~patches~ wrote:

> My last words on the subject & I would appreciate it if people
> would just let the whole thing die. Really, please?

Again with the last words... dry up and die already.

Sheldon

On Sun 16 Oct 2005 06:42:25a, Leila wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> OOh, me, killfile me, somebody!
>
> Leila
> feeling impish
>

You'd be about the last!

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________

http://tinypic.com/eikz78.jpg

Meet Mr. Bailey

Dog3 wrote on 16 Oct 2005 in rec.food.cooking

> "Carol Peterson" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> >
> > Dog3 wrote:
> >>
> >> I would use my real name but I've used Dog3 around Usenet for years
> >> and years. No one would know who I am if I used my real name
> >
> > I'm kinda concerned that I may already be irretrievably in that very
> > same rut. I've been DidD since 1997 on Usenet, and at least 12
> > years total.
> >
> > Carol
>
> It's been a lot longer than that for me. I've been Dog3 since the
> early 80s at least. Well, except when I posted with my university
> account. The earliest post on that one is around 1997 but I didn't
> archive before then either.
>
> Michael
>

hell I've been posting 12 ish years and been 8 or 9 people...where's the
fun in only being one...

one is the loneliest number -3 dog night

--
The eyes are the mirrors....
But the ears...Ah the ears.
The ears keep the hat up.

On Sun 16 Oct 2005 08:23:13a, ~patches~ wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Carol Peterson wrote:
>
>> ~patches~ wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sort of hot on Sheldon except for when he flames me.
>>
>>
>> There ya go! That's how it's done.
>>
>> Good for you!
>> Carol
>>
> EXCEPT I *did not* write the above quote! It would appear someone is

Tough titties! Grow up and be a big girl now.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________

http://tinypic.com/eikz78.jpg

Meet Mr. Bailey

"Nancy Young" > wrote:

>I think maaaaaybe one person has me killfiled, but I don't know.
>Okay by me. Wouldn't surprise me if there were more.
>
>nancy
>
>
Why in the world you think anyone would killlfile you or Damsel is
beyond my imagination. Now ME, I certainly have deserved to be
killfiled in the past but hopefully not in the future. The only
person still in my filters for RFC now is "projecile vomit chick". I
did a netscan review on her and she is just as vitroic in a number of
other groups as she is here. An absolute waste of flesh. Anyone
here, whether I agree with them or not, certainly doesn't deserve
"exclusion". Yes that means Sheldon, too <G>. Sorry, I know someone
is bound to label me as a Sheldon "supporter", but that's not the case
at all. People need to just lighten up. Sheldon is a contributor
like a lot of others and I don't give his statements any more "creed"
than anyone else's, but he has a right to speak, like anyone else. If
we can't take it, then we just need to get a thicker skin. <G>.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:23:47 GMT,
(AlleyGator) wrote:

> Anyone
>here, whether I agree with them or not, certainly doesn't deserve
>"exclusion". Yes that means Sheldon, too <G>. Sorry, I know someone
>is bound to label me as a Sheldon "supporter", but that's not the case
>at all. People need to just lighten up. Sheldon is a contributor
>like a lot of others and I don't give his statements any more "creed"
>than anyone else's, but he has a right to speak, like anyone else. If
>we can't take it, then we just need to get a thicker skin. <G>.

Yeah, I take him one post at a time. If he's being nice, I treat him
in kind. If he's being an ass, I usually ignore him. I don't
consider myself either a supporter or a detractor. I'm not sure why
people insist on trying to divide the group into those two categories.

Carol

Leila wrote:
> OOh, me, killfile me, somebody!
>
> Leila
> feeling impish

Are you wearing your red lucite "FM" stilettos... heheh

Sheldon

On 16 Oct 2005 08:38:15 -0700, Carol Peterson wrote:

>
> ~patches~ wrote:
> > Carol Peterson wrote:
> >
> > > ~patches~ wrote:
> > >
> > >>I'm sort of hot on Sheldon except for when he flames me.
> > >
> > >
> > > There ya go! That's how it's done.
> > >
> > > Good for you!
> > > Carol
> > >
> > EXCEPT I *did not* write the above quote! It would appear someone is
> > trying to have a little fun with evading killfiles.
>
> Here's the post. I don't know who was pretending to be you.
>
>
> 23. ~patches~ Oct 16, 6:25 am show options
>
> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
> From: "~patches~" > - Find messages by this author
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 07:25:03 -0400
> Local: Sun, Oct 16 2005 6:25 am
> Subject: Coinciding Tastes ( Update Those Filters!)
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
>
somone is impersonating one of the nancy's.

