You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.

68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.

Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?

-sw

Sqwertz > wrote in
:

>
> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>
> -sw
>

People here are still in shock. Give them some time.

Sqwertz said...

>
> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>
> -sw


Wartz,

Your inferiority complex never ceases to amaze me.

Andy

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?

Maybe you should unsubscribe? At least for a trial withdrawal period?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon 29 Dec 2008 10:29:49p, elaich told us...

> Sqwertz > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>
>> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>
>> -sw
>>
>
> People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>

That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely silly
or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Monday, 12(XII)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till New Year's Eve
1dys 1hrs 14mins
************************************************** **********************
I can't hear you. There's a banana republic in my ear.
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright said...

> On Mon 29 Dec 2008 10:29:49p, elaich told us...
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>>> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>>
>>> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>>
>>> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>>
>> People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>>
>
> That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely
silly
> or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.


Like YOU'RE Mr. Magic??? Ya BUM!!!

Sqwertz wrote:

>
> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?

Ah. I see it's your turn to be moderator today. OK with me.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Andy wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright said...
>>
>> That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely
> silly
>> or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.
>
> Like YOU'RE Mr. Magic??? Ya BUM!!!

I don't get this. IIRC, you two used to get along just fine. Obviously I
missed something...

<please bear with me - I feel a rant coming on>

It would appear that Greg Morrow has been polite to cybercat lately (and
has actually been discussing food with her) right here on r.f.c. You
could have knocked me over with a feather when I read some of his
recent posts, but when I thought about it, I had to say, 'Good for
him/them'.

In view of that good example, could I perhaps persuade you two to do the
same?

I, in turn, will promise to continue to abstain from making rude remarks
to and/or about cybercat (which I have been doing for a few weeks, not
that you probably noticed) because I thought it had gone
beyond 'amusing'. FWIW, we used to get along too, believe it or not. I
****ed her off (justifiably so) quite a while back and it just
snowballed from there.

However, I won't make any promises to turn into an 'angel' overnight; I
still have one or two other sparring partners here, and I've gotta do
this in 'baby steps' ;-)

Anyway, my point is this - IMHO, if they can do it, so can we. What say
you?

</rant>

OBFood: Gonna make chicken curry tonight.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
>
> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>


Time to back away from the computer, Steve. It's Usenet, not a shrine.

ChattyCathy > wrote:

> In view of that good example, could I perhaps persuade you two to do the
> same?
>
> Anyway, my point is this - IMHO, if they can do it, so can we. What say
> you?

Ahh, your turn to be moderator today. Fine by me.

-sw

Cathy,

C'est la vie

Best,

Andy

Sqwertz wrote:

> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> In view of that good example, could I perhaps persuade you two to do
>> the same?
>>
>> Anyway, my point is this - IMHO, if they can do it, so can we. What
>> say you?
>
> Ahh, your turn to be moderator today. Fine by me.

Close, but no cigar. Did you miss the words 'perhaps persuade'? You also
seem to have missed the fact I offered to do something in return if my
request was granted. Didn't see you offering to do anything for me if I
did as I was told, um, asked. I thought the 'please' was a nice touch
tho'.

Your turn...<g>

OBFood: Just got back from food shopping (again) this time for seafood.
(DH suggested we do seafood for New Year. I couldn't argue with that.)
Got a fair haul: sole, calamari, whole shrimp (plenty of - and I will
think of kili when I scarf them down), Red Roman, mussels - some in the
shell and some out of, and some smoked salmon. They didn't have cod,
dammit. Which is just as well, my freezer is full...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>
>> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>
>
>
> Time to back away from the computer, Steve. It's Usenet, not a shrine.

Ha, ha.

Nice line.

Shouldn't encourage her though.

Food: backed off from a tin of frankfurters today.

Things haven't got THAT bad, yet.

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

Andy wrote:

> Cathy,
>
> C'est la vie
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

I take it that's a "No"? Ah well, so be it.

I'll still hold up my end of the bargain though, because I think it
makes sense (to me).
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy said...

> Andy wrote:
>
>> Cathy,
>>
>> C'est la vie
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andy
>
> I take it that's a "No"? Ah well, so be it.
>
> I'll still hold up my end of the bargain though, because I think it
> makes sense (to me).

