Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
3.184:

> If there is a scale capable of measuring liquids, it
> would have to know the difference, wouldn't you think? I don't know how
> these "new fangled" scales work. Color me stupid. :-)
>

there is a little booklet. each known weight to volume item has a code in
this booklet...you enter the correct code and the scale then converts
weight to a volume measurement.

Remember those teeny calorie booklets at the grocery store in days of yore.
Probably the same applies here...info but too restricted

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

It'll be a sunny day in August, when the Moon will shine that night-
Elbonian Folklore

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
3.184...
> On Thu 27 Dec 2007 05:59:13p, Janet Baraclough told us...
>
> Only if the recipe was designed for using a scale to measure liquids. I
> have never seen a recipe that specified a liquid measure in weight.
> Volumetric ounces do not equal ounces of mass.
>
> Using a measuring cup, the volume of all liquids will be precisely the
> same, ounce for ounce.
>
> Using a scale, I do not understand how the logic of the scale
> differentiates between an ounce of water and an ounce of molasses. The
> weight of equal volumes would definitely be different.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright

This scale does not measure volume. It claims to measure liquids in fluid
ounces. It does this by assuming your liquid has the same density as water
and any difference in density will result in some error that you have to
live with. It takes the weight in pounds and divides it by 16 and displays
"fluid ounces."

At least it doesn't claim to measure the volume of solids. A cup (8 fl.
oz.) of marshmallows would be a hell of a lot of marshmallows.

Mitch

"Mitch Scherer" > wrote in message
...
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> 3.184...
>> On Thu 27 Dec 2007 05:59:13p, Janet Baraclough told us...
>>
>> Only if the recipe was designed for using a scale to measure liquids. I
>> have never seen a recipe that specified a liquid measure in weight.
>> Volumetric ounces do not equal ounces of mass.
>>
>> Using a measuring cup, the volume of all liquids will be precisely the
>> same, ounce for ounce.
>>
>> Using a scale, I do not understand how the logic of the scale
>> differentiates between an ounce of water and an ounce of molasses. The
>> weight of equal volumes would definitely be different.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> This scale does not measure volume. It claims to measure liquids in fluid
> ounces. It does this by assuming your liquid has the same density as
> water and any difference in density will result in some error that you
> have to live with. It takes the weight in pounds and divides it by 16 and
> displays "fluid ounces."
>
> At least it doesn't claim to measure the volume of solids. A cup (8 fl.
> oz.) of marshmallows would be a hell of a lot of marshmallows.
>
> Mitch

Please excuse the error in my last post. That should be pounds MULTIPLIED
by 16 to get "fluid ounces." That's what I get for hastily typing these
messages.

Mitch

"Mitch Scherer" > wrote in :

> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> 3.184...
>> On Thu 27 Dec 2007 05:59:13p, Janet Baraclough told us...
>>
>> Only if the recipe was designed for using a scale to measure liquids.
>> I have never seen a recipe that specified a liquid measure in
>> weight. Volumetric ounces do not equal ounces of mass.
>>
>> Using a measuring cup, the volume of all liquids will be precisely
>> the same, ounce for ounce.
>>
>> Using a scale, I do not understand how the logic of the scale
>> differentiates between an ounce of water and an ounce of molasses.
>> The weight of equal volumes would definitely be different.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> This scale does not measure volume. It claims to measure liquids in
> fluid ounces. It does this by assuming your liquid has the same
> density as water and any difference in density will result in some
> error that you have to live with. It takes the weight in pounds and
> divides it by 16 and displays "fluid ounces."
>
> At least it doesn't claim to measure the volume of solids. A cup (8
> fl. oz.) of marshmallows would be a hell of a lot of marshmallows.
>
> Mitch
>
>
>


a pound is 16 oz.(by weight) technical name avoirdupois ounce and 16
fluid oz is a pint (by volume). Also take into consideration imperial and
US fluid ounce differ as well. Imperial ounces are smaller in size.

There is no comparision between weight and volume. Denser stuff weighs
more for the same size or volume...but fill the same volume. for example
1 pound of water or 16 avoirdupois ounces can be converted to 16.68 fluid
ounces note the difference.


....a pound of lead and a pound of feathers both weigh the same... a pound
of lead wouldn't be a full 8 fliud ounces (I'm guessing here and guess at
less than 1 fluid oz for the 1 pound of lead.) Whereas the 1 pound of
feathers would be multiple 8 ounce measuring cups probably a gallon or
more. A gallon is 16 cups.

