It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
health guidelines.

IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.

I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
chickenwich.

E.A.T. Hoffmann wrote:
> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
> health guidelines.
>
> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>
> I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
> chickenwich.
>


I doubt that. She did use a lot of butter, but no junk ingredients.

Remember that in her heyday there was very little fast food and most
foods were pretty unadulterated. She was pretty strong about using
fresh ingredients.

gloria p

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:25:49 -0700 (PDT), E.A.T. Hoffmann wrote:

> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
> health guidelines.
>
> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>
> I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
> chickenwich.

That's nice.

-sw

In article >,
gloria.p > wrote:
>E.A.T. Hoffmann wrote:
>> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
>> health guidelines.

"Today's health guidelines" are all over the map. Got examples?

>> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
>> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
>> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.

Moderation in all things.

>> I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.

I think you're wrong. She lived long enough that she knew all about the
modern version (remember: food was like that when she was a wee girl, so
it's just a new incarnation of an old way of doing things), and supported
it wholeheartedly.

What she wasn't was a silly faddist.

>> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
>> chickenwich.

>I doubt that. She did use a lot of butter, but no junk ingredients.

IMO the OP is trying to set up a false binary.

>Remember that in her heyday there was very little fast food and most
>foods were pretty unadulterated. She was pretty strong about using
>fresh ingredients.

I agree. She knew the real deal from her California childhood
and her adult life in France. She used quality, scratch ingredients and
no fussing about it. She also understood the concept of fresh, local
items very well - you could call that a "fad" if you were trying to set
up some strawmen to knock down but it is actually a very old, traditional
way of being that has been obscured (in some places more than others) by
modern modes of food transportation.

Charlotte


--

gloria.p > wrote:

>Remember that in her heyday there was very little fast food and most
>foods were pretty unadulterated. She was pretty strong about using
>fresh ingredients.

I think that's right. There was no real need to avoid commercial
beef, chicken, or milk back then. Now there is.

Steve

On Apr 26, 8:25*pm, "E.A.T. Hoffmann" > wrote:
> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
> health guidelines.
>
> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>
> I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
> chickenwich.

While it's true she used a lot of fat in most things, she didn't use
artificial junk which is probably worse for many.

But I own 3 of her cookbooks and she did have some things like poached
fish and things made more healthfully, she even mentions that these
dishes are better for those who are calorie-consious. So she did
depart from the rich stuff a bit, she's just not as known for it.

Kris

"gloria.p" > wrote in message
...
> E.A.T. Hoffmann wrote:
>> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
>> health guidelines.
>>
>> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
>> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
>> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>>
>> I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
>> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
>> chickenwich.
>>
>
>
> I doubt that. She did use a lot of butter, but no junk ingredients.
>
> Remember that in her heyday there was very little fast food and most foods
> were pretty unadulterated. She was pretty strong about using
> fresh ingredients.
>
> gloria p


Absolutely. And who the heck is this person who thinks Julia would have
made anything similar to what's served at KFC? Is this one of Bryan's why
don't they serve Dr. Pepper at the Cheesecake Factory fans?

Jill

barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:

>> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>
>
> we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>
>


Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.

Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
to molest and feeling entitled to do so.

gloria p

On Apr 26, 7:25*pm, "E.A.T. Hoffmann" > wrote:
> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
> health guidelines.
>
> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>
> I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
> chickenwich.

She was into good tasting food and great cuisine - she was also into
the best, freshest ingredients to be found - that doesn't negate using
organic food, but I never read that she went out specifically looking
for it. As to healthful, she advocated dishes that tasted good and
full flavor profiles - if they included butter and cream, then she
often said to just have small portions.

Nothing like butter or cream is inherently BAD for you; it's only bad
if you indulge in too much of them.

I don't think she would have given anything from KFC the time of day,
because she could make it taste so much better.

N.

E.A.T. Hoffmann wrote:
>
> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
> health guidelines.

Given how many fat people there were then and how many there are now,
that speaks more to her expertise and incorrect guidelines today than
the the reverse.

