Sqwertz > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:27:45 -0700, David Harmon wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar

>> "Like its relative the oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus), escolar cannot
>> metabolize the wax esters (Gempylotoxin) naturally found in its diet.
>> This gives the escolar an oil content of 14–25% in its flesh.

>Uh, hello? More misinformation.

I read the wiki entries too. They are not total misinformation,
but it's better to go to Fishbase to understand which species
might be called what, where.

Steve

David wrote on Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:27:45 -0700:

> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:32:28 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
> > wrote,
>> I've never seen nor heard of it and I did do a bit of
>> googling for it. Is there another common name for it?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar

A balanced view of escolar is given by Health Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit...colier-eng.php

Incidentally, I never suggested that we should follow the Japanese and
ban the stuff. What I would favor, as Health Canada indicates, is that
people should be warned about what they are being served.
Unfortunately, if you ask, you may be told like me, "white tuna", which
escolar is not being a mackerel.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:01:10 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:

> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> Dan wrote on Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:38:35 -0400:
>>
>>> Every person is different.. some people's digestive system may
>>> not be able to handle any at all.
>>
>> Since Squirts has been blocked for obvious reasons, I only see it
>> sometimes in quotes. I wonder why the Japanese government agrees with
>> me?
>
> What? They block Sqwertz too?

they're still kinda sore about hiroshima.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Nanzi >
wrote:


> I completely agree, Dan. We love White Tuna, as our fav sushi bar
> calls it.


Careful! Although some sushi bars call escolar white tuna (or shiro
maguro) others use that term for albacore. Be sure you know which you
are getting.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:17:24 -0700, Gerry wrote:

> On 2010-04-25 08:43:33 -0700, Sqwertz said:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:50:32 -0700, Gerry wrote:
>>
>>> It's just me, James, and the the laws of countries like Japan that
>>> don't consider it a "food product". On the other hand It's people like
>>> you that call others "pussy" and "butt****er" when we won't eat the
>>> stuff you like. That sounds like a tedious dinner party, ne?
>>
>> I'm calling you a butt****er because you haven't tried it, yet you
>> take an adamant stand against eating it - telling us you know what's
>> right...
>
> You're a liar.

Are you done yet? You have lost this argument and are nothing but
smoke and mirrors now.

I don't care what your "chefs" say. Those of us who *have* eaten it
have spoken and you have lost. You haven't even tried it, which
makes you noboy in this thread.

And why are "your chef's" serving something even *they* won't even
eat? Because they are not chef's. That's why.

Now shut the **** up.

-sw

<yawn>

Name your chefs and I'll email them and ask if they know you and
have told you anything about escolar.

C'mon, liar. Put up or shut up.

-sw

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:30:43 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:27:45 -0700, David Harmon wrote:
>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar
>
>>> "Like its relative the oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus), escolar cannot
>>> metabolize the wax esters (Gempylotoxin) naturally found in its diet.
>>> This gives the escolar an oil content of 14–25% in its flesh.
>
>>Uh, hello? More misinformation.
>
> I read the wiki entries too. They are not total misinformation,
> but it's better to go to Fishbase to understand which species
> might be called what, where.

How can something be 1425% fat (see above)? I don't need to read
wiki to recognize sensationalism. That's what I was referring to.

-sw

Sqwertz > wrote:

>How can something be 1425% fat

You're in Texas... they know how to do this if anyone does.
Ask them!


S.

Todai buffets always used to have escolar labeled as "white tuna".
Very tasty. I used to wonder why I often had to make a rather urgent
bathroom stop after eating at the Todai...

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:30:43 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
> > Sqwertz > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:27:45 -0700, David Harmon wrote:
> >
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar
> >
> >>> "Like its relative the oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus), escolar cannot
> >>> metabolize the wax esters (Gempylotoxin) naturally found in its diet.
> >>> This gives the escolar an oil content of 14ð25% in its flesh.
> >
> >>Uh, hello? More misinformation.
> >
> > I read the wiki entries too. They are not total misinformation,
> > but it's better to go to Fishbase to understand which species
> > might be called what, where.
>
> How can something be 1425% fat (see above)? I don't need to read
> wiki to recognize sensationalism. That's what I was referring to.

