I've just noticed that I seem to be missing the odd post or reply here
and there - I noticed because I was playing around with an old Power
Mac earlier and downloaded a bunch of headers, some I know I didn't
see using Usenet-News.net. Could be just myself affected, could be
this news client (Agent)... Anyway, thought I should make mention of
this, because I know quite a few of you use Usenet-News.net.

Anyway...
I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
couriers deliver out here. Sigh

Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
few newsgroups still going strong these days.

Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!

On 2010-07-29, Jeßus > wrote:

> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> few newsgroups still going strong these days.

It's in the top 20 of non-binary groups.

nb

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

> Anyway...
> I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
> modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
> so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
> sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
> couriers deliver out here. Sigh
>
> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>
> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!

I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
more than 24 hours.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2010-07-29, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> > Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> > few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>
> It's in the top 20 of non-binary groups.
>
> nb

Dang, it is?!!! Kewl

Sky, who says "Long Live Usenet"!!!

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> > Anyway...
> > I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
> > modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
> > so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
> > sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
> > couriers deliver out here. Sigh
> >
> > Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> > few newsgroups still going strong these days.
> >
> > Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!
>
> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> more than 24 hours.

What, no game for 'gamey' flavors of the older posts ???

Sky, who just couldn't resist!

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:18:21 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Anyway...
>> I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
>> modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
>> so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
>> sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
>> couriers deliver out here. Sigh
>>
>> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
>> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>>
>> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!
>
>I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
>because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
>us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
>more than 24 hours.

Good grief, only 24 hours?

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:06:56 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2010-07-29, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
>> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>
>It's in the top 20 of non-binary groups.

I reckon it would be. Most of the groups I used to frequent appear to
be dead now, or close to it. With so many ISPs ditching their Usenet
servers, I guess that exacerbates the decline.

Christine Dabney > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:23:34 -0500, Sky >

>>sf wrote:

>>> So please do
>>> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
>>> more than 24 hours.

>>What, no game for 'gamey' flavors of the older posts ???

>>Sky, who just couldn't resist!

>Some older threads have a lot going for them. I don't presume to
>dictate which threads one can respond to...

24 hours is a pretty short length of time to expect someone to
always read and respond to a thread.

A lot of us are here almost every day, but for some folks it's less
frequent. That's one of the advantages of Usenet -- the data is
persistent so that the users don't need to be.


Steve

Jeßus wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:06:56 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> >On 2010-07-29, Jeßus > wrote:
> >
> >> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> >> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
> >
> >It's in the top 20 of non-binary groups.
>
> I reckon it would be. Most of the groups I used to frequent appear to
> be dead now, or close to it. With so many ISPs ditching their Usenet
> servers, I guess that exacerbates the decline.

There is that (sigh) .......

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

Christine Dabney wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:23:34 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
>
> >sf wrote:
> So please do
> >> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> >> more than 24 hours.
> >
> >What, no game for 'gamey' flavors of the older posts ???
> >
> >Sky, who just couldn't resist!
>
> Some older threads have a lot going for them. I don't presume to
> dictate which threads one can respond to...

No worries - I won't try to become a comedienne - that's apparent - so
much for an attempt at humor, eh :/

Sky, who's still game, just not gamey! :P~~~

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:30:28 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

> Good grief, only 24 hours?

Absolutely and seriously. Dead threads stink. Make that a
general rule - so if you slip, you won't go too far. I'm not
dictating, but I'm strongly suggesting and my advice is to let
sleeping dogs lie. We have enough activity in RFC without resorting
to resurrecting the past.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:06:56 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2010-07-29, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
>> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>
> It's in the top 20 of non-binary groups.
>
> nb

Ought to be, I love coming here, eating, ****ing Becca, eating, eating
Becca..

George L.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:32:22 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

> With so many ISPs ditching their Usenet servers, I guess that exacerbates the decline.

Only because the people who frequented usenet via their internet
provider are ignorant, lazy, too cheap to pay a minimal amount to
access usenet another way or didn't have a thick enough hide to
continue frequenting the wild and wooly world of usenet.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:44:43 -0400, George Leppla
> wrote:
>
> Ought to be, I love coming here, eating, ****ing Becca, eating, eating
> Becca..
>
> George L.

