On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:34:09 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:

>bob > wrote:
>
>> (Steve Pope)
>
>>>sf > wrote:
>
>>>>That's an easy one. Dire Straits is ONE (single) rock group. So,
>>>>"is" is appropriate. Dire Straits *is* performing.
>
>>>That would be the American usage, yes.
>
>>I think you are confusing "common usage" with "correct."
>
>You are arguing by repeated assertion. As I said before, if
>you have some facts to present on this question, I'm ready to
>hear them.
>
>>"Correct" is the standard by which the language is celebrated,
>>practiced and preserved, not that by which it's brought down to that
>>lowest common denominator..
>
>The problem is that this is simply more verbiage. You are not
>presenting anything authoritative that might cause a speaker of
>the language to change their mind about what's correct and what isn't.
>
>Fortunately this question is treated in Fowler's "Modern
>English Usage", under the category "nouns of multitude":
>
> Such words as _army, fleet, Government, company, pack,
> crowd, mess, number, majority_ may stand for either
> a single entity or the individuals who compose it,
> and are called nouns of multitude. They are treated
> as singular or plural at discretion.
>
>He goes on to detail circumstances where one or the other
>might be preferred; he prefers "the Cabinet are agreed" but
>also prefers "the Cabinet is divided". It is quite a long
>discussion.
>
>In any case, "Barclays are...", "Chelsea are...", and other
>examples in this thread are acceptable, as they involve
>"nouns of multitude".

OK. I've thumbed through my well worn Fowler's Second Edition (1965)
and despite it having nouns of multitude under "which, that, who" I
found an example similar to the one you've given.

In addition there is a further reference under "personification, nouns
of multitude, metonymy."

After reading through the whole thing carefully, it would be churlish
of me to not acknowledge that, according to Fowler's, you are correct.

However, my Fowler's also states that the choice of idiomatic use is
at the user's discretion and, were I still editing a magazine, I would
most definitely use my editorial discretion to change "I trust the
evidence-based medicine project at Oxford, who say ..." to "I trust
the evidence-based medicine project at Oxford that says ..."


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

bob > wrote:

> (Steve Pope) shouted

>>Fortunately this question is treated in Fowler's "Modern
>>English Usage", under the category "nouns of multitude":
>>
>> Such words as _army, fleet, Government, company, pack,
>> crowd, mess, number, majority_ may stand for either
>> a single entity or the individuals who compose it,
>> and are called nouns of multitude. They are treated
>> as singular or plural at discretion.

>>He goes on to detail circumstances where one or the other
>>might be preferred; he prefers "the Cabinet are agreed" but
>>also prefers "the Cabinet is divided". It is quite a long
>>discussion.
>>
>>In any case, "Barclays are...", "Chelsea are...", and other
>>examples in this thread are acceptable, as they involve
>>"nouns of multitude".

>OK. I've thumbed through my well worn Fowler's Second Edition (1965)
>and despite it having nouns of multitude under "which, that, who" I
>found an example similar to the one you've given.

>In addition there is a further reference under "personification, nouns
>of multitude, metonymy."

>After reading through the whole thing carefully, it would be churlish
>of me to not acknowledge that, according to Fowler's, you are correct.

Thanks.

(I think this is slightly luck on my part, as you and I
have the same edition of Fowler's...)

>However, my Fowler's also states that the choice of idiomatic use is
>at the user's discretion and, were I still editing a magazine, I would
>most definitely use my editorial discretion to change "I trust the
>evidence-based medicine project at Oxford, who say ..." to "I trust
>the evidence-based medicine project at Oxford that says ..."

Sure. I would have to guess that if you had a New York Times
style guide, it would recommend far fewer plural-tense
"nouns of multitude" than does Fowler's. I will further
concede that, while for me it seems okay to consider "project"
a noun of multitude, it may not seem okay to everybody,
even if they're okay with the other examples in this thread,
and I cannot state I've seen or read "project" used as such.

