On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:05:31 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 7/30/2015 3:44 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:16:54 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2015 6:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, I'd never heard of chicken and waffles until just a few years
>>>> ago, when I saw it on some television program. I'm not sure I've
>>>> ever seen it on a menu hereabouts, but that might just be a memory
>>>> lapse.
>>>>
>>> I always thought chicken & waffles originated in Pennsylvania.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine eating waffles without maple syrup. I also can't
>>> imagine eating fried chicken with syrup anywhere near it.
>>>
>>> I've lived in the south since I was a teenager and have never
>>> encountered fried chicken & waffles.
>>
>> I thought it started in NYC as a late night meal (way after the
>> theater - something like 3AM), when it's too late for dinner and too
>> early for breakfast.
>>
>It's never too late for breakfast.

I normally skip breakfast and have brunch instead. Two meals a day is
usually plenty for me.

On 7/30/2015 6:12 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:05:31 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2015 3:44 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:16:54 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2015 6:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, I'd never heard of chicken and waffles until just a few years
>>>>> ago, when I saw it on some television program. I'm not sure I've
>>>>> ever seen it on a menu hereabouts, but that might just be a memory
>>>>> lapse.
>>>>>
>>>> I always thought chicken & waffles originated in Pennsylvania.
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine eating waffles without maple syrup. I also can't
>>>> imagine eating fried chicken with syrup anywhere near it.
>>>>
>>>> I've lived in the south since I was a teenager and have never
>>>> encountered fried chicken & waffles.
>>>
>>> I thought it started in NYC as a late night meal (way after the
>>> theater - something like 3AM), when it's too late for dinner and too
>>> early for breakfast.
>>>
>> It's never too late for breakfast.
>
> I normally skip breakfast and have brunch instead. Two meals a day is
> usually plenty for me.
>
Call it whatever you like. If I want to eat scrambled eggs and bacon
and waffles at night I'll do so. I don't tend to eat anything at 3AM.
I'm generally asleep then.

Jill

On 7/30/2015 11:48 AM, Sal Paradise wrote:
> On 7/30/2015 3:43 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 5:22:17 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I always thought chicken & waffles originated in Pennsylvania.
>>>
>>> I watched some food show on the Travel Channel. Evidently it was
>>> invented by some black mama in the deep south that started a
>>> restaurant. Soul food.
>>>
>>> The fried chicken sounds good and the waffles sound good but together,
>>> it just sounds like a gimmick to me. Same as "surf and turf" - two
>>> good meals combined in a wrong manner.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine eating waffles without maple syrup. I also can't
>>>> imagine eating fried chicken with syrup anywhere near it.
>>>
>>> I would enjoy both as seperate meals. Combined is just a fad gimmick
>>> combo, imo.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've lived in the south since I was a teenager and have never
>>>> encountered fried chicken & waffles.
>>>
>>> Only recently invented. I'll bet sf can't find that heinous combo in
>>> the bay area.
>>
>> Chicken and waffles is trending so that's like betting that the SF bay
>> is not a trendy place. This would be a shaky proposition - kinda like
>> living in SF.
>>
> Ha!
>
> Great pun ;-)

There was a couple of bad ones when we lived there. Of course, to the
locals, the quakes were barely noticeable. Mostly, they remember the
ones where the freeway collapses or most of the state slides into the
Pacific.

On 7/30/2015 6:03 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 7/30/2015 11:48 AM, Sal Paradise wrote:
>> On 7/30/2015 3:43 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 5:22:17 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I always thought chicken & waffles originated in Pennsylvania.
>>>>
>>>> I watched some food show on the Travel Channel. Evidently it was
>>>> invented by some black mama in the deep south that started a
>>>> restaurant. Soul food.
>>>>
>>>> The fried chicken sounds good and the waffles sound good but together,
>>>> it just sounds like a gimmick to me. Same as "surf and turf" - two
>>>> good meals combined in a wrong manner.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine eating waffles without maple syrup. I also can't
>>>>> imagine eating fried chicken with syrup anywhere near it.
>>>>
>>>> I would enjoy both as seperate meals. Combined is just a fad gimmick
>>>> combo, imo.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've lived in the south since I was a teenager and have never
>>>>> encountered fried chicken & waffles.
>>>>
>>>> Only recently invented. I'll bet sf can't find that heinous combo in
>>>> the bay area.
>>>
>>> Chicken and waffles is trending so that's like betting that the SF bay
>>> is not a trendy place. This would be a shaky proposition - kinda like
>>> living in SF.
>>>
>> Ha!
>>
>> Great pun ;-)
>
> There was a couple of bad ones when we lived there. Of course, to the
> locals, the quakes were barely noticeable. Mostly, they remember the
> ones where the freeway collapses or most of the state slides into the
> Pacific.


