On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:08:38 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
> wrote,
>I liked Google before the spamming webmasters became savvier than Google
>webmasters.

Stay tuned; Google has recently announced a crackdown on that.

On 2/19/2011 10:38 AM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:

> That was because years of dental neglect (I'm better now, thanks) meant
> the underlying tooth was essentially gone. The take-home lesson is not
> "don't eat mashed potatoes", but "brush/floss/visit your dentist
> regularly". If the tooth with the crown is feeling tender, SEE YOUR
> DENTIST.
>
Yup. They aren't meant to last forever. I also spent years neglecting
my teeth but I just couldn't afford it at the time. It was my son or
me. I'm paying for it now.

> I think I got the crown originally put on shortly after I got out of
> college, so it lasted me a quarter century even with my problems. It did
> come off once before, but they were able to reattach it then. This is a
> standard dental service and if you manage to not swallow or otherwise lose
> the crown, is not an expensive procedure.

Even when they can reattach it, it likely isn't a long-term solution. I
have one that was re-glued at Christmas and it's starting to hurt now,
so it will be replaced soon. I was hoping it could wait until the
braces come out, but that seems to be some phantom date at this point,
so it won't wait that long.

Charlotte L. Blackmer > wrote:

>I wouldn't go that far, but it's going to go, it's going to go. My crown
>fell off when I was eating turkey (it was tender turkey), mashed potatoes,
>and gravy. Those potatoes were whipped to perfection, not a lump in them.
>
>That was because years of dental neglect (I'm better now, thanks) meant
>the underlying tooth was essentially gone. The take-home lesson is not
>"don't eat mashed potatoes", but "brush/floss/visit your dentist
>regularly". If the tooth with the crown is feeling tender, SEE YOUR
>DENTIST.

I had a tooth rooted/crowned 20 years ago. At intervals, it
would bother me and I'd see a dentist, they would probe at it
and take films, but they never could identify anything wrong
with it. Then one day the crown came off (to its credit,
while eating a sandwich on a reasonably hard French roll),
so I'm now halfway through the extract/implant/restore process.

I don't think I could have done anything different, either in
terms of home care or professional care. Not to undervalue these
aspects or anything.

Steve

In news:rec.food.cooking, "BigBadBubbas" > posted
on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 07:08:38 -0500 the following:

> Damaeus wrote:
> > In news:rec.food.cooking, "BigBadBubbas" >
> > posted on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:04:50 -0500 the following:
> >
> >> Damaeus wrote:
> >>
> >>> This has nothing to do with Christmas, and I have nothing to get
> >>> over. I'm not even upset about having large chocolate chips. I'm
> >>> just looking for something to do with them that does not involve
> >>> baking cookies.
> >>
> >> Can't you just eat them. By the hand full?
> >
> > Not without making a face like my face has been stuffed with raw fish
> > heads.
>
> In MY experience, chocolate chips taste NOTHING like raw fish heads (not
> that I have ever tasted raw fish heads), but if that is your experience,
> well, I can understand at least half of your culinary problems.

Why do people take things like this literally? Okay, yes. I'd rather eat
semi-sweet chocolate chips than raw fish heads. However... if I had every
food in the world available to me, semi-sweet chocolate chips and raw fish
heads would reside at about the same place on the list, way down near
placenta, haggis, and raw oysters. NOW do you get the point, or must I
elucidate further?

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Sat, 19 Feb 2011
22:28:46 -0800 the following:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:08:38 -0600, Damaeus
> > wrote:
>
> > I liked Google before the spamming webmasters became savvier than Google
> > webmasters. That's pretty sad, that someone selling penis enlargment
> > products can write code that outsmarts Google algorithims.
>
> I'm not sure about that. If google can keep spam out of their email,
> they are capable of keeping spam out of google groups (public
> usenet)... so I have a feeling it's more practical than that.
>
> Employees use gmail for business, so google keeps gmail is as spam
> free as possible ($$$). Usenet isn't used for business purposes, so
> it doesn't get as much attention.