There are scales that will convert weight to mass...but they use a code
for each item and come with a booklet with the codes. These booklets are
not very informitive...you get a conversion code for flour but not for
wheat groats etc or whole wheat or rye flour etc...You are better off
creating your own booklet by weighing ingredients by cup and writing it
down and then using your info to get correct weight to volume conversion.
But change brands of an item and all bets are off.

For more than you want to know on the subject go to
http://tinyurl.com/yvx5z6


--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

It'll be a sunny day in August, when the Moon will shine that night-
Elbonian Folklore

hahabogus > wrote:

:There is no comparision between weight and volume. Denser stuff weighs

Of course there is. It's called density. If you know the density of
an item, measuring its mass will tell you the volume, or vice versa.
There are lots of things in the kitchen that have a constant enough
density to make converting from volume to mass accurate enough for
use in cooking.

:...a pound of lead and a pound of feathers both weigh the same... a pound
f lead wouldn't be a full 8 fliud ounces (I'm guessing here and guess at
:less than 1 fluid oz for the 1 pound of lead.) Whereas the 1 pound of

Lead has a density of 11.34 g/cc, so a pound (454 g) is 40 cc, which
is a touch more than 1.33 us fl oz.

:feathers would be multiple 8 ounce measuring cups probably a gallon or
:more. A gallon is 16 cups.

:There are scales that will convert weight to mass...but they use a code
:for each item and come with a booklet with the codes. These booklets are
:not very informitive...you get a conversion code for flour but not for
:wheat groats etc or whole wheat or rye flour etc...You are better off
:creating your own booklet by weighing ingredients by cup and writing it
:down and then using your info to get correct weight to volume conversion.
:But change brands of an item and all bets are off.

There are scales that let you enter an arbitrary density, and read the
mass of the item on the scale as a volume. They've got a number of
industrial uses, including packaging liquids. I don't know if there
are any commonly sold for use in the kitchen.

On Thu 27 Dec 2007 07:43:13p, David Scheidt told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>:Only if the recipe was designed for using a scale to measure liquids. I
>:have never seen a recipe that specified a liquid measure in weight.
>:Volumetric ounces do not equal ounces of mass.
>
> Lots of (good) baking recipes do. I much prefer them that way. It's
> much easier to put a container on the scale, hit tare, and add liquid
> until it reads the correct mass than it is to pour it in a measuring cup
> -- it saves having to clean that measure, it's faster (you don't have to
> wait for the liquid to stop moving to read the scale, the way you do with
> a measuring cup), and it saves bending over to read the measure. I
> convert recipes to mass the first time I use one, if I think I'll try
> it a second time, and it makes sense to do so.

Understood, and I agree that weight measurement on an accurate scale is
more desirable. However, apart from baking books I think it is rare to see
liquid ingredient measurements listed this way in ordinary cookbooks. This
is true at least in the US. Most recips, apart from baking, are not that
critical about the measurement, apart from cooking in large quantities.

>:Using a measuring cup, the volume of all liquids will be precisely the
>:same, ounce for ounce.
>
> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.

I can't deny that, but that degree of accuracy is seldom needed in the
average recipe and in home related quantities.

>:Using a scale, I do not understand how the logic of the scale
>:differentiates between an ounce of water and an ounce of molasses. The
>:weight of equal volumes would definitely be different.
>
> There are scales that allow you to set the density of the fluid you're
> measuring, and they'll display the weighed quantity in fl. oz. or
> mililitres. (Lots of industrial packing is done by mass, even if the
> quantity is listed as a fluid measure, or a count.) There are probably
> some that have common kitchen fluids built in, but I've never looked.

I didn't know this, and this is what I was trying to find out. I would
think that this is more common and more useful in commercial applications.
That is, until cookbooks written for the home consumer begin using such
measuring techniques. Otherwise, it would require conversion of virtually
every recipe.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Thursday, 12(XII)/27(XXVII)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
4dys 40mins
*******************************************
The world is a cynic's playground.
*******************************************

On Thu 27 Dec 2007 07:56:52p, Mitch Scherer told us...

> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> 3.184...
>> On Thu 27 Dec 2007 05:59:13p, Janet Baraclough told us...
>>
>> Only if the recipe was designed for using a scale to measure liquids.
>> I have never seen a recipe that specified a liquid measure in weight.
>> Volumetric ounces do not equal ounces of mass.
>>
>> Using a measuring cup, the volume of all liquids will be precisely the
>> same, ounce for ounce.
>>
>> Using a scale, I do not understand how the logic of the scale
>> differentiates between an ounce of water and an ounce of molasses. The
>> weight of equal volumes would definitely be different.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> This scale does not measure volume. It claims to measure liquids in
> fluid ounces. It does this by assuming your liquid has the same density
> as water and any difference in density will result in some error that
> you have to live with. It takes the weight in pounds and divides it by
> 16 and displays "fluid ounces."

