On 2004-08-07, Ranee Mueller > wrote:

> Apparently people on the east coast. I make grilled salmon with a
> tomato-basil feta sauce that is gorgeous.

Now that sounds GOOD. Also cheese in shrimp quiche.

nb

On 2004-08-07, Ranee Mueller > wrote:

> Apparently people on the east coast. I make grilled salmon with a
> tomato-basil feta sauce that is gorgeous.

Now that sounds GOOD. Also cheese in shrimp quiche.

nb

raymond wrote:
> On 07 Aug 2004 00:40:39 GMT, onono (Nancree) wrote:
>
>
>>The best fish taco (or for that matter any taco) in San Diego is in a little
>>hole-in-the-wall place on Garnet Ave.--immediately next door to The Haircut
>>Place at 1096 Garnet Ave. They will fix it with either soft or crisp
>>taco--which is hard to find. The people who work there are eager to please,
>>and everything is cooked to order.
>> Rubio's fish tacos are much talked about, but I don't like them because they
>>only make them with soft (often cold) taco shells, and breaded fish that has
>>already been cooked and set aside.
>
>
> My biggest complaint about Rubio's is that they take too long because
> they don't cook the stuff until you order it.
>

That's a plus from my perspective. It has not been sitting around under
a heat lamp for an indeterminate length of time.

The OP got it wrong. They cook to order and I have never had a cold
tortilla, ever at Rubio's. And they do not use shells (the baked Taco
Bell stuff), but steamed tortillas. But, hey, Nancree, you're welcome to
prove me wrong. Name that Rubio's where they use shells, let alone cold
ones. And that place where it is precooked sitting around.


jim

Jim wrote:

> The OP got it wrong. They cook to order and I have never had a cold
> tortilla, ever at Rubio's. And they do not use shells (the baked Taco
> Bell stuff), but steamed tortillas.

I've gotten cold (soft) tortillas at the Rubio's on the corner of Rosecrans
and Midway in San Diego. I live in Northern California now, and when I ate
at a newly-opened Rubio's in Roseville just a few months ago, the tortilla
was also cold.

It's not a HUGE deal, but yes, sometimes you get a cold tortilla.

Bob

"notbob" > wrote in message
news:cRXQc.239501$JR4.3480@attbi_s54...
> On 2004-08-06, kilikini > wrote:
>
> > glop it on? No. But still, I like little shavings of parm on my
cioppino.
>
> Thank you! I was starting to wonder. Cioppino without parm is blasphemy!
> ...and cioppino is most definitely seafood. I also sprinkle some parm on
> salmon and pasta salad. Howzabout some shredded Gruyere or Compte in a
> tuna/mac casserole? No cheese on seafood ...codswallop!... who spreads
this
> silliness?
>
> nb

It depends on the cheese, I'd say. The examples you listed are certainly
palatable. I wouldn't top grilled salmon with cheddar or blackened catfish
with monterey jack though.

Jack Quesy

Bob wrote:

> Jim wrote:
>
>
>>The OP got it wrong. They cook to order and I have never had a cold
>>tortilla, ever at Rubio's. And they do not use shells (the baked Taco
>>Bell stuff), but steamed tortillas.
>
>
> I've gotten cold (soft) tortillas at the Rubio's on the corner of Rosecrans
> and Midway in San Diego. I live in Northern California now, and when I ate
> at a newly-opened Rubio's in Roseville just a few months ago, the tortilla
> was also cold.
>
> It's not a HUGE deal, but yes, sometimes you get a cold tortilla.
>
> Bob
>
>

Did you get "shells" also, as the OP said she got? Was it filled with
stuff that had been sitting around?

If I received a cold tortilla, I would have sent it back. There is no
excuse for this happening. As I said, I have been eating Rubio's since
the early-mid 80s; from the mother store in PB to dozens of others and
have never had a cold tortilla.


jim

Bob wrote:

> Jim wrote:
>
>
>>The OP got it wrong. They cook to order and I have never had a cold
>>tortilla, ever at Rubio's. And they do not use shells (the baked Taco
>>Bell stuff), but steamed tortillas.
>
>
> I've gotten cold (soft) tortillas at the Rubio's on the corner of Rosecrans
> and Midway in San Diego. I live in Northern California now, and when I ate
> at a newly-opened Rubio's in Roseville just a few months ago, the tortilla
> was also cold.
>
> It's not a HUGE deal, but yes, sometimes you get a cold tortilla.
>
> Bob
>
>

Did you get "shells" also, as the OP said she got? Was it filled with
stuff that had been sitting around?

