Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
topic.

Consider me converted.

cybercat wrote:

> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
> given topic.
>
> Consider me converted.

<snork>

Hope you realize that people who have filtered out "OT" in the subject
line probably won't even see your post.

Carry on.

BTW, you forgot the OBFood bit.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

There is no such thing as a little garlic. ~A. Baer

cybercat wrote:
> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
> topic.
>
> Consider me converted.
>
>
So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't work
out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?

As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes no
sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion if it
involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn folks off.

George wrote:
> cybercat wrote:
>> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
>> given topic.
>>
>> Consider me converted.
>>
> So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't work
> out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
>
> As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes no
> sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion if it
> involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn folks off.


I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running well
over 50%)

Bob

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> George wrote:
> > cybercat wrote:
> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
> >> given topic.
> >>
> >> Consider me converted.
> >>
> > So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't work
> > out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
> >
> > As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes no
> > sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion if it
> > involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn folks off.
>
>
> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running well
> over 50%)
>
> Bob

Not on _my_ server...

I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Fri 05 Sep 2008 11:24:19a, Omelet told us...

> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> George wrote:
>> > cybercat wrote:
>> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
>> >> given topic.
>> >>
>> >> Consider me converted.
>> >>
>> > So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't
>> > work out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
>> >
>> > As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes
>> > no sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion
>> > if it involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn
>> > folks off.
>>
>>
>> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
>> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
>> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running
>> well over 50%)
>>
>> Bob
>
> Not on _my_ server...
>
> I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...

You've missed a lot...

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Friday, 09(IX)/05(V)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
9wks 3dys 12hrs 26mins
*******************************************
Planes don't kill people. The ground does.
*******************************************

cybercat wrote:

> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
> topic.
>
> Consider me converted.


Aw, the cyberwretch is all peeved 'cos she can't keep up her end of a
discussion...

I'm *real* sorry for you, cyberwretch - or maybe *not*...!!!

:-)


--
Best
Greg

" 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

cybercat > wrote:

>Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
>topic.

>Consider me converted.

I apologize for my OT contributions, and I'll restrain myself
in the future.

At least though I've been discussing important matters of
social policy rather than partisan politics.

(Just kidding!)

Steve

In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> On Fri 05 Sep 2008 11:24:19a, Omelet told us...
>
> > In article >,
> > zxcvbob > wrote:
> >
> >> George wrote:
> >> > cybercat wrote:
> >> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
> >> >> given topic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Consider me converted.
> >> >>
> >> > So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't
> >> > work out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
> >> >
> >> > As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes
> >> > no sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion
> >> > if it involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn
> >> > folks off.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
> >> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
> >> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running
> >> well over 50%)
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > Not on _my_ server...
> >
> > I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...
>
> You've missed a lot...

Is that bad? <g> Been off this list for around 9 months.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
> > On Fri 05 Sep 2008 11:24:19a, Omelet told us...
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > zxcvbob > wrote:
> > >
> > >> George wrote:
> > >> > cybercat wrote:
> > >> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on
any
> > >> >> given topic.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Consider me converted.
> > >> >>
> > >> > So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't
> > >> > work out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
> > >> >
> > >> > As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes
> > >> > no sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion
> > >> > if it involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn
> > >> > folks off.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
> > >> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
> > >> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running
> > >> well over 50%)
> > >>
> > >> Bob
> > >
> > > Not on _my_ server...
> > >
> > > I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...
> >
> > You've missed a lot...
>
> Is that bad? <g> Been off this list for around 9 months.


Actually, *nothing* has much changed here, Om...

;-P


--
Best
Greg

On Fri 05 Sep 2008 12:01:44p, Omelet told us...

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> On Fri 05 Sep 2008 11:24:19a, Omelet told us...
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > zxcvbob > wrote:
>> >
>> >> George wrote:
>> >> > cybercat wrote:
>> >> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on
any
>> >> >> given topic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Consider me converted.
>> >> >>
>> >> > So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't
>> >> > work out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
>> >> >
>> >> > As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes
>> >> > no sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion
>> >> > if it involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn
>> >> > folks off.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
>> >> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
>> >> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running
>> >> well over 50%)
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >
>> > Not on _my_ server...
>> >
>> > I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...
>>
>> You've missed a lot...
>
> Is that bad? <g> Been off this list for around 9 months.

No, I meant you missed a *lot* of OT posts. I'm glad to see you back!

