Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc

Ubiquitous wrote:
> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
> http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc

Except this guy's adorable, something SLop is not.

In article >,
Ubiquitous > wrote:

> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
> http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc

Nope, no competition. This kid knows what he's doing!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:01:48 -0500, Ubiquitous >
wrote:

>Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
>http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc

Hahaha! He's cute!


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

Mae West

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> Ubiquitous >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> > Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
> > http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
>
> Nah... He's got her beat, hands down.

I'd pay to see that.

> He dresses better too!

He'd almost have to; half the time it's like SLop dressed herself by
accident.

--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:47:48 -0700, Anim8rFSK >
wrote:

>He'd almost have to; half the time it's like SLop dressed herself by
>accident.

I wouldn't even begin to say that - because her appliances, her
kitchen decor and her clothing are all color coordinated. I had no
idea KA mixers came in so many colors.


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

Mae West

wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:

>> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
>> http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
>
>Except this guy's adorable, something SLop is not.

And he can cook.

wrote:
> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>> Ubiquitous > wrote:

>> > Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
>> > http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
>>
>> Nah... He's got her beat, hands down.
>
>I'd pay to see that.
>
>> He dresses better too!
>
>He'd almost have to; half the time it's like SLop dressed herself by
>accident.

But she was NOMINATED for an EMMY for her HAIR-STYLING!

Ubiquitous wrote:
> wrote:
>> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous > wrote:
>
>>>> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
>>>> http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
>>> Nah... He's got her beat, hands down.
>> I'd pay to see that.
>>
>>> He dresses better too!
>> He'd almost have to; half the time it's like SLop dressed herself by
>> accident.
>
> But she was NOMINATED for an EMMY for her HAIR-STYLING!
>
>
Ubiquitous -

I realize you have issues with "SLOP". But is it possible you could
refrain from posting those issues on other groups outside of
alt.tv.food-network?

Not many of us in the other groups are interested in hearing about your
issues.

Thanks,

Bob

On Jan 16, 7:47 pm, Bob Muncie > wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
> >>> Ubiquitous > wrote:
>
> >>>> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
> >>>>http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
> >>> Nah... He's got her beat, hands down.
> >> I'd pay to see that.
>
> >>> He dresses better too!
> >> He'd almost have to; half the time it's like SLop dressed herself by
> >> accident.
>
> > But she was NOMINATED for an EMMY for her HAIR-STYLING!
>
> Ubiquitous -
>
> I realize you have issues with "SLOP". But is it possible you could
> refrain from posting those issues on other groups outside of
> alt.tv.food-network?
>
> Not many of us in the other groups are interested in hearing about your
> issues.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob

Actually, there are those of us who find these posts amusing. And it
is very much on topic, as she has a regularly scheduled TV program.
I'm the last one to say anything nice about Ubi's rantings about "the
something-something Left," but his Sandra Lee posts are quite
appreciated.

record hunter wrote:
> On Jan 16, 7:47 pm, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous > wrote:
>>>>>> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
>>>>>> http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
>>>>> Nah... He's got her beat, hands down.
>>>> I'd pay to see that.
>>>>> He dresses better too!
>>>> He'd almost have to; half the time it's like SLop dressed herself by
>>>> accident.
>>> But she was NOMINATED for an EMMY for her HAIR-STYLING!
>> Ubiquitous -
>>
>> I realize you have issues with "SLOP". But is it possible you could
>> refrain from posting those issues on other groups outside of
>> alt.tv.food-network?
>>
>> Not many of us in the other groups are interested in hearing about your
>> issues.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bob
>
> Actually, there are those of us who find these posts amusing. And it
> is very much on topic, as she has a regularly scheduled TV program.
> I'm the last one to say anything nice about Ubi's rantings about "the
> something-something Left," but his Sandra Lee posts are quite
> appreciated.


On the other hand (OTOH), if you frequented the alt.tv.food-network
USENET group, the majority of us would not have to be "amused" by your
google group postings. Or the inappropriate multi-group posting of
Ubiquitous.