Cathy

Translated: Such is life.

Indifferent

Best,

Andy

On Tue 30 Dec 2008 12:49:22a, ChattyCathy told us...

> Andy wrote:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright said...
>>>
>>> That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely
>> silly
>>> or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.
>>
>> Like YOU'RE Mr. Magic??? Ya BUM!!!
>
> I don't get this. IIRC, you two used to get along just fine. Obviously I
> missed something...
>
> <please bear with me - I feel a rant coming on>
>
> It would appear that Greg Morrow has been polite to cybercat lately (and
> has actually been discussing food with her) right here on r.f.c. You
> could have knocked me over with a feather when I read some of his
> recent posts, but when I thought about it, I had to say, 'Good for
> him/them'.
>
> In view of that good example, could I perhaps persuade you two to do the
> same?
>
> I, in turn, will promise to continue to abstain from making rude remarks
> to and/or about cybercat (which I have been doing for a few weeks, not
> that you probably noticed) because I thought it had gone
> beyond 'amusing'. FWIW, we used to get along too, believe it or not. I
> ****ed her off (justifiably so) quite a while back and it just
> snowballed from there.
>
> However, I won't make any promises to turn into an 'angel' overnight; I
> still have one or two other sparring partners here, and I've gotta do
> this in 'baby steps' ;-)
>
> Anyway, my point is this - IMHO, if they can do it, so can we. What say
> you?

I say that I'm better off just ignoring Andy's posts altogether. In fact,
he has been in my killfile for some time, so I only see him quoted.
Actually, I was responding to Steve's post regarding Andy. IMHO, for some
time Andy's posts have basically contributed nothing and have consisted of
little more than silly one-liners or inane, irrelevant or pointless
questions. No, I won't be "making nice" or apologizing for something I
believe to be true. I will however, attempt to abstain from any comments
altogther. If that doesn't satisfy you, then I guess there'll be no
satisfaction. Sorry, Cathy.

Mind you, if he responds to this, don't be surprised at my reply. I didn't
write this to himi, but to you.

Kill file growning by leaps and bounds.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Tuesday, 12(XII)/30(XXX)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till New Year's Eve
18hrs 27mins
************************************************** **********************
Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
************************************************** **********************

Andy wrote:


> Cathy
>
> Translated: Such is life.
>
> Indifferent
>
> Best,

OK. Won't nag you any more. ;-)

I am munching on a cheese and tomato sandwich - toasted. Late lunch.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy said...

> Andy wrote:
>
>
>> Cathy
>>
>> Translated: Such is life.
>>
>> Indifferent
>>
>> Best,
>
> OK. Won't nag you any more. ;-)
>
> I am munching on a cheese and tomato sandwich - toasted. Late lunch.


Well then I'll just have to have a cheese and tomato and bacon - toasted,
late breakfast. Maybe +lettuce!!!

Best,

Andy
Next Best to 2D Jack

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> If that doesn't satisfy you, then I guess there'll be no
> satisfaction. Sorry, Cathy.
>
> Mind you, if he responds to this, don't be surprised at my reply. I
> didn't write this to himi, but to you.


Fair enough. I was just hopin'... I won't nag you any more either.

>
> Kill file growning by leaps and bounds.

The funny thing is, my kf is at it's lowest at the moment. I do kill the
googlegroups posts (because I got tired of the shoes, handbags, and
those drive-by posts just to get 'clicks' on some site or other - not
to mention the trolling that comes from there too) but I have put
exceptions in my kf for the 'regulars' that post from there. But then
again I don't get *that* annoyed anymore when folks call me 'colorful
names' or insult my ancestry etc. - because I probably deserved it for
posting something or other... Let's face it, we all have our 'off' days
(whether we're male or female - so no remarks about PMS, if you please
<g>) and oftentimes we pay for it. Anyway, if and when it gets too much
for me, I'll just unsubsribe.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On 30 Dec 2008 05:29:49 GMT, elaich > wrote:

>Sqwertz > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>
>> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>
>> -sw
>>
>
>People here are still in shock. Give them some time.

It's halfway between Christmas and New Years... nobody is posting
ANYTHING of substance ANYWHERE on the internet - everyone's in their
annual holiday torpor or they're too busy celebrating years-end with
their families.

