[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:34:38 -0800 (PST), projectile vomit chick
> wrote:

>I don't base my whole existence around Usenet. LOL

Hopefully you're a more interesting person in RL.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:36:56 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:39:23 -0600, Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> Melba's Jammin' > wrote in news:barbschaller-
>> :
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> ImStillMags > wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, Hi. I'm hoping this board will become a favorite and a place
>>>> where I can have conversations with like minded foodies.
>>>
>>> Don't hold your breath, but if you want to be regarded as an
>>> improvement to the group, don't start any off-topic threads and try not
>>> to get hooked into them. That can be difficult, I know.
>>
>> And don't let anyone tell you there are rules. This is an unmoderated
>> newsgroup, possibly one of the oldest, and as such these suggestions
>> above are nothing more than that and have no more force than that.
>>
>> That being said, you CAN paticipate in off-topic conversations if such is
>> your desire. The only thing that a poster who disagrees with you can do
>> is killfile you, which means they won't see your posts.
>>
>> But nonetheless, here are a few broad guidelines:
>>
>> 1. You will most likely do better if you refrain from using foul
>> language, although sometimes foul language is acceptable. Know the
>> difference.
>>
>> 2. If you don't like the topic, don't open the post. That is in effect
>> the only rule and you are entirely responsible for whatever happens after
>> that. No one will have any pity for you if you whine afterwards about
>> what you read.
>>
>> 3. It's usually a faux pas of sorts to feed the trolls unless you are
>> counting coup :-) Trolls, contrary to some opinions, are not people you
>> (or others) merely disagree with, they are people who post disruptive
>> messages so they can say they "made you look". Around here, a common
>> troll would be a reference to cooking human flesh or some such thing. On
>> a .physics group, it could be posting chemistry formulas and posting pro-
>> Nazi comments on a .jewish group. A troll with self-respect will make
>> sure his post is geared to the particular newsgroup. Nothing is more
>> embarassing than a troll who targets a group with a message that is
>> intended for another.
>>
>> People here will try to mould you into a perfect little rfc'er. Don't
>> let them. Be bold, be interesting, get into it, even if it's politics or
>> religion or woodworking. Feel free to provide supporting comments on any
>> topic of your choice. Threads degenerate anyway. The more interesting
>> discussions are usually not about cooking but about attitudes.
>>
>> Oh, and there are long-standing acrimonious debates and enmities here. I
>> suggest you let those play out before you step in the middle saying:
>> Can't we all just get along?? Because the simple answer is no, we can't,
>> this is why the gods invented killfiles. Learn to use them.
>>
>> 4. Don't take anything personally. You're here to have fun and if you're
>> not having fun then you need to reassess your approach.
>>
>> 5. Try to edit your replies (as I have done) and to avoid top posting.
>> Some people here killfile top posters.
>>
>> Go forth, grasshopper...
>
>this is a pretty good set of advice. my hat's off to you, michel.
>
Except for the top posting part.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:29:09 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:07:38 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:33:13 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>>> Now, now, Steve... you know TINC
>>>>
>>>> and anyway, I am still a member
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> i wouldn't join any non-existent cabal that would have me as a member.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> julius
>>
>> Can you wiggle your cigar?
>
>not as well as my eyebrows.
>
I was hoping you could wiggle your ears.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:23:18 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:40:27 -0800, koko wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:12:37 -0500, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:12:49 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:16:34 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As with other boards, there are antagonists and friends and cliques.
>>>>
>>>> There are only the infidels and the Cabal. Anything else is just
>>>> your imagination.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>
>>>i have it on good authority that there are infidels *within* the cabal.
>>>however, i'm not at liberty to disclose my sources.
>>>
>>>your pal,
>>>blake
>>
>> How many times do we have to tell you, TINC you infidel ;-)
>> We will douse you with cans of cream of mushroom soup and stuff spam
>> up your nostrils until you disclose all you know.
>>
>> koko
>
>can't you just waterboard me like everyone else?
>
They don't do clean.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Michel Boucher[_3_]]

sf > wrote in
news
>>> 5. Try to edit your replies (as I have done) and to avoid top
>>> posting. Some people here killfile top posters.
>>>
>>> Go forth, grasshopper...
>>
>>this is a pretty good set of advice. my hat's off to you, michel.
>>
> Except for the top posting part.

