The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
philosopher, and chicken farmer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html

Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.

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

On Sun, 28 May 2006 15:49:51 GMT, (Curly
Sue) wrote:

>The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
>philosopher, and chicken farmer.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html
>
>Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.
>
>Sue(tm)
>Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Well. that certainly explains why humans can spawn so many jacka**es.

In article >,
(Curly Sue) wrote:

> The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
> philosopher, and chicken farmer.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html
>
> Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.

Isaac

On 2006-05-28 08:49:51 -0700, (Curly Sue) said:

> The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
> philosopher, and chicken farmer.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html

Heh..back when I was at university, in the late seventeenth century, I
got an A for a persuasive writing assignment in which I proved
definitively which came first, the chicken or the egg. <grin>

It's really rather obvious; I wonder how much they got for their
research grant?


Anne

--
Personal: http://www.SheDevilsBlog.com
Fathers Rights: http://www.DadsRights.org
Raw Food: http://www.AdventuresInRawFood.com
The Internet: http://www.TheInternetPatrol.com

Anne Mitchell Young wrote:
> On 2006-05-28 08:49:51 -0700, (Curly Sue) said:
>
> > The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
> > philosopher, and chicken farmer.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html
>
> Heh..back when I was at university, in the late seventeenth century, I
> got an A for a persuasive writing assignment in which I proved
> definitively which came first, the chicken or the egg. <grin>
>
> It's really rather obvious; I wonder how much they got for their
> research grant?
>
>
> Anne

As a lawyer, I'm surprized you didn't read all the fine print<G>.
Disney sponsored the debate as a promo for their Chicken Little movie!

Haven't noticed any posts from you in a while, so if you've just
returned, welcome back. If I've just been blind, good to hear you
again.

maxine in ri

On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> (Curly Sue) wrote:
>
>> The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
>> philosopher, and chicken farmer.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html
>>
>> Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.
>>
>> Sue(tm)
>> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
>
>Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
>"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.
>
>Isaac

So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg?

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

Curly Sue wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw > wrote:
>
> >Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
> >"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.
>
> So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
> first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg?

Well, technically, the "egg" goes back to our days as single-celled
organisms (bacteria, et al).

Since then there have been refinements, such as eggs that could become
multi-celled organisms*

I think the semantic hair the panel split was that it's not a chicken
until the thing coming out is a chicken, and before that it's something
else. And the determination is that the parents of the first chicken
weren't chickens, genetically speaking.

--Blair

* - isn't it fascinating: this single cell laid by the hen, all within
itself, merely reorganizes its molecules, never gaining anything but
maybe some transferred gases and heat, and becomes a living, breathing
thing... This of all facts makes me feel a little guilty eating an
egg, when I would never feel guilty eating a chicken. I guess I regard
that process as more elegant and wondrous than its result.

Sheldon wrote:

> You, of all people, should know that it's the male who comes first.
> hehe

Sheldon proves his inadequacies...again...

--Blair

On 29 May 2006 17:33:07 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton"
> wrote:

>
>Curly Sue wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw > wrote:
>>
>> >Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
>> >"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.
>>
>> So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
>> first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg?
>
>Well, technically, the "egg" goes back to our days as single-celled
>organisms (bacteria, et al).

Irrelevant and incorrect.

(a) The chicken-and-egg debate is referring to chicken eggs -- not the
eggs from any earlier organism. Otherwise, the whole thing is trivial.

(b) Bacteria don't have eggs. Eggs are a byproduct of sex. Bacteria do
not come in male and female -- this simply divide. No sex -- no eggs.

>Since then there have been refinements, such as eggs that could become
>multi-celled organisms*
>
>I think the semantic hair the panel split was that it's not a chicken
>until the thing coming out is a chicken, and before that it's something
>else. And the determination is that the parents of the first chicken
>weren't chickens, genetically speaking.

But their eggs were chicken eggs, otherwise they would not have
developed into a chicken. So I think you just proved that the eggs
came first.

--
For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com

"LurfysMa" > wrote

> (b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.

? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

nancy

LurfysMa wrote:
> On 29 May 2006 17:33:07 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Curly Sue wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
> >> >"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.
> >>
> >> So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
> >> first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg?
> >
> >Well, technically, the "egg" goes back to our days as single-celled
> >organisms (bacteria, et al).
>
> Irrelevant and incorrect.