Sqwartz wrote:
>
> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> Have you all gone bonkers? �Is this the future of RFC?

As if you're the great contributor... at least Andy is sometimes
humorous... you got anymore recipes for hate, discontent, and bile...

Sqwertz wrote:
> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>
> -sw

Hey, well, you have gotten in plenty of quips and worse over the
years, so I find this a bit funny coming from you. You have been
on relatively good behavior recently though. :-)

I, for one, love NGs and would hate to see their predicted demise
come about. Therefore, I will try to post on topic next year.

--
Jean B.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Mon 29 Dec 2008 10:29:49p, elaich told us...
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>>> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>>
>>> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>>
>>> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>> People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>>
>
> That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely silly
> or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.
>
Does it matter? Folks can read them, respond to them or not.

--
Jean B.

On Tue 30 Dec 2008 08:21:44a, Jean B. told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Mon 29 Dec 2008 10:29:49p, elaich told us...
>>
>>> Sqwertz > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>>>> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>>>
>>>> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>>
>>> People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely
>> silly or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.
>>
> Does it matter? Folks can read them, respond to them or not.
>

It doesn't matter to me. I don't read them and only see them if they're
quoted.It still doesn't change my opinion.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Tuesday, 12(XII)/30(XXX)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till New Year's Eve
15hrs 10mins
************************************************** **********************
The problem with learning to speed-read is you run out of comic
books too fast.
************************************************** **********************

On Dec 30, 12:48�am, Wayne Boatwright >
wrote:
> On Mon 29 Dec 2008 10:29:49p, elaich told us...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sqwertz > wrote in
> :
>
> >> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> >> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> >> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> >> Have you all gone bonkers? �Is this the future of RFC?
>
> >> -sw
>
> > People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>
> That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely silly
> or stupid, no matter how people respond to them. �

And yours are seriously disingenuous... at least Andy is genuine...
Andy contributes good natured character and humor, Duh'Weenie (like
the sqwartz) contributes only nastiness and insincerity.

On Dec 31, 3:22*am, Sheldon > wrote:
> On Dec 30, 12:48 am, Wayne Boatwright >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon 29 Dec 2008 10:29:49p, elaich told us...
>
> > > Sqwertz > wrote in
> > :
>
> > >> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> > >> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> > >> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> > >> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>
> > >> -sw
>
> > > People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>
> > That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely silly
> > or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.
>
> And yours are seriously disingenuous... at least Andy is genuine...
> Andy contributes good natured character and humor, Duh'Weenie (like
> the sqwartz) contributes only nastiness and insincerity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

R.F.C does not have a future while Peter Lucas is a member

"Jean B." > wrote
>>
> Does it matter? Folks can read them, respond to them or not.
>

There you go!

"Jean B." > wrote
> I, for one, love NGs and would hate to see their predicted demise come
> about. Therefore, I will try to post on topic next year.
>

The nature of news groups includes thread drift. Accounts of the impending
demise of Usenet are highly exaggerated.

"Kajikit" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Dec 2008 05:29:49 GMT, elaich > wrote:
>
>>Sqwertz > wrote in
:
>>
>>>
>>> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>>> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>>
>>> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>>
>>> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>>
>>People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>
> It's halfway between Christmas and New Years... nobody is posting
> ANYTHING of substance ANYWHERE on the internet - everyone's in their
> annual holiday torpor or they're too busy celebrating years-end with
> their families.

In other words, it's business as usual. Usenet wouldn't be Usenet without
the whiners who are lamenting what it is not that they wish it was. "What it
used to be," "more on topic," and, my personal favorite, filled with only
the types of posts by the types of people they want to read.

The end of Usenet comes when any of these freaks can actually control what
is being posted, including the troll posts and including the spam.

"Gill Smith" > wrote
> Food: backed off from a tin of frankfurters today.
>
> Things haven't got THAT bad, yet.
>

A tin? You mean, like cocktail franks?

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> In view of that good example, could I perhaps persuade you two to do the
>> same?
>>
>> Anyway, my point is this - IMHO, if they can do it, so can we. What say
>> you?
>
> Ahh, your turn to be moderator today. Fine by me.
>
I love these imaginary games.

On Tue 30 Dec 2008 09:38:14a, ++Centrelink++ told us...

