I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...

Corey Richardson > wrote:

> I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
> tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...

I didn't think it was possible to have more diarrhea of the mouth
and less character than Andy, but you've succeeded.

-sw

"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
> tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...

Not my experience. Yesterday for breakfast I had a small steak with truffle
sauce and it was splendid.

Stop cross posting. The entire world is not interested in your every word.

said...

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:15:25 +0100, Corey Richardson
> > wrote:
>
>>I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
>>tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...
>>
> I don't order truffle dishes, so I don't have a point of reference....
> but I love the duck pate that has truffles in it.


I bought a small jar of black truffles once and was highly disappointed.
Flavor was next to nothing and at that price?! I'll try white truffles some
day to see if there's a difference.

I sliced them over chicken and ate one by itself. Unremarkable.

Andy

"Andy" <q> ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> said...
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:15:25 +0100, Corey Richardson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
>>>tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...
>>>
>> I don't order truffle dishes, so I don't have a point of reference....
>> but I love the duck pate that has truffles in it.
>
>
> I bought a small jar of black truffles once and was highly disappointed.
> Flavor was next to nothing and at that price?! I'll try white truffles
> some
> day to see if there's a difference.
>
> I sliced them over chicken and ate one by itself. Unremarkable.
>
> Andy

Quality varies and even variety makes a difference. You need to learn how
to read the label before buying more.

White truffles must be fresh or infused into oil. Because they can't be
cooked they can't be canned. Just be sure the label says aromi di tartufo
and not just aromi.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:18:53 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:

>
>"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
.. .
>>I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
>> tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...
>>
>>
>FFS STOP X-POSTING

It was x-posted to two *very* relevant groups!

On Aug 14, 9:53*am, Corey Richardson >
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:18:53 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>
> >"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
> >> tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...
>
> >FFS STOP X-POSTING
>
> It was x-posted to two *very* relevant groups!

Just go away.
Lynn in Fargo

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Lynn from Fargo
> wrote:

>On Aug 14, 9:53*am, Corey Richardson >
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:18:53 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >>I can't be the only person who finds them overrated, a tad (very?)
>> >> tasteless, over expensive for what they are, and a bit meh...
>>
>> >FFS STOP X-POSTING
>>
>> It was x-posted to two *very* relevant groups!
>
>Just go away.
>Lynn in Fargo

How very nice of you.

On Aug 14, 10:09*am, Corey Richardson >
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Lynn from Fargo
> wrote:
>
> >Just go away.
> >Lynn in Fargo

>
> How very nice of you.

Corey, You're right, that was rude of me. I apologize.
Lynn from Fargo

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>Stop cross posting.

I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Lynn from Fargo
> wrote:

>On Aug 14, 10:09*am, Corey Richardson >
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Lynn from Fargo
> > wrote:
>>
>> >Just go away.
>> >Lynn in Fargo
>
>>
>> How very nice of you.
>
>Corey, You're right, that was rude of me. I apologize.
>Lynn from Fargo

Happily accepted. Thank you very much Lynn.

"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>>Stop cross posting.
>
> I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>
Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
irritating. I frequent both groups. If you look you will see that people
have un-crossed to respond. It's a huge mess. People have asked you to
stop. You won't. You will end up being ignored by people who otherwise
would have welcomed you and some new chatter.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:30:42 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stop cross posting.
>>
>> I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>>
>Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
>irritating.

My NSP frowns *heavily* on the multi-posting you suggest, so if I want
to hear people's opinion on both groups I have to x-post. If I
multi-post I may lose my account. I'm sorry if you find it irritating.

>I frequent both groups.

As do I.

>You will end up being ignored by people who otherwise
>would have welcomed you and some new chatter.

All I can say is I hope they understand.

Thank you for your reply.

Giusi wrote:
>
> "Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Stop cross posting.
> >
> > I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
> >
> Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
> irritating. I frequent both groups. If you look you will see that people
> have un-crossed to respond. It's a huge mess. People have asked you to
> stop. You won't. You will end up being ignored by people who otherwise
> would have welcomed you and some new chatter.

Corey, hopefully as a helpful suggestion, if you do cross-post an
original post, please at least set the "followups to" one particular
newsgroup and foreword your original post as such. For example begin
your x-posted original post with: "cross-posted to example.newsgroup.a
and example.newsgroup.b with followups set to example.newsgroup.a".
Some folks, like me, frequent one newsgroup but not the other, and it's
no fun inadvertently posting a response to a(ny) newsgroup one does
subscribe to.