Uh, wrong and wrong. Part of the paradox is figuring out what the
question is supposed to mean.

> (a) The chicken-and-egg debate is referring to chicken eggs -- not the
> eggs from any earlier organism. Otherwise, the whole thing is trivial.

It's still trivial, as the chicken is still evolving.

> (b) Bacteria don't have eggs. Eggs are a byproduct of sex. Bacteria do
> not come in male and female -- this simply divide. No sex -- no eggs.

Once the chromosomes are in the egg, you can't tell how it got that
way. Sex isn't relevant.

> >Since then there have been refinements, such as eggs that could become
> >multi-celled organisms*
> >
> >I think the semantic hair the panel split was that it's not a chicken
> >until the thing coming out is a chicken, and before that it's something
> >else. And the determination is that the parents of the first chicken
> >weren't chickens, genetically speaking.
>
> But their eggs were chicken eggs, otherwise they would not have
> developed into a chicken. So I think you just proved that the eggs
> came first.

Yes, that's exactly what I just said. They weren't chickens, but their
egg was. What are you drinking?

--Blair

Nancy Young wrote on 29 May 2006 in rec.food.cooking

>
> "LurfysMa" > wrote
>
> > (b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.
>
> ? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.
>
> nancy
>
>
>

Those poor chickens!

--
-Alan

"Mr Libido Incognito" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote on 29 May 2006 in rec.food.cooking

>> ? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

> Those poor chickens!

(laugh) Life ain't fair, is it.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> "LurfysMa" > wrote
>
> > (b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.
>
> ? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.

Um, so do primates... except for italians and hillybillys, they
reproduce by binary fission. <G>

Ahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "LurfysMa" > wrote
>>
>> > (b) Eggs are a byproduct of sex.
>>
>> ? Fertilized eggs are. Chickens lay eggs all the time without sex.
>
> Um, so do primates...

Heh, yeah, I know that, decided not to go there.

nancy

In article >,
(Curly Sue) wrote:

> The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
> philosopher, and chicken farmer.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html
>
> Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.

This makes a lot of sense. Now, if only we could all agree that
scrambled eggs just are not worth eating without a little Heinz Ketchup
on the side!

Stan Horwitz wrote:

>
> > Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.
>
> This makes a lot of sense. Now, if only we could all agree that
> scrambled eggs just are not worth eating without a little Heinz Ketchup
> on the side!

I am not much of a ketchup eater but I have to admit that it does give a
bit of a boost to scrambled eggs that have been overcooked. If you cook
them only until they are still a little snotty they have lots of flavour
and are nice and moist.

In article >,
(Curly Sue) wrote:

> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Curly Sue) wrote:
> >
> >> The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
> >> philosopher, and chicken farmer.
> >>
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html
> >>
> >> Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.
> >>
> >> Sue(tm)
> >> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
> >
> >Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years. Any
> >"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union card.
> >
> >Isaac
>
> So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
> first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg?
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Lower forms of life came first. What I would love to know is where the
evolutionary trip all species are on is going. Alas, I won't be around
to find out.

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Curly Sue) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:50:22 -0700, isw > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > (Curly Sue) wrote:
>> >
>> >> The answer has been decided by an expert team of a geneticist,
>> >> philosopher, and chicken farmer.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...egg/index.html
>> >>
>> >> Nonetheless, the question remains a great rhetorical device.
>> >>
>> >> Sue(tm)
>> >> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
>> >
>> >Egg-laying reptiles predated birds by a bunch of millions of years.
>> >Any
>> >"scientist" who just figured that out ought to turn in his union
>> >card.
>> >
>> >Isaac
>>
>> So what you're saying is that question should have been: which came
>> first, the lizard (or fish) or the egg?
>>
>> Sue(tm)
>> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
>
> Lower forms of life came first. What I would love to know is where the
> evolutionary trip all species are on is going. Alas, I won't be around
> to find out.