I still get the creeps from that one during the World Series back in '89.

Even on TV that was bad medicine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ExMR0c0aM

.... a much younger Al Michaels...

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/30/2015 3:56 PM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:49:14 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:34:37 -0400, Boron Elgar
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:16:54 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/30/2015 6:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, I'd never heard of chicken and waffles until just a few years
>>>>>> ago, when I saw it on some television program. I'm not sure I've
>>>>>> ever seen it on a menu hereabouts, but that might just be a memory
>>>>>> lapse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>>
>>>>> I always thought chicken & waffles originated in Pennsylvania.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine eating waffles without maple syrup. I also can't
>>>>> imagine eating fried chicken with syrup anywhere near it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've lived in the south since I was a teenager and have never
>>>>> encountered fried chicken & waffles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>> http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/...ied-as-its-own
>>>
>>> I don't care which coast it started on, I like chicken & waffles!
>>> It's one of those "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" type things.
>>> I wasn't sure how well chicken and maple syrup would go together, but
>>> it turned out to be delicious.
>>
>> So how many calories are in it ?
>>
> Uh... I don't think people who eat fried chicken and waffles care.
>
> Jill

No reason to care if it's a once in awhile treat.

Cheri

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-5, Sal Paradise wrote:
> On 7/30/2015 5:01 AM, graham wrote:
> The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense
> founded on the Christian religion
>
> Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by
> asserting that the United States government derived from Christian
> foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian
> nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.
>
> Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many
> believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding
> Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held
> to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.

Most of the population was Christian, but most of the most influential
*Founding Fathers* seemed to be pretty Deistic. Most folks of all
persuasions were distrustful of Theocracy, and committed to religious
liberty.

Read this quote. It is from a Christian website:

"The year 1790 ushered in a new era of revivals for the United States. Religion had sadly declined during the previous years. Unitarianism had gained much ground, and infidel philosophy was poisoning the minds of millions of people.

At this time there were no American Missionary societies, no Bible societies, no Tract societies, no Education societies. At home--religious indifference; abroad--the darkness of death over the heathen world.

In 1790 there were extensive revivals in Pennsylvania and Virginia. 'At this time,' says Dr. Griffin, 'began the unbroken series of American revivals.' In New England, during four or five years, about one hundred and fifty churches were blessed with Revivals."

source-- http://www.revival-library.org/catal...ory/allen.html

The founding of this nation occurred at a low ebb of Christianity, with Deism
and Unitarianism (some might call those the same thing) being popular,
especially among the leaders. Christianity has waxed and waned numerous times
over the past 250 years in America, and some revivals have involved increases
in theocratic mindsets.

The same website also describes a revival in the late 1850s, and there is
little doubt that the abolition of slavery was hastened by the religiosity
that swept the North. Most hardcore abolitionists were Christian zealots,
including John Brown.

This is an interesting Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...braham_Lincoln

--Bryan

On 7/30/2015 7:01 PM, MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-5, Sal Paradise wrote:
>> On 7/30/2015 5:01 AM, graham wrote:
>> The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense
>> founded on the Christian religion
>>
>> Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by
>> asserting that the United States government derived from Christian
>> foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian
>> nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.
>>
>> Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many
>> believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding
>> Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held
>> to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.
>
> Most of the population was Christian, but most of the most influential
> *Founding Fathers* seemed to be pretty Deistic.

No.

You are LYING.

Again.

> Most folks of all
> persuasions were distrustful of Theocracy,

I don't give a flying **** what YOU have to say on the matter.

You're a craven LIAR!

