In news:rec.food.cooking, "jmcquown" > posted on
Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:13:56 -0500 the following:

> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I guess picking up actual milk chocolate chips was too much for your
> > feeble brain to handle.
>
> I agree! The OP doesn't even make sense.

That's because you have the same reading comprehension problem as the
person you're replying to.

> He ASKED for "mini" semi-sweet chocolate chips in the post. What he got
> was a couple of bags of the regular sized semi-sweet chocolate chips.
> So what?

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.

> What's the difference from the other than the size?

The size is the only difference I care about. I don't like big chocolate
chips in my cookies. Is that too hard for you to understand?

> Why is he suddenly thinking they should be milk chocolate chips?

I never said that. My post was asking what method I should use to convert
them into milk chocolate chips. This is a cooking newsgroup, if you
haven't noticed.

> And what did he expect this friend to do, go back to the store for him?

He wasn't going "for me" to begin with. He was going for himself because
he asked me to bake 800 cookies for a Christmas party. Mini semi-sweet
chocolate chips go in the cookies, and I had them on a computer-generated,
printed list, but he got the wrong ones. We had a couple of extra bags of
semi-sweet LARGE chocolate chips left over and I don't want them in
cookies I'm going to be eating. I used the large ones in the cookies for
his Christmas party. While I would have liked the small chocolate chips
in the ones I sent to the party, since I wasn't eating them, I didn't make
a big deal about it. They were a hit anyway, and the women were slipping
them in their purses to take them home.

> Unless he's an invalid I suggest he go get his own chocolate chips.

And I suggest to you that you take a class on critical thinking. Your
post was full of so many hidden assumptions that from my view, you should
be pretty embarrassed with yourself. Unfortunately, like a jungle ape,
you don't have the mental faculties to be self-conscious enough to realize
what an idiot you look like, so I'll leave you now and you can go look
like a jungle ape somewhere else.

Damaeus

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 22:34:29 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> The size is the only difference I care about. I don't like big chocolate
> chips in my cookies. Is that too hard for you to understand?

If that's the problem, then chop them up with a knife. Chocolate
chunks are all the rage these days, so you'll be on the cutting edge
(so to speak).

--

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

"Damaeus" > wrote in message
...
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "jmcquown" > posted on
> Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:13:56 -0500 the following:
>
>> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I guess picking up actual milk chocolate chips was too much for your
>> > feeble brain to handle.
>>
>> I agree! The OP doesn't even make sense.
>
> That's because you have the same reading comprehension problem as the
> person you're replying to.
>
>> He ASKED for "mini" semi-sweet chocolate chips in the post. What he got
>> was a couple of bags of the regular sized semi-sweet chocolate chips.
>> So what?
>
> 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.
>
>> What's the difference from the other than the size?
>
> The size is the only difference I care about. I don't like big chocolate
> chips in my cookies. Is that too hard for you to understand?
>
>> Why is he suddenly thinking they should be milk chocolate chips?
>
> I never said that. My post was asking what method I should use to convert
> them into milk chocolate chips. This is a cooking newsgroup, if you
> haven't noticed.
>
>> And what did he expect this friend to do, go back to the store for him?
>
> He wasn't going "for me" to begin with. He was going for himself because
> he asked me to bake 800 cookies for a Christmas party. Mini semi-sweet
> chocolate chips go in the cookies, and I had them on a computer-generated,
> printed list, but he got the wrong ones. We had a couple of extra bags of
> semi-sweet LARGE chocolate chips left over and I don't want them in
> cookies I'm going to be eating. I used the large ones in the cookies for
> his Christmas party. While I would have liked the small chocolate chips
> in the ones I sent to the party, since I wasn't eating them, I didn't make
> a big deal about it. They were a hit anyway, and the women were slipping
> them in their purses to take them home.
>
>> Unless he's an invalid I suggest he go get his own chocolate chips.
>
> And I suggest to you that you take a class on critical thinking. Your
> post was full of so many hidden assumptions that from my view, you should
> be pretty embarrassed with yourself. Unfortunately, like a jungle ape,
> you don't have the mental faculties to be self-conscious enough to realize
> what an idiot you look like, so I'll leave you now and you can go look
> like a jungle ape somewhere else.
>
> Damaeus


You're the one with the comprehension problem. Your friend did you a favour
picking them up while at the store. That's great! Saved you a trip. Saved
on gas money, whatever. You still can't magically turn them into something
else. Take them back and get what you want. It's really not a difficult
concept.

