General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46,524
Default Winco vs. Walmart


"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> "Julie Bove" wrote:
>>
>>In my house you can't get most of what I have at my Wal-mart. Yes they
>>have
>>canned vegetables but I can't buy most of theirs due to cross
>>contamination.
>>Mine carries mostly their brand and for pretty much everything, that is
>>out
>>for me.

>
> I've never seen any Walmart brand canned vegetables... they carry the
> national brands like Del Monte and Libbys plus several lesser known
> brands like Margaret Holmes and others... and I shop Walmart's canned
> vegetable aisle every time and have never seen Walmart brand canned
> vegetables.... there are many other Walmart brand items but not canned
> vegetables.


Well there are here. I think it is the Great Value brand.

  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 532
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On 9/11/2013 2:13 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-09-11 1:28 PM, casa contenta wrote:
>>
>>> Yet, there was that idea of Manifest Destiny that imagine the US
>>> expanding across North America. It invaded Canada to wrest us away from
>>> Britain. It supported the Texans in their fight for independence from
>>> Mexico, and later started a war a war with Mexico to leverage it into
>>> selling them the south west. It tried for years to acquire Cuba and
>>> supported its fight for independence from Spain and even managed to take
>>> control of the Philippines. It orchestrated a conflict in Colombia to
>>> enable the sever the northern part of that country to be become Panama
>>> so they could build a canal.

>>
>> A canal we later signed back over to the Panamanians once their nation
>> became stable.
>>

>
> You may have signed it back over to the Panamanians, but not to
> Colombia.


So, what's that to you?

Do you see Columbia as some bastion of regional economic or social
stability, or more a source of cocaine cartels?

> As I said, it had been part of Colombia until the US supported
> the independence movement to install a US friendly government that would
> let them build the canal.


Oh for shame!

> The return of the canal zone to Panama was
> after the US invasion that unseated one of their former supporters and
> CIA operatives, Manuel Noriega.


In other words we took care of bad business politically and then gave
them back the canal.

Scandalous I say!

Now then, what's it all to you?

Do Canadians not profit from canal shipping of bulk goods?

I know it's a moot question, as you have not the slightest intention of
replying honestly, or at all for that matter.

>> Do you think international commerce, even with Canada benefited from
>> this engineering marvel, or not?
>>
>> What is this ire you have for anything American anyway?

>
> Ire? Just pointing out some historical realities.


You're harping on one chapter after another for more than mere "pointing
out".

You've made a very clear point of disparaging us.

Why?

>>> True, and that is probably a bigger problem now than ever. I am not
>>> usually prone to buying into conspiracy theories but I have to wonder
>>> when a war in started in the basis of a load of lies and the company
>>> that was once headed by the VP is awarded millions of dollars in
>>> contracts, and where an army of mercenaries is hired to provide
>>> security. I have to wonder why teams of snipers under contract to the
>>> government are sitting in rooftops shooting Iraqis.

>>
>> Do you wonder if they are worse off than under Saddam when women were
>> taken of the streets by his sons and raped and killed, or when their
>> soccer team was hung on meathooks and beaten after a loss?

>
> The whole country is worse off now than they were under Saddam.


That's simply not provably true.

> There are more people being killed now than there were before.


Really?

Is that not a function of the centuries old sectarian shia-sunni feud
perhaps?

It's nice to know you prefer one form of murder over another.

Saddman and his sons had similar feelings.

> Don't forget
> that there was a time when he was on much better terms with the US, like
> when he was getting satellite intelligence to calibrate chemical attacks
> on Iranian positions.


I personally would have left it completely alone, but the nation saw it
otherwise, oh well.

It's a bit like Nancy Pelosi war-mongering now, the shoe is back on the
left foot.

We need to let the Syria arms turnover deal get done, it's not our fight.

>>
>>> > While the US had no such
>>>> obligation. The US entered WW I out of a sense of of noblesse oblige,
>>>> the same
>>>> humanitarian motivation to act in Syria now.
>>>
>>> That is a strange case of noblesse oblige. Most historians refer to the
>>> US outrage of the Zimmerman telegraph, an offer to support Mexico in an
>>> attempt to take back territory it has lost to the US.

>>
>> That's an utter misrepresentation of what happened, how you like to lie!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

>
> LOL... only an idiot would call me a liar for writing that and then
> posting a link to an article that says what I said it did


The article accurately identifies an axis threat to the US.