Sheesh, there's always a critic...

I don't think I said anything untoward. It is true that some people will
killfile top posters. This was my warning, hence the suggestion to avoid
it. If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to offer substantial evidence to
the contrary, to wit that few or none killfile top posters.

--

I have nothing against God.
It's his fan club I can't stand.

spotted on a poster

[Melba's Jammin']

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:06:51 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> > Yes, well, we still haven't received your application nor your
> > registration fee. It's a good thing you can't post until you get those
> > documents submitted.
>
> it looks like your fascist pig-state is crumbling. power to the people!
>
> your pal,
> blake

Dang! Another coup! Where's Fidel when I need him?
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller 1-9-2010

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:11:16 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>sf > wrote in
>news >
>>>> 5. Try to edit your replies (as I have done) and to avoid top
>>>> posting. Some people here killfile top posters.
>>>>
>>>> Go forth, grasshopper...
>>>
>>>this is a pretty good set of advice. my hat's off to you, michel.
>>>
>> Except for the top posting part.
>
>Sheesh, there's always a critic...
>
>I don't think I said anything untoward. It is true that some people will
>killfile top posters. This was my warning, hence the suggestion to avoid
>it. If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to offer substantial evidence to
>the contrary, to wit that few or none killfile top posters.

It was the avoid top posting part I des agree with. I think all posts
should be top posted, that way proper attributions stay with the first
line of each post.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Lou decruss]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:11:16 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>sf > wrote in
>news >
>>>> 5. Try to edit your replies (as I have done) and to avoid top
>>>> posting. Some people here killfile top posters.
>>>>
>>>> Go forth, grasshopper...
>>>
>>>this is a pretty good set of advice. my hat's off to you, michel.
>>>
>> Except for the top posting part.
>
>Sheesh, there's always a critic...
>
>I don't think I said anything untoward. It is true that some people will
>killfile top posters. This was my warning, hence the suggestion to avoid
>it. If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to offer substantial evidence to
>the contrary, to wit that few or none killfile top posters.

I sure do. That and her ignorant comments about it got her put in my
KF. I told her I was going to do it and she said she could care less.
So I did. I've never seen anything quoted that she's penned that
makes me think I made the wrong decision.

And I've KF'd other top-posters too.

Lou

[Sky]

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:11:16 -0600, Michel Boucher
> > wrote:
>
> >sf > wrote in
> >news > >
> >>>> 5. Try to edit your replies (as I have done) and to avoid top
> >>>> posting. Some people here killfile top posters.
> >>>>
> >>>> Go forth, grasshopper...
> >>>
> >>>this is a pretty good set of advice. my hat's off to you, michel.
> >>>
> >> Except for the top posting part.
> >
> >Sheesh, there's always a critic...
> >
> >I don't think I said anything untoward. It is true that some people will
> >killfile top posters. This was my warning, hence the suggestion to avoid
> >it. If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to offer substantial evidence to
> >the contrary, to wit that few or none killfile top posters.
>
> It was the avoid top posting part I des agree with. I think all posts
> should be top posted, that way proper attributions stay with the first
> line of each post.


I prefer top posting too, but RFC doesn't for some reason <g>. It's a
lot easier to read someone's post at the top, especially if it's in
response to a long thread. That way, one doesn't have to scroll down
all the way to the bottom, unless they want to read all the text
included. But, as it's said.... when in Denmark ...

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

[Michel Boucher[_3_]]

Sky > wrote in
:

> I prefer top posting too, but RFC doesn't for some reason <g>. It's a
> lot easier to read someone's post at the top, especially if it's in
> response to a long thread. That way, one doesn't have to scroll down
> all the way to the bottom, unless they want to read all the text
> included. But, as it's said.... when in Denmark ...

