My first attempt at making chicken stock is completed. Again, thanks
fo everyone for their help and suggestions.

We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
the carcass and set aside.

The carcass including neck, feet, a few giblets, and whatever meat was
left on the carcass went into a large stew pot. Added one large onion,
4 carrots, and 3 celery stalks including leaves (cut into half-inch
pieces), plus 3 bay leaves and 8-10 peppercorns. Covered in water,
brought to slow boil.

By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
it on the stove overnight. This morning, I heated it back up and
simmered it very slowly for about 6 hours. The vegetables were mush
and most of the carcass has disappeared. Only the larer boned
remained.

I let it cool for a hour or so, then strained it into a large bowl. I
have about 12 cups of stock.

The stock is fairly thin, but not exactly clear. It has a definite
chicken soup taste, but not strong -- actually, fairly weak or bland.
Did I use too much water? It tastes like it seend salt of something. I
didn't add any spices, figuring I would do that when I make the soup.

It has been sitting for an hour and a very thin "skin" has formed on
the top. It's not really "fat". It has a slightly plastic look. It
"crinkles" when touched with a spoon. Should I skim that off?

Should I let it sit longer and skim off the fat?

Overall, does this sound about right?

Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?

I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
or do I need to wait?

When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
what proportions?

Thanks

--
For email, use

LurfysMa wrote:
> My first attempt at making chicken stock is completed. Again, thanks
> fo everyone for their help and suggestions.
>
> We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
> and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
> the carcass and set aside.
>
> The carcass including neck, feet, a few giblets, and whatever meat was
> left on the carcass went into a large stew pot. Added one large onion,
> 4 carrots, and 3 celery stalks including leaves (cut into half-inch
> pieces), plus 3 bay leaves and 8-10 peppercorns. Covered in water,
> brought to slow boil.
>
> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> it on the stove overnight. This morning, I heated it back up and
> simmered it very slowly for about 6 hours. The vegetables were mush
> and most of the carcass has disappeared. Only the larer boned
> remained.
>
> I let it cool for a hour or so, then strained it into a large bowl. I
> have about 12 cups of stock.
>
> The stock is fairly thin, but not exactly clear. It has a definite
> chicken soup taste, but not strong -- actually, fairly weak or bland.
> Did I use too much water? It tastes like it seend salt of something. I
> didn't add any spices, figuring I would do that when I make the soup.
>
> It has been sitting for an hour and a very thin "skin" has formed on
> the top. It's not really "fat". It has a slightly plastic look. It
> "crinkles" when touched with a spoon. Should I skim that off?
>
> Should I let it sit longer and skim off the fat?
>
> Overall, does this sound about right?
>
> Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>
> I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
> or do I need to wait?
>
> When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
> ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
> what proportions?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> For email, use

Everything sounds good to me, except simmering for 8 hrs! Never heard
of taking that long. I'd guess, from my Metallurgical Engineering
background, that well over 90% of the "stuff" (technical engineering
term) is out of the meat and in the broth in 2 hrs. If it didn't get
bitter, then I guess there's no harm...
Skim off the skin.
You can use it right away, in fact, if you don't freeze some, you need
to use it pretty quickly. It only lasts a few days in the fridge
(perfect breeding ground for critters). I cook it down until it's
concentrated enough to pour into and ice cube tray, then freeze it into
cubes. The put the cubes in a Ziplock bag and write the date on the
bag. Lasts about 6 months. A cube dissolves in about a cup of water.
Works great! Then I don't have to make it so often.

In article >,
LurfysMa > wrote:

> My first attempt at making chicken stock is completed. Again, thanks
> fo everyone for their help and suggestions.
>
> We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
> and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
> the carcass and set aside.
>
> The carcass including neck, feet, a few giblets, and whatever meat was
> left on the carcass went into a large stew pot. Added one large onion,
> 4 carrots, and 3 celery stalks including leaves (cut into half-inch
> pieces), plus 3 bay leaves and 8-10 peppercorns. Covered in water,
> brought to slow boil.
>
> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> it on the stove overnight. This morning, I heated it back up and
> simmered it very slowly for about 6 hours. The vegetables were mush
> and most of the carcass has disappeared. Only the larer boned
> remained.
>
> I let it cool for a hour or so, then strained it into a large bowl. I
> have about 12 cups of stock.
>
> The stock is fairly thin, but not exactly clear. It has a definite
> chicken soup taste, but not strong -- actually, fairly weak or bland.
> Did I use too much water? It tastes like it seend salt of something. I
> didn't add any spices, figuring I would do that when I make the soup.
>
> It has been sitting for an hour and a very thin "skin" has formed on
> the top. It's not really "fat". It has a slightly plastic look. It
> "crinkles" when touched with a spoon. Should I skim that off?

No.
It's yummy and will just come back. Wait a bit.

>
> Should I let it sit longer and skim off the fat?

Refrigerate.

>
> Overall, does this sound about right?
>
> Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?

Less water.

>
> I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
> or do I need to wait?
>
> When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
> ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
> what proportions?
>
> Thanks

Refrigerate it to get off the fat.
It will _always_ need salt when you are done but it's always best to
leave that for the soup as reduction might end up making it too salty!

12 cups for one carcass IMHO is a bit much. I'd go more for 8 cups.

Yes, you can use it right away. :-)
All of it, straight.

Personally, I'd cook it down a bit.
Reduce it.

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

LurfysMa wrote:

> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> it on the stove overnight. This morning, I heated it back up and
> simmered it very slowly for about 6 hours. The vegetables were mush
> and most of the carcass has disappeared. Only the larer boned
> remained.

I wouldn't let stock sit out to cool overnight. That's
probably too long depending on the size of the vessel.
It should't spend more than a few hours between 40 - 140 F
for safety reasons. Next time let it cool a bit and put
it in the fridge, or use a thermometer to make sure you're
staying within safe time and temperature constraints.

You can also use ice packs to help cool stock faster. Sometimes
I use frozen water bottles.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

On 28 Oct 2005 15:42:46 -0700, "salgud" > wrote:

>Everything sounds good to me, except simmering for 8 hrs! Never heard
>of taking that long. I'd guess, from my Metallurgical Engineering
>background, that well over 90% of the "stuff" (technical engineering
>term) is out of the meat and in the broth in 2 hrs. If it didn't get
>bitter, then I guess there's no harm...
>Skim off the skin.
>You can use it right away, in fact, if you don't freeze some, you need
>to use it pretty quickly. It only lasts a few days in the fridge
>(perfect breeding ground for critters).
>I cook it down until it's concentrated enough to pour into and ice cube tray,
>then freeze it into cubes.

How do I do that? Just cook it uncovererd until the water evaporates?
At a boil? How long with it take to get 12 cups down to a few ice cube
trays?

>The put the cubes in a Ziplock bag and write the date on the
>bag. Lasts about 6 months. A cube dissolves in about a cup of water.
>Works great! Then I don't have to make it so often.


--
For email, use

"LurfysMa" > wrote

> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> it on the stove overnight.

You know, I'm no clean freak or whatever, but I seriously
think you should not do that again, leave it sitting there to
cool at room temperature, never mind overnight. Put it in
the refrigerator.

Am I wrong, anyone?

nancy

"Reg" > wrote

> I wouldn't let stock sit out to cool overnight.

Phew, someone else said it! Sorry I stepped on your
toes, I didn't see this until after I posted.

nancy

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:10:14 -0700, LurfysMa >
wrote:

>It has been sitting for an hour and a very thin "skin" has formed on
>the top. It's not really "fat". It has a slightly plastic look. It
>"crinkles" when touched with a spoon. Should I skim that off?

I would skim it off, and chill that stock as fast as you can,
otherwise it is a good breeding ground for bacteria.

Christine

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:17:21 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>
>"LurfysMa" > wrote
>
>> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
>> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
>> it on the stove overnight.
>
>You know, I'm no clean freak or whatever, but I seriously
>think you should not do that again, leave it sitting there to
>cool at room temperature, never mind overnight. Put it in
>the refrigerator.
>
>Am I wrong, anyone?
>
>nancy
>

No, you are not wrong. I am very wary about it being left out
overnight. Everything I have ever read says to chill down stock as
fast as you can, like putting the pan into a basin of ice water and
getting it to room temperature really fast. Then refrigerating it.

If it were me, I would toss it right now. Even cooking it after that,
who knows if harmful bacteria would have been destroyed by cooking
longer. I personally wouldn't want to take that chance, but as the
saying goes, YMMV.