So I do totally understand why you flagged it.

Steve

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:45:58 +1300, bob >
wrote:

>A good example of this dumbing down is: "between you and I." Only a
>total ignoramus would say, "between I and you" or "give it to I, me
>want it." But "between you and I" is in common use throughout the
>British media (including The Times, The Guardian and the BBC).

You and I? Isn't it really between you and *me*? Check it out.
http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#37


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:07:43 -0800, sf > shouted from
the highest rooftop:

>On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:45:58 +1300, bob >
>wrote:
>
>>A good example of this dumbing down is: "between you and I." Only a
>>total ignoramus would say, "between I and you" or "give it to I, me
>>want it." But "between you and I" is in common use throughout the
>>British media (including The Times, The Guardian and the BBC).
>
>You and I? Isn't it really between you and *me*? Check it out.
>http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#37

I gave "between you and I" as an prime example of how English has been
dumbed down. I cringe every time I hear someone say or write it.


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:34:09 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>I hope r.f.c. are now satisfied on this point.
>
>Steve

LOL!


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:47:19 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>
>> The Beatles were personal, every member had a personality. Literally
>> everyone could not only name all the Beatles, they were individuals
>> who made a group rather than a group made up of individuals.
>
>You've been taking lessons from Steve Pope, haven't you? Let us know
>when you get up to level 3.

Nah. The Beatles were much more personal. When push comes to shove,
I bet you do it too.

I don't do that with Dire Straits or any other group.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 04:22:19 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:

>bob > wrote:
>
>> (Steve Pope) shouted
>
>>>Fortunately this question is treated in Fowler's "Modern
>>>English Usage", under the category "nouns of multitude":
>>>
>>> Such words as _army, fleet, Government, company, pack,
>>> crowd, mess, number, majority_ may stand for either
>>> a single entity or the individuals who compose it,
>>> and are called nouns of multitude. They are treated
>>> as singular or plural at discretion.
>
>>>He goes on to detail circumstances where one or the other
>>>might be preferred; he prefers "the Cabinet are agreed" but
>>>also prefers "the Cabinet is divided". It is quite a long
>>>discussion.
>>>
>>>In any case, "Barclays are...", "Chelsea are...", and other
>>>examples in this thread are acceptable, as they involve
>>>"nouns of multitude".
>
>>OK. I've thumbed through my well worn Fowler's Second Edition (1965)
>>and despite it having nouns of multitude under "which, that, who" I
>>found an example similar to the one you've given.
>
>>In addition there is a further reference under "personification, nouns
>>of multitude, metonymy."
>
>>After reading through the whole thing carefully, it would be churlish
>>of me to not acknowledge that, according to Fowler's, you are correct.
>
>Thanks.
>
>(I think this is slightly luck on my part, as you and I
>have the same edition of Fowler's...)
>
>>However, my Fowler's also states that the choice of idiomatic use is
>>at the user's discretion and, were I still editing a magazine, I would
>>most definitely use my editorial discretion to change "I trust the
>>evidence-based medicine project at Oxford, who say ..." to "I trust
>>the evidence-based medicine project at Oxford that says ..."
>
>Sure. I would have to guess that if you had a New York Times
>style guide, it would recommend far fewer plural-tense
>"nouns of multitude" than does Fowler's. I will further
>concede that, while for me it seems okay to consider "project"
>a noun of multitude, it may not seem okay to everybody,
>even if they're okay with the other examples in this thread,
>and I cannot state I've seen or read "project" used as such.
>
>So I do totally understand why you flagged it.

Thank you for your gracious and generous response.

However, I only use American English á la NYT when I'm writing for an
American publication. I use British English for everything else by
choice.

That's partly because I prefer British English and partly because I've
lived in New Zealand for the past 35 years and most of my
writing/editing is for New Zealand or Australian publications.