So says @cruisemeister, the jerk, not our George Leppla -
@cruisemaster.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:41:45 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:30:28 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Good grief, only 24 hours?
>
>Absolutely and seriously. Dead threads stink. Make that a
>general rule - so if you slip, you won't go too far.

Sorry, I won't be doing that. It's just not realistic or practical to
do. In 12 or so years on Usenet, I've never heard of a 24 hour limit
before. I can't possibly be on Usenet every day now, I have too much
to do.

> I'm not
>dictating, but I'm strongly suggesting and my advice is to let
>sleeping dogs lie. We have enough activity in RFC without resorting
>to resurrecting the past.

If one can't get back to an interesting or important thread within 24
hours... then just forget about it, even if people are possibly
waiting for replies? You're just pulling my leg here, right?

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:44:43 -0400, George Leppla
> > wrote:
> >
> > Ought to be, I love coming here, eating, (judicious snippage)

> So says @cruisemeister, the jerk, not our George Leppla -
> @cruisemaster.

I did wonder but refrained as first response. And, I figured Becca's SO
would never be so ....... !!!!!!! I cannot but help but wonder why some
folks resort to such tactics ????? I'm clueless, I know (sigh)

Sky


--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:52:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

> I can't possibly be on Usenet every day now, I have too much
> to do.

All the more reason to limit yourself to a download of 2 days and not
to reply to anything more than 24 hours old.
>
> > I'm not
> >dictating, but I'm strongly suggesting and my advice is to let
> >sleeping dogs lie. We have enough activity in RFC without resorting
> >to resurrecting the past.
>
> If one can't get back to an interesting or important thread within 24
> hours... then just forget about it, even if people are possibly
> waiting for replies?

Believe me, if it was an active thread... nobody is waiting for a
reply. They had replies up to their eyeballs.

>You're just pulling my leg here, right?

Nope. I'm as serious as a heart attack.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Jul 28, 8:18*pm, sf > wrote:
..
> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. *So please do
> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> more than 24 hours.

Speak for yourself only, sf. YOU want it to stay dead, but maybe
others of us are not so inclined.

Christine

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:32:54 -0700, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

> I am sorry to say this to you, but get real. RFC is not here to
> conform to your preferences..but for people to have a good discussion
> about food and cooking, even if the threads are a month or so old.
> Some of those are good threads, and sometimes the current threads are
> crap. I know which ones I want to participate in ..the ones that are
> good. No matter if they are a month or so old. If you don't want to
> read them, fine. But don't try to force your preferences on others
> here.

It's a good rule of thumb for those who aren't so needy for attention
that they have to resurrect dead threads. Jebus told me how little
time he has and yet he insists he wants to read and reply to thousands
of old posts. There's something very wrong with that picture.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

> On Jul 28, 8:18*pm, sf > wrote:
> .
> > I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> > because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. *So please do
> > us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> > more than 24 hours.
>
> Speak for yourself only, sf. YOU want it to stay dead, but maybe
> others of us are not so inclined.
>

If it was of any interest to you, you'd still be posting in it and it
wouldn't be dead - so let sleeping dogs lie.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Jul 29, 12:44*am, George Leppla > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:06:56 GMT, notbob wrote:
> > On 2010-07-29, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> >> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> >> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>
> > It's in the top 20 of non-binary groups.
>
> > nb
>
> Ought to be, I love coming here, eating, ****ing Becca, eating, eating
> Becca..
>
> George L.

I KNOW you didn't post this, Mr. Always Civil.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:18:21 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Anyway...
>> I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
>> modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
>> so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
>> sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
>> couriers deliver out here. Sigh
>>
>> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
>> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>>
>> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!
>
> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> more than 24 hours.

um, what?

your pal,
blake

blake wrote on Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:33:06 -0400:

>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway...
>>> I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade
>>> through, as my modem decided to expire a week ago. I use
>>> satellite for my Internet, so naturally they use some
>>> arcane, proprietary modem that can only be sourced from my
>>> ISP... who will only send via courier... and no couriers
>>> deliver out here. Sigh
>>>
>>> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be
>>> one of the few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>>>
>>> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch
>>> up today!
>>
>> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts,
>> mainly because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay
>> dead. So please do us all a favor and don't reply to any
>> thread that has been dead for more than 24 hours.