On Apr 26, 5:25*pm, "E.A.T. Hoffmann" > wrote:

I think you are completely wrong.
In the first place, Julia cooked in the Fench tradition. Fresh,
healthy food.
The French eat butter and drink wine and don't hae a weight problem
because they don't overindulge.
Portions were much smaller than they are today. People ate more
sensibly.
Fast food was something people did on occassion, and not every day,
and I doubt she would have approved at all of the monstrosity of the
KFC double down.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:40:08 -0500, barbie gee >
wrote:

>
>
>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:14:48 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The message
>>> >
>>> from "E.A.T. Hoffmann" > contains these words:
>>>
>>>> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
>>>> health guidelines.
>>>
>>>> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
>>>> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
>>>> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>>>
>>> You might care to consider that in her day, morbid obesity was very rare.
>>> "fat" people had a slight pot belly and minor lovehandles. Fat children
>>> were unknown.
>>>
>>> People ate far more fresh food, 3 meals a day.
>>> Less processed food, less grazing, and they were more physically active.
>>>
>>> Janet.
>>
>>
>> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>
>
>we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe"


Not convinced, it is NOT safe... because today there is no
parenting... in virtually all households with young children both
parents work full time (if there even are both parents). Kids are
either shuffled off to lock down storage facilities or left to roam at
lodge, neither offers real safety. Today's kids don't have a normal
childhood... they won't have a normal adulthood either, hard
work/dedication is no longer rewarded and the concept of permanent
employment is pretty much extinct... life is very tenuous for all but
will be especially so for the ensuing generations. The world is a
much less safe place, for everyone, not just kids.

On 4/27/2010 11:53 AM, gloria.p wrote:
> barbie gee wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
>
>>> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>>> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>>> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>>
>>
>> we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>>
>>
>
>
> Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>
> Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
> Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.

What makes you think that those same people weren't "out there" in "your
children's day"? What has changed is sex offender registries and
newspapers with flagging sales sensationalizing the issue--"did you know
that a sex offender was living near XYZ school" the reporter says in
dramatic tones. Never mind that the "sex offense" was indecent exposure
while peeing by the side of the road at 2AM and having the misfortune to
get caught at it by an overzealous cop--she's out to get your kids.

Every "sex offender" is not a child molester.

But fear is big business these days.

On Apr 27, 11:53*am, "gloria.p" > wrote:
> barbie gee wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
> >> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
> >> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
> >> night. *It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>
> > we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>
> Where do you live? *Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>
> Do you read the newspaper? *It was very safe in my children's day.
> Not today. *There are too many people out there searching for kids
> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>
> gloria p

Are there any more, per capita, than there ever were--or do we
simply hear about it more nowadays? Pedophilia rates are probably
not much higher than 50 years ago, but I imagine it was hushed
up a lot more readily then.

Note: the above is mere conjecture. I don't have kids, so I'm not
really interested in pedophilia frequency.

Cindy Hamilton

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> On 4/27/2010 11:53 AM, gloria.p wrote:

> > Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
> > Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
> > to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>
> What makes you think that those same people weren't "out there" in "your
> children's day"? What has changed is sex offender registries and
> newspapers with flagging sales sensationalizing the issue--"did you know
> that a sex offender was living near XYZ school" the reporter says in
> dramatic tones. Never mind that the "sex offense" was indecent exposure
> while peeing by the side of the road at 2AM and having the misfortune to
> get caught at it by an overzealous cop--she's out to get your kids.
>
> Every "sex offender" is not a child molester.

But most child molesters are relatives or friends of the family. It's
terrible what strangers can do to a child, scarring them mentally, maybe
for life. But that's nothing compared to a little girl being repeatedly
raped by her father. Those scars will last until she dies.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:40:08 -0500, barbie gee wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:14:48 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> People ate far more fresh food, 3 meals a day.
>>> Less processed food, less grazing, and they were more physically active.
>>>
>>> Janet.
>>
>>
>> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>
>
> we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".

i agree. the parents think it's 'not safe.' might be fewer available
areas to play in, though.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, gloria.p wrote:

> barbie gee wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
>
>>> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>>> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>>> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>>
>>
>> we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>>
>
> Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>
> Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
> Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>
> gloria p

no, i think it's that no matter where you live, you hear about every
****ing child molester in the entire country. it's more hysteria than
anything else.

if your kids are being molested, look first at family members, not
strangers.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:58:13 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2 wrote:

> On Apr 26, 7:25*pm, "E.A.T. Hoffmann" > wrote:
>> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
>> health guidelines.
>>
>> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
>> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
>> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>>
>> I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
>> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
>> chickenwich.
>
> She was into good tasting food and great cuisine - she was also into
> the best, freshest ingredients to be found - that doesn't negate using
> organic food, but I never read that she went out specifically looking
> for it. As to healthful, she advocated dishes that tasted good and
> full flavor profiles - if they included butter and cream, then she
> often said to just have small portions.
>
> Nothing like butter or cream is inherently BAD for you; it's only bad
> if you indulge in too much of them.
>
> I don't think she would have given anything from KFC the time of day,
> because she could make it taste so much better.
>
> N.

