On 2/14/2011 4:27 AM, Andy wrote:

> ASSTROLL!
>

That's a new one. lol

On 2/14/2011 3:31 PM, Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, > posted on Mon,
> 14 Feb 2011 06:33:31 -0600 the following:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:21:01 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>>
>>> No, he isn't fine with them. He likes chocolate even less than I do. He
>>> does not want large chocolate chips in his cookies, either.
>>
>> Why did he buy the big ones, then?
>
> Probably because he didn't read the package carefully before putting them
> into the shopping cart. He often does things like that. We like regular
> sour cream, but occasionally he accidentally picks up the light sour cream
> and even he gets upset at himself over that. Additionally, we use whole
> milk. One time he accidentally picked up 2% because while Wal-Mart's
> whole milk uses a red cap, HEB's whole milk uses a purple cap and their 2%
> milk uses a red cap. He got the red-cap milk at HEB, so that's how he
> accidentally purchased 2% milk. He likes to keep heavy whipping cream at
> home for things like mashed potatoes. Occasionally he accidentally gets
> the fat-free cream. When I tell him about it, he says, "Aw, I meant to
> get the regular kind." He doesn't read the packaging carefully enough to
> make sure he's getting what he really wants.

At this point, you do realize YABT? In other words, you're being ****ed
with.

On 2/14/2011 5:42 AM, sf wrote:
> OH! Thanks. Speaking of peanut butter cookies, I ran across a no
> flour peanut butter cookie recipe (baked) and it's*really* good!

Someone here posted that before Christmas. I made them, too. I also
lost a crown biting into one. LOL No, I don't *blame* them, but they
are a little hard.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:03:22 -0600, Damaeus
> > wrote:
>
> > He didn't do ME a favor! He asked ME to bake the cookies for his
> > Christmas party.
>
> Christmas is long over, and you need to get over it. Move on.

Don't be silly, sf. Christmas is just around the corner. I expect to
see the ads any day now.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Damaeus wrote:
>
> In news:rec.food.cooking, Nancy2 > posted on Mon,
> 14 Feb 2011 10:28:32 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > > Take them back and get what you want. +AKA-It's really not a difficult
> > > > concept.
> > >
> > > I don't think grocery stores take back food items unless there's
> > > something wrong with them, or unless maybe it's a canned item.
> >
> > Sure they will....you'll need the receipt, though. It would be
> > obvious if a pkg. of choc. chips had been opened....
>
> But not if it had been penetrated with a tiny little needle like you'd see
> on the end of an insulin syringe. You could squirt a little cat **** into
> a bag of chocolate chips and whoever buys them would not discover it until
> they get them home. "Eww, what is this liquid!" Sure, you could exchange
> those, but who wants to go through the inconvenience?
>
> Damaeus

Stores will take stuff back and give refunds, but whatever you bring
back is supposed to go in the dumpster.

In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Mon,
14 Feb 2011 21:07:58 -0600 the following:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:06:16 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > Many of my posts turn into this sort of discussion for some reason. I
> > don't know why.
>
> Well, the first time I responded to you genuinely with suggestions for
> Dallas restaurants you did com back with a response that indicated you
> were a big asshole. So that may be why people treat you the way they
> do.

I simply saw your post as one similar to replies in which people don't
actually say anything. They just post a link to Google. And at the time
I posted that messages, I didn't have access to dallas.food.

And as another poster mentioned, I don't really trust review sites all
that much, but the ones at Yelp looked geniune. Still there are no laws
saying restaurant managers or employees cannot go to review sites and make
up stories about their experiences. I saw no restaurant reviews at all on
epicurious.com. On chowhound.com, there are some Chinese restaurants
listed for Rockwall and Rowlett, but none of them have reviews.

Still, yelp was helpful, but I ended up not having to go on the trip,
anyway so it doesn't matter anymore.