The standard here is British English with a few local colloquialisms
thrown in for good measure. In fact, a British colleague insists that
NZ English is more British than UK English these days.

But, just between you and I, the dumbing down is spreading ...

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:21:17 +1300, bob >
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:07:43 -0800, sf > shouted from
>the highest rooftop:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:45:58 +1300, bob >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>A good example of this dumbing down is: "between you and I." Only a
>>>total ignoramus would say, "between I and you" or "give it to I, me
>>>want it." But "between you and I" is in common use throughout the
>>>British media (including The Times, The Guardian and the BBC).
>>
>>You and I? Isn't it really between you and *me*? Check it out.
>>http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#37
>
>I gave "between you and I" as an prime example of how English has been
>dumbed down. I cringe every time I hear someone say or write it.

thanks.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:47:19 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Nah. The Beatles were much more personal. When push comes to shove,
> I bet you do it too.

I'm sure. I make a deliberate effort not to listen to myself talk.
That way I don't notice all the mistakes!

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:52:08 +1300, bob >
wrote:

>But, just between you and I, the dumbing down is spreading ...

Arrrugh! Fingernails on a blackboard sound better.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > >"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >>>On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:46:42 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>
> > >>>>It is most definitely correct in UK English to use the plural
> > >>>>pronoun in situations where an American would use the singular.
> > >>
> > >> The above sentence was a little off from what I meant.
> > >> "It is most definitely correct in UK English to treat as
> > >> plural a subject that would be treated as singular by an
> > >> American".
> > >>
> > >>>>So whereas an American might say "Dire Straits is performing
> > >>>>at RFK Stadium" a Brit would say "Dire Straits are performing
> > >>>>at Wembley".
> >
> > That's an easy one. Dire Straits is ONE (single) rock group. So,
> > "is" is appropriate. Dire Straits *is* performing. However, the
> > musicians of Dire Straits *are* performing.
>
> So, clearly, "The Beatles is performing" is correct, correct? It's nice
> when things are easy.
>
> :-)
>
> In an effort to exceed both of you in pedantry, I looked up the word
> "straits". It is both singular and plural. One may refer to the
> "Strait of Gibraltar" or "Straits of Gibraltar", and both are correct.
> You could also go on vacation and refer to visiting "two straits".
>
> > >> A little googling reveals the phrase "Chelsea, who defeated" has
> > >> 20 times more hits than "Chelsea, which defeated" and 200
> > >> times more hits than "Chelsea, that defeated".
> >
> > Is Chelsea a place or a person?
>
> "Chelsea" is a very attractive young woman, the girlfriend of the son of
> a friend of ours. My dictionary fails to back me up on this, however.
> My dictionary thinks it is the name of a couple of locations.

>
ROTFL It is the name of an area in London. It is also the name of the
football team based at Stamford Bridge stadium:
http://www.stadiumguide.com/stamfordbridge.htm


> I'll use "Seattle" as an example. My wife and I met there while
> attending four years of college. However, it was named after a person.
> Thus, it can be unclear from the context as to which is meant, the city
> or the person the city was named for.
>


The name is from some form of Old English, meaning 'river port'.
Suitable, since Chelsea is on the north bank of the Thames.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:22:07 -0800 (PST), amandaF wrote:

> On Mar 2, 6:57*pm, Omelet > wrote:

>> Yeah. I was trying to help her and she got all bitchy on me.
>> That's the last time I'll try for sure!
>
> I know you were trying. And what I saw was not bitching. I just wanted
> to get to the point. I just don't have time to be elaborate all the
> time every time someone asks something or suggesting instead of
> sticking to the question I posted.

maybe you could save yourself some time and not read the responses at all.
or even better, not post the questions.

blake

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:31:32 -0800 (PST), amandaF wrote:

> On Mar 2, 6:15*pm, Goomba > wrote:
>> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
>>>> it?
>>
>>> You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. *Go to a dietician. *They get PAID
>>> for dealing with people like you. *(Sorry to all the dieticians who
>>> may be affected if she follows through)
>>
>>> Carol
>>
>> I think she's neurotic. I imagine she's very boring as well as annoying
>> in real life.
>
> Obviously, you are speaking from your experience in life. There is
> nothing boring about me for I hang out with peopel of the same level
> of intelligent as mine.