This is why one should learn to edit and retain only those portions of text
which are germane to the conversation such as I have done here. I'm sure
the pain of scrolling all the way down to the bottom of this post will not
tire you out too much.

And sf, as far as attribution is concerned, this is maintained as well, as
you can clearly see.

--

I have nothing against God.
It's his fan club I can't stand.

spotted on a poster

[Dan Abel]

In article >,
Sky > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:11:16 -0600, Michel Boucher
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >sf > wrote in
> > >news > > >
> > >>>> 5. Try to edit your replies (as I have done) and to avoid top
> > >>>> posting. Some people here killfile top posters.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Go forth, grasshopper...
> > >>>
> > >>>this is a pretty good set of advice. my hat's off to you, michel.
> > >>>
> > >> Except for the top posting part.
> > >
> > >Sheesh, there's always a critic...
> > >
> > >I don't think I said anything untoward. It is true that some people will
> > >killfile top posters. This was my warning, hence the suggestion to avoid
> > >it. If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to offer substantial evidence to
> > >the contrary, to wit that few or none killfile top posters.
> >
> > It was the avoid top posting part I des agree with. I think all posts
> > should be top posted, that way proper attributions stay with the first
> > line of each post.
>
>
> I prefer top posting too, but RFC doesn't for some reason <g>. It's a
> lot easier to read someone's post at the top, especially if it's in
> response to a long thread. That way, one doesn't have to scroll down
> all the way to the bottom, unless they want to read all the text
> included. But, as it's said.... when in Denmark ...

What top posters seem to miss, is the first half of the sentence of item
#5 above.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

[Sky]

Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> Sky > wrote in
> :
>
> > I prefer top posting too, but RFC doesn't for some reason <g>. It's a
> > lot easier to read someone's post at the top, especially if it's in
> > response to a long thread. That way, one doesn't have to scroll down
> > all the way to the bottom, unless they want to read all the text
> > included. But, as it's said.... when in Denmark ...
>
> This is why one should learn to edit and retain only those portions of text
> which are germane to the conversation such as I have done here. I'm sure
> the pain of scrolling all the way down to the bottom of this post will not
> tire you out too much.

I don't disagree at all <G>. What I tend to forget is to change the
subject/topic line when there's been significant thread drift, as often
happens.

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:20:19 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>Sky > wrote in
:
>
>> I prefer top posting too, but RFC doesn't for some reason <g>. It's a
>> lot easier to read someone's post at the top, especially if it's in
>> response to a long thread. That way, one doesn't have to scroll down
>> all the way to the bottom, unless they want to read all the text
>> included. But, as it's said.... when in Denmark ...
>
>This is why one should learn to edit and retain only those portions of text
>which are germane to the conversation such as I have done here. I'm sure
>the pain of scrolling all the way down to the bottom of this post will not
>tire you out too much.
>
>And sf, as far as attribution is concerned, this is maintained as well, as
>you can clearly see.

Try figuring it out in a long, messy thread. If bottom posting is the
rfc rule, then another rule should be that text be trimmed enough to
prevent scrolling. If I don't have to scroll, I don't care. I care
when I have to scroll through a lot of nonsense I've already read just
to find something new.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Michel Boucher[_3_]]

Cheryl > wrote in news:Xns9D04BD0EAEB58shads@
69.16.176.253:

> There are TONS of cooking posts, and if you filter out
> the garbage SPAM and crossposts, the OT posts aren't that intrusive.
> IMO.

Precisely.

--

I have nothing against God.
It's his fan club I can't stand.

spotted on a poster

[Michel Boucher[_3_]]

sf > wrote in newsbu9l5hfv1h8fq1trhgqobnmdsm1512ua6@
4ax.com:

> Try figuring it out in a long, messy thread. If bottom posting is the
> rfc rule, then another rule should be that text be trimmed enough to
> prevent scrolling.

To wit the point about...wait for it...*editing*.

--

I have nothing against God.
It's his fan club I can't stand.

spotted on a poster

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:48:42 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>What top posters seem to miss, is the first half of the sentence of item
>#5 above.
First of all - I see it done more egregiously by bottom posters here.

