On 25/10/07 16:20, in article , "jmcquown"
> wrote:

> 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.
>
> It wouldn't, Sacha. Doggie bags don't have a direct correlation to helping
> feed the hungry. It does, however, speak to those who can afford to eat
> wasting perfectly good food simply because their fork had touched it.
>
> Jill
>
>
Which is where we come back to lobbying restaurants for manageable portions
of food. I don't call 'perfectly good food' something that is contaminated
by other people's saliva - which has been part of that discussion. OTOH, if
American restaurants serve gigantic portions of food that can't be eaten in
one sitting *on a regular basis*, then taking it home to consume your own
plateful later is entirely up to the individual, it seems to me. We have
different cultural approaches to these things. My mother would have killed
me stone dead if I'd carried the leavings from my plate out of a restaurant
and it's just not something it would cross my mind to do at all here or
anywhere, though we were offered doggie bags a couple of times in the
States.
But surely the question that has to be asked, too, is why DO American
restaurants so often serve such vast amounts of food for one person to eat?
Is it because it's the Land of Plenty? Has it, indeed, become the
expectation of people going out to dinner that they'll be able to live off
that one meal for another day or two? Is it regarded as a sort of 'right'?
One thing my husband and I liked - while on this theme - is that restaurants
don't mind sharing. We went to a particularly good restaurant in Kauaii and
I was longing to try the seafood chowder but knew that if I ate a bowl of
that, I wouldn't manage another thing. So the waiter happily gave us one
serving and two spoons - that made real sense for us. But sharing with my
husband is okay for me!

--
Sacha

On 25/10/07 16:01, in article , "jmcquown"
> wrote:

> Anne Jackson wrote:
>> The message from Mike... > contains
>> these words:
>>> Following up to "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>>> From all the bleeping it seems to me Gordon
>>>> could stand to increase his vocabulary.
>>
>>> hes odd, he has an adequate vocabulary, his background was poor inner
>>> city and pro football in Glasgow.......
>>> Maybe its a gimmick now?
>>
>> It's possibly a Scottish thing? We tend not to wince when someone
>> uses a 'questionable' word... Perhaps we're just more broad minded?
>
> LOL I never heard my working-class Scottish grandparents utter a
> "questionable" word, but then they weren't on television The f-word
> doesn't offend me but I tend to agree with Nancy, it's way overused (not
> just by Gordon Ramsay). I think it's mostly for affect or shock value. The
> television censors in the U.S. bleeped it out because the show aired in
> prime time, which means children could be watching... as if they've not
> already heard the word in the schoolyard!
>
> Jill
>
>
I find it immensely irritating. It gets to the point that instead of
listening to the cooking bit I'm counting the seconds 'til the next 'f' word
utterance. Boring.

--
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.'

"Sacha" > wrote in message
. uk...
> On 25/10/07 16:01, in article ,
> "jmcquown"
> > wrote:
>
>> Anne Jackson wrote:
>>> The message from Mike... > contains
>>> these words:
>>>> Following up to "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From all the bleeping it seems to me Gordon
>>>>> could stand to increase his vocabulary.
>>>
>>>> hes odd, he has an adequate vocabulary, his background was poor inner
>>>> city and pro football in Glasgow.......
>>>> Maybe its a gimmick now?
>>>
>>> It's possibly a Scottish thing? We tend not to wince when someone
>>> uses a 'questionable' word... Perhaps we're just more broad minded?
>>
>> LOL I never heard my working-class Scottish grandparents utter a
>> "questionable" word, but then they weren't on television The f-word
>> doesn't offend me but I tend to agree with Nancy, it's way overused (not
>> just by Gordon Ramsay). I think it's mostly for affect or shock value.
>> The
>> television censors in the U.S. bleeped it out because the show aired in
>> prime time, which means children could be watching... as if they've not
>> already heard the word in the schoolyard!
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
> I find it immensely irritating. It gets to the point that instead of
> listening to the cooking bit I'm counting the seconds 'til the next 'f'
> word
> utterance. Boring.
>
> --
> Sacha


When I find a program irritating, I only watch it perhaps a very short
while and never watch it again. That way it never has a chance to get
boring.