Do you think Canada would stand pat if someone promised Alberta and BC
to the French as part of some global deal?

>> telegram instructed Ambassador Eckardt that if the U.S. appeared likely
>> to enter the war, he was to approach the Mexican Government with a
>> proposal for military alliance, with funding from Germany. Mexico was
>> promised territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona that had been
>> lost to the United States starting in 1836 as parts of the former
>> Republic of Texas, and in 1848 with the Mexican Cession. Eckardt was
>> also instructed to urge Mexico to help broker an alliance between
>> Germany and the Japanese Empire. Mexico, unable to match the U.S.
>> military, ignored the proposal and (after the U.S. entered the war),
>> officially rejected it.

>
> Brilliant.



What you bypassed , and perhaps I should have quoted deeper, certainly is:

"The Zimmermann Telegram was intercepted and decoded by the British
cryptographers of Room 40.[3] The telegram's message was:
FROM 2nd from London # 5747.
"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine
warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of
America neutral."

You were aware that German U-boats made sorties up into New Jersey and
also off the California coast again in WW2, weren't you?

But to return to 1917, and we must as history repeats, and this was a
forshadowing:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...ue_22/ww12.htm

Defending the Atlantic Coast

Meanwhile, back in the United States and in operating areas as far
afield as the Panama Canal Zone and the Philippines, other U.S.
submarines mounted numerous defensive patrols for the duration of the
war. Despite the limited endurance of their earlier U-boats and the
strategic advantage of concentrating their anti-shipping campaign in
“target-rich” European waters, the Germans had demonstrated as early as
mid-1916 that they could operate in the western Atlantic and along the
U.S. coastline. In July, the large, unarmed, German cargo-carrying
submarine Deutschland – having broken through the British blockade –
appeared in Baltimore with a shipment of chemicals and dyestuffs, which
was traded for a quantity of strategic war materials to be carried back
to Germany. Deutschland made another round trip in November, but by
then, the combatant submarine U-53 had also crossed the Atlantic to
visit Newport, Rhode Island – and then sank five Allied freighters just
outside the territorial limits before returning home.

Thus, when the United States entered the war in April of the next year,
there was already significant anxiety about a potential submarine threat
off the East Coast. Further exacerbating this concern was the Navy’s
relative lack of first-line destroyers – approximately 50 in mid-1917 –
and the decision to send most of those to Europe. A massive building
program was already underway – it would lead to the eventual
construction of 273 four-stack, “flush-deck” destroyers by 1921 – but
for the rest of 1917, only five would be launched, and the need to
escort troop convoys to France took top priority. As a stopgap, U.S.
submarines were drawn increasingly into the anti-submarine campaign on
the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and two divisions were even shifted from
Hawaii and Puget Sound to bolster their ranks.

By the beginning of 1918, small detachments of older U.S. submarines
were patrolling regularly from Provincetown, New London, Cape May, the
Delaware Breakwater (near Cape Henlopen), Philadelphia, Hampton Roads,
Charleston, Key West, Galveston, the Virgin Islands, Bermuda, and Coco
Solo in the Canal Zone. But in fact, a significant submarine threat only
materialized along the U.S. East Coast for a few months in mid-1918,
when Germany deployed a half-dozen long-range mine-layers and large
“U-cruisers” – patterned after Deutschland – across the Atlantic in a
last-ditch attempt to disrupt the American war effort. First to arrive
was U-151, which left Kiel in mid-April, mined the entrances to both the
Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, severed several telegraph cables near New
York, and sank 23 ships totaling 61,000 tons off New Jersey and Cape
Hatteras before breaking off in mid-June.4 During the remainder of the
summer, several more German long-range submarines carried out
anti-shipping missions along the coast, sinking in excess of 50,000
additional tons – including the Diamond Shoals lightship – and planting
minefields that destroyed at least seven more ships, among them the
heavy cruiser USS San Diego (CA-6). Additionally, a submarine-laid mine
heavily damaged the battleship USS Minnesota (BB-22) off Fire Island.


There was lot more at stake than any ineffectual army move Mexico might
have made on interior land in the US.

In fact at the time Pershing was on the Punitive Mission in Mexico to
try and hold Pancho Villa accountable for an incursion and attack on US
soil in Columbus, New Mexico.

