It would make MY days more pleasant reading things on this site if the two
children would quit quibbling. I was under the impression, when I joined
this list, that it was BREAD related.

Old Camp Cook

On 13 May, 01:50, "Bob Packer" wrote:
It would make MY days more pleasant reading things on this site if the two
children would quit quibbling. I was under the impression, when I joined
this list, that it was BREAD related.

Old Camp Cook

Lol, you'll learn. So you think Samartha can just say what the hell he
likes and not have someone say 'Hey you're out of order" How is
anything I've done any different to what you've just done now? I
haven't called Samartha a child by the way. I've tried to keep it to
bread related but S really likes to throw stones in the mud. That's
not easy to ignore.

You know, if you don't want off topic crap in the group, probably best
not to start new off topic crap Bob. Kind of makes you a bit
hypocritical don't you think? Most people have just ignored it. If you
don't want your day disturbed Bob, just don't read Samartha's
bitching. It isn't difficult to just move your eyes on down. I would
too but I know these people so feel a bit more involved, Smartha's
bullying gets a bit much. You'll learn post something that doesn't
meet with his exacting standards and you'll get the 'baloney' posts

Jim

Wow... Looks like this is THE reason that S. posts.... He/she really gets
your goat....
Good luck..

C.

"TG" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 13 May, 01:50, "Bob Packer" wrote:
It would make MY days more pleasant reading things on this site if the
two
children would quit quibbling. I was under the impression, when I joined
this list, that it was BREAD related.

Old Camp Cook

Lol, you'll learn. So you think Samartha can just say what the hell he
likes and not have someone say 'Hey you're out of order" How is
anything I've done any different to what you've just done now? I
haven't called Samartha a child by the way. I've tried to keep it to
bread related but S really likes to throw stones in the mud. That's
not easy to ignore.

You know, if you don't want off topic crap in the group, probably best
not to start new off topic crap Bob. Kind of makes you a bit
hypocritical don't you think? Most people have just ignored it. If you
don't want your day disturbed Bob, just don't read Samartha's
bitching. It isn't difficult to just move your eyes on down. I would
too but I know these people so feel a bit more involved, Smartha's
bullying gets a bit much. You'll learn post something that doesn't
meet with his exacting standards and you'll get the 'baloney' posts

Jim

"ArmisBrooks" wrote in message ...

Wow... Looks like this is THE reason that S. posts.... He/she really gets
your goat....

Which reason is that? Who/what is "S."? (Is it hermaphroditic?) Could
you learn to focus your posts by deleting irrelevant quoted material?
Avoid requoting whole threads.

--
Dicky

Oh dear lord.. do you have no memory of the thread to speak of?

S would be central to the thread topic: Smartha.

Maybe thats why I included the entire thread, so you could get it.. but that
would mean you would have to read it.

BTW, its bad form to correct anyone on the way they communicate, be it in
person, or on a NG (newsgroup in case your brain could not make the
connection).

C.

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

"ArmisBrooks" wrote in message
...

Wow... Looks like this is THE reason that S. posts.... He/she really gets
your goat....

Which reason is that? Who/what is "S."? (Is it hermaphroditic?) Could
you learn to focus your posts by deleting irrelevant quoted material?
Avoid requoting whole threads.

--
Dicky

On Wed, 16 May 2007 08:43:33 -0500, "ArmisBrooks"
wrote:

[---]

BTW, its bad form to correct anyone on the way they communicate, be it in
person, or on a NG (newsgroup in case your brain could not make the
connection).

Some would also say that it's bad form to top post ...

ArmisBrooks wrote:
BTW, its bad form to correct anyone on the way they communicate, be it in
person, or on a NG (newsgroup in case your brain could not make the
connection).

A confusing comment. Since you have done just done what you say is bad
form, it would seem that you think that such forms don't apply to you.

It further seems that you think it is, largely, better to let someone
continue to make mistakes in their communications, even though that will
adversely impact their lives. Unless, of course, those mistakes annoy you.

Mike

--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
CALCULUS: the agony and dx/dt

Others would say it's bad form to bottom post. Since it makes the
readers wade through lots of text they have probably already seen before.

Andrew Price wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 08:43:33 -0500, "ArmisBrooks"
wrote:

[---]


BTW, its bad form to correct anyone on the way they communicate, be it in
person, or on a NG (newsgroup in case your brain could not make the
connection).