Christine

"LurfysMa" > wrote in message
...
> My first attempt at making chicken stock is completed. Again, thanks
> fo everyone for their help and suggestions.
>
> We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
> and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
> the carcass and set aside.
>
> The carcass including neck, feet, a few giblets, and whatever meat was
> left on the carcass went into a large stew pot. Added one large onion,
> 4 carrots, and 3 celery stalks including leaves (cut into half-inch
> pieces), plus 3 bay leaves and 8-10 peppercorns. Covered in water,
> brought to slow boil.
>
> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> it on the stove overnight. This morning, I heated it back up and
> simmered it very slowly for about 6 hours. The vegetables were mush
> and most of the carcass has disappeared. Only the larer boned
> remained.
>
> I let it cool for a hour or so, then strained it into a large bowl. I
> have about 12 cups of stock.
>
> The stock is fairly thin, but not exactly clear. It has a definite
> chicken soup taste, but not strong -- actually, fairly weak or bland.
> Did I use too much water? It tastes like it seend salt of something. I
> didn't add any spices, figuring I would do that when I make the soup.
>
> It has been sitting for an hour and a very thin "skin" has formed on
> the top. It's not really "fat". It has a slightly plastic look. It
> "crinkles" when touched with a spoon. Should I skim that off?
>
> Should I let it sit longer and skim off the fat?
>
> Overall, does this sound about right?
>
> Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>
> I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
> or do I need to wait?
>
> When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
> ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
> what proportions?
>
> Thanks

I think when I make stock I just put in enough water to not quite cover the
carcass. For a good tasting broth, I generally add about 1/2 tsp salt for
every cup of liquid. The rubbery stuff on top of your broth is gelatin from
the bones.

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> "LurfysMa" > wrote
>
> > By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> > simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> > it on the stove overnight.
>
> You know, I'm no clean freak or whatever, but I seriously
> think you should not do that again, leave it sitting there to
> cool at room temperature, never mind overnight. Put it in
> the refrigerator.
>
> Am I wrong, anyone?
>
> nancy
>
>

I've done it many times.
I'm not dead yet. ;-) Just keep it covered.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:17:21 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>
>"LurfysMa" > wrote
>
>> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
>> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
>> it on the stove overnight.
>
>You know, I'm no clean freak or whatever, but I seriously
>think you should not do that again, leave it sitting there to
>cool at room temperature, never mind overnight. Put it in
>the refrigerator.
>
>Am I wrong, anyone?

OK, I guess that wasn't too smart. Next time I'll start earlier in the
day so I can finish before bedtime.

I have now heated it up to a good boil, so that should kill any
beasties, right?

--
For email, use

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>You know, I'm no clean freak or whatever, but I seriously
>>think you should not do that again, leave it sitting there to
>>cool at room temperature, never mind overnight. Put it in
>>the refrigerator.
>>
>>Am I wrong, anyone?
>>
>>nancy
>
> I've done it many times.
> I'm not dead yet. ;-) Just keep it covered.

Sorry, you don't count. You've been immuno-enhanced from eating
all them raw, farm fresh eggs

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

In article >,
Reg > wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> >
> >>You know, I'm no clean freak or whatever, but I seriously
> >>think you should not do that again, leave it sitting there to
> >>cool at room temperature, never mind overnight. Put it in
> >>the refrigerator.
> >>
> >>Am I wrong, anyone?
> >>
> >>nancy
> >
> > I've done it many times.
> > I'm not dead yet. ;-) Just keep it covered.
>
> Sorry, you don't count. You've been immuno-enhanced from eating
> all them raw, farm fresh eggs

<snork> Probably too damn true...
And the steak tartar. ;-d

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:00:32 -0700, LurfysMa >
connected the dots and wrote:

~On 28 Oct 2005 15:42:46 -0700, "salgud" >
wrote:
~
~>Everything sounds good to me, except simmering for 8 hrs! Never
heard
~>of taking that long. I'd guess, from my Metallurgical Engineering
~>background, that well over 90% of the "stuff" (technical engineering
~>term) is out of the meat and in the broth in 2 hrs. If it didn't get
~>bitter, then I guess there's no harm...
~>Skim off the skin.
~>You can use it right away, in fact, if you don't freeze some, you
need
~>to use it pretty quickly. It only lasts a few days in the fridge
~>(perfect breeding ground for critters).
~>I cook it down until it's concentrated enough to pour into and ice
cube tray,
~>then freeze it into cubes.
~
~How do I do that? Just cook it uncovererd until the water evaporates?
~At a boil? How long with it take to get 12 cups down to a few ice
cube
~trays?

No. Do not boil. Simmer with the cover ajar. A simmer is when there
are only a few tiny air bubbles at a time breaking the surface.

One ice cube tray will hold about 12 ounces. Each cube is
approximately 3/4 ounce or 1-1/2 tablespoons liquid.

You mentioned that the soup was kind of cloudy. The method I use is
to put the carcass in the pot with cold water, bring to a boil. Skim
off the grey foam/scum that forms on the top. Add your veggies and
other seasonings. Return to a boil, then turn heat down to a low
simmer for about 1-3 hours. Leave the fat alone.

Strain the solids out of it. Pour the resultant broth into clean
jars. Put the jars in the sink, and fill the sink with cold water.
Change the water every half hour or so, or when it warms up. When the
broth is at least room temperature, put the lids on the jars, and put
them in the fridge. When the cap of fat is solidified, you can do one
of two things. Either remove the fat (it's easy, since the fluid
underneath is somewhat jelly-like), then pour into your ice cube
trays, or if the jars are very clean (dishwasher or good hot soapy
water and hot rinse), the cap of fat will help keep the broth fresh
for several weeks in the very back part of your fridge.

This should result in lovely clear broth.

maxine in ri

LurfysMa wrote:
> "Nancy > wrote:
>
>> "LurfysMa" > wrote
>>
>>> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
>>> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and
>>> left it on the stove overnight.
>>
>> You know, I'm no clean freak or whatever, but I seriously think you
>> should not do that again, leave it sitting there to cool at room
>> temperature, never mind overnight. Put it in the refrigerator.
>>
>> Am I wrong, anyone?

Brilliantly right, as it happens.

> OK, I guess that wasn't too smart. Next time I'll start earlier in
> the day so I can finish before bedtime.

Next time, use a recipe instead of a crystal ball. Making good food
requires discipline, good information, and adherence to established
methods. You've shown none of those things.

> I have now heated it up to a good boil, so that should kill any
> beasties, right?

Probably. But it's ruining the stock. You're making it more cloudy than
it was before by emulsifying the fats. You're happily smelling the
wonderful scents of chicken stock - and driving out the volatile
elements that provide a good bit of the flavor. You'll have a
wonderfully sterile toilet rinse. Congratulations.

Mostly what you've done is a lot of uninformed guesswork that has
resulted in a particularly sub-standard result.

Cooking is a series of steps that result in food. There are variations
possible in all of them that will still provide acceptable finished
products. You've managed to combine many bad ideas, poorly executed into
one wasted effort. And you've done that because you can't be bothered to
learn anything before running out and ****ing money and time into the wind.

Pastorio

LurfysMa wrote:

> We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
> and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
> the carcass and set aside.
>
> The carcass including neck, feet, a few giblets,

Don't use the liver. Makes for a nasty tasting stock.

> and whatever meat was
> left on the carcass went into a large stew pot. Added one large onion,
> 4 carrots, and 3 celery stalks including leaves (cut into half-inch
> pieces), plus 3 bay leaves and 8-10 peppercorns. Covered in water,
> brought to slow boil.

"Aromatics" - the veggies - should all be cut into chunks to expose more
surface area to cooking.

Break up the carcass. *Barely* cover with water - for one chicken
between 6 and 8 cups water.

*Never* boil stocks. They get cloudy and the mouthfeel is not so clean.
They should come to a boil and instantly turned down to a slow simmer.

> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> it on the stove overnight.

NEVER, NEVER leave food to cool overnight on the stove. Did I say NEVER,
NEVER? It's a vast petri dish encouraging critters to live long and
prosper (with that split-finger thingy).

You can't interrupt stock making this way. When you turned off the
burner, residual heat in the pot continued to cook the contents for a
good while. A bit later, when it cooled down, the bacteria began their
festival. Many of them will affect flavor, color, transparency,
wholesomeness.

> This morning, I heated it back up and
> simmered it very slowly for about 6 hours.

