On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:31:37 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

> I do *not* foward private emails. I certainly don't "edit" then foward
> emails. Such a thing would never occur to me.

We know who does and he's proved it once again by editing a post in
rfc. He's like any other liar who accuses everyone else of doing what
he does.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:56:28 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

> I *don't* recall giving you the number in SC. IIRC when you called me
> here I was surprised. It seems to me you told me you were able to find
> the number because it's listed. Anyone could look it up in the white pages.
>
> There's absolutely no need for you to get this ****y about things.

Obviously he's not limited to being an internet stalker, he stalks in
real life too.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 1/25/2013 11:38 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:31:37 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> I do *not* foward private emails. I certainly don't "edit" then foward
>> emails. Such a thing would never occur to me.
>
> We know who does and he's proved it once again by editing a post in
> rfc. He's like any other liar who accuses everyone else of doing what
> he does.
>
He wants to complain about privacy. Really? Perhaps I disclose more
info about myself than he'd like but it's not his call, is it?

He says he doesn't talk about his personal life. Of course he does.
Look at the recent threads about flu and antibiotcs. He revealed a lot
of very personal information in that thread.

Jill

On 1/25/2013 11:39 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:56:28 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> I *don't* recall giving you the number in SC. IIRC when you called me
>> here I was surprised. It seems to me you told me you were able to find
>> the number because it's listed. Anyone could look it up in the white pages.
>>
>> There's absolutely no need for you to get this ****y about things.
>
> Obviously he's not limited to being an internet stalker, he stalks in
> real life too.
>
I wouldn't call him a "stalker". Bored, I think so. I just wish he'd
stop beating this dead horse unless he's planning to cook it

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/24/2013 7:48 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> There are very few people at rfc who have received my contact info
>>> from me, less than five. But a word to the wise, be very careful who
>>> you give your contact info to, it will be shared... and be extremely
>>> careful who you send private email to, it will get forwarded.. it will
>>> even get edited and then forwarded.
>>
>>
>> The sad thing is, I've seen people that were close friends in newsgroups
>> for years, and then whammo...it goes sour and all the things they shared
>> through the years in private email is thrown in their faces publicly.
>> That is totally classless, and the people that do it just look small
>> IMO, also a very good reason not to share more than generalities with
>> most people in newsgroups.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> I agree with that. I won't attempt to try to explain this mini-meltdown.
>
> I do *not* foward private emails. I certainly don't "edit" then foward
> emails. Such a thing would never occur to me. Most of the people I know
> wouldn't have a clue who Sheldon or anyone else from RFC is (much less
> *what* RFC is) so what would be the point?
>
> I don't edit posts, either. I snip them for length, absolutely. The only
> details of someone's private life that are up for grabs are those they've
> made public *themselves*. e.g. Julie's (sorry Julie!) food intolerances.
> Or in this case my bitching about practically every sandwich being served
> on Kaiser rolls. Heh.
>
> Jill


I was really thinking of a person years ago who was the chat moderator for a
medical newsgoup, then when they had a disagreement, she actually posted the
private chat logs in newsgroups. I thought that was awful, and it was a very
good lesson. I did lurk in this group for a couple of years before posting,
but just picking out things that interested me, so not reading all of the
posts by any means and really don't know the history of posters that well.

Cheri

Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:22:51 +0100, Michael Kuettner
> > wrote:

<snip>
>> There's a difference between cubed rolls (Semmelwürfel or Knödelbrot)
>> used for stuffing and Semmelbrösel (grint Semmeln) for panade.
>
> My mother didn't cube them. She soaked them in milk and then squeezed
> the milk out by hand. The results were used for stuffing. I didn't
> have cubed stuffing until I moved away from home and no longer had
> access to semmel.
> Janet US
>
Then she left out an important step.
The rolls (or bread) goes stale. Then it's cubed. Then dried in the oven.
Then it's stored until needed. It also gets a different texture.
When needed, the cubes are soaked in milk or water. Then squeezed out.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 1/24/2013 7:48 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> There are very few people at rfc who have received my contact info
>>>> from me, less than five. But a word to the wise, be very careful who
>>>> you give your contact info to, it will be shared... and be extremely
>>>> careful who you send private email to, it will get forwarded.. it will
>>>> even get edited and then forwarded.
>>>
>>>
>>> The sad thing is, I've seen people that were close friends in newsgroups
>>> for years, and then whammo...it goes sour and all the things they shared
>>> through the years in private email is thrown in their faces publicly.
>>> That is totally classless, and the people that do it just look small
>>> IMO, also a very good reason not to share more than generalities with
>>> most people in newsgroups.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> I agree with that. I won't attempt to try to explain this mini-meltdown.
>>
>> I do *not* foward private emails. I certainly don't "edit" then foward
>> emails. Such a thing would never occur to me. Most of the people I know
>> wouldn't have a clue who Sheldon or anyone else from RFC is (much less
>> *what* RFC is) so what would be the point?
>>
>> I don't edit posts, either. I snip them for length, absolutely. The
>> only details of someone's private life that are up for grabs are those
>> they've made public *themselves*. e.g. Julie's (sorry Julie!) food
>> intolerances. Or in this case my bitching about practically every
>> sandwich being served on Kaiser rolls. Heh.
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> I was really thinking of a person years ago who was the chat moderator for
> a medical newsgoup, then when they had a disagreement, she actually posted
> the private chat logs in newsgroups. I thought that was awful, and it was
> a very good lesson. I did lurk in this group for a couple of years before
> posting, but just picking out things that interested me, so not reading
> all of the posts by any means and really don't know the history of posters
> that well.

Not nice

--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:50:13 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> I was really thinking of a person years ago who was the chat moderator for a
> medical newsgoup, then when they had a disagreement, she actually posted the
> private chat logs in newsgroups. I thought that was awful, and it was a very
> good lesson. I did lurk in this group for a couple of years before posting,
> but just picking out things that interested me, so not reading all of the
> posts by any means and really don't know the history of posters that well.

It totally creeps me out when I find out people log chat sessions.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:20:07 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 1/25/2013 11:39 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:56:28 -0500, jmcquown >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I *don't* recall giving you the number in SC. IIRC when you called me
> >> here I was surprised. It seems to me you told me you were able to find
> >> the number because it's listed. Anyone could look it up in the white pages.
> >>
> >> There's absolutely no need for you to get this ****y about things.
> >
> > Obviously he's not limited to being an internet stalker, he stalks in
> > real life too.
> >
> I wouldn't call him a "stalker". Bored, I think so. I just wish he'd
> stop beating this dead horse unless he's planning to cook it
>
It's creepy behavior. Very Squitzlike indeed.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Susan wrote:
>
>I kind of think it inappropriate and hypocritical to judge the nature
>and quality of someone else's relationship here.
>
>Lots of folks stay close with exes as good friends who no longer enjoy
>full time partnership.
>
>That's their business, not yours or mine.

Except that when folks disseminate such information at a public venue
such as a newsgroup then they make it everybody's business and open to
public discussion the same as if they posted a food recipe. Once
again for the sake of slow learners, if one dosen't want their dirty
laundry aired in public then they need to keep their stained bedding
under wraps.

I come here to discuss food and cooking, I really don't want to hear
about the foibles of people's personal private lives such as ones
religion, how many ******* children they have, who's shacking up with
whom, who's a faggot, etc... but if they are foolish enough to post
their privates then I classify that under Rec/Recreation... for my
entertainment.

Clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz wrote:

> There are a lot of douchebags on newsgroups who pretend to be your friend
> for years who with no provocation whatsoever will stab you in the back...
> they're usually those who will announce publicly that they've been in
> contact with you.

So you've been backstabbed by both Jill *and* Om?

Bob

sf replied to Jill:

>> I *don't* recall giving you the number in SC. IIRC when you called me
>> here I was surprised. It seems to me you told me you were able to find
>> the number because it's listed. Anyone could look it up in the white
>> pages.
>>
>> There's absolutely no need for you to get this ****y about things.
>
> Obviously he's not limited to being an internet stalker, he stalks in real
> life too.

