On Jun 8, 2:14 am, Landon > wrote:

> The only way I've had Pico de gallo is with ceviche. I was awesome
> that way, but I have to tell you that I prefer Japanese sushi more.
>
> Try splitting some dishes with half having one ingredient included,
> and the other half without that one ingredient. It involves some waste
> sometimes, but the lessons learned will help you learn foods much
> better. Always try the one without the missing ingredient first. Then
> the other.
>
> The Chef who taught me how to cook, demonstrated seasonings and
> ingredients to me that way. I would taste about 3 per/day that were
> split in that manner. It taught me the value of each item to the whole
> dish.
>
> Sometimes the differences are very subtle. In some cases, it ruined
> the dish by leaving out only one thing.


Interesting experiment. I've done it, with salads mostly. I prep
veggies and wash them and put in a large container in the fridge.
Then every day I'll put some cooked penne with some cooked chicken
breasts in a container and add the veggies, which are all compatible.
For example, I use raw cabbage sliced thin in my pasta salads with a
lemon and oil base with garlic and basil. Other raw veggies go into
it. But I had never used cabbage in my pasta salad. I thought of it
one day and presumed it would be too crude and would get in the way.
But I was delighted to find otherwise. This came to me through
experimentation of a sort - but not a costly one - just one day adding
something new and seeing if it works - and in the case of the thin
sliced cabbage in my pasta salad, not only does it work, it's almost
an essential ingredient. Good idea about i/2 of the plate with one
thing, the other 1/2 with the same thing minus or plus one
ingredient. I suppose there might be some dishes that have reached an
evolutionary dead end, maybe. Surely there are some dishes with so
few ingredients (my favorite way), that to remove just one would make
a difference in a bad way.

TJ

On Jun 8, 2:30*am, Landon > wrote:

> If someone were to cut a 1/4 inch long "noodle" from an unseasoned
> cooked egg white, making sure that the "noodle" was exactly square,
> and you ate a spoon full of them with tofu noodles cooked right with
> them, would you know it was egg white or not if they were unbroken
> until you had them in your mouth? I'll bet you I could fool you with
> tofu. It's what your mind is expecting, combined with what you see.
> Expect egg white and eat tofu which was seasoned and formed to imitate
> cooked egg white and you would taste only cooked egg white if mixed in
> equal parts. Tofu is the great imitator. Press it almost dry and add a
> few other items and then shape it to look like something else. A real
> good tofu chef can make some really strange things from tofu. From
> meat pieces to stuffings for deserts.
>
> Tofu is very good for you if you have no allergies to it. Such a small
> percentage of people have allergies to tofu that most people deal with
> it in their diets without any notice other than enjoying it.
>
> It's more what is NOT in tofu that is the most beneficial. Ounce for
> ounce, its the best way to get protein in your body if compared to any
> meats.
>
> Don't get me wrong...I love meats too. I just love tofu too.
>
> Veggie patties? Man, there must be ten thousand variations. If you
> want a veggie patty to taste like a Porterhouse Steak, then you'll
> never like veggie patties.
>
> If you enjoy the flavors of the vegetables in them, and the seasonings
> applied and the manner with which its cooked, presented and eaten,
> then you'll love veggie patties.
>
> It's not that it's supposed to be meat. It's just another way to enjoy
> foods.


Oh no, I didn't mean it that way. I understood you from the
start. Of course tofu is a food all its own, not just an imitation of
meat, even though it is used that way by many meat lovers trying to go
the vegetarian route. This cannot be debated, as vegetable matter is
molded to look like meat, but meat is never molded to look like a
vegetable. Right?

But I never meant to imply that tofu was merely a substitute for
meat, only that it is used that way by many people. As for the
eggwhite noodles vs tofu, I don't doubt you. I would live to see the
blindfold test applied to many things, not just food. Once again it
comes down to the expectation factor. I have not turned my back on
tofu, I just didn't care for the way I made it, and maybe the quality
of what I used was not so good. I did not dislike it, but I didn't
like it either. The only food that has ever for some reason made me
want to gag are lima beans, the big white dry ones that were forced on
me when I lived in an orphanage. I'm sure these things were made
about as poorly as possible, which is probably why I despised them.
They were very dry and fibrous with a disgusting wrench-inducing
quality that I could describe all day without capturing the true
essence of its ugliness.

TJ

On 6/7/2011 2:06 PM, Landon wrote:
> I'm that way with Tofu. For many, many years, I disliked Tofu because
> "It doesn't taste like or have the texture of meat".
>
> I kept wanting it to be similar to meat, and it's not. It's only
> similarity is the amount of protein in it and the fact that you can
> put it into dishes that use meats.
>
> Once I discovered that it tastes like whatever flavors it's marinated
> in with a bit of nutty taste, and has it's own, silky texture, then I
> was able to start enjoying it and even looking forward to it in some
> of it's forms.
>
> I make my own, so the flavor and texture is better than those plastic
> container types you find in the markets.

Here's a dumb question - can you make tofu from store bought soy milk?
Thanks.

>
> Expectation. You hit the proverbial nail right on the head. If you've
> been told that something is disgusting, then when you try it the very
> first time, you'll already be prepared to spit it out with disgust
> before you ever taste it.
>
> If the Cilantro is used as a seasoning with something it's good with,
> then most people like it without even knowing it's in the dish. Take
> it away from the dish in a comparison tasting and most will say the
> dish prepared with it is better.
>
> It's a combination of tastes. Not just one flavor. Much the same as
> stew broth being a mixture of several veggies, meat and seasonings.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:20:38 -0700, Tommy Joe wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2:41*am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> Jack my husband tells me that in the early days of Usenet on certain
>> groups one had to wait 24 hours for a post to show up, never mind the
>> response(s). These days the messages appear within minutes on the
>> various news servers (often even less).
>
>
> Interesting. I have always used google for the newsgroups. It
> was not so long ago that responses would not show up for 9 hours or even
> longer.

