*What* a couple of days!!
 

*HUGE* storms hit Brisbane and surrounds and created havoc all over. Trees
down, houses damaged, car crashes, flooding, rooves missing, power
cut...... that was the worst part. Power was out for a good 24 hours, so
emergency services kicked in, generators came out, oldies on machines
transported to facilities with power..... and *still* the rain came down.

And then it stopped...... and the sun came out........ and it was *bloody*
muggy!!

Luckily the power kicked back in mid morning yesterday, just as I was
starting to get dinner prepared for friends we had invited over.

It was a bit of a rush, but I managed to get the original dinner plan out
to them, with the secondary plan (salad) just waiting in the fridge in
case we had another blackout.

The main was spit roasted chicken (which was going to be cooked power or
no), with roasted potatos, carrots, and pumpkin, and steamed beans,
broccoli and cauliflower.

With a rich mushroom sauce gravy.


Dessert was my High Apple Pie, with Crème Chantilly.


Pics in the next thread, as soon as I get them up on Photobucket.



--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

*What* a couple of days!!
 

Captain Peter Swallows wrote:

> *HUGE* storms hit Brisbane and surrounds and created havoc all over.
<snip gushing>
> --
> Peter Lucas
> Hobart
> Tasmania

Not so much in Tasmania, though.

Bob

*What* a couple of days!!
 

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article > ,
> Aussie > wrote:

> > Pics in the next thread, as soon as I get them up on Photobucket.
>
> It all sounds good... but I'll have to forward the link via e-mail so I
> can look at it on the laptop. Photobucket will no longer run on this
> computer. :-( Neither will anything on Picasa except for the
> thumbnails. :-( Looks like I'll have to learn to use T-bird sooner than
> I thought. Gods I hate that program!
>
> I'm used to the ease of use of MT newswatcher. Wish they made it for
> PC's! <sigh>

Doesn't sound like MT NW is the issue. Your headers show you are
running Mac OSX. Can you update your browser to something that will run
Photobucket and Picasa? Or is it yet another issue?

I've been using Newswatcher a really long time (even before the MT
(Multi Threaded) version). I have trouble imagining giving it up.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:00:14 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > In article > ,
> > Aussie > wrote:
>
> > > Pics in the next thread, as soon as I get them up on Photobucket.
> >
> > It all sounds good... but I'll have to forward the link via e-mail so I
> > can look at it on the laptop. Photobucket will no longer run on this
> > computer. :-( Neither will anything on Picasa except for the
> > thumbnails. :-( Looks like I'll have to learn to use T-bird sooner than
> > I thought. Gods I hate that program!
> >
> > I'm used to the ease of use of MT newswatcher. Wish they made it for
> > PC's! <sigh>
>
> Doesn't sound like MT NW is the issue. Your headers show you are
> running Mac OSX. Can you update your browser to something that will run
> Photobucket and Picasa? Or is it yet another issue?
>
> I've been using Newswatcher a really long time (even before the MT
> (Multi Threaded) version). I have trouble imagining giving it up.

Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
it's *that* old.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:

> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
> it's *that* old.

Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.

-sw

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Dec 18, 4:22*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
> > Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. *It can't even run Firefox,
> > it's *that* old.
>
> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.

I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
>
> -sw

--Bryan

*What* a couple of days!!
 

Omelet > wrote in
:

> In article > ,
> Aussie > wrote:
>

>
> It all sounds good... but I'll have to forward the link via e-mail so I
> can look at it on the laptop.


Drop me an email with your (landline) phone number, and I'll give you a call
for Christmas :-)

I've just moved onto a new phone system that gives me free unlimited local,
national, mobile (only Australian), and o/s calls to 15 countries, which just
happens to include the US :-)

Which is good as I'm going to be doing a bit of shopping in the US very
shortly, and it'll be good to be able to talk to the businesses rather than
just email them.


http://www.engin.com.au/Voip/Voip.aspx


--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

*What* a couple of days!!
 

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Dec 18, 4:22*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
> > > Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. *It can't even run Firefox,
> > > it's *that* old.
> >
> > Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
>
> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.

Well, actually, some of us are Mac users. We are in fact interested in
Mac versions. And the letter "X" is the Roman numeral for "10", so yes,
OS X is OS 10. That's the latest version of the operating system.

Is that picky enough for you? :-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:27:49 -0800 (PST), Bryan wrote:

> On Dec 18, 4:22*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. *It can't even run Firefox,
>>> it's *that* old.
>>
>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
>
> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.

It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
share it on the rise.

-sw

*What* a couple of days!!
 

Steve wrote:

>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
>>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
>>>> it's *that* old.
>>>
>>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
>>
>> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
>> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
>
> It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
> released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
> popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
> share it on the rise.

Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.

Bob

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:07:08 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
> >>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
> >>>> it's *that* old.
> >>>
> >>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
> >>
> >> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
> >> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
> >
> > It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
> > released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
> > popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
> > share it on the rise.
>
> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
>

You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.