Jill

In news:rec.food.cooking, "jmcquown" > posted on
Sun, 13 Feb 2011 04:44:02 -0500 the following:

> "Damaeus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And I suggest to you that you take a class on critical thinking. Your
> > post was full of so many hidden assumptions that from my view, you
> > should be pretty embarrassed with yourself. Unfortunately, like a
> > jungle ape, you don't have the mental faculties to be self-conscious
> > enough to realize what an idiot you look like, so I'll leave you now
> > and you can go look like a jungle ape somewhere else.
>
> You're the one with the comprehension problem. Your friend did you a
> favour picking them up while at the store.

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. Since he likes the cookies that I bake, I told him what to
buy. He got the wrong chocolate chips, so he didn't get exactly the same
cookie that he likes. The whole point is that we had two bags of
chocolate chips left over and I don't like big ****ing chips in my
cookies, nor do I want to stand there with a knife and chop them into
little pieces, but I would like some milk chocolate candy with nuts in
them and if I can put those chocolate chips to use (since I don't want to
use them in cookies), that's great.

> That's great! Saved you a trip. Saved on gas money, whatever. You
> still can't magically turn them into something else.

They're forever chocolate chips? That's pretty depressing. That means I
can't even melt them down to turn them into a chocolate bar. Oh, you're
wrong about that. Oh well, I'm not surprised.

> 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.

Damaeus

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Damaeus

They very well might if you have the receipt. Without the receipt you
might be a screwed goose.

--
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

"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

In news:rec.food.cooking, "jmcquown" > posted on
Mon, 14 Feb 2011 01:54:58 -0500 the following:

> "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.

Well that's different. There's nothing wrong with these chocolate chips.
I just don't think a store will let me return something under the auspices
of nothing being wrong with them, but I just don't want them anymore. If
I find out that a grocery store routinely takes returns on things like
chocolate chips, candy bars, or other items that can be penetrated with a
syringe to shoot God-knows-what into it, I won't be shopping there
anymore, and I'll file a complaint with the health department. I can see
taking returns on canned goods, but I don't want to shop at a store where
someone has taken home a head of lettuce, then returned it to the store
for a refund when nothing was actually wrong with it. As a store manager,
I would be leary of people intentionally contaminating food out of spite
toward the human species.

> 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.

Well, what about exchanging 73/27 hamburger meat for 80/20 ground sirloin?
What about exchanging brown eggs for white eggs? What about exchanging a
package of ham for a package of balonga? Woulld you expect to get a
refund on a container of Yoplait yogurt even though an insulin syringe can
easily penetrate the foil cover and inject cyanide into it without the
buyer being aware of it?

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

Damaeus

"Damaeus" > wrote in message
...
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "jmcquown" > posted on
> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 01:54:58 -0500 the following:
>
>> "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.
>
> Well that's different. There's nothing wrong with these chocolate chips.
> I just don't think a store will let me return something under the auspices
> of nothing being wrong with them, but I just don't want them anymore. If
> I find out that a grocery store routinely takes returns on things like
> chocolate chips, candy bars, or other items that can be penetrated with a
> syringe to shoot God-knows-what into it, I won't be shopping there
> anymore, and I'll file a complaint with the health department. I can see
> taking returns on canned goods, but I don't want to shop at a store where
> someone has taken home a head of lettuce, then returned it to the store
> for a refund when nothing was actually wrong with it. As a store manager,
> I would be leary of people intentionally contaminating food out of spite
> toward the human species.
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, what about exchanging 73/27 hamburger meat for 80/20 ground sirloin?
> What about exchanging brown eggs for white eggs? What about exchanging a
> package of ham for a package of balonga? Woulld you expect to get a
> refund on a container of Yoplait yogurt even though an insulin syringe can
> easily penetrate the foil cover and inject cyanide into it without the
> buyer being aware of it?
>
> If you want to shop at a store that gives refunds on groceries, good luck
> staying well.