Does yours really have the number "1425"? Mine doesn't. Mine has a
"14" and a "25" with garbage in between. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to open the web page cited above and see that it is actually:

14-25%

which corresponds with the Canadian cite:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit...colier-eng.php

mentioned earlier in the thread, which claims "approximately 20%".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:

>> How can something be 1425% fat (see above)? I don't need to read
>> wiki to recognize sensationalism. That's what I was referring to.
>
> Does yours really have the number "1425"? Mine doesn't. Mine has a
> "14" and a "25" with garbage in between.

Depends on the default character set of one's newsreader and how other
newsreaders handle it, methinks. One of my newsreaders shows
the 'garbage' you speak of and the other one doesn't. But Sqwertz saw
it that way, therefore the rest of us must have too, donchyaknow?

> It doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to open the web page cited above and see that it is
> actually:
>
> 14-25%
>
> which corresponds with the Canadian cite:
>
>
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit...colier-eng.php
>
> mentioned earlier in the thread, which claims "approximately 20%".
>
I'd never heard of 'escolar' before this thread either. But judging by
what the above article states, I don't think I'd risk eating it; my
digestive system is not what it used to be. Sigh.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

James Silverton wrote:

> Hello All!
>
> I know I cannot eat escolar without dire consequences but I wonder if
> the Japanese government still bans its sale? I know people in the US
> who insist on eating it but I ate it *once* in the form of two pieces
> 2x1x0.5 inches and for about an hour I thought it was wonderful :-)
>
> When I was a child during WWII a canned fish from South Africa called
> snoek was sold for a little while. I believe snoek is an other name
> for escolar and I can understand why it was no great success.
>
They might be the same 'family' but don't think the Cape snoek that we
get in South Africa is exactly the same as the escolar you're talking
about; the common names are pretty close tho' e.g. Escolier vs Escolier
noire, etc. so maybe that's why people assume it's the same fish
<shrug>

Snoek:

http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Spec...ary.php?ID=489

Escolar:

http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Spec...ry.php?ID=1042

Besides, I've eaten (fresh, not canned) Cape snoek - wrapped in foil and
cooked on the 'braai' (grill) - and it wasn't all *that* oily. In
fact, that's why we use foil - if we don't we've found that it can turn
out quite dry. Quite popular here, and I've never heard of people
having, um, any 'adverse reactions' to eating it. However, it is full
of bones so I understand why it might not be everybody's 'cup of tea'.
Anyway, FWIW, I don't like the canned (often curried) snoek available
here either ;-)
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> >> How can something be 1425% fat (see above)? I don't need to read
> >> wiki to recognize sensationalism. That's what I was referring to.
> >
> > Does yours really have the number "1425"? Mine doesn't. Mine has a
> > "14" and a "25" with garbage in between.
>
> Depends on the default character set of one's newsreader and how other
> newsreaders handle it, methinks. One of my newsreaders shows
> the 'garbage' you speak of and the other one doesn't. But Sqwertz saw
> it that way, therefore the rest of us must have too, donchyaknow?

It's a lot more complicated than that, I think. Still, it looks like a
damned hyphen in Wikipedia (I use Firefox on a Mac).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar

14*25%

Looks fine there. In the original post here, I tried some different
character sets, and it kept changing. Not the one above, though.

> > It doesn't take a rocket
> > scientist to open the web page cited above and see that it is
> > actually:
> >
> > 14-25%
> >
> > which corresponds with the Canadian cite:
> >
> >
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit...colier-eng.php
> >
> > mentioned earlier in the thread, which claims "approximately 20%".
> >
> I'd never heard of 'escolar' before this thread either. But judging by
> what the above article states, I don't think I'd risk eating it; my
> digestive system is not what it used to be. Sigh.

In the last few years, I've ended up in the ER five times and the
hospital twice. The last time they figured out something in there
wasn't working right and they took it out. I've been doing pretty well
since then. Still, I take some medicine that tends to create digestive
upset. I don't think it's a side effect, either. So, I don't want to
push it. I won't be trying Escolar, either.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:58:56 -0700, Gerry wrote:

> On 2010-04-25 21:53:27 -0700, Sqwertz said:
>
>> Name your chefs and I'll email them and ask if they know you and
>> have told you anything about escolar.
>
> You rolled out of bed for that? Go back to bed, old-timer, and get some rest.

Just as we thought. You're talking out of your ass.