Bob

In article >,
Bob Muncie > wrote:

> Ubiquitous wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
> >>> Ubiquitous > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
> >>>> http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
> >>> Nah... He's got her beat, hands down.
> >> I'd pay to see that.
> >>
> >>> He dresses better too!
> >> He'd almost have to; half the time it's like SLop dressed herself by
> >> accident.
> >
> > But she was NOMINATED for an EMMY for her HAIR-STYLING!
> >
> >
> Ubiquitous -
>
> I realize you have issues with "SLOP". But is it possible you could
> refrain from posting those issues on other groups outside of
> alt.tv.food-network?

He's posted to:
rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.food-network, rec.food.cooking
Which of those is off topic?
>
> Not many of us in the other groups are interested in hearing about your
> issues.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob

--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline

Michael "Dog3" wrote:


> Yes well, I find Ubiquitous amusing as well. I'm sure when your
> signature appears on his/her paycheck, they will comply with your
> request.

You're saying you think Ubi is multiple personalities, one male, one
female? United States of Ubiquituous?

Make sense in a way. That's why he can't help watching Sandra, but then
has to pour out bile afterwards.





Brian

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

Bob Muncie wrote:

> I realize you have issues with "SLOP". But is it possible you could
> refrain from posting those issues on other groups outside of
> alt.tv.food-network?
>
> Not many of us in the other groups are interested in hearing about your
> issues.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob

Which other groups are you speaking of? I love his reports about SLOP,
and am glad he posts them to RFC.

Goomba wrote:
> Bob Muncie wrote:
>
>> I realize you have issues with "SLOP". But is it possible you could
>> refrain from posting those issues on other groups outside of
>> alt.tv.food-network?
>>
>> Not many of us in the other groups are interested in hearing about
>> your issues.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bob
>
> Which other groups are you speaking of? I love his reports about SLOP,
> and am glad he posts them to RFC.

Goomba - Just curious.

What is your opinion on the group hierarchies?
Do they exist for a reason?
Is there a reason why a post about a cook on food network should be
somewhere other then the alt.tv.food-network when it's about a cook from
that channel?

I realize and agree that the object of the post is comical in the
presentation of mostly non-cooking skills, but that is what a lot of
today's tv is all about.

I also agree that the OP is often quite funny in his delivery reviwing
her shows.

But that does not mean it's appropriate to cross-post it in all groups
related to "food".

If I need a new gasket recommendation for the head on my GMC Jimmy, do I
post it in all the automotive related groups? That would be stupid. If I
want to read about vehicles that are GM or GMC related, I'd subscribe to
geoups that are specific to GM and GMC. Not to all "automotive" related
groups.

Just my two cents.

Bob

wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:

>> Me thinks Chef Julian is going to give SLop a run for her money!
>> http://bigkitchen.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
>
>Except this guy's adorable, something SLop is not.

That was a hoot! He did show the proper respect for presentation, and
more than once told us he was going to show us how the citrus cookies
tasted. Proper Aunt Sandy traits. But. The segment actually made me want
to go and bake cookies, rather than go and toss my cookies as a Semi-Ho
one would.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> "Default User" > news:6teobsFake30U1
> @mid.individual.net: in rec.food.cooking
>
> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Yes well, I find Ubiquitous amusing as well. I'm sure when your
> >> signature appears on his/her paycheck, they will comply with your
> >> request.
> >
> > You're saying you think Ubi is multiple personalities, one male, one
> > female? United States of Ubiquituous?
>
> Not at all and you well know it. I don't know Ubi's gender, hence the
> he/she.

I don't know. I think my reading make more sense.




Brian

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

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Bob Muncie > news:tFrcl.44873$Nv1.4716
> @newsfe03.iad: in rec.food.cooking

> > Is there a reason why a post about a cook on food network should be
> > somewhere other then the alt.tv.food-network when it's about a cook
> > from that channel?
>
> Because it spans several different groups with cross topics. It is
> about television, FoodTV and cooking. Is there a reason it should not
> be posted in the other groups?

And this way it might get read by more than 12 people.