KFC was likely better in julia's day than it is today..

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, gloria.p wrote:
>
> > Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
> >
> > Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
> > Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
> > to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>
> no, i think it's that no matter where you live, you hear about every
> ****ing child molester in the entire country. it's more hysteria than
> anything else.

I find it hard to believe the rate of child abuse
has changed much in the last century or so.
I suspect that in the past, people were more
likely to keep quiet about it.

Sort of like cancer. People didn't talk about
cancer as much in the old days.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Apr 27, 11:53*am, "gloria.p" > wrote:
>> barbie gee wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
>> >> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>> >> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>> >> night. *It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>
>> > we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>>
>> Where do you live? *Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>
>> Do you read the newspaper? *It was very safe in my children's day.
>> Not today. *There are too many people out there searching for kids
>> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>
>> gloria p
>
>Are there any more, per capita, than there ever were--or do we
>simply hear about it more nowadays? Pedophilia rates are probably
>not much higher than 50 years ago, but I imagine it was hushed
>up a lot more readily then.
>
>Note: the above is mere conjecture. I don't have kids, so I'm not
>really interested in pedophilia frequency.

Pedophillia is as prevalent as always... only real difference is that
in the relatively near past there were always parents about actually
parenting. Aside from the fact that there are relatively few parents
about today parenting has become a lost skill... parenting like
everything else, if you don't use it you lose it... and nowadays
parents never even used it day one, so they never had it to lose. Oh,
and another big difference, today people are becoming older and older
before having kids, today they are in fact grandparents having kids.
Forty something year olds are from what I've witnessed much too old to
be having newborns, they haven't the physical energy and certainly not
the emotional energy.... and many will never live long enough to bring
their kids to adulthood, it's sad.

In article
>,
Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > But most child molesters are relatives or friends of the family. It's
> > terrible what strangers can do to a child, scarring them mentally, maybe
> > for life. But that's nothing compared to a little girl being repeatedly
> > raped by her father. Those scars will last until she dies.
>
> I do not like how fathers are accused along with boyfriends and live
> ins. Most child molestation does _not_ come from fathers. It does come
> from men that are in contact with them regularly, though. People lump
> together the boyfriend, live-in and step father with the father and
> indict all of them. This is not to say that fathers don't ever do so,
> but it is breeding a false fear to assume that they are the greatest
> risk.

You are correct, Ranée. I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I
have been talking to a woman this last few weeks, who was regularly
raped and beaten by her father, with her mother's knowledge. I last
talked to her yesterday. She is pretty screwed up.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Apr 27, 11:53*am, "gloria.p" > wrote:
> barbie gee wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
> >> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
> >> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
> >> night. *It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>
> > we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>
> Where do you live? *Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>
> Do you read the newspaper? *It was very safe in my children's day.
> Not today. *There are too many people out there searching for kids
> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>
> gloria p

Gloria, I have to disagree with you. We hear about more creepy things
happening to kids nowadays, but my DD would take off on her bike for
hours at a time, sometimes with other kids, sometimes alone. We live
near a busy secondary road, near malls and shopping areas. I don't
recommend shoving 5 year olds out the door for an all day romp, but by
10, many children have a reasonable sense of safe conduct, between
what they learn at school and home, that they can head out to play
without constant supervision.

At least nowadays, we teach them the difference between respecting
their elders and running screaming from "funny uncles and aunts."

maxine in ri

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> "gloria.p" > wrote:
>
>> Do you read the newspaper? *It was very safe in my children's day.
>> Not today. *There are too many people out there searching for kids
>> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>
> Are there any more, per capita, than there ever were--or do we
> simply hear about it more nowadays? Pedophilia rates are probably
> not much higher than 50 years ago, but I imagine it was hushed
> up a lot more readily then.