Some would also say that it's bad form to top post ...
_______________________________________________
rec.food.sourdough mailing list

http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

To unsubscribe send a mail to and then reply to the confirmation request.





--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

Once seen on road signs all over the United States:
Golfers!
Hole in one
Is quite a feat
Unless that hole
Is in your meat
Burma-Shave

On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:59:02 -0600, Mike Avery
wrote:

Others would say it's bad form to bottom post. Since it makes the
readers wade through lots of text they have probably already seen before.

Only if the poster doesn't have the intelligence to edit out what is
not essential - it isn't rocket science !

I prefer "top posting" so I don't have to scroll down to get to what I
want to see. But, in the big scheme of things, does it really make
any significant difference? It really makes none to me!

I have been lurking and learning in this group. There are a lot of
people who seem to have a lot of good information that they are
willing to share. That group includes the main participants in the
recent quibbling. I really appreciate the sharing of knowledge from
all of you. Thank you!

If you want to see a group that is discussing a really serious topic,
without quibbling, go to the other group that I routinely monitor.
That would be: alt.support.cancer.prostate For me, that one is
deadly serious. This one I monitor for fun.

Thanks again, to all of you for generously sharing your knowledge.

On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:59:02 -0600, Mike Avery
wrote:

Others would say it's bad form to bottom post. Since it makes the
readers wade through lots of text they have probably already seen before.

Andrew Price wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 08:43:33 -0500, "ArmisBrooks"
wrote:

[---]


BTW, its bad form to correct anyone on the way they communicate, be it in
person, or on a NG (newsgroup in case your brain could not make the
connection).


Some would also say that it's bad form to top post ...
_______________________________________________
rec.food.sourdough mailing list

http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/lis...food.sourdough

To unsubscribe send a mail to and then reply to the confirmation request.

On 16 May, 12:57, "ArmisBrooks" wrote:
Wow... Looks like this is THE reason that S. posts.... He/she really gets
your goat....
Good luck..


What gets my goat is hypocrisy, unashamed dualistic thinking and
grudges, if the last one sneaks under your net of the other two.

What I like about this NG is you're allowed to have an off day. You're
allowed to be yourself providing you don't infringe on the liberties
of anyone else. It *really* is not politically correct. And most of
all there's some bloody good bakers here who are willing enough to
tell you what you need to hear not what you want to hear.

Jim

On 16 May, 15:01, "Jeff Miller"
I humbly suggest that, to more accurately reflect its content, we change the
name of this group to rec.food.sourdough-flame

--
Jeff Miller

Hey that's not provocative or judgmental in the slightest, is it?

Jim

On 24 May, 15:09, "Jeff Miller" wrote:
Jim,

Provocative? It certainly didn't seem to be all that provocative, given the
lack of responses. I posted that 8 days ago, and you're just getting
provoked now?

--
Jeff Miller

Jeff, I got news for you. There's this new thing called Google. They
have groups. RFS is one. You can log in anytime, in fact you don't
even have to log in. You can read anything as far back as the 20th
Century. I don't think a week is such a long time. This thread was
only second down the page. So still current, positively Fresh by tfl
standards.

Anyway I just couldn't resist giving your sanctimonious comment my
thoughts. We have no despotic leader here. This is a true democracy
Jeff.

Jim

"TG" wrote in message ps.com...

... There's this new thing called Google. They
have groups. RFS is one.

Oh, my goodness! Can't anybody remember Usenet?

We have no despotic leader here.

It is hard to find someone with all of the right qualifications.

--
Dicky

TG wrote:
On 24 May, 15:09, "Jeff Miller" wrote:
Jim,

Provocative? It certainly didn't seem to be all that provocative, given the
lack of responses. I posted that 8 days ago, and you're just getting
provoked now?

--
Jeff Miller

Jeff, I got news for you. There's this new thing called Google. They
have groups. RFS is one. You can log in anytime, in fact you don't
even have to log in. You can read anything as far back as the 20th
Century. I don't think a week is such a long time.

Ahh, that explains why your post was kinda late, you rely on Google's
Usenet feed for posting. There is sometimes 'days' between when the
post was made on Usenet before Google picks it up to show on the WWW in
it's commercial page.

Lots of us actually have a direct Usenet feed so we don't depend on the
commercial websites with all their delays and ads to view or post.

Mike