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...2-02-2011.html

http://www.str.org/articles/the-faith-of-our-fathers

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/...info/deism.htm

http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-...ianity-1272214

Scholars trained in research universities have generally argued that the
majority of the Founders were religious rationalists or Unitarians.
Pastors and other writers who identify themselves as Evangelicals have
claimed not only that most of the Founders held orthodox beliefs but
also that some were born-again Christians.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:26:47 -0300, wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:50:52 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:04:51 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:56:04 -0600, Janet B >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:53:52 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:23:22 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 29 Jul 2015 00:20:23 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2015-07-29, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plus wild duck too notbob <G>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We see a few common mergansers and mallards in the Winter, but little
>>>>>>>else. Not sure what the hunting regs are. Not typical duck hunting
>>>>>>>territory. Heck, I don't even own a shotgun, anymore. Well, I don't
>>>>>>>count my Ithaca Featherweight sawed-off I keep loaded fer bear. 8|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wonder what a bear steak would taste like?
>>>>>
>>>>>Rather like a rich beef steak, on a par with moose.
>>>>>
>>>>I think it has something to do with what the moose and the bear have
>>>>been eating. For me, the bear meat is sweet and somewhat fatty.
>>>>Janet US
>>>
>>>Well could be and again the time at which it is killed would make a
>>>difference too. Our black bears are eating berries in summer but not
>>>when it is legal to hunt them. Of course the moose like berries too
>>>
>>
>>I take it the bear population must be stable, if hunting is permitted?
>>That's one animal I might have a bit of trouble killing (unless I was
>>in danger, of course).
>
>It was more stable in NS than they realized. My son is Coast Guard
>and works one week on, one week off, his second love is the woods and
>all that therein is. With permission he put some barrels back in the
>woods filled with windfalls.

Windfalls being apples or other fruit?

>Then he set up cameras triggered by
>motion. I couldn't believe what happened lol Neither could Dept of
>Natural Resources. They doubled their estimation of how many bears
>were in the woods around his area. In the end he would be there
>filling the barrels and within less than a minute of leaving, the
>bears would descend arguing over the apples

Heh, so they're obviously not endangered

I also have a few cameras like that, I always have them set in certain
places in the bush. It's amazing the amount of wildlife it captures. I
put one facing a track, and in a week it captured hundreds of animals.
Tasmanian devils, kangaroos, wallabies, wombats, rabbits, deer, feral
cats, possums and miscellaneous birds. Been doing that for about a
year, and still get a kick out of going through the pics.

>I believe you need a permit, over and above a hunting licence, to kill
>one bear but really am not sure. The hunting bit is what we avoid
>talking about - I will never see it his way.

Yeah. Some animals I just won't kill. At the very least they need to
be for food or be a feral animal, such as cats. The latter is never
easy for me, as I really love cats. The feral cats cause a lot of
harm, so... I doubt I could kill a bear though.

"sf" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:
> ---
> http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
> "dsi1" wrote in message ...
>
> On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
> >
> > "William" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
> >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
> >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
> >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried it
> >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
> >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell food
> >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to mankind.
> >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't see
> >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
> >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
> >>
> >> William
> >
> > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
> > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
> > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
> >
> > Cheri
>
> Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
> entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
> Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
> chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
> fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
>
> ===========
>
> Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
>
>
You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
of tempura (which is a batter)?

==========================================

No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including breaded
but ...

Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked so
much. From memory it had a greasy coating.




---
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> "sf" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>> ---
>> http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
>> "dsi1" wrote in message ...
>>
>> On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> >
>> > "William" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
>> >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
>> >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
>> >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried it
>> >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
>> >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell food
>> >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to mankind.
>> >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't see
>> >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
>> >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
>> >>
>> >> William
>> >
>> > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
>> > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
>> > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
>> >
>> > Cheri
>>
>> Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
>> entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
>> Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
>> chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
>> fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
>>
>> ===========
>>
>> Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
>>
>>
> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>
> ==========================================
>
> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including
> breaded but ...
>
> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked so
> much. From memory it had a greasy coating.

When I was a kid, they only had it with a coating. Whether that is batter
or breading, I do not know. I never liked fried chicken and would not eat
it. These days you can get it with no breading but it is not gluten free.