I was talking about search results from the web. I know Google doesn't
care about usenet. If they did, they wouldn't provide web-based access to
it. They would tell people where to get good newsreading software, and
they would have an NNTP server so they could encourage more posters to
create messages and build a searchable database that Google can use to
display more advertisements.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, David Harmon > posted on Sun,
20 Feb 2011 09:35:32 -0800 the following:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:08:38 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
> > wrote,
> >I liked Google before the spamming webmasters became savvier than Google
> >webmasters.
>
> Stay tuned; Google has recently announced a crackdown on that.

A simple blacklist would suffice, and I've read that they're thinking
about that, too. All I would have to do is add a domain I never want to
see again, and it would be hidden from my search results. I love that
idea. I love that I can, over time, clean up my own search feed to get
rid of sites that I've visited and have found to have more advertising
than usable content.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Sun,
20 Feb 2011 00:13:36 -0600 the following:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:13:13 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > Ah it was fat-free half-and-half.
>
> Again., there is no such thing. I don't care what the marketing guys
> come up with to fool customers, but there is no such thing as fat free
> cream, and that would include half-and-half. It sounds like a USDA
> loophole since "half and half" probably does not have a USDA
> definition. But we all know it's half milk, and half cream.

Then what name should I use for something that's been labeled fat-free
half-and-half? I'm just telling you what was printed on the carton, and
this wasn't even about what "fat-free half-and-half" actually is. It was
about my friend's carelessness when picking up items at the store.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, (Charlotte L. Blackmer) posted on
Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:38:53 +0000 (UTC) the following:

> I think I got the crown originally put on shortly after I got out of
> college, so it lasted me a quarter century even with my problems. It did
> come off once before, but they were able to reattach it then. This is a
> standard dental service and if you manage to not swallow or otherwise
> lose the crown, is not an expensive procedure.

As much as I paid for my crown, if I ever swallow it, I'm going to be
crapping in a collander until I find it. And as much as I paid for it, I
don't mind putting it back in my mouth, even it it came out of my ass. But
I will wash it, however, and I think I won't tell the dentist where it's
been.

Damaeus

On Feb 22, 3:26*am, Damaeus > wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "BigBadBubbas" > posted
> on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 07:08:38 -0500 the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Damaeus wrote:
> > > In news:rec.food.cooking, "BigBadBubbas" >
> > > posted on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:04:50 -0500 the following:
>
> > >> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > >>> This has nothing to do with Christmas, and I have nothing to get
> > >>> over. I'm not even upset about having large chocolate chips. *I'm
> > >>> just looking for something to do with them that does not involve
> > >>> baking cookies.
>
> > >> Can't you just eat them. *By the hand full?
>
> > > Not without making a face like my face has been stuffed with raw fish
> > > heads.
>
> > In MY experience, chocolate chips taste NOTHING like raw fish heads (not
> > that I have ever tasted raw fish heads), but if that is your experience,
> > well, I can understand at least half of your culinary problems.
>
> Why do people take things like this literally? *Okay, yes. *I'd rather eat
> semi-sweet chocolate chips than raw fish heads. *However... if I had every
> food in the world available to me, semi-sweet chocolate chips and raw fish
> heads would reside at about the same place on the list, way down near
> placenta, haggis, and raw oysters. *NOW do you get the point, or must I
> elucidate further?

Mmmm. Raw oysters. I've never been able to make myself spend
the money to eat as many as I want. Usually I split a dozen with
my mother.

Cindy Hamilton

Damaeus > wrote:

>Then what name should I use for something that's been labeled fat-free
>half-and-half?

Chemical effluent?


S.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:28:03 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Sat, 19 Feb 2011
> 22:28:46 -0800 the following:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:08:38 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I liked Google before the spamming webmasters became savvier than Google
> > > webmasters. That's pretty sad, that someone selling penis enlargment
> > > products can write code that outsmarts Google algorithims.
> >
> > I'm not sure about that. If google can keep spam out of their email,
> > they are capable of keeping spam out of google groups (public
> > usenet)... so I have a feeling it's more practical than that.
> >
> > Employees use gmail for business, so google keeps gmail is as spam
> > free as possible ($$$). Usenet isn't used for business purposes, so
> > it doesn't get as much attention.
>
> I was talking about search results from the web. I know Google doesn't
> care about usenet. If they did, they wouldn't provide web-based access to
> it. They would tell people where to get good newsreading software, and
> they would have an NNTP server so they could encourage more posters to
> create messages and build a searchable database that Google can use to
> display more advertisements.
>
I don't have any trouble with advertisements on the Web, so either
you're visiting spammy sites or you're using the wrong browser. I
simply don't have your problem.