If I received a cold tortilla, I would have sent it back. There is no
excuse for this happening. As I said, I have been eating Rubio's since
the early-mid 80s; from the mother store in PB to dozens of others and
have never had a cold tortilla.


jim

Jim replied:

>> It's not a HUGE deal, but yes, sometimes you get a cold tortilla.
>
> Did you get "shells" also, as the OP said she got? Was it filled with
> stuff that had been sitting around?
>
> If I received a cold tortilla, I would have sent it back. There is no
> excuse for this happening. As I said, I have been eating Rubio's since
> the early-mid 80s; from the mother store in PB to dozens of others and
> have never had a cold tortilla.

It was a soft tortilla, not a hard shell. The filling was hot where it was
supposed to be hot and cool where it was supposed to be cool.

There were two reasons for not sending it back:

1. I'd already waited close to half an hour for it, and I wasn't willing to
double my wait.

2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.

Bob

Jim replied:

>> It's not a HUGE deal, but yes, sometimes you get a cold tortilla.
>
> Did you get "shells" also, as the OP said she got? Was it filled with
> stuff that had been sitting around?
>
> If I received a cold tortilla, I would have sent it back. There is no
> excuse for this happening. As I said, I have been eating Rubio's since
> the early-mid 80s; from the mother store in PB to dozens of others and
> have never had a cold tortilla.

It was a soft tortilla, not a hard shell. The filling was hot where it was
supposed to be hot and cool where it was supposed to be cool.

There were two reasons for not sending it back:

1. I'd already waited close to half an hour for it, and I wasn't willing to
double my wait.

2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.

Bob

Bob wrote:

> 2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
> from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.


Typical troll bs. You've never watched their return process have you,
clown? In my personal experience AND observation, the manager simply
requests another new taco and the other gets trashed. And that is what I
have seen/experienced in a half dozen Rubio's units. Next time in, I'll
ask a couple of the managers about this. In a high volume place, it
takes far too long to pull a taco in, grab a fresh tortilla and dump the
fixings from one to the other. They just do another from scratch.


jim

Bob wrote:

> 2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
> from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.


Typical troll bs. You've never watched their return process have you,
clown? In my personal experience AND observation, the manager simply
requests another new taco and the other gets trashed. And that is what I
have seen/experienced in a half dozen Rubio's units. Next time in, I'll
ask a couple of the managers about this. In a high volume place, it
takes far too long to pull a taco in, grab a fresh tortilla and dump the
fixings from one to the other. They just do another from scratch.


jim

Jim replied:

>> 2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
>> from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.
>
>
> Typical troll bs. You've never watched their return process have you,
> clown? In my personal experience AND observation, the manager simply
> requests another new taco and the other gets trashed. And that is what I
> have seen/experienced in a half dozen Rubio's units. Next time in, I'll
> ask a couple of the managers about this. In a high volume place, it
> takes far too long to pull a taco in, grab a fresh tortilla and dump the
> fixings from one to the other. They just do another from scratch.

I didn't mean to imply that they would unwrap the tortilla, heat it up, and
use it to wrap the filling again. I'm sure they would make another taco.

But there's no need for name-calling. You said I should have sent it back. I
told you why I didn't. If you don't like my answer, that's too bad, but
there's no reason to attack me for providing you with the facts of the
matter.

I told you that I got a cold tortilla at Rubio's. I also said it wasn't a
big deal. But you decided to escalate this issue, wildly ranting as if there
was no POSSIBLE way that I could have gotten a cold tortilla, and that I
should have wasted another half-hour of my life in returning the taco and
getting another one. Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
them to fix what they messed up.

What's your problem?

Bob

Jim replied:

>> 2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
>> from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.
>
>
> Typical troll bs. You've never watched their return process have you,
> clown? In my personal experience AND observation, the manager simply
> requests another new taco and the other gets trashed. And that is what I
> have seen/experienced in a half dozen Rubio's units. Next time in, I'll
> ask a couple of the managers about this. In a high volume place, it
> takes far too long to pull a taco in, grab a fresh tortilla and dump the
> fixings from one to the other. They just do another from scratch.

I didn't mean to imply that they would unwrap the tortilla, heat it up, and
use it to wrap the filling again. I'm sure they would make another taco.

But there's no need for name-calling. You said I should have sent it back. I
told you why I didn't. If you don't like my answer, that's too bad, but
there's no reason to attack me for providing you with the facts of the
matter.

I told you that I got a cold tortilla at Rubio's. I also said it wasn't a
big deal. But you decided to escalate this issue, wildly ranting as if there
was no POSSIBLE way that I could have gotten a cold tortilla, and that I
should have wasted another half-hour of my life in returning the taco and
getting another one. Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
them to fix what they messed up.