One time on Usenet, Mr Libido Incognito > said:
> Dog3 wrote on 16 Oct 2005 in rec.food.cooking
>
> > "Carol Peterson" > wrote in
> > oups.com:
> >
> > >
> > > Dog3 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I would use my real name but I've used Dog3 around Usenet for years
> > >> and years. No one would know who I am if I used my real name
> > >
> > > I'm kinda concerned that I may already be irretrievably in that very
> > > same rut. I've been DidD since 1997 on Usenet, and at least 12
> > > years total.
> > >
> > > Carol
> >
> > It's been a lot longer than that for me. I've been Dog3 since the
> > early 80s at least. Well, except when I posted with my university
> > account. The earliest post on that one is around 1997 but I didn't
> > archive before then either.
> >
> > Michael
> >
>
> hell I've been posting 12 ish years and been 8 or 9 people...where's the
> fun in only being one...
>
> one is the loneliest number -3 dog night

In my ten years on Usenet, I think I've had 6-7 different names.
Unfortunately, I think it just confuses people...


--
Jani in WA (S'mee)
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

sf wrote:

> On 16 Oct 2005 08:38:15 -0700, Carol Peterson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> ~patches~ wrote:
>> > Carol Peterson wrote:
>> >
>> > > ~patches~ wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>I'm sort of hot on Sheldon except for when he flames me.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There ya go! That's how it's done.
>> > >
>> > > Good for you!
>> > > Carol
>> > >
>> > EXCEPT I *did not* write the above quote! It would appear someone is
>> > trying to have a little fun with evading killfiles.
>>
>> Here's the post. I don't know who was pretending to be you.
>>
>>
>> 23. ~patches~ Oct 16, 6:25 am show options
>>
>> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>> From: "~patches~" > - Find messages by this author
>> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 07:25:03 -0400
>> Local: Sun, Oct 16 2005 6:25 am
>> Subject: Coinciding Tastes ( Update Those Filters!)
>> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
>> original | Report Abuse
>>
>
> somone is impersonating one of the nancy's.

Ok this has gone far enough! I certainly don't want others pulled into
my battle wih he-who-can't-be-named. IMO it is ****ing pathetic to
impersonate someone else. I'm trying to let it rest at least with
respect to the ng. Can we just all let it rest - please?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:56:17 GMT,
(S'mee) wrote:

>In my ten years on Usenet, I think I've had 6-7 different names.
>Unfortunately, I think it just confuses people...

I liked it when you were A Gal Called JJ. Or even Jani would work.
S'mee is confusing the hell out of me. Takes awhile to figure out who
you are. LOL!

Carol

"sf" > wrote

> On 16 Oct 2005 08:38:15 -0700, Carol Peterson wrote:

>> Here's the post. I don't know who was pretending to be you.

>> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>> From: "~patches~" > - Find messages by this author

> somone is impersonating one of the nancy's.

I've seen that type of thing before. I assume it's understood that
I most certainly did not make that post.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

> "sf" > wrote
>
>
>>On 16 Oct 2005 08:38:15 -0700, Carol Peterson wrote:
>
>
>>> Here's the post. I don't know who was pretending to be you.
>
>
>>> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>>> From: "~patches~" > - Find messages by this author
>
>
>>somone is impersonating one of the nancy's.
>
>
> I've seen that type of thing before. I assume it's understood that
> I most certainly did not make that post.
>
> nancy
>
>
Nancy, someone is trying to make me look bad by impersonation. I've
decided to take a very hard line here. As of now if someone isn't on my
white list I won't see them. Nothing personal but life & cooking must
go on. Since certain people & their supporters can't let it go, then I
have to do this.

PS if you do get an answer from me it is likely because you aren't on my
white list. sorry.

"~patches~" > wrote

> PS if you do get an answer from me it is likely because you aren't on my
> white list. sorry.

Okey doke by me.

nancy

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:23:47 GMT, AlleyGator wrote:

> The only
> person still in my filters for RFC now is "projecile vomit chick".

My KF has a few more permanent residents than yours, but she was one
of the first to enter as fully killed (after Ubiquitous) and not just
marked as read.

> I
> did a netscan review on her and she is just as vitroic in a number of
> other groups as she is here.