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Friday, 09(IX)/05(V)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
9wks 3dys 11hrs 53mins
*******************************************
An optimist is someone who tells you
to cheer up when things are going his way.
*******************************************

In article > ,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article 7>,
> > Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri 05 Sep 2008 11:24:19a, Omelet told us...
> > >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > zxcvbob > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> George wrote:
> > > >> > cybercat wrote:
> > > >> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on
> any
> > > >> >> given topic.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Consider me converted.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't
> > > >> > work out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes
> > > >> > no sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion
> > > >> > if it involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn
> > > >> > folks off.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
> > > >> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
> > > >> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running
> > > >> well over 50%)
> > > >>
> > > >> Bob
> > > >
> > > > Not on _my_ server...
> > > >
> > > > I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...
> > >
> > > You've missed a lot...
> >
> > Is that bad? <g> Been off this list for around 9 months.
>
>
> Actually, *nothing* has much changed here, Om...
>
> ;-P

Home sweet home... ;-)
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> >> >> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
> >> >> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
> >> >> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running
> >> >> well over 50%)
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob
> >> >
> >> > Not on _my_ server...
> >> >
> >> > I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...
> >>
> >> You've missed a lot...
> >
> > Is that bad? <g> Been off this list for around 9 months.
>
> No, I meant you missed a *lot* of OT posts. I'm glad to see you back!
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright

Why thanks Wayne! :-)
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

"cyberglute" wrote:
>
> Consider me converted.

Converted? Whaddaya, a friggin' sack o' rice... sticky glutinous
rice... gluttonous gluteus!

Sheldon wrote:

> "cyberglute" wrote:
> >
> > Consider me converted.
>
> Converted? Whaddaya, a friggin' sack o' rice... sticky glutinous
> rice... gluttonous gluteus!


Molded into the shape of a gigantor penis...mebbe then the cyberfrigid will
find a l'il "happiness"...


--
Best
Greg

" 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

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> cybercat > wrote:
>
>>Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
>>topic.
>
>>Consider me converted.
>
> I apologize for my OT contributions, and I'll restrain myself
> in the future.
>
> At least though I've been discussing important matters of
> social policy rather than partisan politics.
>
> (Just kidding!)
>

No, no, you're okay. I agree with *you.*

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
>
> George wrote:
>> cybercat wrote:
>>> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
>>> given topic.
>>>
>>> Consider me converted.
>>>
>> So when your self described angry rapid "educational" methods don't work
>> out it must be because everybody <except you> is stupid?
>>
>> As I said before you just don't realize how all of your anger makes no
>> sense to anyone except you. Most folks will listen to an opinion if it
>> involves some sort of thought. Angry rapid posts just turn folks off.
>
>
> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure what
> that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low single-digits
> though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running well over 50%)
>
> Bob

I think most is because of the political season.

Once the election is over and the Children are back in school the OT's will
calm down.

Dimitri

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
> topic.
>
> Consider me converted.

The on topic posts get pretty malicious, too.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
>> given topic.
>>
>> Consider me converted.
>
> The on topic posts get pretty malicious, too.
>

That's true. But some of the political views that have come out in these
latest threads have completely changed the way I think about a number of
people who post here. While many would say that I do not suffer fools
gladly, I now believe that I give people wayyyy too much credit. I must
because I am continually surprised when they show their idiocy.

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
>>> given topic.
>>>
>>> Consider me converted.
>>
>> The on topic posts get pretty malicious, too.
>>
>
> That's true. But some of the political views that have come out in these
> latest threads have completely changed the way I think about a number of
> people who post here. While many would say that I do not suffer fools
> gladly, I now believe that I give people wayyyy too much credit. I must
> because I am continually surprised when they show their idiocy.

Who was it that said 50% of the human race is below average?

Paul
>

On Sep 5, 8:54 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
> >> given topic.
>
> >> Consider me converted.
>
> > The on topic posts get pretty malicious, too.
>
> That's true. But some of the political views that have come out in these
> latest threads have completely changed the way I think about a number of
> people who post here. While many would say that I do not suffer fools
> gladly, I now believe that I give people wayyyy too much credit. I must
> because I am continually surprised when they show their idiocy.

In defense of OTs

Sure, we could take our political/social rants to a more appropriate
site, full of strangers. Here,we are at least aquaintences. We've
talked about soup and rice and dog nose what else. We have some
context (Even if, I confess, I can't always keep straight who said
what)

Better spew from an idiot you sorta know than spew from a random,
annonymous idiot.

Think globally, argue locally.

And, we are generally polilte enough to make separate threads. Don't
read 'em if you don't want to.

bulka

In article >,
"cybercat" > wrote:

> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "cybercat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
> >> given topic.
> >>
> >> Consider me converted.
> >
> > The on topic posts get pretty malicious, too.
> >
>
> That's true. But some of the political views that have come out in these
> latest threads have completely changed the way I think about a number of
> people who post here. While many would say that I do not suffer fools
> gladly, I now believe that I give people wayyyy too much credit. I must
> because I am continually surprised when they show their idiocy.