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:16:33 PM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "sf" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
> > ---
> > http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
> > "dsi1" wrote in message ...
> >
> > On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
> > >
> > > "William" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
> > >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
> > >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
> > >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried it
> > >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
> > >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell food
> > >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to mankind.
> > >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't see
> > >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
> > >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
> > >>
> > >> William
> > >
> > > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
> > > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
> > > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
> > >
> > > Cheri
> >
> > Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
> > entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
> > Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
> > chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
> > fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
> >
> >
> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>
> ==========================================
>
> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including breaded
> but ...
>
> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked so
> much. From memory it had a greasy coating.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk


As I recall, it's dipped in a batter and then dusted with flour. That's for the original recipe. I believe that the extra crispy might be dredged in flour, then dipped in a batter. The "grilled" chicken is blasted with hot air and is a new process for cooking chicken. It looks kind of dry but it ain't bad at all.

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:07:31 PM UTC-10, Sal Paradise wrote:
> On 7/30/2015 6:03 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On 7/30/2015 11:48 AM, Sal Paradise wrote:
> >> On 7/30/2015 3:43 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 5:22:17 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> >>>> jmcquown wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I always thought chicken & waffles originated in Pennsylvania.
> >>>>
> >>>> I watched some food show on the Travel Channel. Evidently it was
> >>>> invented by some black mama in the deep south that started a
> >>>> restaurant. Soul food.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fried chicken sounds good and the waffles sound good but together,
> >>>> it just sounds like a gimmick to me. Same as "surf and turf" - two
> >>>> good meals combined in a wrong manner.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't imagine eating waffles without maple syrup. I also can't
> >>>>> imagine eating fried chicken with syrup anywhere near it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would enjoy both as seperate meals. Combined is just a fad gimmick
> >>>> combo, imo.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've lived in the south since I was a teenager and have never
> >>>>> encountered fried chicken & waffles.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only recently invented. I'll bet sf can't find that heinous combo in
> >>>> the bay area.
> >>>
> >>> Chicken and waffles is trending so that's like betting that the SF bay
> >>> is not a trendy place. This would be a shaky proposition - kinda like
> >>> living in SF.
> >>>
> >> Ha!
> >>
> >> Great pun ;-)
> >
> > There was a couple of bad ones when we lived there. Of course, to the
> > locals, the quakes were barely noticeable. Mostly, they remember the
> > ones where the freeway collapses or most of the state slides into the
> > Pacific.
>
>
> I still get the creeps from that one during the World Series back in '89.
>
> Even on TV that was bad medicine.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ExMR0c0aM
>
> ... a much younger Al Michaels...

It's hard to believe that Al Michaels used to be a sportscaster on this little rock. He got to the bigs from the minor-est of the minors.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "sf" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
> > ---
> > http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
> > "dsi1" wrote in message ...
> >
> > On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
> > >
> > > "William" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
> > >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
> > >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
> > >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried it
> > >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
> > >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell food
> > >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to mankind.
> > >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't see
> > >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
> > >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
> > >>
> > >> William
> > >
> > > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
> > > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
> > > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
> > >
> > > Cheri
> >
> > Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
> > entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
> > Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
> > chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
> > fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
> >
> >
> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>
> ==========================================
>
> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including breaded
> but ...
>
> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked so
> much. From memory it had a greasy coating.

Tempura battered chicken is pretty good but mainly for thick strips of
meat, not pieces with bone. I don't batter my chicken at home.

I worked at a KFC the summer of 1971. I speak for them then, don't
know what they do now.

Back then, it was not batter. It was dipped in a milk/egg wash then
coated with flour that contained all the spices. I don't remember if
it was rolled in the flour first? Probably was just to keep the
coating on. Then they were deep fried in large pressure cookers.

When done, they were drained on a rack and they stayed on a rack in
the "hot box" until served.

G.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> As I recall, it's dipped in a batter and then dusted with flour. That's for the original recipe.

