On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:21:36 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>Nancy2 wrote:
>>> "Never making someone sick" from one's cooking is not
>>> a "pretty admirable track record," it is a requirement.
>>>
>>> Jesus. Who wants to eat or serve ANYTHING that is not fresh?
>>
>> Sometimes, those of us who are older than dirt, remember our
>> parents:
>>
>> "Eat your food! There are children in China who are STARVING!" and
>> think we can't ever throw food out. LOL.
>>
>> N.
>
>Is aged cheese "fresh"? How about aged beef?
>Many things are improved when prepared and then reheated. Stews and
>chili often improve for example. Are they un-fresh?
>What exactly *is* the definition of fresh?? A fruit or veg picked off
>the plant the same day of eating...does that make one purchased days
>after picking "un-fresh"??

you mustn't pick the fruit off the tree, but instead climb the tree
and eat it there. true, it causes the tree excruciating pain, but
them's the breaks if you're a lower life form.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:55:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> blinky, blinky, blinky. for a man, accuracy matters only in ****ing.
>> (assuming while shitting you can at least hit the toilet.)
>>
>
>Having had a part time job as janitor in a restaurant when I was a student, I can
>speak with some authority that men are much better at hitting the toilet in public
>washrooms than women are.
>

almost every janitor i've heard with an opinion on the subject has
said the same thing.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:41:16 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:14:09 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>notbob wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-06-05, Ken > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How do you judge when to throw out something that still seems ok?
>>>>
>>>> If, after eating it, you can shit through the eye of a needle at fifty
>>>> feet,
>>>> you kept it too long.
>>>
>>>Wow! It really increases your accuracy that much? Cool!
>>
>> blinky, blinky, blinky. for a man, accuracy matters only in ****ing.
>> (assuming while shitting you can at least hit the toilet.)
>>
>This is just precious. You two are clearly soul mates.
>

brothers under the sharkskin.

your pal,
blake

[Using Blake's post. -- TR]

> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:07:06 -0400, "cybertwit"
> > wrote:
>> "Never making someone sick" from one's cooking
>> is not a "pretty admirable track record," it is a
>> requirement.
>>
>> Jesus. Who wants to eat or serve ANYTHING
>> that is not fresh?

I should have known cybertwit was the know-nothing idiot that
posted this.

The Ranger

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
ndwidth...
> [Using Blake's post. -- TR]
>
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:07:06 -0400, "cybertwit" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Never making someone sick" from one's cooking
>>> is not a "pretty admirable track record," it is a
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>> Jesus. Who wants to eat or serve ANYTHING
>>> that is not fresh?
>
> I should have known cybertwit was the know-nothing idiot that posted this.
>

I love you, too, dickcheese.

Again, why the hell would ANYONE want to eat or serve ANYTHING that is not
fresh? This is not the 3rd ****ing world. Or, maybe it is at your house.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:55:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> blinky, blinky, blinky. for a man, accuracy matters only in ****ing.
>>> (assuming while shitting you can at least hit the toilet.)
>>>
>>
>>Having had a part time job as janitor in a restaurant when I was a
>>student, I can
>>speak with some authority that men are much better at hitting the toilet
>>in public
>>washrooms than women are.
>>
>
> almost every janitor i've heard with an opinion on the subject has
> said the same thing.
>
I am clearly hanging out in the wrong circles. You could fill a book with
what I don't know about public rest rooms.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:07:06 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Ranger" > wrote
>>>
>>> She's _never_ been sick or made someone sick from something she
>>> considers
>>> questionable. I'd say that's a pretty admirable track record. Also, if
>>> it
>>> worries her, it's not perfectly good food; she wouldn't be able to enjoy
>>> the food "wondering" throughout the entire meal if she was going to get
>>> sick or cause someone to get sick. <shrug>
>>>
>>
>>"Never making someone sick" from one's cooking is not
>>a "pretty admirable track record," it is a requirement.
>>
>>Jesus. Who wants to eat or serve ANYTHING that is not fresh?
>>
>
> you don't eat all the meat you make for sandwiches on the day you cook
> it, do you?
>

Already covered this, had you read the entire thread or at the very least my
other comment in it. (Please pass this on to Goomba the Mouthbreather, too.)

If it is a dish I cooked, after four days max, it's gone. If you look at any
reputable food saftey information, that's a really good idea bacteria wise,
but I do it because I like fresh food.

Soups and stews are often better the second day. They are still gone by the
fourth.

What else is there? Condiments are kept until the "use by" date, unless I
feel they've been in there too long. Fruit juices, used within four days.
Eggs keep forever, but if I break one in the pan and it is too flat I might
toss it.

My sainted MIL sent over some oatmeal bars, allegedly to help with her son's
high cholesterol. The "use by" date had expired over a year earlier.

Keeping stuff too long is just musty old lady crap. Or for old geezers with
pee stains in their underwear. Or idiots like Goomba who don't know any
better and think they have a God-given right to be right.

