blake wrote:

> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?

Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a good
thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)

Bob

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:08:36 -0600, Christine Dabney wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:28:25 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>>LOL... but sometimes posters get into a long discussion which is technically
>>OT but which is still on-topic in terms of us as a *group*. I'm thinking of
>>Christine in particular here. I don't think *anybody* wants to killfile her,
>>but many of her recent posts have been about her post-surgery planning
>>rather than about food. In terms of her being a member of our RFC "family,"
>>those posts *definitely* should have been made, even though they weren't
>>about food, because so many of us care about her.
>>
>>Bob
>
> Sorry about that. I thought I included some food stuff in the
> posts..such as where we might be going for foodstuffs, wine, etc...,
> and what you all would be cooking, planning. As well as places I
> personally would like to visit, in terms of buying foodstuffs and
> wine.
> The rest, I apologize for...
>
> Christine

relax, honey. no one's trying to get you fired.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:05:08 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>
> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
> Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a good
> thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>
> Bob

hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them for
OT-ness.

blake

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:39:34 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:18:34 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>>> blake got all defensive:
>>>
>>>>>>> I think if anybody took the trouble to draw up stats of that
>>>>>>> nature, sf would *definitely* not be the worst offender in that
>>>>>>> respect. My guess would be either Greg or blake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hands-down, Greggie. I've seen blake post about food (certainly
>>>>>> more often than some others).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear, please don't pick on my blake! Even when it has nothing to
>>>>>> do with food, his wit makes me smile. And Greg? Well, I expect no
>>>>>> more than what we've been getting, so I'm not disappointed. Maybe
>>>>>> a bit bored, but not disappointed since I have no expectations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one-upsmanship-bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Play nice
>>>>>> guys, please!
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, here are the stats on "your" blake: Tallying his posts from
>>>>> yesterday and today, blake posted 65 times. ONLY SEVEN of them
>>>>> were about food, and of those seven, several were of the "I've
>>>>> never had that" type, with no further contribution given. That
>>>>> gives him a "food percentage" of
>>>>> 10.8%
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are Greg's stats: 16 posts over that same time period, with 5
>>>>> posts about food. So *he* has a "food percentage" of 31.3% -- MUCH
>>>>> better than "your" blake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if you don't like my peaches, i suggest you killfile me. i'm not a
>>>> moving target.
>>>
>>> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you
>>> post about food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records
>>> than you in that area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who
>>> brought up the issue of OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> sorry to have incurred your displeasure.
>
> Don't you think you should grovel in shame...???
>
> <chortle>
>
> ;-P

i don't have the clothes for that.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:02:14 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:08:36 -0600, Christine Dabney wrote:
>
>> Sorry about that. I thought I included some food stuff in the
>> posts..such as where we might be going for foodstuffs, wine, etc...,
>> and what you all would be cooking, planning. As well as places I
>> personally would like to visit, in terms of buying foodstuffs and
>> wine.
>> The rest, I apologize for...
>>
>> Christine
>
>relax, honey. no one's trying to get you fired.
>
Heh! Fired from usenet. Whatta concept!

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Aug 17, 1:10 pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2009-08-17, Nancy2 > wrote:
>
> > It sounds like you want to make ham salad (like tuna salad or chicken
> > salad). Whatever, horseradish is always good with ham.
>
> Call it what you like.
>
> I've done it and it came out tasty, if not exactly develish. My
> recipe was basically:
>
> cooked ham
> grn onions
> Goulden's mustard
> celery
> horseradish
> Worchestershire sauce
> mayo
> sour cream
>
> I tossed in a dash of sprite to loosen up the mixture, the blender
> starting to smoke under the load of such a dry mixture. The sprite
> loosened it up. By that time, I was tired of messing with it and jes
> wanted to be done. Danged if it didn't come out pretty tasty. Even
> better this morning. Killer on fresh celery sticks.
>
> All in all, it's a good starting point. Next time I'll follow a
> similar recipe, but try more "hot" ingredients to provide more
> "devil".
>
> If you don't have a FP, I suggest keeping it wet or have a really
> strong blender. My attempt nearly burnt up our Waring cheapO blender.
> I may have to drag out mom's old Vita-Mix. I bet that would handle
> it.
>
> nb

Ah, ham salad. Very tasty. If it turned out to be a dry mix, why not
just add some more mayo or sour cream? I like finely diced green
pepper in mine. You could put pimiento in it, too.

