wrote:
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
snip

Free tip: When your attempts at being patronizing and superior make
you look like such a fool, it makes you look even more foolish when
you try to be even more patronizing. Try another technique.

Agreed. I know attempting-to-look-educated when I see it, and this is
pathetic pie.

That is, unless you're only out to impress yourself. In which case,
I'm sure the self-congratulations are their own reward.

But! If he were only out to impress himself? Surely he could do this in
the privacy of his own home, rather than on Usenet where hundreds (if not
thousands) of sites would display his attempt to the world? No, he's trying
to impress others. Unfortunately, his superior hauteur contains not even a
hint of humor, self-knowledge, or self-deprecation, as far as I've seen anyway
(I'm not a r.f.c inhabitant, so have only seen the feet he's been putting in
his mouth over here.)

Dave "less more" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:23:12 -0800, "Duwop"
wrote:

wrote in message

Ouch.......well done Kev.

Indeed! And in his generosity, Kevin gave Bobbo two lessons in one.
Let's see whether Bobbo can identify what the hidden lesson was
teaching. I'm guessing he will. It was rather obvious.

Ooh-ooh ! I know this one, "how to gratuitously cross post and win friends
and admirers from the safety of your keyboard".

What do I win?

Our enduring pity, for one thing.

Kevin wrote:

Shirley by now the Usernet has come up with a label for this kind of
bottom-of-the-barrel lameocity. What does one call someone so utterly
bereft of imagination and wit that he is reduced to merely repackaging
-- verbatim -- the rebukes, admonitions, insults, and dismissive
verbal size-10 Doc Martens in the ass hurled his way, then flinging
them back like a deranged chimp with a fistful of feces?

Without commenting on whether the behavior you describe is figuratively
happening in this discussion, allow me to point out that said behavior
constitutes the "I'm-rubber-you're-glue" argument.


I suppose "Bob" will do.

Hey HEY! There are LOTS of Bobs who frequent this NG.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
Kevin wrote:
I suppose "Bob" will do.


Hey HEY! There are LOTS of Bobs who frequent this NG.

It's never to late to change your username.
If my mom hand named me Adolf Hitler Goodman, I'd
probably change my name, and there would be no
shame in that.

How about Willie? That's a nice name, and only
somewhat reminiscent of male genitalia.

To save all the need to read many repetitive posts, I've consolidated
them here for your dining and dancing pleasure. Note the similarity of
tone and imagery. What is the name of that activity with kids sitting in
a circle all doing pretty much the same thing. Oh the name escapes me...

Actually a decent display of vocabulary, not bad grammar, imagery a
little thin, cliches a bit overdone. Still, promising.

No, seriously...

Pastorio
-------------------------
Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
Oh, my. I have to say I'm a tad disappointed in you, Bobbo. In your
frantic haste to toss back what must've seemed to you a witty retort,
you failed to consider the possibility that someone else's frame of
reference might not only encompass yours, but also extend beyond it,
in this case well past minor character actors and cult movies.
Still, I'm going to help you out here, Bobbo, because I'm your friend
and I hate to see you continue to parade your ignorance for all and
sundry to see as if today was Pride Day for the Slow-Witted and
Culturally Destitute.

1. Long before those shiny colorful movies that have so thoroughly
arrested your attention, people told stories of all kinds, both fact
and fiction, in what we grown-ups like to call "periodicals."

2. The father of diminutive actor Wallace Shawn was the editor of one
such periodical, in which regularly appeared bits of badly mangled
prose under the heading "Block that Metaphor."

I didn't know that William Shawn was Wallace's father. Took me this
prompt. But, you missed the point of my comment.

That's all the time I had set aside today for remedial instruction,
so I'm unable to tell you the title of the periodical. I expect
you'll soon be scurrying over to google to complete this small
portion of your lessons.

To which Barb wrote from her position of intellectual superiority and
self-thrilling erudition:

IOW, you were actually *complimenting* Bobbo by making that
comparison. How typical of him that he would completely miss the
point.

WHOOOOOOSH

Kevin went on to write, apropos a different twist in his knickers:

You keep mispelling "pompous asses" in a variety of inventive ways in
some vain attempt to align yourself with a group of people you
obviously feel are your social and intellectual betters, but whom
have thus far failed to clutch you nurturingly to their collective
breast.