Sky, who's probably eating shoe leather again

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:58:17 -0500, Sky >
wrote:

>Giusi wrote:
>>
>> "Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Stop cross posting.
>> >
>> > I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>> >
>> Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
>> irritating. I frequent both groups. If you look you will see that people
>> have un-crossed to respond. It's a huge mess. People have asked you to
>> stop. You won't. You will end up being ignored by people who otherwise
>> would have welcomed you and some new chatter.
>
>Corey, hopefully as a helpful suggestion, if you do cross-post an
>original post, please at least set the "followups to" one particular
>newsgroup and foreword your original post as such. For example begin
>your x-posted original post with: "cross-posted to example.newsgroup.a
>and example.newsgroup.b with followups set to example.newsgroup.a".
>Some folks, like me, frequent one newsgroup but not the other, and it's
>no fun inadvertently posting a response to a(ny) newsgroup one does
>subscribe to.
>
>Sky, who's probably eating shoe leather again

Hmm, maybe. But surely if you set the followups, one group of people
won't see the replies, opinions and discussion?

As the posts are on-topic and only x-posted to two relevant newsgroups,
is it really that much of a problem?

Thank you.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:05 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>Yes.

Why?

Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:58:17 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
>
>>Giusi wrote:
>>>
>>> "Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel
>>> messaggio ...
>>> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi"
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Stop cross posting.
>>> >
>>> > I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>>> >
>>> Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
>>> irritating. I frequent both groups. If you look you will see that
>>> people
>>> have un-crossed to respond. It's a huge mess. People have asked
>>> you to
>>> stop. You won't. You will end up being ignored by people who
>>> otherwise would have welcomed you and some new chatter.
>>
>>Corey, hopefully as a helpful suggestion, if you do cross-post an
>>original post, please at least set the "followups to" one particular
>>newsgroup and foreword your original post as such. For example begin
>>your x-posted original post with: "cross-posted to
>>example.newsgroup.a and example.newsgroup.b with followups set to
>>example.newsgroup.a". Some folks, like me, frequent one newsgroup but
>>not the other, and it's no fun inadvertently posting a response to
>>a(ny) newsgroup one does subscribe to.
>>
>>Sky, who's probably eating shoe leather again
>
> Hmm, maybe. But surely if you set the followups, one group of people
> won't see the replies, opinions and discussion?
>
> As the posts are on-topic and only x-posted to two relevant
> newsgroups, is it really that much of a problem?

Yes.
>
> Thank you.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Egg tastes better when it's not on your face...

Lynn from Fargo wrote:
> On Aug 14, 10:09 am, Corey Richardson >
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Lynn from Fargo
> > wrote:
>>> Just go away.
>>> Lynn in Fargo
>
>> How very nice of you.
>
> Corey, You're right, that was rude of me. I apologize.
> Lynn from Fargo

**** that. You don't owe the troll any apology.

A good indication of a troll is that it doesn't participate in any
threads that they didn't start. This group is all about *him* and
his inane questions and comments. And he deserves a good swift
crosspost up the ass.

-sw

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:47:59 +0100, Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:30:42 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stop cross posting.
>>>
>>> I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>>>
>>Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
>>irritating.
>
> My NSP frowns *heavily* on the multi-posting you suggest, so if I want
> to hear people's opinion on both groups I have to x-post. If I
> multi-post I may lose my account. I'm sorry if you find it irritating.


Are you absolutely sure? It's x-posting that is usually frowned upon!!!



>
>>I frequent both groups.
>
> As do I.
>
>>You will end up being ignored by people who otherwise
>>would have welcomed you and some new chatter.
>
> All I can say is I hope they understand.


I'm with Giusi on this one! You've just x-posted to ukdfm And a motor-bike
group. That means irrelevant replies from bikers on the food group.

Your incessant x-posting is just bad manners!

