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

On 13/02/2011 12:08 PM, Damaeus wrote:

>>
>> 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.



You could have given the chips back to your friend. I don't think that
large chips are going to make much of a difference to the cookies....
for a normal person. If you think they are too big you can cut them into
half or quarters or put them in a blender..... but you don't want to.





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.

In news:rec.food.cooking, Dave Smith > posted on
Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:45:23 -0500 the following:

> On 13/02/2011 12:08 PM, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You could have given the chips back to your friend.

That would be funny since we live in the same house and share all the same
groceries.

> I don't think that large chips are going to make much of a difference to
> the cookies.... for a normal person.

I guess I'm abnormal because I like tiny dots of chocolate in my cookies,
not big fat wads of it.

> If you think they are too big you can cut them into half or quarters or
> put them in a blender..... but you don't want to.

That's because I'm tired of cookies. I want something besides cookies.
When I get ready to make cookies again, I'll get mini chocolate chips.

Damaeus

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:15:35 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> That's because I'm tired of cookies. I want something besides cookies.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
Google "Recipe +chocolat chips, -cookies"



--

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

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:15:35 -0600, Damaeus
> > wrote:
>
>> That's because I'm tired of cookies. I want something besides
>> cookies.
>
> Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
> Google "Recipe +chocolat chips, -cookies"

He hates to "google" He's stated that he wants "real" opinions, not some
search engine.

I think he is just NUTS.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:17:43 -0500, "BigBadBubbas"
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:15:35 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> That's because I'm tired of cookies. I want something besides
> >> cookies.
> >
> > Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
> > Google "Recipe +chocolat chips, -cookies"
>
> He hates to "google" He's stated that he wants "real" opinions, not some
> search engine.
>
If he want's real opinions, he can find something that looks appealing
via google and then ask for opinions.

> I think he is just NUTS.
>
He has a lot of confinements. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, for
sure.


--

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

In news:rec.food.cooking, "BigBadBubbas" > posted
on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:17:43 -0500 the following:

> sf wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:15:35 -0600, Damaeus
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> That's because I'm tired of cookies. I want something besides
> >> cookies.
> >
> > Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
> > Google "Recipe ??? chips, -cookies"
>
> He hates to "google"

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.

> He's stated that he wants "real" opinions, not some search engine.
>
> I think he is just NUTS.

No, I just wanted nuts in my chocolate.

Damaeus

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.

--

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

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 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. You're
spazzing out because he didn't buy the chips *YOU* like. He's fine
with them, but YOU aren't and Christmas is long over, so RELAX!
Nobody builds a long lasting relationship this way. It's the middle
of February. Let it go.




--

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

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> 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. You're
> spazzing out because he didn't buy the chips *YOU* like. He's fine
> with them, but YOU aren't and Christmas is long over, so RELAX!
> Nobody builds a long lasting relationship this way. It's the middle
> of February. Let it go.
>
>

They're probably cheap chips too. If he gave the brand, I don't remember.

In news:rec.food.cooking, "Julie Bove" > posted on
Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:43:37 -0800 the following:

> They're probably cheap chips too. If he gave the brand, I don't
> remember.

Nestl+AOk-.

Damaeus

"Damaeus" > wrote in message
...
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "Julie Bove" > posted on
> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:43:37 -0800 the following:
>
>> They're probably cheap chips too. If he gave the brand, I don't
>> remember.
>
> Nestlé.

Yep.

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

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.

If either of you cared *that* much, one of you would have returned the
chips.

--

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

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!!

In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > 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.

Damaeus

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 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.

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 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, 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

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 02:31:35 -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.

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 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!!!

In news:rec.food.cooking, merryb > posted on Wed, 16 Feb
2011 12:18:25 -0800 (PST) the following:

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

Some of us are made for Hell, but I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

Damaeus

In news:rec.food.cooking, merryb > posted on Wed, 16 Feb
2011 12:18:25 -0800 (PST) the following:

> On Feb 13, 9:08+AKA-am, Damaeus > wrote:
>
> > Neither he nor I like big, fat chocolate chips. +AKA-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. +AKA-I will turn the big
> > chocolate chips into something else.
>
> LOL!!! This thread is hilarious, and you will burn in hell for even
> asking for advise! How dare you!!!

I think I would have been better off if I had not included the story about
how I ended up with the chocolate chips. More people focused on that than
the actual question about how to make semi-sweet chocolate chips more like
milk chocolate candy.

Damaeus

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:59:18 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> I think I would have been better off if I had not included the story about
> how I ended up with the chocolate chips.

Very true. You confused the issue.

--

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

In news:rec.food.cooking, Andy > posted on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:53:06
-0600 the following:

> Damaeus > wrote:
>
> > I will turn the big chocolate chips
> > into something else.
>
> Melt them down and try your luck at a few of these...
>
> http://alturl.com/ednir
>
> We had to be really good to get treated to them. It didn't seem possible!

I like long links, not shortened ones. For all I know, that could take me
to http://hak.kpfjl.ru/kak399/scr.asp

I wish alturl.com site offered a way for us to paste links like yours into
a field so we can see the link that will be loaded into our browsers.

Damaeus

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:13:15 -0600, Damaeus
> wrote:

> I wish alturl.com site offered a way for us to paste links like yours into
> a field so we can see the link that will be loaded into our browsers.

Ftttt. It's a dipped chocolate cone. Nothing that will blow up your
computer.

--

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

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

> ASSTROLL!
>

That's a new one. lol

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 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 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.

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