<derisive snort>

yeah, that must be it. you're just too smart for the room.

blake

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:02:47 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Jinx Minx" > wrote:
>
>>>amandaF wrote:
>>>> On Mar 2, 6:15 pm, Goomba > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think she's neurotic. I imagine she's very boring as well as
>>>> annoying in real life.
>>>
>>> Obviously, you are speaking from your experience in life. There is
>>> nothing boring about me for I hang out with peopel of the same level
>>> of intelligent as mine.
>>
>> Need she say more?
>>
>> LMAO,
>> Jinx
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if she is Jerry Sauk's sister.

sister and fiancée.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:32:42 -0500, Cheryl wrote:

> "amandaF" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I didn't ask anyone to be my perosnal caterer, idiot. I asked a
> question that is framed with specific word for a specific reason. If
> one cannot answer that question, stay out is all I ask. Instead, some
> people give idiotic answers, even going tot he extent assuming that I
> don't eat meat. Hilarious. No ownder there is a big shoratge of
> studnets in Science in American Universities. The majority just cannot
> process information in a logiocal manner.
>
> ===========================
>
> Can you get to the studnet from the Internet or Usenet? I really need to
> check that out!

<http://www.studnet.com/search.php?uid=ws849aec7dc2f7200.82217951&src=>

your manly man pal,
blake

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:33:33 -0500, Cheryl wrote:

> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "amandaF" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I didn't ask anyone to be my perosnal caterer, idiot. I asked a
>>> question that is framed with specific word for a specific reason. If
>>> one cannot answer that question, stay out is all I ask. Instead, some
>>> people give idiotic answers, even going tot he extent assuming that I
>>> don't eat meat. Hilarious. No ownder there is a big shoratge of
>>> studnets in Science in American Universities. The majority just cannot
>>> process information in a logiocal manner.
>>>
>>> ===========================
>>>
>>> Can you get to the studnet from the Internet or Usenet? I really need to
>>> check that out!
>>>
>>
>> Clearly you cannot priocessg infomration in a logiocal manner. No studs
>> for you.
> Damn you're harsh. Well, I guess since there's no ownder, that's what's
> causing the shoratge of studs?

the shortage of walls and collars to put them in.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
bob > wrote:

> However, I only use American English á la NYT when I'm writing for an
> American publication. I use British English for everything else by
> choice.
>
> That's partly because I prefer British English and partly because I've
> lived in New Zealand for the past 35 years and most of my
> writing/editing is for New Zealand or Australian publications.
>
> The standard here is British English with a few local colloquialisms
> thrown in for good measure.

New Zealand English is a variety in its own right.

> In fact, a British colleague insists that
> NZ English is more British than UK English these days.

I'd like to know the basis for his opinion.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

In article
>,
amandaF > wrote:

> On Mar 2, 2:25*pm, Damsel in dis Dress >
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
> > >it?
> >
> > You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. *Go to a dietician.
> An an idiot, you are assuming that going to dietician *is the only way
> to find information.

Not the only way, but a very useful way for anyone who has special
dietary needs.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

>
> If you know so damn much about protein and amino acids with your Master's
> degree in chemistry, then why are you here asking us idiots for advice on
> what foods have them?

So, you think that "knowledge in available food items in US (for
breakfast)" = "knowledge of chemical compounds". Proving how idiotic
you are?

On Mar 3, 10:20*am, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "Jinx Minx" > wrote
>
>
>
> > You have absolutely no room to be calling anyone here an idiot, least of
> > all me. *I didn't assume you don't eat nuts ever. *I know you eat nuts.
> > Of course, we also all know that "you are what you eat". *Can you
> > understand that, idiot?
>
> This silly bitch thinks chemistry is the pinnacle of brilliance.