He had a young officer named Patton who would later distinguish himself
in another war.

>>>> The Europeans had ****ed up badly and realized it. How could one nut
>>>> with
>>>> a gun precipitate so much death and destruction. Woodrow Wilson had
>>>> ideas,
>>>> solutions. Europe was grateful that our entrance cut the war short
>>>> drastically, and decided to listen to him.
>>>
>>> I can't blame all of Europe for that. They had established a status quo,
>>> but a rapidly and militaristic Germany was determined to expand its
>>> sphere of influence.

>>
>> Of course you can't blame them, you're too wrapped up in blaming America
>> for everything that has happened in the past 200 years!

>
> Bulshit.


Fact.

> I never blamed the US for what happened. I pointed out that
> they tried to sit out two world wars and that after they finally joined
> and tipped the balance they thought they earned the right to claim to be
> the world savior.


Oh there's the not so subtle little dig at the US again, just what is
your major problem with us anyway?

Do you think results might have been different BOTH times if we'd not
entered the fray?

>>> Once again it was a militaristic Germany looking to expand, this time
>>> under the Nazi banner. The British and French were not in a position to
>>> stop them.

>>
>> Balderdash, they lacked the will, or have you forgotten Neville
>> Chamberlain, the Great Appeaser?

>
>
> Can you read? They lost a generation of young men.


So what, so did Germany - that's a push.

> They had been
> fighting the Germans for more than three years before the Americans had
> boots on the ground. It left them broke.


Oh well.

> They were not prepared to
> enforce the Treaty of Versailles if they could not count on the US,
> which did not even ratify the treaty.


Then maybe they ought not to have signed the idiotic treaty!

>>> They had both suffered enormous casualties in WWI, pretty
>>> much losing a generation of young men. They realized that they could not
>>> count on the US for support to enforce the terms of the treaty that they
>>> US had pretty much dictated but which never ratified itself.

>>
>> That's an utter lie, we did NO such thing!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

>
> Skip the Wiki condensed version.


Skip your useless claims and lies on us writing the darned Treaty.

> Read Paris 1919.
> The US did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and the US did not join
> the League of Nations, which had been Wilson's idea.


So which is it then, both?

You vilify us for allegedly dominating the treaty, but then complain we
didn't sign it, ok...

Then you claimed we had the lead role in the League when we did not.

Make up your whirled peas of a mind.

>>>>
>>>> The US still did not have much of a standing army, although FDR,
>>>> eager to
>>>> get into the war, had started a draft way back in 1940.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor did Canada. We had only a small navy, but by the end of the war we
>>> had on of the largest.

>>
>> And you feelings on that?
>>
>> Pro?
>>
>> Con?

>
> It is a point of fact.


I see, you have strong feelings about our late entry and general public
misgivings, but not about your own.

Hypocrisy.

> I was responding to the comment that the US
> didn't have much of an army. As pointed out, Canada had a small army and
> a small navy, but they very quickly rectified that situation.


Oh bully for Canada, would you like to trade places with us and become
Team Canada, Global Cop?

Because if so I'd gladly hand you over the global law enforcement badges
and all the costs that come along with having armed forces deployed all
over this idiotically unstable planet.

You're already well down our road now by selling your resources and oil
companies to China anyway, just ask them for a loan and hop in the fray.

Rotsa ruck!



  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:03:56 AM UTC-7, Michel Boucher wrote:
> Gary > wrote in :
>
>
>
> > The US carries the "big stick" right now. If we lose that
> > advantage you can blame the democrats that constantly want to
> > cut military spending. I think it's necessary insurance
> > against lots of crazies in this world.

>


It feeds our ego. We are the spiritual heirs to the old Brit empire builders.
We are the cop, the ref, but also the aggressor and greedhead.


>
> Wow, talk about disconnect. Over most of US history, the Democrats
> were the War Party, until the Vietnam War. Since then they have
> still been the War Party only more cautious than the Completely
> Nutbar War Party (previously the Not So Much War Party).
>


True because among the conservatives was a heaping helping of isolationists.

They could see messing around with countries in our backyard, the Western
Hemisphere, but not going to help the Old World from committing suicide.
The Monroe Doctrine was good enough for that crew.