It wasn't a batter - just a mix of egg and milk.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:16:12 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

> "sf" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
> > ---
> > http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
> > "dsi1" wrote in message ...
> >
> > On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
> > >
> > > "William" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
> > >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
> > >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
> > >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried it
> > >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
> > >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell food
> > >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to mankind.
> > >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't see
> > >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
> > >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
> > >>
> > >> William
> > >
> > > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
> > > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
> > > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
> > >
> > > Cheri
> >
> > Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
> > entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
> > Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
> > chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
> > fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
> >
> >
> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>
> ==========================================
>
> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including breaded
> but ...
>
> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked so
> much.
>
Can't tell you. KFC has gone through its ups and downs. You probably
tried it during a down period after the Colonel sold it but was still
involved to some extent. I know at one time he was so upset about the
downturn in quality that he took more control for a time. He's dead
now and I don't care.

> From memory it had a greasy coating.

That has nothing to do with the coating and everything to do with the
temperature of the cooking oil.

--

sf

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "sf" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
> > ---
> > http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
> > "dsi1" wrote in message ...
> >
> > On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
> > >
> > > "William" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
> > >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
> > >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
> > >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried
> > >> it
> > >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
> > >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell
> > >> food
> > >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to
> > >> mankind.
> > >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't
> > >> see
> > >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
> > >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
> > >>
> > >> William
> > >
> > > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
> > > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
> > > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
> > >
> > > Cheri
> >
> > Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
> > entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
> > Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
> > chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
> > fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
> >
> >
> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>
> ==========================================
>
> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including
> breaded
> but ...
>
> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked so
> much. From memory it had a greasy coating.

Tempura battered chicken is pretty good but mainly for thick strips of
meat, not pieces with bone. I don't batter my chicken at home.

I worked at a KFC the summer of 1971. I speak for them then, don't
know what they do now.

Back then, it was not batter. It was dipped in a milk/egg wash then
coated with flour that contained all the spices. I don't remember if
it was rolled in the flour first? Probably was just to keep the
coating on. Then they were deep fried in large pressure cookers.

When done, they were drained on a rack and they stayed on a rack in
the "hot box" until served.

============================

Whatever it was, it put me off and I never went back.

---
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:47:27 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:16:12 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>wrote:
>
>> "sf" wrote in message ...
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>> > ---
>> > http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
>> > "dsi1" wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "William" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
>> > >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
>> > >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
>> > >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried
>> > >> it
>> > >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
>> > >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell
>> > >> food
>> > >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to
>> > >> mankind.
>> > >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't
>> > >> see
>> > >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
>> > >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
>> > >>
>> > >> William
>> > >
>> > > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
>> > > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
>> > > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
>> > >
>> > > Cheri
>> >
>> > Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
>> > entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
>> > Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
>> > chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
>> > fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
>> >
>> > ===========
>> >
>> > Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
>> >
>> >
>> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
>> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including
>> breaded
>> but ...
>>
>> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked
>> so
>> much.
>>
>Can't tell you. KFC has gone through its ups and downs.

How can you tell the difference between a horrible joint that's having
an up and a horrible joint that's having a down?

===========================

Good question)

---
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Janet B" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:08:19 -0300, wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:37:19 -0400, jmcquown >
>wrote:
>
>>On 7/30/2015 11:23 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> Only recently invented. I'll bet sf can't find that heinous combo in
>>> the bay area.
>>
>>She probably could if she looked hard enough. It's all about blame
>>everything on on the South. Because we all eat the same way.
>>Meanwhile, everyone on the west coasts eats edamame (another word for
>>soybeans) because she doesn't like limas. Heh.
>>
>>Jill
>
>Well after all this talk about fried chicken, I am going to cook fried
>chicken leg tonight but definitely without the waffles. I can't
>imagine anymore fattening combo than that and not even appealing.
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I don't understand how it is to be eaten. I wish someone would show
that on their program. Do you take a piece of chicken and place it on
a piece of waffle? The combo is so foreign to me that I can't figure
out the way it is to be eaten.

===============

lol I can't get my head round it either) The concept seems very strange
<g>


---
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

wrote in message ...

