"Goomba" wrote in message
...
Rosie Miller wrote:


maybe it's your style of writing ?
it always sounds nasty to me.

no offense, of course.


I always find Nancys style to be funny.. different strokes , I guess.
Rosie

No kidding Rosie. I've never read anything "nasty" from Nancy.
Intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, these things I've read from her.
Nasty..no. Lea on the other hand...?

I agree. I enjoy Nancy's posts, and she often brings up interesting
subjects.

"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:35:27 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Sylvia" wrote in message
OTOH, basic mayo just contains egg, lemon juice, salt, and oil, and I
don't remember whether egg is meat, dairy, or pareve (can be eaten with
either milk or meat).

From the Kosher Food FAQ:

PAREVE (neutral) Food:

Fish, eggs, vegetables, fruits and grains may be eaten with either milk
or
meat dishes.

Interesting. Do you know of any reference (web site) that explains the
reasons behind kosher food directives? I've always thought they must
be based on ritualizing good sanitary practices, and boiling a kid in
its mother's milk seems kind of mean, but if you can eat milk and
meat, but only on separate dishes, what purpose (other than ritual)
does that serve?

You cannot eat milk and meat at the same time even on separate dishes. In
fact there is some delay that must pass between eating one and eating the
other - I think it is on the order of 10 hours but am not sure. The separate
dishes rule is to ensure that one does not contaminate the other.

I think it is a mistake to look for logical reasons behind the kosher
dietary laws. When the laws were first created it may be that this was part
of the motivation, but you can be sure that the people 3000 (or whatever)
years ago did not have anything remotely like our modern, scientifically
based ideas of food health. For example, it has been suggested that pigs
were forbidden because of the danger of trichinosis - but other mammals that
do not carry trichinosis were also forbidden. It's an interesting subject
but, like many aspects of religion, one that does not lend itself to logic.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Curly Sue" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:14:34 GMT, Sylvia
wrote:

not stewing a lamb in it's mother's milk

Actually, it's not cooking a kid (young goat) in its mother's milk.
Refers to a pagan ceremony which of course the Israelites were not
supposed to participate in. But the Talmud (fifteen centuries or so of
rabbinical commentary) expanded that prohibition to no meat products at
the same meal as milk products or vice versa, so those who keep kosher
(not all Jews by any means) would not be able to eat a milk-containing
mayonnaise on a meat sandwich.

OTOH, basic mayo just contains egg, lemon juice, salt, and oil, and I
don't remember whether egg is meat, dairy, or pareve (can be eaten with
either milk or meat).

Hmm, in theory it should be OK to serve chicken and milk together
since chickens aren't mammals... but it's not. OTOH, a chicken salad
sandwich with mayonnaise (or other egg-chicken combos) should be
forbidden... but it isn't :

Well, they probably didn't have mayonnaise or chicken salad 3000 years ago
; )

Goomba wrote:
Rosie Miller wrote:


maybe it's your style of writing ?
it always sounds nasty to me.

no offense, of course.


I always find Nancys style to be funny.. different strokes , I guess.
Rosie

No kidding Rosie. I've never read anything "nasty" from Nancy.
Intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, these things I've read from her.
Nasty..no. Lea on the other hand...?

no shit, Sherlock

she's a charmer.


--
Gold ODDY Winner, 2002

"lea" wrote in message
...
Goomba wrote:
Rosie Miller wrote:


maybe it's your style of writing ?
it always sounds nasty to me.

no offense, of course.


I always find Nancys style to be funny.. different strokes , I guess.
Rosie

No kidding Rosie. I've never read anything "nasty" from Nancy.
Intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, these things I've read from her.
Nasty..no. Lea on the other hand...?

no shit, Sherlock

she's a charmer.

And so are you, as evidenced by this last post. PLONK

Jimmy Tango wrote:
"lea" wrote ...
Goomba wrote:
Rosie Miller wrote:


maybe it's your style of writing ?
it always sounds nasty to me.

no offense, of course.


I always find Nancys style to be funny.. different strokes , I
guess. Rosie

No kidding Rosie. I've never read anything "nasty" from Nancy.
Intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, these things I've read from her.
Nasty..no. Lea on the other hand...?

no shit, Sherlock

she's a charmer.

And so are you, as evidenced by this last post. PLONK

Um, I was quoting the lovely lass herself.
Perhaps you should plonk her too.

Love your work.