That was my point.

> At least it doesn't claim to measure the volume of solids. A cup (8 fl.
> oz.) of marshmallows would be a hell of a lot of marshmallows.

More than I would want to roast over a bonfire, Mitch. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Thursday, 12(XII)/27(XXVII)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
4dys 15mins
*******************************************
The Thanksgiving turkey, the baloney,
and other deli meats belong to the cat.
*******************************************

On Thu 27 Dec 2007 08:05:11p, Mitch Scherer told us...

> "Mitch Scherer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>> 3.184...
>>> On Thu 27 Dec 2007 05:59:13p, Janet Baraclough told us...
>>>
>>> Only if the recipe was designed for using a scale to measure liquids.
>>> I have never seen a recipe that specified a liquid measure in weight.
>>> Volumetric ounces do not equal ounces of mass.
>>>
>>> Using a measuring cup, the volume of all liquids will be precisely the
>>> same, ounce for ounce.
>>>
>>> Using a scale, I do not understand how the logic of the scale
>>> differentiates between an ounce of water and an ounce of molasses.
>>> The weight of equal volumes would definitely be different.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>
>> This scale does not measure volume. It claims to measure liquids in
>> fluid ounces. It does this by assuming your liquid has the same
>> density as water and any difference in density will result in some
>> error that you have to live with. It takes the weight in pounds and
>> divides it by 16 and displays "fluid ounces."
>>
>> At least it doesn't claim to measure the volume of solids. A cup (8
>> fl. oz.) of marshmallows would be a hell of a lot of marshmallows.
>>
>> Mitch
>
> Please excuse the error in my last post. That should be pounds
> MULTIPLIED by 16 to get "fluid ounces." That's what I get for hastily
> typing these messages.
>
> Mitch
>
>
>

No problem, I understood what you meant.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Thursday, 12(XII)/27(XXVII)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
4dys 15mins
*******************************************
The Thanksgiving turkey, the baloney,
and other deli meats belong to the cat.
*******************************************

"hahabogus" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are scales that will convert weight to mass...but they use a code
> for each item and come with a booklet with the codes. These booklets
> are...

You are confusing mass with volume. As was pointed out earlier, the
relation of weight to volume is density and the "codes" you refer to (the
conversion factors) are the densities of the stuff you are weighing and wish
to find the volumes.

The relation of weight (a force) to mass is the acceleration of gravity.
Under standard gravity, a pound mass is pretty much equal to one pound
weight. Here on the surface of planet earth, the acceleration of gravity is
very close to the standard gravity. On the moon where gravity is much less,
one pound mass does not weigh even close to one pound.

If you have a cubic foot of something and you know that its density is 10
pounds per cubic foot, you can calculate that its weight is its volume times
its density or 10 lb.

A very accurate scale can be calibrated to account for the slight variation
of gravity for its location and other factors to give a very precise mass
measurement (not directly but from weight).

Mitch

"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...


<snip>
> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.

An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.

Felice

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
wrote:

>
>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>
>
><snip>
>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>
>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>
>Felice
>

i just close one eye and it seems to go way.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>
>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>
>>Felice
>
> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?

Felice

On Fri 28 Dec 2007 07:37:16a, Felice told us...

>
> "David Scheidt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> <snip>
>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>
> An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>
> Felice
>
>
>

There is, but the cure is fatal.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Friday, 12(XII)/28(XXVIII)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
3dys 11hrs 25mins
*******************************************
I've been on a diet for two weeks and
all I've lost is two weeks. --Totie Fields
*******************************************

On Fri 28 Dec 2007 11:36:18a, Felice told us...

>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>>
>>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>>
>>>Felice
>>
>> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?
>
> Felice
>
>
>

Like I said...fatal.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Friday, 12(XII)/28(XXVIII)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
3dys 11hrs 25mins
*******************************************
I've been on a diet for two weeks and
all I've lost is two weeks. --Totie Fields
*******************************************

Felice > wrote:

:"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...


:<snip>
:> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
:> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
:> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.

:An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.

When you pour a liquid into a clean container, it tends to climb up
the walls (down, if you're measuring mercury). That film is the
meniscus. If you don't account for it, you'll read the contents of
cup as higher than they actually are. Water is easy to adjust for,
since it's transparent. Milk, oils and the like are harder, as
they're opaque.