And finally, as one who enjoys usenet, I like replying to posts. If I
hadn't posted my question on a newsgroup, someone else who likes answering
posts would have had nothing to do that day.

Wouldn't it be funny if usenet dies, not because people lose interest, but
because nobody posts any more questions since they've all been answered in
the past.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, Andy > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:24:35
-0600 the following:

> That's ASSTROLL[TM]

+ISIArgCp- though I don't think those characters will come out on usenet.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Mon,
14 Feb 2011 21:11:36 -0600 the following:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:31:43 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > Probably because he didn't read the package carefully before putting them
> > into the shopping cart.
>
> His cookies, his recipe, his party, his ****up.

It was my recipe, but yeah, his ****up.

> > Occasionally he accidentally gets the fat-free cream.
>
> There is no such thing as fat free cream.

Ah it was fat-free half-and-half.

http://www.pickyourown.org/icecream/halfandhalf.jpg

That said, if they can make fat-free half-and-half, they CAN make fat-free
cream, but for some reason have chosen not to. So there is such a thing
as fat-free cream. It's just that nobody has put it into a carton to sell
it.

Still, the point is that he doesn't read packages carefully.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, Cheryl > posted on Mon, 14
Feb 2011 21:29:30 -0500 the following:

> On 2/14/2011 5:42 AM, sf wrote:
> > OH! Thanks. Speaking of peanut butter cookies, I ran across a no
> > flour peanut butter cookie recipe (baked) and it's*really* good!
>
> Someone here posted that before Christmas. I made them, too. I also
> lost a crown biting into one. LOL No, I don't *blame* them, but they
> are a little hard.

I'm careful about eating since I have a crown on one of my teeth. The
dentist says that a porcelain crown is actually stronger than a regular
tooth, but I'm not taking any chances.

Damaeus

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:20:03 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

> At this point, you do realize YABT? In other words, you're being ****ed
> with.

With Squirtz that's always the case.... but YABT? I hate that crap.
I never know what people are talking about. Yet Another... what?
Something that starts with B Thread?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:29:30 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 2/14/2011 5:42 AM, sf wrote:
> > OH! Thanks. Speaking of peanut butter cookies, I ran across a no
> > flour peanut butter cookie recipe (baked) and it's*really* good!
>
> Someone here posted that before Christmas. I made them, too. I also
> lost a crown biting into one. LOL No, I don't *blame* them, but they
> are a little hard.

Really? Mine weren't - and I made them with chunky peanut butter.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:42:35 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:03:22 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > He didn't do ME a favor! He asked ME to bake the cookies for his
> > > Christmas party.
> >
> > Christmas is long over, and you need to get over it. Move on.
>
> Don't be silly, sf. Christmas is just around the corner. I expect to
> see the ads any day now.
>
Hahaha! Come to think of it, you're right. Isn't that stuff starting
in August now? They have *no* shame!

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
> wrote,
>In news:rec.food.cooking, " > posted on
>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:31:51 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
>> If you're really intent on turning semi-sweet chocolate into milk
>> chocolate you need to add powdered milk, not liquid milk, and a little
>> more sugar to them. Semi-sweet chocolate contains 40% sugar by weight.
>> Milk chocolate contains 50% sugar by weight. Milk chocolate also
>> contains 15% milk solids by weight. The nutrition label on the package
>> should tell you how much sugar is in the chocolate chips and from that
>> you can figure out how much more sugar to add. You also simply go by
>> taste too.
>
>I wouldn't have thought of powdered milk. Thanks for the tip. :-)
>
>A message to other posters in this thread: See how easy this was? This
>guy ignored my little backstory about how I ended up with large semi-sweet
>chocolate chips and went straight to the point.

It won't work.

On Feb 14, 4:31*am, Damaeus > wrote:

> If you want to shop at a store that gives refunds on groceries, good luck
> staying well.