> On Dec 31, 3:22*am, Sheldon > wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 12:48 am, Wayne Boatwright >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon 29 Dec 2008 10:29:49p, elaich told us...
>>
>> > > Sqwertz > wrote in
>> > :
>>
>> > >> You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
>> > >> mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>>
>> > >> 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>>
>> > >> Have you all gone bonkers? Is this the future of RFC?
>>
>> > >> -sw
>>
>> > > People here are still in shock. Give them some time.
>>
>> > That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely
si
> lly
>> > or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.
>>
>> And yours are seriously disingenuous... at least Andy is genuine...
>> Andy contributes good natured character and humor, Duh'Weenie (like
>> the sqwartz) contributes only nastiness and insincerity.

And yours are filthy, vile, denigrating, and full of lies and inaccuracies.
Your tenure on this newsgroup is not a right of entitlement to anything,
much less to hurt, embarrass, or assassinate the character of any other
poste.r

I find it interesting that the majority of poster who used to rush to your
defense totally ignore the fact that you exist.

>>- Hied quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> R.F.C does not have a future while Peter Lucas is a member
>



--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Tuesday, 12(XII)/30(XXX)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till New Year's Eve
13hrs 59mins
************************************************** **********************
A dog is a dog. Unless it's facing you, then it's *Mr.* Dog.
************************************************** **********************

Andy wrote:
> Sqwartz squeaked:
>
> > You know it's a sad day in RFC when all people can do is respond
> > mindlessly to drunken stupor Andy posts.
>
> > 68% of the posts today were about absolutely nothing.
>
> > Have you all gone bonkers? �Is this the future of RFC?
>
> Wartz,
>
> Your inferiority complex never ceases to amaze me.


Why are you amazed that the sqwartz runt has an inferiority complex...
the megalomaniacal midget has a definite napoleon complex... and I
ain't tawkin' pastry. LOL

*Miniature* (sqwartz) Roquefort Napoleons
Gourmet | June 1990

Can be prepared in 45 minutes or less.

Makes 64 napoleons

a 17 1/4-ounce package (2 sheets) frozen puff pastry, thawed
3/4 cup walnuts, chopped fine
6 ounces Roquefort at room temperature, mashed with a fork
4 ounces cream cheese, softened
1/4 cup heavy cream
1 teaspoon fresh lemon juice
white pepper to taste

On a lightly floured surface, working with 1 half of the pastry at a
time, roll out the pastry to form 16- by 12-inch rectangles and
transfer each rectangle to a baking sheet. On 1 of the baking sheet
draw 2 shallow crosswise lines with a blunt knife, dividing the sheet
into thirds, and sprinkle the walnuts over two thirds of the pastry
sheet. Cover each pastry sheet directly with the buttered bottom
surface of another baking sheet to weight it. Bake the pastry sheets
in a preheated 400�F.oven for 5 minutes, remove the baking sheet
weights, and with a fork prick the pastry sheet all over. Return the
baking sheet weights to the pastry sheets for 10 minutes more, and
remove the baking sheet weights. Prick the pastry sheets again, switch
the baking sheets in the oven so the pastry sheets bake evenly, and
bake the pastry sheets for 7 to 10 minutes more, or until they are
crisp and golden. While the pastry sheets are still warm, with a
pastry wheel cut each sheet crosswise into sixteen 1-inch strips and
cut the strips into sixths, making ninety-six 2-by 1-inch rectangles
per sheet. The pastry rectangles may be made 1 day in advance and
kept, covered with plastic wrap, on the baking sheets.

In a bowl with an electric mixer beat together the Roquefort, the
cream cheese, the lemon juice, the white pepper, and salt to taste
until the mixture is creamy and smooth. The filling may be made 2 days
in advance and kept covered and chilled. Let the filling return to
room temperature before spreading it.

Spread a thin layer of the filling on each of the rectangles without
walnuts. To assemble each napoleon stack 2 Roquefort-topped layers and
top them with a walnut topped layer.

In a bowl with an electric mixer beat together the Roquefort, the
cream cheese, the lemon juice, the white pepper, and salt to taste
until the mixture is creamy and smooth. The filling may be made 2 days
in advance and kept covered and chilled. Let the filling return to
room temperature before spreading it.