"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
> Felice > wrote:
>
> :"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> :<snip>
> :> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
> :> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
> :> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>
> :An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>
> When you pour a liquid into a clean container, it tends to climb up
> the walls (down, if you're measuring mercury). That film is the
> meniscus. If you don't account for it, you'll read the contents of
> cup as higher than they actually are. Water is easy to adjust for,
> since it's transparent. Milk, oils and the like are harder, as
> they're opaque.

Thanks, David. That explains it a lot more clearly than my dictionary or
Wiki. The only meniscus I knew was the knee one!

Felice

"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...

>
> When you pour a liquid into a clean container, it tends to climb up
> the walls (down, if you're measuring mercury). That film is the
> meniscus. If you don't account for it, you'll read the contents of
> cup as higher than they actually are. Water is easy to adjust for,
> since it's transparent. Milk, oils and the like are harder, as
> they're opaque.
>

So what, exactly, are you cooking that requires that level of accuracy???
Or are you just anal/compulsive?

Ms P

In article >,
"Felice" > wrote:

> Thanks, David. That explains it a lot more clearly than my dictionary or
> Wiki. The only meniscus I knew was the knee one!

And your knee is the only one you should worry about unless you are
using very small diameter containers and doing chemistry.

leo

On Sat 29 Dec 2007 12:39:46a, Leonard Blaisdell told us...

> In article >,
> "Felice" > wrote:
>
>> Thanks, David. That explains it a lot more clearly than my dictionary or
>> Wiki. The only meniscus I knew was the knee one!
>
> And your knee is the only one you should worry about unless you are
> using very small diameter containers and doing chemistry.
>
> leo
>

Don't worry, be happy! :-) Meniscus Smiscus

I'll stick with my American cups, spoons, and ounce/pound scales for
American cookbooks, and my Imperial measuring spoons, jugs, and switch on
the scales for grams.

I weigh ingredients when the recipe specifies to do so. I measure
likewise.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Saturday, 12(XII)/29(XXIX)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
2dys 23hrs 15mins
*******************************************
I'd love to, but I've dedicated my
life to linguini.
*******************************************

Leonard Blaisdell > wrote:
:In article >,
: "Felice" > wrote:

:> Thanks, David. That explains it a lot more clearly than my dictionary or
:> Wiki. The only meniscus I knew was the knee one!

:And your knee is the only one you should worry about unless you are
:using very small diameter containers and doing chemistry.

Using very small diamter containers reduces the inaccuracy. There's a
reason that volumetric flasks and other glassware are as narrow as
practical. The meniscus is important in cooking, too. I put 100
grams of cold tap water my Pyrex 1 cup measure. The top of the
meniscus is well above the 100 ml line, about 110. The bottom of the
meniscus is at 100ml. If I fill the container so that the top of the
meniscus appears to be at 100 ml while I'm standing up, I only end up
with 87 grams of water in the cup. That's 13% error, and pretty
substantial.

On Dec 28, 6:10�pm, "Ms P" > wrote:
> "David Scheidt" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > When you pour a liquid into a clean container, it tends to climb up
> > the walls (down, if you're measuring mercury). �That film is the
> > meniscus. �If you don't account for it, you'll read the contents of
> > cup as higher than they actually are. �Water is easy to adjust for,
> > since it's transparent. �Milk, oils and the like are harder, as
> > they're opaque.
>
> So what, exactly, are you cooking that requires that level of accuracy???
> Or are you just anal/compulsive?
>
> Ms P

If you use the same cup to measure all liquids then they will all be
off by nearly the same percentage, depending on viscosity... and
you're correct, cooking/baking is not pharmacy.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:18 -0500, "Felice" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>>
>>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>>
>>>Felice
>>
>> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?
>
>Felice
>

**** if i know. where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
like a specialty item to me.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:18 -0500, "Felice" >
> wrote:
>>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>>>
>>>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>>>
>>>>Felice
>>>
>>> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>>Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?
>>
>>Felice
>
> **** if i know. where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
> like a specialty item to me.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Dunno where you get it. Penzey's?

Felice

On Sat 29 Dec 2007 12:26:42p, blake murphy told us...

