.....we could tolerate the same old questions.

How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan? What's
the best chef's knife? Yada....?

Now, we seem to be fixated on who's a "troll". Who cares? I don't!
I jes KF 'em and all the "enablers" who encourage and respond to 'em.

No wonder Usenet is dying. You start letting "trolls" determine the
thread content and we'll all end up like alt.guitar.amps, where one
lone opinionated troll controls the entire newsgroup. It's already
beginning to happen in alt.home.repair, where some rfc'ers already
hang, and it's starting to happen here. Get a freakin' clue, ppl.
I'm jes hitting my "cooking" stride. I don't wanna hafta bail!

Only you can prevent trolls!!

nb

On 10/18/2017 2:42 PM, notbob wrote:
> ....we could tolerate the same old questions.
>
> How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan? What's
> the best chef's knife? Yada....?
>
> Now, we seem to be fixated on who's a "troll". Who cares? I don't!
> I jes KF 'em and all the "enablers" who encourage and respond to 'em.
>
> No wonder Usenet is dying. You start letting "trolls" determine the
> thread content and we'll all end up like alt.guitar.amps, where one
> lone opinionated troll controls the entire newsgroup. It's already
> beginning to happen in alt.home.repair, where some rfc'ers already
> hang, and it's starting to happen here. Get a freakin' clue, ppl.
> I'm jes hitting my "cooking" stride. I don't wanna hafta bail!
>
> Only you can prevent trolls!!
>
> nb
>

Good group tips, tnx!

On 10/18/2017 4:42 PM, notbob wrote:
> ....we could tolerate the same old questions.
>
> How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan? What's
> the best chef's knife? Yada....?
>
(snippage)

Usta be you typed and spelled like a normal person. I post and talk
about food all the time. Can't help thread drift. It's been around
longer than we have.

Jill

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>when a throng of posters add to the fray.

If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that thread. In my
software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".

On 10/18/2017 7:00 PM, Bruze wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>
> If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that thread. In my
> software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".
>

Bwuthie figures himself to be somewhat of a latter day machiavelli.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-4, Casa lo pensa wrote:
> On 10/18/2017 7:00 PM, Bruze wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
> >> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
> >> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
> >
> > If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that thread. In my
> > software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".
> >
>
> Bwuthie figures himself to be somewhat of a latter day machiavelli.

Perhaps, but he comes across like a two-year-old who has learned the
word "poop". If he gets a reaction every time he says it, he'll
keep saying it. We should just ignore his ingredients lists.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-4, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>> On 10/18/2017 7:00 PM, Bruze wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>> >> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>> >> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>> >
>> > If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that thread. In my
>> > software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".
>> >
>>
>> Bwuthie figures himself to be somewhat of a latter day machiavelli.
>
>Perhaps, but he comes across like a two-year-old who has learned the
>word "poop". If he gets a reaction every time he says it, he'll
>keep saying it. We should just ignore his ingredients lists.

Strange that ingredient lists, in a cooking newsgroup no less, are
more offensive than death threats and slander. That says more about
you than about me, Mrs Blind Faith In Science.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Wed 18 Oct 2017 01:42:28p, notbob told us...
>
>>
>> ....we could tolerate the same old questions.
>>
>> How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan?
>> What's the best chef's knife? Yada....?
>>
>> Now, we seem to be fixated on who's a "troll". Who cares? I
>> don't! I jes KF 'em and all the "enablers" who encourage and
>> respond to 'em.
>>
>> No wonder Usenet is dying. You start letting "trolls" determine
>> the thread content and we'll all end up like alt.guitar.amps,
>> where one lone opinionated troll controls the entire newsgroup.
>> It's already beginning to happen in alt.home.repair, where some
>> rfc'ers already hang, and it's starting to happen here. Get a
>> freakin' clue, ppl. I'm jes hitting my "cooking" stride. I don't
>> wanna hafta bail!
>>
>> Only you can prevent trolls!!
>>
>> nb
>>
>>
>
>I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>when a throng of posters add to the fray.