You are the one implying that, airhead.

Are you the one who claimed to have graduate from UH? Obviously from a
stupid major where they needed headcounts. If you did go tther, you
should know that you brought shame to the university I went to.

On Mar 3, 6:15*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> amandaF wrote:
> > Well, I feel more sorry for you to not be informed that some people can
> > figure out on their own what diet based on their liking of particular food
> > items would work for them but then you are typical of airheads and so need
> > I say more?
>
> If you can figure it out on your own, why did you ask here?
I asked to see whether there might be some *easily available* food
items that I do not know about, idiot.


> And since you're
> not welcome here,

Do you thinl I am bothered about not being welcome by idiots like you?
There are many here who are not idiots.


> why do you come back again and again? Do you enjoy the
> abuse, or are you just that stupid?

Are you too stupid to see that there are responses that were not
abuses at all. Eighty percent of the popualtion is idiots which is
nothign surprising and you are one of that 80%.


>
> Bob

On Mar 5, 4:55*pm, Miche > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *amandaF > wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 2:25*pm, Damsel in dis Dress >
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
> > > >it?
>
> > > You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. *Go to a dietician.
> > An an idiot, you are assuming that going to dietician *is the only way
> > to find information.
>
> Not the only way, but a very useful way for anyone who has special
> dietary needs.

I learned my lesson from the last time I relied on a doctor (for a
different thing). So, not thank you. I am in charge of my health, not
dopctors.


>
> Miche
>
> --
> Electricians do it in three phases

On Mar 1, 5:55*am, Andy > wrote:
> amandaF said...
>
> > I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > culture.
>
> amandaF,
>
> Are you talking *about a complete day's worth of protein or

> a complete protein with an even balance of protein micro-nutrients?
Yes, the above.
>
> The former is never a good idea since you'll probably end up getting too
> much protein over the rest of the day.

No, I just wanted enough to last me until lunch with may be just eat a
small snack mid morning but it'd be better if I do not nee dto eat in
mid-morning
>
> The latter requires a lot of investigation through USDA databases and the
> like, and your knowledge of what is a complete balanced protein. I've done
> this in combination with my diet software's nutrient tracking and IT DROVE
> ME UP THE WALL!!!

I know. The other think is that aside from havign to take into
consideration of the food item I like, ease of preparation is a
factor. Also, no preservatives, no artificial flavor, etc.

>
> That said, sometime try a bowl of your favorite dry cereal with fat-free
> evaporated milk.
I did. Eating cereal only adds calroies while doing almost nothign for
me.

> It's sweeter than milk since they evaporate out water but
> not the sugar. It also might be good adding some to your morning coffee or
> tea, if you like cream and sugar in it.

I do not take caffieene at all; it's a requirement.
>
> Nutritional info:http://tinyurl.com/d5ay23

Thanks.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Andy

On Mar 3, 4:41*pm, bob > wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:34:09 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
> Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>
>
>
>
> >bob > wrote:
>
> >> (Steve Pope)
>
> >>>sf > wrote:
>
> >>>>That's an easy one. *Dire Straits is ONE (single) rock group. *So,
> >>>>"is" is appropriate. *Dire Straits *is* performing. *
>
> >>>That would be the American usage, yes.
>
> >>I think you are confusing "common usage" with "correct."
>
> >You are arguing by repeated assertion. *As I said before, if
> >you have some facts to present on this question, I'm ready to
> >hear them.
>
> What you really need is a remedial course in basic English taught by
> someone with a lot of patience. Count me out.