Spread a thin layer of the filling on each of the rectangles without
walnuts. To assemble each napoleon stack 2 Roquefort-topped layers and
top them with a walnut topped layer.


Review:
Pretty boring; it [sqwartz] doesn't have any panache.

by Anne from Cambridge, MA on 12/13/03


Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

"SteveB" <toquerville@zionvistas> wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jean B." > wrote
>>> I, for one, love NGs and would hate to see their predicted demise come
>>> about. Therefore, I will try to post on topic next year.
>>>
>>
>> The nature of news groups includes thread drift. Accounts of the
>> impending demise of Usenet are highly exaggerated.
>
> The predicted and imagined impending demise of Usenet is only upsetting
> those who have no other life than here. All other life will proceed at a
> normal rate. The Usenet obsessed will flood psychiatrist offices and
> bring the country out of the recession. People who actually do cook and
> don't spend more time on computers rather than cooking will not be
> affected.
>
> HTH
>

No, Steve, it does not help. You are beginning to sound like an asshole.
A glib, condescending, greasy-faced little asshole. Why not **** off? Just
a friendly suggestion.

Jean B. wrote:

>> That doesn't discount the fact that most of Andy's posts are largely
>> silly or stupid, no matter how people respond to them.
> Does it matter? Folks can read them, respond to them or not.
>
I for one think all the flotsam and jetsam that he posts seriously
diminish the quality of this newsgroup. But he"s not alone.

ObFood- testing a recipe for ham balls with Voodoo sauce tonight, to see
how it might rate in case I need to bring an appetizer to work on NY's
Eve. Finding recipes that transport well, and are reheated only in a
microwave is so hard sometimes....

elaich wrote:

> People here are still in shock. Give them some time.

Many of them NEED shock. About 20,000V and a couple amps through the
temples.

-sw

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>>
>>> In view of that good example, could I perhaps persuade you two to do
>>> the same?
>>>
>>> Anyway, my point is this - IMHO, if they can do it, so can we. What
>>> say you?
>> Ahh, your turn to be moderator today. Fine by me.
>
> Close, but no cigar. Did you miss the words 'perhaps persuade'? You also
> seem to have missed the fact I offered to do something in return if my
> request was granted. Didn't see you offering to do anything for me if I
> did as I was told, um, asked. I thought the 'please' was a nice touch
> tho'.
>
> Your turn...<g>

I wasn't telling anybody how to post. I was just calling them idiots.
You post was much more on the "what to post" side of the argument.

ObFood: Spicy home made menudo for lunch (I thought it was Srhimp and
Chicken Tom Yum when I brought it to work. Yesterday it was hot and
sour soup - which I also thought was the tom yum. Someday I'll find my
tom yum in the freezer...

-sw

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> I say that I'm better off just ignoring Andy's posts altogether. In fact,
> he has been in my killfile for some time, so I only see him quoted.
> Actually, I was responding to Steve's post regarding Andy. IMHO, for some
> time Andy's posts have basically contributed nothing and have consisted of
> little more than silly one-liners or inane, irrelevant or pointless
> questions. No, I won't be "making nice" or apologizing for something I
> believe to be true. I will however, attempt to abstain from any comments
> altogther. If that doesn't satisfy you, then I guess there'll be no
> satisfaction. Sorry, Cathy.

I think my main gripe is that people spend too much time contributing to
those inane threads than they do engaged in actual cooking conversation.

But when I look to see who's always going back and forth with Andy in
most of these conversations, I see that I really don't value those
people's contributions anyway so maybe it's better if they all hang out
in those threads rather than in the _real_ threads.

I'd like to be able to killfile any thread that Andy starts, but if I do
that, then it will also ignore threads in which Andy has participated.

-sw

> "Jean B." > wrote
>>>
>> Does it matter? Folks can read them, respond to them or not.
>>

WHAT A CONCEPT! YOU'RE A CERTIFIABLE DOUBLE MENSA GENIUS!

Sorry, I got carried away a little there, but your concept is just SOOOO
exciting!

Steve ;-)

Kajikit wrote:

> It's halfway between Christmas and New Years... nobody is posting
> ANYTHING of substance ANYWHERE on the internet - everyone's in their
> annual holiday torpor or they're too busy celebrating years-end with
> their families.

But it's a cooking group. It's the busiest kitchen season of the year.

-sw