Way, way too long. 3 hours max for bird stock.

> The vegetables were mush
> and most of the carcass has disappeared. Only the larer boned
> remained.

And that's how you know the stock you made was overcooked.

> I let it cool for a hour or so, then strained it into a large bowl. I
> have about 12 cups of stock.

That's about twice as much as you should have. Given cooking time,
evaporation to be expected, you probably started with maybe three or
four times too much water.

> The stock is fairly thin, but not exactly clear.

Boiling does that.

> It has a definite
> chicken soup taste, but not strong -- actually, fairly weak or bland.
> Did I use too much water?

Way, way too much.

> It tastes like it seend salt of something.

It does need salt. Stocks always do.

> I didn't add any spices, figuring I would do that when I make the soup.
>
> It has been sitting for an hour and a very thin "skin" has formed on
> the top. It's not really "fat". It has a slightly plastic look. It
> "crinkles" when touched with a spoon. Should I skim that off?

It's protein and, yes, you should skim it.

> Should I let it sit longer and skim off the fat?

Sitting out at room temp won't make it easy to skim. Chill it
(yesterday) and just lift off the fat.

> Overall, does this sound about right?

No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background
info you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise,
making bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying
instead of doing it right the first time...

> Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?

Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.

> I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
> or do I need to wait?

It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.

> When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
> ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
> what proportions?

Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> LurfysMa wrote:
>
>> We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
>> and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
>> the carcass and set aside. The carcass including neck, feet, a few
>> giblets,
>
> Don't use the liver. Makes for a nasty tasting stock.
>
> > and whatever meat was
>> left on the carcass went into a large stew pot. Added one large onion,
>> 4 carrots, and 3 celery stalks including leaves (cut into half-inch
>> pieces), plus 3 bay leaves and 8-10 peppercorns. Covered in water,
>> brought to slow boil.
>
> "Aromatics" - the veggies - should all be cut into chunks to expose more
> surface area to cooking.
>
> Break up the carcass. *Barely* cover with water - for one chicken between
> 6 and 8 cups water.
>
> *Never* boil stocks. They get cloudy and the mouthfeel is not so clean.
> They should come to a boil and instantly turned down to a slow simmer.
>
>> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
>> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
>> it on the stove overnight.
>
> NEVER, NEVER leave food to cool overnight on the stove. Did I say NEVER,
> NEVER? It's a vast petri dish encouraging critters to live long and
> prosper (with that split-finger thingy).
>
> You can't interrupt stock making this way. When you turned off the burner,
> residual heat in the pot continued to cook the contents for a good while.
> A bit later, when it cooled down, the bacteria began their festival. Many
> of them will affect flavor, color, transparency, wholesomeness.
>
>> This morning, I heated it back up and
>> simmered it very slowly for about 6 hours.
>
> Way, way too long. 3 hours max for bird stock.
>
>> The vegetables were mush
>> and most of the carcass has disappeared. Only the larer boned
>> remained.
>
> And that's how you know the stock you made was overcooked.
>
>> I let it cool for a hour or so, then strained it into a large bowl. I
>> have about 12 cups of stock.
>
> That's about twice as much as you should have. Given cooking time,
> evaporation to be expected, you probably started with maybe three or four
> times too much water.
>
>> The stock is fairly thin, but not exactly clear.
>
> Boiling does that.
>
>> It has a definite
>> chicken soup taste, but not strong -- actually, fairly weak or bland.
>> Did I use too much water?
>
> Way, way too much.
>
>> It tastes like it seend salt of something.
>
> It does need salt. Stocks always do.
>
> > I didn't add any spices, figuring I would do that when I make the soup.
>>
>> It has been sitting for an hour and a very thin "skin" has formed on
>> the top. It's not really "fat". It has a slightly plastic look. It
>> "crinkles" when touched with a spoon. Should I skim that off?
>
> It's protein and, yes, you should skim it.
>
>> Should I let it sit longer and skim off the fat?
>
> Sitting out at room temp won't make it easy to skim. Chill it (yesterday)
> and just lift off the fat.
>
>> Overall, does this sound about right?
>
> No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
> damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background info
> you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise, making
> bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying instead of
> doing it right the first time...
>
>> Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>
> Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.
>
>> I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
>> or do I need to wait?
>
> It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
> to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
> deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.
>
>> When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
>> ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
>> what proportions?
>
> Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.
>
> Pastorio

I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
there in Google-verse or whatever?

sheesh

MG wrote:

> I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
> wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
> experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
> there in Google-verse or whatever?

There are some recipes that might be confusing by virtue
of their varying versions, but chicken stock is not
one of them. There is some truth to the fact that she
should have read a recipe somewhere at least once.

As far Bob goes, he's been one of the more knowledgeable
(and generous) people I've encountered on the internet. He's
responded in depth to some of my most technical and obscure
questions. Some of it is stuff I can normally only find
in special-order professional textbooks, if at all. So
no, I can't agree that he's such a bad guy.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

LurfysMa wrote:
> My first attempt at making chicken stock is completed. Again, thanks
> fo everyone for their help and suggestions.
>
> The carcass including neck, feet, a few giblets, and whatever meat was
> left on the carcass went into a large stew pot. Added one large onion,
> 4 carrots, and 3 celery stalks including leaves (cut into half-inch
> pieces), plus 3 bay leaves and 8-10 peppercorns. Covered in water,
> brought to slow boil.
>
> By that time it was about 10 pm. I was worried about leaving it
> simmering all night, so I turned it off after about 2 hours and left
> it on the stove overnight.
>
Please stop cross-posting.

You have about 12 cups of potentially bad stuff. You let it sit out
overnight. Bad idea. Chicken stock is not a good thing to mess with (nor
is fish). Why didn't you just put it in the refrigerator after you turned
off the burner? You have now ruined a probably good chicken broth. Note I
said broth, not stock. If it didn't get gelatinous, it's probably not
stock. At any rate, it's something that may make you sick.

Jill

MG wrote:

> I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
> wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
> experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
> there in Google-verse or whatever?

No. Not always. Rarely, actually. Just when they put on as determined a
show as this not to actually learn, in a reasonably systematic way, what
the hell they're doing. And, I know you'll be surprised about this, but
there are things called "cook-books" (not completely sure of the
spelling) that contain directions and explanations to guide the
processes. And are written from "other peoples' experiences" as seems so
important to you.

Chicken stock is one of the simpler things to do in a kitchen. Very few
steps. Rather than blunder around screwing it up like the OP did,
wasting, time, energy, money, and our time as well, literally two
minutes spent reading a recipe from a cookbook would have answered all
the questions raised.

It's a rather stupid laziness - especially intellectual - that makes a
person take all the time spent posting and cooking and screwing around
RATHER than just looking in a book or wandering into the vast,
incomprehensible, scary "Google-verse or whatever." Gawd...

Are you two related?

> sheesh

Sheesh this.

I didn't see too many helpful bits of information from you, or did I
miss something? Perhaps you neglected to note the replies I gave the
person and to what depth. Did you have anything to actually contribute
to the thread?

Pastorio

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:56:31 GMT, "MG"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
>> LurfysMa wrote:
>>
>>> We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
>>> and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
>>> the carcass and set aside. The carcass including neck, feet, a few
>>> giblets,
<snip>
>> No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
>> damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background info
>> you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise, making
>> bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying instead of
>> doing it right the first time...
>>
>>> Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>>
>> Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.
>>
>>> I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
>>> or do I need to wait?
>>
>> It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
>> to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
>> deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.
>>
>>> When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
>>> ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
>>> what proportions?
>>
>> Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
>experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
>there in Google-verse or whatever?
>
>sheesh
>

Sad, isn't it? In fact, the OP has been investigating what goes into
making various dishes before executing them. For example, before
asking on rfc, he (the OP is male) looked for recipes for beef stew
and found hundreds with different proportions and flavorings. Because
it was so confusing, he then posted a request on rfc asking for advice
and general guidelines for stew from people who have experience. He
got quite a bit of helpful advice from regulars, including one to
experiment rather than use a recipe. All of those previous replies
were quite nice and pleasant.

On the other hand, Pastorio ignored the OPs requests for advice
*before* making the stock, and instead decided to respond afterwards
with derision. So it's not that he couldn't be bothered to answer
-look at how much time he spent- but that it's more fun for him to
criticize after the fact and look like a such a hot shot in the
mirror.