Very true. She is what she is.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:32:05 -0500, Carol Peterson wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:23:47 GMT,
> (AlleyGator) wrote:
>
> > Anyone
> >here, whether I agree with them or not, certainly doesn't deserve
> >"exclusion". Yes that means Sheldon, too <G>. Sorry, I know someone
> >is bound to label me as a Sheldon "supporter", but that's not the case
> >at all. People need to just lighten up. Sheldon is a contributor
> >like a lot of others and I don't give his statements any more "creed"
> >than anyone else's, but he has a right to speak, like anyone else. If
> >we can't take it, then we just need to get a thicker skin. <G>.
>
> Yeah, I take him one post at a time. If he's being nice, I treat him
> in kind. If he's being an ass, I usually ignore him. I don't
> consider myself either a supporter or a detractor. I'm not sure why
> people insist on trying to divide the group into those two categories.
>
Divide and conquor

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:37:23 GMT, Dog3 wrote:
>
> I would use my real name but I've used Dog3 around Usenet for years and
> years. No one would know who I am if I used my real name
>
> Michael

You tried but you didn't get away with it, buster.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:38:52 -0000, Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
>
> is this thread a hint I should change my nick again?

Nononononononononono!!!!! At least I can spell this one.

sf wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:23:47 GMT, AlleyGator wrote:
>
>
>> The only
>> person still in my filters for RFC now is "projecile vomit chick".
>
>
> My KF has a few more permanent residents than yours, but she was one
> of the first to enter as fully killed (after Ubiquitous) and not just
> marked as read.
>

In the past couple of days my KF has grown I'm no longer filtering
m=by nick or email addy so that has cleared out some of junk.
>
>> I
>> did a netscan review on her and she is just as vitroic in a number of
>> other groups as she is here.

Rather nasty isn't she
>
>
> Very true. She is what she is.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:01:46 -0500, Carol Peterson wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:56:17 GMT,
> (S'mee) wrote:
>
> >In my ten years on Usenet, I think I've had 6-7 different names.
> >Unfortunately, I think it just confuses people...
>
> I liked it when you were A Gal Called JJ. Or even Jani would work.
> S'mee is confusing the hell out of me. Takes awhile to figure out who
> you are. LOL!
>
I agree!..... S'mee is cute, but use it in other ngs, Go back to JJ,
please! You guys make my head spin with all the name changes.

Carol Peterson > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > Carol Peterson > wrote:
> >
> > > This is the poster formerly known as Damsel.
> >
> > Unacceptable. Damsel in dis Dress belongs here.
> >
> > You are hereby prohibited from changing you nick.
> >
> > The Cabal
>
> Well, poop on you, Bubba! I'll do any damned thing I please! I will
> stick with my real name, which isn't a nick, therefore doesn't fall
> under the jurisdiction of the Cabal (TINC).

Dropping one's nick does fall under the Cabal's (TINC) jurisdiction and
therefore is declared null and void in this particular case.

Justification: Damsel in dis Dress, partly because of said Dress being
so extremely ancient, is a part of rfc history, being, among other
things, The Head Trollop. Headless trollops would be to the detriment
of the named newsgroup. The effectively anonymous "Carol Peterson" is a
totally unknown quantity/quality and is thus to be rejected out of hand
as a hypothetical replacement.

Imposition of appropriate sanctions is under active consideration.

The Cabal (TINC).

In article >,
(Victor Sack) wrote:

> Carol Peterson > wrote:
>
> > Victor Sack wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol Peterson > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the poster formerly known as Damsel.
> > >
> > > Unacceptable. Damsel in dis Dress belongs here.
> > >
> > > You are hereby prohibited from changing you nick.
> > >
> > > The Cabal
> >
> > Well, poop on you, Bubba! I'll do any damned thing I please! I will
> > stick with my real name, which isn't a nick, therefore doesn't fall
> > under the jurisdiction of the Cabal (TINC).
>
> Dropping one's nick does fall under the Cabal's (TINC) jurisdiction and
> therefore is declared null and void in this particular case.
>
> Justification: Damsel in dis Dress, partly because of said Dress being
> so extremely ancient, is a part of rfc history, being, among other
> things, The Head Trollop. Headless trollops would be to the detriment
> of the named newsgroup. The effectively anonymous "Carol Peterson" is a
> totally unknown quantity/quality and is thus to be rejected out of hand
> as a hypothetical replacement.
>
> Imposition of appropriate sanctions is under active consideration.
>
> The Cabal (TINC).