Dial down the paranoia and put on your tinfoil hat. There aren't
hordes of evildoers out there buying food, poisoning it, and
returning it. Most grocery stores will take nonperishables back
if you have the receipt (which I don't imagine you do anymore)
and say "I bought the wrong thing." Even without a receipt,
they might be willing to do an exchange.

Just throw the chips away. You won't go to Hell for wasting food,
and starving children in Butt****istan won't be any the worse
off for it.

Cindy Hamilton

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, Andy > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:24:35
> -0600 the following:
>
> > That's ASSTROLL[TM]
>
> „¢Â®Â© though I don't think those characters will come out on usenet.
>
> Damaeus

Depends on the newsreader. Looks fine on mine.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

On Feb 14, 12:49*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:36:22 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
>
> > wrote:
> > I'd like to know how to get rid of "Bing" when I Google for an exact
> > location, using the correct URL. *What I enter is always listed first
> > under "Bing," but it's so annoying!
>
> Are you saying you have a Bing toolbar that you don't want to see
> anymore? *That would be under View > Toolbars. *Otherwise, give me a
> URL that does it so I can figure out what you mean.
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

No, the unnecessary Bing page just jumps right in - I know how to get
rid of toolbars - of course now that I want to find one, I can't.
I'll make a note the next time one pops up.

N.

On Feb 14, 9:15*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > In news:rec.food.cooking, Nancy2 > posted on Mon,
> > 14 Feb 2011 10:28:32 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > > > Take them back and get what you want. +AKA-It's really not a difficult
> > > > > concept.
>
> > > > I don't think grocery stores take back food items unless there's
> > > > something wrong with them, or unless maybe it's a canned item.
>
> > > Sure they will....you'll need the receipt, though. *It would be
> > > obvious if a pkg. of choc. chips had been opened....
>
> > But not if it had been penetrated with a tiny little needle like you'd see
> > on the end of an insulin syringe. *You could squirt a little cat **** into
> > a bag of chocolate chips and whoever buys them would not discover it until
> > they get them home. *"Eww, what is this liquid!" *Sure, you could exchange
> > those, but who wants to go through the inconvenience?
>
> > Damaeus
>
> Stores will take stuff back and give refunds, but whatever you bring
> back is supposed to go in the dumpster.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not if it's still sealed, like a can or pouch, etc....maybe state laws
are different.

N.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:17:00 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> Just throw the chips away. You won't go to Hell for wasting food,
> and starving children in Butt****istan won't be any the worse
> off for it.

Surely he has neighbors he can give those chips to.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:32:10 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

> In article >,
> Damaeus > wrote:
>
> > In news:rec.food.cooking, Andy > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:24:35
> > -0600 the following:
> >
> > > That's ASSTROLL[TM]
> >
> > ™®© though I don't think those characters will come out on usenet.
> >
> > Damaeus
>
> Depends on the newsreader. Looks fine on mine.

Mine too.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:02:16 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
> wrote:

> On Feb 14, 12:49*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:36:22 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > I'd like to know how to get rid of "Bing" when I Google for an exact
> > > location, using the correct URL. *What I enter is always listed first
> > > under "Bing," but it's so annoying!
> >
> > Are you saying you have a Bing toolbar that you don't want to see
> > anymore? *That would be under View > Toolbars. *Otherwise, give me a
> > URL that does it so I can figure out what you mean.
> >
>
> No, the unnecessary Bing page just jumps right in - I know how to get
> rid of toolbars - of course now that I want to find one, I can't.
> I'll make a note the next time one pops up.
>
Oh, a popup! Some web sites do that. Are you using Firefox? Do you
have the Popup Blocker turned on? I know I get a lot more popups when
I use IE than when I do when I use FF.

How to enable Popup Blocker in FF
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/pop-up%20blocker
It always has that yellow bar at the top telling you when it blocked a
popup... but sometimes the popup is what you're going for, so when you
feel frustrated that something or other isn't appearing, take the time
to notice if that message is up there.