Dee Dee

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> Dee Dee wrote:
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message >
>>> How can we be sure that you aren't gnawing on those bones? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>
>>
>>
>> No dental problems, there. :-))
>>
>> Dee Dee
>
> *O bares her gnashers and growls fiercely*


I don't need the cameras for that -- I have an active imagination --
To the point -- sooo funny.

Dee Dee

"Sacha" > wrote in message
news:C3467EDA.5D128%>> It wouldn't, Sacha. Doggie bags don't have a direct
correlation to helping
>> feed the hungry. It does, however, speak to those who can afford to eat
>> wasting perfectly good food simply because their fork had touched it.
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
> Which is where we come back to lobbying restaurants for manageable
> portions
> of food.


Sooo funny !! Now, that's going to happen!
Dee Dee

Following up to "Dee Dee" > wrote:

>That's OK, I'm already crass.
>
>I think it is crass to point out that I'm crass LOL.

i think its crass to point out that pointing out your crass is crass
or something like that :-)
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

Following up to "Ophelia" > wrote:

>> i havent flicked through the screens for ages..... Guisi-haute
>> cuture..figures, June........bizz suit for city.....Adrian...blimey,
>> string vest and can of lager, not a good look Adrian!
>> ......David.....is that diamonte, David? doesnt look
>> comfortable....Tim...biker leathers...Sasha.... sensible gardening
>> wear, makes sense......Alan........ ALAN!!!!!!!!!
>
>Ooh and look at you with your ponytail and thong

thong in my ponytail, yes :-)
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

Following up to "Dee Dee" > wrote:

>Is the f-word the same meaning as the use of "bloody" in England?

bloody is much milder and used by people who woulnt use F. Its
blasphemous rather than bodily. "By my lady" I think.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

Mike... wrote on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:38:37 +0100:

??>> Is the f-word the same meaning as the use of "bloody" in
??>> England?

M> bloody is much milder and used by people who woulnt use F.
M> Its blasphemous rather than bodily. "By my lady" I think.

Possibly, but some things have gotten sanitized over time;
possibly, the OZ influence in that case. Some unthinking
blasphemies are still with us like "goddam". I have to be
greatly provoked to use it but I believe the French still
sometimes call English soldiers "les goddams" after, what is it,
600 years.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Sacha wrote:
>>
> Which is where we come back to lobbying restaurants for manageable
> portions of food.

,,,,,,,,,, and surely, if they are not serving such huge portions, they
would be able to drop prices!



I don't call 'perfectly good food' something that
> is contaminated by other people's saliva - which has been part of
> that discussion. OTOH, if American restaurants serve gigantic
> portions of food that can't be eaten in one sitting *on a regular
> basis*, then taking it home to consume your own plateful later is
> entirely up to the individual, it seems to me. We have different
> cultural approaches to these things. My mother would have killed me
> stone dead if I'd carried the leavings from my plate out of a
> restaurant and it's just not something it would cross my mind to do
> at all here or anywhere, though we were offered doggie bags a couple
> of times in the States.
> But surely the question that has to be asked, too, is why DO American
> restaurants so often serve such vast amounts of food for one person
> to eat? Is it because it's the Land of Plenty? Has it, indeed,
> become the expectation of people going out to dinner that they'll be
> able to live off that one meal for another day or two? Is it
> regarded as a sort of 'right'? One thing my husband and I liked -
> while on this theme - is that restaurants don't mind sharing. We
> went to a particularly good restaurant in Kauaii and I was longing to
> try the seafood chowder but knew that if I ate a bowl of that, I
> wouldn't manage another thing. So the waiter happily gave us one
> serving and two spoons - that made real sense for us. But sharing
> with my husband is okay for me!

Ahh yes! No problem with that

Dee Dee wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message >
>>>> How can we be sure that you aren't gnawing on those bones? :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No dental problems, there. :-))
>>>
>>> Dee Dee
>>
>> *O bares her gnashers and growls fiercely*
>
>
> I don't need the cameras for that -- I have an active imagination --
> To the point -- sooo funny.

<G>

Mike... wrote:
> Following up to "Dee Dee" > wrote:
>
>> That's OK, I'm already crass.
>>
>> I think it is crass to point out that I'm crass LOL.
>
> i think its crass to point out that pointing out your crass is crass
> or something like that :-)

Nodnodnod I agree!!!