In High Elbonian Court of Judiciary, considering sanctions be top now
priority. Short one Justice making sanction consideration and decision
coming hoping before freezing Hell over.
(Where the hell is Squeaks! Get back here and correct my grammar.)
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com

AlleyGator wrote:

> The only person still in my filters for RFC now is "projecile vomit
> chick".

You mean you don't killfile Chung or Takin Gthe****?

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

>AlleyGator wrote:
>
>> The only person still in my filters for RFC now is "projecile vomit
>> chick".
>
>You mean you don't killfile Chung or Takin Gthe****?
>
>Bob
>
>
Nope, just ignore them <G>. They're not blatantly obnoxious, just
"self-assured".

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:51:13 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

> Carol Peterson > wrote:
>
> > Victor Sack wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol Peterson > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the poster formerly known as Damsel.
> > >
> > > Unacceptable. Damsel in dis Dress belongs here.
> > >
> > > You are hereby prohibited from changing you nick.
> > >
> > > The Cabal
> >
> > Well, poop on you, Bubba! I'll do any damned thing I please! I will
> > stick with my real name, which isn't a nick, therefore doesn't fall
> > under the jurisdiction of the Cabal (TINC).
>
> Dropping one's nick does fall under the Cabal's (TINC) jurisdiction and
> therefore is declared null and void in this particular case.
>
> Justification: Damsel in dis Dress, partly because of said Dress being
> so extremely ancient, is a part of rfc history, being, among other
> things, The Head Trollop. Headless trollops would be to the detriment
> of the named newsgroup. The effectively anonymous "Carol Peterson" is a
> totally unknown quantity/quality and is thus to be rejected out of hand
> as a hypothetical replacement.
>
> Imposition of appropriate sanctions is under active consideration.
>
> The Cabal (TINC).

This is my one and only concession to the Cabal (TINC). Please see
current nick.

Carol

Carol "Damsel" Peterson > wrote:

> This is my one and only concession to the Cabal (TINC). Please see
> current nick.

This is truly gratifying and I'm sure the Cabal (TINC) will slightly
adjust the sanctions accordingly.

Still, speaking as an old - and old-fashioned - grandmother, I'm
extremely embarrassed and peeved to see you frolicking about in the nude
in full public view, trollop though you might be. Put on that Dress,
stat!!!

ObFood: Bread soup.

About 300 g (11 oz) smallish pieces of stale bread (it helps if it is of
good quality) crusts
100 g (3.5 oz) fat
3 eggs, very lightly beaten - thoroughly mixed together, actually
2 onions, finely chopped
1 1/2 l (1 1/2 quart) water
parsley
pinch of red pepper
salt

Fry the bread crusts in fat together with the parsley and onions. Add
the water, salt and pepper, and bring to the boil. Take some of the
liquid and let cool a bit. Mix in, little by little, the eggs, always
stirring. Now add the egg mixture to the soup, pouring in a thin stream
and stirring constantly. Serve at once.

Granny Bubba

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:08:44 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

> Carol "Damsel" Peterson > wrote:
>
> > This is my one and only concession to the Cabal (TINC). Please see
> > current nick.
>
> This is truly gratifying and I'm sure the Cabal (TINC) will slightly
> adjust the sanctions accordingly.

I am *so* relieved!

> Still, speaking as an old - and old-fashioned - grandmother, I'm
> extremely embarrassed and peeved to see you frolicking about in the nude
> in full public view, trollop though you might be. Put on that Dress,
> stat!!!

With these hot flashes? Not on your life! Besides, I'm wearing
underwear, and the shades are closed, ya dried up ol' prude!

Damsel (just for you, Bubba)

AlleyGator wrote:

(after massive snipping)
> If we can't take it, then we just need to get a thicker skin. <G>.
>
> --

Oh, sure, that's easy for *you* to say! You're an *Alleygator* for
heaven's sakes! Of course *you* have thick skin! (Although I believe
Lubriderm can help with that...)

But seriously, since this is r.f.c...shouldn't you have written "If you
can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?

Lisa Ann

In article >,
(Victor Sack) wrote:

> Carol "Damsel" Peterson > wrote:
>
> > This is my one and only concession to the Cabal (TINC). Please see
> > current nick.
>
> This is truly gratifying and I'm sure the Cabal (TINC) will slightly
> adjust the sanctions accordingly.
>
> Still, speaking as an old - and old-fashioned - grandmother, I'm
> extremely embarrassed and peeved to see you frolicking about in the nude
> in full public view, trollop though you might be.

You wouldn't see if you weren't looking, Sweetums.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com