It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not meet
the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz physically
drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB Sams Drive,
Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching her -- EVEN THEN
he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless Jill knew about it and
was terrified for her life. That second part is essential to the definition
of stalking.

Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
around.

Bob

Jill wrote:

> I just wish he'd stop beating this dead horse unless he's planning to
> cook it

I bet it would make some pretty good chili.

Bob

On Friday, January 25, 2013 4:39:40 PM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> Susan wrote:
>
> >
>
> >I kind of think it inappropriate and hypocritical to judge the nature
>
> >and quality of someone else's relationship here.
>
> >
>
> >Lots of folks stay close with exes as good friends who no longer enjoy
>
> >full time partnership.
>
> >
>
> >That's their business, not yours or mine.
>
>
>
> Except that when folks disseminate such information at a public venue
>
> such as a newsgroup then they make it everybody's business and open to
>
> public discussion the same as if they posted a food recipe. Once
>
> again for the sake of slow learners, if one dosen't want their dirty
>
> laundry aired in public then they need to keep their stained bedding
>
> under wraps.
>
>
>
> I come here to discuss food and cooking, I really don't want to hear
>
> about the foibles of people's personal private lives such as ones
>
> religion, how many ******* children they have, who's shacking up with
>
> whom, who's a faggot, etc... but if they are foolish enough to post
>
> their privates then I classify that under Rec/Recreation... for my
>
> entertainment.

Kuthe's a faggot. He isn't ***, but he is most certainly a faggot. Look at his face and hear him talk. FAGGOT!

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:45:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> Look at his face and hear him talk. FAGGOT!

You've seen his face?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:58:02 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> sf replied to Jill:
>
> >> I *don't* recall giving you the number in SC. IIRC when you called me
> >> here I was surprised. It seems to me you told me you were able to find
> >> the number because it's listed. Anyone could look it up in the white
> >> pages.
> >>
> >> There's absolutely no need for you to get this ****y about things.
> >
> > Obviously he's not limited to being an internet stalker, he stalks in real
> > life too.
>
> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not meet
> the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz physically
> drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB Sams Drive,
> Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching her -- EVEN THEN
> he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless Jill knew about it and
> was terrified for her life. That second part is essential to the definition
> of stalking.
>
> Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
> around.
>

Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered
a stalker? Interesting. I didn't know that part.
> Bob


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:58:02 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>> sf replied to Jill:
>>
>> >> I *don't* recall giving you the number in SC. IIRC when you called me
>> >> here I was surprised. It seems to me you told me you were able to
>> >> find
>> >> the number because it's listed. Anyone could look it up in the white
>> >> pages.
>> >>
>> >> There's absolutely no need for you to get this ****y about things.
>> >
>> > Obviously he's not limited to being an internet stalker, he stalks in
>> > real
>> > life too.
>>
>> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not
>> meet
>> the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz
>> physically
>> drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB Sams Drive,
>> Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching her -- EVEN
>> THEN
>> he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless Jill knew about it
>> and
>> was terrified for her life. That second part is essential to the
>> definition
>> of stalking.
>>
>> Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
>> around.
>>
>
> Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered
> a stalker? Interesting. I didn't know that part.

I don't think it's accurate.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...ment-laws.aspx

sf wrote:

>> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not
>> meet the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz
>> physically drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB
>> Sams Drive, Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching
>> her -- EVEN THEN he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless
>> Jill knew about it and was terrified for her life. That second part is
>> essential to the definition of stalking.
>>
>> Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
>> around.
>
> Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered a
> stalker? Interesting. I didn't know that part.

I wrote that the SECOND part was essential to the definition of stalking.
The SECOND part was the part where Jill knew about it and was terrified for
her life. The part which is required is a CREDIBLE THREAT, i.e., the person
being stalked must believe that the person watching them both (1) intends to
inflict harm in some way, and (2) has the ability to inflict that harm.

There are a couple other legal considerations within the definition:

1. The person who believes that he or she is being stalked must be mentally
competent. (That's what completely refutes the drama queen who claims she's
being stalked by Jeßus. I'm sure she lives in constant fear, but it's all in
her fevered imagination, and so has no legal weight.)