Well, I guess that about covers it. I'm off to brighten some more lives.

On Jun 7, 9:47 am, "cybertwit" > loudly brayed:
> I am clearly hanging out in the wrong circles. You could
> fill a book with what I don't know.

I edited it since you don't know when to stop.

On Jun 7, 9:45 am, "cybertwit" > pewled off-key:
> Again, why the hell would ANYONE want to eat or serve
> ANYTHING that is not fresh? [..]

Are you really this stupid or do you enjoy making yourself look like
an idiot? (I already know the answer.)

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 7, 9:45 am, "cybertwit" > pewled off-key:
>> Again, why the hell would ANYONE want to eat or serve
>> ANYTHING that is not fresh? [..]
>
> Are you really this stupid or do you enjoy making yourself look like
> an idiot? (I already know the answer.)

Oh wow, that really hurts.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 7, 9:47 am, "cybertwit" > loudly brayed:
>> I am clearly hanging out in the wrong circles. You could
>> fill a book with what I don't know.
>
> I edited it since you don't know when to stop.

What is it, asswipe, do you have your Depends in a knot because someone has
dared to say (again) that they don't want to hear your asinine offspring
stories?

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:54:45 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:07:06 -0400, "cybercat" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"The Ranger" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> She's _never_ been sick or made someone sick from something she
>>>> considers
>>>> questionable. I'd say that's a pretty admirable track record. Also, if
>>>> it
>>>> worries her, it's not perfectly good food; she wouldn't be able to enjoy
>>>> the food "wondering" throughout the entire meal if she was going to get
>>>> sick or cause someone to get sick. <shrug>
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Never making someone sick" from one's cooking is not
>>>a "pretty admirable track record," it is a requirement.
>>>
>>>Jesus. Who wants to eat or serve ANYTHING that is not fresh?
>>>
>>
>> you don't eat all the meat you make for sandwiches on the day you cook
>> it, do you?
>>
>
>Already covered this, had you read the entire thread or at the very least my
>other comment in it. (Please pass this on to Goomba the Mouthbreather, too.)
>
>If it is a dish I cooked, after four days max, it's gone. If you look at any
>reputable food saftey information, that's a really good idea bacteria wise,
>but I do it because I like fresh food.
>
>Soups and stews are often better the second day. They are still gone by the
>fourth.
>

well, o.k., then. i might push it to six days, but same thing.

>What else is there? Condiments are kept until the "use by" date, unless I
>feel they've been in there too long. Fruit juices, used within four days.
>Eggs keep forever, but if I break one in the pan and it is too flat I might
>toss it.
>
condiments vary. stuff that's mostly salt or vinegar might live past
the 'use by' if they look o.k. usually those dates say '*best* if
used by,' not 'you're gonna die.' they're usually stuffed with
preservatives anyway.

>My sainted MIL sent over some oatmeal bars, allegedly to help with her son's
>high cholesterol. The "use by" date had expired over a year earlier.
>

yeah, stuff like that just gets nasty.

your pal,
blake

The Ranger wrote:

> On Jun 7, 9:45 am, "cybertwit" > pewled off-key:
> > Again, why the hell would ANYONE want to eat or serve
> > ANYTHING that is not fresh? [..]
>
> Are you really this stupid or do you enjoy making yourself look like
> an idiot? (I already know the answer.)


<chuckle>

The cyberDENSE is the rfc :"class retard", the one who sits in the corner
picking her noze and eating it whilst the rest of us look on aghast...

--
Best
Gregory Morrow

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:55:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> blinky, blinky, blinky. for a man, accuracy matters only in ****ing.
>>> (assuming while shitting you can at least hit the toilet.)
>>>
>>
>>Having had a part time job as janitor in a restaurant when I was a student, I can
>>speak with some authority that men are much better at hitting the toilet in public
>>washrooms than women are.
>>
>
>almost every janitor i've heard with an opinion on the subject has
>said the same thing.

I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. They had a
porter and matron on duty all day. The porter spent over 75% of his
day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. The matron
spent almost all her day cleaning hers.

Lou

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT), The Ranger
> wrote:

>On Jun 7, 9:47 am, "cybertwit" > loudly brayed:
>> I am clearly hanging out in the wrong circles. You could
>> fill a book with what I don't know.
>
>I edited it since you don't know when to stop.

She's here for entertainment purposes only.

Lou

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:05:52 -0500, "Dry Riesling"
> wrote:

>
>The Ranger wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 9:45 am, "cybertwit" > pewled off-key:
>> > Again, why the hell would ANYONE want to eat or serve
>> > ANYTHING that is not fresh? [..]
>>
>> Are you really this stupid or do you enjoy making yourself look like
>> an idiot? (I already know the answer.)
>
>
><chuckle>
>
>The cyberDENSE is the rfc :"class retard", the one who sits in the corner
>picking her noze and eating it whilst the rest of us look on aghast...

