
are always available. More than history being obliterated, the books will
be re-written/changed; after all the ones written now are generally biased.


Dee Dee

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
>
I caught Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen
> Nightmares in England a couple of days ago, they certainly served
> up a large plate of food, too. I'd have taken that steak home. Heh.
>
While we're on the subject and cross-posting, I've watched a couple of the
US version of Kitchen Nightmares with GR. I think that it's a pathetically
slicked up version without the "bite" that the original has. And all that
bleeping out - of what are people afraid? A few effings can't be as bad as
the constant stream of violence on N.Am TV these days.
Graham

"graham" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote

> I caught Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen
>> Nightmares in England a couple of days ago, they certainly served
>> up a large plate of food, too. I'd have taken that steak home. Heh.
>>
> While we're on the subject and cross-posting, I've watched a couple of the
> US version of Kitchen Nightmares with GR. I think that it's a
> pathetically slicked up version without the "bite" that the original has.
> And all that bleeping out - of what are people afraid? A few effings
> can't be as bad as the constant stream of violence on N.Am TV these days.

That's the way it is. From all the bleeping it seems to me Gordon
could stand to increase his vocabulary.

nancy

Dee Dee wrote:

>
> I doubt that there would have been much more than a sentence in a history
> book about HH, maybe in "aviation."; perhaps in a theatre/drama class book.
>
> If I had a brain, it would have been "Physics and Chemistry." History books
> are always available. More than history being obliterated, the books will
> be re-written/changed; after all the ones written now are generally biased.

Didn't someone say that "History is written by the victors"?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Tim C." > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:29:43 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>
>>> Putting the half a steak left on their *own* plate is a far cry from
>>> scraping down everyones plate and sticking THAT in a doggy bag
>> Why?
>
> OK....here we go....
>
> I predict 80 messages in this discussion by midnight tonight.
>
>
You might have been wrong about "by midnight" but... if I deduct your
posts, you were close enough.
Now you can sleep tonight,
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> news:9JJTi.2080$Y23.1992@trndny04...
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Tim C. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:50:28 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Careful yes. Obsessive no, or you'll end up like Howard Hughes but
>>>>>>> without the money.
>>>>>> Howard Hughes was "obsessive"? Didn't know that. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you call sitting in one part of his hotel room and issuing memos to
>>>>> his staff on the most hygenic way to open a can of fruit normal....
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...Was he breastfed too?
>>>>> No idea.
>>>> Really? I am surprised. You seem to know everything else about him...
>>> I thought that was rather well known.
>>>
>>
>> You may be conversing with some from that generation which reads little
>> or nothing. History will soon be obliterated.
> I dropped History in my third year of high school, because we were given a
> choice between that subject and Physics and Chemistry... If I'd known how
> upset you are because I don't know too much about Howard Hughes, I would
> have taken History instead. <Cathy slaps herself on the wrist>.
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy

Cheers? Not really. The class you dropped might've taught you about one half
of one percent of the history you should learn on your own in order to
function as a real citizen. Failure to learn constantly is treason.
Jefferson would've ripped you a new asshole if he read what you're saying
here.

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Dee Dee wrote:
>
>>
>> I doubt that there would have been much more than a sentence in a history
>> book about HH, maybe in "aviation."; perhaps in a theatre/drama class
>> book.
>>
>> If I had a brain, it would have been "Physics and Chemistry." History
>> books are always available. More than history being obliterated, the
>> books will be re-written/changed; after all the ones written now are
>> generally biased.
>
> Didn't someone say that "History is written by the victors"?
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy
>

I think there is more to it than that. History is oft-times written by
loosers so that the loosers will appear to be the victors so that they can
sway opinion their way. (IOW, it works both ways IMO.)

Dee Dee

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:50:41 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>"Ophelia" > wrote
>
>> The point was that the people who talked about that were in face, taking
>> food from their own plate to take home. They never have regarded
>> scrapings from other plates as ok.
>
>Yes, somehow taking home my own untouched piece of steak
>has turned into scraping off plates and serving it to guests.
>
>I don't really understand how other people eat, apparently they
>stick their used fork into all the food on their dish. Regardless,
>if people have some sort of aversion to taking food home, they
>don't have to. It's no big deal.
>
>nancy
>

what is this 'fork' of which you speak?

your pal,
blake

"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that there would have been much more than a sentence in a
>>> history book about HH, maybe in "aviation."; perhaps in a theatre/drama
>>> class book.
>>>
>>> If I had a brain, it would have been "Physics and Chemistry." History
>>> books are always available. More than history being obliterated, the
>>> books will be re-written/changed; after all the ones written now are
>>> generally biased.
>>
>> Didn't someone say that "History is written by the victors"?
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chatty Cathy
>>
>
> I think there is more to it than that. History is oft-times written by
> loosers so that the loosers will appear to be the victors so that they can
> sway opinion their way. (IOW, it works both ways IMO.)
>
> Dee Dee

Loosers? Hmmm.

So, are you one of those people who doesn't read history at all because it's
more convenient to find imaginary problems with the books?

"graham" > wrote in message
news:5vKTi.138489$Da.118753@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
> I caught Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen
>> Nightmares in England a couple of days ago, they certainly served
>> up a large plate of food, too. I'd have taken that steak home. Heh.
>>
> While we're on the subject and cross-posting, I've watched a couple of the
> US version of Kitchen Nightmares with GR. I think that it's a
> pathetically slicked up version without the "bite" that the original has.
> And all that bleeping out - of what are people afraid? A few effings
> can't be as bad as the constant stream of violence on N.Am TV these days.
> Graham

There is nothing more disconcerting or jolting as hearing beeps instead of
the "BAD" words.

