On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:28:05 -0400, Zeppo wrote:

> "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.

well, of course. anything that happens to anyone else is their fault (or
maybe even 'they deserved it') while nothing that happens to you is your
fault.

disease as a marker of god's disfavor has a long history.

your pal,
blake

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "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.
>
> They have creeped me out a little every since we lived in Tulsa when
> we were first married and a child molester used one or the music from
> one (I can't remember which now) to lure children out and harm them.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits


A year or two ago, a couple of ice cream vendors were nailed for selling
drugs along with the ice cream. Happened at a small shop as well.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:28:05 -0400, "Zeppo" > wrote:

>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.
>
In the "old days", even the '60's, the hope to survive was slim to
none for cancer. It was what it was. I don't remember whispers or
superstitions. People did what they could afford to do, but even Mayo
Clinic was in its infancy of fighting cancer successfully.


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

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:42:21 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:28:05 -0400, "Zeppo" > wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>In the "old days", even the '60's, the hope to survive was slim to
>none for cancer. It was what it was. I don't remember whispers or
>superstitions. People did what they could afford to do, but even Mayo
>Clinic was in its infancy of fighting cancer successfully.

Back then parents/adults weren't eager to discuss serious health
issues with young children, they had far more respect for childhood...
back then the Tooth Fairy was the big childhood health issue. Of
course back then it was difficult not to discuss polio, it was hard to
hide leg braces and iron lungs. Today most mothers and fathers aren't
parents... it's not possible to parent and hold a full time job
-utside the home. Today's moms and dads treat their kids as
contemporaries even from before they can walk. A soccer mom is NOT a
parent.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:42:21 -0700, sf > wrote:

>In the "old days", even the '60's, the hope to survive was slim to
>none for cancer. It was what it was. I don't remember whispers or
>superstitions. People did what they could afford to do, but even Mayo
>Clinic was in its infancy of fighting cancer successfully.


The ability to treat cancer has definitely improved, but what
has really mushroomed is the ability of the the medical researchers
and their market brand to claim the ability to do so.

I have noticed a recent marketing campaign that flatly states, "We can
end cancer". One of these deals where already overfunded medical
researchers want more donations from the public, so they'll say anything
I guess.

S.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:04:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:42:21 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>In the "old days", even the '60's, the hope to survive was slim to
>>none for cancer. It was what it was. I don't remember whispers or
>>superstitions. People did what they could afford to do, but even Mayo
>>Clinic was in its infancy of fighting cancer successfully.
>
>
>The ability to treat cancer has definitely improved, but what
>has really mushroomed is the ability of the the medical researchers
>and their market brand to claim the ability to do so.
>
>I have noticed a recent marketing campaign that flatly states, "We can
>end cancer". One of these deals where already overfunded medical
>researchers want more donations from the public, so they'll say anything
>I guess.

Recent? Since forever there have been charlatans pushing elixers they
swore could heal all that ails you.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:16:00 -0500, Andy wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> well, of course. anything that happens to anyone else is their fault (or
>> maybe even 'they deserved it') while nothing that happens to you is your
>> fault.
>>
>> disease as a marker of god's disfavor has a long history.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> You should've been born a clam!
>
> You stupid insulting no-legged cripple!!!
>
> Andy

considering what he did to your mind, you must have *really* ****ed god
off.

blake

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:46:58 -0500, Andy wrote:

> Andy > wrote:
>
>> Ho, hum!
>>
>> STUpid!
>
> And for all else concerned, I'll be an April Fool for two more days!
>
> Andy

and a god-damned fool the rest of your life. enjoy!

blake

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:04:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:42:21 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>In the "old days", even the '60's, the hope to survive was slim to
>>none for cancer. It was what it was. I don't remember whispers or
>>superstitions. People did what they could afford to do, but even Mayo
>>Clinic was in its infancy of fighting cancer successfully.
>
>
>The ability to treat cancer has definitely improved, but what
>has really mushroomed is the ability of the the medical researchers
>and their market brand to claim the ability to do so.

No one claims that.
>
>I have noticed a recent marketing campaign that flatly states, "We can
>end cancer". One of these deals where already overfunded medical
>researchers want more donations from the public, so they'll say anything
>I guess.

You are spouting bullshit.If you do not understand the meaning and
intent of the phrase "we can end cancer," then I suggest you have
someone with a better command of the language explain it to you.

And while you're at it, have them explain research and funding to you,
too. I'm not a fan of big pharma, but no need to go the route you're
taking.

Boron

On Apr 29, 9:53*am, brooklyn1 > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:42:21 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:28:05 -0400, "Zeppo" > wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> >In the "old days", even the '60's, the hope to survive was slim to
> >none for cancer. *It was what it was. *I don't remember whispers or
> >superstitions. *People did what they could afford to do, but even Mayo
> >Clinic was in its infancy of fighting cancer successfully.
>
> Back then parents/adults weren't eager to discuss serious health
> issues with young children, they had far more respect for childhood...
> back then the Tooth Fairy was the big childhood health issue. *Of
> course back then it was difficult not to discuss polio, it was hard to
> hide leg braces and iron lungs. *Today most mothers and fathers aren't
> parents... it's not possible to parent and hold a full time job
> -utside the home. *

Oh, bullshit. I was raised by a single mother and she actually
parented me. Of course, that was back when parents could still
spank without having Child Protective Services haul them in.

If I had a nickel for each time I heard "Because I'm the mother!"
retirement would be imminent.

>Today's moms and dads treat their kids as
> contemporaries even from before they can walk. *A soccer mom is NOT a
> parent.

So, it's not so much employment status as parenting approach, then.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:55:04 -0500, Andy wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:46:58 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>
>>> Andy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ho, hum!
>>>>
>>>> STUpid!
>>>
>>> And for all else concerned, I'll be an April Fool for two more days!
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> and a god-damned fool the rest of your life. enjoy!
>>
>> blake
>
> "No legs," if you had one last brain cell that unfortunately couldn't
> manage to escape, we could call you "Next to No Brains" too.
>
> Sounds catchy!
>
> blake "no legs, no brains" murphy
>
> Andy

yes, andy, any fool can plainly see you're much smarter than me.

people who aren't fools likely see something quite different.

blake

On Apr 26, 7:11*pm, "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.
>
> > 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

==
I always enjoyed watching shows of Julia Child and her cooking. Her
voice was quite something and it seemed to get higher as she got
excited or perhaps after she sampled some of the cooking sherry.
There will never be another Julia...pity.
==

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:21:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Weird. My female cousin put herself through college driving a Good
>>> Humor truck.
>>
>> Oh dear. Was she injured?
>
>Only her pride.

Good to hear. All that ice cream must have worked like air bags.
--
Jeßus

May God protect you from his followers.