So I've heard. I don't think the Google Groups web-based interface (which
only allows one to access certain text-based Usenet groups) is all that
high on their list of priorities if and when it falls over. In my humble
opinion, even if the posts appear within milliseconds on Google Groups I
won't use it for reading/posting to the newsgroups they carry because:


a) one has to register for an account and be logged in to Google in order
to post anything. [Unfortunately they are the keepers of the Usenet
archives at the moment, so if I'm looking for a really old post on r.f.c.
I have to search for it using the Google interface].

b) it goes through periods of spam infestation and has no filtering
built-in to the interface to eliminate all that cr*p

c) it's waaaay to kitch-looking for my personal taste and I find it very
"clumsy" to use


"So freaking what?" you may say.... Well, Google has become just too Big
Brother-ish (again IMHO) and having them "watching my every (virtual)
move" for marketing purposes just ****es me off. FWIW, I use a plug-in on
my Firefox browser called NoScript and never allow the "google analytics"
script to run on *any* website I browse; screw 'em. AdBlock Plus also
eliminates all those irritating adverts that Google and other websites are
so fond of putting all over the 'net "to cover their costs of giving one
'free' service(s)". Yeah, riiiight.

Anyway, (to repeat something that also comes up over and over on this
group) there are other freebie dedicated Usenet services providers out
there, to which one can connect using several popular mail clients (which
are less kitsch) or via dedicated newsreader software (generally less
kitsch *and* have much more powerful message filtering than the average
mail client has for Usenet access).

Here's a link to a free service that provides access to this group (and a
lot of other text-based Usenet groups - if you're even remotely
interested).

http://eternal-september.org/


Not into Macintosh, but I've heard they have fairly decent mail
clients/newsreaders available for that platform. But Omelet (and quite a
few others) could probably point you in the right direction....


> I use modern conveniences, but I still say "today's luxury is tomorrow's
> necessity".

Yes. Cell phones come to mind.

<note to the group re the above statement: Flame on!>

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 00:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:
>vegetable matter is molded to look like meat, but meat is never
>molded to look like a vegetable. Right?

Now that cracks me up! "I'd like a Porterhouse steak, but form it so
it looks like a bell pepper please"...haha

>But I never meant to imply that tofu was merely a substitute for
>meat, only that it is used that way by many people.

That's the shame of it. It's about as much like meat as watermelon is.
(Other than the protein count).

>The only food that has ever for some reason made me
>want to gag are lima beans, the big white dry ones that were forced on
>me when I lived in an orphanage. I'm sure these things were made
>about as poorly as possible, which is probably why I despised them.
>They were very dry and fibrous with a disgusting wrench-inducing
>quality that I could describe all day without capturing the true
>essence of its ugliness.

The only way I like to use the white limas is to purposely over-cook
them and then press them through a screen to extract their pulp
without the skin and woody parts. Then I use that pulp as a thickener
in soups. It adds some flavor and nutrition without using the more
common corn and wheat thickeners.

I have a couple of foods that gag me also. Fish eyes is one. I've
tried them several ways and each was just as nasty to me as the first.

Moving animal flesh is another. I want my food to be still when I'm
putting it into my mouth. Fish or octopus that is still moving just
makes me want to throw chunks. Serious Yuck Factor. I love it raw, but
not when it's still moving.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:24:36 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>On 6/7/2011 2:06 PM, Landon wrote:
>> I'm that way with Tofu. For many, many years, I disliked Tofu because
>> "It doesn't taste like or have the texture of meat".
>>
>> I kept wanting it to be similar to meat, and it's not. It's only
>> similarity is the amount of protein in it and the fact that you can
>> put it into dishes that use meats.
>>
>> Once I discovered that it tastes like whatever flavors it's marinated
>> in with a bit of nutty taste, and has it's own, silky texture, then I
>> was able to start enjoying it and even looking forward to it in some
>> of it's forms.
>>
>> I make my own, so the flavor and texture is better than those plastic
>> container types you find in the markets.
>
>Here's a dumb question - can you make tofu from store bought soy milk?
>Thanks.

Hey, no question is dumb if the answer to it teaches you something you
didn't know before asking!

I've never tried it, but the difference between store soy milk and
homemade soy milk is radical. I imagine you could make tofu form the
store soy milk. Perhaps it would make less than an equal quantity of
homemade soy milk.

I use a "Soya Power" Soy Milk Maker. It grinds the beans and makes the
soy milk in one simple step. The soy milk it makes is WAY better than
the watery stuff at the store. You do have to strain it for
particulate and add a bit of xanthan gum and perhaps a tiny bit of
vanilla extract, but it's awesome for cooking also. These are things
they do for you when making the store soy milk.

I let mine settle over night in the fridge. Then I pour it off until
it gets to the sediment layer at the bottom. Some like to leave all
the sediment in it, but I prefer not to when drinking it. Its a bit
gritty to me.

I like to pour off the milk and then save the sediment. After again
letting the sediment settle, I then take the topmost part of it and
add it back into the milk. It does make it better tasting and with
more body that way. The grittiness isn't there that way either after
the mixing with the gum. You have to shake soy milk before using it to
mix the small amount of smooth sediment at the bottom with the milk.