Corey Richardson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:58:17 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
(snips)
> >
> >Corey, hopefully as a helpful suggestion, if you do cross-post an
> >original post, please at least set the "followups to" one particular
> >newsgroup and foreword your original post as such. For example begin
> >your x-posted original post with: "cross-posted to example.newsgroup.a
> >and example.newsgroup.b with followups set to example.newsgroup.a".
> >Some folks, like me, frequent one newsgroup but not the other, and it's
> >no fun inadvertently posting a response to a(ny) newsgroup one does
> >subscribe to.
> >
> >Sky, who's probably eating shoe leather again
>
> Hmm, maybe. But surely if you set the followups, one group of people
> won't see the replies, opinions and discussion?

Yes, but the folks in the "other" newsgroup(s) who won't see the replies
will (most likely) know to look at the "followup to" newsgroup if they
want to and are so inclined.

> As the posts are on-topic and only x-posted to two relevant newsgroups,
> is it really that much of a problem?

I don't subscribe to the 'other' newsgroup, so I'd prefer not to have my
response(s) show up there. Folks wouldn't know me there (not that
that's a big issue). Plus, I'd very much like to notice if an original
post (or response) is x-posted -- I don't always look to see if
something's x-posted (yeah yeah, I should). That way, I can remove the
unsubscribed newsgroup if I have to should the "followups to" not be
set.

> Thank you.

No problemos, and thank you, too

Sky, who only has a few pair of shoes (by choice)

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:27:31 GMT, Graham stereo >
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:47:59 +0100, Corey Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:30:42 +0200, "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stop cross posting.
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>>>>
>>>Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
>>>irritating.
>>
>> My NSP frowns *heavily* on the multi-posting you suggest, so if I want
>> to hear people's opinion on both groups I have to x-post. If I
>> multi-post I may lose my account. I'm sorry if you find it irritating.
>
>
>Are you absolutely sure? It's x-posting that is usually frowned upon!!!

Yes I'm absolutely sure! A BI that exceeds 1 can result in the loss of
your account!

Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:05 +0200, ChattyCathy
> > wrote:
>
>>Yes.
>
> Why?

Because...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Egg tastes better when it's not on your face...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:31:55 +0100, Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:27:31 GMT, Graham stereo >
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:47:59 +0100, Corey Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:30:42 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stop cross posting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>>>>>
>>>>Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
>>>>irritating.
>>>
>>> My NSP frowns *heavily* on the multi-posting you suggest, so if I want
>>> to hear people's opinion on both groups I have to x-post. If I
>>> multi-post I may lose my account. I'm sorry if you find it irritating.
>>
>>
>>Are you absolutely sure? It's x-posting that is usually frowned upon!!!
>
> Yes I'm absolutely sure! A BI that exceeds 1 can result in the loss of
> your account!

That just doesn't make sense! Posting the same message separately to
several groups is no different to posting different messages to different
groups. OTOH, x-posting is universally frowned upon.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:53:31 GMT, Graham stereo >
wrote:


>That just doesn't make sense! Posting the same message separately to
>several groups is no different to posting different messages to different
>groups.

It is. It's completely different. Please see the link below.

>OTOH, x-posting is universally frowned upon.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

Please see:

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

Sky wrote:


> Corey, hopefully as a helpful suggestion, if you do cross-post an
> original post, please at least set the "followups to" one particular
> newsgroup and foreword your original post as such.

I STRONGLY disagree with this. If you start a thread in a group, it
should be for that group. What do you expect people to do, subscribe to
a group they don't normally read just to keep following the thread?




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Giusi wrote:

> "Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel
> messaggio ...
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Stop cross posting.
> >
> > I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
> >
> Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
> irritating.

This is bad advice. Multi-posting is greatly frowned upon.

If the post is to go to two groups, then it should be cross-posted.





Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Corey Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:05 +0200, ChattyCathy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes.
>> Why?
>
> Because...

It's not worth arguing with the asshole. Just killfile him and
all the threads he starts.

I saw this coming on day 2.

-sw

Default User wrote:
> Sky wrote:
>
>
>> Corey, hopefully as a helpful suggestion, if you do cross-post an
>> original post, please at least set the "followups to" one particular
>> newsgroup and foreword your original post as such.
>
> I STRONGLY disagree with this. If you start a thread in a group, it
> should be for that group. What do you expect people to do, subscribe to
> a group they don't normally read just to keep following the thread?

You're assuming anybody wants to follow his threads. The only
person sho needs to follow his threads are himself. All these
threads are obviously only for his own entertainment.