Mike... wrote:
> Following up to "Ophelia" > wrote:
>
>>> i havent flicked through the screens for ages..... Guisi-haute
>>> cuture..figures, June........bizz suit for city.....Adrian...blimey,
>>> string vest and can of lager, not a good look Adrian!
>>> ......David.....is that diamonte, David? doesnt look
>>> comfortable....Tim...biker leathers...Sasha.... sensible gardening
>>> wear, makes sense......Alan........ ALAN!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Ooh and look at you with your ponytail and thong
>
> thong in my ponytail, yes :-)

<G> See! I saw ya

Following up to "Ophelia" > wrote:

>> Which is where we come back to lobbying restaurants for manageable
>> portions of food.
>
>,,,,,,,,,, and surely, if they are not serving such huge portions, they
>would be able to drop prices!

and theres the obesity problem the west faces, a culture of big meals
isnt good.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

Following up to "James Silverton" >
wrote:

> but I believe the French still
>sometimes call English soldiers "les goddams" after, what is it,
>600 years.

the two finger salute we use comes from the archers at Agincourt
holding up two fingers to show they hadnt been captured and had the
index finger amputated by the French.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:31:50 +0100, Anne Jackson
> wrote:

>The message from Mike... > contains
>these words:
>> Following up to "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>> > From all the bleeping it seems to me Gordon
>> >could stand to increase his vocabulary.
>
>> hes odd, he has an adequate vocabulary, his background was poor inner
>> city and pro football in Glasgow.......
>> Maybe its a gimmick now?
>
>It's possibly a Scottish thing? We tend not to wince when someone
>uses a 'questionable' word... Perhaps we're just more broad minded?

****in' celts.

your pal,
blake

> Following up to "James Silverton" >
> wrote:
>
>> but I believe the French still
>>sometimes call English soldiers "les goddams" after, what is it,
>>600 years.

>"Mike..." > wrote
> the two finger salute we use comes from the archers at Agincourt
> holding up two fingers to show they hadnt been captured and had the
> index finger amputated by the French.

Which meant that they could still pluck a longbow.

--
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:46:09 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>"Anne Jackson" > wrote
>
>> The message from Mike... > contains
>> these words:
>>> Following up to "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> > From all the bleeping it seems to me Gordon
>>> >could stand to increase his vocabulary.
>>
>>> hes odd, he has an adequate vocabulary, his background was poor inner
>>> city and pro football in Glasgow.......
>>> Maybe its a gimmick now?
>>
>> It's possibly a Scottish thing? We tend not to wince when someone
>> uses a 'questionable' word... Perhaps we're just more broad minded?
>
>I don't wince, it's just a drag after a while when everything if effin this,
>effin that. Put the effin butter on the effin chicken and stick in in the
>effin oven for 15 effin minutes and effin serve it!
>
>And my Scottish minister grandfather wasn't all that broad minded.
>(laugh)
>
>nancy
>

it's true that scottish ministers aren't featured in as many jokes as
rabbis and priests.

your pal,
blake

"Sacha" > wrote in message
. uk...
> On 25/10/07 16:20, in article ,
> "jmcquown"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> Which is where we come back to lobbying restaurants for manageable
> portions
> of food. I don't call 'perfectly good food' something that is
> contaminated
> by other people's saliva - which has been part of that discussion.

Even the majority of us uncouth Americans don't scrape all the bits and
pieces of remaining forage from our plates and that of others into a 'doggie
bag.' Generally the unclutured will take home a piece of steak or similar
from their own plate that was too much to consume. We do draw the line at
taking home a pile to be served up later to guests.