If you start eating tofu and drinking soy milk, you'll find that you
can cut back on the amount of meat you eat in equal quantities with
the combined soy milk and tofu. They will supply that protein that
you've dropped in the form of meat.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:02:28 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Landon > wrote:
>
>> It's more what is NOT in tofu that is the most beneficial. Ounce for
>> ounce, its the best way to get protein in your body if compared to any
>> meats.
>
> Tofu has false estrogens in it from the soy beans. It's not good for
>men and boys, not all that great for women, either. Soy beans are also
>almost always GMO, if you are trying to avoid that. We just don't eat
>much soy. We eat it in soy sauce, tamari sauce, but that's about it.
>
>Regards,
>Ranee

All legumes have Isoflavones that produce estrogen-like responses in
mammals. Some to a larger degree than others, but none have been shown
to harm humans if eaten in normal amounts.

Testing has been done where the amounts were increased to five times
that eaten by Japanese men daily, and only then were harmful results
found.

Soy, eaten in small amounts does not have any harmful effects on men,
boys or women unless specific allergies are present. In fact, the
Isoflavones in soy and other legumes has been shown to reduce breast
and other cancers in some studies.

The advantages of eating soy protein FAR outweigh any risks. If used
to provide protein that is no longer introduced into the body from
meat sources, it has an absolute health advantage.

As far as the GMO factor of soy beans in the marketplace, you'd have
to show me the data that made you come to this conclusion. I believe
what you've said is not accurate. Even if what you eat is a GMO type
bean, what proof do you have of it causing any harm anyway? All I've
seen is over-blown anti-science reactionary inflammatory articles on
the subject that use almost no science in their argument.

If you are really worried about the Isoflavones and their
estrogen-like properties, then I'd suggest that you also quit eating
any legumes. They all have the same Isoflavones in them that you're
worried about. Every single one of them.

If you just feel like not eating soy, then don't. If it's truly about
the Isoflavones, then I would think you'd quit eating any legumes at
all.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:35:33 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Landon > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:02:28 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Landon > wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's more what is NOT in tofu that is the most beneficial. Ounce for
>> >> ounce, its the best way to get protein in your body if compared to any
>> >> meats.
>> >
>> > Tofu has false estrogens in it from the soy beans. It's not good for
>> >men and boys, not all that great for women, either. Soy beans are also
>> >almost always GMO, if you are trying to avoid that. We just don't eat
>> >much soy. We eat it in soy sauce, tamari sauce, but that's about it.
>>
>> All legumes have Isoflavones that produce estrogen-like responses in
>> mammals. Some to a larger degree than others, but none have been shown
>> to harm humans if eaten in normal amounts.
>
> Ah, normal amounts. Problem is, Americans aren't eating it in normal
>amounts, because they are eating it in just about every single packaged
>food they consume. Soybean oil and soy protein are in things like
>mayonnaise and crackers. It is in prepared horseradish and mustards.
>Even avoiding many packaged meals will not get you out of eating it. It
>is a great part of the feed that is given to livestock that we eat, as
>well.

The amounts of soy that were used in testing are 5 times higher than
the combined intake from ALL sources like you mention. Just as with
any food, even water, if you gorge yourself on it, it will cause harm.
If the amounts of soy that people ingest daily are kept within reason,
even when in almost every item you eat, it won't harm you. Yes,
Americans are eating it in normal amounts in regard to this testing.
The average American eats five times less than the testing amounts.

The tests have been blown so far out of proportion that it's crazy.

For example; The Department of Health’s scientific advisory committee
on nutrition recommends that adults eat no more than 70g day of red or
processed meat a day.

If you ignore that advice and eat 5 times that amount per/day, (350g),
then sure, you'll have a bunch of health problems both short and long
term.

It's the same with soy. The average intake of soy in the West is one
fifth of that which is harmful to you as proven by testing.


Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz1Oi2wco7E

>> Testing has been done where the amounts were increased to five times
>> that eaten by Japanese men daily, and only then were harmful results
>> found.
>
> Between the foods at the grocery store, the pre-packaged meals, fast
>food and restaurant meals, then the added pressure to eat more soy
>protein in the form of tofu, tvp and other soy products, people in the
>West are eating far more soy than they realize.

That doesn't mean it's harmful to them in that quantity. Testing
proves otherwise.

>> As far as the GMO factor of soy beans in the marketplace, you'd have
>> to show me the data that made you come to this conclusion. I believe
>> what you've said is not accurate. Even if what you eat is a GMO type
>> bean, what proof do you have of it causing any harm anyway? All I've
>> seen is over-blown anti-science reactionary inflammatory articles on
>> the subject that use almost no science in their argument.
>
> My argument is largely about the effect it has on other similar
>plants. It crosses with it, which damages natural strains and
>compromises, irrevocably, the seed of neighboring plants. On top of
>that, it is not labeled, and agribusiness giants like Monsanto sue
>others for cross-contamination, even when those others did not want it
>in their seed or crop. There have been two recent studies showing GMO
>in human blood, breastmilk and fetuses, even though it was not supposed
>to transfer to humans. I also have a philosophical problem with using
>animal products in vegetables, for instance, without informing the
>public as there could be allergen issues or religious issues breached.

GMO *non-meat* products have religious issues? Like what? You've
sparked my interest.

The legal status of GMO plants is a new issue. The cross-contamination
problems are not rampant. They are isolated cases with only a few
farmers. I think it has more to do with sales than with health.