2. The harm being threatened must be real harm, not some piddly imagined
mental distress, e.g., you'd be laughed out of court if you claimed someone
was stalking you with intent to collect phlegm from your discarded Kleenex.

Simply using the Internet to find out someone's personal information is not
stalking because there has been no threat, credible or otherwise.

Bob

Cheri wrote:

>>> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not
>>> meet the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz
>>> physically drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB
>>> Sams Drive, Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching
>>> her -- EVEN THEN he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless
>>> Jill knew about it and was terrified for her life. That second part is
>>> essential to the definition of stalking.
>>>
>>> Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
>>> around.
>>>
>>
>> Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered
>> a stalker? Interesting. I didn't know that part.
>
> I don't think it's accurate.
>
> http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...ment-laws.aspx

Nobody said that physical appearance was necessary. sf misread what I wrote
above. The link you cited supports what I wrote: A credible threat must be
present before the definition of stalking can be satisfied. Simply
investigating someone (either online or in real life) is not stalking.

Bob

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:32:53 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>
> Simply using the Internet to find out someone's personal information is not
> stalking because there has been no threat, credible or otherwise.

We part ways yet again. I think it's not only weird, it's obsessive
and that's what stalkers, internet or otherwise, a obsessive. When
some stranger wants to know so badly about where you live, your real
name etc etc etc that they actually research it in some form... you
think there's a screw loose upstairs. You know for sure they are
batshit crazy when they start telling what they think they know to
other strangers on the internet. SW has proven he should be in the
loony bin countless times and now Sheldon is finally being outed.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:

>> Simply using the Internet to find out someone's personal information is
>> not stalking because there has been no threat, credible or otherwise.
>
> We part ways yet again. I think it's not only weird, it's obsessive and
> that's what stalkers, internet or otherwise, a obsessive.

You realize that your "logic" there is flawed, don't you? It's like saying,
"Dogs have fur. Cats have fur. Therefore, dogs are cats." Sure, stalkers are
obsessive, but not all obsessive people are stalkers.

You're perfectly free to disagree with me, but your disagreement doesn't
change the fact that your personal definition of "stalker" is not correct.


> When some stranger wants to know so badly about where you live, your real
> name etc etc etc that they actually research it in some form... you think
> there's a screw loose upstairs.

You seem to think it's some kind of major effort to find someone's personal
information. I'm here to tell you that it isn't. As I mentioned recently, I
found Jill's address in about five seconds. If it took any significant
amount of time or money to discover the information in question, then it
becomes a bit unsettling to consider someone willing to make those
sacrifices, and you wonder about their motives. But when the information is
just as readily available as Wikipedia, then it says nothing of the sort.

Moreover, you've apparently assumed that stalkers are STRANGERS to the
people they're stalking. Why would you think that? And doesn't that
completely invalidate your characterization of clueless AOL newbie Sheldon
"Pussy" Katz as a stalker, since by Jill's own admission they had been
conducting some personal communications before Pussy called Jill on the
phone?

Bob

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:10:02 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> Moreover, you've apparently assumed that stalkers are STRANGERS to the
> people they're stalking. Why would you think that? And doesn't that
> completely invalidate your characterization of clueless AOL newbie Sheldon
> "Pussy" Katz as a stalker, since by Jill's own admission they had been
> conducting some personal communications before Pussy called Jill on the
> phone?

No matter what you have to say about it, that kind of behavior is
nothing short of creepy.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 1/27/2013 11:32 AM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered
>> a stalker? Interesting. I didn't know that part.
>
> I wrote that the SECOND part was essential to the definition of
> stalking. The SECOND part was the part where Jill knew about it and was
> terrified for her life. The part which is required is a CREDIBLE THREAT,
> i.e., the person being stalked must believe that the person watching
> them both (1) intends to inflict harm in some way, and (2) has the
> ability to inflict that harm.

Please everyone, note: I never intended for anyone to think he was
"stalking me". I never said that.

Jill

On Jan 24, 1:02*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:14:26 -0500, Susan wrote:
> > Well, I'm just sharing a point of view. There is no obligation of anyone
> > reading to adopt my perspective as her own.
>
> Sexist Pig!