There are lots of popup blocker addons too, I use this is one
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/fir.../adblock-plus/



--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

In news:rec.food.cooking, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> posted on Mon, 14 Feb
2011 20:57:00 -0500 the following:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > Many of my posts turn into this sort of discussion for some reason. I
> > don't know why.
>
> Because you desperately need to take a course in remedial English, you
> write like a dyslexic 2nd grader.

Maybe you just read like a dyslexic second-grader.

> "I don't know why." Is not a sentence.

Of course it is. I don't know why [that is the case].

I do admit that I had to consult someone who knows more about English than
I do, and I know I'm not exactly a slouch at the keyboard. He said
there's nothing wrong with my sentence and I trust his judgment more than
yours because he's actually a published writer. I am, too, but I've only
worked on one book and that was many years ago.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Tue, 15 Feb 2011
09:01:59 -0800 the following:

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:32:10 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Damaeus > wrote:
> >
> > > +ISIArgCp- though I don't think those characters will come out on usenet.
> >
> > Depends on the newsreader. Looks fine on mine.
>
> Mine too.

Same here. I seem to remember NNTP servers themselves not handling
non-ASCII characters in the distant past. That was why binaries had to be
UUEncoded, because the file would be converted to all ASCII characters.
Apparently times have changed.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011
20:25:21 -0800 the following:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:20:03 -0500, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
> > At this point, you do realize YABT? In other words, you're being ****ed
> > with.
>
> With Squirtz that's always the case.... but YABT? I hate that crap.
> I never know what people are talking about. Yet Another... what?
> Something that starts with B Thread?

I looked at it for a minute. "You Are Being Trolled". It's kind of
irritating to see so many initialisms, as if the whole world gets an
instant, psychic message every time a new one is invented.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Mon,
14 Feb 2011 22:31:08 -0600 the following:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:14:16 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > I'm careful about eating since I have a crown on one of my teeth. The
> > dentist says that a porcelain crown is actually stronger than a regular
> > tooth, but I'm not taking any chances.
>
> You don't trust anybody, do you.
>
> Many of us have crowns. Some of us have several. I don't think
> anybody is actively worried about them breaking. That's sounds like
> you have a touch of paranoia with a dose of obsessive compulsiveness.

Yes. And add to that emotional displacement, schizophrena, psychosis,
narcissism, and according to a psychiatrist I had to see in 1997, a touch
of autism.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, David Harmon > posted on Mon,
14 Feb 2011 22:42:17 -0800 the following:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
>
> >A message to other posters in this thread: See how easy this was? This
> >guy ignored my little backstory about how I ended up with large semi-sweet
> >chocolate chips and went straight to the point.
>
> It won't work.

What assumption did you make about my post?

Damaeus

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:30:41 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Tue, 15 Feb 2011
> 09:01:59 -0800 the following:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:32:10 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Damaeus > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ™®© though I don't think those characters will come out on usenet.
> > >
> > > Depends on the newsreader. Looks fine on mine.
> >
> > Mine too.
>
> Same here. I seem to remember NNTP servers themselves not handling
> non-ASCII characters in the distant past. That was why binaries had to be
> UUEncoded, because the file would be converted to all ASCII characters.
> Apparently times have changed.
>
This is an old version of agent, so I don't know when that happened.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:32:50 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011
> 20:25:21 -0800 the following:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:20:03 -0500, Cheryl >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > At this point, you do realize YABT? In other words, you're being ****ed
> > > with.
> >
> > With Squirtz that's always the case.... but YABT? I hate that crap.
> > I never know what people are talking about. Yet Another... what?
> > Something that starts with B Thread?
>
> I looked at it for a minute. "You Are Being Trolled". It's kind of
> irritating to see so many initialisms, as if the whole world gets an
> instant, psychic message every time a new one is invented.
>
> Damaeus