>> If you are really worried about the Isoflavones and their
>> estrogen-like properties, then I'd suggest that you also quit eating
>> any legumes. They all have the same Isoflavones in them that you're
>> worried about. Every single one of them.
>
> As I understand it, soy has more of them. Soy is also heavily
>subsidized and put in everything from mustard to chips to cereal to fish
>to beef to french fries to frozen dinners. People do not eat nearly
>that many beans of any other kind. Certainly not without their
>knowledge. This is without considering the tofu, tvp, soy sauce,
>edamame and dry soy beans people eat of their own accord. I think you
>highly underestimate amount of soy consumed in the West already.
>
>Regards,
>Ranee

Yes, soy has more Isoflavones that are considered harmful if eaten in
HUGE quantities. But the other types also have enough to harm you if
eaten in the same quantities.

If you combine ALL of the various forms of soy found in today's
marketplace, the average western person eats only one fifth of the
amount that will harm you as in the testing being done.

I think you highly overestimate the amount of soy consumed in the west
already. The testing already done proves that you would have to eat
five times the norm to do harm to yourself.

It would be like one person eating an entire loaf of bread every day.

Or like one person eating an entire pound of bacon each morning for
breakfast.

Sure, if ANY foods are eaten in the quantities used for soy testing,
they will ALL do harm to you.

I think your stance on soy is uninformed. You would benefit from more
study on the subject.

I'm not being mean by saying this. I've heard the same arguments from
many people. Each thing that you've posted as argument is already
disproved by the very testing you use in your own argument.

The AMOUNTS of the tested items are what you have to compare to real
life.

If you look up those actual amounts from several sources, you'll find
that soy isn't the issue that it's made out to be by many. It's health
issues are blown out of proportion with exaggeration and misleading
statements.

On 6/8/2011 5:41 AM, Landon wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:24:36 -1000, > wrote:
>> Here's a dumb question - can you make tofu from store bought soy milk?
>> Thanks.
>
> Hey, no question is dumb if the answer to it teaches you something you
> didn't know before asking!
>
> I've never tried it, but the difference between store soy milk and
> homemade soy milk is radical. I imagine you could make tofu form the
> store soy milk. Perhaps it would make less than an equal quantity of
> homemade soy milk.
>
> I use a "Soya Power" Soy Milk Maker. It grinds the beans and makes the
> soy milk in one simple step. The soy milk it makes is WAY better than
> the watery stuff at the store. You do have to strain it for
> particulate and add a bit of xanthan gum and perhaps a tiny bit of
> vanilla extract, but it's awesome for cooking also. These are things
> they do for you when making the store soy milk.
>
> I let mine settle over night in the fridge. Then I pour it off until
> it gets to the sediment layer at the bottom. Some like to leave all
> the sediment in it, but I prefer not to when drinking it. Its a bit
> gritty to me.
>
> I like to pour off the milk and then save the sediment. After again
> letting the sediment settle, I then take the topmost part of it and
> add it back into the milk. It does make it better tasting and with
> more body that way. The grittiness isn't there that way either after
> the mixing with the gum. You have to shake soy milk before using it to
> mix the small amount of smooth sediment at the bottom with the milk.
>
> If you start eating tofu and drinking soy milk, you'll find that you
> can cut back on the amount of meat you eat in equal quantities with
> the combined soy milk and tofu. They will supply that protein that
> you've dropped in the form of meat.
>

Thanks for the info. In what form do you buy your soy beans? My guess is
that you can get it in the pods in bulk form at health food stores. I
have seen a bag of it in the freezer case but my guess is that might not
be what you're using.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:37:54 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>Thanks for the info. In what form do you buy your soy beans? My guess is
>that you can get it in the pods in bulk form at health food stores. I
>have seen a bag of it in the freezer case but my guess is that might not
>be what you're using.

I buy them in bulk at my local heath food store. They are just the
dried beans. No pods.

As seen on page 5 of the user manual for my machine,
( http://www.soymilkmaker.com/Soyapower.pdf ), only one cup of dried
beans are used per/batch. After soaking, they expand to 3 times that
much.

110g, (4 ounces) of dried soy beans makes about 45 ounces of soy milk.
(1350 ml)

On Jun 8, 9:53*am, ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Not into Macintosh, but I've heard they have fairly decent mail
> clients/newsreaders available for that platform. But Omelet (and quite a
> few others) could probably point you in the right direction....

> Yes. Cell phones come to mind.



I am satisfied with google service. I have an old computer that
will not support a lot of speed. In a way I'm glad. I'm not kidding
when I say that people are moving too fast, that speed has become a
big selling point, because people think they don't have enough time.
But when they speed things up, all they're doing in making the hamster
wheel spin faster and faster, they're not getting out of the cage.
I'm not against modern conveniences. I might even enjoy more of them
if I had the cash. But I do believe that a lot of people are tivo-ing
their futures into the closet, the door of which they will never
open. An example is, I might call someone (my brother is a good
example), and tell him I'm watching a sporting event or maybe American
Idol or whatever, and the first thing he says is, "Don't tell me the
result, I'll be watching it later." He's tivo-ing these things and
watching them when he has the time. But will he have enough time to
watch everything he tivos? Well, maybe it's a waste of time
complaining about all this. In fact, I'm not really complaining, only
explaining what my observations. I just think it's sort of funny and
sad at the same time that as people buy things to give them more
speed, the only thing theyr'e getting out of it is more time to work.
Work sucks.