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:01:56 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:08:19 -0300, wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:37:19 -0400, jmcquown >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/30/2015 11:23 AM, Gary wrote:
>>>> Only recently invented. I'll bet sf can't find that heinous combo in
>>>> the bay area.
>>>
>>>She probably could if she looked hard enough. It's all about blame
>>>everything on on the South. Because we all eat the same way.
>>>Meanwhile, everyone on the west coasts eats edamame (another word for
>>>soybeans) because she doesn't like limas. Heh.
>>>
>>>Jill
>>
>>Well after all this talk about fried chicken, I am going to cook fried
>>chicken leg tonight but definitely without the waffles. I can't
>>imagine anymore fattening combo than that and not even appealing.
>>
>>---
>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>I don't understand how it is to be eaten. I wish someone would show
>that on their program. Do you take a piece of chicken and place it on
>a piece of waffle? The combo is so foreign to me that I can't figure
>out the way it is to be eaten.
>Janet US

I envisioned a piece of fried chicken, sitting on the waffle with
syrup poured over it. I likely will do a piece of corn with mine, not
sure yet.

============

Syrup huh????



---
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Jeßus wrote:
>
>Yeah. Some animals I just won't kill. At the very least they need to
>be for food or be a feral animal, such as cats. The latter is never
>easy for me, as I really love cats. The feral cats cause a lot of
>harm, so... I doubt I could kill a bear though.

Besides ridding property of rodent vermin what harm do feral cats do?
On the other hand bears are extremly destructive, and dangerous...
around here black bears don't ring the doorbell to be admitted,
instead they bust down a wall, leave food or even its aroma in your
vehicle and they enter through the sheet metal like a can opener only
not nearly so neatly. Beekeeper dread bears, they'll destroy every
hive. No garden fence will keep a bear from your produce. Bird
feeders have hardly a chance. I feed birds by tossing seed directly
on the ground about fifty feet from shrubs, trees, fences, or any kind
of cover and the ferals can't sneak up on them.

On 7/31/2015 3:16 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "sf" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>> ---
>> http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
>> "dsi1" wrote in message ...
>>
>> On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> >
>> > "William" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
>> >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
>> >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
>> >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried it
>> >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
>> >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell food
>> >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to mankind.
>> >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't see
>> >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
>> >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
>> >>
>> >> William
>> >
>> > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
>> > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
>> > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
>> >
>> > Cheri
>>
>> Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
>> entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
>> Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
>> chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
>> fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
>>
>> ===========
>>
>> Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
>>
>>
> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>
> ==========================================
>
> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including
> breaded but ...
>
> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked
> so much. From memory it had a greasy coating.

The do, but it doesn't any more.

It's anything BUT greasy.

On 7/31/2015 3:48 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:07:31 PM UTC-10, Sal Paradise wrote:
>> On 7/30/2015 6:03 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2015 11:48 AM, Sal Paradise wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2015 3:43 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 5:22:17 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
>>>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always thought chicken & waffles originated in Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I watched some food show on the Travel Channel. Evidently it was
>>>>>> invented by some black mama in the deep south that started a
>>>>>> restaurant. Soul food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fried chicken sounds good and the waffles sound good but together,
>>>>>> it just sounds like a gimmick to me. Same as "surf and turf" - two
>>>>>> good meals combined in a wrong manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't imagine eating waffles without maple syrup. I also can't
>>>>>>> imagine eating fried chicken with syrup anywhere near it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would enjoy both as seperate meals. Combined is just a fad gimmick
>>>>>> combo, imo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've lived in the south since I was a teenager and have never
>>>>>>> encountered fried chicken & waffles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only recently invented. I'll bet sf can't find that heinous combo in
>>>>>> the bay area.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chicken and waffles is trending so that's like betting that the SF bay
>>>>> is not a trendy place. This would be a shaky proposition - kinda like
>>>>> living in SF.
>>>>>
>>>> Ha!
>>>>
>>>> Great pun ;-)
>>>
>>> There was a couple of bad ones when we lived there. Of course, to the
>>> locals, the quakes were barely noticeable. Mostly, they remember the
>>> ones where the freeway collapses or most of the state slides into the
>>> Pacific.
>>
>>
>> I still get the creeps from that one during the World Series back in '89.
>>
>> Even on TV that was bad medicine.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ExMR0c0aM
>>
>> ... a much younger Al Michaels...
>
> It's hard to believe that Al Michaels used to be a sportscaster on this little rock. He got to the bigs from the minor-est of the minors.
>
I did not know that.

Interesting!

On 7/31/2015 7:47 AM, sf wrote:
>> From memory it had a greasy coating.
> That has nothing to do with the coating and everything to do with the
> temperature of the cooking oil.
>
> --
Precisely!