LOL

On Jan 24, 8:49*am, "Pico Rico" > wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/24/2013 9:37 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
> >> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On 1/24/2013 4:58 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >>>> Sounds fair enough to me *If you are happy then it is no one else's
> >>>> business
>
> >>> I should add when he visits he buys all the groceries. *I cook, he does
> >>> the washing up
>
> >>> Jill
>
> >> God help him if he buys some Kaiser rolls!
>
> > LOL *He's not impressed by Kaiser rolls any more than I am.
>
> > Jill
>
> sounds like he is a keeper!

It sounds to me like he's a married guy with a family elsewhere!
hahahahaha

On Friday, January 25, 2013 11:21:52 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:45:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>
>
> > Look at his face and hear him talk. FAGGOT!
>
>
>
> You've seen his face?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Yes. I've seen a recording of one of his job interviews. Not pretty on so many levels. That's why I know he has no job of any consequence. Healthcare is very picky, except at the dregs level (home health care for gomers). He is every bit as creepy as he comes off here. That's why, despite his degrees, he can't hold a job. When your skin begins to crawl as soon as you meet someone, it means something. Johny is one of those people.

On Jan 27, 10:32*am, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> sf wrote:
> >> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not
> >> meet *the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz
> >> physically drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB
> >> Sams Drive, Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching
> >> her -- EVEN THEN he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless
> >> Jill knew about it and was terrified for her life. That second part is
> >> essential to the definition of stalking.
>
> >> Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
> >> around.
>
> > Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered a
> > stalker? *Interesting. *I didn't know that part.
>
> I wrote that the SECOND part was essential to the definition of stalking.
> The SECOND part was the part where Jill knew about it and was terrified for
> her life. The part which is required is a CREDIBLE THREAT, i.e., the person
> being stalked must believe that the person watching them both (1) intends to
> inflict harm in some way, and (2) has the ability to inflict that harm.
>
> There are a couple other legal considerations within the definition:
>
> 1. The person who believes that he or she is being stalked must be mentally
> competent. (That's what completely refutes the drama queen who claims she's
> being stalked by Je us. I'm sure she lives in constant fear, but it's all in
> her fevered imagination, and so has no legal weight.)
>
> 2. The harm being threatened must be real harm, not some piddly imagined
> mental distress, e.g., you'd be laughed out of court if you claimed someone
> was stalking you with intent to collect phlegm from your discarded Kleenex.

On 1/25/2013 11:23 PM, sf wrote:
> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not meet
>>the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz physically
>>drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB Sams Drive,
>>Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching her -- EVEN THEN
>>he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless Jill knew about it and
>>was terrified for her life. That second part is essential to the definition
>>of stalking.
>>
I haven't "googled myself" in a long time. LOL What I would like to
know is why those records indicate I have a middle initial, M. I most
certainly don't.

Jill

Jill wrote:

> I haven't "googled myself" in a long time. LOL What I would like to know
> is why those records indicate I have a middle initial, M. I most
> certainly don't.

The records I was looking at didn't indicate any middle initial. Just a
phone number, an age of 52, and addresses: Currently in Saint Helena Island
and formerly in Cordova, TN and Memphis, TN.

Bob

PVC wrote about John Willer's relationship with Jill McQuown:

> It sounds to me like he's a married guy with a family elsewhere!
> hahahahaha

What makes you think he *isn't*? It should be easy enough to find out if
John Willer of Eureka Springs, AR is married or not. If nothing else, you
could just call their local "art council" and ask.

Bob

On 1/28/2013 3:49 AM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Jill wrote:
>
>> I haven't "googled myself" in a long time. LOL What I would like to
>> know is why those records indicate I have a middle initial, M. I most
>> certainly don't.
>
> The records I was looking at didn't indicate any middle initial. Just a
> phone number, an age of 52, and addresses: Currently in Saint Helena
> Island and formerly in Cordova, TN and Memphis, TN.
>
> Bob

The one I clicked on showed my name as Jill M. McQuown. The address is
correct so I know it's me, but where they got the "M" is a mystery.

Jill