--
Gold ODDY Winner, 2002

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:46:34 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote:


You cannot eat milk and meat at the same time even on separate dishes. In
fact there is some delay that must pass between eating one and eating the
other - I think it is on the order of 10 hours but am not sure. The separate
dishes rule is to ensure that one does not contaminate the other.

I think it is a mistake to look for logical reasons behind the kosher
dietary laws. When the laws were first created it may be that this was part
of the motivation, but you can be sure that the people 3000 (or whatever)
years ago did not have anything remotely like our modern, scientifically
based ideas of food health. For example, it has been suggested that pigs
were forbidden because of the danger of trichinosis - but other mammals that
do not carry trichinosis were also forbidden. It's an interesting subject
but, like many aspects of religion, one that does not lend itself to logic.

There *must* be some ancient logic, 'though not bacteriological
investigation behind this. I mean, these laws/customs/traditions came
from *somewhere*. Looks like God spoke to Moses and Aaron (Leviticus
11) and gave them the whole menu. Well, can't argue with God. But to
what purpose, other than making life more difficult than it has to be?
Why is pork forbidden to both Muslims and Jews? The pig is a pretty
efficient protein-making machine, yet not on the menu for both these
semitic groups. Trichinosis? Whim?

Are there any other religions that have odd food prohibitions?
Vegetarianism seems more logical as a religious directive. Strictly A
and not B, rather than selective 'this B but not that one.' Catholic
'fasting' on Friday and during Lent represents sacrifice, not a whole
class of permanently forbidden foods.

someone wrote

Actually, it's [not] cooking a kid (young goat) in its mother's milk.
Refers to a pagan ceremony which of course the Israelites were not
supposed to participate in.

Now *this* makes sense. "We will distinguish ourselves from the
Others." Particularly if their practices are religious in nature. Who
knows what the rules would be if the 'pagan' rituals had included
chicken soup. :-)

In article ,
Sylvia wrote:
not stewing a lamb in it's mother's milk

Actually, it's not cooking a kid (young goat) in its mother's milk.
Refers to a pagan ceremony which of course the Israelites were not
supposed to participate in.

See Reah Tannahill's _Food in History_, p. 55.

--
Mark Shaw contact info at homepage -- http://www.panix.com/~mshaw
================================================== ======================
"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who can
count in binary, and those who cannot." -unknown

Who knows what the rules would be if the 'pagan' rituals had included
chicken soup.

Excuse me while I faint at the idea of Jewish culture without chicken
soup ...

--
Sylvia Steiger RN, homeschooling mom since Nov 1995
http://www.SteigerFamily.com
Cheyenne WY, USDA zone 5a, Sunset zone 1a
Home of the Wyoming Wind Festival, January 1-December 31
Remove "removethis" from address to reply

It is indeed the egg in mayo that is the problem because it can not be
proven that the eggs "mother" was slaughtered in a "kosher" fashion.
It's the law!!! If you google for "keeping kosher" all the dietary laws
with reasoning behind them can be found..............Linda

"Linda" wrote in message
...
It is indeed the egg in mayo that is the problem because it can not be
proven that the eggs "mother" was slaughtered in a "kosher" fashion.
It's the law!!! If you google for "keeping kosher" all the dietary laws
with reasoning behind them can be found..............Linda



"reasoning" in its broadest sense.

pavane

"Linda" wrote in message
...
It is indeed the egg in mayo that is the problem because it can not be
proven that the eggs "mother" was slaughtered in a "kosher" fashion.
It's the law!!! If you google for "keeping kosher" all the dietary laws
with reasoning behind them can be found..............Linda


My hat is off to you - I have not read such a silly post in ages! I got a
good laugh and hope you will continue to regale us with your excellent
comedy.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:07:52 -0500 (CDT),
(Linda) wrote:

It is indeed the egg in mayo that is the problem because it can not be
proven that the eggs "mother" was slaughtered in a "kosher" fashion.
It's the law!!! If you google for "keeping kosher" all the dietary laws
with reasoning behind them can be found..............Linda

Why would the eggs mother's death have anything to do with
the egg itself? The mother was alive when it came into
being.

(Linda) wrote:

It is indeed the egg in mayo that is the problem because it can not be
proven that the eggs "mother" was slaughtered in a "kosher" fashion.
It's the law!!! If you google for "keeping kosher" all the dietary
laws
with reasoning behind them can be found..............Linda

WTF? You mean they get eggs from dead chickens?

Me thinks you should take a biology class again, but this time do it sober.
Ed