On 7/31/2015 7:58 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:47:27 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:16:12 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "sf" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
>>> > wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>> http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
>>>> "dsi1" wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "William" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
>>>>>> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
>>>>>> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
>>>>>> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried it
>>>>>> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
>>>>>> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell food
>>>>>> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to mankind.
>>>>>> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't see
>>>>>> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
>>>>>> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> William
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
>>>>> wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
>>>>> pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>> Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
>>>> entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
>>>> Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
>>>> chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
>>>> fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
>>>>
>>>> ===========
>>>>
>>>> Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
>>> of tempura (which is a batter)?
>>>
>>> ==========================================
>>>
>>> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including breaded
>>> but ...
>>>
>>> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked so
>>> much.
>>>
>> Can't tell you. KFC has gone through its ups and downs.
>
> How can you tell the difference between a horrible joint that's having
> an up and a horrible joint that's having a down?
>
Read the reviews!

Sheesh.

On 7/31/2015 5:14 AM, Directorate of Troll Removal and Disposal wrote:

Barbara J. Llorente FRAUD!

Barbara J Llorente 71 Cerritos Ave San Francisco, CA 94127.
Age 65 (Born 1950) (415) 239-7248. Background Check - Available. Record
ID: 47846596.

Your ass has more mass than Jupiter!

No one cares about you.

Get OUT!


_,..._
/__ \
>< `. \
/_ \ |
\-_ /:|
,--'..'. :
,' `.
_,' \
_.._,--'' , |
, ,',, _| _,.'| | |
\\||/,'(,' '--'' | | |
_ ||| | /-' |
| | (- -)<`._ | / /
| | \_\O/_/`-.(<< |____/ /
| | / \ / -'| `--.'|
| | \___/ / /
| | H H / | |
|_|_..-H-H--.._ / ,| |
|-.._"_"__..-| | _-/ | |
| | | | \_ |
Barbara Llorente | | | | |
| The | |____| | |
|Troll Enabler | _..' | |____|
jrei | |_(____..._' _.' |
`-..______..-'"" (___..--'

On 7/30/2015 5:01 AM, graham wrote:
> On 29/07/2015 4:50 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
The U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 8:11 AM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 8:40 AM, Bruce wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 12:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 3:43 PM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 11:52 PM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/31/2015 10:50 AM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On 7/30/2015 11:56 PM, Cheri wrote:
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-6, Sal Paradise wrote:
> On 7/30/2015 3:43 PM, Cheri wrote:
> The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
> and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
> a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
> Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
> Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
> U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
> the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
> more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
> come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
> purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
>
> Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
> Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
> Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
> 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
>
> Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> [bold caps, mine]
>
> Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
> January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
> Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
> Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
> between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
> States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
> our Founding Fathers.
>
> If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
> State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
> their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
> religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
> more churches than Seven-Elevens.
>
> Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
> wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
> eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
> secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
> religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
> atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
> regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

Who cares?

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 12:30:17 PM UTC-6, Sal Paradise wrote:
> On 7/30/2015 11:52 PM, Cheri wrote:
> The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America
> and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms
> a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity,
> Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the
> Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The
> U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in
> the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a
> more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not
> come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers
> purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
>
> Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of
> Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
> Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the
> 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
>
> Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> [bold caps, mine]
>
> Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his
> January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist
> Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
> Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation
> between religion and government in the Constitution of the United
> States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from
> our Founding Fathers.
>
> If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
> State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
> their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of
> religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have
> more churches than Seven-Elevens.
>
> Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the
> wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully
> eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no
> secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other
> religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows
> atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
> regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

Who cares?

On 8/1/2015 4:33 AM, Roy wrote:
As Jeb Bush prepares for his imminent presidential campaign, the
American people must keep in mind just who this man is and the crimes he
committed rigging the 2000 presidential election, which put his brother
George W. in the Oval Office, set us on the road to the Iraq War, the
Great Recession, destroyed America’s standing in the world, altered
American history forever.