N.

On 2009-08-18, Nancy2 > wrote:

> Ah, ham salad. Very tasty. If it turned out to be a dry mix, why not
> just add some more mayo or sour cream? I like finely diced green
> pepper in mine. You could put pimiento in it, too.

I coulda put capers, lemon juice, tobasco, anchovies, ketchup, soy
sauce, fish sauce, cocktail sauce, tarter sauce, hardboiled eggs,
chives, parika, fresh parsely, jalapeno peppers, etc, in it too, but I
didn't.

You can call it ham salad, ham dip, ham tureen, ham wurst, ham spread,
ham glop, ham canape, ham schweiger, ham pate, etc. I call it deviled.

nb

In article
>,
Nancy2 > wrote:

>
> Ah, ham salad. Very tasty. If it turned out to be a dry mix, why not
> just add some more mayo or sour cream? I like finely diced green
> pepper in mine. You could put pimiento in it, too.
>
> N.

Hm. I've made chicken salad, turkey salad, tuna salad and steak salad,
but never ham salad. I'll have to try it next time I get a ham. They
are often on sale for $.99 per lb. for Smithfields.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

blake wrote:

>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>
>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
>> Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a
>> good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>
>
> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them for
> OT-ness.

That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of the
most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few minutes
counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you and Greg would
rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I counted yours and
Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the results, are you?

Bob

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:49:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>
>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
>>> Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a
>>> good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>
>>
>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them for
>> OT-ness.
>
> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of the
> most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few minutes
> counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you and Greg would
> rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I counted yours and
> Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the results, are you?
>
> Bob

i don't really give a **** about the results.

blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:49:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> blake wrote:
>>
>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
>>>> Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a
>>>> good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>>
>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them for
>>> OT-ness.
>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of the
>> most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few minutes
>> counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you and Greg would
>> rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I counted yours and
>> Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the results, are you?
>>
>> Bob
>
> i don't really give a **** about the results.
>
> blake

Just curious, but does that mean you and Bob can never be friends?

Seems to me you are both reasonable people, both pretty smart, and in
other threads, add a lot of value.

Can't you *choose* to just get along?

Bob

On Aug 18, 8:55*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Nancy2 > wrote:
>
> > Ah, ham salad. *Very tasty. *If it turned out to be a dry mix, why not
> > just add some more mayo or sour cream? *I like finely diced green
> > pepper in mine. *You could put pimiento in it, too.
>
> > N.
>
> Hm. I've made chicken salad, turkey salad, tuna salad and steak salad,
> but never ham salad. *I'll have to try it next time I get a ham. They
> are often on sale for $.99 per lb. for Smithfields.
> --
> Peace! Om
>
> "Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
> --Steve Rothstein
>
>
> Subscribe:

It's really, really good. It makes great filling for mini-cream puffs
for horses doovers. I like ham salad sandwiches - white bread, crisp
lettuce. Or pickles. You can also stuff a fresh, raw tomato with it
for a salad entree - like we used to do with tuna salad or chicken
salad.

N.

blake wrote:

>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
>>>> Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a
>>>> good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them
>>> for OT-ness.
>>
>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of
>> the most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few
>> minutes counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you and
>> Greg would rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I counted
>> yours and Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the results, are
>> you?
>
> i don't really give a **** about the results.

Of course you don't. That's why you keep bringing them up. See the top quote
in this passage? That was from YOU, right? You seem to have taken offense at
my mentioning the results, and you can't seem to just let it go.

Bob

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:53:00 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the Usenet
>>>>> Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess it's also a
>>>>> good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them
>>>> for OT-ness.
>>>
>>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of
>>> the most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few
>>> minutes counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you and
>>> Greg would rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I counted
>>> yours and Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the results, are
>>> you?
>>
>> i don't really give a **** about the results.
>
> Of course you don't. That's why you keep bringing them up. See the top quote
> in this passage? That was from YOU, right? You seem to have taken offense at
> my mentioning the results, and you can't seem to just let it go.
>
> Bob

jesus, bob, you're pretty slow for a triple-niner. you complained about my
o.t. posts, but said it was o.k. for christine because she was your friend
and you liked her. then i commented

>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?

can you follow the drift of conversation now?

blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:53:00 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> blake wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the
>>>>>> Usenet Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I
>>>>>> guess it's also a good thing there's no such group as the Usenet
>>>>>> Police.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing
>>>>> them for OT-ness.
>>>>
>>>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was
>>>> one of the most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I
>>>> spent a few minutes counting OT posts to find out. I had also
>>>> speculated that you and Greg would rank among the lowest in terms
>>>> of on-topic posts, so I counted yours and Greg's posts as well.
>>>> You're not SURPRISED by the results, are you?
>>>
>>> i don't really give a **** about the results.
>>
>> Of course you don't. That's why you keep bringing them up. See the
>> top quote in this passage? That was from YOU, right? You seem to
>> have taken offense at my mentioning the results, and you can't seem
>> to just let it go.
>>
>> Bob
>
> jesus, bob, you're pretty slow for a triple-niner. you complained
> about my o.t. posts, but said it was o.k. for christine because she
> was your friend and you liked her.


Don't you feel like a Big Weenie, now, blake...???

;-P


--
Best
Greg

blake wrote:

>>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the
>>>>>> Usenet Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess
>>>>>> it's also a good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>>>
>>>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them
>>>>> for OT-ness.
>>>>
>>>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of
>>>> the most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few
>>>> minutes counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you
>>>> and Greg would rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I
>>>> counted yours and Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the
>>>> results, are you?
>>>
>>> i don't really give a **** about the results.
>>
>> Of course you don't. That's why you keep bringing them up. See the top
>> quote in this passage? That was from YOU, right? You seem to have taken
>> offense at my mentioning the results, and you can't seem to just let it
>> go.
>>
>
> jesus, bob, you're pretty slow for a triple-niner. you complained about
> my o.t. posts, but said it was o.k. for christine because she was your
> friend and you liked her. then i commented
>
>>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>
> can you follow the drift of conversation now?

Shading the truth a bit there, aren't you? Please show where I "complained"
about your OT posts. I didn't do any such thing. In fact, I even
SPECIFICALLY STATED that OT posts don't bother me, so where are you seeing
any complaint about it? I pointed out that you *do* send a lot of OT posts,
but that was simply for the purpose of supporting my assertion that sf is
not the worst offender in that area.

Yeah, you REALLY don't give a ****, right? That's why you're going on and on
about it, digging yourself in deeper and deeper, and resorting to blatant
falsehoods which are easily exposed? The lie that you "don't give a ****" is
obvious! Now you've compounded THAT lie by falsely claiming that I
complained about your OT posts. How many more lies are you going to come up
with now, in the lost cause of trying to claim indifference?

Bob

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:15:59 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the
>>>>>>> Usenet Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess
>>>>>>> it's also a good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing them
>>>>>> for OT-ness.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one of
>>>>> the most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a few
>>>>> minutes counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you
>>>>> and Greg would rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I
>>>>> counted yours and Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the
>>>>> results, are you?
>>>>
>>>> i don't really give a **** about the results.
>>>
>>> Of course you don't. That's why you keep bringing them up. See the top
>>> quote in this passage? That was from YOU, right? You seem to have taken
>>> offense at my mentioning the results, and you can't seem to just let it
>>> go.
>>>
>>
>> jesus, bob, you're pretty slow for a triple-niner. you complained about
>> my o.t. posts, but said it was o.k. for christine because she was your
>> friend and you liked her. then i commented
>>
>>>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>
>> can you follow the drift of conversation now?
>
> Shading the truth a bit there, aren't you? Please show where I "complained"
> about your OT posts. I didn't do any such thing. In fact, I even
> SPECIFICALLY STATED that OT posts don't bother me, so where are you seeing
> any complaint about it? I pointed out that you *do* send a lot of OT posts,
> but that was simply for the purpose of supporting my assertion that sf is
> not the worst offender in that area.
>

o.k. i guess

> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you post about
> food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records than you in that
> area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who brought up the issue of
> OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>
> Bob

only counts as a passive-aggressive complaint.