Judging by the sheer number of posts I think quiet times are in sight
anytime now

On 10/19/2017 4:34 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-4, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>> On 10/18/2017 7:00 PM, Bruze wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>>>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>>>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>>>
>>> If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that thread. In my
>>> software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".
>>>
>>
>> Bwuthie figures himself to be somewhat of a latter day machiavelli.
>
> Perhaps, but he comes across like a two-year-old who has learned the
> word "poop". If he gets a reaction every time he says it, he'll
> keep saying it. We should just ignore his ingredients lists.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

No argument there, it's a lame repeating one act play.

On 10/19/2017 4:41 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-4, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2017 7:00 PM, Bruze wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>>>>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>>>>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>>>>
>>>> If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that thread. In my
>>>> software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bwuthie figures himself to be somewhat of a latter day machiavelli.
>>
>> Perhaps, but he comes across like a two-year-old who has learned the
>> word "poop". If he gets a reaction every time he says it, he'll
>> keep saying it. We should just ignore his ingredients lists.
>
> Strange that ingredient lists, in a cooking newsgroup no less, are
> more offensive than death threats and slander. That says more about
> you than about me, Mrs Blind Faith In Science.
>


Go for it Bwuthie dear, make another enemy here to ad to your wall of
shame, you fairly FEED off such animus anyway.

On 10/19/2017 5:50 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed 18 Oct 2017 01:42:28p, notbob told us...
>>
>>>
>>> ....we could tolerate the same old questions.
>>>
>>> How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan?
>>> What's the best chef's knife? Yada....?
>>>
>>> Now, we seem to be fixated on who's a "troll". Who cares? I
>>> don't! I jes KF 'em and all the "enablers" who encourage and
>>> respond to 'em.
>>>
>>> No wonder Usenet is dying. You start letting "trolls" determine
>>> the thread content and we'll all end up like alt.guitar.amps,
>>> where one lone opinionated troll controls the entire newsgroup.
>>> It's already beginning to happen in alt.home.repair, where some
>>> rfc'ers already hang, and it's starting to happen here. Get a
>>> freakin' clue, ppl. I'm jes hitting my "cooking" stride. I don't
>>> wanna hafta bail!
>>>
>>> Only you can prevent trolls!!
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>
> Judging by the sheer number of posts I think quiet times are in sight
> anytime now
>

Brilliant!

On 10/19/2017 8:46 AM, l not -l wrote:
> On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-4, Casa lo
>>> pensa wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2017 7:00 PM, Bruze wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>>>>>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but
>>>>>> worse yet
>>>>>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that
>>>>> thread. In my
>>>>> software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bwuthie figures himself to be somewhat of a latter day
>>>> machiavelli.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but he comes across like a two-year-old who has
>>> learned the
>>> word "poop". If he gets a reaction every time he says it,
>>> he'll
>>> keep saying it. We should just ignore his ingredients lists.
>>
>> Strange that ingredient lists, in a cooking newsgroup no less,
>> are
>> more offensive than death threats and slander. That says more
>> about
>> you than about me, Mrs Blind Faith In Science.
> Perhaps it's just me; but, the offense is not the ingredient
> lists per se, it's the implication that we're dumbasses that
> can't or don't read packaging and know what we buy and consume.

Mmm hmmm.


> I always read labels on items I (plan to) purchase the first time
> and periodically review the items I do buy for changes. I
> compare nutrition facts and ingredient lists on competing
> products when available. IMO, your lists offend because the
> people you are trying to inform almost certainly don't give a
> damn or already have the information they need. You come across
> as the mother-in-law backseat driving on a very long trip.
>
> I offer this critique merely to inform.

Very well analyzed.