LOL Take a breath, Kev. The screen will still be there...

Kinda sad, really.

Here's a hint: Using a bit of jargon such as "subcutaneous
inflammation" doesn't make me a physician.

Clearly not. However, my using "mouthfeel" is a professional usage
because it's from a field in which I am a professional, and have been
for a few decades.

The noise will go away once you stop moving your lips when you read.

Puhleeze.

PS: Thanks to your appearance here, I better understand the audience
for those ads in the back of "Bon Appetit," the ones touting a
"Getaway Cooking Weekend with Chef [insert manufactured celebrity
d'jour]."

To which Barb opined from her Olympian post:

Probably the same ones who thought "Sideways" was a rilly meaningful
fillum with a lot of profound insights and sophisticated humor.

To which the suddenly sober-seeming Kevin replied with a sudden eclat of
effete japery, demonstrating that same puckish sense of humor so
endearing to all and sundry. Really:

Plus also by watching it you can learn a lot about what wines go with
what kinds of food and stuff. Or, as the noted food and wine critic
Navin Johnson once said, "Why, do you realize that in the past two
short months we have acquired the sophistication it takes some people
a lifetime to acquire? Come on, let's toast!"

To which Barb offered her seriously approved humor, removing her glasses
for additional emphasis like those guys in the aspirin commercials:

I was at Trader Joe's earlier today and, while waiting in line,
enjoyed the sendup of wine snobbery in their goofy, wine-critic-style
descriptions of the "varietal" chocolate bars. My favorite was the
one with "a hint of tobacco."

And Kevin went on to write: (we could almost see the furrowed brow and
leather elbow patches)

A month or two ago, "Cook's Illustrated" ran just such an article --
quite seriously -- about various brands of chocolate, though without
referring to them as "varietal." What saved it from insipidness was
the advice about which brands might be better suited for certain
types of cooking.

insipidity... insipiditude... insipidence... insipience...

Kevin also wrote this rollicking next part:

Oh, my. My, my, my.

Shirley by now the Usernet has come up with a label for this kind of
bottom-of-the-barrel lameocity. What does one call someone so
utterly bereft of imagination and wit that he is reduced to merely
repackaging -- verbatim -- the rebukes, admonitions, insults, and
dismissive verbal size-10 Doc Martens in the ass hurled his way, then
flinging them back like a deranged chimp with a fistful of feces?

I suppose "Bob" will do.

Bob, I'm always interested in discussing English grammar and
punctuation, as are many of the others in these here froups. So other
than the coordinating conjunction that Barbara obviously failed to
delete as she edited her post, what exactly is incorrect about the
grammar and punctuation of the two sentences you quoted? Just so
there's no ambiguity, I'm referring to the two sentences you quoted
when you were pulling a Bob by demonstrating that you are so utterly
bereft of imagination and wit that you are reduced to merely
repackaging -- verbatim -- the rebukes, admonitions, insults, and
dismissive verbal size-10 Doc Martens in the ass hurled your way,
then flinging them back like a deranged chimp with a fistful of
feces. Those two.

LOL It was too ferocious a PKB to let ride. Her stomping, flouncing
prose made it all the better. Guilty pleasure.

And still more, using those cutesy conventions used by the initiates;
the "innards," as we say:

I wondered what happened to Bill Palmer. When did he start psoting to
the cooking froups?

Barb sneered, delicately pinioning herself to that wax tablet, wings
spread:
Free tip: When your attempts at being patronizing and superior make
you look like such a fool, it makes you look even more foolish when
you try to be even more patronizing. Try another technique.

That is, unless you're only out to impress yourself. In which case,
I'm sure the self-congratulations are their own reward. BW

To which Dave vainly offered to help Barb by compounding her sneer,
offering a thudding suckup and an analytical capacity only exceeded by
the rubber plant in my living room:
But! If he were only out to impress himself? Surely he could do this
in the privacy of his own home, rather than on Usenet where hundreds
(if not thousands) of sites would display his attempt to the world?
No, he's trying to impress others. Unfortunately, his superior
hauteur contains not even a hint of humor, self-knowledge, or
self-deprecation, as far as I've seen anyway (I'm not a r.f.c
inhabitant, so have only seen the feet he's been putting in
his mouth over here.)