Until the next thread, adios! I look forward to this again!

-sw

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:03:57 -0700 (PDT), robert ratskywatsky wrote:

> Todai buffets always used to have escolar labeled as "white tuna".
> Very tasty. I used to wonder why I often had to make a rather urgent
> bathroom stop after eating at the Todai...

I never got to try Todai afetr hearing "so much" about it.

Escolar is seasonal around here. I don't know how any reputable
sushi joint (not Todai) could have it on the menu year round.

-sw

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:10:11 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:30:43 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:27:45 -0700, David Harmon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar
>>>
>>>>> "Like its relative the oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus), escolar cannot
>>>>> metabolize the wax esters (Gempylotoxin) naturally found in its diet.
>>>>> This gives the escolar an oil content of 14ð25% in its flesh.
>>>
>>>>Uh, hello? More misinformation.
>>>
>>> I read the wiki entries too. They are not total misinformation,
>>> but it's better to go to Fishbase to understand which species
>>> might be called what, where.
>>
>> How can something be 1425% fat (see above)? I don't need to read
>> wiki to recognize sensationalism. That's what I was referring to.
>
> Does yours really have the number "1425"? Mine doesn't.

I quoted it 3 times. That's what it says as it was quoted in news.

Mine has a
> "14" and a "25" with garbage in between. It doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to open the web page cited above and see that it is actually:
>
> 14-25%

Why should I open up a web page to verify what somebody quoted word
for word? They quoted it wrong, I called them on it pointing out
"misinformation". That's all I said. And I was right. Tehy were
wrong to quote something that the web page did *not* say.

Plain and simple.

-sw

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:22:26 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> Depends on the default character set of one's newsreader and how other
> newsreaders handle it, methinks. One of my newsreaders shows
> the 'garbage' you speak of and the other one doesn't. But Sqwertz saw
> it that way, therefore the rest of us must have too, donchyaknow?

Mine is a fully unicode-aware, multilingual newsreader. If somebody
posts in Chinese, it shows up in Chinese. Thai? Arabic? It's all
there is it's original language.

It's much better than the ****news .97 (Beta) that you use.

Boy, you just crawl out of the wordwork anytime you see any little
chance of spewing out a snide remark at me. I'll try and make an
effort to reciprocate, but that's really not my style. I'm not
obsessed with you as you are obviously obsessed with me.

Am I the only one you take this much notice of or are there others?

-sw

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> ChattyCathy > wrote:

>> Depends on the default character set of one's newsreader and how
>> other newsreaders handle it, methinks. One of my newsreaders shows
>> the 'garbage' you speak of and the other one doesn't. But Sqwertz saw
>> it that way, therefore the rest of us must have too, donchyaknow?
>
> It's a lot more complicated than that, I think. Still, it looks like
> a damned hyphen in Wikipedia (I use Firefox on a Mac).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar
>
> 14*25%
>
> Looks fine there. In the original post here, I tried some different
> character sets, and it kept changing. Not the one above, though.

Dunno much about Mac newsreaders, hafta admit. However, in
the 'original' post (by David H, whom it would appear uses Agent) the
14-25% i.e. 14[dash]25% showed up just as it should in this newsreader
(KNode). So I switched to the other one I use (Pan) and it had 14[some
garbage]25%. However, once his post was quoted by others, I got a
variety of 14[garbage]25% in both my newsreaders <laugh>.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:22:26 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> Depends on the default character set of one's newsreader and how
>> other newsreaders handle it, methinks. One of my newsreaders shows
>> the 'garbage' you speak of and the other one doesn't. But Sqwertz saw
>> it that way, therefore the rest of us must have too, donchyaknow?
>
> Mine is a fully unicode-aware, multilingual newsreader. If somebody
> posts in Chinese, it shows up in Chinese. Thai? Arabic? It's all
> there is it's original language.
>
> It's much better than the ****news .97 (Beta) that you use.
>
> Boy, you just crawl out of the wordwork anytime you see any little
> chance of spewing out a snide remark at me. I'll try and make an
> effort to reciprocate, but that's really not my style. I'm not
> obsessed with you as you are obviously obsessed with me.
>
> Am I the only one you take this much notice of or are there others?

And you accuse a couple of other posters on this group of
being "attention whores"?