On 10/19/2017 7:50 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed 18 Oct 2017 01:42:28p, notbob told us...
>>
>>>
>>> ....we could tolerate the same old questions.
>>>
>>> How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan?
>>> What's the best chef's knife? Yada....?
>>>
>>> Now, we seem to be fixated on who's a "troll". Who cares? I
>>> don't! I jes KF 'em and all the "enablers" who encourage and
>>> respond to 'em.
>>>
>>> No wonder Usenet is dying. You start letting "trolls" determine
>>> the thread content and we'll all end up like alt.guitar.amps,
>>> where one lone opinionated troll controls the entire newsgroup.
>>> It's already beginning to happen in alt.home.repair, where some
>>> rfc'ers already hang, and it's starting to happen here. Get a
>>> freakin' clue, ppl. I'm jes hitting my "cooking" stride. I don't
>>> wanna hafta bail!
>>>
>>> Only you can prevent trolls!!
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>
> Judging by the sheer number of posts I think quiet times are in sight
> anytime now
>
Interesting that nb had to start a new post to complain about trolls.
Personally, I think this ng is too stubborn to die.

I don't have a problem with age-old questions. If I have an answer or a
suggestion I'll chime in.

What bugs me is the Google Groupers who answer a question (without
quoting or any context) asked 6-10 years ago then disappear. They
aren't necessarily trolls. They're just clueless.

Jill

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:19:49 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 10/19/2017 7:50 AM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 18 Oct 2017 01:42:28p, notbob told us...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ....we could tolerate the same old questions.
>>>>
>>>> How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan?
>>>> What's the best chef's knife? Yada....?
>>>>
>>>> Now, we seem to be fixated on who's a "troll". Who cares? I
>>>> don't! I jes KF 'em and all the "enablers" who encourage and
>>>> respond to 'em.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder Usenet is dying. You start letting "trolls" determine
>>>> the thread content and we'll all end up like alt.guitar.amps,
>>>> where one lone opinionated troll controls the entire newsgroup.
>>>> It's already beginning to happen in alt.home.repair, where some
>>>> rfc'ers already hang, and it's starting to happen here. Get a
>>>> freakin' clue, ppl. I'm jes hitting my "cooking" stride. I don't
>>>> wanna hafta bail!
>>>>
>>>> Only you can prevent trolls!!
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>>
>> Judging by the sheer number of posts I think quiet times are in sight
>> anytime now
>>
>Interesting that nb had to start a new post to complain about trolls.
>Personally, I think this ng is too stubborn to die.
>
>I don't have a problem with age-old questions. If I have an answer or a
>suggestion I'll chime in.
>
>What bugs me is the Google Groupers who answer a question (without
>quoting or any context) asked 6-10 years ago then disappear. They
>aren't necessarily trolls. They're just clueless.
>
>Jill

Actually I meant that the main offender has been here long enough that
the time is approaching where it will disappear again - hopefully.

On 10/19/2017 11:44 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:19:49 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/19/2017 7:50 AM, wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed 18 Oct 2017 01:42:28p, notbob told us...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ....we could tolerate the same old questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you peel a soft boiled egg? How do you season a pan?
>>>>> What's the best chef's knife? Yada....?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, we seem to be fixated on who's a "troll". Who cares? I
>>>>> don't! I jes KF 'em and all the "enablers" who encourage and
>>>>> respond to 'em.
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder Usenet is dying. You start letting "trolls" determine
>>>>> the thread content and we'll all end up like alt.guitar.amps,
>>>>> where one lone opinionated troll controls the entire newsgroup.
>>>>> It's already beginning to happen in alt.home.repair, where some
>>>>> rfc'ers already hang, and it's starting to happen here. Get a
>>>>> freakin' clue, ppl. I'm jes hitting my "cooking" stride. I don't
>>>>> wanna hafta bail!
>>>>>
>>>>> Only you can prevent trolls!!
>>>>>
>>>>> nb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>>>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>>>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>>>
>>> Judging by the sheer number of posts I think quiet times are in sight
>>> anytime now
>>>
>> Interesting that nb had to start a new post to complain about trolls.
>> Personally, I think this ng is too stubborn to die.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with age-old questions. If I have an answer or a
>> suggestion I'll chime in.
>>
>> What bugs me is the Google Groupers who answer a question (without
>> quoting or any context) asked 6-10 years ago then disappear. They
>> aren't necessarily trolls. They're just clueless.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Actually I meant that the main offender has been here long enough that
> the time is approaching where it will disappear again - hopefully.
>
Okay. I don't know who you consider the biggest troll.