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:18 -0500, "Felice" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>>>
>>>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>>>
>>>>Felice
>>>
>>> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>>Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?
>>
>>Felice
>>
>
> **** if i know. where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
> like a specialty item to me.
>
> your pal,
> blake

At the bilateral opaque meniscus store, of course. Don't you have one in
your neighborhood? We have one right around the corner. Meniscus is all
they sell, in every possible variety.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Saturday, 12(XII)/29(XXIX)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
2dys 10hrs 40mins
*******************************************
Never try to out stare a cat. They've
got no eyelids.
*******************************************

On Sat 29 Dec 2007 06:18:04p, Janet Baraclough told us...

> The message 4>
> from Wayne Boatwright > contains these words:
>
>> On Sat 29 Dec 2007 12:26:42p, blake murphy told us...
>
> where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
>> > like a specialty item to me.
>
>
>> At the bilateral opaque meniscus store, of course. Don't you have one
in
>> your neighborhood? We have one right around the corner. Meniscus is
all
>> they sell, in every possible variety.
>
> Yebbut, the freight and delivery are pretty expensive. It's cheaper
> to rent one.
> I just borrow one (free) from the library (must remember to wash that
> shopping bag).
>
> Janet
>

I'm lucky I'm so close. Yes, I must remember to wash that shopping bag.
:-)

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Saturday, 12(XII)/29(XXIX)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
2dys 5hrs 15mins
*******************************************
Reality crept in. I nailed it for
trespassing.
*******************************************

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:22:52 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sat 29 Dec 2007 12:26:42p, blake murphy told us...
>
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:18 -0500, "Felice" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>>>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>>>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>>>>
>>>>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>>>>
>>>>>Felice
>>>>
>>>> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>
>>>Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?
>>>
>>>Felice
>>>
>>
>> **** if i know. where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
>> like a specialty item to me.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>At the bilateral opaque meniscus store, of course. Don't you have one in
>your neighborhood? We have one right around the corner. Meniscus is all
>they sell, in every possible variety.

i bet it's only twenty-nine cents a pound, too.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:18:04 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message 4>
>from Wayne Boatwright > contains these words:
>
>> On Sat 29 Dec 2007 12:26:42p, blake murphy told us...
>
> where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
>> > like a specialty item to me.
>
>
>> At the bilateral opaque meniscus store, of course. Don't you have one in
>> your neighborhood? We have one right around the corner. Meniscus is all
>> they sell, in every possible variety.
>
> Yebbut, the freight and delivery are pretty expensive. It's cheaper
>to rent one.
> I just borrow one (free) from the library (must remember to wash that
>shopping bag).
>
> Janet

for that, you might want to wash the bag every time, not just every
other.

your pal,
blake

On Sun 30 Dec 2007 09:15:14a, blake murphy told us...

> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:22:52 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat 29 Dec 2007 12:26:42p, blake murphy told us...
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:18 -0500, "Felice" >
wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>>>>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>>>>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Felice
>>>>>
>>>>> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>>>>>
>>>>> your pal,
>>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?
>>>>
>>>>Felice
>>>>
>>>
>>> **** if i know. where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
>>> like a specialty item to me.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>>At the bilateral opaque meniscus store, of course. Don't you have one in
>>your neighborhood? We have one right around the corner. Meniscus is all
>>they sell, in every possible variety.
>
> i bet it's only twenty-nine cents a pound, too.
>
> your pal,
> blake

True, and every Tuesday is double-stamp day.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 12(XII)/30(XXX)/07(MMVII)
Countdown till New Years
1dys 10hrs 50mins
*******************************************
First Law of Sociology: Some do, some
don't.
*******************************************

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:12:02 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 30 Dec 2007 09:15:14a, blake murphy told us...
>
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:22:52 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat 29 Dec 2007 12:26:42p, blake murphy told us...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:18 -0500, "Felice" >
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:37:16 -0500, "Felice" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"David Scheidt" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>> As long as you use the same measuring cup. They're remarkably
>>>>>>>> inaccurate. And lots of things you measure in them are hard to
>>>>>>>> measure accurately, because they've got an opaque meniscus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An "opaque meniscus"? That sounds serious. I hope there's a cure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Felice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i just close one eye and it seems to go way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your pal,
>>>>>> blake
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, but will that work if you have <bilateral> opaque meniscus?
>>>>>
>>>>>Felice
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **** if i know. where do you get bilateral opaque meniscus? sounds
>>>> like a specialty item to me.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>
>>>At the bilateral opaque meniscus store, of course. Don't you have one in
>>>your neighborhood? We have one right around the corner. Meniscus is all
>>>they sell, in every possible variety.
>>
>> i bet it's only twenty-nine cents a pound, too.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>True, and every Tuesday is double-stamp day.

o.k., that's it, i'm moving to arizona.

your pal,
blake