<snork>

OK, I'll play...

Listen here, Sqwerts - you moron/asshole/****-face/buttwipe <feel free
to add any others I've forgotten>, it was *you* (yet again) that made a
dickhead of yourself by pretending to be so
stupid/dull/dense/crass/dumb that you couldn't figure out that 1425%
was supposed to be 14-to-25%.

Happy now?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On 4/26/2010 1:58 PM, ChattyCathy wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Depends on the default character set of one's newsreader and how
>>> other newsreaders handle it, methinks. One of my newsreaders shows
>>> the 'garbage' you speak of and the other one doesn't. But Sqwertz saw
>>> it that way, therefore the rest of us must have too, donchyaknow?
>>
>> It's a lot more complicated than that, I think. Still, it looks like
>> a damned hyphen in Wikipedia (I use Firefox on a Mac).
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar
>>
>> 14�25%
>>
>> Looks fine there. In the original post here, I tried some different
>> character sets, and it kept changing. Not the one above, though.
>
> Dunno much about Mac newsreaders, hafta admit. However, in
> the 'original' post (by David H, whom it would appear uses Agent) the
> 14-25% i.e. 14[dash]25% showed up just as it should in this newsreader
> (KNode). So I switched to the other one I use (Pan) and it had 14[some
> garbage]25%. However, once his post was quoted by others, I got a
> variety of 14[garbage]25% in both my newsreaders<laugh>.

Very bizarre things are happening to that character. In the first post
in which it appears it is hex 96, which is a reserved character in
ISO-8559-1 and appears to be an n-dash in Windows-1252. Later on in
Dan's post it appears as F0 hex, which is supposed to represent the
first octet of a 4-octet sequence. Then in the next post, quoting
Dan's, it appears as "AD", which in UTF-8 would be allowed only in the
second or later bytes of a multi-byte sequence.

It seems that there's plenty of guilt to go around--Agent for using
Windows-1252 and calling it ISO-8559-1, MT-Newswatcher for arbitrarily
changing the character to something else and not even bothering to
provide a header indicating what encoding it's using, and whichever
newsreader Cathy's using for changing it yet again, to something else
that's illegal under UTF-8.

USENET's older than 40 percent of the US population, you'd think they'd
have gotten it sorted by now, but no, everybody's gotta be different.

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:


> USENET's older than 40 percent of the US population, you'd think they'd
> have gotten it sorted by now, but no, everybody's gotta be different.

I suspect it was all straight ASCII back in the old days. A lot of
USENET access was not on PCs, and I don't know what control people had
over character sets. I suspect little to none. My early access was all
on a VAX timesharing machine.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 4/26/2010 6:14 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> "J. > wrote:
>
>
>> USENET's older than 40 percent of the US population, you'd think they'd
>> have gotten it sorted by now, but no, everybody's gotta be different.
>
> I suspect it was all straight ASCII back in the old days. A lot of
> USENET access was not on PCs, and I don't know what control people had
> over character sets. I suspect little to none. My early access was all
> on a VAX timesharing machine.

Even then there was disagreement on the character set above 128.

The thing that's bugging me at this point is that Agent puts one
character set in the header and then uses a different one, and the Mac
thing doesn't even say what it's using.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:32:04 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:22:26 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on the default character set of one's newsreader and how
>>> other newsreaders handle it, methinks. One of my newsreaders shows
>>> the 'garbage' you speak of and the other one doesn't. But Sqwertz saw
>>> it that way, therefore the rest of us must have too, donchyaknow?
>>
>> Mine is a fully unicode-aware, multilingual newsreader. If somebody
>> posts in Chinese, it shows up in Chinese. Thai? Arabic? It's all
>> there is it's original language.
>>
>> It's much better than the ****news .97 (Beta) that you use.
>>
>> Boy, you just crawl out of the wordwork anytime you see any little
>> chance of spewing out a snide remark at me. I'll try and make an
>> effort to reciprocate, but that's really not my style. I'm not
>> obsessed with you as you are obviously obsessed with me.
>>
>> Am I the only one you take this much notice of or are there others?
>
> And you accuse a couple of other posters on this group of
> being "attention whores"?
>
> <snork>
>
> OK, I'll play...
>
> Listen here, Sqwerts - you moron/asshole/****-face/buttwipe <feel free
> to add any others I've forgotten>, it was *you* (yet again) that made a
> dickhead of yourself by pretending to be so
> stupid/dull/dense/crass/dumb that you couldn't figure out that 1425%
> was supposed to be 14-to-25%.