Dave "less more" DeLaney

A fitting ending to a frayed panoply of delicate, self-congratulatory
sneers and lamentably ordinary jabs. Less more explains it all.
Triumph of form over substance.

HAND. NO. Wait. Have a terrific day. One of the best days you've ever
had. Better still, have the best day you've ever had. Anything is too
good for you. And I mean that most sincerely.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

Faux_Pseudo wrote:
_.-In rec.food.cooking, Bob (this one) wrote the following -._

Couple things. Just because it comes from wheat doesn't mean it contains
gluten, as the article explains. Likewise "derivatives" from milk and
the allergenic components. The fact is that they've been telling the
truth, as the article further says. There are no allergens in the
products. "McDonald's director of global nutrition, Cathy Kapica, said
its potato suppliers *remove all wheat and dairy proteins*, such as
gluten, which can cause allergic reactions."

You keep moving this goal post. I don't give a pig about the gluten
content of the food. I do care when they don't declare, per the law,
the additives they use in their food.

To quote you:

If they added anything to the beef patties, they'd have to
declare it. It's the law.

To quote me:

McDonalds has a history of not declairing all of the aditives
to their products.

To quote the article I linked:

Not long after disclosing that its french fries contain more
trans fat than thought, McDonald's Corp. said Monday that wheat
and dairy ingredients are used to flavor the popular menu item --
an acknowledgment it had not previously made.

AKA they were not including the "Contains wheat and milk ingredients" as
the law states they must. The law doesn't say anything about if these
wheat and milk ingredients contain gluten or not. It states that if
milk or wheat are used in any form then they must be declared.

No. It doesn't. It asks that the actual ingredients used be identified.
So, as an example, if they used lactose extracted from milk, they can
say lactose and be done with it. It's a refined sugar, not milk. And
that applies to packaged food manufacturers

And actually, they don't need to state their ingredients. I didn't state
clearly what I meant about that. What I meant is that they can't lie
about it. They're under no legal requirement to list their ingredients.
But it makes good sense from the perspective of our litigious society.

Maybe this issue is just too black and white for you?

"Additives" means put into the food. "Processing materials" means used
in preparation of, but not integral to the food itself. Do I have to
list the vegetable oil I spray on my grill, and then mostly wipe off
when cleaning it, in any foods I cook on it? Do I have to list the wax
that might come off when wrapping a sandwich in wax paper? It can get
nuts. Do I give an analysis of the water I use in rehydrating or boiling
foods? Where's the stopping point?

I wrote the "Food Additives" section in the Oxford University Press
Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. I'm somewhat conversant with
the subject.

I do agree that ingredients/processing materials that might have a
secondary effect - allergies or intolerances - should be part of the
information about the food. But I also think that people at large go way
beyond any reasonable consideration in dealing with them. In the one web
site I posted, how many of those people were frantic about not being
able to eat those fries any more. Any more. Can't eat them again. No
allergens in them, no gluten, no additional proteins, but that doesn't
stop the insanity of panicky ignorance.

If McD has been knowingly adding stuff to their fries but not saying it,
or worse, denying it, they should get a smack. Not for legal reasons,
but because they need to be more concerned about public reaction and the
bogus stuff that it leaves them open to. More Stella lawsuits.

Pastorio

On 2006-03-13, John Schmidt wrote:

in taste among quality chocolates. We're in the process of whittling
down a few dozen wines and ports to accompany 6 varieties of chocolate
for a tasting party. I've drunk MORE WINE
the last couple of weeks than I thought possible.

IFYPFY.

On 2006-03-13, Bob (this one) wrote:
To save all the need to read many repetitive posts, I've consolidated
them here for.....


RFC News 3/13/06: Flamewars of Bombastic Bores Rages On


nb

writes:

I was at Trader Joe's earlier today and, while waiting in line,
enjoyed the sendup of wine snobbery in their goofy, wine-critic-style
descriptions of the "varietal" chocolate bars. My favorite was the
one with "a hint of tobacco."