And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
answer to this

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:56:31 GMT, "MG"
> > wrote:
>
>
> And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
> answer to this
>
It's been a long time since I've read rfc (I'm seeing this on asd), but Bob
was among the most useful posters there. You want rude, does that Sheldon
guy still post there?

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:19:12 -0600, "Matthew Venhaus"
> wrote:

>
>"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:56:31 GMT, "MG"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
>> answer to this
>>
>It's been a long time since I've read rfc (I'm seeing this on asd), but Bob
>was among the most useful posters there. You want rude, does that Sheldon
>guy still post there?
>

Yes, interestingly, they are very similar in many ways.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:19:12 -0600, "Matthew Venhaus"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:56:31 GMT, "MG"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
> >> answer to this
> >>
> >It's been a long time since I've read rfc (I'm seeing this on asd), but Bob
> >was among the most useful posters there. You want rude, does that Sheldon
> >guy still post there?
> >
>
> Yes, interestingly, they are very similar in many ways.
>
Except that one has a sense of humor. -aem

Curly Sue wrote:

> > wrote:
>
>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>
>>>LurfysMa wrote:
>>>
>>>>We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
>>>>and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
>>>>the carcass and set aside. The carcass including neck, feet, a few
>>>>giblets,
>
> <snip>
>
>>>No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
>>>damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background info
>>>you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise, making
>>>bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying instead of
>>>doing it right the first time...
>>>
>>>>Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>>>
>>>Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.
>>>
>>>>I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
>>>>or do I need to wait?
>>>
>>>It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
>>>to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
>>>deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.
>>>
>>>>When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
>>>>ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
>>>>what proportions?
>>>
>>>Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>
>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
>>experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
>>there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>
>>sheesh
>>
> Sad, isn't it?

<sob> It's one of the blights of our modern era that one can't simply
shoot people that think differently. Why when we were kids...

> In fact, the OP has been investigating what goes into
> making various dishes before executing them.

Lovely. I guess that's why there were so many questions about what to do
*after* thoroughly screwing it up, right?

> For example, before
> asking on rfc, he (the OP is male) looked for recipes for beef stew
> and found hundreds with different proportions and flavorings. Because
> it was so confusing, he then posted a request on rfc asking for advice
> and general guidelines for stew from people who have experience. He
> got quite a bit of helpful advice from regulars, including one to
> experiment rather than use a recipe. All of those previous replies
> were quite nice and pleasant.

One kind of situation. Not like the stock one at all. But hey, Curly Sue
is still upset with me from the last time we tangled. Little sidelong
swipe, right? Just another small try at a poke?

> On the other hand, Pastorio ignored the OPs requests for advice
> *before* making the stock, and instead decided to respond afterwards
> with derision.

It's a singular astonishment that you feel you can alter history just by
writing things. Did it escape your note that the thread began with an
inquiry about chicken feet for stock and that I replied in rather
lengthy detail? Slipped right by you, did it? My *seven* replies all
giving technical information about stocks and making them? Missed them,
did you?

And when the OP started a new thread - this one - where most of that
advice was ignored and a lot of guesswork went into making a crap broth
not even fit for animals and I still added more information, I guess
that slipped past you, too, right? I note you both focussed on the part
you find so desperately improper but seem to have zoomed right past the
small textbook on stockmaking I posted. What a surprise.

You two demonstrate the sad triumph of form over content.

> So it's not that he couldn't be bothered to answer
> -look at how much time he spent- but that it's more fun for him to
> criticize after the fact and look like a such a hot shot in the
> mirror.

If you had the brains of the chicken that died to make a pot of crap
broth, you'd actually read what you wrote and scratch it out before
anyone else saw it. In the case of sincere questers who had done some
preliminary reading or listening, I wrote lots of information. And even
in the case of the bonehead who plunged ahead with stock making
stupidly, I still offered a lot of information. But I also explained why
it was stupid. And it was.

I'd like to say I'm sorry it distresses you, but I can't. You've shown
yourself to be more caught up in ego than education.

> And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
> answer to this

Like the ad says about that investment house, "You got it the
old-fashioned way. You earned it."

But it's especially cute of you to try to use someone else's post to get
back at me from your last humiliation.

Did you offer much information about stocks? Did MG? Oh...

Pastorio

Curly Sue wrote:
> "Matthew Venhaus" > wrote:
>
>>"Curly Sue" > wrote
>>
>>>"MG" > wrote:
>>>
>>>And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
>>>answer to this
>>
>>It's been a long time since I've read rfc (I'm seeing this on asd), but Bob
>>was among the most useful posters there. You want rude, does that Sheldon
>>guy still post there?
>>
> Yes, interestingly, they are very similar in many ways.

It's a great service you render here with the crystalline acuteness of
your psychological profiles. I mean, what would we be without the
searingly insightful clarity you've brought to this subject. And so many
others just like it. You're a credit to your, um, er...

And I mean that in the best possible way.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

aem wrote:
> Curly Sue wrote:
>
>> "Matthew > wrote:
>>
>>>"Curly Sue" > wrote
>>>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
>>>>answer to this
>>>>
>>>It's been a long time since I've read rfc (I'm seeing this on asd), but Bob
>>>was among the most useful posters there. You want rude, does that Sheldon
>>>guy still post there?
>>>
>>Yes, interestingly, they are very similar in many ways.
>>
> Except that one has a sense of humor. -aem

Bite your tongue. This place is a very serious, um, venue. Or something.
No smiling on, er, company time. I mean, I know it's not a company, but
what would be a better word?

We don't hold with that "sense of humor" stuff around here. Talking
about wops is serious stuff. And typing "yoose" and "samich" are both of
at least national importance.

I trust you'll be better behaved in the future. Now please make that
fart noise under your arm like you do so well. Everyone loves it so,
even though it's not funny.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:43:55 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>
>>>>LurfysMa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
>>>>>and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
>>>>>the carcass and set aside. The carcass including neck, feet, a few
>>>>>giblets,
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
>>>>damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background info
>>>>you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise, making
>>>>bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying instead of
>>>>doing it right the first time...
>>>>
>>>>>Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>>>>
>>>>Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.
>>>>
>>>>>I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
>>>>>or do I need to wait?
>>>>
>>>>It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
>>>>to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
>>>>deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.
>>>>
>>>>>When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
>>>>>ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
>>>>>what proportions?
>>>>
>>>>Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.
>>>>
>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
>>>experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
>>>there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>>
>>>sheesh
>>>
>> Sad, isn't it?
>
><sob> It's one of the blights of our modern era that one can't simply
>shoot people that think differently. Why when we were kids...
>
>> In fact, the OP has been investigating what goes into
>> making various dishes before executing them.
>
>Lovely. I guess that's why there were so many questions about what to do
>*after* thoroughly screwing it up, right?
>
> > For example, before
>> asking on rfc, he (the OP is male) looked for recipes for beef stew
>> and found hundreds with different proportions and flavorings. Because
>> it was so confusing, he then posted a request on rfc asking for advice
>> and general guidelines for stew from people who have experience. He
>> got quite a bit of helpful advice from regulars, including one to
>> experiment rather than use a recipe. All of those previous replies
>> were quite nice and pleasant.
>
>One kind of situation. Not like the stock one at all. But hey, Curly Sue
>is still upset with me from the last time we tangled. Little sidelong
>swipe, right? Just another small try at a poke?

Just agreeing with someone else's observation that you're needlessly
rude.

>> On the other hand, Pastorio ignored the OPs requests for advice
>> *before* making the stock, and instead decided to respond afterwards
>> with derision.
>
>It's a singular astonishment that you feel you can alter history just by
>writing things. Did it escape your note that the thread began with an
>inquiry about chicken feet for stock and that I replied in rather
>lengthy detail? Slipped right by you, did it? My *seven* replies all
>giving technical information about stocks and making them? Missed them,
>did you?

In other words, you *did* know that the OP "asked a grownup". You
were just ****ed that he didn't acknowledge your contribution with the
fawning you crave.

>And when the OP started a new thread - this one - where most of that
>advice was ignored and a lot of guesswork went into making a crap broth
>not even fit for animals and I still added more information, I guess
>that slipped past you, too, right? I note you both focussed on the part
>you find so desperately improper but seem to have zoomed right past the
>small textbook on stockmaking I posted. What a surprise.

In other words, you knew he did "ask a grownup" and try to get
information. You were just ****ed that he didn't fawn all over you,
and you couldn't let that pass without getting abusive.