Ohm, get real. If you see 1425% in that context, there no possible
way any person of sound mind would assume that it was supposed to
say 14-25%.

You won't find anybody to sympathize with your point in that
regards.

Besides, properly written, it would be 14%-25%, so missing the dash
would make it look like 14%25%. Now *that* I could stipulate meant
14%-25%. But even had it been written with the "-" format, it was
still not a proper construction.

So go **** yourself, eh? You're obviously not getting anything from
that no-dick husband of yours.

-sw

On 2010-04-26 18:02:44 -0700, Sqwertz said:

> Besides, properly written, it would be 14%-25%, so missing the dash
> would make it look like 14%25%. Now *that* I could stipulate meant
> 14%-25%. But even had it been written with the "-" format, it was
> still not a proper construction.
>
> So go **** yourself, eh? You're obviously not getting anything from
> that no-dick husband of yours.

What a full day!

You can't read in this thread. Obvious conclusion: Somebody's husband
doesn't have a dick.

You can't type in another thread. Obvious conclusion: Everybody else is
"a slow thinker".

Another user won't eat some kinda fish. Obvious conclusion: They're a
butt****er.

I ask you a direct question about distillation: Obvious conclusion: I'm
a smart-ass, duh. (Clearly, I got off easy.)

Another quick glance over the past couple of days shows you have a new
kvetch every time you suck in oxygen. And with not a trace of humor or
wit!

I guess you must lead a sad life. I hope that stinking up the place
this way is helping you cope.
--
If you limit your actions in life to things that nobody can possibly
find fault with, you will not do much. -- Lewis Carroll

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:48:31 -0700, gtr wrote:

> On 2010-04-26 18:02:44 -0700, Sqwertz said:
>
>> Besides, properly written, it would be 14%-25%, so missing the dash
>> would make it look like 14%25%. Now *that* I could stipulate meant
>> 14%-25%. But even had it been written with the "-" format, it was
>> still not a proper construction.
>>
>> So go **** yourself, eh? You're obviously not getting anything from
>> that no-dick husband of yours.
>
> What a full day!
>
> You can't read in this thread.

<yawn> I was the only one who had it right, you numbskull.

Are you and Cathy joining forces to stalk me? After I just kicked
you ass in that other thread, following me into this thread and
making your first appearance without knowing WTF you're talking
about definitely puts you in that "creepy stalker" category.

Man. Business is booming lately. I need to slow down. Forgive me
if I have time and put one or both of you on the back burner for a
few days while I catch up on all the kooks I made last week.

Why don't you guys go and make some lamb breast confit and I'll get
back to you in a few days.

You know... cooking? That's what you're here for, right? Or don't
you two ever talk about cooking and leave it all up to me?

-sw

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> On 4/26/2010 6:14 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In >,
> > "J. > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> USENET's older than 40 percent of the US population, you'd think they'd
> >> have gotten it sorted by now, but no, everybody's gotta be different.
> >
> > I suspect it was all straight ASCII back in the old days. A lot of
> > USENET access was not on PCs, and I don't know what control people had
> > over character sets. I suspect little to none. My early access was all
> > on a VAX timesharing machine.
>
> Even then there was disagreement on the character set above 128.

That's not my remembrance. It ended at 127. The eighth bit was
reserved for parity checking. It may not have been used internally for
that, but if you started using it for data, then you wouldn't be able to
send that character over a line that used parity checking. The zero was
the null byte, not surprisingly. The last one, 127, was the delete.
Why? A holdover from paper tape. If you made a mistake punching the
paper tape, you can't glue the little pieces of paper back in. So you
just backspaced, and punched out every single column. That was a
delete, there was nothing there.

Of course, at some time, they did start using that territory up there,
and I was horrified! You can't use that bit!

Actually, I did most of my computing on a machine that had a six bit
byte. That's 64 characters! Between the ten numeric digits and some
punctuation, there was no room for lower case letters. Everything was
in upper case, unless you switched to a mode where it took two bytes for
each letter.