What's your problem?

Bob

Jim replied:

>> 2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
>> from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.
>
>
> Typical troll bs. You've never watched their return process have you,
> clown? In my personal experience AND observation, the manager simply
> requests another new taco and the other gets trashed. And that is what I
> have seen/experienced in a half dozen Rubio's units. Next time in, I'll
> ask a couple of the managers about this. In a high volume place, it
> takes far too long to pull a taco in, grab a fresh tortilla and dump the
> fixings from one to the other. They just do another from scratch.

I didn't mean to imply that they would unwrap the tortilla, heat it up, and
use it to wrap the filling again. I'm sure they would make another taco.

But there's no need for name-calling. You said I should have sent it back. I
told you why I didn't. If you don't like my answer, that's too bad, but
there's no reason to attack me for providing you with the facts of the
matter.

I told you that I got a cold tortilla at Rubio's. I also said it wasn't a
big deal. But you decided to escalate this issue, wildly ranting as if there
was no POSSIBLE way that I could have gotten a cold tortilla, and that I
should have wasted another half-hour of my life in returning the taco and
getting another one. Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
them to fix what they messed up.

What's your problem?

Bob

Bob wrote:
> Jim replied:
>
>
>>>2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
>>>from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.
>>
>>
>>Typical troll bs. You've never watched their return process have you,
>>clown? In my personal experience AND observation, the manager simply
>>requests another new taco and the other gets trashed. And that is what I
>>have seen/experienced in a half dozen Rubio's units. Next time in, I'll
>>ask a couple of the managers about this. In a high volume place, it
>>takes far too long to pull a taco in, grab a fresh tortilla and dump the
>>fixings from one to the other. They just do another from scratch.
>
>
> I didn't mean to imply that they would unwrap the tortilla, heat it up, and
> use it to wrap the filling again. I'm sure they would make another taco.
>
> But there's no need for name-calling. You said I should have sent it back. I
> told you why I didn't. If you don't like my answer, that's too bad, but
> there's no reason to attack me for providing you with the facts of the
> matter.
>
> I told you that I got a cold tortilla at Rubio's. I also said it wasn't a
> big deal. But you decided to escalate this issue, wildly ranting as if there
> was no POSSIBLE way that I could have gotten a cold tortilla, and that I
> should have wasted another half-hour of my life in returning the taco and
> getting another one. Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
> working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
> there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
> them to fix what they messed up.
>
> What's your problem?
>
> Bob
>
>

Your problem is the bs you wrote. When food is turned back, the manager
orders one up, no explanation to the cooks. The cooks haven't a clue if
it was dropped, was the wrong order or anything else.

The phlegm part is bs, period, and you are trolling with it, period.
Name fits, wear it like a man or whine about it like a child.

BTW, last evening at the Rubio's on East H in Chula Vista, the manager
confirmed my observation and experience.


jim

Bob wrote:
> Jim replied:
>
>
>>>2. Sending it back is a good way to ensure that the next time it emerges
>>>from the kitchen it will have a load of phlegm enclosed.
>>
>>
>>Typical troll bs. You've never watched their return process have you,
>>clown? In my personal experience AND observation, the manager simply
>>requests another new taco and the other gets trashed. And that is what I
>>have seen/experienced in a half dozen Rubio's units. Next time in, I'll
>>ask a couple of the managers about this. In a high volume place, it
>>takes far too long to pull a taco in, grab a fresh tortilla and dump the
>>fixings from one to the other. They just do another from scratch.
>
>
> I didn't mean to imply that they would unwrap the tortilla, heat it up, and
> use it to wrap the filling again. I'm sure they would make another taco.
>
> But there's no need for name-calling. You said I should have sent it back. I
> told you why I didn't. If you don't like my answer, that's too bad, but
> there's no reason to attack me for providing you with the facts of the
> matter.
>
> I told you that I got a cold tortilla at Rubio's. I also said it wasn't a
> big deal. But you decided to escalate this issue, wildly ranting as if there
> was no POSSIBLE way that I could have gotten a cold tortilla, and that I
> should have wasted another half-hour of my life in returning the taco and
> getting another one. Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
> working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
> there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
> them to fix what they messed up.
>
> What's your problem?
>
> Bob
>
>

Your problem is the bs you wrote. When food is turned back, the manager
orders one up, no explanation to the cooks. The cooks haven't a clue if
it was dropped, was the wrong order or anything else.

The phlegm part is bs, period, and you are trolling with it, period.
Name fits, wear it like a man or whine about it like a child.

