In article >, says...
>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> > > Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > >
> > > - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > > - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> >
> > The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>
> Those barbarians! ;-D

At least we know how not to use "prescribe "

Janet UK

On 8/2/2015 2:04 AM, Sal Paradise 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 8/1/2015 8:34 AM, Xeno wrote:
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense
founded on the Christian religion

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.

On 8/2/2015 2:29 AM, Janet wrote:
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense
founded on the Christian religion

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 Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> sf wrote:
>> >
>> > Gary wrote:
>> > > Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>> > >
>> > > - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>> > > - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>> >
>> > The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>
>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>
> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>
> Janet UK
perhaps 'ascribe'?
Janet US

On 8/2/2015 4:11 AM, Janet B wrote:
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense
founded on the Christian religion

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 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>>>
>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>>
>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>>
>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>
>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>
>> Janet UK
> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> Janet US
>
Subscribe.

On 8/2/2015 4:58 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense
founded on the Christian religion

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.

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, says...
>>>>
>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>>>
>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>>
>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>>
>>> Janet UK
>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>> Janet US
>>
> Subscribe.



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

On 8/2/2015 5:09 AM, Ophelia wrote:
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense
founded on the Christian religion

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 Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> sf wrote:
>> >
>> > Gary wrote:
>> > > Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>> > >
>> > > - herb the spice was pronounced erb

Nope, only in the U.S. It's also one of the few that I can't stand
hearing.

>> > > - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>> >
>> > The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>
>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>
> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "

LOL. I love the irony, given the context

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:
>
>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article >, says...
> >>>>
> >>>> sf wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gary wrote:
> >>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> >>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> >>>
> >>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> >>>
> >>> Janet UK
> >> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> >> Janet US
> >>
> > Subscribe.
>

There was no mix up or typo. I used exactly the word I wanted to use.

--

sf

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
>> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >, says...
>>>>>
>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>>>
>>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>>>
>>>> Janet UK
>>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>>> Janet US
>>>
>> Subscribe.
>
>
I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
ascribe vs. subscribe.
Janet US

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >, says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>>>>
>>>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>>>>
>>>>> Janet UK
>>>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>>>>
>>> Subscribe.
>>
>>
>I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
>ascribe vs. subscribe.

IMO it should be 'ascribe'. 'Subscribe' doesnt quite work as well in
that context.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In article >, says...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> sf wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Gary wrote:
> > >>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > >>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > >>>
> > >>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > >>>
> > >>> Janet UK
> > >> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > >> Janet US
> > >>
> > > Subscribe.
> >
>
> There was no mix up or typo. I used exactly the word I wanted to use.

Only it was the wrong one. Barbaric education system you've got over
there..

Janet UK

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article >, says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sf wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gary wrote:
> >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> >>>>
> >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> >>>>
> >>>> Janet UK
> >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> >>> Janet US
> >>>
> >> Subscribe.
> >
> >
> I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
> ascribe vs. subscribe.
> Janet US

No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
of rules.

--

sf

Janet wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >>> In article >,
> > > says...
> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> sf wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>> Gary wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > > >>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > > > > >
> > > >>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > > > > >
> > > >>> Janet UK
> > > >> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > > >> Janet US
> > > > >
> > > > Subscribe.
> > >
> >
> > There was no mix up or typo. I used exactly the word I wanted to
> > use.
>
> Only it was the wrong one. Barbaric education system you've got
> over there..
>
> Janet UK

Janet UK, please get over the fact that the language and rules differ
depending on which side of the big pond you are on.



--

sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > >>>> In article >,
> > says...
> > > > > > >
> > >>>>> sf wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > >>>>>> Gary wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > > > > > > >
> > >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > > > > > >
> > >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > > > > >
> > >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > > > > >
> > >>>> Janet UK
> > >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > >>> Janet US
> > > > >
> > >> Subscribe.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
> > ascribe vs. subscribe.
> > Janet US
>
> No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
> of rules.

Ascribe in American english is the right one for the meaning. Means to
'follow a path'. Subscribe in US english indicates a stronger
affiliation to the point on no other view allowed.

Grin, subscribe is more a shoot to kill level term than was intended.