TJ

On Jun 8, 11:12*am, Landon > wrote:

> The only way I like to use the white limas is to purposely over-cook
> them and then press them through a screen to extract their pulp
> without the skin and woody parts. Then I use that pulp as a thickener
> in soups. It adds some flavor and nutrition without using the more
> common corn and wheat thickeners.
>
> I have a couple of foods that gag me also. Fish eyes is one. I've
> tried them several ways and each was just as nasty to me as the first.
>
> Moving animal flesh is another. I want my food to be still when I'm
> putting it into my mouth. Fish or octopus that is still moving just
> makes me want to throw chunks. Serious Yuck Factor. I love it raw, but
> not when it's still moving.


I'm glad you enjoyed my little joke. I can see it as someone
saying to someone else, "I'm eating health foods lately", pointing to
a plate filled with brocoli, carrots, beans, and even tofu - all made
from meat pounded down and formed to look that way.

I have eaten fish eyes. Like eating chalk. I'll try anything. I
hate when people refuse to try something new. Come on, even if you
hate it, it's not the end of the world. But moving creatures, bugs
and so forth, I'd have trouble with that. However, for enough money
I'd surely eat moving animal flesh. Hell, for enough money I'd eat a
glass of human shit on national television.

TJ

On Jun 8, 1:39*pm, Omelet > wrote:

> Ok. *But the way I see *it, when the thread subject changes drastically
> away from the title, it may become something someone is really
> interested in....


No, I love the way a thread evolves. I don't care where it goes as
long as someone isn't being purposely malicious and forever changing
the subject just to annoy people. I love when the topics go from one
thing to another. But to change the thread title according to those
changes serves no good purpose, as the people who post into the thread
will remember the original title and will look for it when they come
back to enter that thread. To change it and force them to hunt for
it, or to click on a bunch of different threads, I don't know, there's
something wrong with that. But I'm not going to make a big issue out
of it. Like for example, the other day when the original title of
this thread was changed from Dr Death Dies to Meatloaf, I was able to
get to it only because I knew the approximate number of posts into the
thread and was able to make a good guess. In fact, I wrongly entered
two or three other threads with a similar number of posts before
finally finding that the meatloaf thread is the old Dr Jack Thread.
But I'm not making a big deal out of it, only saying that changing
topics is natural, evolving from one thing to another - and I sort of
enjoy that. When the thread subject matter is not longer of interest
to me, I will back away from the thread. In the meatime, although I
am not interested in the soy foods discussion, that is a good
discussion for a small number of people who are involved in this
thread, and I do not feel theatened or intruded upon by that topic or
any other that this thread might evolve into.

The Master of Evolution,
TJ

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:

>Hell, for enough money I'd eat a
>glass of human shit on national television.
>
>TJ

Ok, now that grossed me out. Ewwwwwwwwww!

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:29:03 -0700, Tommy Joe wrote:


> Like for example, the other day when the original title of
> this thread was changed from Dr Death Dies to Meatloaf, I was able to
> get to it only because I knew the approximate number of posts into the
> thread and was able to make a good guess.

Heh, the bad ol' Google Groups interface strikes again. IIRC, all one sees
on the 'home' page is the subject lines/authors of the 'newest' 25-30
posts. So if somebody changes the subject line of a thread at some point,
I can see that it might be confusing...for some people.

My newsreader - and various mail clients - keep the original subject line
intact with a 'tree-view' of the entire thread/sub-thread(s). So if the
subject line is changed at any point in the thread it's no Big Deal.
Actually makes reading news easier; if the subject line changes into
something that doesn't interest me I can just mark those posts as read, or
delete them.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Tommy Joe > wrote in

> I am satisfied with google service. I have an old
> computer that
> will not support a lot of speed.

I am on dial-up and use Windows 98...
I wouldn't use Google for usenet.

I like my news reader and a free news server. :-)

http://www.newsreaders.com/win/clients.html

<snip>

On Jun 8, 4:38*pm, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:29:03 -0700, Tommy Joe wrote:
> > * Like for example, the other day when the original title of
> > this thread was changed from Dr Death Dies to Meatloaf, I was able to
> > get to it only because I knew the approximate number of posts into the
> > thread and was able to make a good guess.
>
> Heh, the bad ol' Google Groups interface strikes again. IIRC, all one sees
> on the 'home' page is the subject lines/authors of the 'newest' 25-30
> posts. So if somebody changes the subject line of a thread at some point,
> I can see that it might be confusing...for some people.
>
> My newsreader - and various mail clients *- keep the original subject line
> intact with a 'tree-view' of the entire thread/sub-thread(s). So if the
> subject line is changed at any point in the thread it's no Big Deal.
> Actually makes reading news easier; if the subject line changes into
> something that doesn't interest me I can just mark those posts as read, or
> delete them.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy

I miss trn on a Unix workstation. That was much like the tree-view you
describe. Trn wqas how I began reading Usenet, back in about 1993 or
1994 I think, before the WWW even existed yet (or was in it's first
development stages.)

John Kuthe...

Clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz blathered:

> Do 14 ounce burgers count as meat loaves?
> http://i53.tinypic.com/2i09168.jpg
>
> http://i55.tinypic.com/154vbd0.jpg

No, they count as pig slop.