What makes you think you're around now?

since we have all the eggs in one basket i thought i would pass on a
little food/chef history.

a "real" chefs hat(a touqe) will have 101 pleats in it, each is supposed
to represent a different way to cook an egg! i don't know though if
recipes count...such as florentine, denver omelet etc...

lets see if we can name them....

basted
sunny side up
over easy
over medium
over hard
scrambled easy
scrambled medium
scrambled hard
french omelet
puffy omelet (de Arture)
poached
hard boiled
soft boiled
3 minute (might be the same as soft boiled)
frittata
baked
Quiche
Timbale
Strata
Soft, stirred
Meringue Hard or Swiss
Meringue Soft or Pie
Meringue Italian or boiled frosting
souffle hot
souffle cold

anybody else have any more? i concentrated on ways of cooking rather
than recipes because i am sure we could find hundreds of eggs recipes

Grizzman

Grizzman wrote:
> since we have all the eggs in one basket i thought i would pass on a
> little food/chef history.
>
> a "real" chefs hat(a touqe) will have 101 pleats in it, each is supposed
> to represent a different way to cook an egg! i don't know though if
> recipes count...such as florentine, denver omelet etc...
>
> lets see if we can name them....
>
> basted
> sunny side up
> over easy
> over medium
> over hard
> scrambled easy
> scrambled medium
> scrambled hard
> french omelet
> puffy omelet (de Arture)
> poached
> hard boiled
> soft boiled
> 3 minute (might be the same as soft boiled)
> frittata
> baked
> Quiche
> Timbale
> Strata
> Soft, stirred
> Meringue Hard or Swiss
> Meringue Soft or Pie
> Meringue Italian or boiled frosting
> souffle hot
> souffle cold
>
> anybody else have any more? i concentrated on ways of cooking rather
> than recipes because i am sure we could find hundreds of eggs recipes

There are really only three methods; fried, boiled, baked... but there
are many thousands of variations on a theme (soft/hard boiled are both
boiled -- omelets are fried eggs, etc.) and egg recipes. Even
'poached' is a recipe and/or variation on the boiling theme as is egg
drop/egg flower soup.

---
Recipes...
Coddle - baked
Shirred - baked
Thousand-Year-Old egg - boiled
Western/Denver omelet - fried
Pickled egg - boiled
Egg salad - boiled
Deviled egg - boiled
Scotch eggs - boiled
eggs Sardou - boiled

Egg recipes go on and on and on...

http://www.whatscookingamerica.net/eggs.htm


Sheldon

Stan Horwitz wrote:
> Lower forms of life came first. What I would love to know is where the
> evolutionary trip all species are on is going. Alas, I won't be around
> to find out.

It's perfectly simple to deduce.

Just look at the capabilities of the ones remaining, and the stresses
they are likely to face.

For instance, Islamic Fundamentalist madmen now have nuclear weapons,
and are up agains Christitan Fundamentalist madmen with nuclear
weapons.

Contrary to popular belief, cockroaches don't survive nuclear
explosions.

--Blair
"Everything is done-for."

Sheldon wrote:
> Grizzman wrote:
>> since we have all the eggs in one basket i thought i would pass on a
>> little food/chef history.
>>
>> a "real" chefs hat(a touqe) will have 101 pleats in it, each is supposed
>> to represent a different way to cook an egg! i don't know though if
>> recipes count...such as florentine, denver omelet etc...
>>
>> lets see if we can name them....
>>
>> basted
>> sunny side up
>> over easy
>> over medium
>> over hard
>> scrambled easy
>> scrambled medium
>> scrambled hard
>> french omelet
>> puffy omelet (de Arture)
>> poached
>> hard boiled
>> soft boiled
>> 3 minute (might be the same as soft boiled)
>> frittata
>> baked
>> Quiche
>> Timbale
>> Strata
>> Soft, stirred
>> Meringue Hard or Swiss
>> Meringue Soft or Pie
>> Meringue Italian or boiled frosting
>> souffle hot
>> souffle cold
>>
>> anybody else have any more? i concentrated on ways of cooking rather
>> than recipes because i am sure we could find hundreds of eggs recipes
>
> There are really only three methods; fried, boiled, baked... but there
> are many thousands of variations on a theme (soft/hard boiled are both
> boiled -- omelets are fried eggs, etc.) and egg recipes. Even
> 'poached' is a recipe and/or variation on the boiling theme as is egg
> drop/egg flower soup.
>
> ---
> Recipes...
> Coddle - baked
> Shirred - baked
> Thousand-Year-Old egg - boiled
> Western/Denver omelet - fried
> Pickled egg - boiled
> Egg salad - boiled
> Deviled egg - boiled
> Scotch eggs - boiled
> eggs Sardou - boiled
>
> Egg recipes go on and on and on...
>
> http://www.whatscookingamerica.net/eggs.htm
>
>
> Sheldon
>

so how would you classify the Meringues? whipped?