That is if you think I would spend my precious time to use spell
check. If you are not good enough in reading to figure out some typos
and understand someone writing English as second language, you are not
good enough for me to take advice from. It's that simple. After all,
this is a usenet, not AmericanEnglishNet.
..
>
> --
>
> una cerveza mas por favor ...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
> Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 1, 10:34*pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "Miche" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > amandaF > wrote:
>
> >> I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> >> concern about the cholesterol.
>
> > There's no need. *Eggs have little to no effect on blood cholesterol
> > levels.
>
> >> I am not going to eat breakfast
> >> suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > Cheese on toast.
>
> >> * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> >> say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> >> culture.
>
> > Plenty of people in Western cultures eat fish for breakfast.
>
> > Miche
>
> Amanda hates to eat. But she likes to think about it.

I have better things to do than eat. I eat because I must.


>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 3, 6:13*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> amandaF wrote:
> > Obviously, you are speaking from your experience in life. *There is
> > nothing boring about me for I hang out with peopel of the same level of
> > intelligent as mine.
>
> I bet you do! But the hanging out you do with your intellectual peers
> doesn't make you any more interesting to me -- or to anybody else here,

I didn't say that it was and I didn't even initiate this . What I said
implied that my buddies enjoy my companies becauseI am not boring to
them and that's all I give a damn, not what you think or ayone else
here think.

This kind of talk you just did was exactly what I was talking about. I
was resp0nding to soemoen attackign me and you use my response to that
person to attack me. Very logical.....NOT. In fact, you are an idiot.


Apparently, the rest of your post is not worth reading.




> apparently.
>
> > It is very simple. It is like asking the question "What do you get in the
> > hydrolysis of Sodium Chloride (household salt)?" The answer should NOT be
> > "Why not do hydrolysis of Potassium Chloride?". I bet it is difficult for
> > you to understand.
>
> Reminds me of this Usenet classic: "I hate to say as myself, I'm more far
> SUPERIOR IQ than many people around here in RMAK!!!You attack me as English
> skills is no excuse and you are insults." - WESLEY
>
> Bob

On Mar 1, 9:02*am, amandaF > wrote:
> I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> culture.

you could try semen

In article
>,
amandaF > wrote:

> >
> > If you know so damn much about protein and amino acids with your Master's
> > degree in chemistry, then why are you here asking us idiots for advice on
> > what foods have them?
>
> So, you think that "knowledge in available food items in US (for
> breakfast)" = "knowledge of chemical compounds". Proving how idiotic
> you are?

You are such a bitchy little dork. I don't killfile many people, but
you just earned it.

Bye! <plonk>
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

In article
>,
the man from havana > wrote:

> On Mar 1, 9:02*am, amandaF > wrote:
> > I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > concern about the cholesterol. *I am not going to eat breakfast
> > suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
> >
> > * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > culture.
>
> you could try semen

She might enjoy that too much!
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

amandaF wrote:

>>> Well, I feel more sorry for you to not be informed that some people can
>>> figure out on their own what diet based on their liking of particular
>>> food items would work for them but then you are typical of airheads and
>>> so need I say more?
>>
>> If you can figure it out on your own, why did you ask here?
>
> I asked to see whether there might be some *easily available* food items
> that I do not know about, idiot.


I'm not sure why you keep throwing the word "idiot" around, when you have
displayed a complete lack of intelligence. You have also displayed an
appalling ignorance both of netiquette and common sense. Here's a hint for
you: When you are BEGGING FOR INFORMATION -- which is exactly what you were
doing -- it is ****ING STUPID for you to call your audience "idiots."


>> And since you're not welcome here,
>
> Do you thinl I am bothered about not being welcome by idiots like you?
> There are many here who are not idiots.


It's just too bad that you're not one of them. As for my own IQ, unless you
can PROVE that yours is higher than 150 -- as I can -- then you might just
be making a greater fool of yourself with every post you make. Oh, wait....
You *are* making a greater fool of yourself with every post: Carry on, then,
and I shall continue to enjoy mocking your stupidity and ridiculing you.