I think the reporting percentage is higher and the range of coverage is
wider. I also think that the result is neighborhoods that are slightly
safer because more perps are convicted combined with being perceived as
more dangerous because more perps are convicted.

There has been a movement for rape victims to go public. Stop blaming
the victim and stop tolerating the perp. The intent of this movement
may have been focused on violent rape of adult women but the result has
been all of the types of victims coming forward. Both individual
perverts and ones protected by large organizations (church is in the
news but not the only such organization). Being no longer hidden the
percentage of perverts and perps in the population is slowly declining.
At the same time public impression of safety is slowly getting worse
because the convictions make the national news not just the local news.

>>> On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
>>> chickenwich.

I doubt that. I got tricked into one, and it was garbage. And I love KFC,
and had the two piece dark meat dinner since then.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
>
> The message
> >
> from "E.A.T. Hoffmann" > contains these words:
>
> > It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
> > health guidelines.
>
> > IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
> > entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
> > people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
>
> You might care to consider that in her day, morbid obesity was very rare.
> "fat" people had a slight pot belly and minor lovehandles. Fat children
> were unknown.
>
> People ate far more fresh food, 3 meals a day.
> Less processed food, less grazing, and they were more physically active.
>
> Janet.


Not to mention that Mrs Child was 91 when she died. Her style of cooking
clearly didn't hurt her very much.

Stu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:14:48 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> > wrote:
>
> >The message
> >
> >from "E.A.T. Hoffmann" > contains these words:
> >
> >> It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
> >> health guidelines.
> >
> >> IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
> >> entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
> >> people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.
> >
> > You might care to consider that in her day, morbid obesity was very rare.
> > "fat" people had a slight pot belly and minor lovehandles. Fat children
> >were unknown.
> >
> > People ate far more fresh food, 3 meals a day.
> >Less processed food, less grazing, and they were more physically active.
> >
> > Janet.
>
> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.


If communities got together and actually paid attention to their
children's play areas it would be much safer. When I was a child,
someone's parents were always watching our little gang at play. The
local police also patrolled the large park in the neighbourhood and
seemed to know which parents went with which kids.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:

>Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>
>Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>to molest and feeling entitled to do so.

The neighborhood where we moved last month is practically a throwback
to when I was growing up. The kids play outside - a lot of street
hockey and basketball in driveways seems to be the predominate outdoor
activity. And even the DH was surprised at how friendly the neighbors
are. He's lived in SoCal for 40 years and says this is the first time
neighbors have come around to introduce themselves - even brought
houseplants and cookies. Heck, I almost keeled over when I realized
that the music I was hearing came from an *ice cream truck*!!! Hadn't
seen an ice cream truck in *years*

Heck, I seem to be married to the scariest thing on the block: a
lawyer!

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

"If the soup had been as warm as the wine,
if the wine had been as old as the turkey,
and if the turkey had had a breast like the maid,
it would have been a swell dinner." Duncan Hines


To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, "gloria.p" >
> wrote:
>
>>Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>
>>Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>>Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>>to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>
> The neighborhood where we moved last month is practically a throwback
> to when I was growing up. The kids play outside - a lot of street
> hockey and basketball in driveways seems to be the predominate outdoor
> activity. And even the DH was surprised at how friendly the neighbors
> are. He's lived in SoCal for 40 years and says this is the first time
> neighbors have come around to introduce themselves - even brought
> houseplants and cookies. Heck, I almost keeled over when I realized
> that the music I was hearing came from an *ice cream truck*!!! Hadn't
> seen an ice cream truck in *years*
>
> Heck, I seem to be married to the scariest thing on the block: a
> lawyer!
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

Call me weird, but I'm afraid of ice cream trucks! We didn't have them in
my bucolic neighborhood growing up and all the ones that circle around where
I am now are half dilapidated and driven by creepy looking old men.

Jinx

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>
>> Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>> Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>
> The neighborhood where we moved last month is practically a throwback
> to when I was growing up. The kids play outside - a lot of street
> hockey and basketball in driveways seems to be the predominate outdoor
> activity. And even the DH was surprised at how friendly the neighbors
> are. He's lived in SoCal for 40 years and says this is the first time
> neighbors have come around to introduce themselves - even brought
> houseplants and cookies. Heck, I almost keeled over when I realized
> that the music I was hearing came from an *ice cream truck*!!! Hadn't
> seen an ice cream truck in *years*
>
> Heck, I seem to be married to the scariest thing on the block: a
> lawyer!
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
>
Nice! You won't have to run away from any scary people in that 'hood!