Second - if I want to reply to the last two posts, I don't need to
reply and trim, I only need to highlight/reply.

Third - we don't need to worry about bandwidth issues in this day and
age.

Fourth - those who do have issues can set their news client not to
download bodies larger than x.

Fifth - look at sky's post again. She's an old timer on usenet yet
she cut out most of the attributions, keeping only the text. Top
posting fixes that.




--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Michel Boucher[_3_]]

sf > wrote in news:sru9l5p4db46duml2480q7r0aq98lk0vgc@
4ax.com:

> Fifth - look at sky's post again. She's an old timer on usenet yet
> she cut out most of the attributions, keeping only the text. Top
> posting fixes that.

So does proper bottom posting. Your point is specious.

--

I have nothing against God.
It's his fan club I can't stand.

spotted on a poster

[Goomba[_2_]]

Cheryl wrote:

> Yes it is. I've felt bad over some of the comments about OT posts
> because I've done more than my share. But Michel puts it in
> perspective. There are TONS of cooking posts, and if you filter out
> the garbage SPAM and crossposts, the OT posts aren't that intrusive.
> IMO.

Yes they are. And its kinda sad to think that people are so devoid of
real life friends that they have to report every minutiae detail of
their life here in far too numerous OT threads. People who are friends
here and want to share news usually know the direct email addy to send
such information to. I recall when RFC was far more cooking/food
oriented and miss those days.

I tried Spam once during its 50th year anniversary. No plans to repeat
the experience.

[Goomba[_2_]]

Sky wrote:

> I don't disagree at all <G>. What I tend to forget is to change the
> subject/topic line when there's been significant thread drift, as often
> happens.
>
> Sky
>
And I'd rather people not change the subject line..... such is life. LOL

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:32:27 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>sf > wrote in newsbu9l5hfv1h8fq1trhgqobnmdsm1512ua6@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Try figuring it out in a long, messy thread. If bottom posting is the
>> rfc rule, then another rule should be that text be trimmed enough to
>> prevent scrolling.
>
>To wit the point about...wait for it...*editing*.

Which bottom posters often neglect to do.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:28:19 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>sf > wrote in news:sru9l5p4db46duml2480q7r0aq98lk0vgc@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Fifth - look at sky's post again. She's an old timer on usenet yet
>> she cut out most of the attributions, keeping only the text. Top
>> posting fixes that.
>
>So does proper bottom posting. Your point is specious.

Oh, no it doesn't. Attributions are separated from text with bottom
posting.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:16:49 -0500, Goomba >
wrote:

>I recall when RFC was far more cooking/food oriented and miss those days.

Oh? Who were you before you posted as Goomba?


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:49:47 -0800, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:36:36 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:16:49 -0500, Goomba >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I recall when RFC was far more cooking/food oriented and miss those days.
>>
>>Oh? Who were you before you posted as Goomba?
>
>She's right, and she's always been Goomba.
>
You know I've been here a long time, longer than Goomba, and this ng
has never been the fairy tale some posts would like to think it used
to be.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Dan Abel]

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:32:27 -0600, Michel Boucher
> > wrote:
>
> >sf > wrote in newsbu9l5hfv1h8fq1trhgqobnmdsm1512ua6@
> >4ax.com:
> >
> >> Try figuring it out in a long, messy thread. If bottom posting is the
> >> rfc rule, then another rule should be that text be trimmed enough to
> >> prevent scrolling.
> >
> >To wit the point about...wait for it...*editing*.
>
> Which bottom posters often neglect to do.

Then perhaps you should consider killfiling them?