It kinda changed the way I thought about you too.

I used to like you and think you were funny.

Now I know you're just a, well, nevermind...
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

"bulka" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 5, 8:54 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "cybercat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
>> >> given topic.
>>
>> >> Consider me converted.
>>
>> > The on topic posts get pretty malicious, too.
>>
>> That's true. But some of the political views that have come out in these
>> latest threads have completely changed the way I think about a number of
>> people who post here. While many would say that I do not suffer fools
>> gladly, I now believe that I give people wayyyy too much credit. I must
>> because I am continually surprised when they show their idiocy.
>
> In defense of OTs
>
> Sure, we could take our political/social rants to a more appropriate
> site, full of strangers. Here,we are at least aquaintences. We've
> talked about soup and rice and dog nose what else. We have some
> context (Even if, I confess, I can't always keep straight who said
> what)
>
> Better spew from an idiot you sorta know than spew from a random,
> annonymous idiot.
>
> Think globally, argue locally.
>
> And, we are generally polilte enough to make separate threads. Don't
> read 'em if you don't want to.
>

You read me wrong. I don't hate the OT posts, I am disgusted with the
idiots. Jay writes that "muslims are scary." Omelet writes that "affirmative
action gets you a free education." George thinks Obama stands for power
flowing from the goverment to the people and not the other way around.
"Chatty Cathy" thinks you have to have borne a child to understand anything
about children. The foam-flecked ****williger assumes that those who support
Obama "get more from the system than they pay into it." And "Goomba," where
to even begin? She thinks, among other unbelievably asinine things, that the
girl's room and the boy's locker room count as sex education.

Ob food, I'll have whatever these dickfaces are NOT having.

cyber**** wrote:

> The foam-flecked ****williger assumes that those who support Obama "get
> more from the system than they pay into it."


No, I wrote, "I don't receive NEARLY as much from the government as I give
to it". I said that's why I don't favor socialism. I didn't say anything
about whether that favors one Presidential candidate over another. Is it
your intention to state that Obama is a socialist? I would ask you to read
more carefully, but I think you're already comprehending as much as you're
capable of comprehending.

I *will* say that people who leech off the system tend to favor the
Democratic Party in general and Obama in particular. There are also
perfectly respectable people who like Obama -- but you're not one of them.


Bob

Om wrote:

> It kinda changed the way I thought about you too.
>
> I used to like you and think you were funny.
>
> Now I know you're just a, well, nevermind...

By the way, WELCOME BACK, Om!

Bob

ChattyCathy > wrote in news:g9rodf$g65$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

> Hope you realize that people who have filtered out "OT" in the subject
> line probably won't even see your post.

I'd say 90% of the posts in this group are OT, and are never marked as
such.

"elaich" > wrote in message ...
> ChattyCathy > wrote in news:g9rodf$g65$1
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> Hope you realize that people who have filtered out "OT" in the subject
>> line probably won't even see your post.
>
> I'd say 90% of the posts in this group are OT, and are never marked as
> such.

And I really don't give a **** who sees my posts. I really don't.

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "bulka" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sep 5, 8:54 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "cybercat" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any
>>> >> given topic.
>>>
>>> >> Consider me converted.
>>>
>>> > The on topic posts get pretty malicious, too.
>>>
>>> That's true. But some of the political views that have come out in these
>>> latest threads have completely changed the way I think about a number of
>>> people who post here. While many would say that I do not suffer fools
>>> gladly, I now believe that I give people wayyyy too much credit. I must
>>> because I am continually surprised when they show their idiocy.
>>
>> In defense of OTs
>>
>> Sure, we could take our political/social rants to a more appropriate
>> site, full of strangers. Here,we are at least aquaintences. We've
>> talked about soup and rice and dog nose what else. We have some
>> context (Even if, I confess, I can't always keep straight who said
>> what)
>>
>> Better spew from an idiot you sorta know than spew from a random,
>> annonymous idiot.
>>
>> Think globally, argue locally.
>>
>> And, we are generally polilte enough to make separate threads. Don't
>> read 'em if you don't want to.
>>
>
> You read me wrong. I don't hate the OT posts, I am disgusted with the
> idiots. Jay writes that "muslims are scary." Omelet writes that
> "affirmative action gets you a free education." George thinks Obama stands
> for power flowing from the goverment to the people and not the other way
> around. "Chatty Cathy" thinks you have to have borne a child to understand
> anything about children. The foam-flecked ****williger assumes that those
> who support Obama "get more from the system than they pay into it." And
> "Goomba," where to even begin? She thinks, among other unbelievably
> asinine things, that the girl's room and the boy's locker room count as
> sex education.
>
> Ob food, I'll have whatever these dickfaces are NOT having.
>

Cybercat: the Jerry Sauk of rec.food.cooking.

cybercat > wrote:

> Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
> topic.
>
> Consider me converted.