Thanks and thanks again. The only ones I know art the commonly used
ones and that's only because someone told me - probably more than
once.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:35:51 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Mon,
> 14 Feb 2011 22:31:08 -0600 the following:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:14:16 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
> >
> > > I'm careful about eating since I have a crown on one of my teeth. The
> > > dentist says that a porcelain crown is actually stronger than a regular
> > > tooth, but I'm not taking any chances.
> >
> > You don't trust anybody, do you.
> >
> > Many of us have crowns. Some of us have several. I don't think
> > anybody is actively worried about them breaking. That's sounds like
> > you have a touch of paranoia with a dose of obsessive compulsiveness.
>
> Yes. And add to that emotional displacement, schizophrena, psychosis,
> narcissism, and according to a psychiatrist I had to see in 1997, a touch
> of autism.
>
Your plate is full, but at least you know what you're dealing with.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:24:53 -0000, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:35:51 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Mon,
> > > 14 Feb 2011 22:31:08 -0600 the following:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:14:16 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm careful about eating since I have a crown on one of my teeth. The
> > > > > dentist says that a porcelain crown is actually stronger than a regular
> > > > > tooth, but I'm not taking any chances.
>
> My (only) crown is on a molar, and it's gold. I chose gold because
> my dentist asked me what kind of food I eat (chewy/crunchy stuff; steak,
> whole apples, raw veg, nuts, toffee) then said "go for gold, you won't
> break it. If you want porcelain, change your eating habits".
>
There's some sort of composite used in the US that looks like
porcelain, but they don't call it porcelain and it really will last
longer than the tooth enamel. I guess there are ways to break it if
you tried on purpose, but that's true with anything.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Feb 16, 1:36*am, Damaeus > wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, David Harmon > posted on Mon,
> 14 Feb 2011 22:42:17 -0800 the following:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
>
> > >A message to other posters in this thread: See how easy this was? *This
> > >guy ignored my little backstory about how I ended up with large semi-sweet
> > >chocolate chips and went straight to the point.
>
> > It won't work.
>
> What assumption did you make about my post?
>
> Damaeus

I think he was refering to my suggestion of adding powdered milk and
sugar to the chocolate to turn it into milk chocolate. So far I
haven't found anything on the internet that says whether it can or
can't be done. I guess no one has ever tried. The problem I see is
getting the sugar and powdered milk to dissolve in the chocolate. If
they're ground up into a fine powder they might mix in more easily.
Also in order to get the sugar and milk to dissolve you might have to
get the chocolate hot enough to the point where it loses temper and
you have to re-temper it.

sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:24:53 -0000, Janet > wrote:

>> In article >,

>> My (only) crown is on a molar, and it's gold. I chose gold because
>> my dentist asked me what kind of food I eat (chewy/crunchy stuff; steak,
>> whole apples, raw veg, nuts, toffee) then said "go for gold, you won't
>> break it. If you want porcelain, change your eating habits".

My dentist agrees -- gold crowns are much stronger. I have had four
crowns total, one of which failed after 20 years (it was a cracked tooth
to begin with, so the lifetime is actually pretty remarkable). That
tooth had to be pulled, and I just had the implant abutment put in
place yesterday. (A bit of a harrowing experience but I got through it.)

>There's some sort of composite used in the US that looks like
>porcelain, but they don't call it porcelain and it really will last
>longer than the tooth enamel. I guess there are ways to break it if
>you tried on purpose, but that's true with anything.

According to my dentist, anything other than a metal crown is weaker,
because the artificial material is layered on top of metal, and
so for a given size reconstructed tooth the metal layer is thinner
with the artificial material and therefore weaker. It's better to make
the whole crown out of one piece of metal. It's always stronger,
according to this dentist.