>> why do you come back again and again? Do you enjoy the abuse, or are you
>> just that stupid?
>
> Are you too stupid to see that there are responses that were not abuses at
> all. Eighty percent of the popualtion is idiots which is nothign
> surprising and you are one of that 80%.


....and of those non-abusive responses, you insulted the respondents. Smooth
move, dumbass.

In point of fact, my IQ is in the top 0.1% of the population, and I can
PROVE it by my membership in the Triple Nine Society. The fact that you are
so clueless in everything you write -- both culinary and otherwise --
reveals more about you than you realize. For example, I know that you are
not a good cook. I know that you are not a good chemist. I know that you are
not good at chess. I know that you are not good at writing English. I know
that you are not good in bed. I know that you are not good at talking to
people. I know that you are too ignorant to use a spell-checker. I know that
you have a completely unjustified high opinion of yourself, and you are
probably the hairiest woman in the building where you work.

Bob
"Eighty percent of the popualtion is idiots which is nothign surprising"
---amandaF

amandaF wrote:

> I was resp0nding to soemoen attackign me and you use my response to that
> person to attack me.

LOL! Sig material!

Keep 'em coming, clown-girl!


Bob
"I was resp0nding to soemoen attackign me and you use my response to that
person to attack me."
---amandaF

the man from havana replied to amandaF:

>> I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
>> concern about the cholesterol. I am not going to eat breakfast suasage,
>> etc. nor protein powder.
>>
>> Any other item that would give me complete protein? Please don't say fis.
>> I am talking about typical breakfast item in western culture.
>
> you could try semen

She doesn't appear to have any man in her life in a romantic way, so where
would she get it? Mopping up after a showing at an adult theater?

Bob

In article
>,
amandaF > wrote:

> On Mar 5, 4:55*pm, Miche > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *amandaF > wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 2:25*pm, Damsel in dis Dress >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:00:31 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >I eat meat in other meals and so do not want to eat in breakfast Get
> > > > >it?
> >
> > > > You are one rude, ungrateful bitch. *Go to a dietician.
> > > An an idiot, you are assuming that going to dietician *is the only way
> > > to find information.
> >
> > Not the only way, but a very useful way for anyone who has special
> > dietary needs.
>
> I learned my lesson from the last time I relied on a doctor (for a
> different thing). So, not thank you. I am in charge of my health, not
> dopctors.

A dietician is not necessarily a doctor.

(And I can't help wondering if you'd change your mind about doctors if
you broke a leg or were in a car crash.)

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

Miche replied to amandaF:

>> I learned my lesson from the last time I relied on a doctor (for a
>> different thing). So, not thank you. I am in charge of my health, not
>> dopctors.
>
> A dietician is not necessarily a doctor.
>
> (And I can't help wondering if you'd change your mind about doctors if
> you broke a leg or were in a car crash.)

amandaF was probably lying about its opinion regarding doctors anyway. In
amandaF's culture, doctors are generally revered. The caste system may be a
thing of the past, but there is still a definite hierarchy, and part of that
hierarchy is this progression:


LEAST WORTHY: chemists

MORE WORTHY: pharmacists

MOST WORTHY: doctors


Bob

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:36:33 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Mar 3, 4:41*pm, bob > wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:34:09 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>> Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >bob > wrote:
>>
>> >> (Steve Pope)
>>
>> >>>sf > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>That's an easy one. *Dire Straits is ONE (single) rock group. *So,
>> >>>>"is" is appropriate. *Dire Straits *is* performing. *
>>
>> >>>That would be the American usage, yes.
>>
>> >>I think you are confusing "common usage" with "correct."
>>
>> >You are arguing by repeated assertion. *As I said before, if
>> >you have some facts to present on this question, I'm ready to
>> >hear them.
>>
>> What you really need is a remedial course in basic English taught by
>> someone with a lot of patience. Count me out.
>
>That is if you think I would spend my precious time to use spell
>check. If you are not good enough in reading to figure out some typos
>and understand someone writing English as second language, you are not
>good enough for me to take advice from. It's that simple. After all,
>this is a usenet, not AmericanEnglishNet.