Can we get some consideration here?

If you're gonna get uptight enough to start another thread, at least
refer back to the original thread which started it so those of us
who missed it can go back and see who got reamed and why.

ObFood: Emergency can of 25% Less Salt SPAM (from desk drawer) on
peanut butter crackers (from the vending machine) for dinner
tonight. They actually don't taste too bad together.

-sw

Omelet > wrote:

> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not sure
>> what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
>> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running well
>> over 50%)
>
> Not on _my_ server...
>
> I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...

Does your server block Andy's 10 OT threads a day and all the other
shitheads?

Gee. If people didn't spend so much time on OT threads, imagine how
much time they'd have to type about cooking? (assuming they know how
to cook in the first place).

-sw

"cybercat" > fnord
:

>
> "elaich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ChattyCathy > wrote in news:g9rodf$g65$1
>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> Hope you realize that people who have filtered out "OT" in the
>>> subject line probably won't even see your post.
>>
>> I'd say 90% of the posts in this group are OT, and are never marked
>> as such.
>
> And I really don't give a **** who sees my posts. I really don't.
>
>
>

Sure you don't.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Sqwertz > fnord
:

> Omelet > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>
>>> I think there's an optimal level of off-topic posts, and I'm not
>>> sure what that level is but it's not 0%. (It's probably in the low
>>> single-digits though, and lately the OT stuff here has been running
>>> well over 50%)
>>
>> Not on _my_ server...
>>
>> I'd say maybe 20%, but I've only been back for 3 days...
>
> Does your server block Andy's 10 OT threads a day and all the other
> shitheads?
>
> Gee. If people didn't spend so much time on OT threads, imagine how
> much time they'd have to type about cooking? (assuming they know how
> to cook in the first place).
>
> -sw

Hey, some of us have no life! This is the most social I get most of the
week.

--
Saerah (made a killer musgovian mushroom barley veal soup thing
yesterday, though)

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Saerah Gray > wrote:

> Sqwertz > fnord
> :
>
>> Gee. If people didn't spend so much time on OT threads, imagine how
>> much time they'd have to type about cooking? (assuming they know how
>> to cook in the first place).
>
> Hey, some of us have no life! This is the most social I get most of the
> week.

Mee too, lately. That's why I've been pouring on the charm lately.
And I'm home all weekend, so expect the wurstz.

Heck, Maybe OM will swing by and pick me up to go shopping this
weekend... Maybe she can smack some sense into me with her whips
and chains.

-sw

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:51:17 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>Because so many of you are so incredibly stupid and malicious on any given
>topic.
>
>Consider me converted.
>
DAMN!


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

Mae West

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:29:39 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"elaich" > wrote in message ...
>> ChattyCathy > wrote in news:g9rodf$g65$1
>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> Hope you realize that people who have filtered out "OT" in the subject
>>> line probably won't even see your post.
>>
>> I'd say 90% of the posts in this group are OT, and are never marked as
>> such.
>
>And I really don't give a **** who sees my posts. I really don't.

I don't think s/he's talking about you.


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

Mae West

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:01:44 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>Been off this list for around 9 months.

It seemed longer, Om... welcome back!


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

Mae West

sf wrote:

>>>> Hope you realize that people who have filtered out "OT" in the subject
>>>> line probably won't even see your post.
>>>
>>> I'd say 90% of the posts in this group are OT, and are never marked as
>>> such.
>>
>> And I really don't give a **** who sees my posts. I really don't.
>
> I don't think s/he's talking about you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > fnord
:

> sf wrote:
>
>>>>> Hope you realize that people who have filtered out "OT" in the
>>>>> subject line probably won't even see your post.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say 90% of the posts in this group are OT, and are never marked
>>>> as such.
>>>
>>> And I really don't give a **** who sees my posts. I really don't.
>>
>> I don't think s/he's talking about you.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)
>

OMG! the feds are out to get us!


--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:54:23 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>While many would say that I do not suffer fools
>gladly, I now believe that I give people wayyyy too much credit. I must
>because I am continually surprised when they show their idiocy.
>

Not wanting to research every post to every thread... but wondering
what transpired that I've missed. It seems to me that posters have
stayed in line with their public persona. I haven't had any big
surprises lately.




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

Mae West

sf wrote:

> Not wanting to research every post to every thread... but wondering
> what transpired that I've missed.

The test results came back.

Bob