Steve

On Feb 13, 9:08*am, Damaeus > wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, Dave Smith > posted on
> Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:23:36 -0500 the following:
>
> > On 12/02/2011 11:34 PM, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > > So what? *It's a matter of taste. *I don't like big chocolate chips in
> > > cookies. *I like tiny chocolate chips and a lot less of them than what
> > > most recipes call for. *If you like 70% cookie, 30% chocolate chips,
> > > YOU eat the big chocolate chips. *I don't like my cookies that way and
> > > I have every right to have a preference for how I like my cookies, and
> > > a right to bake them the way I like them.
>
> > If you have to be so damned anal about your chocolate chips why not just
> > get a knife and cut htem into halves or smeller?
>
> Why don't I just start a latch-hook project, knit a pair of socks or maybe
> mow the lawn with a pair of scissors?
>
> I'm not being anal about the chocolate chips. *I'm being anal about people
> misunderstanding what's going on here. *I provided a little background
> story about how I ended up with chocolate chips I don't want, and now
> everybody is being judgmental toward me, as if I should be happy to have
> chocolate chips at all. *They act as if the chocolate chips were a special
> gift to me and that I'm unappreciative of my friend's generosity. *That is
> nothing like what this is about. **HE* got the wrong chips for *HIS*
> cookies. *I used what was needed and we had a couple of bags left over.
> Neither he nor I like big, fat chocolate chips. *I don't want to cut them
> into little pieces with a knife when I can more easily go to the store and
> get the teeny-tiny chocolate chips. *I will turn the big chocolate chips
> into something else.
>
> Damaeus

LOL!!! This thread is hilarious, and you will burn in hell for even
asking for advise! How dare you!!!

On Feb 13, 10:54*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "Damaeus" > wrote in message
>
> ... > In news:rec.food.cooking, "jmcquown" > posted on
> > Sun, 13 Feb 2011 04:44:02 -0500 the following:
>
> >> "Damaeus" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> >> Take them back and get what you want. *It's really not a difficult
> >> concept.
>
> > I don't think grocery stores take back food items unless there's something
> > wrong with them, or unless maybe it's a canned item.
>
> You'd be wrong. *I got home once with a package of chicken that, when I took
> the plastic wrapping off, stunk to high heaven. *All I had to do was give
> them a whiff of it at the customer service desk and they immediately
> refunded my money. *I can't imagine any grocery store that would refuse to
> give you an exchange on a couple of bags of unopened chocolate chips. *If
> that's the case where you live I'd change grocery stores.
>
> Jill

WTF?? You just said there was something wrong with it...

On Feb 14, 1:21*am, Damaeus > wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011
> 00:30:46 -0800 the following:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:08:47 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
>
> > > *HE* got the wrong chips for *HIS* cookies.
>
> > Chill out, dude. *HE got the CORRECT chips for *HIS* cookies.
>
> He asked me what he needed to get because he likes the cookies the way I
> bake them when I have baked them for us. *He wanted my cookies as I have
> baked them in the past, but his acquisition of large chocolate chips
> resulted in cookies that were not exactly like the ones I bake for us.
> Nevertheless, he was not bothered by that, and neither am I. *The point is
> that neither of us want large chocolate chips in our cookies, nor are we
> in the mood for cookies right now. *That is why I posted the original
> message which simply asked about how I should try to use these semi-sweet
> chocolate chips to make a sweeter chocolate candy that would be more like
> milk chocolate.
>
> > You're spazzing out because he didn't buy the chips *YOU* like. *He's
> > fine with them,
>
> No, he isn't fine with them. *He likes chocolate even less than I do. *He
> does not want large chocolate chips in his cookies, either. *When I make
> chocolate pie, he likes so little chocolate that it looks more like a
> mocha pie -- something that is light brown, not dark brown. *I like the
> regular, dark brown chocolate pie.
>
> > but YOU aren't and Christmas is long over, so RELAX! *Nobody builds a
> > long lasting relationship this way.
>
> Our relationship will be better if I don't bake cookies with large
> chocolate chips. *And again, we're tired of cookies. *I'm going to use the
> chocolate chips to make something else. *This thread was not about mini
> chips versus regular chips. *It was about what to do with semi-sweet
> chocolate chips when I don't want to use them to bake cookies.
>
> > It's the middle of February.
>
> The month is irrelevant to the point of the thread.
>
> > Let it go.
>
> Let what go?
>
> Damaeus

Time to switch to Snickerdoodles!!