Having to scroll down through 1000 lines to read a "me too" is just
another reminder for a killfile entry.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

[sf[_9_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0800, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:40:36 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
>
>>You know I've been here a long time, longer than Goomba, and this ng
>>has never been the fairy tale some posts would like to think it used
>>to be.
>
>Well..I was here a few years before you got here, and it was a lot
>better. Believe it or not. Tammy, Modom, Miche and I, and I forget
>who else started here the same year, in 1994...and it was different.
>You weren't here then, and you don't know how it was...and we do.
>

'94? How do you know that for sure? I have no idea what year I came
here and I haven't been able to google my first post for years. I
know a key word but google doesn't burp up the post I'm thinking of.
I deja'd what I think is my OP after some regulars got into a ****ing
contest about how long some they had been here. Didn't care before
that, don't care now, and only think about it when people like you
play that card. Does it really matter? And I don't remember Miche as
an old timer or even close to one. She only became apparent in the
"miche" persona a *very* few years ago to me.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Bob Terwilliger[_1_]]

sf wrote:

> I have no idea what year I came here and I haven't been able to google my
> first post for years. I know a key word but google doesn't burp up the
> post I'm thinking of.

Any particular reason you're being so mysterious about the "key word" or
other details of the post you're trying to find?

Bob

[PeterL2[_2_]]

sf > wrote in news:65pal5t0kockhdh0omtdu1mad97ebia2m2@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0800, Christine Dabney
> > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:40:36 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You know I've been here a long time, longer than Goomba, and this ng
>>>has never been the fairy tale some posts would like to think it used
>>>to be.
>>
>>Well..I was here a few years before you got here, and it was a lot
>>better. Believe it or not. Tammy, Modom, Miche and I, and I forget
>>who else started here the same year, in 1994...and it was different.
>>You weren't here then, and you don't know how it was...and we do.
>>
>
> '94? How do you know that for sure? I have no idea what year I came
> here and I haven't been able to google my first post for years. I
> know a key word but google doesn't burp up the post I'm thinking of.
> I deja'd what I think is my OP after some regulars got into a ****ing
> contest about how long some they had been here. Didn't care before
> that, don't care now, and only think about it when people like you
> play that card. Does it really matter? And I don't remember Miche as
> an old timer or even close to one. She only became apparent in the
> "miche" persona a *very* few years ago to me.
>


Well, as poor old gayboi Booble Twitiliger found out recently, due to
the bullet hole in it's flat foot, I've got documented posts going back
to '93, and I know for a fact that I was here in '92..... just can't
remember what ISP or 'handle' I had back then.

I'll have to go back and see a few of the names........ one thing's for
sure, I certainly don't remember ann Twitiliger.

I do remember Stephanie DeSilva though.

[sf[_9_]]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:01:35 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what year I came here and I haven't been able to google my
>> first post for years. I know a key word but google doesn't burp up the
>> post I'm thinking of.
>
>Any particular reason you're being so mysterious about the "key word" or
>other details of the post you're trying to find?
>
I'm not being mysterious at all. Didn't think anybody would care.
Who did you post as back then?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[sf[_9_]]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:14:41 GMT, PeterL2 >
wrote:

>Well, as poor old gayboi Booble Twitiliger found out recently, due to
>the bullet hole in it's flat foot, I've got documented posts going back
>to '93, and I know for a fact that I was here in '92..... just can't
>remember what ISP or 'handle' I had back then.
>
>I'll have to go back and see a few of the names........ one thing's for
>sure, I certainly don't remember ann Twitiliger.

I know this is a slap from you to him, but you said recently that
you've changed personas often. I have no idea who you were back then,
don't care either. You are who you are now and we are in the present.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Bob Terwilliger[_1_]]

sf wrote:

>>> I have no idea what year I came here and I haven't been able to google
>>> my first post for years. I know a key word but google doesn't burp up
>>> the post I'm thinking of.
>>
>> Any particular reason you're being so mysterious about the "key word" or
>> other details of the post you're trying to find?
>>
> I'm not being mysterious at all. Didn't think anybody would care.

I found your posts from 1996 when you weren't able to. Maybe I can find the
one you're looking for earlier. What do you recall about the earlier post?


> Who did you post as back then?

I answered that question from you when you asked two weeks ago. Why should I
bother telling you again, when you just disregard the answer and keep asking
the question?