-sw

Default User wrote:
> Giusi wrote:
>
>> "Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel
>> messaggio ...
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stop cross posting.
>>> I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
>>>
>> Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is very
>> irritating.
>
> This is bad advice. Multi-posting is greatly frowned upon.
>
> If the post is to go to two groups, then it should be cross-posted.

More importantly, why don't we cross-post every RFC thread to the
AUS and UK foood groups?

That's the real issue.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > Sky wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Corey, hopefully as a helpful suggestion, if you do cross-post an
> > > original post, please at least set the "followups to" one
> > > particular newsgroup and foreword your original post as such.
> >
> > I STRONGLY disagree with this. If you start a thread in a group, it
> > should be for that group. What do you expect people to do,
> > subscribe to a group they don't normally read just to keep
> > following the thread?
>
> You're assuming anybody wants to follow his threads. The only person
> sho needs to follow his threads are himself. All these threads are
> obviously only for his own entertainment.

That's a whole different story, and has nothing to do with the
technical matters at hand. I apparently have the crossposted newsgroup
in question filtered, as I didn't see any messages unless they were
only to RFC. Another good reason to leave the crosspost in, it benefits
ME. Which is what usenet is all about, of course.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Sqwertz wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Corey Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:05 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because...
>
> It's not worth arguing with the asshole. Just killfile him and
> all the threads he starts.

Yes Boss, anything you say Boss...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Egg tastes better when it's not on your face...

Sqwertz wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > Giusi wrote:
> >
> >>"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel
> > > messaggio ...
> > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:01 +0200, "Giusi"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Stop cross posting.
> > > > I wanted to hear the opinions of both, relevant, groups.
> > > >
> > > Then I think you should go to each separately, because this is
> > > very irritating.
> >
> > This is bad advice. Multi-posting is greatly frowned upon.
> >
> > If the post is to go to two groups, then it should be cross-posted.
>
> More importantly, why don't we cross-post every RFC thread to the AUS
> and UK foood groups?
>
> That's the real issue.

You could if you want. Is is uk.food+drink.misc? I recently filtered
that one, so I think it would cut down on my reading.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>> Corey Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:05 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>> Why?
>>> Because...
>> It's not worth arguing with the asshole. Just killfile him and
>> all the threads he starts.
>
> Yes Boss, anything you say Boss...

Now lets hear you say, "Da Plane! Da Plane!"

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>> Corey Richardson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:05 +0200, ChattyCathy
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> Why?
>>>> Because...
>>> It's not worth arguing with the asshole. Just killfile him and
>>> all the threads he starts.
>>
>> Yes Boss, anything you say Boss...
>
> Now lets hear you say, "Da Plane! Da Plane!"
>
> -sw

Only if you promise to wear a white suit.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Egg tastes better when it's not on your face...

Corey Richardson > wrote:

> My NSP frowns *heavily* on the multi-posting you suggest, so if I want
> to hear people's opinion on both groups I have to x-post. If I
> multi-post I may lose my account. I'm sorry if you find it irritating.

<snort> Your NSP is the oldest and 2nd largest troll and spam haven
known to Usenet. Nobody but trolls and spammers seek out an account
with alt.net. It usually indicates that you've been kicked off of a
dozen other NSP's by the time you resort to getting an alt.net
account.

It's too bad most everyone else can't see how phony you are. Give
them time. It'll eventually sink in. I'm never wrong about these
things.

-sw

Corey Richardson > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:53:31 GMT, Graham stereo >
> wrote:
>
>>OTOH, x-posting is universally frowned upon.

> My NSP frowns *heavily* on the multi-posting you suggest, so if I want
> to hear people's opinion on both groups I have to x-post. If I
> multi-post I may lose my account. I'm sorry if you find it irritating
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

Why are you quoting a website that has nothing to so with the troll
haven you're posting from? You said *your* NSP frown on these
things. Which is complete bullshit.

-sw

You really have to get fresh ones, as both black
and white truffles lose there flavor and aroma soon after harvesting,
and are useless canned.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:58:17 -0500, Sky >
wrote:

>Sky, who's probably eating shoe leather again

You aren't.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:10:01 +0100, Corey Richardson
> wrote:

>Hmm, maybe. But surely if you set the followups, one group of people
>won't see the replies, opinions and discussion?

The people in one ng don't care what the people in the other are
saying. They are just a bunch of intruders.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West