OTOH, if
> American restaurants serve gigantic portions of food that can't be eaten
> in
> one sitting *on a regular basis*, then taking it home to consume your own
> plateful later is entirely up to the individual, it seems to me. We have
> different cultural approaches to these things. My mother would have killed
> me stone dead if I'd carried the leavings from my plate out of a
> restaurant
> and it's just not something it would cross my mind to do at all here or
> anywhere, though we were offered doggie bags a couple of times in the
> States.
> But surely the question that has to be asked, too, is why DO American
> restaurants so often serve such vast amounts of food for one person to
> eat?
> Is it because it's the Land of Plenty? Has it, indeed, become the
> expectation of people going out to dinner that they'll be able to live off
> that one meal for another day or two? Is it regarded as a sort of
> 'right'?
> One thing my husband and I liked - while on this theme - is that
> restaurants
> don't mind sharing.
We do what we can to provide entertainment and cocktail conversation for
genteel folks overseas that like to murmur in disapproval about the
goings-on in the colonies. But please continue, you may be able to instill
some cultural values in us eventually.
Janet

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:09:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> And your point is?
>
>> Chatty Cathy
>
>My point is that your excuse for not knowing (whatever) about Howard Hughes
>was that you dropped history in high school. By saying that, you imply that
>you stopped learning about history after that.
>

you seem to be saying that cathy is ignorant because she doesn't know
about every kook in america. i'm sure south africa has plenty of
kooks of their own, of whom you probably know nothing.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:28:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
. ..
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> And your point is?
>>>>>>>>>> Chatty Cathy
>>>>>>>>> My point is that your excuse for not knowing (whatever) about
>>>>>>>>> Howard Hughes was that you dropped history in high school. By
>>>>>>>>> saying that, you imply that you stopped learning about history
>>>>>>>>> after that.
>>>>>>>> No, not history in general, just Howard Hughes....
>>>>>>> Illogical.
>>>>> Cathy, I really don't know why you bother with him. He is in my
>>>>> killfile and I can't think of a better place for him.
>>>> Awww, O. Joe's not that bad... he's just "politically incorrect" -
>>>> sometimes...
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Chatty Cathy
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's politically incorrect to point out that being ignorant of
>>> history is a bad thing.
>> Oh, stop being an ass Joe :P... I was trying to say that you don't deserve
>> to be killfiled (IMHO).
>
>We're not done till it's done, Cathy.
>
>America has a president who is ignorant of history. In 1898, we went to war
>with the wrong country, and did the same thing in Vietnam. Bush repeated the
>mistake, and people who love him haven't noticed a thing. This is what
>happens when voters make a conscience choice to stop learning.
>
>You can draw a direct connection between ignorance, and being responsible
>for the deaths of almost 4000 of our soldiers.
>

the invasion of iraq is all cathy's fault! we must demonstrate *en
masse* in front of her house immediately!

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:15:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>> Ahem. *I* don't have a vote in the USA, so I didn't have anything to do
>>> with Bush being made President.... so, you are telling me all this...
>>> why? Write to your Congressman, or something. You might get more
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> OBFood: We had mussels for dinner. With lots of garlic....
>>> --
>>> Cheers
>>> Chatty Cathy
>>
>>
>> I agree. Tell your Congressman; you're not going to convert anyone here
>> to your brand of politics, whichever they are. Reading postings that are
>> constantly twisted just to make a political statement is so boring. I
>> think most everyone here could do without one's own brand of political
>> thought.
>
>
>I'm not espousing any particular type of political thought, but I can see
>where you may've felt that way if you did not read to the beginning of THIS
>BRANCH of the discussion.
>
>What I'm harping on is elective laziness - the belief that somebody else has
>all the knowledge needed to run your life for you, so you need to do
>nothing.
>

because cathy does not know who howard hughes was she is totally unfit
to vote in u.s. elections. got ya.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:43:41 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>"Janet Baraclough" > wrote
>
>> from "Nancy Young" > contains these words:
>
>>> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote
>>
>>> > from "Nancy Young" > contains these words:
>>
>>> >> What can we say. I know about it because money is interesting
>>> >> to me. Perhaps they know a lot about things I can't even pronounce.
>>> >> Chemical engineering. Whatever. I wonder what your friend's wife
>>> >> was doing, taking a survey? So, about that subprime lending ...
>>> >
>>> > He didn't say she was taking a survey.
>>
>>> Did I say he said that?
>>
>>>>> "I wonder what your friend's wife
>>> >> was doing, taking a survey?
>>
>> sounds like it to me.
>
>No, I asked him if that's what she was doing, being sarcastic.
>
>>> > She was talking about the
>>> > current, biggest world news story. The gigantic effects of the US
>>> > sub-prime mortgage crisis, and the falling dollar, have been headline
>>> > news all round the world media for several weeks.
>>
>>> Yes, it's a big story.
>>
>> USA housing market crash is the main headline on BBC world news as I
>> type.
>
>Actually, on that subject, what was a big story today was how one
>of the biggest lenders is re-working a lot of the loans. Why the
>situation is headline news on the BBC today, I don't know.
>
>nancy
>
schadenfreude.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:43:41 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:

>>Actually, on that subject, what was a big story today was how one
>>of the biggest lenders is re-working a lot of the loans. Why the
>>situation is headline news on the BBC today, I don't know.