I mentioned Valrhona on a.r.k recently. Their literature includes
"varietal" and "tobacco" while omitting "goofy" and "sendup".

Good chocolate, though.

--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/

"But only with kibological dooomsday bombs do you get the authentic
wacky boing." -- John D Salt

"Bob (this one)" writes:

General life rule: When spouting shit about someone's else's use of
the language, it's always good not to demonstrate your unfamiliarity
with a "thesaraus."

General life rule: When defending oneself against a charge of
pseudointellectualism, it's always good to employ tactics more
convincing than that of picking on your detractors' typos.

Wondering why you're left is why you're left.

General life rule: When crafting a concise bon mot in the Shavian
mode, it's always best to come up with something that makes a lick of
sense.

So uninformed Stacia, ill-formed Chris and vermiform Barb jumped in
and none has survived. If you scuttle off now, no one will notice.

General life rule: When trying to establish one's credentials as a
savant, it's always best to employ something better than name-calling,
unilateral declarations of victory, and personal invective. Hint:
address the issues your adversaries have raised instead.

Bwah...

General life rule: When attempting to convey an image of cultured
elitism, avoid belching in public.

Pastorio

General life rule: When passing yourself off as an educated authority,
avoid doing so under a pseudonym that calls to mind the most feckless
cuckolded husband in the entire genre of minor comic opera.

"Bob (this one)" wrote

No, seriously...

Bob? Why are there several fishing hooks dangling out of
your butt? You're lucky they didn't perforate you bowels
as they passed through.

--oTTo--

Bob (this one) wrote:

To save all the need to read many repetitive posts,

you've decided to stop posting? Awesome.

-jwgh

--
"Only in America could something like that not happen in America."
-- Matt McIrvin, 29 November 2005

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:42:48 -0500, "Bob (this one) wrote:

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:16:07 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

mouthfeel

DING! DING! DING!

Game over. Boob may now go back to casually displaying the copy of
"Bon Appetit" tucked under his arm as gazes wistfully at a $190 juice
machine at William-Sanoma.
LOL You should only know...

"Boob" huh? What brilliant repartee. Dazzling wit. Um, you have some
stupid-cream on your lip.

You don't like "Boob?" You should quit acting like one, you scurrilous
social climber. I'll bet the only wine you drink comes in a box, too.

"mouthfeel"

snork

It always is to laugh large when fool demonstrate fact.

"Mouthfeel" is precisely and exactly a word. It's a widely used term
amongst adults, who don't wear plastic Spock ears, in assessing foods.
It's one of the - big word warning - organoleptic criteria. Take heart,
someday the big people will let you sit at the grownup table and you'll
hear words like that, too. Nearly.

Pretentious li'l wannabe gourmands all love saying "mouthfeel" without
knowing it was coined by a Frito-Lay adman to describe the way Doritos
should crunch in the mouth. Then again, maybe Bob the Rubber Chicken
eats Doritos with his Cabernet Sauvignon to show his superiority to
the other winos in the alley.

You're why the saying "Silence is golden" was coined.

Hey, Boob, we're typing here. We don't talk as we type; why do you?

--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
oTTo


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:38:35 GMT, Darla Vladschyk wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:26:31 -0500, Chris McGonnell
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:57:32 GMT, Darla Vladschyk wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:05:22 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
Ninja) wrote:

OH WHAT A GREAT IDEA. THANK YOU MR. AMAZING COOKING MAN.

LOL! Hiya Stacia! Great to read you again! Am I still on your
Ladder of Hate? 'Cause I never stopped loving you, you know.

Quit it, ya big kiss-up: Stacia's roastiing an asswipe! Wait until
she's through.

Oh Jeeze I'm sorry. I am always doing something to **** Stacia off.
I feel like the hopeful nerd in brown shoes at the junior prom.

Are you wearing a blue gown? Now if the brown shoes were dyed to match
a brown gown to set off your alabaster complexion, I don't think
anyone would care.

--
Chris "in the burgundy tuxedo" McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
oTTo
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Chris McGonnell wrote in
:

"What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
oTTo


My apologies in advance:

http://www.tinyurl.com/pvax6

Andy