Jeb Bush just so happened to be the Governor of Florida during that
election, and as you may recall, the Florida vote was so close that
recounts were requested and eventually declared his brother the winner.
Katherine Harris, Jeb’s secretary of state and the co-chair of the
George W. campaign, organized the election system that somehow ended up
losing or spoiling the ballots of hundreds of thousands of
African-American voters, who just so coincidentally tend to vote
Democratic. During the recount period, it is documented that the
Governor’s office made 95 calls to the Bush campaign- calls which Jeb
somehow “cannot remember” the reason for. That answer is unacceptable
for allegations of such importance. Why can’t you remember, Jeb?

On 7/31/2015 12:33 PM, Roy wrote:
>> Keeping religion separate allows
>> >atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems,
>> >regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.
> Who cares?

Oh I know, I know!!

MArty does!

On 8/1/2015 4:33 AM, Roy wrote:
As Jeb Bush prepares for his imminent presidential campaign, the
American people must keep in mind just who this man is and the crimes he
committed rigging the 2000 presidential election, which put his brother
George W. in the Oval Office, set us on the road to the Iraq War, the
Great Recession, destroyed America’s standing in the world, altered
American history forever.

Jeb Bush just so happened to be the Governor of Florida during that
election, and as you may recall, the Florida vote was so close that
recounts were requested and eventually declared his brother the winner.
Katherine Harris, Jeb’s secretary of state and the co-chair of the
George W. campaign, organized the election system that somehow ended up
losing or spoiling the ballots of hundreds of thousands of
African-American voters, who just so coincidentally tend to vote
Democratic. During the recount period, it is documented that the
Governor’s office made 95 calls to the Bush campaign- calls which Jeb
somehow “cannot remember” the reason for. That answer is unacceptable
for allegations of such importance. Why can’t you remember, Jeb?

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:26:27 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

> "Bruce" wrote in message ...
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:47:27 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:16:12 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> "sf" wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
> >> > wrote:
> >> > ---
> >> > http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
> >> > "dsi1" wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> > On 7/29/2015 4:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "William" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > >
> >> > >> Thanks for the link Cindy, I really would enjoy finding fast food
> >> > >> fried chicken better than KFC. I read half way into that first
> >> > >> paragraph and the writer of that article lost all credibility. There
> >> > >> is a Popeye's Chicken Restaurant in my town. I went there and tried
> >> > >> it
> >> > >> one day. I took one bite and felt I should call the Police and the
> >> > >> health department to find out why this company is allowed to sell
> >> > >> food
> >> > >> in my town. A fried blob of every maximum hot pepper known to
> >> > >> mankind.
> >> > >> There is a certain demographic who frequent this place but I don't
> >> > >> see
> >> > >> how they can stay in business very long. I really don't think they
> >> > >> could capture half a percent of KFC's business.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> William
> >> > >
> >> > > Interesting. A new Popeye's opened up in our town and I have been
> >> > > wanting to try it, just haven't. Are you saying that the food is hot
> >> > > pepper like? I hate hot pepper spiced foods.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheri
> >> >
> >> > Popeye's is minor league material compared to the Korean and Chinese
> >> > entries as far as spiciness goes. My favorite fried chicken is Chicken
> >> > Alice's fried chicken. The technique used here is the marinate the
> >> > chicken in a batter and go straight from the marinating pan into the
> >> > fryer. This is a very fast way to do fried chicken.
> >> >
> >> > ===========
> >> >
> >> > Battering chicken is just ... wrong ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> You've never had beer battered chicken or maybe one with light coating
> >> of tempura (which is a batter)?
> >>
> >> ==========================================
> >>
> >> No and I don't want to. I prefer it cooked in many ways, including
> >> breaded
> >> but ...
> >>
> >> Does KFC batter their chicken??? If so I expect that is what I disliked
> >> so
> >> much.
> >>
> >Can't tell you. KFC has gone through its ups and downs.
>
> How can you tell the difference between a horrible joint that's having
> an up and a horrible joint that's having a down?
>
> ===========================
>
> Good question)
>

Don't forget that KFC wasn't always owned by a faceless corporation
and remember: stupid questions will get a stupid answer.

--

sf

On 7/31/2015 12:05 AM, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> As I recall, it's dipped in a batter and then dusted with flour. That's for the original recipe.
>
> It wasn't a batter - just a mix of egg and milk.
>

I think you're right about that. Boy, I could go for some that that
salty chicken right now!