BTW, last evening at the Rubio's on East H in Chula Vista, the manager
confirmed my observation and experience.


jim

On 9 Aug 2004 21:39:09 -0500, "Bob" >
wrote:
> Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
>working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
>there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
>them to fix what they messed up.
>
>Bob
>
this is a little too paranoid for me, unless you're *really* an
asshole. someone here should know whether expectorant-laden food is
often served. who has had it happen to them, and not aunt tilly or a
friend of a friend?

your pal,
blake

On 9 Aug 2004 21:39:09 -0500, "Bob" >
wrote:
> Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
>working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
>there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
>them to fix what they messed up.
>
>Bob
>
this is a little too paranoid for me, unless you're *really* an
asshole. someone here should know whether expectorant-laden food is
often served. who has had it happen to them, and not aunt tilly or a
friend of a friend?

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Aug 2004 21:39:09 -0500, "Bob" >
> wrote:
> > Whether you like/believe it or not, many people
> >working in food preparation jobs DO resent it when you return food, and
> >there IS a good chance that your food will be tainted if you prevail upon
> >them to fix what they messed up.
> >
> >Bob
> >
> this is a little too paranoid for me, unless you're *really* an
> asshole. someone here should know whether expectorant-laden food is
> often served. who has had it happen to them, and not aunt tilly or a
> friend of a friend?
>
> your pal,
> blake

Urban myth, I'd say, much along the lines of identity theft and missing
children.

Jack Baloneyodels

Jim wrote:

> Your problem is the bs you wrote. When food is turned back, the manager
> orders one up, no explanation to the cooks. The cooks haven't a clue if
> it was dropped, was the wrong order or anything else.

What a benighted moron you are! If a cook screws up an order, a manager
routinely tells the cook about it. How else are they supposed to make sure
the cook gets it right? It's called TRAINING.


> The phlegm part is bs, period, and you are trolling with it, period.
> Name fits, wear it like a man or whine about it like a child.

Here, look at this:

http://dumbassdaily.com/archives/March_21_2004.htm
(Look under the headline "Would You Like Phlegm With That?"

Also see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....earthlink.net

The phlegm part is true, period. It's even been caught on video and
televised (on Fox, I think). Now you can admit that you were wrong like an
adult or continue to deny reality like a retard.


> BTW, last evening at the Rubio's on East H in Chula Vista, the manager
> confirmed my observation and experience.

Oh, well, if the MANAGER confirmed it, then it must be IMPOSSIBLE for it
ever to occur. Are you really stupid enough to believe that a manager would
say, "Oh yes, my employees spit in food all the time"? (Come to think of it,
maybe you ARE that stupid. Your previous correspondence in this thread
doesn't inspire confidence in your intellect.) Furthermore, does the manager
know EVERYTHING which transpires in his restaurant? I strongly doubt it!

Oh! Maybe you ARE a Rubio's manager; that would explain your ardent and
quixotic defense of Rubio's, while you ignore common sense and common
knowledge. Since there's no way to make you believe what takes place every
day, I'm going to drop this discussion. You're an idiot; I don't want you to
drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Bob

Jim wrote:

> Your problem is the bs you wrote. When food is turned back, the manager
> orders one up, no explanation to the cooks. The cooks haven't a clue if
> it was dropped, was the wrong order or anything else.

What a benighted moron you are! If a cook screws up an order, a manager
routinely tells the cook about it. How else are they supposed to make sure
the cook gets it right? It's called TRAINING.


> The phlegm part is bs, period, and you are trolling with it, period.
> Name fits, wear it like a man or whine about it like a child.

Here, look at this:

http://dumbassdaily.com/archives/March_21_2004.htm
(Look under the headline "Would You Like Phlegm With That?"

Also see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....earthlink.net

The phlegm part is true, period. It's even been caught on video and
televised (on Fox, I think). Now you can admit that you were wrong like an
adult or continue to deny reality like a retard.


> BTW, last evening at the Rubio's on East H in Chula Vista, the manager
> confirmed my observation and experience.

Oh, well, if the MANAGER confirmed it, then it must be IMPOSSIBLE for it
ever to occur. Are you really stupid enough to believe that a manager would
say, "Oh yes, my employees spit in food all the time"? (Come to think of it,
maybe you ARE that stupid. Your previous correspondence in this thread
doesn't inspire confidence in your intellect.) Furthermore, does the manager
know EVERYTHING which transpires in his restaurant? I strongly doubt it!