On 4/27/2010 8:42 PM, Jinx Minx wrote:
> "Terry Pulliam > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>>
>>> Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>>> Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>>> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>
>> The neighborhood where we moved last month is practically a throwback
>> to when I was growing up. The kids play outside - a lot of street
>> hockey and basketball in driveways seems to be the predominate outdoor
>> activity. And even the DH was surprised at how friendly the neighbors
>> are. He's lived in SoCal for 40 years and says this is the first time
>> neighbors have come around to introduce themselves - even brought
>> houseplants and cookies. Heck, I almost keeled over when I realized
>> that the music I was hearing came from an *ice cream truck*!!! Hadn't
>> seen an ice cream truck in *years*
>>
>> Heck, I seem to be married to the scariest thing on the block: a
>> lawyer!
>>
>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
> Call me weird, but I'm afraid of ice cream trucks! We didn't have them in
> my bucolic neighborhood growing up and all the ones that circle around where
> I am now are half dilapidated and driven by creepy looking old men.

Weird. My female cousin put herself through college driving a Good
Humor truck.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:37:06 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>Heck, I seem to be married to the scariest thing on the block: a
>lawyer!

Yup.

Lou

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:25:49 -0700 (PDT), "E.A.T. Hoffmann"
> wrote:

>It seems a lot of her recipes are too greasy and unhealthy by today's
>health guidelines.

Define 'today's health guidelines'.

>IMHO she was a great wit prone to slapsticks like Martin Yan,
>entertaining to watch, but I would not recommend her recipes for
>people who are trying to lose weight or eat healthy.

Highly questionable reasoning - assuming you're referring to all the
good stuff, such as butter, etc. Starchy/carby foods are another
matter...

>I don't think she would have given a F*** about today's organic fad.
>On the other hand, she would absolutely have loved KFC's double down
>chickenwich.

Again, highly spurious reasoning on both counts. You have no way of
knowing that. Would you just assume Julia didn't like Cilantro if she
had never mentioned the fact?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:

>barbie gee wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
>
>>> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>>> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>>> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>
>> we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>>
>Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>
>Do you read the newspaper?

That's a great way to get a skewed perspective on such things.

> It was very safe in my children's day.
>Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>to molest and feeling entitled to do so.

Fear sure sells.
Jeßus
May God protect you from his followers.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:

>barbie gee wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Stu wrote:
>
>>> .....and the kids were safe to play and run all day, usually ending up
>>> at a friends place for lunch, they played outside from morning to
>>> night. It's not safe for the kids to do something like that now.
>>
>> we've only convinced ourselves it's "not safe".
>>
>Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>
>Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>to molest and feeling entitled to do so.

LOL, it only took eight replies to go from Julia Child to
paedophilia......
Jeßus
May God protect you from his followers.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:09:41 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, gloria.p wrote:
>>
>> > Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>> >
>> > Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>> > Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>> > to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>
>> no, i think it's that no matter where you live, you hear about every
>> ****ing child molester in the entire country. it's more hysteria than
>> anything else.
>
>I find it hard to believe the rate of child abuse
>has changed much in the last century or so.
>I suspect that in the past, people were more
>likely to keep quiet about it.
>
>Sort of like cancer. People didn't talk about
>cancer as much in the old days.

There's also infinitely more carcinogens in daily life these days.

Jeßus
May God protect you from his followers.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:35:42 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>On 4/27/2010 8:42 PM, Jinx Minx wrote:
>> "Terry Pulliam > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>>>
>>>> Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>>>> Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>>>> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>>
>>> The neighborhood where we moved last month is practically a throwback
>>> to when I was growing up. The kids play outside - a lot of street
>>> hockey and basketball in driveways seems to be the predominate outdoor
>>> activity. And even the DH was surprised at how friendly the neighbors
>>> are. He's lived in SoCal for 40 years and says this is the first time
>>> neighbors have come around to introduce themselves - even brought
>>> houseplants and cookies. Heck, I almost keeled over when I realized
>>> that the music I was hearing came from an *ice cream truck*!!! Hadn't
>>> seen an ice cream truck in *years*
>>>
>>> Heck, I seem to be married to the scariest thing on the block: a
>>> lawyer!
>>>
>>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>>
>> Call me weird, but I'm afraid of ice cream trucks! We didn't have them in
>> my bucolic neighborhood growing up and all the ones that circle around where
>> I am now are half dilapidated and driven by creepy looking old men.
>
>Weird. My female cousin put herself through college driving a Good
>Humor truck.