Carol


--

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In article >, says...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> sf wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Gary wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>> >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>> >>>>
>> >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Janet UK
>> >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>> >>> Janet US
>> >>>
>> >> Subscribe.
>> >
>> >
>> I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
>> ascribe vs. subscribe.
>> Janet US
>
> No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
> of rules.

wow

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:02:57 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> > > >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > >>>> In article >,
> > > says...
> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>> sf wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>>> Gary wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > > >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> Janet UK
> > > >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > > >>> Janet US
> > > > > >
> > > >> Subscribe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
> > > ascribe vs. subscribe.
> > > Janet US
> >
> > No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
> > of rules.
>
> Ascribe in American english is the right one for the meaning. Means to
> 'follow a path'. Subscribe in US english indicates a stronger
> affiliation to the point on no other view allowed.
>
> Grin, subscribe is more a shoot to kill level term than was intended.
>

I meant prescribe as in prescribed rules. Janet needs to educate
herself before she gets snotty with me.


--

sf

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:10:09 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>> >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> In article >, says...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> sf wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>> >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Janet UK
>>> >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>>> >>> Janet US
>>> >>>
>>> >> Subscribe.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
>>> ascribe vs. subscribe.
>>> Janet US
>>
>> No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
>> of rules.
>
>wow

I hope she wasn't an English teacher

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:02:57 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>> > On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>> > > >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > >>>> In article >,
>> > > says...
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >>>>> sf wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >>>>>> Gary wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>> > > >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>> > > > > > >
>> > > >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>> > > > > > >
>> > > >>>> Janet UK
>> > > >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>> > > >>> Janet US
>> > > > > >
>> > > >> Subscribe.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
>> > > ascribe vs. subscribe.
>> > > Janet US
>> >
>> > No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
>> > of rules.
>>
>> Ascribe in American english is the right one for the meaning. Means to
>> 'follow a path'. Subscribe in US english indicates a stronger
>> affiliation to the point on no other view allowed.
>>
>> Grin, subscribe is more a shoot to kill level term than was intended.
>>
>
> I meant prescribe as in prescribed rules. Janet needs to educate
> herself before she gets snotty with me.
>
>
> --
>
> sf

The first thing I do when I think someone has used the wrong word is to look
it up. sf is correct in her usage.

"Janet B" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >, says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>>>>
>>>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>>>>
>>>>> Janet UK
>>>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>> Subscribe.
>>
>>
> I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
> ascribe vs. subscribe.

"The reason that "subscribe" means to agree with or to give assent to in
these sentences is that one of the word's meanings is to sign underneath
("sub-scribe")--as, for example when one signs one's name to a petition to
indicate agreement with the text of the petition.

If you are not sure about whether to use "ascribe" or "subscribe" in a given
sentence, try substituting the word "credit" or "attribute" for "ascribe."
If the sentence doesn't make sense with either of those words, then
"ascribe" is not the word you want."

http://grammartips.homestead.com/ascribe.html






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

In article >, cshenk1
@cox.net says...
>
> Janet wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> > > > >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > says...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> sf wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>>> Gary wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > > > >>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > > > > > >
> > > > >>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > > > > > >
> > > > >>> Janet UK
> > > > >> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > > > >> Janet US
> > > > > >
> > > > > Subscribe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There was no mix up or typo. I used exactly the word I wanted to
> > > use.
> >
> > Only it was the wrong one. Barbaric education system you've got
> > over there..
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> Janet UK, please get over the fact that the language and rules differ
> depending on which side of the big pond you are on.

Check your own American dictionary; it won't support SF's usage.

Janet UK

On 2015-08-01 9:54 PM, Bruce wrote:

>>> I meant prescribe as in prescribed rules. Janet needs to educate
>>> herself before she gets snotty with me.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> sf
>>
>> The first thing I do when I think someone has used the wrong word is to look
>> it up. sf is correct in her usage.
>
> Link or it didn't happen.
>

It is only in certain forums that people will argue until they are blue
in the face when they are wrong and too stupid to admit it and too
incompetent to check for themselves, especially when it is common
knowledge to so many people... smarter people I guess.

On 2015-08-01 8:13 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:02:57 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>>>>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Janet UK
>>>>>>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subscribe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
>>>> ascribe vs. subscribe.
>>>> Janet US
>>>
>>> No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
>>> of rules.
>>
>> Ascribe in American english is the right one for the meaning. Means to
>> 'follow a path'. Subscribe in US english indicates a stronger
>> affiliation to the point on no other view allowed.
>>
>> Grin, subscribe is more a shoot to kill level term than was intended.
>>
>
> I meant prescribe as in prescribed rules. Janet needs to educate
> herself before she gets snotty with me.
>
>


No. It is prescribe as in to set down in writing. Subscribe is to
sanction or agree too. Ascribe is to credit or assign cause to. In
reference to the the "h" not being pronounced in the word "herb" you
said that the Brits don't prescribe to that. If you had said they do no
prescribe that you would would have had some wiggle room, but the use of
"to" was a major error. Someone else suggested that you meant to use
"ascribe" which would have been incorrect because that means to assign
credit or cause to.