>You two demonstrate the sad triumph of form over content.
>
>> So it's not that he couldn't be bothered to answer
>> -look at how much time he spent- but that it's more fun for him to
>> criticize after the fact and look like a such a hot shot in the
>> mirror.
>
>If you had the brains of the chicken that died to make a pot of crap
>broth, you'd actually read what you wrote and scratch it out before
>anyone else saw it. In the case of sincere questers who had done some
>preliminary reading or listening, I wrote lots of information. And even
>in the case of the bonehead who plunged ahead with stock making
>stupidly, I still offered a lot of information. But I also explained why
>it was stupid. And it was.
>
>I'd like to say I'm sorry it distresses you, but I can't. You've shown
>yourself to be more caught up in ego than education.
>
>> And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
>> answer to this
>
>Like the ad says about that investment house, "You got it the
>old-fashioned way. You earned it."

You can't resist. It's not even me- look at your answer to the
others.

>But it's especially cute of you to try to use someone else's post to get
>back at me from your last humiliation.

It is so easy for anyone (who is interested) to retrieve posts and
find out who was humiliated (eg. just Google rfc for "agita");
mentioning it can only come back to bite you, so I wonder why you set
yourself up like that.
Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>
>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>LurfysMa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
>>>>>>and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
>>>>>>the carcass and set aside. The carcass including neck, feet, a few
>>>>>>giblets,
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
>>>>>damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background info
>>>>>you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise, making
>>>>>bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying instead of
>>>>>doing it right the first time...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>>>>>
>>>>>Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
>>>>>>or do I need to wait?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
>>>>>to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
>>>>>deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
>>>>>>ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
>>>>>>what proportions?
>>>>>
>>>>>Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pastorio
>>>>
>>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
>>>>experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
>>>>there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>>>
>>>>sheesh
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sad, isn't it?
>>
>><sob> It's one of the blights of our modern era that one can't simply
>>shoot people that think differently. Why when we were kids...
>>
>>>In fact, the OP has been investigating what goes into
>>>making various dishes before executing them.
>>
>>Lovely. I guess that's why there were so many questions about what to do
>>*after* thoroughly screwing it up, right?
>>
>>>For example, before
>>>asking on rfc, he (the OP is male) looked for recipes for beef stew
>>>and found hundreds with different proportions and flavorings. Because
>>>it was so confusing, he then posted a request on rfc asking for advice
>>>and general guidelines for stew from people who have experience. He
>>>got quite a bit of helpful advice from regulars, including one to
>>>experiment rather than use a recipe. All of those previous replies
>>>were quite nice and pleasant.
>>
>>One kind of situation. Not like the stock one at all. But hey, Curly Sue
>>is still upset with me from the last time we tangled. Little sidelong
>>swipe, right? Just another small try at a poke?
>
> Just agreeing with someone else's observation that you're needlessly
> rude.

<LOL> It's that unbiased opinion I so admire. And what a fine and rapid
change from your prior paragraph where the poor, innocent OP was badly
done by. I note no effort to acknowledge the factual reality she so
badly distorted.

Shocking.

>>>On the other hand, Pastorio ignored the OPs requests for advice
>>>*before* making the stock, and instead decided to respond afterwards
>>>with derision.
>>
>>It's a singular astonishment that you feel you can alter history just by
>>writing things. Did it escape your note that the thread began with an
>>inquiry about chicken feet for stock and that I replied in rather
>>lengthy detail? Slipped right by you, did it? My *seven* replies all
>>giving technical information about stocks and making them? Missed them,
>>did you?
>
> In other words, you *did* know that the OP "asked a grownup". You
> were just ****ed that he didn't acknowledge your contribution with the
> fawning you crave.

I got your fawning right here.

It's another one of your brilliant psychological analyses. Idiot.

I didn't and don't ask for acknowledgement, and certainly not here. The
OP went off half cocked and did a bunch of profoundly stupid stuff
INSTEAD of asking a grownup. He asked AFTERWARD. AFTER he screwed up a
whole process. AFTER he invented a whole method. A stupid one that
guaranteed failure. Precisely because he *didn't* ask a grownup.

Perhaps he asked you.

>>And when the OP started a new thread - this one - where most of that
>>advice was ignored and a lot of guesswork went into making a crap broth
>>not even fit for animals and I still added more information, I guess
>>that slipped past you, too, right? I note you both focussed on the part
>>you find so desperately improper but seem to have zoomed right past the
>>small textbook on stockmaking I posted. What a surprise.
>
> In other words, you knew he did "ask a grownup" and try to get
> information. You were just ****ed that he didn't fawn all over you,
> and you couldn't let that pass without getting abusive.

**** you and the chicken you'd probably screw up the same way. Trying to
pin this stuff on me just because I managed to rather soundly demolish
your fatuous prattling once before is a rather sad show.

No one fawns over me here or anywhere else. That would be as phony as you.

But I note you've once again avoided dealing with the correction to your
self-serving distortions of the truth.

Shocking.

>>You two demonstrate the sad triumph of form over content.
>>
>>>So it's not that he couldn't be bothered to answer
>>>-look at how much time he spent- but that it's more fun for him to
>>>criticize after the fact and look like a such a hot shot in the
>>>mirror.
>>
>>If you had the brains of the chicken that died to make a pot of crap
>>broth, you'd actually read what you wrote and scratch it out before
>>anyone else saw it. In the case of sincere questers who had done some
>>preliminary reading or listening, I wrote lots of information. And even
>>in the case of the bonehead who plunged ahead with stock making
>>stupidly, I still offered a lot of information. But I also explained why
>>it was stupid. And it was.
>>
>>I'd like to say I'm sorry it distresses you, but I can't. You've shown
>>yourself to be more caught up in ego than education.
>>
>>>And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
>>>answer to this
>>
>>Like the ad says about that investment house, "You got it the
>>old-fashioned way. You earned it."
>
> You can't resist. It's not even me- look at your answer to the
> others.

<LOL> Oh, trust me. It's you - and a few others like you; failed nannies
and netcops. Blowholes who know how everyone else should live.
Hypocritical frauds like you who try to couch vituperation in terms that
seem noble and uplifted - "I'm chastising you because you're acting
badly." When all it truly is, is petty malice, thinly disguised.

When you feel the need to bypass your Prozac and attack...

I've suggested it before. Killfile me if I cause you such mouth-foaming
distress. Make believe you actually can resist trying to recapture your
shattered dignity in the face of all odds. Do try to maintain what
little credibility you have left.

>>But it's especially cute of you to try to use someone else's post to get
>>back at me from your last humiliation.
>
> It is so easy for anyone (who is interested) to retrieve posts and
> find out who was humiliated (eg. just Google rfc for "agita");
> mentioning it can only come back to bite you, so I wonder why you set
> yourself up like that.

<LOL> Revisionist history seems to be a specialty of yours. Like all
through this post. Who did what, when seems to elude your grasp.

Let me help here. <http://tinyurl.com/bs5qb> This is the thread where
the eminent linguist Curly Sue quotes one web site to support her view
and then vomits all over herself. She "corrects" various linguistic
authorities and generally displays her deep erudition. Every bit of it.
Took about a minute and 23 seconds to type all that wisdom in.

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

You may go now.

Pastorio

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:25:47 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
<snip>
>>>But it's especially cute of you to try to use someone else's post to get
>>>back at me from your last humiliation.
>>
>> It is so easy for anyone (who is interested) to retrieve posts and
>> find out who was humiliated (eg. just Google rfc for "agita");
>> mentioning it can only come back to bite you, so I wonder why you set
>> yourself up like that.
>
><LOL> Revisionist history seems to be a specialty of yours. Like all
>through this post. Who did what, when seems to elude your grasp.
>
>Let me help here. <http://tinyurl.com/bs5qb> This is the thread where
>the eminent linguist Curly Sue quotes one web site to support her view
>and then vomits all over herself. She "corrects" various linguistic
>authorities and generally displays her deep erudition. Every bit of it.
>Took about a minute and 23 seconds to type all that wisdom in.
>

What I wrote then about your response in that thread hasn't changed:

>First you claim it's not "agita," then when presented with evidence
>otherwise, you come up with a linguistic history of ... agita! But no
>amount of shoveling and back-pedalling can cover up your faux pas. I
>will say that I'm stunned by the effort you invested in trying.

Clearly you still haven't recovered emotionally from the humiliation.
Poor Bob.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote
> Clearly you still haven't recovered emotionally from the humiliation.
> Poor Bob.