--

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:28 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> A simple blacklist would suffice, and I've read that they're thinking
> about that, too.

Why don't you install a better Hosts File? Hosts Files are instant
black lists.

--

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:31:35 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Sun,
> 20 Feb 2011 00:13:36 -0600 the following:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:13:13 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
> >
> > > Ah it was fat-free half-and-half.
> >
> > Again., there is no such thing. I don't care what the marketing guys
> > come up with to fool customers, but there is no such thing as fat free
> > cream, and that would include half-and-half. It sounds like a USDA
> > loophole since "half and half" probably does not have a USDA
> > definition. But we all know it's half milk, and half cream.
>
> Then what name should I use for something that's been labeled fat-free
> half-and-half? I'm just telling you what was printed on the carton, and
> this wasn't even about what "fat-free half-and-half" actually is. It was
> about my friend's carelessness when picking up items at the store.
>
> Damaeus

You don't need to argue with that one. He'll turn anything into an
argument. We know how his homeowners list got so negative, it was
him. So, kill him and be done with it. Fat free cream is less than
..5% fat per serving which means it can be labeled legally as fat free
and zero calories from fat.
http://www.tuscandairy.com/images/pr..._nutrition.jpg

--

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:34:09 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> As much as I paid for my crown, if I ever swallow it, I'm going to be
> crapping in a collander until I find it.

Okay, that made me laugh. To be honest, I think it would be pretty
hard to swallow a crown unless you're the type that doesn't chew their
food before swallowing.

--

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

Damaeus wrote:
>
> Then what name should I use for something that's been labeled fat-free
> half-and-half? I'm just telling you what was printed on the carton

I would call it "fake fat free half and half". One word difference. ;^)

They definitely add chemical stuff to give it that mouth feel without
the real milk fat. I have no idea how it works in recipes.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:58:42 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> Now how do I go about converting these rather bitter, semi-sweet chocolate
> chips into something sweeter without ending up with a mess?

I made chocolate chip cookies last night using regular, large
chocolate chips and they were delicious. Just follow the directions
on the package. http://oi51.tinypic.com/2hqaqkj.jpg

--

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

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:58:42 -0600, Damaeus
> > wrote:
>
> > Now how do I go about converting these rather bitter, semi-sweet chocolate
> > chips into something sweeter without ending up with a mess?
>
> I made chocolate chip cookies last night using regular, large
> chocolate chips and they were delicious. Just follow the directions
> on the package. http://oi51.tinypic.com/2hqaqkj.jpg

Those looked really good, but were they really semi-sweet? I won't turn
down milk chocolate, but prefer the other.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:16:37 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:58:42 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Now how do I go about converting these rather bitter, semi-sweet chocolate
> > > chips into something sweeter without ending up with a mess?
> >
> > I made chocolate chip cookies last night using regular, large
> > chocolate chips and they were delicious. Just follow the directions
> > on the package. http://oi51.tinypic.com/2hqaqkj.jpg
>
> Those looked really good, but were they really semi-sweet? I won't turn
> down milk chocolate, but prefer the other.

Semi-sweet. I hate milk chocolate and I have an equally intense
dislike of white "chocolate".

--

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

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:28 -0600, Damaeus
> > wrote:
>
> > A simple blacklist would suffice, and I've read that they're thinking
> > about that, too.
>
> Why don't you install a better Hosts File? Hosts Files are instant
> black lists.

It will prevent access to the sites but they'll still show up in a
google search, you'll just get a "page not found" error when you try to
follow the link.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:13:34 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:28 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > A simple blacklist would suffice, and I've read that they're thinking
> > > about that, too.
> >
> > Why don't you install a better Hosts File? Hosts Files are instant
> > black lists.
>
> It will prevent access to the sites but they'll still show up in a
> google search, you'll just get a "page not found" error when you try to
> follow the link.
>
Interesting. Guess I don't go to those sites then, because I don't
recall that error message.