Bob

On 6/8/2011 8:56 AM, Landon wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:37:54 -1000, > wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. In what form do you buy your soy beans? My guess is
>> that you can get it in the pods in bulk form at health food stores. I
>> have seen a bag of it in the freezer case but my guess is that might not
>> be what you're using.
>
> I buy them in bulk at my local heath food store. They are just the
> dried beans. No pods.
>
> As seen on page 5 of the user manual for my machine,
> ( http://www.soymilkmaker.com/Soyapower.pdf ), only one cup of dried
> beans are used per/batch. After soaking, they expand to 3 times that
> much.
>
> 110g, (4 ounces) of dried soy beans makes about 45 ounces of soy milk.
> (1350 ml)

Thanks for the link, it all looks pretty complex.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:26:02 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>On 6/8/2011 8:56 AM, Landon wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:37:54 -1000, > wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the info. In what form do you buy your soy beans? My guess is
>>> that you can get it in the pods in bulk form at health food stores. I
>>> have seen a bag of it in the freezer case but my guess is that might not
>>> be what you're using.
>>
>> I buy them in bulk at my local heath food store. They are just the
>> dried beans. No pods.
>>
>> As seen on page 5 of the user manual for my machine,
>> ( http://www.soymilkmaker.com/Soyapower.pdf ), only one cup of dried
>> beans are used per/batch. After soaking, they expand to 3 times that
>> much.
>>
>> 110g, (4 ounces) of dried soy beans makes about 45 ounces of soy milk.
>> (1350 ml)
>
>Thanks for the link, it all looks pretty complex.

It's actually very easy, but it does take time.

1. Measure and soak beans overnight.

2. Put beans and water into machine.

3. Turn on machine and go about other tasks.

4. Return to machine and pour milk through fine mesh screen and cheese
cloth.

5. Put into fridge for a few hours to settle particulate.

6. Pour off milk and save the bottom sediment.

7. Repeat process until you have enough milk.

8. After sediment settles, remove top, fine sediment and return it to
the milk. Throw out the bottom sediment unless you want to use it in a
recipe. There are many recipes that use it. To find them, try a Google
on "Okara Recipes", using the quote marks.

9. The milk is finished. You can now make tofu from it if you want.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:10:03 -0400, Landon > wrote:

>8. After sediment settles, remove top, fine sediment and return it to
>the milk. Throw out the bottom sediment unless you want to use it in a
>recipe. There are many recipes that use it. To find them, try a Google
>on "Okara Recipes", using the quote marks.

The ground beans in the basket are what the "Okara" is, primarily. The
larger particles of sediment are also Okara. Both are used in a wide
variety of recipes to add flavor and protein.

ChattyCathy > wrote:

> I felt the same way the first time I tasted Earl Grey tea (many, many
> years ago). I also thought that the cups hadn't been rinsed properly after
> washing. Luckily I was polite enough not to mention this to my hostess and
> drank it anyway <grin>. To this day I don't like that particular tea;
> still don't like the taste - and it smells like "cheap perfume" to me.

I once posted that Earl Grey reminded me of some unwashed whore's
perfumed tipple... nipple... whatever... .

Victor

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:35:39 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

> I live in farm country. Monsanto was putting
> people out of business from accidental cross-pollination and
> "discovering" it by spraying entire crops of competitor farmers and if
> any was left standing suing them for theft. There has recently been a
> case, finally, of a farmer suing Monsanto first. Seed companies are
> having a hard time even providing non-GMO corn for their customers
> because of the cross contamination. That is only in the commercial
> realm. Wild grown plants are also showing evidence of GMO taint.

It's not just up in your state, Ranee. I have friends who own 3 farms
in Iowa that produce seed and it has been a huge problem over there
for years.

> It is
> a Pandora's box that was not thought through properly and is backed by
> our government, which is shilling for the companies that make this.

That's the issue. Money buys lobbyists, lobbyists ensure votes and
government is in the pocket of the highest bidder.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Jun 8, 3:57*pm, Landon > wrote:



> Ok, now that grossed me out. Ewwwwwwwwww!



"Would you drink a glass of human shit for a million dollars", has
been my catch-phrase question for years, ever since I was kid. I used
it as a means of determining the honesty of the person to whom I was
talking. If they acted all disgusted and went, "No may, man", then I
would be instantly inclined to believe that I'm talking to a person
who is not so honest. The way I look at it, people who work regular
jobs are eating shit 9 hours a day, 5 days a week. I'd rather do it
all at one time and get it out of the way. Once you rinse your out
your mouth, the foul stench of shit will be replaced by the lovely
aroma of paper money fresh from the bank.

TJ

On Jun 8, 5:38*pm, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:29:03 -0700, Tommy Joe wrote:
> > * Like for example, the other day when the original title of
> > this thread was changed from Dr Death Dies to Meatloaf, I was able to
> > get to it only because I knew the approximate number of posts into the
> > thread and was able to make a good guess.
>
> Heh, the bad ol' Google Groups interface strikes again. IIRC, all one sees
> on the 'home' page is the subject lines/authors of the 'newest' 25-30
> posts. So if somebody changes the subject line of a thread at some point,
> I can see that it might be confusing...for some people.
>
> My newsreader - and various mail clients *- keep the original subject line
> intact with a 'tree-view' of the entire thread/sub-thread(s). So if the
> subject line is changed at any point in the thread it's no Big Deal.
> Actually makes reading news easier; if the subject line changes into
> something that doesn't interest me I can just mark those posts as read, or
> delete them.


No argument, exept, as usual, a bunch of questions flooding my open
brain. For instance, I must now ask myself, is it a crime to not keep
up with the Jones's? Must one continually upgrade or face the
consequences? I use google, and I'm sure I'm not alone. But it's not
the end of the world if you or anyone else goes around changing the
thread title, I'm just saying I don't agree with the practice. Ok, so
now I have learned that you were not aware of the negative aspects of
thread-title changementation. (love that word). As a result this
finding, that you are not guilty of malicious mischief, I have decided
to issue you a reprieve and to move on with a blank slate to guide my
way. Ready, set, GO!