>
> If the US loses the big stick, that could only be a good thing,
> much as it is a good thing when a bully moves to another town.
>


Why didn't another country take the lead in Syria? Not every conflict requires
Big Daddy to step in.
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 532
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On 9/11/2013 2:28 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:45:32 PM UTC-4, casa contenta wrote:
>> On 9/11/2013 1:40 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC-4, casa contenta wrote:

>>
>>>> Are you denying Chamberlain's role?

>>
>>> His role in what?

>>
>> Emboldening Hitler to run amok through eastern Europe.
>>
>>

> I'm not claiming that Chamberlain in waving his little
> piece of paper was in fact implementing a well thought out
> strategy at the expense of his own political career. I'm
> just pointing out that the history of the time has been
> written too black and white. The factories were
> immediately turned towards the war effort. (This should
> probably have happened earlier.)
>
> The times of WW2 are indeed fascinating. If I wasn't a
> born again atheist, I might even think, with all the
> amazing events that had to happen to beat Germany, that god
> had a hand in the result.
>

Well that in itself is quite an admission, or two.

How does one become a born-again atheist, that sounds impossible?

And what event or events turned you toward thinking God might have some
sway in this chapter?

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On 2013-09-11 3:45 PM, casa contenta wrote:
> On 9/11/2013 1:40 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC-4, casa contenta wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you denying Chamberlain's role?
>>>
>>> Really?

>>
>> His role in what?
>>

> Emboldening Hitler to run amok through eastern Europe.
>



At least he got Hitler to sign a deal not to take any more territory.
Unfortunately, Hitler was a great one for signing treaties and not
sticking to them. At least he tried. He knew that he could not count on
the support of the US to enforce the terms of a treaty in which it had a
lot of input but never ratified.



  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 532
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On 9/11/2013 4:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-09-11 3:45 PM, casa contenta wrote:
>> On 9/11/2013 1:40 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC-4, casa contenta wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you denying Chamberlain's role?
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>
>>> His role in what?
>>>

>> Emboldening Hitler to run amok through eastern Europe.
>>

>
>
> At least he got Hitler to sign a deal not to take any more territory.


Oh that worked out well, didn't it?

> Unfortunately, Hitler was a great one for signing treaties and not
> sticking to them. At least he tried.


What, you're sticking up for Hitler now?

> He knew that he could not count on
> the support of the US to enforce the terms of a treaty in which it had a
> lot of input but never ratified.


He didn't care one iota about us at the time, he knew Europe was
complacent and cowering at his might.

He was also courting favor with Us businessmen like Henry Ford and
Prescott Bush.





  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On 2013-09-11 6:35 PM, casa contenta wrote:
> On 9/11/2013 4:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2013-09-11 3:45 PM, casa contenta wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2013 1:40 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC-4, casa contenta wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you denying Chamberlain's role?
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> His role in what?
>>>>
>>> Emboldening Hitler to run amok through eastern Europe.
>>>

>>
>>
>> At least he got Hitler to sign a deal not to take any more territory.

>
> Oh that worked out well, didn't it?
>
>> Unfortunately, Hitler was a great one for signing treaties and not
>> sticking to them. At least he tried.

>
> What, you're sticking up for Hitler now?
>


Holy shit. You had be wondering but that proves it. You really are
retarded.
>
>
>
>


  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 532
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On 9/11/2013 5:16 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-09-11 6:35 PM, casa contenta wrote:
>> On 9/11/2013 4:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-11 3:45 PM, casa contenta wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2013 1:40 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC-4, casa contenta
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you denying Chamberlain's role?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> His role in what?
>>>>>
>>>> Emboldening Hitler to run amok through eastern Europe.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At least he got Hitler to sign a deal not to take any more territory.

>>
>> Oh that worked out well, didn't it?
>>
>>> Unfortunately, Hitler was a great one for signing treaties and not
>>> sticking to them. At least he tried.

>>
>> What, you're sticking up for Hitler now?
>>

>
> Holy shit. You had be wondering but that proves it. You really are
> retarded.


When you say "at least he tried" how else can one read it?

You might just as well laud him for producing the KDF-wagen/ aka
people's car.

  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46,524
Default Winco vs. Walmart


"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 03:22:30 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
> snip
>>
>>That's inconsistent. Cross contamination?
>>
>>-sw

> cross contamination of what?


Whatever is processed on the shared lines or whatever it says it may
contain.