On Feb 14, 1:42*am, sf > wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:22:59 -0800 (PST), "
>
> > wrote:
> > You could always make something like buckeyes.
>
> Please elucidate. *Some of us just know about the tree and we're lucky
> to know that much. *http://fwd4.me/vgT
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Google is your friend...

On Feb 14, 12:06*pm, Damaeus >
wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Mon,
> 14 Feb 2011 06:05:35 -0600 the following:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:03:22 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > > He didn't do ME a favor! *He asked ME to bake the cookies for his
> > > Christmas party. *He wanted the cookies and they were HIS ingredients
> > > for HIS cookies.
>
> > So then he should every right to buy whatever size chips he wants so
> > screw your damn "mini" chocolate chips.
>
> He asked for "those cookies" (meaning the ones he likes in which I use
> mini chocolate chips) and he mistakenly got the wrong chocolate chips. *It
> wasn't about his right to buy what he wants. *If he just wants chocolate
> chips, he certainly does have every right to get what he wants. *But if he
> wanted the cookies (as I make them) he should have gotten the mini ones.
> Since he didn't, I have chocolate chips I'm not going to use in cookies.
> Thankfully I've seen a few suggestions of what to do with them in this
> thread from people who actually understand what's happening. *Others are
> getting caught up in my friend's rights, or getting caught up on my
> somehow being ungrateful after he got the chocolate chips for me as some
> kind of gift, which they weren't.
>
> > <snork>
>
> > This is a Classic RFC-style thread. *Nobody knows the answer to the
> > posed question so lets just quiz him to death about the rest of the
> > post!
>
> Many of my posts turn into this sort of discussion for some reason. *I
> don't know why.
>
> Damaeus

I think it's your name that starts it...

On Feb 14, 4:43*pm, Melba's Jammin' >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *Damaeus > wrote:
> > Many of my posts turn into this sort of discussion for some reason. *I
> > don't know why.
>
> > Damaeus
>
> It's a gift.
>
> --
> Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
> Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
> "Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
> Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;http://web.me.com/barbschaller

LOL!!

On Feb 15, 10:22*pm, Damaeus >
wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> posted on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2011 20:57:00 -0500 the following:
>
> > Damaeus wrote:
>
> > > Many of my posts turn into this sort of discussion for some reason. *I
> > > don't know why.
>
> > Because you desperately need to take a course in remedial English, you
> > write like a dyslexic 2nd grader.
>
> Maybe you just read like a dyslexic second-grader.
>
> > "I don't know why." *Is not a sentence.
>
> Of course it is. *I don't know why [that is the case].
>
> I do admit that I had to consult someone who knows more about English than
> I do, and I know I'm not exactly a slouch at the keyboard. *He said
> there's nothing wrong with my sentence and I trust his judgment more than
> yours because he's actually a published writer. *I am, too, but I've only
> worked on one book and that was many years ago.
>
> Damaeus

It was a complete sentence!

If I were in your shoes, I'd just donate the unwanted chips in your
next food drive.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:38:34 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> According to my dentist, anything other than a metal crown is weaker,
> because the artificial material is layered on top of metal, and
> so for a given size reconstructed tooth the metal layer is thinner
> with the artificial material and therefore weaker. It's better to make
> the whole crown out of one piece of metal. It's always stronger,
> according to this dentist.

I don't have any crowns yet (knock on wood)... but two different
dentist have told me that the white material used to mend my
cracked/split tooth will last longer than the tooth itself. It's
about 20 years old at this point and still in good shape.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.