TJ

On Jun 8, 8:31*pm, sandi > wrote:
> Tommy Joe > wrote in
>
> > * * I am satisfied with google service. *I have an old
> > * * computer that
> > will not support a lot of speed. *
>
> I am on dial-up and use Windows 98...
> I wouldn't use Google for usenet.
>
> I like my news reader and a free news server. *:-)
>
> http://www.newsreaders.com/win/clients.html




Back when my used computer was newer I was using Outlook Express
as a newsreader and was getting the newsgroups directly on my
computer. But somehow something became corrupt, as they call it. Not
a virus, don't think I've ever had one, but I think when they said the
files were corrupt they meant that the current Outlook system I was
using at that time was probably no longer recognized by the
newsgroups. To put a stronger version on my computer was not possible
because it had already been bolstered to it's max, I think, and most
current programs are available only to mac computers that are
operating system 10 or higher. Mine is lower, so I can not download
most new things on my computer. In a way I'm happy with that. I
don't want to join the stampede. No matter how many lanes you put on
the highway, one day it's never enough.

Tommy the turtle Jo Jo

On Jun 10, 1:23*am, Omelet > wrote:

> Heh! *For a million bucks, I might be tempted, but not so sure I could
> keep it down.
>
> Your point is well made tho' since my last two jobs handed me a LOT of
> shit with no rewards.



You'll keep it down. And according to the twilight zone aspect of
the situation, there are no strings to the arrangement. You will not
get sick. You will have no complications arising from the foul
ingestion. I have another question along with the "Would you eat a
glass of shit for a million dollars?", and that is, "Would you be
willing to lose one leg below the knee for a million dollars?" This
is a tougher decision, but again it must be said that there are no
strings attached, no medical complications down the road. All it will
mean is that you will walk with a limp the rest of your life. I'd
take that one in a heart beat. Think about it - no pain - no
complications - I'm telling you, you'd get used to it in no time.
There are plenty of one legged people around who aren't millionaires.
Might as well take the cash when you never know that tomorrow you
might be in an accident and lose you leg and never get a dime for it.
Hell, for enough money I might even sell my head, as long as I could
continue breathing out of my neck.

TJ

Tommy Joe blathered:

> The way I look at it, people who work regular jobs are eating shit 9 hours
> a day, 5 days a week.

Sounds like you must have made some very bad vocational decisions, if you
have that opinion about holding a job.

As for me, I *like* my job. I like my coworkers and I get to live in an area
of the country that I love, but above all that is the fact that the work is
*interesting* to me.

Oh, but you were just trolling, weren't you? Never mind, then; carry on.

Bob

In article <874900d3-d12b-4085-8b12-
>, says...
>
> On Jun 8, 8:31*pm, sandi > wrote:
> > Tommy Joe > wrote in
> >
> > > * * I am satisfied with google service. *I have an old
> > > * * computer that
> > > will not support a lot of speed. *
> >
> > I am on dial-up and use Windows 98...
> > I wouldn't use Google for usenet.
> >
> > I like my news reader and a free news server. *:-)
> >
> > http://www.newsreaders.com/win/clients.html
>
>
>
>
> Back when my used computer was newer I was using Outlook Express
> as a newsreader and was getting the newsgroups directly on my
> computer. But somehow something became corrupt, as they call it. Not
> a virus, don't think I've ever had one, but I think when they said the
> files were corrupt they meant that the current Outlook system I was
> using at that time was probably no longer recognized by the
> newsgroups. To put a stronger version on my computer was not possible
> because it had already been bolstered to it's max, I think, and most
> current programs are available only to mac computers that are
> operating system 10 or higher. Mine is lower, so I can not download
> most new things on my computer. In a way I'm happy with that. I
> don't want to join the stampede. No matter how many lanes you put on
> the highway, one day it's never enough.

If the files were corrupt that means that Outlook Express was broken and
a removal and reinstallation should have fixed it. USENET hasn't
changed in such a manner that a newsreader would stop functioning.

If you can't find someone who can fix your OE you might want to consider
MT-Newswatcher <http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/downloading.html>. It's free
and the OS9 version is still available for download. If you email the
author he might be able to provide you an OS8 version--one did exist but
that dcesn't mean that he still has a copy of it.

In article m>,
says...
>
> Tommy Joe blathered:
>
> > The way I look at it, people who work regular jobs are eating shit 9 hours
> > a day, 5 days a week.
>
> Sounds like you must have made some very bad vocational decisions, if you
> have that opinion about holding a job.

You've never worked for a company that practicse mushroom management
("keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit").

When that starts happening Chapter 11 usually soon follows.

> As for me, I *like* my job. I like my coworkers and I get to live in an area
> of the country that I love, but above all that is the fact that the work is
> *interesting* to me.
>
> Oh, but you were just trolling, weren't you? Never mind, then; carry on.
>
> Bob

Tommy Joe > wrote in

..com:

> On Jun 8, 8:31*pm, sandi > wrote:
>> Tommy Joe > wrote in
>>
>> > * * I am satisfied with google service. *I have an old
>> > * * computer that
>> > will not support a lot of speed. *
>>
>> I am on dial-up and use Windows 98...
>> I wouldn't use Google for usenet.
>>
>> I like my news reader and a free news server. *:-)
>>
>> http://www.newsreaders.com/win/clients.html


A few here, such as myself, use Xnews as a reader.
Take a look at the Windows clients here.
http://www.newsreaders.com/win/clients.html
Outlook is NOT a proper newsreader.