Grizzman

Stan Horwitz wrote:

>
> Lower forms of life came first. What I would love to know is where the
> evolutionary trip all species are on is going. Alas, I won't be around
> to find out.

Like lawyers and real estate agents?

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Contrary to popular belief, cockroaches don't survive nuclear
> explosions.


How do you know? i don't recall a study on the matter or did you try
this at home...hahaha


Grizzman

"Sheldon" > wrote in news:1149007877.234601.68730
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> eggs Sardou - boiled


A most excellent dish!!!!!!!!

Andy

Grizzman wrote:
>
> so how would you classify the Meringues? whipped?

Whipped is not cooked.

Meringues are obviously recipes, of which there are hundreds, maybe
thousands of variations... there are always some ingredients
incorporated into beaten egg whites to make it a meringue (at a very
minimum a meringue must contain sweetener or it's just beaten egg
white, not meringue.... or the beaten egg whites are incorporated into
other ingredients, but no one serves plain beaten egg whites. In fact
if anyone has forgotton to add the sugar to beaten egg whites and then
baked it atop a lemon pie they would need to scrape off the topping to
make it edible, plain baked beaten egg whites taste awful.

You really need to think about the difference between cooking methods
and recipes that entail those methods. Meringues are flavored beaten
egg whites and baked as is or are used as a leavening/aerating
ingredient, ie. souffles/puddings/even drinks.

There are hundreds, probably thousands of omelet recipes, but all are
just fried eggs... some omelets incorporate eggs where the yolks and
whites are beaten separately and then gently folded together... but
it's still fried eggs... frying is the cooking method, all the rest is
the recipe.

Sheldon

Grizzman wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
> > Contrary to popular belief, cockroaches don't survive nuclear
> > explosions.
>
> How do you know? i don't recall a study on the matter or did you try
> this at home...hahaha

Why do you believe I ever need to prove anything to you?

--Blair

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:30:58 -0800, Grizzman wrote:
>
>> lets see if we can name them....
>
> Many of those were recipes, Bubba Gump.
>
> Coddled
> Salted (Chinese)
> Preserved (100/1000 year egg)
> Egg on the face
>
> -sw


negative, they were ways to cook and an egg, here i shall post again

basted
sunny side up
over easy
over medium
over hard
scrambled easy
scrambled medium
scrambled hard
french omelet
puffy omelet (de Arture)
poached
hard boiled
soft boiled
3 minute (might be the same as soft boiled)
frittata
baked
Quiche
Timbale
Strata
Soft, stirred
Meringue Hard or Swiss
Meringue Soft or Pie
Meringue Italian or boiled frosting
souffle hot
souffle cold

these are WAYS to cook the egg, Bubba. No recipes. i don't see a recipe.
if you want i can break down each and every one...and explain them to you...


Grizzman

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Grizzman wrote:
>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>>> Contrary to popular belief, cockroaches don't survive nuclear
>>> explosions.
>> How do you know? i don't recall a study on the matter or did you try
>> this at home...hahaha
>
> Why do you believe I ever need to prove anything to you?


you don't. but if you state something as a fact i would like some sort
of collaboration. wouldn't you? or do take things at face value?

of course if you are a nuclear physicist or a cockroach expert, then i
apologize....

Grizzman

Steve Wertz wrote:

> OK, then. I'll choose an easy example. What's the difference
> between:
>
>> Quiche
>> Strata
>
> Let me answer for you, if I may: The ingredients and how you
> assemble it. Not how you cook it.
>
> Sheldon was basically right when he said there was oinly a small
> handful of ways to cook an egg (which can also be applied to any
> food). You can smoke eggs, too. But I've never tried it from
> raw.
>
>> these are WAYS to cook the egg, Bubba. No recipes. i don't see a recipe.
>> if you want i can break down each and every one...and explain them to you...

too bad you might learn a thing or two, then again you might not


> Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass.
>
> -sw


i'm sorry..and where did you go to cooking school? I went to CIA, Hyde
Park campus in the 80's. i now do more front house work but i am still
involved in the back house from time to time

Grizzman

Grizzman wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> > Grizzman wrote:
> >> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Contrary to popular belief, cockroaches don't survive nuclear
> >>> explosions.
> >> How do you know? i don't recall a study on the matter or did you try
> >> this at home...hahaha
> >
> > Why do you believe I ever need to prove anything to you?
>
> you don't. but if you state something as a fact i would like some sort
> of collaboration. wouldn't you? or do take things at face value?