Oh dear. Was she injured?
Jeßus
May God protect you from his followers.

On 4/27/2010 11:42 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:35:42 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2010 8:42 PM, Jinx Minx wrote:
>>> "Terry Pulliam > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>>>>> Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>>>>> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>>>
>>>> The neighborhood where we moved last month is practically a throwback
>>>> to when I was growing up. The kids play outside - a lot of street
>>>> hockey and basketball in driveways seems to be the predominate outdoor
>>>> activity. And even the DH was surprised at how friendly the neighbors
>>>> are. He's lived in SoCal for 40 years and says this is the first time
>>>> neighbors have come around to introduce themselves - even brought
>>>> houseplants and cookies. Heck, I almost keeled over when I realized
>>>> that the music I was hearing came from an *ice cream truck*!!! Hadn't
>>>> seen an ice cream truck in *years*
>>>>
>>>> Heck, I seem to be married to the scariest thing on the block: a
>>>> lawyer!
>>>>
>>>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>>>
>>> Call me weird, but I'm afraid of ice cream trucks! We didn't have them in
>>> my bucolic neighborhood growing up and all the ones that circle around where
>>> I am now are half dilapidated and driven by creepy looking old men.
>>
>> Weird. My female cousin put herself through college driving a Good
>> Humor truck.
>
> Oh dear. Was she injured?

Only her pride.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:09:41 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, gloria.p wrote:
>>>
>>> > Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>> >
>>> > Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>>> > Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>>> > to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>>
>>> no, i think it's that no matter where you live, you hear about every
>>> ****ing child molester in the entire country. it's more hysteria than
>>> anything else.
>>
>>I find it hard to believe the rate of child abuse
>>has changed much in the last century or so.
>>I suspect that in the past, people were more
>>likely to keep quiet about it.
>>
>>Sort of like cancer. People didn't talk about
>>cancer as much in the old days.
>
> There's also infinitely more carcinogens in daily life these days.
>
> Jeßus
> May God protect you from his followers.

Perhaps, but I recall from my youth that no one talked about cancer out
loud. I never did understand that. Someone got colon cancer and the news was
spread in whispers and never discussed out lout. It made it sound as if
either the sick person was at fault or it was the work of the devil. No one
could ever explain the reason for this nonsense.

Even my parents, who were pretty open about most things with us kids, were
very superstitious on this subject.

Jon

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:09:41 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, gloria.p wrote:
>>
>>> Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>>
>>> Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>>> Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>>> to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>
>> no, i think it's that no matter where you live, you hear about every
>> ****ing child molester in the entire country. it's more hysteria than
>> anything else.
>
> I find it hard to believe the rate of child abuse
> has changed much in the last century or so.
> I suspect that in the past, people were more
> likely to keep quiet about it.
>
> Sort of like cancer. People didn't talk about
> cancer as much in the old days.

exactly so.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:41:13 +1000, Jeßus wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:09:41 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0600, gloria.p wrote:
>>>
>>> > Where do you live? Not many places are still safe to turn kids loose.
>>> >
>>> > Do you read the newspaper? It was very safe in my children's day.
>>> > Not today. There are too many people out there searching for kids
>>> > to molest and feeling entitled to do so.
>>>
>>> no, i think it's that no matter where you live, you hear about every
>>> ****ing child molester in the entire country. it's more hysteria than
>>> anything else.
>>
>>I find it hard to believe the rate of child abuse
>>has changed much in the last century or so.
>>I suspect that in the past, people were more
>>likely to keep quiet about it.
>>
>>Sort of like cancer. People didn't talk about
>>cancer as much in the old days.
>
> There's also infinitely more carcinogens in daily life these days.
>
> Jeßus

and to a certain extent, incidence of cancer increases with more people
living longer, having not been killed by that heart attack they had when
they were fifty.

your pal,
blake