I'm pretty sure all grocery stores will give a refund provided you have your
receipt and bring the item back in a timely fashion. How timely would
depend on what the food is. Obviously bringing back say...a freshly baked
cake some two weeks later probably wouldn't fly.

If you wanted to exchange those for mini chips then I'm sure there would be
no problem at all. Of course it would depend on the price of the item. If
they are not the same, an adjustment would have to be made. Either they owe
you money or you owe them some.

You seem to be making much ado about nothing.

The chocolate chips you bought are cheap. They will also keep for probably
at least a year. If you don't want to use them now, save them for something
later. Or donate them to a food bank, if you aren't going to take them
back.

If it were me, I would just buy some strawberries and dip them for
Valentine's day.

On 2/14/2011 4:31 AM, Damaeus wrote:
> Well that's different. There's nothing wrong with these chocolate chips.
> I just don't think a store will let me return something under the auspices
> of nothing being wrong with them, but I just don't want them anymore.

I've swapped things like cat food that I got home and discovered it was
a flavor my cats won't eat. Sometimes the label colors are so close that
I get the wrong ones. The store has no problem swapping them for me,
even if they are just 50 cents a piece.

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

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.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:31:27 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
>> Well, what about exchanging 73/27 hamburger meat for 80/20 ground
>> sirloin?
>> What about exchanging brown eggs for white eggs? What about exchanging a
>> package of ham for a package of balonga? Woulld you expect to get a
>> refund on a container of Yoplait yogurt even though an insulin syringe
>> can
>> easily penetrate the foil cover and inject cyanide into it without the
>> buyer being aware of it?
>>
>> If you want to shop at a store that gives refunds on groceries, good luck
>> staying well.
>
> Most grocery stores *will* take returns, especially exchanges, on
> baking goods such as those provided you have a receipt.
>
> Why not try it with what you have? Then when it works, you can bitch
> at them.
>
> My store will take a return or an exchange on anything unless they
> think I'm abusing the system (often without a receipt). But the
> returned goods won't necessarily make it back onto the shelf (as in
> your case of ground beef). But the nestle chips would certainly be
> restocked on the shelves.
>
> Maybe you could get Geraldo Rivera or 20/20 to investigate this nasty
> practice. I can see how some people would be paranoid about it. But
> I don't think I really need or want all my food in child-proof,
> safety-sealed, syringe-proof packaging. And if I wanted to shoot
> cyanide into Yoplait I could do that right there at the store without
> having to purchase it first. Why risk the customer service people
> remembering my face as the guy who returned poisoned yoghurt? Or
> rabbit turds instead of chocolate morsels?

People can tamper with food even when it is on the shelf. Remember the
oddly tainted pills back in the 1980's? This was before tamper-proof
packaging. We were always on the lookout for people opening bottles. It
was common for people to open a bottle, pour the pills into their hand, look
at them, then close the bottle. Sometimes they even helped themselves to
one or two. Much harder for them to do that now, but if they were going to
do something such as use a syringe, I suppose it could happen. Not sure if
I syringe could go through a bottle, but it certainly could go through a
package of meat.

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...

In news:rec.food.cooking, merryb > posted on Wed, 16 Feb
2011 12:20:51 -0800 (PST) the following:

> On Feb 13, 10:54+AKA-pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> > You'd be wrong. +AKA-I got home once with a package of chicken that, when I
> > took the plastic wrapping off, stunk to high heaven. +AKA-All I had to do
> > was give them a whiff of it at the customer service desk and they
> > immediately refunded my money. +AKA-I can't imagine any grocery store that
> > would refuse to give you an exchange on a couple of bags of unopened
> > chocolate chips. +AKA-If that's the case where you live I'd change grocery
> > stores.
>
> WTF?? You just said there was something wrong with it...

Yes. If I had saved all the potatoes I ever cut into that were rotten in
the middle, I'd need a U-Haul trailer to take them back to the store.

Damaeus

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:53:54 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> Yes. If I had saved all the potatoes I ever cut into that were rotten in
> the middle, I'd need a U-Haul trailer to take them back to the store.