Bob

[PeterLucas (o/s)]

On 19 Jan, 21:20, "Booble Twitiliger" >
wrote:
> sf wrote:
> >>> I have no idea what year I came here and I haven't been able to google
> >>> my first post for years. I know a key word but google doesn't burp up
> >>> the post I'm thinking of.
>
> >> Any particular reason you're being so mysterious about the "key word" or
> >> other details of the post you're trying to find?
>
> > I'm not being mysterious at all. *Didn't think anybody would care.
>
> I found your posts from 1996 when you weren't able to.


And yet you couldn't find mine from 92-93??


>Maybe I can find the
> one you're looking for earlier.


And maybe you're just full of shit.


Well, not maybe.


And that probably extends to your supposed 'military career'.

Vietnam vet....... yeah sure, I have no doubt that you probably may
have been there.

But 10-1 you were a REMF.


> What do you recall about the earlier post?

You're the 'supposed' internet defective........ errrrrrrr,
detective....... you go find it if it's so ****ing important to you.

You seem to have severe 'internet inferiority issues' if it seems like
someone could have been here "longer" than you.

Quite apart from the fact that you post bogus "menus" all the time.


You've been proven once to be a complete and utter ****ing liar (by
me) as far as telling people when they started posting and when they
didn't. (Funny that, as soon as I hit you with the proof, you shut the
**** up and have avoided the subject ever since!!
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Way to go, Booble bob Twitiliger.

Why don't you just take your (***) insecurities and **** off?


>
> > Who did you post as back then?
>
> I answered that question from you when you asked two weeks ago. Why should I
> bother telling you again, when you just disregard the answer and keep asking
> the question?


You arrogant little ****ing twerp.

That just goes to show, *totally*, how ****ing insignificant you are.


Go away, Twitliliger, and release your "beard", so that she can lead a
normal life without you.

[--Bryan]

On Jan 16, 2:52*pm, Melba's Jammin' >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ImStillMags > wrote:
> > I've been reading a bit and trying to find out how the people who post
> > here regularly act with each other and what the main dynamic of the
> > board is. * *I'm still trying to figure it out.
>
> > As with other boards, there are antagonists and friends and cliques.
>
> > I don't want to make enemies *or friends yet, I just want to have some
> > interaction about food and cooking
> > with people who also find cooking pleasurable and interesting and who
> > are foodies like me.
>
> > So, Hi. * *I'm hoping this board will become a favorite and a place
> > where I can have conversations with like minded foodies.
>
> > -Mags
>
> Don't hold your breath, but if you want to be regarded as an improvement
> to the group, don't start any off-topic threads and try not to get
> hooked into them. * That can be difficult, I know.
>
> If you want to talk about your dead pet, your sick pet, politics,
> computer problems, or the latest Ole and Lena joke, there are
> appropriate groups for that.

Wait just a goshdarned minute. You know of a group that features "the
latest Ole and Lena joke[s]"?

> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior

--Bryan, aka Food Snob (hater of hydrogenated oils, disdainer of
jarred mayo, scorner of condensed "cream of" soups)

[WTF[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:32:43 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:01:35 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea what year I came here and I haven't been able to google my
>>> first post for years. I know a key word but google doesn't burp up the
>>> post I'm thinking of.
>>
>>Any particular reason you're being so mysterious about the "key word" or
>>other details of the post you're trying to find?
>>
>I'm not being mysterious at all. Didn't think anybody would care.
>Who did you post as back then?

Does it matter, stop stroking your ego

[Bob Terwilliger[_1_]]

Peter was still stupid, and couldn't get his story straight:

>> I found your posts from 1996 when you weren't able to.
>
> And yet you couldn't find mine from 92-93??

Not until you provided the link, no. Congratulations, you win the "obscure
piece of shit" award for the week! How much of it will you eat right now,
and how much will you save for later?


> Vietnam vet....... yeah sure, I have no doubt that you probably may have
> been there.
>
> But 10-1 you were a REMF.