Jill

"l not -l" > wrote in message speaking of Bruce and his
incessant ingredient listing

> Perhaps it's just me; but, the offense is not the ingredient
> lists per se, it's the implication that we're dumbasses that
> can't or don't read packaging and know what we buy and consume.
> I always read labels on items I (plan to) purchase the first time
> and periodically review the items I do buy for changes. I
> compare nutrition facts and ingredient lists on competing
> products when available. IMO, your lists offend because the
> people you are trying to inform almost certainly don't give a
> damn or already have the information they need. You come across
> as the mother-in-law backseat driving on a very long trip.
>
> I offer this critique merely to inform.


Right you are!

Cheri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
news
> Interesting that nb had to start a new post to complain about trolls.
> Personally, I think this ng is too stubborn to die.
> Jill

RFC Zombies.

Cheri

On 10/19/2017 9:57 AM, Cheri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> news >
>> Interesting that nb had to start a new post to complain about trolls.
>> Personally, I think this ng is too stubborn to die.
>> Jill
>
> RFC Zombies.
>
> Cheri
>
>

Apropos for the Halloween season too!

On 2017-10-19 11:19 AM, jmcquown wrote:

> I don't have a problem with age-old questions.Â* If I have an answer or a
> suggestion I'll chime in.
>
> What bugs me is the Google Groupers who answer a question (without
> quoting or any context) asked 6-10 years ago then disappear.Â* They
> aren't necessarily trolls.Â* They're just clueless.

When I see something like that I tend to witch my reader view to by
sender. Invariably, it the only post by that person, or else the same
person has posted a couple similar things over a short period of time.
I haven't checked my filter log for foodbanter rejects lately. Those
always showed a similar type of idiocy. They would appear out of nowhere
and follow the same format, introducing themselves as being new to our
forum and saying how they were looking forward to talking about food and
recipes. It often looked like it was part of an ESL assignment.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:46:37 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:

>
>On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps, but he comes across like a two-year-old who has
>> >learned the
>> >word "poop". If he gets a reaction every time he says it,
>> >he'll
>> >keep saying it. We should just ignore his ingredients lists.
>>
>> Strange that ingredient lists, in a cooking newsgroup no less,
>> are
>> more offensive than death threats and slander. That says more
>> about
>> you than about me, Mrs Blind Faith In Science.

>Perhaps it's just me; but, the offense is not the ingredient
>lists per se, it's the implication that we're dumbasses that
>can't or don't read packaging and know what we buy and consume.

It's aimed at the food industry first of all. Although I do find it
unbelievable that we all buy that kind of stuff. It's written right on
the package what junk it is.

>I always read labels on items I (plan to) purchase the first time
>and periodically review the items I do buy for changes. I
>compare nutrition facts and ingredient lists on competing
>products when available.

But lots of people don't do that. They just buy and eat. So a bit of
information won't hurt.

>IMO, your lists offend because the
>people you are trying to inform almost certainly don't give a
>damn or already have the information they need. You come across
>as the mother-in-law backseat driving on a very long trip.
>
>I offer this critique merely to inform.

That's exactly what I do too.

And I still don't understand how an ingredient list can be worse than
death wishes and slander. It's like complaining to Ted Bundy about how
someone pushed in at the supermarket.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:55:38 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>"l not -l" > wrote in message speaking of Bruce and his
>incessant ingredient listing
>
>> Perhaps it's just me; but, the offense is not the ingredient
>> lists per se, it's the implication that we're dumbasses that
>> can't or don't read packaging and know what we buy and consume.
>> I always read labels on items I (plan to) purchase the first time
>> and periodically review the items I do buy for changes. I
>> compare nutrition facts and ingredient lists on competing
>> products when available. IMO, your lists offend because the
>> people you are trying to inform almost certainly don't give a
>> damn or already have the information they need. You come across
>> as the mother-in-law backseat driving on a very long trip.
>>
>> I offer this critique merely to inform.
>
>
>Right you are!