Oh! Maybe you ARE a Rubio's manager; that would explain your ardent and
quixotic defense of Rubio's, while you ignore common sense and common
knowledge. Since there's no way to make you believe what takes place every
day, I'm going to drop this discussion. You're an idiot; I don't want you to
drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Bob

Bob wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>
>>Your problem is the bs you wrote. When food is turned back, the manager
>>orders one up, no explanation to the cooks. The cooks haven't a clue if
>>it was dropped, was the wrong order or anything else.
>
>
> What a benighted moron you are! If a cook screws up an order, a manager
> routinely tells the cook about it. How else are they supposed to make sure
> the cook gets it right? It's called TRAINING.
>
>
>
>>The phlegm part is bs, period, and you are trolling with it, period.
>>Name fits, wear it like a man or whine about it like a child.
>
>
> Here, look at this:
>
> http://dumbassdaily.com/archives/March_21_2004.htm
> (Look under the headline "Would You Like Phlegm With That?"
>
> Also see:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....earthlink.net
>
> The phlegm part is true, period. It's even been caught on video and
> televised (on Fox, I think). Now you can admit that you were wrong like an
> adult or continue to deny reality like a retard.
>
>
>
>>BTW, last evening at the Rubio's on East H in Chula Vista, the manager
>>confirmed my observation and experience.
>
>
> Oh, well, if the MANAGER confirmed it, then it must be IMPOSSIBLE for it
> ever to occur. Are you really stupid enough to believe that a manager would
> say, "Oh yes, my employees spit in food all the time"? (Come to think of it,
> maybe you ARE that stupid. Your previous correspondence in this thread
> doesn't inspire confidence in your intellect.) Furthermore, does the manager
> know EVERYTHING which transpires in his restaurant? I strongly doubt it!
>
> Oh! Maybe you ARE a Rubio's manager; that would explain your ardent and
> quixotic defense of Rubio's, while you ignore common sense and common
> knowledge. Since there's no way to make you believe what takes place every
> day, I'm going to drop this discussion. You're an idiot; I don't want you to
> drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.
>
> Bob
>
>

I suggest you visit a Rubio's, keep your mouth shut (and your foot out
of it) and observe what happens. You might learn a thing or two, clown.
Otherwise, you are a troll.

Right, note your troll of me being associated with Rubio's. Want to try
to divert more attention from your idiocy? They run around your
neighborhood nude - but keep your mouth shut. There are people here who
have met me and know what I do and it has zip to do with Rubio's or any
other restaurant other than being a customer.

Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.


jim

Bob wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>
>>Your problem is the bs you wrote. When food is turned back, the manager
>>orders one up, no explanation to the cooks. The cooks haven't a clue if
>>it was dropped, was the wrong order or anything else.
>
>
> What a benighted moron you are! If a cook screws up an order, a manager
> routinely tells the cook about it. How else are they supposed to make sure
> the cook gets it right? It's called TRAINING.
>
>
>
>>The phlegm part is bs, period, and you are trolling with it, period.
>>Name fits, wear it like a man or whine about it like a child.
>
>
> Here, look at this:
>
> http://dumbassdaily.com/archives/March_21_2004.htm
> (Look under the headline "Would You Like Phlegm With That?"
>
> Also see:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....earthlink.net
>
> The phlegm part is true, period. It's even been caught on video and
> televised (on Fox, I think). Now you can admit that you were wrong like an
> adult or continue to deny reality like a retard.
>
>
>
>>BTW, last evening at the Rubio's on East H in Chula Vista, the manager
>>confirmed my observation and experience.
>
>
> Oh, well, if the MANAGER confirmed it, then it must be IMPOSSIBLE for it
> ever to occur. Are you really stupid enough to believe that a manager would
> say, "Oh yes, my employees spit in food all the time"? (Come to think of it,
> maybe you ARE that stupid. Your previous correspondence in this thread
> doesn't inspire confidence in your intellect.) Furthermore, does the manager
> know EVERYTHING which transpires in his restaurant? I strongly doubt it!
>
> Oh! Maybe you ARE a Rubio's manager; that would explain your ardent and
> quixotic defense of Rubio's, while you ignore common sense and common
> knowledge. Since there's no way to make you believe what takes place every
> day, I'm going to drop this discussion. You're an idiot; I don't want you to
> drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.
>
> Bob
>
>

I suggest you visit a Rubio's, keep your mouth shut (and your foot out
of it) and observe what happens. You might learn a thing or two, clown.
Otherwise, you are a troll.

Right, note your troll of me being associated with Rubio's. Want to try
to divert more attention from your idiocy? They run around your
neighborhood nude - but keep your mouth shut. There are people here who
have met me and know what I do and it has zip to do with Rubio's or any
other restaurant other than being a customer.

Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.


jim

Jim pretended to worthiness:

> Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
> conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.

Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the Sacramento
Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?

Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can get a
grown-up to help you.

What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm put
into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?

Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*

Bob

Naomi responded:

>> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the
>> Sacramento Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the
>> cops' food?
>>
>
> Do you think that either of those URLs proves that kitchen help spitting
> into food is a common event and something to worry about seriously when
> returning food? I don't think they do at all. The news item suggests it's
> an anomaly. You may well know otherwise, but these URLs don't do it.

I didn't say it was common. I said it happens. What's-his-name expressed
strong doubt that it EVER happened, going so far as to call it BS, while
calling me a troll and a clown for even mentioning it. I don't know how
prevalent the practice is, but I'm sure that not every occurrence is caught.


> And why all the name-calling, Bob?

Because I choose not to suffer fools gladly. And because when I am attacked
by a name-caller, I choose to respond in kind.

Bob

Naomi responded:

>> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the
>> Sacramento Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the
>> cops' food?
>>
>
> Do you think that either of those URLs proves that kitchen help spitting
> into food is a common event and something to worry about seriously when
> returning food? I don't think they do at all. The news item suggests it's
> an anomaly. You may well know otherwise, but these URLs don't do it.

I didn't say it was common. I said it happens. What's-his-name expressed
strong doubt that it EVER happened, going so far as to call it BS, while
calling me a troll and a clown for even mentioning it. I don't know how
prevalent the practice is, but I'm sure that not every occurrence is caught.


> And why all the name-calling, Bob?

Because I choose not to suffer fools gladly. And because when I am attacked
by a name-caller, I choose to respond in kind.

Bob

A shot rang out! And said:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 18:14:11 GMT,
> (byakee) wrote:

> > My first attempt to cook raw shrimp or prawns! This is a recipe
> > that I found online and reworked to suite our tastes:

> <snip>

> > Now the review: at first I thought this was kind of bland,
>
> I'd add a lot more garlic and a splash of white wine... it
> could use more lemon too.

There's a nice (read: non-chain) restaurant in my area that does
shrimp in garlic, white wine, and cream. I'm thinking of given
that a go next time.

> > and wasn't sure it was worth the time it takes to devein and
> > peel that many prawns.
>
> Get thee to CostCo and buy the bag of shelled & deveined
> shrimp. Problem solved!

I sincerely appreciate this suggestion, Barbara, and will
check it out next time I hit Costco. Thanks!!


--
J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~
"I rule you!" - Travis of the Cosmos, ATHF
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

A shot rang out! And said:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 18:14:11 GMT,
> (byakee) wrote:

> > My first attempt to cook raw shrimp or prawns! This is a recipe
> > that I found online and reworked to suite our tastes:

> <snip>

> > Now the review: at first I thought this was kind of bland,
>
> I'd add a lot more garlic and a splash of white wine... it
> could use more lemon too.

There's a nice (read: non-chain) restaurant in my area that does
shrimp in garlic, white wine, and cream. I'm thinking of given
that a go next time.

> > and wasn't sure it was worth the time it takes to devein and
> > peel that many prawns.
>
> Get thee to CostCo and buy the bag of shelled & deveined
> shrimp. Problem solved!

I sincerely appreciate this suggestion, Barbara, and will
check it out next time I hit Costco. Thanks!!


--
J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~
"I rule you!" - Travis of the Cosmos, ATHF
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

Bob wrote:
> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>
>
>>Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>
>
> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the Sacramento
> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>
> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can get a
> grown-up to help you.
>
> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm put
> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>
> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>
> Bob
>
>

Yo, moron, we are talking about Rubio's here not some other place in
another town. Further, while this may happen, it is far from a common
experience.

Now, do you have some first-hand, irrefutable evidence you can present
to us? And it had best be about Rubio's the place under discussion. But,
of course you have nothing so. . .

Run and hide, mentalmidget.


jim

Bob wrote:
> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>
>
>>Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>
>
> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the Sacramento
> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>
> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can get a
> grown-up to help you.
>
> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm put
> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>
> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>
> Bob
>
>

Yo, moron, we are talking about Rubio's here not some other place in
another town. Further, while this may happen, it is far from a common
experience.

Now, do you have some first-hand, irrefutable evidence you can present
to us? And it had best be about Rubio's the place under discussion. But,
of course you have nothing so. . .