  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46,524
Default Winco vs. Walmart


"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:09:31 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> I've never seen any Walmart brand canned vegetables... they carry the
>> national brands like Del Monte and Libbys plus several lesser known
>> brands like Margaret Holmes and others... and I shop Walmart's canned
>> vegetable aisle every time and have never seen Walmart brand canned
>> vegetables.... there are many other Walmart brand items but not canned
>> vegetables.

>
> Great Value has the full line of canned vegetables, olives, beans,
> etc...
>
> <http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=great+value+canned+vegetables&i c=16_0&Find=Find&search_constraint=976759&_be_qt=w labSearchDescription>
>
> I don't know how you could have missed them. They would carry them in
> all the stores.


I think they do now. I don't think they all did in the past. When we lived
in CA, we shopped at one but I can't remember what city. I used to get
green beans for 25 cents a can. The brand varied. But I never saw their
brand. It wasn't a full grocery or even the expanded one like we have here
now.

  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:28:59 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Great Value has the full line of canned vegetables, olives, beans,
> etc...


Tubs of mayo too?
  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Winco vs. Walmart

There is NO comparison Winco blows Walmart away with much lower, cheaper prices, actually Walmart is not much cheaper than union stores, specially when stores like Safeway, Raleys etc.. always have sales! Hands down Winco poops on Walmart prices!
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,473
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> There is NO comparison Winco blows Walmart away with much lower, cheaper prices, actually Walmart is not much cheaper than union stores, specially when stores like Safeway, Raleys etc.. always have sales! Hands down Winco poops on Walmart prices!
>
>

Is this another dipshit from Banter groups dredging up a two year old post to bitch about WalMart vs. Winco which is NOT located nationally?

  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,356
Default Winco vs. Walmart



"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/1/2015 2:55 PM, wrote:
>> There is NO comparison Winco blows Walmart away with much lower, cheaper
>> prices, actually Walmart

>
> But the ice cream melts on the 2000 mile ride home from the nearest one.


We have this:

http://www.mgdonline.co.uk/products/...FRMatAodC10Ahw

It is costly but we use it in the car when travelling with the caravan. It
can be used as a fridge or freezer.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Winco vs. Walmart

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 2:26:26 PM UTC-8, Ophelia wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 3/1/2015 2:55 PM, wrote:
> >> There is NO comparison Winco blows Walmart away with much lower, cheaper
> >> prices, actually Walmart

> >
> > But the ice cream melts on the 2000 mile ride home from the nearest one.

>
> We have this:
>
>
http://www.mgdonline.co.uk/products/...FRMatAodC10Ahw
>
> It is costly but we use it in the car when travelling with the caravan. It
> can be used as a fridge or freezer.
>


$551 from Amazon, but we would have to pay our local sales tax.
http://www.amazon.com/Dometic-CF-035.../dp/B0017YFDGO

"Dometic" is not a misprint. They make a range of RV fridges. Years ago
we used one that ran off batteries, AC, or propane.



  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46,524
Default Winco vs. Walmart


> wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 2:26:26 PM UTC-8, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 3/1/2015 2:55 PM, wrote:
>> >> There is NO comparison Winco blows Walmart away with much lower,
>> >> cheaper
>> >> prices, actually Walmart
>> >
>> > But the ice cream melts on the 2000 mile ride home from the nearest
>> > one.

>>
>> We have this:
>>
>>
http://www.mgdonline.co.uk/products/...FRMatAodC10Ahw
>>
>> It is costly but we use it in the car when travelling with the caravan.
>> It
>> can be used as a fridge or freezer.
>>

>
> $551 from Amazon, but we would have to pay our local sales tax.
> http://www.amazon.com/Dometic-CF-035.../dp/B0017YFDGO
>
> "Dometic" is not a misprint. They make a range of RV fridges. Years ago
> we used one that ran off batteries, AC, or propane.


Holy cow!

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Changes at Winco Julie Bove[_2_] General Cooking 0 18-06-2015 07:12 AM
Winco Experience [email protected] General Cooking 32 12-11-2013 11:41 PM
Will WalMart save US small farmer? See what Walmart is doing now Janet Bostwick[_2_] General Cooking 13 28-03-2010 11:04 PM
Semi-Homemade with Sandra Lee: WalMart Stewart Goes to the WalMart Vineyard Ubiquitous General Cooking 7 26-05-2006 02:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"