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:15:59 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> blake wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. Good thing for you, isn't it? Otherwise you might have the
>>>>>>>> Usenet Police throwing stun-grenades through your window! (I guess
>>>>>>>> it's also a good thing there's no such group as the Usenet Police.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hey, i'm not the one taking a census of people's post and parsing
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> for OT-ness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was merely done because someone else speculated that sf was one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the most prolific OT posters. I didn't think she was, so I spent a
>>>>>> few
>>>>>> minutes counting OT posts to find out. I had also speculated that you
>>>>>> and Greg would rank among the lowest in terms of on-topic posts, so I
>>>>>> counted yours and Greg's posts as well. You're not SURPRISED by the
>>>>>> results, are you?
>>>>>
>>>>> i don't really give a **** about the results.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you don't. That's why you keep bringing them up. See the top
>>>> quote in this passage? That was from YOU, right? You seem to have taken
>>>> offense at my mentioning the results, and you can't seem to just let it
>>>> go.
>>>>
>>>
>>> jesus, bob, you're pretty slow for a triple-niner. you complained about
>>> my o.t. posts, but said it was o.k. for christine because she was your
>>> friend and you liked her. then i commented
>>>
>>>>>>>>> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>>>
>>> can you follow the drift of conversation now?
>>
>> Shading the truth a bit there, aren't you? Please show where I
>> "complained"
>> about your OT posts. I didn't do any such thing. In fact, I even
>> SPECIFICALLY STATED that OT posts don't bother me, so where are you
>> seeing
>> any complaint about it? I pointed out that you *do* send a lot of OT
>> posts,
>> but that was simply for the purpose of supporting my assertion that sf is
>> not the worst offender in that area.
>>
>
> o.k. i guess
>
>> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you post
>> about
>> food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records than you in that
>> area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who brought up the issue
>> of
>> OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>>
>> Bob
>
> only counts as a passive-aggressive complaint.
>

Bob wants me. Can you blame him?

blake continued to lie:

>> Please show where I "complained" about your OT posts. I didn't do any
>> such thing. In fact, I even SPECIFICALLY STATED that OT posts don't
>> bother me, so where are you seeing any complaint about it? I pointed out
>> that you *do* send a lot of OT posts, but that was simply for the purpose
>> of supporting my assertion that sf is not the worst offender in that
>> area.
>>
>
> o.k. i guess
>
>> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you post
>> about food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records than you
>> in that area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who brought up
>> the issue of OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>>
>
> only counts as a passive-aggressive complaint.

It's not even a passive-aggressive complaint. You're reading "complaint"
into it where none exists. You seem to be conflating the concepts of "cite"
and "complain." And it obviously bothers you so much that you're willing to
openly lie in defense of yourself against... what?

Bob

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:05:48 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake continued to lie:
>
>>> Please show where I "complained" about your OT posts. I didn't do any
>>> such thing. In fact, I even SPECIFICALLY STATED that OT posts don't
>>> bother me, so where are you seeing any complaint about it? I pointed out
>>> that you *do* send a lot of OT posts, but that was simply for the purpose
>>> of supporting my assertion that sf is not the worst offender in that
>>> area.
>>>
>>
>> o.k. i guess
>>
>>> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you post
>>> about food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records than you
>>> in that area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who brought up
>>> the issue of OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>>>
>>
>> only counts as a passive-aggressive complaint.
>
> It's not even a passive-aggressive complaint. You're reading "complaint"
> into it where none exists. You seem to be conflating the concepts of "cite"
> and "complain." And it obviously bothers you so much that you're willing to
> openly lie in defense of yourself against... what?
>
> Bob

o.k., by all means continue to keep track of the number of times i don't
bother you as opposed to the number of times someone else doesn't bother
you.

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:05:48 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> blake continued to lie:
>>
>>>> Please show where I "complained" about your OT posts. I didn't do any
>>>> such thing. In fact, I even SPECIFICALLY STATED that OT posts don't
>>>> bother me, so where are you seeing any complaint about it? I pointed
>>>> out
>>>> that you *do* send a lot of OT posts, but that was simply for the
>>>> purpose
>>>> of supporting my assertion that sf is not the worst offender in that
>>>> area.
>>>>
>>>
>>> o.k. i guess
>>>
>>>> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you post
>>>> about food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records than you
>>>> in that area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who brought up
>>>> the issue of OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>>>>
>>>
>>> only counts as a passive-aggressive complaint.
>>
>> It's not even a passive-aggressive complaint. You're reading "complaint"
>> into it where none exists. You seem to be conflating the concepts of
>> "cite"
>> and "complain." And it obviously bothers you so much that you're willing
>> to
>> openly lie in defense of yourself against... what?
>>
>> Bob
>
> o.k., by all means continue to keep track of the number of times i don't
> bother you as opposed to the number of times someone else doesn't bother
> you.
>

Fat Bob can count while sitting down. So he counts.