I take $100 bills at face value, and know the difference between
collaboration and corroboration. I also know the difference between
peer review and shooting the shit on Usenet. I'm not footnoting
anything unless I flat-out feel like it.

> of course if you are a nuclear physicist or a cockroach expert, then i
> apologize....

Go with "nuclear physicist", though that's a bit narrow for my range of
scientific expertise. I can be wrong, but it's newsworthy when it
happens.

Cockroaches die when nuked. Outside a certain range, things live, but
if the cockroaches are surviving, the people have a chance. It's the
things that stay under the dirt a fair distance that will have the most
survivability. Moles, worms, etc. But eventually, the poisoning of
the aquifers will get them, if the world's been so irradiated that
they're all that's left.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Go with "nuclear physicist", though that's a bit narrow for my range of
> scientific expertise.

then humble yourself in front of the world, outside of the world you
live in and be more specific as to your narrow range. what exactly do
you do?

Grizzman

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:24:26 -0800, Grizzman wrote:
>
>> i'm sorry..and where did you go to cooking school? I went to CIA, Hyde
>> Park campus in the 80's. i now do more front house work but i am still
>> involved in the back house from time to time
>
> I went to the CIA in the late 80's, too. I guess that makes me
> an expert, too. Even it was only for a couple hours.

just for a campus visit? which campus as there were more than one back
then (even more today!) even the wine courses take a day or 2. So no,
you are not an expert, even i an not haughty enough to claim being an
expert, just a industry professional. AS a matter of fact i am in the
process of opening up a fine dining/gourmet restaurant up here in
Alaska, not as the owner of course just an employee in various
capacities. as a matter of fact i helped plant he menu. i will post is
as soon as its finalized.


>
> So what you're saying you can't dispute that those are recipes,
> not cooking methods.

perhaps i should have said ways to prepare, which even you in your self
righteous world can understand the difference (i hope) between cooking
methods, recipes and preparation. in any case i would venture to say
that i would probably have much more experience in the food
service/hospitality industry than you.


You could have just [not] said that up
> front instead of wasting our time - which you seem to be very
> good at, judging by some other threads

"our time" I see...now you speak for every one who post on this NG. i
didn't know that you are the moderator. now go back to flipping burger
at mcdonalds or man the wheel at hojo's and leave the "real" cooking to
others

Grizzman

"Grizzman"
<snip>
> just for a campus visit? which campus as there were more than one back
> then (even more today!) even the wine courses take a day or 2. So no, you
> are not an expert, even i an not haughty enough to claim being an expert,
> just a industry professional. AS a matter of fact i am in the process of
> opening up a fine dining/gourmet restaurant up here in Alaska, not as the
> owner of course just an employee in various capacities. as a matter of
> fact i helped plant he menu. i will post is as soon as its finalized.
>
<snip>
>
> You could have just [not] said that up
>> front instead of wasting our time - which you seem to be very
>> good at, judging by some other threads
>
> "our time" I see...now you speak for every one who post on this NG. i
> didn't know that you are the moderator. now go back to flipping burger at
> mcdonalds or man the wheel at hojo's and leave the "real" cooking to
> others
>
> Grizzman
=============

Dudes!

Pardon my interruption... but wow(!) are you guys having a major
testosterone rush or just a ****ing contest? Good grief. There's no need
to be so fuffy (my own word to describe the one-upmanship thing going on
between the two of you...)!

Grizzman, while you may or may not know what you're doing with food... your
means of communication with an E-stranger comes off as being quite rude and
'full of yourself'. While Steve does know how to push some people's
buttons... well... <shrug> I just hope you don't communicate with your
future workers and patrons the way you do here. You might be in for a lot
of similar conversations if this is your normal mode.

Regardless - I wish the business success. Both for the owner(s), employees,
and patrons.
--
Syssi