I dont get other country's TV to compare to N.American TV. Do you subscribe
to other country's TV channels to make that comparison? Or is it just your
opinion about N.Am TV. I have my channels locked out to that type of thing.
Dee Dee

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:15:18 GMT, "Julie Bove" >
wrote:

>
>"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote
>>
>>> The point was that the people who talked about that were in face, taking
>>> food from their own plate to take home. They never have regarded
>>> scrapings from other plates as ok.
>>
>> Yes, somehow taking home my own untouched piece of steak
>> has turned into scraping off plates and serving it to guests.
>>
>> I don't really understand how other people eat, apparently they
>> stick their used fork into all the food on their dish. Regardless,
>> if people have some sort of aversion to taking food home, they
>> don't have to. It's no big deal.
>
>One reason I dislike taking food home is that I usually don't go straight
>home after eating. These days when we do take food home, we usually plan to
>do it. For instance, my daughter likes the chicken at one restaurant. You
>can get an order with one piece or two. One is all she can eat for dinner.
>But she likes to take the other piece to school the next day in her lunch,
>along with some rice. So when we dine at this place, we plan to either go
>straight home, or stop by the house before going elsewhere so we can put it
>in the fridge. Luckily the restaurant is close to home.
>

i don't see where you have to go straight home, unless you're going
camping or something. and hour or two won't make a difference with
most things.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:50:41 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:

>>I don't really understand how other people eat, apparently they
>>stick their used fork into all the food on their dish. Regardless,
>>if people have some sort of aversion to taking food home, they
>>don't have to. It's no big deal.

> what is this 'fork' of which you speak?

(laugh!) You're right, I could just skip that step and eat
right off my plate.

nancy

Following up to ChattyCathy > wrote:

>I dropped History in my third year of high school, because we were given
>a choice between that subject and Physics and Chemistry... If I'd known
>how upset you are because I don't know too much about Howard Hughes, I
>would have taken History instead. <Cathy slaps herself on the wrist>.

I reckon i learned about 10% at most of what I konw at school, i
certainly didint learn about Hughes there.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

>
> Cheers? Not really. The class you dropped might've taught you about one half
> of one percent of the history you should learn on your own in order to
> function as a real citizen. Failure to learn constantly is treason.
> Jefferson would've ripped you a new asshole if he read what you're saying
> here.
>
>
Well, I am not a citizen of the USA, so I don't think I have anything to
worry about... OTOH, If you had mentioned Shaka Zulu, I might be a tad
worried...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy - born and raised in Africa - and proud of it...

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

Following up to "Dee Dee" > wrote:

> History is oft-times written by
>loosers

like Churchill's history of the English speaking peoples?
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:59:06 +0200, Tim C. >
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:50:28 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:
>
>>> Careful yes. Obsessive no, or you'll end up like Howard Hughes but
>>> without the money.
>>
>>Howard Hughes was "obsessive"? Didn't know that. ...
>
>
>If you call sitting in one part of his hotel room and issuing memos to
>his staff on the most hygenic way to open a can of fruit normal....
>
>>...Was he breastfed too?
>
>No idea.

some of his girlfriends (when he was still considering such rash
items) had nice tits.

your pal,
blake

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>
>> Cheers? Not really. The class you dropped might've taught you about one
>> half of one percent of the history you should learn on your own in order
>> to function as a real citizen. Failure to learn constantly is treason.
>> Jefferson would've ripped you a new asshole if he read what you're saying
>> here.
> Well, I am not a citizen of the USA, so I don't think I have anything to
> worry about... OTOH, If you had mentioned Shaka Zulu, I might be a tad
> worried...


No matter where you live, it's nasty to be ignorant of history, even just
the history of the last 5-10 years. Without that, you're being spoon fed
nothing but headlines. That's just what politicians want - it keeps you
happy & dumb.

Mike... wrote:
> Following up to ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> I dropped History in my third year of high school, because we were given
>> a choice between that subject and Physics and Chemistry... If I'd known
>> how upset you are because I don't know too much about Howard Hughes, I
>> would have taken History instead. <Cathy slaps herself on the wrist>.
>
> I reckon i learned about 10% at most of what I konw at school, i
> certainly didint learn about Hughes there.

We were being sarcastic...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

"Mike..." > wrote in message
...
> Following up to ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>>I dropped History in my third year of high school, because we were given
>>a choice between that subject and Physics and Chemistry... If I'd known
>>how upset you are because I don't know too much about Howard Hughes, I
>>would have taken History instead. <Cathy slaps herself on the wrist>.
>
> I reckon i learned about 10% at most of what I konw at school, i
> certainly didint learn about Hughes there.
> --
> Mike


Same here. There are (and probably always will be) references to him in all
sorts of books, news articles, book reviews, etc.

Following up to "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

>Every one of your responses or comments indicates a level of stupidity that
>is nothing short of award-winning. Congratulations.

and what does the comment above say about you?
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

Following up to Kate Connally > wrote:

> So that food is
>then technically available for someone else. Of course there
>is still the problem of getting that unneeded food from here
>to Zimbabwe.

they had food, the politicians have wrecked the country.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

"Mike..." > wrote in message
...
> Following up to "Dee Dee" > wrote:
>
>> History is oft-times written by
>>loosers
>
> like Churchill's history of the English speaking peoples?
> --
> Mike


Or, Stanley Karnow's books on Vietnam and the Phillippines?

Bob Woodward's a real "looser", too.

Ha.