What? I never claimed to be a Vietnam vet. I was only 16 years old when the
last helicopter left Saigon. You must have me confused with someone else who
makes you feel all gooey inside. I am a Praying Mantis vet, an Urgent Fury
vet, a Peace for Galilee vet, a Desert Shield vet, and a Desert Storm vet,
though.


> Quite apart from the fact that you post bogus "menus" all the time.

Your envy is showing again! LOL

You only *think* the menus are bogus because they are beyond the ability of
a dull-witted clumsy hominid like you. In many cases I've posted pictures,
though I don't feel the obsessive need for approval that you seem to feel.


> You've been proven once to be a complete and utter ****ing liar (by me) as
> far as telling people when they started posting and when they didn't.
> (Funny that, as soon as I hit you with the proof, you shut the **** up and
> have avoided the subject ever since!!

I shut up? No, I admitted that I was wrong:
Message-ID: >

What more do you think needs to be said? That you are even more worthless a
****tard now than you were then?


> You arrogant little ****ing twerp.

Ahhh... now we get to the heart of the matter! You feel threatened by me!
Has your breadwinner been expressing discontent with you again, and casting
her eye toward the 90% of men who are *better* than you? Back in my Navy
days, Australian women threw themselves at American sailors left and right,
because they knew they'd be SATISFIED. It's entirely possible that I ****ed
her bow-legged when my ship visited Australia in the mid-nineties, and ever
since that time, you have failed to measure up -- if you know what I mean!

Bob

[PeterL2[_2_]]

sf > wrote in news:rj2bl513h35tgtfq4t1b9m8ehid1pe793k@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:14:41 GMT, PeterL2 >
> wrote:
>
>>Well, as poor old gayboi Booble Twitiliger found out recently, due to
>>the bullet hole in it's flat foot, I've got documented posts going back
>>to '93, and I know for a fact that I was here in '92..... just can't
>>remember what ISP or 'handle' I had back then.
>>
>>I'll have to go back and see a few of the names........ one thing's for
>>sure, I certainly don't remember ann Twitiliger.
>
> I know this is a slap from you to him,



Not at all. Just pointing out the truth.

And to people like Boobie Twitiliger, the truth is more often than not very
hard to take. Extremely painful, more like it.

That comes from living in a fantasy world for so long.



> but you said recently that
> you've changed personas often.


In RL, yes.

In one 2 year period, I was 6 different people.

It got to the stage where I would wake up in the morning and have to look
at my photo ID at the time to see who I was.

But...... I have the (post) proof to show that from at least 93, I was
using the name Lucas.

You have to have a 'base' somewhere :-)

As for 'Lucas'....... it's on my drivers licence for the time being.


I'm getting itchy feet, and people are getting too familiar...... so I'll
be off soon(er, or later).


> I have no idea who you were back then,


Neither do I.



> don't care either.


Neither do I.



> You are who you are now and we are in the present.
>


Eggfrikkenzaktly.

What you see 'here'.......... is exactly what you will see in RL. No matter
what ****ing name I have at the time.

I don't have an "internet persona", I don't bung on any frikken act to make
like I'm a saint when in actual fact I'm a complete asshole (like some
people in here).

I am who I am.

And some people are completely threatened by that.

Namely the stalker trolls, Boobie Twitiliger, putz, heyzues, ... et al.


One thing I have always stated........ I say what I mean, and I mean what I
say.

And I don't hide behind an X-No Archive.

Only gutless pieces of shit do that.


You, sf, **** me off quite a bit, and when you do, I kf you for a period of
time.

It's like I'm the judge, jury, and executioner ;-)

"**** sf, she deserves 78 days in the cooler!!"


You probably do the same to me. I don't care. Life is not going to
end......... unlike that pathetic AIDS infected creep morrow, who changes
it's ID every 5mins. (Read: *SERIOUS* mental problems.)


Sometimes you're OK....... sometimes you're a nasty bitch.

What (most) people haven't learnt (well, only the dumb ones) is that I'm
here to post about food, and learn..... and very rarely, teach.

But as soon as someone arcs up at me......... the glass breaks, and I
react, right backatcha.

