Tonight's dinner.
"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:41:35 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 04:14:15 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:36:01 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Doris Night" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 01:48:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:35:15 -0600, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just last week she didn't know what pilaf was, had reasons why she
>>>>>>>>> would never eat that stuff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And she's cooked it twice in the last week, but doesn't eat it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =-sw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I *can't* eat it because of the almonds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, you could leave them out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah but the appeal is the almonds. So...
>>>>
>>>> <snork> Uh, there's no appeal if you can't eat it. Duh!
>>>>
>>>> That's gotta be one of your top 10 most ridiculous statements.
>>>
>>> That's rather silly. I'll bet there is some female (or possibly male)
>>> celebrity that you find appealing and yet you can't have them.
>>>
>>> I've seen cakes that look very appealing but I don't like cake.
>>
>>What you're describing is a classic oxymoron. Food in no way can be
>>appealing if you don't like it.
>
> It can "look" appealing but taste bad. A great looking bread, but they
> forgot to add salt, for instance. Do we really have to explain this?
Yep.
|