Sure, Sue. That's why the attacking. Oh, wait. You came after me...

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> MG wrote:
>
>> I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>> wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other
>> peoples' experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of
>> information out there in Google-verse or whatever?
>
> No. Not always. Rarely, actually. Just when they put on as determined a
> show as this not to actually learn, in a reasonably systematic way, what
> the hell they're doing. And, I know you'll be surprised about this, but
> there are things called "cook-books" (not completely sure of the spelling)
> that contain directions and explanations to guide the processes. And are
> written from "other peoples' experiences" as seems so important to you.
>
> Chicken stock is one of the simpler things to do in a kitchen. Very few
> steps. Rather than blunder around screwing it up like the OP did, wasting,
> time, energy, money, and our time as well, literally two minutes spent
> reading a recipe from a cookbook would have answered all the questions
> raised.
>
> It's a rather stupid laziness - especially intellectual - that makes a
> person take all the time spent posting and cooking and screwing around
> RATHER than just looking in a book or wandering into the vast,
> incomprehensible, scary "Google-verse or whatever." Gawd...
>
> Are you two related?
>
>> sheesh
>
> Sheesh this.
>
> I didn't see too many helpful bits of information from you, or did I miss
> something? Perhaps you neglected to note the replies I gave the person and
> to what depth. Did you have anything to actually contribute to the thread?
>
> Pastorio


so because I didn't offer any advice to the OP re how to make a decent
stock, my opinion about anything else in this thread doesn't count?

think a lot of yourself

anyone can make mistakes, even following an apparently tried and true
recipe...the recipe itself might have a printing error, the person might be
distracted by something else more important in their lives than a dead chook
(or bones in this case) or whatever...I don't think making is a decent stock
is SO important a thing in life that someone should be berated for getting
it wrong

and yes, I do know how to make a decent stock, but it was a process of trial
and error to get it the way I like it, and I don't make it entirely the same
way my chef father did, or my (great Italian cook) mother does

MG

MG wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>MG wrote:
>>
>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other
>>>peoples' experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of
>>>information out there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>
>>No. Not always. Rarely, actually. Just when they put on as determined a
>>show as this not to actually learn, in a reasonably systematic way, what
>>the hell they're doing. And, I know you'll be surprised about this, but
>>there are things called "cook-books" (not completely sure of the spelling)
>>that contain directions and explanations to guide the processes. And are
>>written from "other peoples' experiences" as seems so important to you.
>>
>>Chicken stock is one of the simpler things to do in a kitchen. Very few
>>steps. Rather than blunder around screwing it up like the OP did, wasting,
>>time, energy, money, and our time as well, literally two minutes spent
>>reading a recipe from a cookbook would have answered all the questions
>>raised.
>>
>>It's a rather stupid laziness - especially intellectual - that makes a
>>person take all the time spent posting and cooking and screwing around
>>RATHER than just looking in a book or wandering into the vast,
>>incomprehensible, scary "Google-verse or whatever." Gawd...
>>
>>Are you two related?
>>
>>>sheesh
>>
>>Sheesh this.
>>
>>I didn't see too many helpful bits of information from you, or did I miss
>>something? Perhaps you neglected to note the replies I gave the person and
>>to what depth. Did you have anything to actually contribute to the thread?
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> so because I didn't offer any advice to the OP re how to make a decent
> stock, my opinion about anything else in this thread doesn't count?

No. Because you're a net nanny, fatuous in vision and standards, and
because you're a scolding nag. Your only opinion in this thread has been
about me and let's see if you can grasp a simple notion. I don't care
what you think of me. Given your lack of any other contribution, I see
no redeeming features, hence dismissal.

I replied directly to your objections/questions in that first noisome
post of yours. How is it that it all zoomed past you so thoroughly?

> think a lot of yourself

Not really. But I think little of fools. Do go back up and read my
explanation at the top of this note. It explains it all very clearly.

> anyone can make mistakes, even following an apparently tried and true
> recipe...the recipe itself might have a printing error, the person might be
> distracted by something else more important in their lives than a dead chook
> (or bones in this case) or whatever...I don't think making is a decent stock
> is SO important a thing in life that someone should be berated for getting
> it wrong

Do you actually have anything to contribute or will you merely continue
to confabulate like this? Read the crap you just wrote and compare it
with what actually happened and see if your dudgeon has even the
remotest scintilla of merit. Somebody went off half-cocked and created a
bullshit broth not worth eating *because* he did nothing intelligent
towards getting the job done right before doing it. He didn't make
mistakes following a recipe; no typos; no misstatements in the
directions he was trying to follow. He wasn't following *any*
directions. He was guessing and fumbling, violating good sanitation
practices creating potential hazards for him and his family, ruining
what could have been good food and then asking how to fix a terminal
case *of his negligent doing.* Smart, huh...?

All your might-be's and could-have-been's don't diminish the actual
events. I see you want to continue this and I'll be happy to comply, but
I'm growing as tired of your vacuity as I was of that OP's intellectual
laziness and I may soon begin to speak sharply to you and make you cross
with me. Neither of us would like that.

> and yes, I do know how to make a decent stock, but it was a process of trial
> and error to get it the way I like it, and I don't make it entirely the same
> way my chef father did, or my (great Italian cook) mother does

Who cares? Did you nag them, too, with your might-be and could-be view
of the universe? Did you make excuses for negligent strangers then, too?

Please. Killfile me. Your blood pressure will benefit. You'll sleep
better. I won't teach you anything new that you'll have to give me
credit for so I'll get all conceited, and be like HelloOo, and all.
What's not to like?

No, seriously...

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> MG wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>MG wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other
>>>>peoples' experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of
>>>>information out there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>>
>>>No. Not always. Rarely, actually. Just when they put on as determined a
>>>show as this not to actually learn, in a reasonably systematic way, what
>>>the hell they're doing. And, I know you'll be surprised about this, but
>>>there are things called "cook-books" (not completely sure of the
>>>spelling) that contain directions and explanations to guide the
>>>processes. And are written from "other peoples' experiences" as seems so
>>>important to you.
>>>
>>>Chicken stock is one of the simpler things to do in a kitchen. Very few
>>>steps. Rather than blunder around screwing it up like the OP did,
>>>wasting, time, energy, money, and our time as well, literally two minutes
>>>spent reading a recipe from a cookbook would have answered all the
>>>questions raised.
>>>
>>>It's a rather stupid laziness - especially intellectual - that makes a
>>>person take all the time spent posting and cooking and screwing around
>>>RATHER than just looking in a book or wandering into the vast,
>>>incomprehensible, scary "Google-verse or whatever." Gawd...
>>>
>>>Are you two related?
>>>
>>>>sheesh
>>>
>>>Sheesh this.
>>>
>>>I didn't see too many helpful bits of information from you, or did I miss
>>>something? Perhaps you neglected to note the replies I gave the person
>>>and to what depth. Did you have anything to actually contribute to the
>>>thread?
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>
>> so because I didn't offer any advice to the OP re how to make a decent
>> stock, my opinion about anything else in this thread doesn't count?
>
> No. Because you're a net nanny, fatuous in vision and standards, and
> because you're a scolding nag. Your only opinion in this thread has been
> about me and let's see if you can grasp a simple notion. I don't care what
> you think of me. Given your lack of any other contribution, I see no
> redeeming features, hence dismissal.
>
> I replied directly to your objections/questions in that first noisome post
> of yours. How is it that it all zoomed past you so thoroughly?
>
>> think a lot of yourself
>
> Not really. But I think little of fools. Do go back up and read my
> explanation at the top of this note. It explains it all very clearly.
>
>> anyone can make mistakes, even following an apparently tried and true
>> recipe...the recipe itself might have a printing error, the person might
>> be distracted by something else more important in their lives than a dead
>> chook (or bones in this case) or whatever...I don't think making is a
>> decent stock is SO important a thing in life that someone should be
>> berated for getting it wrong
>
> Do you actually have anything to contribute or will you merely continue to
> confabulate like this? Read the crap you just wrote and compare it with
> what actually happened and see if your dudgeon has even the remotest
> scintilla of merit. Somebody went off half-cocked and created a bullshit
> broth not worth eating *because* he did nothing intelligent towards
> getting the job done right before doing it. He didn't make mistakes
> following a recipe; no typos; no misstatements in the directions he was
> trying to follow. He wasn't following *any* directions. He was guessing
> and fumbling, violating good sanitation practices creating potential
> hazards for him and his family, ruining what could have been good food and
> then asking how to fix a terminal case *of his negligent doing.* Smart,
> huh...?
>
> All your might-be's and could-have-been's don't diminish the actual
> events. I see you want to continue this and I'll be happy to comply, but
> I'm growing as tired of your vacuity as I was of that OP's intellectual
> laziness and I may soon begin to speak sharply to you and make you cross
> with me. Neither of us would like that.
>
>> and yes, I do know how to make a decent stock, but it was a process of
>> trial and error to get it the way I like it, and I don't make it entirely
>> the same way my chef father did, or my (great Italian cook) mother does
>
> Who cares? Did you nag them, too, with your might-be and could-be view of
> the universe? Did you make excuses for negligent strangers then, too?
>
> Please. Killfile me. Your blood pressure will benefit. You'll sleep
> better. I won't teach you anything new that you'll have to give me credit
> for so I'll get all conceited, and be like HelloOo, and all. What's not to
> like?
>
> No, seriously...
>
> Pastorio