She's the kid who barfed on her desk in 1st. grade, and then wrote her
name in it.

Lou

"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT), The Ranger
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jun 7, 9:47 am, "cybertwit" > loudly brayed:
>>> I am clearly hanging out in the wrong circles. You could
>>> fill a book with what I don't know.
>>
>>I edited it since you don't know when to stop.
>
> She's here for entertainment purposes only.
>
It's true. I pretend to be annoyed by fetid old geezers like you, but I am
secretly amused.

cyberDUMB scribbles:

> "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT), The Ranger
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>On Jun 7, 9:47 am, "cybertwit" > loudly brayed:
> >>> I am clearly hanging out in the wrong circles. You could
> >>> fill a book with what I don't know.
> >>
> >>I edited it since you don't know when to stop.
> >
> > She's here for entertainment purposes only.
> >
> It's true. I pretend to be annoyed by fetid old geezers like you, but I am
> secretly amused.


U remind of us of a not - too - smart kitty kat who has scarfed down a bunch
of xmas tinsel and now that the tinsel has "passed" you have a bunch of
tinsel hanging out of yer anus...IOW U R a more - than - faintly -
ridiculous sight, kind of a FREAK in fact...!!!

^..^

--
Best
Gregory Morrow

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:55:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >>blake murphy wrote:
>
> >>> blinky, blinky, blinky. *for a man, accuracy matters only in ****ing..
> >>> (assuming while shitting you can at least hit the toilet.)
>
> >>Having had a part time job as janitor in a restaurant when I was a student, I can
> >>speak with some authority that men are much better at hitting the toilet in public
> >>washrooms than women are.
>
> >almost every janitor i've heard with an opinion on the subject has
> >said the same thing.
>
> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>
> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. If nothing but
females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
dust it now and then. Males? Completely opposite.

N.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy

>> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
>> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
>> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
>> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
>> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>>
>> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. If nothing but
>females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
>dust it now and then. Males? Completely opposite.

I have no idea what the answer to that question is. But I know you're
right. Boys just go in and get the job over at work. Women seem to
consider it a break. Some sleep on the toilet, some find a thrill in
tossing a bloody item on the floor, and some think the sink is in a
dressing room for someone else to clean up the mess.

Nice drift for a food group <eg>

Lou

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
>>
>>
>> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
>> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
>> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
>> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
>> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>>
>> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. If nothing but
>females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
>dust it now and then. Males? Completely opposite.
>
>N.

it seems many women refuse to completely (or even mostly) sit down on
public johns, for they are delicate creatures.

your pal,
blake

On Jun 10, 11:59*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
>
> >> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
> >> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
> >> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
> >> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
> >> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>
> >> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. *If nothing but
> >females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
> >dust it now and then. *Males? Completely opposite.
>
> >N.
>
> it seems many women refuse to completely (or even mostly) sit down on
> public johns, for they are delicate creatures.
>
> your pal,
> blake- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is true. I suppose that's the main reason why women's public
restrooms are messier (if they are). We should all carry around those
little purse-packs of toilet seat disposable covers.

N.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:


>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
>>
>> >> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
>> >> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
>> >> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
>> >> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
>> >> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>>
>> >> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. *If nothing but
>> >females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
>> >dust it now and then. *Males? Completely opposite.
>>
>> >N.
>>
>> it seems many women refuse to completely (or even mostly) sit down on
>> public johns, for they are delicate creatures.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>That is true. I suppose that's the main reason why women's public
>restrooms are messier (if they are). We should all carry around those
>little purse-packs of toilet seat disposable covers.

The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.

Lou

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:59:07 -0500, Lou Decruss >
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:
>
>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
>>>
>>> >> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
>>> >> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
>>> >> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
>>> >> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
>>> >> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>>>
>>> >> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. *If nothing but
>>> >females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
>>> >dust it now and then. *Males? Completely opposite.
>>>
>>> >N.
>>>
>>> it seems many women refuse to completely (or even mostly) sit down on
>>> public johns, for they are delicate creatures.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>That is true. I suppose that's the main reason why women's public
>>restrooms are messier (if they are). We should all carry around those
>>little purse-packs of toilet seat disposable covers.
>
>The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
>it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.
>
>Lou

god have mercy.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote:
>>
>>The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
>>it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.
>>
>>Lou
>
> god have mercy.
>

Careful, dahling. Everyone knows that men who obsess on how "dirty"
women are tend to be 1. really lousy in bed and 2. practicing or potential
homosexuals.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:58:48 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
>>>it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.
>>>
>>>Lou
>>
>> god have mercy.
>>
>
>Careful, dahling. Everyone knows that men who obsess on how "dirty"
>women are tend to be 1. really lousy in bed and 2. practicing or potential
>homosexuals.
>

why the **** should i care if women **** on the floor just like men
do? i'm not the janitor.

your pal,
blake