Run and hide, mentalmidget.


jim

Bob wrote:

> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>
>
>>Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>
>
> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the Sacramento
> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>
> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can get a
> grown-up to help you.
>
> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm put
> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>
> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>
> Bob
>
>

Oh yeah, while I may be a df, that's a long way up the feeding chain
from where you are. You best aspirations are to become what you have
named me.


jim

Bob wrote:

> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>
>
>>Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>
>
> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the Sacramento
> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>
> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can get a
> grown-up to help you.
>
> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm put
> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>
> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>
> Bob
>
>

Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only one
item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who died on
board the different aircraft.

Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for Rubio's
in the Sac Bee:

http://tinyurl.com/4nt88

There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.

A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
restaurants.

Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.

Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.

Spitting =food yielded two non hits.

There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up with
police in a food relevant story.

So, search guru, put the url he __________________________

So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.

What a crock.


jim

Bob wrote:

> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>
>
>>Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>
>
> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the Sacramento
> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>
> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can get a
> grown-up to help you.
>
> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm put
> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>
> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>
> Bob
>
>

Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only one
item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who died on
board the different aircraft.

Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for Rubio's
in the Sac Bee:

http://tinyurl.com/4nt88

There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.

A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
restaurants.

Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.

Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.

Spitting =food yielded two non hits.

There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up with
police in a food relevant story.

So, search guru, put the url he __________________________

So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.

What a crock.


jim

JimLane wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>>
>>
>>> Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>> conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the
>> Sacramento
>> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>>
>> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
>> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can
>> get a
>> grown-up to help you.
>>
>> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
>> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm
>> put
>> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>>
>> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>
> Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only one
> item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who died on
> board the different aircraft.
>
> Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for Rubio's
> in the Sac Bee:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4nt88
>
> There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.
>
> A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
> restaurants.
>
> Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.
>
> Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.
>
> Spitting =food yielded two non hits.
>
> There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
> through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up with
> police in a food relevant story.
>
> So, search guru, put the url he __________________________
>
> So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
> trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
> happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.
>
> What a crock.
>
>
> jim


There was a waiter (law student,) in a seafood restaurant I worked for,
who would rub his penis (literally) against the clams and oysters on the
1/2 shell when patrons gave him a hard time.

I never irritate people that are serving my food. If I don't like the
way I'm treated, I just never return, and I'll let the owner know why.
However, this hasn't happened yet since I'm not the antagonistic type.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

JimLane wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>>
>>
>>> Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>> conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the
>> Sacramento
>> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>>
>> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
>> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can
>> get a
>> grown-up to help you.
>>
>> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
>> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm
>> put
>> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>>
>> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>
> Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only one
> item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who died on
> board the different aircraft.
>
> Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for Rubio's
> in the Sac Bee:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4nt88
>
> There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.
>
> A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
> restaurants.
>
> Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.
>
> Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.
>
> Spitting =food yielded two non hits.
>
> There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
> through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up with
> police in a food relevant story.
>
> So, search guru, put the url he __________________________
>
> So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
> trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
> happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.
>
> What a crock.
>
>
> jim


There was a waiter (law student,) in a seafood restaurant I worked for,
who would rub his penis (literally) against the clams and oysters on the
1/2 shell when patrons gave him a hard time.

I never irritate people that are serving my food. If I don't like the
way I'm treated, I just never return, and I'll let the owner know why.
However, this hasn't happened yet since I'm not the antagonistic type.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Richard Periut wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it
>>>> up or
>>>> conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the
>>> Sacramento
>>> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>>>
>>> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really
>>> not
>>> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can
>>> get a
>>> grown-up to help you.
>>>
>>> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
>>> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten
>>> phlegm put
>>> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>>>
>>> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only
>> one item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who died
>> on board the different aircraft.
>>
>> Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for
>> Rubio's in the Sac Bee:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4nt88
>>
>> There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.
>>
>> A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
>> restaurants.
>>
>> Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.
>>
>> Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.
>>
>> Spitting =food yielded two non hits.
>>
>> There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
>> through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up
>> with police in a food relevant story.
>>
>> So, search guru, put the url he __________________________
>>
>> So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
>> trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
>> happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.
>>
>> What a crock.
>>
>>
>> jim
>
>
>
> There was a waiter (law student,) in a seafood restaurant I worked for,
> who would rub his penis (literally) against the clams and oysters on the
> 1/2 shell when patrons gave him a hard time.
>
> I never irritate people that are serving my food. If I don't like the
> way I'm treated, I just never return, and I'll let the owner know why.
> However, this hasn't happened yet since I'm not the antagonistic type.
>
> Rich
>

I have never stated that these things do not occur, just with the OP's
misleading statements about Rubio's. Unless you saw this fella do this,
I would doubt his word. There are relatively few kitchens today where he
would be able to get away with this. Especially those with women in the
kitchen.