> schadenfreude.

(laugh!) Could be. I was wondering what would be top news
in Britain on the subject which has been discussed to death here, is
there something new I missed?

Probably not.

nancy

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:15:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> Ahem. *I* don't have a vote in the USA, so I didn't have anything to do
>>>> with Bush being made President.... so, you are telling me all this...
>>>> why? Write to your Congressman, or something. You might get more
>>>> feedback.
>>>>
>>>> OBFood: We had mussels for dinner. With lots of garlic....
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Chatty Cathy
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Tell your Congressman; you're not going to convert anyone
>>> here
>>> to your brand of politics, whichever they are. Reading postings that
>>> are
>>> constantly twisted just to make a political statement is so boring. I
>>> think most everyone here could do without one's own brand of political
>>> thought.
>>
>>
>>I'm not espousing any particular type of political thought, but I can see
>>where you may've felt that way if you did not read to the beginning of
>>THIS
>>BRANCH of the discussion.
>>
>>What I'm harping on is elective laziness - the belief that somebody else
>>has
>>all the knowledge needed to run your life for you, so you need to do
>>nothing.
>>
>
> because cathy does not know who howard hughes was she is totally unfit
> to vote in u.s. elections. got ya.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Umm...no. Because earlier, she suggested that after dropping a history
course in high school, she was all done learning history. That's pathetic.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:09:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> And your point is?
>>
>>> Chatty Cathy
>>
>>My point is that your excuse for not knowing (whatever) about Howard
>>Hughes
>>was that you dropped history in high school. By saying that, you imply
>>that
>>you stopped learning about history after that.
>>
>
> you seem to be saying that cathy is ignorant because she doesn't know
> about every kook in america. i'm sure south africa has plenty of
> kooks of their own, of whom you probably know nothing.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I said no such thing. Read more than just the one message that's easiest for
you to latch onto.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:21:17 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"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...
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chatty Cathy - born and raised in Africa - and proud of it...
>>
>
>I never took African history. In school, I did well to get thru US and West
>Virginia history. But now it is my favorite subject (other than cooking.)
>Little did I know at the time and not until 50 years later that my families'
>names were laced throughout the books.
>Those snooty history teachers.
>
>Born and raised in US and proud of it, too. I think it's great to have a
>pride in country; no matter where.
>Dee Dee
>

dee dee, did you every read 'lies my teacher told me,' by james
loewen? it may seem a leftist screed, but it's really not. it deals
with the way history is taught in u.s. secondary schools, which, in
his opinion, is not very well. i thought it very interesting.

<http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0684818868>

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:28:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Dee Dee > wrote:
>
>> Born and raised in US and proud of it, too. I think it's great to
>> have a pride in country; no matter where.
>
>I take the exactly opposite point of view that nationalist pride has
>been a consistent source of disaster throughout world history.
>
>Steve

pride in your country isn't the problem; invading other countries to
annex them to your own (or steal their stuff) is the problem.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:02:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"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.
>

woodward isn't a loser, he's a bush suck-up. in any case, he's no
historian.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:26:32 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> 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
>
>
>Then there's people like me who never leave home without ice --
>Dee Dee
>

uh-oh! better keep it in the trunk, or there may be trouble with the
police.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:31:39 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike..." > wrote in message
.. .
>> Following up to "Dee Dee" > wrote:
>>
>>>i = I
>>>konw = know
>>>didint = didn't
>>>
>>>Yes, we 'no' of which you speak.
>>
>> this is usenet, its considered crass to point out the routine typos
>> that nobody cares about
>> --
>
>
>That's OK, I'm already crass.
>
>I think it is crass to point out that I'm crass LOL.
>Dee Dee
>

crassness is as crassness does.