wow, barely had to bait the hook roflmao

MG wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>>MG wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>
>>>>MG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>>>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other
>>>>>peoples' experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of
>>>>>information out there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>>>
>>>>No. Not always. Rarely, actually. Just when they put on as determined a
>>>>show as this not to actually learn, in a reasonably systematic way, what
>>>>the hell they're doing. And, I know you'll be surprised about this, but
>>>>there are things called "cook-books" (not completely sure of the
>>>>spelling) that contain directions and explanations to guide the
>>>>processes. And are written from "other peoples' experiences" as seems so
>>>>important to you.
>>>>
>>>>Chicken stock is one of the simpler things to do in a kitchen. Very few
>>>>steps. Rather than blunder around screwing it up like the OP did,
>>>>wasting, time, energy, money, and our time as well, literally two minutes
>>>>spent reading a recipe from a cookbook would have answered all the
>>>>questions raised.
>>>>
>>>>It's a rather stupid laziness - especially intellectual - that makes a
>>>>person take all the time spent posting and cooking and screwing around
>>>>RATHER than just looking in a book or wandering into the vast,
>>>>incomprehensible, scary "Google-verse or whatever." Gawd...
>>>>
>>>>Are you two related?
>>>>
>>>>>sheesh
>>>>
>>>>Sheesh this.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't see too many helpful bits of information from you, or did I miss
>>>>something? Perhaps you neglected to note the replies I gave the person
>>>>and to what depth. Did you have anything to actually contribute to the
>>>>thread?
>>>>
>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>so because I didn't offer any advice to the OP re how to make a decent
>>>stock, my opinion about anything else in this thread doesn't count?
>>
>>No. Because you're a net nanny, fatuous in vision and standards, and
>>because you're a scolding nag. Your only opinion in this thread has been
>>about me and let's see if you can grasp a simple notion. I don't care what
>>you think of me. Given your lack of any other contribution, I see no
>>redeeming features, hence dismissal.
>>
>>I replied directly to your objections/questions in that first noisome post
>>of yours. How is it that it all zoomed past you so thoroughly?
>>
>>>think a lot of yourself
>>
>>Not really. But I think little of fools. Do go back up and read my
>>explanation at the top of this note. It explains it all very clearly.
>>
>>>anyone can make mistakes, even following an apparently tried and true
>>>recipe...the recipe itself might have a printing error, the person might
>>>be distracted by something else more important in their lives than a dead
>>>chook (or bones in this case) or whatever...I don't think making is a
>>>decent stock is SO important a thing in life that someone should be
>>>berated for getting it wrong
>>
>>Do you actually have anything to contribute or will you merely continue to
>>confabulate like this? Read the crap you just wrote and compare it with
>>what actually happened and see if your dudgeon has even the remotest
>>scintilla of merit. Somebody went off half-cocked and created a bullshit
>>broth not worth eating *because* he did nothing intelligent towards
>>getting the job done right before doing it. He didn't make mistakes
>>following a recipe; no typos; no misstatements in the directions he was
>>trying to follow. He wasn't following *any* directions. He was guessing
>>and fumbling, violating good sanitation practices creating potential
>>hazards for him and his family, ruining what could have been good food and
>>then asking how to fix a terminal case *of his negligent doing.* Smart,
>>huh...?
>>
>>All your might-be's and could-have-been's don't diminish the actual
>>events. I see you want to continue this and I'll be happy to comply, but
>>I'm growing as tired of your vacuity as I was of that OP's intellectual
>>laziness and I may soon begin to speak sharply to you and make you cross
>>with me. Neither of us would like that.
>>
>>
>>>and yes, I do know how to make a decent stock, but it was a process of
>>>trial and error to get it the way I like it, and I don't make it entirely
>>>the same way my chef father did, or my (great Italian cook) mother does
>>
>>Who cares? Did you nag them, too, with your might-be and could-be view of
>>the universe? Did you make excuses for negligent strangers then, too?
>>
>>Please. Killfile me. Your blood pressure will benefit. You'll sleep
>>better. I won't teach you anything new that you'll have to give me credit
>>for so I'll get all conceited, and be like HelloOo, and all. What's not to
>>like?
>>
>>No, seriously...
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> wow, barely had to bait the hook roflmao

Puhleeeeze. This is rich enough to leave untrimmed.

Get yourself all up in a fussy snit, complain to the group at large,
whine about "why can't we all just get along" ... and when your paltry
participation and particular pointlessness is spotlighted, you take the
last-resort retreat of "Hey, I wuz trolling all the time"...

That laughter rings as hollow as your thinking.

Give it up, Zippy. It's even more transparent than your ideas.

Pastorio

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:43:55 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>
>>>>LurfysMa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We had baked chicken with stuffing. I had a few slices of breast meat
>>>>>and the wife has a leg and thigh. I pulled the rest of the meat off
>>>>>the carcass and set aside. The carcass including neck, feet, a few
>>>>>giblets,
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>No. And I must say I'm finding this exercise a bit tiresome. You're too
>>>>damn lazy to read a recipe or Google a bit to find out the background info
>>>>you need. Instead you want to be spoon fed through this exercise, making
>>>>bonehead moves based on sheer guesswork that need remedying instead of
>>>>doing it right the first time...
>>>>
>>>>>Are there any adjustments I need to make for next time?
>>>>
>>>>Read a goddam book. Google a recipe. Ask a grownup.
>>>>
>>>>>I am looking forward to making soup with it. Can I use it right away,
>>>>>or do I need to wait?
>>>>
>>>>It's crap and you should feed it to your pets, because you didn't bother
>>>>to learn anything before setting out on this odyssey and, in your
>>>>deliberate ignorance, have wasted your time and money and ours, as well.
>>>>
>>>>>When I do make soup, do I use all of the stock as the liquid or do I
>>>>>ue some water and only add stock for part of the liquid? If so, in
>>>>>what proportions?
>>>>
>>>>Read a recipe and take some intelligent initiative for your own results.
>>>>
>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who just
>>>wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other peoples'
>>>experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of information out
>>>there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>>
>>>sheesh
>>>
>> Sad, isn't it?
>
><sob> It's one of the blights of our modern era that one can't simply
>shoot people that think differently. Why when we were kids...
>
>> In fact, the OP has been investigating what goes into
>> making various dishes before executing them.
>
>Lovely. I guess that's why there were so many questions about what to do
>*after* thoroughly screwing it up, right?
>
> > For example, before
>> asking on rfc, he (the OP is male) looked for recipes for beef stew
>> and found hundreds with different proportions and flavorings. Because
>> it was so confusing, he then posted a request on rfc asking for advice
>> and general guidelines for stew from people who have experience. He
>> got quite a bit of helpful advice from regulars, including one to
>> experiment rather than use a recipe. All of those previous replies
>> were quite nice and pleasant.
>
>One kind of situation. Not like the stock one at all. But hey, Curly Sue
>is still upset with me from the last time we tangled. Little sidelong
>swipe, right? Just another small try at a poke?
>
>> On the other hand, Pastorio ignored the OPs requests for advice
>> *before* making the stock, and instead decided to respond afterwards
>> with derision.
>
>It's a singular astonishment that you feel you can alter history just by
>writing things. Did it escape your note that the thread began with an
>inquiry about chicken feet for stock and that I replied in rather
>lengthy detail? Slipped right by you, did it? My *seven* replies all
>giving technical information about stocks and making them? Missed them,
>did you?
>
>And when the OP started a new thread - this one - where most of that
>advice was ignored and a lot of guesswork went into making a crap broth
>not even fit for animals and I still added more information, I guess
>that slipped past you, too, right? I note you both focussed on the part
>you find so desperately improper but seem to have zoomed right past the
>small textbook on stockmaking I posted. What a surprise.
>
>You two demonstrate the sad triumph of form over content.
>
>> So it's not that he couldn't be bothered to answer
>> -look at how much time he spent- but that it's more fun for him to
>> criticize after the fact and look like a such a hot shot in the
>> mirror.
>
>If you had the brains of the chicken that died to make a pot of crap
>broth, you'd actually read what you wrote and scratch it out before
>anyone else saw it. In the case of sincere questers who had done some
>preliminary reading or listening, I wrote lots of information. And even
>in the case of the bonehead who plunged ahead with stock making
>stupidly, I still offered a lot of information. But I also explained why
>it was stupid. And it was.
>
>I'd like to say I'm sorry it distresses you, but I can't. You've shown
>yourself to be more caught up in ego than education.
>
>> And no, it's not out of character for Bob to be rude. Watch his
>> answer to this
>
>Like the ad says about that investment house, "You got it the
>old-fashioned way. You earned it."
>
>But it's especially cute of you to try to use someone else's post to get
>back at me from your last humiliation.
>
>Did you offer much information about stocks? Did MG? Oh...
>
>Pastorio