Feral agreement humping.

On 10/19/2017 1:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:46:37 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but he comes across like a two-year-old who has
>>>> learned the
>>>> word "poop". If he gets a reaction every time he says it,
>>>> he'll
>>>> keep saying it. We should just ignore his ingredients lists.
>>>
>>> Strange that ingredient lists, in a cooking newsgroup no less,
>>> are
>>> more offensive than death threats and slander. That says more
>>> about
>>> you than about me, Mrs Blind Faith In Science.
>
>> Perhaps it's just me; but, the offense is not the ingredient
>> lists per se, it's the implication that we're dumbasses that
>> can't or don't read packaging and know what we buy and consume.
>
> It's aimed at the food industry first of all.

Bullshit LIE!

Who here is part of the "food industry", troll?

Well???


> Although I do find it
> unbelievable that we all buy that kind of stuff. It's written right on
> the package what junk it is.

There we go, your /true motivation/ is ingredient evangelism.

>> I always read labels on items I (plan to) purchase the first time
>> and periodically review the items I do buy for changes. I
>> compare nutrition facts and ingredient lists on competing
>> products when available.
>
> But lots of people don't do that. They just buy and eat. So a bit of
> information won't hurt.

SFW?

Are you everyone's proxy Mommy?

Grow up, control freak.

>> IMO, your lists offend because the
>> people you are trying to inform almost certainly don't give a
>> damn or already have the information they need. You come across
>> as the mother-in-law backseat driving on a very long trip.
>>
>> I offer this critique merely to inform.
>
> That's exactly what I do too.

Liar, you're an ingredients evangelical.

> And I still don't understand how an ingredient list can be worse than
> death wishes and slander.

Oh my!

I love the rent-free space I have in your tiny head!

> It's like complaining to Ted Bundy about how
> someone pushed in at the supermarket.

Eat it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDPPxf3iR4s

On 10/19/2017 1:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:55:38 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> "l not -l" > wrote in message speaking of Bruce and his
>> incessant ingredient listing
>>
>>> Perhaps it's just me; but, the offense is not the ingredient
>>> lists per se, it's the implication that we're dumbasses that
>>> can't or don't read packaging and know what we buy and consume.
>>> I always read labels on items I (plan to) purchase the first time
>>> and periodically review the items I do buy for changes. I
>>> compare nutrition facts and ingredient lists on competing
>>> products when available. IMO, your lists offend because the
>>> people you are trying to inform almost certainly don't give a
>>> damn or already have the information they need. You come across
>>> as the mother-in-law backseat driving on a very long trip.
>>>
>>> I offer this critique merely to inform.
>>
>>
>> Right you are!
>
> Feral agreement humping.
>
Free head space for lease!

....yours...

http://www.thequotablecoach.com/wp-c.../08/QC-856.jpg

jmcquown wrote:
>
> I don't have a problem with age-old questions. If I have an answer or a
> suggestion I'll chime in.

LMAO! YOU are usually the ONLY one that complains. Each and every
time, Jill.
>
> What bugs me is the Google Groupers who answer a question (without
> quoting or any context) asked 6-10 years ago then disappear. They
> aren't necessarily trolls. They're just clueless.

You also 100% bitch about a new user even quoting an old post and
responding to it. You never answer the questions. Your responses
are always just telling them that it was an old post.

I suspect someone asks a question an old post, probably would
respond but YOU critize them so they just leave with feeling
hurt,. RFC really is a hostile group.

Mean Jill. Pay attention to new users that are just learning.
Have some sympathy. You were a clueless new user once back in the
beginning.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 19:47:32 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:

>
>On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> And I still don't understand how an ingredient list can be
>> worse than
>> death wishes and slander. It's like complaining to Ted Bundy
>> about how
>> someone pushed in at the supermarket.