your pal,
blake

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote
>
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:43:41 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
>> wrote:
>
>>>Actually, on that subject, what was a big story today was how one
>>>of the biggest lenders is re-working a lot of the loans. Why the
>>>situation is headline news on the BBC today, I don't know.
>
>> schadenfreude.
>
> (laugh!) Could be. I was wondering what would be top news
> in Britain on the subject which has been discussed to death here, is
> there something new I missed?
>
> Probably not.
>
> nancy
I notice there was no mention of the socio-economic (local and global)
reasons that led to the lending problem. Oversight or more US bashing?
Janet

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:24:35 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> 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
>
>Large, at least.
>Dee Dee
>

i was trying not to appear crass.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:11 +0100, Mike...
> wrote:

>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?

that he just missed winning the award *again* this year.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:02:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"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.
>>
>
> woodward isn't a loser, he's a bush suck-up. in any case, he's no
> historian.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Whut! I though Woodward was a bush-wacker.
Dee Dee

"Mike..." > wrote in message
...
> Following up to "Dee Dee" > wrote:
>
>>That's OK, I'm already crass.
>>
>>I think it is crass to point out that I'm crass LOL.
>
> i think its crass to point out that pointing out your crass is crass
> or something like that :-)
> --
> Mike
> Remove clothing to email

You're more crass than me!
Double-double crass.
Dee Dee

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:15:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> Ahem. *I* don't have a vote in the USA, so I didn't have anything to do
>>>> with Bush being made President.... so, you are telling me all this...
>>>> why? Write to your Congressman, or something. You might get more
>>>> feedback.
>>>>
>>>> OBFood: We had mussels for dinner. With lots of garlic....
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Chatty Cathy
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Tell your Congressman; you're not going to convert anyone
>>> here
>>> to your brand of politics, whichever they are. Reading postings that
>>> are
>>> constantly twisted just to make a political statement is so boring. I
>>> think most everyone here could do without one's own brand of political
>>> thought.
>>
>>
>>I'm not espousing any particular type of political thought, but I can see
>>where you may've felt that way if you did not read to the beginning of
>>THIS
>>BRANCH of the discussion.
>>
>>What I'm harping on is elective laziness - the belief that somebody else
>>has
>>all the knowledge needed to run your life for you, so you need to do
>>nothing.
>>
>
> because cathy does not know who howard hughes was she is totally unfit
> to vote in u.s. elections. got ya.
>
> your pal,
> blake


Not only that, she should never post here again.
Dee Dee

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:02:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"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.
>>
>
> woodward isn't a loser, he's a bush suck-up. in any case, he's no
> historian.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Define "historian".

"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
...
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:15:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ahem. *I* don't have a vote in the USA, so I didn't have anything to
>>>>> do
>>>>> with Bush being made President.... so, you are telling me all this...
>>>>> why? Write to your Congressman, or something. You might get more
>>>>> feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> OBFood: We had mussels for dinner. With lots of garlic....
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Chatty Cathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Tell your Congressman; you're not going to convert anyone
>>>> here
>>>> to your brand of politics, whichever they are. Reading postings that
>>>> are
>>>> constantly twisted just to make a political statement is so boring. I
>>>> think most everyone here could do without one's own brand of political
>>>> thought.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not espousing any particular type of political thought, but I can see
>>>where you may've felt that way if you did not read to the beginning of
>>>THIS
>>>BRANCH of the discussion.
>>>
>>>What I'm harping on is elective laziness - the belief that somebody else
>>>has
>>>all the knowledge needed to run your life for you, so you need to do
>>>nothing.
>>>
>>
>> because cathy does not know who howard hughes was she is totally unfit
>> to vote in u.s. elections. got ya.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>
> Not only that, she should never post here again.
> Dee Dee
>

And, she shall be restricted to a diet of nothing but toasted gazelle lips.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
>>
> schadenfreude.
>
> your pal,
> blake


Oh, Oh, I'm not one of those dumpy, frumpy housewives. I happen to know the
meaning of "schadenfreuede." But I didn't think anyone in this whole wide
world knew the meaning of it. I'm just too darned smart to be fraternizing
with those intellectually uninterested women who probably flunked "Social
Studies 101." I hoped I'm never paired (pared?) with them again!

Dee Dee