"Jinx Minx" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jinx Minx" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Wallace" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> what I said:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I looked on the web and did not find a fork like that. I'd like
>>>>>>>>>> to have one. The ones I found did not have the sharpened rear
>>>>>>>>>> part of the tines. I did see some forks with widely spaced tines
>>>>>>>>>> for mixing (they refer to beating eggs), but as a utensil for
>>>>>>>>>> cutting fat into flour when making pastry, this one seems ideal.
>>>>>>>>>> Where do we buy them?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you said I said:
>>>>
>>>> Finding a fork ideal for blending pastry (not
>>>>> eggs) is what you asked for (and which I provided links for), not a
>>>>> fork with triangle tines for blending pastry. Unless, of course,
>>>>> you're one of those people that can't eat soup unless using an actual
>>>>> soup spoon...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You said:
>>> "...but as a utensil for cutting fat into flour when making pastry, this
>>> one seems ideal. Where do we buy them?" implies you're looking for a
>>> fork that can blend pastry, with the ability to blend pastry as the
>>> important factor, not the triangle tines. If triangle tines are all
>>> that matters, then perhaps you should have written more clearly. So, I
>>> stand by everything I've said.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can stand by whatever you want, but I see you do not stand by my
>> entire statement:
>>
>> "The ones I found did not have the sharpened rear part of the tines."
>>
>> I explicitly stated what I was looking for, you are welcome to "imply"
>> anything you like.
>>
>
> That would be "infer". What you want then is a fork with triangle tines
> (regardless of purpose), not a fork for "cutting fat into flour". So you
> can go ahead and stand by your "entire" statement. I'll stand by mine.
>
> Jinx

wow. First you say I "imply" something, now you say the correct term is
"infer".

what a wasted conversation!