Brian

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

On 18 Jan 2009 06:17:24 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
>> "Default User" > news:6teobsFake30U1
>> @mid.individual.net: in rec.food.cooking
>>
>> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yes well, I find Ubiquitous amusing as well. I'm sure when your
>> >> signature appears on his/her paycheck, they will comply with your
>> >> request.
>> >
>> > You're saying you think Ubi is multiple personalities, one male, one
>> > female? United States of Ubiquituous?
>>
>> Not at all and you well know it. I don't know Ubi's gender, hence the
>> he/she.
>
>I don't know. I think my reading make more sense.
>
This is why I like anonymous sounding names and the person never
acknowledging their gender (or internet friends letting the cat out of
the bag). I read bi as a female... or an over the top *** guy. No
manly man would be that catty.


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

Mae West

Default User wrote:
> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
>> Bob Muncie > news:tFrcl.44873$Nv1.4716
>> @newsfe03.iad: in rec.food.cooking
>
>>> Is there a reason why a post about a cook on food network should be
>>> somewhere other then the alt.tv.food-network when it's about a cook
>>> from that channel?
>> Because it spans several different groups with cross topics. It is
>> about television, FoodTV and cooking. Is there a reason it should not
>> be posted in the other groups?
>
> And this way it might get read by more than 12 people.
>
>
>
>
> Brian
>

If it's going to be read by more then twelve people, shouldn't they
subscribe to the *right* USENET group? BTW, the SLOP derogatory reviews
are *not* about cooking in my opinion. And yes, you are welcome to yours.

This is my last reply to this stupid thread that's cross posted in
appropriate groups.

Michael - You can be fascinated by whatever amuses you. Obviously you
are amused by most anything.

Myself, I am not amused by people inappropriately posting in the groups
I read if a better group exists for them. It wastes my time looking at
those posts. I also don't want a gazillion filter rules as it wastes
computing time.

I have an idea! How about people post in groups that were created for
them? Now there is an idea who's time has come.

On Jan 18, 3:17*am, sf > wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2009 06:17:24 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> >> "Default User" > *news:6teobsFake30U1
> >> @mid.individual.net: in rec.food.cooking
>
> >> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> >> >> Yes well, I find Ubiquitous amusing as well. I'm sure when your
> >> >> signature appears on his/her paycheck, they will comply with your
> >> >> request.

If not for those posts, I might never have even heard of SL. From
what I've gathered, her cooking is just a slight exaggeration of what
a great number of Americans engage in. Every time one makes a
casserole with condensed "cream of" soup, treats a condiment as an
ingredient, or used any non-dairy substitute... Oh, why bother.
>
> >> > You're saying you think Ubi is multiple personalities, one male, one
> >> > female? United States of Ubiquituous?
>
> >> Not at all and you well know it. I don't know Ubi's gender, hence the
> >> he/she.
>
> >I don't know. I think my reading make more sense.
>
> This is why I like anonymous sounding names and the person never
> acknowledging their gender (or internet friends letting the cat out of
> the bag). *I read bi as a female... or an over the top *** guy. *No
> manly man would be that catty.
>
Manly men can be pretty mean spirited. I know.

S.O.T.A. has been sent off to the CD making folks. It should be
available mid February.

--Bryan, aka Food Snob

"Bobo Bonobo®" ha scritto nel messaggio
> wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2009 06:17:24 GMT, "Default User" > wrote:
>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> >> "Default User" > >> >> Yes well, I find Ubiquitous amusing as well. I'm
> >> sure when your
> >> >> signature appears on his/her paycheck, they will comply with your>
> >> >> >> >> request.

If not for those posts, I might never have even heard of SL. From
what I've gathered, her cooking is just a slight exaggeration of what
a great number of Americans engage in. Every time one makes a
casserole with condensed "cream of" soup, treats a condiment as an
ingredient, or used any non-dairy substitute... Oh, why bother.
>
> >> > You're saying you think Ubi is multiple personalities, one male, one>
> >> > >> > female? United States of Ubiquituous?
>
> >> Not at all and you well know it. I don't know Ubi's gender, hence the>
> >> >> he/she.
>
> >I don't know. I think my reading make more sense.
>
> This is why I like anonymous sounding names and the person never>
> acknowledging their gender (or internet friends letting the cat out of>
> the bag). I read bi as a female... or an over the top *** guy. No> manly
> man would be that catty.
>
Manly men can be pretty mean spirited. I know.