jim



jim

JimLane wrote:
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it
>>>>> up or
>>>>> conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the
>>>> Sacramento
>>>> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>>>>
>>>> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's
>>>> really not
>>>> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can
>>>> get a
>>>> grown-up to help you.
>>>>
>>>> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
>>>> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten
>>>> phlegm put
>>>> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>>>>
>>>> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only
>>> one item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who
>>> died on board the different aircraft.
>>>
>>> Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for
>>> Rubio's in the Sac Bee:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4nt88
>>>
>>> There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.
>>>
>>> A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
>>> restaurants.
>>>
>>> Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.
>>>
>>> Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.
>>>
>>> Spitting =food yielded two non hits.
>>>
>>> There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
>>> through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up
>>> with police in a food relevant story.
>>>
>>> So, search guru, put the url he __________________________
>>>
>>> So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
>>> trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
>>> happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.
>>>
>>> What a crock.
>>>
>>>
>>> jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a waiter (law student,) in a seafood restaurant I worked
>> for, who would rub his penis (literally) against the clams and oysters
>> on the 1/2 shell when patrons gave him a hard time.
>>
>> I never irritate people that are serving my food. If I don't like the
>> way I'm treated, I just never return, and I'll let the owner know why.
>> However, this hasn't happened yet since I'm not the antagonistic type.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>
> I have never stated that these things do not occur, just with the OP's
> misleading statements about Rubio's. Unless you saw this fella do this,
> I would doubt his word. There are relatively few kitchens today where he
> would be able to get away with this. Especially those with women in the
> kitchen.
>
>
> jim
>
>
>
> jim
Not only did I see it with my own eyes, it was the laugh of the kitchen.
No woman in the kitchen except the occasional waitress. But he would
make sure there were no woman, and it was done behind the guy that
chucked the oysters.

I kid you not.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

JimLane wrote:
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it
>>>>> up or
>>>>> conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the
>>>> Sacramento
>>>> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>>>>
>>>> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's
>>>> really not
>>>> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can
>>>> get a
>>>> grown-up to help you.
>>>>
>>>> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
>>>> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten
>>>> phlegm put
>>>> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>>>>
>>>> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only
>>> one item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who
>>> died on board the different aircraft.
>>>
>>> Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for
>>> Rubio's in the Sac Bee:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4nt88
>>>
>>> There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.
>>>
>>> A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
>>> restaurants.
>>>
>>> Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.
>>>
>>> Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.
>>>
>>> Spitting =food yielded two non hits.
>>>
>>> There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
>>> through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up
>>> with police in a food relevant story.
>>>
>>> So, search guru, put the url he __________________________
>>>
>>> So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
>>> trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
>>> happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.
>>>
>>> What a crock.
>>>
>>>
>>> jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a waiter (law student,) in a seafood restaurant I worked
>> for, who would rub his penis (literally) against the clams and oysters
>> on the 1/2 shell when patrons gave him a hard time.
>>
>> I never irritate people that are serving my food. If I don't like the
>> way I'm treated, I just never return, and I'll let the owner know why.
>> However, this hasn't happened yet since I'm not the antagonistic type.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>
> I have never stated that these things do not occur, just with the OP's
> misleading statements about Rubio's. Unless you saw this fella do this,
> I would doubt his word. There are relatively few kitchens today where he
> would be able to get away with this. Especially those with women in the
> kitchen.
>
>
> jim
>
>
>
> jim
Not only did I see it with my own eyes, it was the laugh of the kitchen.
No woman in the kitchen except the occasional waitress. But he would
make sure there were no woman, and it was done behind the guy that
chucked the oysters.

I kid you not.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Richard Periut wrote:

snip


>
> Not only did I see it with my own eyes, it was the laugh of the kitchen.
> No woman in the kitchen except the occasional waitress. But he would
> make sure there were no woman, and it was done behind the guy that
> chucked the oysters.
>
> I kid you not.
>
> Rich
>

And that sums up everything we need to know about you, does it not? That
you would condone such activity and not report it is more than adequate
proof of your shallowness of character and about your lack of concern
for others.


jim

Richard Periut wrote:

snip


>
> Not only did I see it with my own eyes, it was the laugh of the kitchen.
> No woman in the kitchen except the occasional waitress. But he would
> make sure there were no woman, and it was done behind the guy that
> chucked the oysters.
>
> I kid you not.
>
> Rich
>

And that sums up everything we need to know about you, does it not? That
you would condone such activity and not report it is more than adequate
proof of your shallowness of character and about your lack of concern
for others.


jim