If you ever find out the solution to that mystery, please let me know.
Cut into a perfectly good looking potato on the outside and it has a
quarter inch tube of rottenness in the cents. Not every potato has
it, but enough to make you want to pull scream.

--

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

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.

--

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

In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011
00:07:20 -0800 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.
>
> Christmas is long over, and you need to get over it. Move on.

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.

Damaeus

"Damaeus" > wrote in message
...
> In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011
> 00:07:20 -0800 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.
>>
>> Christmas is long over, and you need to get over it. Move on.
>
> 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.

Do you have any molds? Melt them down and make some sort of filled
chocolates. Or marble them with white chocolate and mold them since you
want something sweeter.

In news:rec.food.cooking, "Julie Bove" > posted on
Mon, 14 Feb 2011 02:18:05 -0800 the following:

> Do you have any molds? Melt them down and make some sort of filled
> chocolates. Or marble them with white chocolate and mold them since you
> want something sweeter.

We've got some white chocolate almond bark. That sounds like just the
thing that's needed.

Damaeus

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:32:08 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Mon, 14 Feb 2011
> 00:07:20 -0800 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.
> >
> > Christmas is long over, and you need to get over it. Move on.
>
> 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.
>
I have lots of suggestions, but you seem hell bent on milk chocolate
candy.


--

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

Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, sf > posted on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2011 00:07:20 -0800 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.
>>
>> Christmas is long over, and you need to get over it. Move on.
>
> 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.
>
> Damaeus

Can't you just eat them. By the hand full?

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.

Damaeus

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:32:08 -0600, 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.
>
> Well, I don't think you're going to get an answer until we beat you to
> death about the rest of your post.
>
> But seeing as how it's a day for love, melt the chips and add powdered
> sugar to make them sweeter. I don't know how to get milk into them
> without changing the consistency. The powdered sugar in itself may
> change the texture - but since you don't have anything better to do
> with them...

You could do chocolate dipped strawberries or chocolate dipped whatever you
want and then add a drizzle of white chocolate. Wouldn't be the same as
milk but would taste sweeter.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:28:41 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> You could do chocolate dipped strawberries or chocolate dipped whatever you
> want and then add a drizzle of white chocolate. Wouldn't be the same as
> milk but would taste sweeter.

Pretzels are good dipped in chocolate too.

--

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

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

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.

> > 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.
>
> Damaeus

Sure they will....you'll need the receipt, though. It would be
obvious if a pkg. of choc. chips had been opened....

N.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Because what you're asking wasn't clear. Did you want to know how to
turn your semi sweet chocolate into milk chocolate or did you want
recipes using semisweet?

--

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

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. "I don't know why." is not a
sentence. However don't feel badly, more than 50% of r.f.c. posters
express themselves no better... to wit that chesecake post I just
replied to.

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 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

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 2/14/2011 3:06 PM, Damaeus wrote:

> Many of my posts turn into this sort of discussion for some reason. I
> don't know why.

I'd be proud if it was me. Try posting a math problem and see where
that gets you. Many help, a vast minority bring it up constantly as OT,
as if we never have OT threads here.

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...

In news:rec.food.cooking, merryb > posted on Wed, 16 Feb
2011 12:27:48 -0800 (PST) the following:

> On Feb 14, 12:06+AKA-pm, Damaeus >
> wrote:
>
> > Many of my posts turn into this sort of discussion for some reason. +AKA-I
> > don't know why.
> >
> > Damaeus
>
> I think it's your name that starts it...

But if I changed my name, people would then accuse me of trying to
circumvent their kill filters. You just can't win on usenet.

Damaeus

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:57:20 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, merryb > posted on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2011 12:27:48 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > On Feb 14, 12:06*pm, Damaeus >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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...
>
> But if I changed my name, people would then accuse me of trying to
> circumvent their kill filters. You just can't win on usenet.
>
Sometimes people announce a change of nicks. It's usually when they
have no intention of using more than one and don't plan to resume the
last one. Brooklyn did that, so did Om.... Terry stills put her old
nick "Squeaks" in her sig line. I'm blanking on anyone else. Anyway,
those who announced the change of nicks gave others a chance to adjust
their kill filters, so they were playing fair.

--

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