> The thing that's bugging me at this point is that Agent puts one
> character set in the header and then uses a different one,

The documentation for my news client doesn't seem to find that unusual:

http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/TextEncoding.html

"However, some articles labelled as "ISO-8859-1" are actually encoded
using some totally different encoding -- MT-NewsWatcher tries to detect
this by checking the article text for a high proportion of high-ASCII
characters, and ignores the label in these cases. Many (most) articles
contain no encoding information at all. In these degenerate cases,
MT-NewsWatcher sniffs the text of the article to attempt to determine
the encoding used (if the preference is turned on, as described above).
Text encoding sniffing does not always work, and works more reliably
with longer articles."

Bummer.

> and the Mac
> thing doesn't even say what it's using.

That's me, and you're right, it doesn't bother to create that header. I
can set the character set, although I've checked the box that says to
use whatever character set was used in the article I'm replying to.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2010-04-26 19:13:06 -0700, Sqwertz said:

> Are you and Cathy joining forces to stalk me?

If you had read what I just posted, I was commenting on how you manage
to carp about everything, and everybody. And spend the remainder of the
time claiming you alone are correct about--who remembers what?

> Man. Business is booming lately.

Observation tells me it's booming with your eye-gouging hobby, anyway.

> Forgive me if I have time and put one or both of you on the back burner for a
> few days while I catch up on all the kooks I made last week.

Not to worry, you'll be carping about somebody else tomorrow.

Me, I've just been trying to whittle out a way to manage the volume of
this newsgroup; kill-filing off-topic stuff, the Fox sloganeers, the
nutcases. You're just one of the more extravagant of the latter.

> You know... cooking? That's what you're here for, right?

Yeah, in order to read about cooking I have to sift through you pulling
folks off-topic primping around in your imaginary "I'm always right"
gown.

> Or don't you two ever talk about cooking and leave it all up to me?

How can anyone talk about cooking when you're stinking up every thread
with your insecurities? So far you're one of the few that has a
three-color "Please Kill File Me" sign on your ass.

I'll oblige!
--
If you limit your actions in life to things that nobody can possibly
find fault with, you will not do much. -- Lewis Carroll

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:32:04 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>> And you accuse a couple of other posters on this group of
>> being "attention whores"?
>>
>> <snork>
>>
>> OK, I'll play...
>>
>> Listen here, Sqwerts - you moron/asshole/****-face/buttwipe <feel
>> free to add any others I've forgotten>, it was *you* (yet again) that
>> made a dickhead of yourself by pretending to be so
>> stupid/dull/dense/crass/dumb that you couldn't figure out that 1425%
>> was supposed to be 14-to-25%.
>
> Ohm, get real. If you see 1425% in that context, there no possible
> way any person of sound mind would assume that it was supposed to
> say 14-25%.
>
> You won't find anybody to sympathize with your point in that
> regards.
>
> Besides, properly written, it would be 14%-25%, so missing the dash
> would make it look like 14%25%. Now *that* I could stipulate meant
> 14%-25%. But even had it been written with the "-" format, it was
> still not a proper construction.

Oh bullshit. Expressing percentages such as 14-25% is common practice
and it is perfectly clear to anybody with more than one brain cell what
it means. Furthermore, I downloaded a copy of 40TudeDialog (Ver
2.0.15.84 - same as yours, methinks) the other day just to see
how "great" it was - and installed it on a windoze VM. So... I looked
at the 'original' post from David H using 40Tude - and lo and behold,
what did I see in that post? You guessed it, "14[some garbage]25%".
However, <gasp> when I used the 'raw message' option it showed it as
14-25% i.e. 14[dash]25%. Would you like me to email you a screen print
or two?
>
> So go **** yourself, eh? You're obviously not getting anything from
> that no-dick husband of yours.

