First-class Bad Butter
 

Hi:

Here is how my 1st-class butter is made.

Raw, uncooked, organic, un-homogenized, un-pasteurized cow's milk is
used. Purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria are what indirectly
turn the milk into butter. Throughout the process, the butter is
mysteriously protected completely against any degradation or
abnormality [e.g. rancidity] other than bacterial decay.

No microbes other than purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria enter
the milk/butter or travel anywhere near the milk/butter or their
containers.

First, any and all minerals, metals, ions, and electrolytes are
removed from the milk. Then the bacteria enter the milk. These
bacteria initially feed on all substances in the milk *excluding* the
following entities naturally present in the milk:

Lipids [including non-greasy lipids]
Greasy substances [including greasy substances not classified as
lipids]
Elastic substances
Natural emulsifiers
Creamy substances
Slimy substances

The bacteria produce odorous compounds - including but not limited to
-- skatole, indole, acetoin, methyl ketones [such as diacetyl],
amines, butyric acid, isobutryic acid, caproic acid, propionic acid,
isovaleric acid, and valeric acid.

After all the bacterial processes are finished, the water content in
the concoction is decreased to 15% [about the same water as most high-
quality butter].

This butter smells bad like stinky cheese [including stale Swiss
cheese that has been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for
at least 30 years], smelly feet, sweaty shirts, dirty socks, neck-
sweat, back-sweat, filthy scalp and unwashed hair.

You now have 1st-class butter!!!!

Anyone want to try some of this delicious butter??

Important note on bacteria: All bacteria used in the above process are
not pathogenic. IOW - much like intestinal bacteria -- they do not
cause any disease or infection. In addition, none of these bacteria
use oxygen for any of their biochemical processes. Some of them can
survive in oxygen, while others can't. However, none of them use
oxygen. Acetic-acid bacteria are an example of bacteria that are not
used in the butter-making processes because - while they maybe
anaerobic - they still require oxygen to produce acetic acid.


Regards,

Radium

First-class Bad Butter
 

Radium wrote:

Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?

First-class Bad Butter
 

On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:

> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?

I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.

First-class Bad Butter
 

Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Here is how my 1st-class butter is made.

*Massive snip*

Whatever "Radium" is describing, it ain't butter. Butter is not a
product of fermentation.

(All cross-posts removed. I don't post to groups I don't read)

First-class Bad Butter
 

On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, none > wrote:

> Butter is not a
> product of fermentation.

It could be, though. Right?

First-class Bad Butter
 

Radium wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, none > wrote:
>
>> Butter is not a
>> product of fermentation.
>
> It could be, though. Right?
>
No

First-class Bad Butter
 

Radium wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:
>
>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?
>
> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.

You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet. Plus,
you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup.

First-class Bad Butter
 

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote:

> Radium wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:
>>
>>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?
>>
>> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.
>
> You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet.

No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
not excessive.

> Plus, you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup.

Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers.

What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if we
were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down.

tom

--
Operate all mechanisms!

First-class Bad Butter
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote:
>
>> Radium wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?
>>>
>>> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.
>>
>> You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet.
>
> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
> multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups
> is not excessive.

So, add the nonexistent newsgroup and he started out with five.
>
> Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers.
>
> What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if
> we were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down.

Yes, the post *is* nonsense, yet the PITA is that responses to that
nonsense from posters on all the groups will show up here. Note: I am
deliberately crossposting, to get my message across that crossposting
can result in indignant responses from many.

First-class Bad Butter
 

On 29 Apr 2007 14:56:42 -0700, Radium > wrote:

>Hi:
>
>Here is how my 1st-class butter is made.
>
>Raw, uncooked, organic, un-homogenized, un-pasteurized cow's milk is
>used. Purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria are what indirectly
>turn the milk into butter. Throughout the process, the butter is
>mysteriously protected completely against any degradation or
>abnormality [e.g. rancidity] other than bacterial decay.
>
>No microbes other than purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria enter
>the milk/butter or travel anywhere near the milk/butter or their
>containers.
>
>First, any and all minerals, metals, ions, and electrolytes are
>removed from the milk. Then the bacteria enter the milk. These
>bacteria initially feed on all substances in the milk *excluding* the
>following entities naturally present in the milk:
>
>Lipids [including non-greasy lipids]
>Greasy substances [including greasy substances not classified as
>lipids]
>Elastic substances
>Natural emulsifiers
>Creamy substances
>Slimy substances
>
>The bacteria produce odorous compounds - including but not limited to
>-- skatole, indole, acetoin, methyl ketones [such as diacetyl],
>amines, butyric acid, isobutryic acid, caproic acid, propionic acid,
>isovaleric acid, and valeric acid.
>
>After all the bacterial processes are finished, the water content in
>the concoction is decreased to 15% [about the same water as most high-
>quality butter].
>
>This butter smells bad like stinky cheese [including stale Swiss
>cheese that has been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for
>at least 30 years], smelly feet, sweaty shirts, dirty socks, neck-
>sweat, back-sweat, filthy scalp and unwashed hair.
>
>You now have 1st-class butter!!!!
>
>Anyone want to try some of this delicious butter??
>
>Important note on bacteria: All bacteria used in the above process are
>not pathogenic. IOW - much like intestinal bacteria -- they do not
>cause any disease or infection. In addition, none of these bacteria
>use oxygen for any of their biochemical processes. Some of them can
>survive in oxygen, while others can't. However, none of them use
>oxygen. Acetic-acid bacteria are an example of bacteria that are not
>used in the butter-making processes because - while they maybe
>anaerobic - they still require oxygen to produce acetic acid.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Radium

Sounds like something you'd get at The Fat Duck.

First-class Bad Butter
 

On Apr 30, 10:32 am, Sherry Medina > wrote:

> Sounds like something you'd get at The Fat Duck.

Whats the "Fat Duck"?

First-class Bad Butter
 

In article >,
Tom Anderson > wrote:

>No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
>not excessive.

True.

But look at the Followup-To: line:

Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec.
+ food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.
+ sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec.
+ photo.equipment.35mm

The article was clearly a troll.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

First-class Bad Butter
 

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Richard Tobin wrote:

> In article >,
> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>> multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
>> not excessive.
>
> True.

And in response to limey, i wouldn't say five is either.

> But look at the Followup-To: line:
>
> Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec.
> + food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.
> + sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec.
> + photo.equipment.35mm
>
> The article was clearly a troll.

Excellent point. I mean, the content marks it out as being either trolling
or kookery, but this is damning evidence.

tom

--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead

First-class Bad Butter
 

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson > wrote:

>No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>multi-posting)....

Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for
example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a
billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both.

-- Larry

First-class Bad Butter
 

pltrgyst wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>> multi-posting)....
>
> Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for
> example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a
> billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both.
>
> -- Larry

That takes balls.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

First-class Bad Butter
 

On 2007-05-01, Giusi wrote:

>>> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>>> multi-posting)....
>>
>> Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for
>> example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a
>> billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both.

> That takes balls.

Some computers do it automatically!

First-class Bad Butter
 

Radium wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:32 am, Sherry Medina > wrote:
>
>> Sounds like something you'd get at The Fat Duck.
>
> Whats the "Fat Duck"?

Oh my! You must get up *very* early in the morning.

<but if we are equally careful, one by one they will all go away>