--

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:28 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
> wrote,
>In news:rec.food.cooking, David Harmon > posted on Sun,
>20 Feb 2011 09:35:32 -0800 the following:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:08:38 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
>> > wrote,
>> >I liked Google before the spamming webmasters became savvier than Google
>> >webmasters.
>>
>> Stay tuned; Google has recently announced a crackdown on that.
>
>A simple blacklist would suffice, and I've read that they're thinking
>about that, too. All I would have to do is add a domain I never want to
>see again, and it would be hidden from my search results.

And it simultaneously counts as a vote to reduce the site's pagerank
for everybody.

In article >,
Cheryl > wrote:
>On 2/19/2011 10:38 AM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>
>> That was because years of dental neglect (I'm better now, thanks) meant
>> the underlying tooth was essentially gone. The take-home lesson is not
>> "don't eat mashed potatoes", but "brush/floss/visit your dentist
>> regularly". If the tooth with the crown is feeling tender, SEE YOUR
>> DENTIST.
>>
>Yup. They aren't meant to last forever. I also spent years neglecting
>my teeth but I just couldn't afford it at the time. It was my son or
>me. I'm paying for it now.
>
>> I think I got the crown originally put on shortly after I got out of
>> college, so it lasted me a quarter century even with my problems. It did
>> come off once before, but they were able to reattach it then. This is a
>> standard dental service and if you manage to not swallow or otherwise lose
>> the crown, is not an expensive procedure.
>
>Even when they can reattach it, it likely isn't a long-term solution. I
>have one that was re-glued at Christmas and it's starting to hurt now,
>so it will be replaced soon. I was hoping it could wait until the
>braces come out, but that seems to be some phantom date at this point,
>so it won't wait that long.

Mine lasted 12 years. Hope you get a long-term solution soon!

ObFood: Found a recipe for no-butter, no-flour cookies with peanut
butter, peanuts, and semi-sweet chips in a Martha Stewart holiday cookie
issue (of all places). Going to try it first with an egg,
then with egg-replacer because one of the gluten-free pals also learned
she was allergic to eggs. If it works, I'm going to see how they
freeze, because that will be a good treat for our coffee hour (and an
option for my friend who can't eat dairy). The gluten free shortbread I
made last week was a large hit and the not-gluten-free taste panel said
I could make it again any time but I'm always looking for more options.



--

"Charlotte L. Blackmer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Cheryl > wrote:
>>On 2/19/2011 10:38 AM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>>
>>> That was because years of dental neglect (I'm better now, thanks) meant
>>> the underlying tooth was essentially gone. The take-home lesson is not
>>> "don't eat mashed potatoes", but "brush/floss/visit your dentist
>>> regularly". If the tooth with the crown is feeling tender, SEE YOUR
>>> DENTIST.
>>>
>>Yup. They aren't meant to last forever. I also spent years neglecting
>>my teeth but I just couldn't afford it at the time. It was my son or
>>me. I'm paying for it now.
>>
>>> I think I got the crown originally put on shortly after I got out of
>>> college, so it lasted me a quarter century even with my problems. It
>>> did
>>> come off once before, but they were able to reattach it then. This is a
>>> standard dental service and if you manage to not swallow or otherwise
>>> lose
>>> the crown, is not an expensive procedure.
>>
>>Even when they can reattach it, it likely isn't a long-term solution. I
>>have one that was re-glued at Christmas and it's starting to hurt now,
>>so it will be replaced soon. I was hoping it could wait until the
>>braces come out, but that seems to be some phantom date at this point,
>>so it won't wait that long.
>
> Mine lasted 12 years. Hope you get a long-term solution soon!
>
> ObFood: Found a recipe for no-butter, no-flour cookies with peanut
> butter, peanuts, and semi-sweet chips in a Martha Stewart holiday cookie
> issue (of all places). Going to try it first with an egg,
> then with egg-replacer because one of the gluten-free pals also learned
> she was allergic to eggs. If it works, I'm going to see how they
> freeze, because that will be a good treat for our coffee hour (and an
> option for my friend who can't eat dairy). The gluten free shortbread I
> made last week was a large hit and the not-gluten-free taste panel said
> I could make it again any time but I'm always looking for more options.

I highly doubt that egg replacer would work in those cookies. I haven't had
much luck with it.