--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

*What* a couple of days!!
 

sf wrote:

>> >>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
>> >>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
>> >>>> it's *that* old.
>> >>>
>> >>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
>> >>
>> >> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
>> >> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
>> >
>> > It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
>> > released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
>> > popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
>> > share it on the rise.
>>
>> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
>>
>
> You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
> little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
> squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
> what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.

*shrug*

I couldn't care less about Mac OS versions.

Bob

*What* a couple of days!!
 

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
>>>>>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
>>>>>>> it's *that* old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
>>>>> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
>>>>
>>>> It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
>>>> released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
>>>> popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
>>>> share it on the rise.
>>>
>>> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
>>>
>>
>> You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
>> little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
>> squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
>> what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.
>
> *shrug*
>
> I couldn't care less about Mac OS versions.
>
> Bob
An old saying, "those that have not tasted meat, do not desire meat".
I understand why you could not care less and that is ok.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:49:58 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:07:08 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
>>>>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
>>>>>> it's *that* old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
>>>>
>>>> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
>>>> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
>>>
>>> It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
>>> released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
>>> popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
>>> share it on the rise.
>>
>> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
>>
>
> You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
> little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
> squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
> what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.

Who said anything about 1999? The products line is still named
"OS X". And it is still in it's 10th version. There is no
"OS XI."

You said, "Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even
run Firefox", which is complete brain fart. And now rather than
just admitting it you're trying to backpedal like a weasel making a
fool of yourself (again).

ObFood: Pork butt roast with baked potatoes and brussels sprouts.
"Just Caramel" Milky Way for dessert.

-sw

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:47:22 -0600, Yet Another Bob
> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:49:58 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:07:08 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
> >>>>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
> >>>>>> it's *that* old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
> >>>> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
> >>>
> >>> It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
> >>> released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
> >>> popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
> >>> share it on the rise.
> >>
> >> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
> >>
> >
> > You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
> > little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
> > squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
> > what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.
>
> Who said anything about 1999? The products line is still named
> "OS X". And it is still in it's 10th version. There is no
> "OS XI."
>
> You said, "Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even
> run Firefox", which is complete brain fart. And now rather than
> just admitting it you're trying to backpedal like a weasel making a
> fool of yourself (again).
>
> ObFood: Pork butt roast with baked potatoes and brussels sprouts.
> "Just Caramel" Milky Way for dessert.
>
> -sw


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:56:21 -0800, sf wrote:

<nothing>

I often leave women speechless. She must still be catching her
breath. This is where I usually go out and have a cigarette.

-sw

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:47:22 -0600, Yet Another Bob
> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:49:58 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:07:08 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
> >>>>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
> >>>>>> it's *that* old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
> >>>> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
> >>>
> >>> It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
> >>> released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
> >>> popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
> >>> share it on the rise.
> >>
> >> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
> >>
> >
> > You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
> > little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
> > squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
> > what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.
>
> Who said anything about 1999? The products line is still named
> "OS X". And it is still in it's 10th version. There is no
> "OS XI."
>
> You said, "Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even
> run Firefox", which is complete brain fart. And now rather than
> just admitting it you're trying to backpedal like a weasel making a
> fool of yourself (again).
>
>

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your self-conceit.


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:04:02 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:47:22 -0600, Yet Another Bob
> > wrote:
>
>> Who said anything about 1999? The products line is still named
>> "OS X". And it is still in it's 10th version. There is no
>> "OS XI."
>>
>> You said, "Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even
>> run Firefox", which is complete brain fart. And now rather than
>> just admitting it you're trying to backpedal like a weasel making a
>> fool of yourself (again).
>
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your self-conceit.

Oh yeah. *I'm* the one that's wrong.

Wonder Boy - I like that. Thank you.

-sw

*What* a couple of days!!
 

"Aussie" > wrote in message
5...
> *HUGE* storms hit Brisbane and surrounds and created havoc all over. Trees
> down, houses damaged, car crashes, flooding, rooves missing, power
> cut...... that was the worst part. Power was out for a good 24 hours, so
> emergency services kicked in, generators came out, oldies on machines
> transported to facilities with power..... and *still* the rain came down.

You really *are* a hysterical, whining little girl, aren't you?

> And then it stopped...... and the sun came out........ and it was *bloody*
> muggy!!

Is that like a Bloody Mary in a mug instead of a glass?

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Dec 19, 12:23*am, Stevie Wonder Boy
> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:04:02 -0800, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:47:22 -0600, Yet Another Bob
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Who said anything about 1999? *The products line is still named
> >> "OS X". *And it is still in it's 10th version. *There is no
> >> "OS XI."
>
> >> You said, "Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even
> >> run Firefox", which is complete brain fart. *And now rather than
> >> just admitting it you're trying to backpedal like a weasel making a
> >> fool of yourself (again).
>
> > Your ignorance is only exceeded by your self-conceit.
>
> Oh yeah. **I'm* the one that's wrong.
>
> Wonder Boy - I like that. *Thank you.
>
> -sw

Hmmmm self-conceit.......is that like free gift, or two twins?

*What* a couple of days!!
 

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:23:49 -0600, Stevie Wonder Boy
> wrote:

> Wonder Boy - I like that. Thank you.

You're very welcome.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.