"This is the new (Army). The new breed. Characters like you are an
anachronism. You should be sealed in a case that reads break glass only in
the event of war."

Thus endth this lesson.

Go in peace my child.

[PeterL2[_2_]]

sf > wrote in
news
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:01:35 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea what year I came here and I haven't been able to
>>> google my first post for years. I know a key word but google doesn't
>>> burp up the post I'm thinking of.
>>
>>Any particular reason you're being so mysterious about the "key word"
>>or other details of the post you're trying to find?
>>
> I'm not being mysterious at all. Didn't think anybody would care.
> Who did you post as back then?
>


Boobie Bob???


Oh, no......... hang on......... it was 'Secret Squirrel'.

So secret, you can't find anything it posted.

[PeterL2[_2_]]

Christine Dabney > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:14:41 GMT, PeterL2 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I do remember Stephanie DeSilva though.
>
> I do too..and I remember that I came in shortly after a split
> attempt...
>


I don't involve myself with that sort of shit. My life has too many *real*
situations, to be bothered to be involved in some ****ant "takeover bid" by
some internet ****ant with a Hitler complex.

[TammyM[_1_]]

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:50:46 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> And I don't remember Miche as
>> an old timer or even close to one. She only became apparent in the
>> "miche" persona a *very* few years ago to me.
>
> Both Miche and Tammy were posting before I got here. And I joined mid
> year in 1994. And both Miche and Tammy will/can confirm that they
> joined in 1994...and they have done so in the past. I remember them
> vividly..as I do several other illustrious posters.

I think you may have preceded me then, Christine. I first found rfc in
December, 1994. I remember because it was about the same time I bought
my house. But it was awhile before I actually posted. Shy, I reckon :-)

TammyM

[I am Tosk]

In article >,
says...
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:20:19 -0600, Michel Boucher
> > wrote:
>
> >Sky > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> I prefer top posting too, but RFC doesn't for some reason <g>. It's a
> >> lot easier to read someone's post at the top, especially if it's in
> >> response to a long thread. That way, one doesn't have to scroll down
> >> all the way to the bottom, unless they want to read all the text
> >> included. But, as it's said.... when in Denmark ...
> >
> >This is why one should learn to edit and retain only those portions of text
> >which are germane to the conversation such as I have done here. I'm sure
> >the pain of scrolling all the way down to the bottom of this post will not
> >tire you out too much.
> >
> >And sf, as far as attribution is concerned, this is maintained as well, as
> >you can clearly see.
>
> Try figuring it out in a long, messy thread. If bottom posting is the
> rfc rule, then another rule should be that text be trimmed enough to
> prevent scrolling. If I don't have to scroll, I don't care. I care
> when I have to scroll through a lot of nonsense I've already read just
> to find something new.

I use Gravity as a reader and have it set up so the new post shows up in
larger type and a different color than quoted material. I keep the
cursor down in the lower right corner of the screen and push my mouse
button to scroll quickly. To skip to the next article I hit the "N" key
on the keyboard then tap the mouse a couple of times and scroll till I
see the bright red 16 point text Takes a second or so in most cases to
get to the new text..

Scotty

[I am Tosk]

In article >,
says...
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:44:22 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:32:27 -0600, Michel Boucher
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >sf > wrote in newsbu9l5hfv1h8fq1trhgqobnmdsm1512ua6@
> >> >4ax.com:
> >> >
> >> >> Try figuring it out in a long, messy thread. If bottom posting is the
> >> >> rfc rule, then another rule should be that text be trimmed enough to
> >> >> prevent scrolling.
> >> >
> >> >To wit the point about...wait for it...*editing*.
> >>
> >> Which bottom posters often neglect to do.
> >
> >Then perhaps you should consider killfiling them?
> >
> >Having to scroll down through 1000 lines to read a "me too" is just
> >another reminder for a killfile entry.
>
> LOL! That equates to another vote for top posting.

What readers are you guys using that makes it so hard to scroll to the
new text? For me it is a keystroke, no more..

Scotty