>Your ingredients lists are the equivalent of a sharp stick and
>your self-absorbed need is to poke everyone with it. After being
>poked too many times, people want to strike back and all they
>have here are words. The more egregious the poking and less
>willing the poker is to respect requests to stop, the harsher the
>word responses become, at least from the most effected. In the
>physical world, some would cuss you out while others would punch
>you out. But, you are unlikely to be so obnoxious in the
>physical world because you know you'll push someone to a physical
>response. Here, you can be as obnoxious and uncaring as possible
>and have nothing to fear, in fact you are rewarded with attention
>you desperately crave.

And what would happen in the real world if you bitched to a person the
way you are now? Would that be appreciated? Friendly nod? Pat on the
back? Congratulations on your moral high ground?

Basically, you don't answer my question at all.

"l not -l" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> And I still don't understand how an ingredient list can be
>> worse than
>> death wishes and slander. It's like complaining to Ted Bundy
>> about how
>> someone pushed in at the supermarket.
> Your ingredients lists are the equivalent of a sharp stick and
> your self-absorbed need is to poke everyone with it. After being
> poked too many times, people want to strike back and all they
> have here are words. The more egregious the poking and less
> willing the poker is to respect requests to stop, the harsher the
> word responses become, at least from the most effected. In the
> physical world, some would cuss you out while others would punch
> you out. But, you are unlikely to be so obnoxious in the
> physical world because you know you'll push someone to a physical
> response. Here, you can be as obnoxious and uncaring as possible
> and have nothing to fear, in fact you are rewarded with attention
> you desperately crave.


He's the "Ferrous Cranus" of flame warriors.

Cheri

On 2017-10-19, l not -l > wrote:

> After being poked too many times, people want to strike back and all
> they have here are words.

Actually, if they know what they're doing, they also have a "score" or
"killfile". I figure when I have all the rfc regulars in mine,
that'll be the end!

nb

On 10/19/2017 1:47 PM, l not -l wrote:
> On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> And I still don't understand how an ingredient list can be
>> worse than
>> death wishes and slander. It's like complaining to Ted Bundy
>> about how
>> someone pushed in at the supermarket.
> Your ingredients lists are the equivalent of a sharp stick and
> your self-absorbed need is to poke everyone with it. After being
> poked too many times, people want to strike back and all they
> have here are words. The more egregious the poking and less
> willing the poker is to respect requests to stop, the harsher the
> word responses become, at least from the most effected. In the
> physical world, some would cuss you out while others would punch
> you out. But, you are unlikely to be so obnoxious in the
> physical world because you know you'll push someone to a physical
> response. Here, you can be as obnoxious and uncaring as possible
> and have nothing to fear, in fact you are rewarded with attention
> you desperately crave.
>

No editing or comment needed on this troll-behavior summary!

On 10/19/2017 1:51 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 19:47:32 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> And I still don't understand how an ingredient list can be
>>> worse than
>>> death wishes and slander. It's like complaining to Ted Bundy
>>> about how
>>> someone pushed in at the supermarket.
>
>> Your ingredients lists are the equivalent of a sharp stick and
>> your self-absorbed need is to poke everyone with it. After being
>> poked too many times, people want to strike back and all they
>> have here are words. The more egregious the poking and less
>> willing the poker is to respect requests to stop, the harsher the
>> word responses become, at least from the most effected. In the
>> physical world, some would cuss you out while others would punch
>> you out. But, you are unlikely to be so obnoxious in the
>> physical world because you know you'll push someone to a physical
>> response. Here, you can be as obnoxious and uncaring as possible
>> and have nothing to fear, in fact you are rewarded with attention
>> you desperately crave.
>
> And what would happen in the real world if you bitched to a person the
> way you are now? Would that be appreciated? Friendly nod? Pat on the
> back? Congratulations on your moral high ground?
>
> Basically, you don't answer my question at all.
>

Query yourself, net-nannying trollass!