I found Bob's informative series on stocks to be pure gold. As long as
he keeps doing that sort of thing, he can insult me anytime he wants.


Rodney Myrvaagnes J 36 Gjo/a


Kansas--working to become a science-free zone

In article >,
Rodney Myrvaagnes > wrote:

> I found Bob's informative series on stocks to be pure gold. As long as
> he keeps doing that sort of thing, he can insult me anytime he wants.
>
>
> Rodney Myrvaagnes J 36 Gjo/a
>
>
> Kansas--working to become a science-free zone

Well done! :-)

Bob and I generally agree on cooking, he goes after my political views.
<lol> And that's ok.......

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> MG wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>
>>>MG wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>>>MG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have to wonder, is Bob (this one) always this rude to someone who
>>>>>>just wants some info and confirmation of what might work best by other
>>>>>>peoples' experiences, rather than become confused by the mass of
>>>>>>information out there in Google-verse or whatever?
>>>>>
>>>>>No. Not always. Rarely, actually. Just when they put on as determined a
>>>>>show as this not to actually learn, in a reasonably systematic way,
>>>>>what the hell they're doing. And, I know you'll be surprised about
>>>>>this, but there are things called "cook-books" (not completely sure of
>>>>>the spelling) that contain directions and explanations to guide the
>>>>>processes. And are written from "other peoples' experiences" as seems
>>>>>so important to you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Chicken stock is one of the simpler things to do in a kitchen. Very few
>>>>>steps. Rather than blunder around screwing it up like the OP did,
>>>>>wasting, time, energy, money, and our time as well, literally two
>>>>>minutes spent reading a recipe from a cookbook would have answered all
>>>>>the questions raised.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a rather stupid laziness - especially intellectual - that makes a
>>>>>person take all the time spent posting and cooking and screwing around
>>>>>RATHER than just looking in a book or wandering into the vast,
>>>>>incomprehensible, scary "Google-verse or whatever." Gawd...
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you two related?
>>>>>
>>>>>>sheesh
>>>>>
>>>>>Sheesh this.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't see too many helpful bits of information from you, or did I
>>>>>miss something? Perhaps you neglected to note the replies I gave the
>>>>>person and to what depth. Did you have anything to actually contribute
>>>>>to the thread?
>>>>>
>>>>>Pastorio
>>>>
>>>>so because I didn't offer any advice to the OP re how to make a decent
>>>>stock, my opinion about anything else in this thread doesn't count?
>>>
>>>No. Because you're a net nanny, fatuous in vision and standards, and
>>>because you're a scolding nag. Your only opinion in this thread has been
>>>about me and let's see if you can grasp a simple notion. I don't care
>>>what you think of me. Given your lack of any other contribution, I see no
>>>redeeming features, hence dismissal.
>>>
>>>I replied directly to your objections/questions in that first noisome
>>>post of yours. How is it that it all zoomed past you so thoroughly?
>>>
>>>>think a lot of yourself
>>>
>>>Not really. But I think little of fools. Do go back up and read my
>>>explanation at the top of this note. It explains it all very clearly.
>>>
>>>>anyone can make mistakes, even following an apparently tried and true
>>>>recipe...the recipe itself might have a printing error, the person might
>>>>be distracted by something else more important in their lives than a
>>>>dead chook (or bones in this case) or whatever...I don't think making is
>>>>a decent stock is SO important a thing in life that someone should be
>>>>berated for getting it wrong
>>>
>>>Do you actually have anything to contribute or will you merely continue
>>>to confabulate like this? Read the crap you just wrote and compare it
>>>with what actually happened and see if your dudgeon has even the remotest
>>>scintilla of merit. Somebody went off half-cocked and created a bullshit
>>>broth not worth eating *because* he did nothing intelligent towards
>>>getting the job done right before doing it. He didn't make mistakes
>>>following a recipe; no typos; no misstatements in the directions he was
>>>trying to follow. He wasn't following *any* directions. He was guessing
>>>and fumbling, violating good sanitation practices creating potential
>>>hazards for him and his family, ruining what could have been good food
>>>and then asking how to fix a terminal case *of his negligent doing.*
>>>Smart, huh...?
>>>
>>>All your might-be's and could-have-been's don't diminish the actual
>>>events. I see you want to continue this and I'll be happy to comply, but
>>>I'm growing as tired of your vacuity as I was of that OP's intellectual
>>>laziness and I may soon begin to speak sharply to you and make you cross
>>>with me. Neither of us would like that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>and yes, I do know how to make a decent stock, but it was a process of
>>>>trial and error to get it the way I like it, and I don't make it
>>>>entirely the same way my chef father did, or my (great Italian cook)
>>>>mother does
>>>
>>>Who cares? Did you nag them, too, with your might-be and could-be view of
>>>the universe? Did you make excuses for negligent strangers then, too?
>>>
>>>Please. Killfile me. Your blood pressure will benefit. You'll sleep
>>>better. I won't teach you anything new that you'll have to give me credit
>>>for so I'll get all conceited, and be like HelloOo, and all. What's not
>>>to like?
>>>
>>>No, seriously...
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>
>> wow, barely had to bait the hook roflmao
>
> Puhleeeeze. This is rich enough to leave untrimmed.
>
> Get yourself all up in a fussy snit, complain to the group at large, whine
> about "why can't we all just get along" ... and when your paltry
> participation and particular pointlessness is spotlighted, you take the
> last-resort retreat of "Hey, I wuz trolling all the time"...
>
> That laughter rings as hollow as your thinking.
>
> Give it up, Zippy. It's even more transparent than your ideas.
>
> Pastorio

if pointing out that people don't need to be insulted in this forum is
trolling, then I'm all for trolling

if getting up the noses of pretentious posters like you is trolling, then
I'm all for trolling (oh dear, I guess I just insulted you...that would make
me just like you...ohh noooooo)

if I was particularly sensitive to your pompous assumptions regarding my
motivations for posting anything or nothing, I'd killfile you, but watching
(and anticipating) you trying to always get the last word IS funny

waiting.....waiting.... ;-)

MG wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>>MG wrote:

>>>wow, barely had to bait the hook roflmao
>>
>>Get yourself all up in a fussy snit, complain to the group at large, whine
>>about "why can't we all just get along" ... and when your paltry
>>participation and particular pointlessness is spotlighted, you take the
>>last-resort retreat of "Hey, I wuz trolling all the time"...
>>
>>That laughter rings as hollow as your thinking.
>>
>>Give it up, Zippy. It's even more transparent than your ideas.
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> if pointing out that people don't need to be insulted in this forum is
> trolling, then I'm all for trolling
>
> if getting up the noses of pretentious posters like you is trolling, then
> I'm all for trolling (oh dear, I guess I just insulted you...that would make
> me just like you...ohh noooooo)
>
> if I was particularly sensitive to your pompous assumptions regarding my
> motivations for posting anything or nothing, I'd killfile you, but watching
> (and anticipating) you trying to always get the last word IS funny
>
> waiting.....waiting.... ;-)

I'm trolling. No, I'm not really trolling. Nothing further need be said.

Pastorio