Still being a buttwipe, I see. Carrion.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:57:07 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz
> wrote,
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:30:43 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:27:45 -0700, David Harmon wrote:
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar
>>
>>>> "Like its relative the oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus), escolar cannot
>>>> metabolize the wax esters (Gempylotoxin) naturally found in its diet.
>>>> This gives the escolar an oil content of 14–25% in its flesh.
>>
>>>Uh, hello? More misinformation.
>>
>> I read the wiki entries too. They are not total misinformation,
>> but it's better to go to Fishbase to understand which species
>> might be called what, where.
>
>How can something be 1425% fat (see above)? I don't need to read

Between 14 and 25 percent. You apparently don't need to read the M-dash
between the numbers to jump to some harebrained conclusion.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:58:21 +0200 in rec.food.cooking, ChattyCathy
> wrote,
>Dunno much about Mac newsreaders, hafta admit. However, in
>the 'original' post (by David H, whom it would appear uses Agent) the
>14-25% i.e. 14[dash]25% showed up just as it should in this newsreader

Yes, I apologize for the funny character (copied and pasted from
Wikipedia.) I would have fixed it if I had noticed, but the difference
between the M-dash and an ordinary ASCII hyphen is pretty subtle
visually.

David Harmon wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:58:21 +0200 in rec.food.cooking, ChattyCathy
> > wrote,
> >Dunno much about Mac newsreaders, hafta admit. However, in
> >the 'original' post (by David H, whom it would appear uses Agent) the
> >14-25% i.e. 14[dash]25% showed up just as it should in this newsreader
>
> Yes, I apologize for the funny character (copied and pasted from
> Wikipedia.) I would have fixed it if I had noticed, but the difference
> between the M-dash and an ordinary ASCII hyphen is pretty subtle
> visually.

To express a range, I generally use an en dash,
not an em dash.

David Harmon wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:58:21 +0200 in rec.food.cooking, ChattyCathy
> > wrote,
>>Dunno much about Mac newsreaders, hafta admit. However, in
>>the 'original' post (by David H, whom it would appear uses Agent) the
>>14-25% i.e. 14[dash]25% showed up just as it should in this newsreader
>
> Yes, I apologize for the funny character (copied and pasted from
> Wikipedia.) I would have fixed it if I had noticed, but the
> difference between the M-dash and an ordinary ASCII hyphen is pretty
> subtle visually.

No need to apologize to me. My newsreader interpreted it as 14-25%. And
even if it hadn't, it doesn't take a genius to see what it was meant to
be.

Anyway, OBfood - still not keen to try Escolar, even if that makes me
[as one of the other posters here ever so politely put it] a "pussy".
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:47:06 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> I downloaded a copy of 40TudeDialog (Ver
> 2.0.15.84 - same as yours, methinks) the other day just to see
> how "great" it was

So you could be more like me. I'm flattered. Really.

- and installed it on a windoze VM. So... I looked
> at the 'original' post from David H using 40Tude - and lo and behold,
> what did I see in that post? You guessed it, "14[some garbage]25%".

Not too bright, are you. You also lie like a dog. Which makes
sense.

Blake - you out there - or anybody else using dialog? What do you
see?

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:47:06 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> I downloaded a copy of 40TudeDialog (Ver
>> 2.0.15.84 - same as yours, methinks) the other day just to see
>> how "great" it was
>
> So you could be more like me. I'm flattered. Really.
>
> - and installed it on a windoze VM. So... I looked
>> at the 'original' post from David H using 40Tude - and lo and behold,
>> what did I see in that post? You guessed it, "14[some garbage]25%".
>
> Not too bright, are you. You also lie like a dog. Which makes
> sense.


'text/plain' view of said message from 40Tude:

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/pics/40t.jpg

'Raw message' view of same message from 40Tude:

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/pics/40t_rm.jpg

>
> Blake - you out there - or anybody else using dialog? What do you
> see?

Same as I did, I strongly suspect... Maybe you need some new spectacles,
or a little less gin?

BTW, I thought a 'few' days was more than one day? But by Sqwertz' Law,
I guess not.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:40:38 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:47:06 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> I downloaded a copy of 40TudeDialog (Ver
>>> 2.0.15.84 - same as yours, methinks) the other day just to see
>>> how "great" it was
>>
>> So you could be more like me. I'm flattered. Really.
>>
>> - and installed it on a windoze VM. So... I looked
>>> at the 'original' post from David H using 40Tude - and lo and behold,
>>> what did I see in that post? You guessed it, "14[some garbage]25%".
>>
>> Not too bright, are you. You also lie like a dog. Which makes
>> sense.
>
> 'text/plain' view of said message from 40Tude:
>
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/pics/40t.jpg

And you don't think it has *anything* to do with the font you're
using?

http://i40.tinypic.com/116oz85.jpg
(Courier New).