> um, what?

I guess the previous poster lives in some place immune to power outages.
My 'net connection was down from Sunday afternoon to Tuesday evening so
there was quite a backlog even if I did not really miss much. On
Tuesday, I decided to go out to a restaurant and a movie and did not
even look at the computer until Wednesday afternoon. I spent the morning
cleaning out the freezer compartment and beginning to restock. I am now
finding out how much the contents of the freezer were worth :-(

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Jul 28, 9:18*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
> > Anyway...
> > I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
> > modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
> > so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
> > sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
> > couriers deliver out here. Sigh *
>
> > Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> > few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>
> > Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!
>
> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. *So please do
> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> more than 24 hours.
>
> --
>
> Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

==
What is this "we want it to stay dead"? Who is this "we"? Are "we"
something like "GOD"?...and our commands must be obeyed?

==

sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:30:28 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Good grief, only 24 hours?
>
>Absolutely and seriously. Dead threads stink. Make that a
>general rule - so if you slip, you won't go too far. I'm not
>dictating, but I'm strongly suggesting and my advice is to let
>sleeping dogs lie. We have enough activity in RFC without resorting
>to resurrecting the past.

What about people who only check the newsgroup every 5 or 10 days?

I would pretty much say the exact opposite. The newsgroup is if
anything too chatty, thus burying many of the food discussions.
If discussions moved slower maybe they'd be less noisy.

Steve

In article >,
James Silverton > wrote:
> blake wrote on Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:33:06 -0400:
>
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway...
>>>> I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade
>>>> through, as my modem decided to expire a week ago. I use
>>>> satellite for my Internet, so naturally they use some
>>>> arcane, proprietary modem that can only be sourced from my
>>>> ISP... who will only send via courier... and no couriers
>>>> deliver out here. Sigh
>>>>
>>>> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be
>>>> one of the few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch
>>>> up today!
>>>
>>> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts,
>>> mainly because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay
>>> dead. So please do us all a favor and don't reply to any
>>> thread that has been dead for more than 24 hours.
>
>> um, what?
>
>I guess the previous poster lives in some place immune to power outages.

They're usually short.

She doesn't have a job either. The 24-hour rule is in her own mind only
and I wish she'd say it that way instead of doing this "WE ALL" bullshit.
Expecting RFC readers to keep up EVERY DAY is highly exclusionary.

A couple of weeks is my usual standard shelf life. I've made exceptions
before because my newsfeed is really really long but I make sure to quote
plenty for context because I know that others are shorter.

>My 'net connection was down from Sunday afternoon to Tuesday evening so
>there was quite a backlog even if I did not really miss much. On
>Tuesday, I decided to go out to a restaurant and a movie and did not
>even look at the computer until Wednesday afternoon. I spent the morning
>cleaning out the freezer compartment and beginning to restock. I am now
>finding out how much the contents of the freezer were worth :-(

My deepest sympathies. A friend of mine must live fairly near you
because that happened to her as well. She was posting status updates
through her smartphone, which she could charge up at her downtown
office. The family is getting a generator.

ObFood: going to package up the chicken I bought yesterday and freeze it.

Charlotte
--

sf > wrote in message
...
[snip]

>> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to
>> catch up today!
>>
> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth
> of posts, mainly because when a thread is dead, we
> want it to stay dead. So please do us all a favor and
> don't reply to any thread that has been dead for more
> than 24 hours.

What a load of crap. _You_ does not equal "we" and *you* should not use it
as such. *You* do not have the ability to ignore "old" topics, so you don't
like seeing things older than 24 hours responded to.

The Ranger

The Ranger

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:

> @cruisemeister.com

Kill it and you'll never see its potty mouth again, but George will
still be here at cruisemaster.com if your filter is set properly.


--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:34:05 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> What about people who only check the newsgroup every 5 or 10 days?
>
That's 4 days of dead thread reasons not to reply.