On 10/19/2017 1:52 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "l not -l" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> And I still don't understand how an ingredient list can be
>>> worse than
>>> death wishes and slander. It's like complaining to Ted Bundy
>>> about how
>>> someone pushed in at the supermarket.
>> Your ingredients lists are the equivalent of a sharp stick and
>> your self-absorbed need is to poke everyone with it.* After being
>> poked too many times, people want to strike back and all they
>> have here are words.* The more egregious the poking and less
>> willing the poker is to respect requests to stop, the harsher the
>> word responses become, at least from the most effected.* In the
>> physical world, some would cuss you out while others would punch
>> you out.* But, you are unlikely to be so obnoxious in the
>> physical world because you know you'll push someone to a physical
>> response.* Here, you can be as obnoxious and uncaring as possible
>> and have nothing to fear, in fact you are rewarded with attention
>> you desperately crave.
>
>
> He's the "Ferrous Cranus" of flame warriors.
>
> Cheri
>
I know how to rearrange that head:

http://andheblogs.andyrush.net/wp-co...woolywilly.jpg

On 10/19/2017 1:52 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2017-10-19, l not -l > wrote:
>
>> After being poked too many times, people want to strike back and all
>> they have here are words.
>
> Actually, if they know what they're doing, they also have a "score" or
> "killfile". I figure when I have all the rfc regulars in mine,
> that'll be the end!
>
> nb
>

Lol, sorta like:

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...internet_2.jpg

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:58:59 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:

>
>On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> Congratulations on your moral high ground?
>Thank you; I wasn't sure you could see me from way down there.

Still dodging my question. You just landed with a big thud.

On 10/19/2017 3:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:58:59 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19-Oct-2017, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> Congratulations on your moral high ground?
>> Thank you; I wasn't sure you could see me from way down there.
>
> Still dodging my question. You just landed with a big thud.
>

I wonder if your total fall from grace has sunken in to your thick head yet?

On 10/19/2017 3:31 PM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> I don't have a problem with age-old questions. If I have an answer or a
>> suggestion I'll chime in.
>
> LMAO! YOU are usually the ONLY one that complains. Each and every
> time, Jill.
>>
>> What bugs me is the Google Groupers who answer a question (without
>> quoting or any context) asked 6-10 years ago then disappear. They
>> aren't necessarily trolls. They're just clueless.
>
> You also 100% bitch about a new user even quoting an old post and
> responding to it. You never answer the questions. Your responses
> are always just telling them that it was an old post.
>
> I suspect someone asks a question an old post, probably would
> respond but YOU critize them so they just leave with feeling
> hurt,. RFC really is a hostile group.
>
> Mean Jill. Pay attention to new users that are just learning.
> Have some sympathy. You were a clueless new user once back in the
> beginning.
>
Don't be goofy, Gary. I'm not the only one who notices these are
fly-by-night posters who never come back. It's doubtful they stick
around long enough to read any responses. You think one reply from me
would scare them off?! LOL The people they're replying to haven't been
around in 10 years, either. There's no frame of reference without them
quoting what they're replying to. Maybe you have a crystal ball, I don't.

BTW, there are a number of people here who use GG to post. They know
how to quote so the context isn't some big mystery. They aren't one hit
wonders.

Jill

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 01:45:43 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>
>.. says the blowhard who just started a new thread to tell us how big
>his killfile is.

lol

On 10/22/2017 12:45 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> Wayne's shit doesn't stink. Ask him!
>
> -sw
Steve Wertz - unrepentant woman stalker and total head case begging poor
Omelet to shoot him with a sniper rifle in austin.food:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.centraltexasfoodbank.org...ntation-057jpg

Hide the Ho Ho's!!!

On 2017-10-18 9:00 PM, Bruze wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:34:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>> I share your sentiments! It's bad enough when one person
>> perpetuates an off-topic thread(s) for months on end, but worse yet
>> when a throng of posters add to the fray.
>
> If it's all happening in one thread, just ignore that thread. In my
> software, that's right-click and "Ignore Thread".
>

And if you have a beef with a thread that has gone OT and too long, it
is neither OT or dragging the thread on longer and more OT by
complaining about it.

That being said... the reason Kuthe is in my KF and likely to stay there
forever is because of his taking offense to an OT thread and responding
to every post in the thread with a running tally of the number of posts
on that OT thread. I don't doubt that he was experiencing a manic
episode and thought that he was extremely brilliant to be doing that.