What a list of people struggling to insult every single group that exists
except "manly men" whatever that means.

In article >,
Bob Muncie > wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Muncie > news:tFrcl.44873$Nv1.4716
> >> @newsfe03.iad: in rec.food.cooking
> >
> >>> Is there a reason why a post about a cook on food network should be
> >>> somewhere other then the alt.tv.food-network when it's about a cook
> >>> from that channel?
> >> Because it spans several different groups with cross topics. It is
> >> about television, FoodTV and cooking. Is there a reason it should not
> >> be posted in the other groups?
> >
> > And this way it might get read by more than 12 people.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
> If it's going to be read by more then twelve people, shouldn't they
> subscribe to the *right* USENET group? BTW, the SLOP derogatory reviews
> are *not* about cooking in my opinion. And yes, you are welcome to yours.
>
> This is my last reply to this stupid thread that's cross posted in
> appropriate groups.
>
> Michael - You can be fascinated by whatever amuses you. Obviously you
> are amused by most anything.
>
> Myself, I am not amused by people inappropriately posting in the groups
> I read if a better group exists for them. It wastes my time looking at
> those posts. I also don't want a gazillion filter rules as it wastes
> computing time.
>
> I have an idea! How about people post in groups that were created for
> them? Now there is an idea who's time has come.

You mean like Ubi has been doing, and you haven't?

--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Muncie > : in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> I have a much more realistic idea. Why don't you create your own
> moderated
> group? Seriously. If you feel this strongly about who is posting what in
> which group, I think you should go for it.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your
> words.”
> ~Elbert Hubbard
>
> You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

i'm with you dog.


--
C.D

On Jan 18, 12:23 am, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> I don't know what to tell you Bob. It is what it is and all the kvetching
> in the world is not likely to stop it. You have several choices if the
> off topic posting annoys you so much.

But there is nothing "off topic" about Ubi's posting about a *TV show
chef* on a *TV* newsgroup. In fact, I'd say SLOP is more "off topic"
on cooking newsgroups.

On Jan 18, 6:23 am, Bob Muncie > wrote:

> I have an idea! How about people post in groups that were created for
> them? Now there is an idea who's time has come.

You mean like posting about a TV "chef" on a TV newsgroup?

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Goomba wrote:

>> Which other groups are you speaking of? I love his reports about SLOP,
>> and am glad he posts them to RFC.
>
> Goomba - Just curious.
>
> What is your opinion on the group hierarchies?
> Do they exist for a reason?
> Is there a reason why a post about a cook on food network should be
> somewhere other then the alt.tv.food-network when it's about a cook from
> that channel?

SLOP= food on *network TV*, on the *food channel*, about *food* (sort
of?)....so I don't see any problem in any of those groups.

wrote:
>"Default User" > wrote:
>> Michael "Dog3" wrote:

>>> Yes well, I find Ubiquitous amusing as well. I'm sure when your
>>> signature appears on his/her paycheck, they will comply with your
>>> request.
>>
>> You're saying you think Ubi is multiple personalities, one male, one
>> female? United States of Ubiquituous?
>
>Not at all and you well know it. I don't know Ubi's gender, hence the
>he/she.

For future reference, the masculine gender is the default in the English
language, which is how it's properly used when the sex of the person or
persons in question is either unknown or irrelevant.

NB: Note the proper use of the words "gender" and "sex." (a peeve of
mine).

--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.

In article >, wrote:

>Myself, I am not amused by people inappropriately posting in the groups
>I read if a better group exists for them. It wastes my time looking at
>those posts. I also don't want a gazillion filter rules as it wastes
>computing time.
>
>I have an idea! How about people post in groups that were created for
>them? Now there is an idea who's time has come.

Because heaven forbid someone, for example, write about dining scenes in
movies or the last time they ate at a fast food burger joint like McD's
or Culvers in the rec.food.cooking newsgroup!

--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.