> I would pretty much say the exact opposite. The newsgroup is if
> anything too chatty, thus burying many of the food discussions.
> If discussions moved slower maybe they'd be less noisy.

Move to a newsgroup with less traffic, problem solved.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:44:05 -0700, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:37:26 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >If it was of any interest to you, you'd still be posting in it and it
> >wouldn't be dead - so let sleeping dogs lie.
>
> You haven't read what I wrote. I asked about those of us that are
> away from rfc for a few days or even longer. Are we supposed to
> ignore a thread we were active in, and we may have involuntarily not
> be able to participate in?
>
I said if it's dead by the time you read it, leave it dead. What's so
hard to comprehend about that?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:33:06 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:18:21 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway...
> >> I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
> >> modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
> >> so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
> >> sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
> >> couriers deliver out here. Sigh
> >>
> >> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> >> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
> >>
> >> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!
> >
> > I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> > because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
> > us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> > more than 24 hours.
>
> um, what?
>
You're one of those people who are here every day, yet you'll go back
to a dead thread and post a <snork>. Good god. That's when I say
"he's really bored today".

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:43:17 -0700, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

> *You* do not have the ability to ignore "old" topics, so you don't
> like seeing things older than 24 hours responded to.

I said *dead* more than 24 hours. If you can't comprehend that
concept, then say so.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:

> I said if it's dead by the time you read it, leave it dead. What's so
> hard to comprehend about that?
>
Who gets to constitute which thread is dead...and when?

Perhaps if *some* folks would stop starting all those stupid OT threads,
you'd have a higher tolerance for the food threads that may go over one
day without a response.

sf > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> I said if it's dead by the time you read it, leave it dead. What's so
> hard to comprehend about that?

Hypocrisy, know thyself.

ObFood: Enchiladas Suiza with sour cream and guac!

The Ranger

sf > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:43:17 -0700, "The Ranger"
> > wrote:

>> *You* do not have the ability to ignore "old" topics, so you don't
>> like seeing things older than 24 hours responded to.
>>
> I said *dead* more than 24 hours. If you can't comprehend that
> concept, then say so.

What I can't comprehend is your inability to control your compulsion to
respond to every post, or follow your own "rule."

If someone wants to respond to a post that's over 24 hours old, and hasn't
seen any responses during that time ("dead" by your definition), then don't
read it. Instead you'll not only read the article, you'll respond to it.

The Ranger

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:42:18 -0700, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

> sf > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:43:17 -0700, "The Ranger"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> *You* do not have the ability to ignore "old" topics, so you don't
> >> like seeing things older than 24 hours responded to.
> >>
> > I said *dead* more than 24 hours. If you can't comprehend that
> > concept, then say so.
>
> What I can't comprehend is your inability to control your compulsion to
> respond to every post, or follow your own "rule."
>
> If someone wants to respond to a post that's over 24 hours old, and hasn't
> seen any responses during that time ("dead" by your definition), then don't
> read it. Instead you'll not only read the article, you'll respond to it.
>
You're blathering, as usual.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> You're blathering, as usual.

And you, as is your usual, are braying like a beast of burden that you enjoy
mimicking.

The Ranger

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:23:13 -0700, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

> sf > wrote in message
> ...
> [snip]
> > You're blathering, as usual.
>
> And you, as is your usual, are braying like a beast of burden that you enjoy
> mimicking.
>
Oh, how witty.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Jul 29, 2:05*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:23:13 -0700, "The Ranger" > wrote:
> > sf > wrote in message ...

[snip]
> > And you, as is your usual, are braying like a beast of burden that you enjoy
> > mimicking.
> >
> Oh, how witty.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. You make it so easy.

ObFood: TJ's vegetarian burrito for lunch.

The Ranger

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:20:27 -0700 (PDT), The Ranger
> wrote:

> On Jul 29, 2:05*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:23:13 -0700, "The Ranger" > wrote:
> > > sf > wrote in message ...
>
> [snip]
> > > And you, as is your usual, are braying like a beast of burden that you enjoy
> > > mimicking.
> > >
> > Oh, how witty.
>
> I'm glad you enjoyed it. You make it so easy.
>
Yeah. I refrained from calling you the other end of the beast.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.