That's why I was calling you stupid - you dense, dumb ho.

Don't worry - no apology necessary.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:40:38 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

>>
>> 'text/plain' view of said message from 40Tude:
>>
>> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/pics/40t.jpg
>
> And you don't think it has *anything* to do with the font you're
> using?
>
> http://i40.tinypic.com/116oz85.jpg
> (Courier New).
>
> That's why I was calling you stupid - you dense, dumb ho.
>
>
> Don't worry - no apology necessary.

Still shows 14[some garbage]25% - even when I switch it to Courier New
in 'text/plain' view - on the very same (Beta) version of 40Tude you
have. Even plain old Courier still shows garbage in that post (yes, I
tried that too), so that's obviously got stuff-all to do with it.

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/pics/40t_cn.jpg

So what else have you been fiddling with (other than your widdle dick)?
Do tell.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:00:33 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:47:06 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> I downloaded a copy of 40TudeDialog (Ver
>> 2.0.15.84 - same as yours, methinks) the other day just to see
>> how "great" it was
>
> So you could be more like me. I'm flattered. Really.
>
> - and installed it on a windoze VM. So... I looked
>> at the 'original' post from David H using 40Tude - and lo and behold,
>> what did I see in that post? You guessed it, "14[some garbage]25%".
>
> Not too bright, are you. You also lie like a dog. Which makes
> sense.
>
> Blake - you out there - or anybody else using dialog? What do you
> see?
>
> -sw

i saw it as you did in the pic downthread, that is, as '1425%.'
(text/plain, courier new.)

but after the first 'huh?,' it wasn't too hard to figure out.

your pal,
blake

Dan Abel > wrote:

> "J. Clarke" > wrote:
>
> > and the Mac
> > thing doesn't even say what it's using.
>
> That's me, and you're right, it doesn't bother to create that header. I
> can set the character set, although I've checked the box that says to
> use whatever character set was used in the article I'm replying to.

RTFM.

<http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/Preferences.html#Panel_Message_Options>

<http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/Preferences.html#Send_with_MIME>

"When the preference is set to send messages with MIME formatting (Send
with MIME checkbox in the Message options preferences panel),
MT-NewsWatcher will use MIME in outgoing email and news messages. This
section describes the implications of using MIME for sending."

"Tip: It is highly recommended that you turn this option on, so that
your posts contain MIME headers. This allows for better
intercompatibility with other news clients."

ObFood: Mushrooms in sour cream, Hungarian style. The recipe is from
_Hungarian Cookery Book_ by Károly Gundel. I'd use good wild mushrooms
for preference.

Mushrooms in Sour Cream, Hungarian Style
(Tejfölös gomba magyarosan)

1 kg - 2 lb mushrooms
100 g - 4 oz butter or fat
750 ml - 1 3/4 pts sour cream
2 onions
paprika
parsley

Wash well, trim and slice the mushrooms. Chop the onions finely and fry
until golden brown in butter or fat. Add the mushrooms and stew.
Season with salt, paprika and chopped parsley. When the water has
evaporated, dredge with flour, add cream, and bring to boil. Serve with
fried eggs.

Victor

In article >,
(Victor Sack) wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> >
> > > and the Mac
> > > thing doesn't even say what it's using.
> >
> > That's me, and you're right, it doesn't bother to create that header. I
> > can set the character set, although I've checked the box that says to
> > use whatever character set was used in the article I'm replying to.
>
> RTFM.

Thanks, Victor. I fixed it and tested it.

That's funny, because that was my primary job, back when I was working.
RTFM.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:57:57 -0400, blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:00:33 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> Blake - you out there - or anybody else using dialog? What do you
>> see?
>
> i saw it as you did in the pic downthread, that is, as '1425%.'
> (text/plain, courier new.)

Oops. You mean Cathy had a hissy shit fit and accused me of lying,
and then want to great extremes to prove that I was lying, all teh
whiel making up lies herself?

Talk about an attention whore.

That doesn't make sense. But there's a lot of things women do that
just don't make sense.

> but after the first 'huh?,' it wasn't too hard to figure out.

Until Dan specifically pointed it out, it wasn't obvious. Though it
was suspicious that several other people responded to the defective
post without saying anything. Then again, I've always been more
observant than most.

Thanks for your response. The check is in the mail.

-sw