I've seen no evidence that English is Steve Pope's second language,
but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW - have you figured out that cheese and meats are complete proteins
yet?


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:12:43 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>amandaF wrote:
>
>>>> Well, I feel more sorry for myself

>I know that you have a completely unjustified high opinion of yourself,
>and you are probably the hairiest woman in the building where you work.

Oh please Bob. She works in an ape house! How can she compete? The
only way she could even come close would be to work with sheldon's
mother.

Lou

On Mar 6, 11:37*am, amandaF > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:34*pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Miche" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > amandaF > wrote:
>
> > >> I have been eatign 2 eggs per breakfast usign Egg'sLand best but I am
> > >> concern about the cholesterol.
>
> > > There's no need. *Eggs have little to no effect on blood cholesterol
> > > levels.
>
> > >> I am not going to eat breakfast
> > >> suasage, etc. nor protein powder.
>
> > > Cheese on toast.
>
> > >> * Any other item that would give me complete protein? *Please don't
> > >> say fis. I am talking about typical breakfast item in western
> > >> culture.
>
> > > Plenty of people in Western cultures eat fish for breakfast.
>
> > > Miche
>
> > Amanda hates to eat. But she likes to think about it.
>
> *I have better things to do than eat. I eat because I must.
>

Then you are in the wrong place. People here mostly live to eat, not
eat to live.

JB

>
>
> >- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 5, 8:31*pm, bob > wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:36:33 -0800 (PST), amandaF >
> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 3, 4:41*pm, bob > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:34:09 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
> >> Pope) shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
> >> >bob > wrote:
>
> >> >> (Steve Pope)
>
> >> >>>sf > wrote:
>
> >> >>>>That's an easy one. *Dire Straits is ONE (single) rock group. *So,
> >> >>>>"is" is appropriate. *Dire Straits *is* performing. *
>
> >> >>>That would be the American usage, yes.
>
> >> >>I think you are confusing "common usage" with "correct."
>
> >> >You are arguing by repeated assertion. *As I said before, if
> >> >you have some facts to present on this question, I'm ready to
> >> >hear them.
>
> >> What you really need is a remedial course in basic English taught by
> >> someone with a lot of patience. Count me out.
>
> >That is if you think I would spend my precious time to use spell
> >check. *If you are not good enough in reading to figure out some typos
> >and understand someone writing English as second language, you are not
> >good enough for me to take advice from. It's that simple. After all,
> >this is a usenet, not AmericanEnglishNet.
>
> I've seen no evidence that English is Steve Pope's second language,
> but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I was responding to your "What you really need is a remedial course in
basic English taught by someone with a lot of patience. Count me out.
"

"
>
> BTW - have you figured out that cheese and meats are complete proteins
> yet?

Do you still not know that I eat meat in every meals aside for
breakfast? As for cheese, it's not wroth eating on regular bassis and
get the fat. I am not comfortable with being overweight like most
Americans would. Understand?


>
> --
>
> una cerveza mas por favor ...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
> Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:36:33 -0800 (PST), amandaF wrote:

> On Mar 3, 4:41*pm, bob > wrote:
>>
>> What you really need is a remedial course in basic English taught by
>> someone with a lot of patience. Count me out.
>
> That is if you think I would spend my precious time to use spell
> check.

yep, it would cut into your precious time spent calling people idiots.

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:36:33 -0800 (PST), amandaF wrote:
>
>> On Mar 3, 4:41 pm, bob > wrote:
>>>
>>> What you really need is a remedial course in basic English taught by
>>> someone with a lot of patience. Count me out.
>>
>> That is if you think I would spend my precious time to use spell
>> check.
>
> yep, it would cut into your precious time spent calling people idiots.
>
Hey, I thought that was a valid hobby!