Everyone I know here with an English background pronounces the "herb".
The French can be excused because the French is not pronounced in their
language.

On 02/08/2015 7:11 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> Everyone I know here with an English background pronounces the "herb".
> The French can be excused because the French is not pronounced in their
> language.
>
>
And in their case it is pronounced "airb"
Graham
--
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy wine,
which is kind of the same thing".

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:16:02 +0100, Janet > wrote:

> In article >, cshenk1
> @cox.net says...
> >
> > Janet wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > says...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> sf wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> Gary wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > > > > >>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>> Janet UK
> > > > > >> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > > > > >> Janet US
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Subscribe.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was no mix up or typo. I used exactly the word I wanted to
> > > > use.
> > >
> > > Only it was the wrong one. Barbaric education system you've got
> > > over there..
> > >
> > > Janet UK
> >
> > Janet UK, please get over the fact that the language and rules differ
> > depending on which side of the big pond you are on.
>
> Check your own American dictionary; it won't support SF's usage.
>
> Janet UK

A simple Google search most certainly does:

state authoritatively or as a rule that (an action or procedure)
should be carried out.

"rules prescribing five acts for a play are purely arbitrary"

synonyms: stipulate, lay down, dictate, specify, determine,
establish, fix

"rules prescribing your duty"

--

sf

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:54:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2015-08-01 9:54 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> >>> I meant prescribe as in prescribed rules. Janet needs to educate
> >>> herself before she gets snotty with me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> sf
> >>
> >> The first thing I do when I think someone has used the wrong word is to look
> >> it up. sf is correct in her usage.
> >
> > Link or it didn't happen.
> >
>
> It is only in certain forums that people will argue until they are blue
> in the face when they are wrong and too stupid to admit it and too
> incompetent to check for themselves, especially when it is common
> knowledge to so many people... smarter people I guess.

Google: prescribe.

--

sf

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:10:09 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>>> >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> In article >, says...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> sf wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>> >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Janet UK
>>>> >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
>>>> >>> Janet US
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> Subscribe.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
>>>> ascribe vs. subscribe.
>>>> Janet US
>>>
>>> No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
>>> of rules.
>>
>>wow
>
> I hope she wasn't an English teacher

She wasn't any kind of teacher. She was a hospital cleaner and used to
complain bitterly about having to clean bed pans.

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

Ophelia wrote:
>
> She wasn't any kind of teacher. She was a hospital cleaner and used to
> complain bitterly about having to clean bed pans.

Wow. Listen to yourself here lately Ophy.
"No more Mr. Mister Nice Guy (girl)"
You might turn into another fun to read poster here.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> She wasn't any kind of teacher. She was a hospital cleaner and used to
>> complain bitterly about having to clean bed pans.
>
> Wow. Listen to yourself here lately Ophy.
> "No more Mr. Mister Nice Guy (girl)"
> You might turn into another fun to read poster here.

I am thinking about it. That person (I refuse to call her a lady) has
followed me around for *many* *many* years and tried to drive me off usenet
with her vicious lies. It has only stopped now because she knows she is in
my kf and realises I don't give a damn anyway. I guess I am just about
fed up with her strutting around and putting good people down with her
'expert' knowledge. I guess it felt it was my turn today. She wasn't
always called the Google queen for nothing.

And now I have NOTHING more to say on this subject. Ok?



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

On 2015-08-02 10:02 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:54:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-01 9:54 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>>> I meant prescribe as in prescribed rules. Janet needs to educate
>>>>> herself before she gets snotty with me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> sf
>>>>
>>>> The first thing I do when I think someone has used the wrong word is to look
>>>> it up. sf is correct in her usage.
>>>
>>> Link or it didn't happen.
>>>
>>
>> It is only in certain forums that people will argue until they are blue
>> in the face when they are wrong and too stupid to admit it and too
>> incompetent to check for themselves, especially when it is common
>> knowledge to so many people... smarter people I guess.
>
> Google: prescribe.
>

You did not say that they prescribe it, meaning that is written down
somewhere as a rule . You said "The Brits don't prescribe to that." The
word should have been subscribe.... the Brits don't subscribe to that
(rule).

In article >,
says...
> > > > > > >>>>> Gary wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > > > > > >>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> Janet UK
> > > > > > >> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > > > > > >> Janet US
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Subscribe.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was no mix up or typo. I used exactly the word I wanted to
> > > > > use.
> > > >
> > > > Only it was the wrong one. Barbaric education system you've got
> > > > over there..
> > > >
> > > > Janet UK
> > >
> > > Janet UK, please get over the fact that the language and rules differ
> > > depending on which side of the big pond you are on.
> >
> > Check your own American dictionary; it won't support SF's usage.
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> A simple Google search most certainly does:
>
> state authoritatively or as a rule that (an action or procedure)
> should be carried out.
>
> "rules prescribing five acts for a play are purely arbitrary"
>
> synonyms: stipulate, lay down, dictate, specify, determine,
> establish, fix
>
> "rules prescribing your duty"

Now perhaps you'd care to describe those definitions in relation to
"The Brits don't prescribe to that"

Is it "The Brits don't stipulate to that"? The Brits don't state
authoritatively to that?"

You made an arse of yourself, best just wipe yourself down and flush.

Janet UK

In article >, says...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > She wasn't any kind of teacher. She was a hospital cleaner and used to
> > complain bitterly about having to clean bed pans.
>
> Wow. Listen to yourself here lately Ophy.
> "No more Mr. Mister Nice Guy (girl)"
> You might turn into another fun to read poster here.

You're seeing the real Pat in her true colours.

Janet UK

On 8/2/2015 8:59 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>> She wasn't any kind of teacher. She was a hospital cleaner and used to
>>> complain bitterly about having to clean bed pans.
>>
>> Wow. Listen to yourself here lately Ophy.
>> "No more Mr. Mister Nice Guy (girl)"
>> You might turn into another fun to read poster here.
>
> I am thinking about it. That person (I refuse to call her a lady) has
> followed me around for *many* *many* years and tried to drive me off usenet
> with her vicious lies. It has only stopped now because she knows she is in
> my kf and realises I don't give a damn anyway. I guess I am just about
> fed up with her strutting around and putting good people down with her
> 'expert' knowledge. I guess it felt it was my turn today. She wasn't
> always called the Google queen for nothing.
>
> And now I have NOTHING more to say on this subject. Ok?
>
>
>

Otay!

On 02/08/2015 10:35 AM, barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, sf wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 09:23:47 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> Janet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Only the USA speaks of an erb.
>>>>
>>>> Outside of the USA, English speakers aspirate the H in herb,
>>>> so they say a herb, just like a horse, a hospital etc.
>>>
>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>
>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>
>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>
> Where I'm from, it's "an herb", "an hour", anytime the" H" isn't sounded
> "hard" like in "horse", or ha ha. otherwise it's A home, a hospital, a
> humidor. or maybe it's always "an" when written before an "h" word? O h
> hell, someone help me out here....

No, it's "a herb".
"An hotel" is apparently a late nineteenth century affectation. "A
hotel" is perfectly OK.
Graham

--
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy wine,
which is kind of the same thing".

In article >,
says...
> >>>> >>>> Janet UK
> >>>> >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> >>>> >>> Janet US
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >> Subscribe.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
> >>>> ascribe vs. subscribe.
> >>>> Janet US
> >>>
> >>> No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
> >>> of rules.
> >>
> >>wow
> >
> > I hope she wasn't an English teacher

I was, I'm not sure what Barabara taught. But I hope it wasn't English
:-)


> She wasn't any kind of teacher. She was a hospital cleaner and used to
> complain bitterly about having to clean bed pans.

See, Ophelia, that's where you demonstrate all your longterm mental
problems. Can't follow a thread, barking up wrong tree again, paranoid
fantasy.

Janet UK.

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 02/08/2015 10:35 AM, barbie gee wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 09:23:47 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the USA speaks of an erb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Outside of the USA, English speakers aspirate the H in herb,
>>>>> so they say a herb, just like a horse, a hospital etc.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
>>>>
>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
>>>
>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
>>
>> Where I'm from, it's "an herb", "an hour", anytime the" H" isn't sounded
>> "hard" like in "horse", or ha ha. otherwise it's A home, a hospital, a
>> humidor. or maybe it's always "an" when written before an "h" word? O h
>> hell, someone help me out here....
>
> No, it's "a herb".
> "An hotel" is apparently a late nineteenth century affectation. "A hotel"
> is perfectly OK.
> Graham

Well as you know, that is how I say it, but I do accept others say thing
differently

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

On 8/3/2015 2:26 AM, Sal Paradise wrote:
FRAUD!


Get the **** out of here, you FRAUD son of a biotch troll!



Get out - stalker!


....dump!

____.-.____
[__Barbara__]
[___J.Llorente ___]
(d|||TROLL|||b)
`|||ENABLER|||`
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
`"""""""""'
\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//