>
> Back when my used computer was newer I was using Outlook
> Express
> as a newsreader and was getting the newsgroups directly on my
> computer.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:00:40 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article
>,
> Tommy Joe > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 10, 1:23*am, Omelet > wrote:
>>
>> > Heh! *For a million bucks, I might be tempted, but not so sure I could
>> > keep it down.
>> >
>> > Your point is well made tho' since my last two jobs handed me a LOT of
>> > shit with no rewards.
>>
>>
>>
>> You'll keep it down. And according to the twilight zone aspect of
>> the situation, there are no strings to the arrangement. You will not
>> get sick. You will have no complications arising from the foul
>> ingestion. I have another question along with the "Would you eat a
>> glass of shit for a million dollars?", and that is, "Would you be
>> willing to lose one leg below the knee for a million dollars?" This
>> is a tougher decision, but again it must be said that there are no
>> strings attached, no medical complications down the road. All it will
>> mean is that you will walk with a limp the rest of your life. I'd
>> take that one in a heart beat. Think about it - no pain - no
>> complications - I'm telling you, you'd get used to it in no time.
>> There are plenty of one legged people around who aren't millionaires.
>> Might as well take the cash when you never know that tomorrow you
>> might be in an accident and lose you leg and never get a dime for it.
>> Hell, for enough money I might even sell my head, as long as I could
>> continue breathing out of my neck.
>>
>> TJ
>
>Sorry, but sacrificing a body part would be ruled out for me. I've
>worked too hard to keep what mobility I have and continue to work on
>improving it.
>
>One of my goals in life?
>
>I want to be able to move like Halle Berry. She did most of her own
>stunts in "Catwoman" you know.

First you gotta have *what* to move like Halle Berry. lol

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:41:34 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:

>On Jun 10, 1:23*am, Omelet > wrote:
>
>> Heh! *For a million bucks, I might be tempted, but not so sure I could
>> keep it down.
>>
>> Your point is well made tho' since my last two jobs handed me a LOT of
>> shit with no rewards.
>
>
>
> You'll keep it down. And according to the twilight zone aspect of
>the situation, there are no strings to the arrangement. You will not
>get sick. You will have no complications arising from the foul
>ingestion. I have another question along with the "Would you eat a
>glass of shit for a million dollars?", and that is, "Would you be
>willing to lose one leg below the knee for a million dollars?" This
>is a tougher decision, but again it must be said that there are no
>strings attached, no medical complications down the road. All it will
>mean is that you will walk with a limp the rest of your life. I'd
>take that one in a heart beat. Think about it - no pain - no
>complications - I'm telling you, you'd get used to it in no time.
>There are plenty of one legged people around who aren't millionaires.
>Might as well take the cash when you never know that tomorrow you
>might be in an accident and lose you leg and never get a dime for it.
>Hell, for enough money I might even sell my head, as long as I could
>continue breathing out of my neck.
>
>TJ

So, this glass of human feces, in your "twilight zone" has no health
effects at all. None. It then becomes a matter of desire for money.

Since I live comfortably and really have no wants, then my answer
would be no, I still would not consume something that tasted so
disgusting that it would make anyone vomit.

But then, you say it wouldn't make anyone vomit, so it must not taste
like shit any more. Would it then taste like caviar? Maybe ground
beef?

Hahaa, I'm having fun with you. Some people would do almost anything
for money. I'm not one.

If you base others honesty on that only, you're misjudging a lot of
honest people.

I don't care if you drag a string of Hope Diamonds out of your ass,
I'm not putting them in my mouth to gain ownership of them.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:35:39 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Landon > wrote:
>
>> GMO *non-meat* products have religious issues? Like what? You've
>> sparked my interest.
>
> Vegetation has genes inserted from animals. This can definitely
>cause a conflict for a religious person
>
>> The legal status of GMO plants is a new issue. The cross-contamination
>> problems are not rampant. They are isolated cases with only a few
>> farmers. I think it has more to do with sales than with health.
>
> You are mistaken. I live in farm country. Monsanto was putting
>people out of business from accidental cross-pollination and
>"discovering" it by spraying entire crops of competitor farmers and if
>any was left standing suing them for theft. There has recently been a
>case, finally, of a farmer suing Monsanto first. Seed companies are
>having a hard time even providing non-GMO corn for their customers
>because of the cross contamination. That is only in the commercial
>realm. Wild grown plants are also showing evidence of GMO taint. It is
>a Pandora's box that was not thought through properly and is backed by
>our government, which is shilling for the companies that make this.
>
>> Yes, soy has more Isoflavones that are considered harmful if eaten in
>> HUGE quantities. But the other types also have enough to harm you if
>> eaten in the same quantities.
>
> Soy has more of them. And soy is in _everything_. I see no reason
>to increase my consumption of something that has an increased risk of
>anything for dubious health reasons when I am an omnivore, capable of
>eating protein and and produce without trying to increase my nutrients
>by eating manufactured food.
>
>Regards,
>Ranee

You believe I am mistaken and I believe that you are mistaken. You and
I could go round and round about this, but it's really not worth it to
me to argue with you or Julie about it.

I'd rather continue enjoying the recipes and *enjoyable* food talk
here with both of you.

Peace to you, Julie and everyone else.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this issue and put it to bed.

and if there were no risk, why would the money be offerred...

i would do some things for money others wouldn't, envolving my body in any
way for money is not on the list, risking illness, loss of body parts or
compromising my imune system is just not worth the money, Lee


"Landon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:41:34 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jun 10, 1:23 am, Omelet > wrote:
>>
>>> Heh! For a million bucks, I might be tempted, but not so sure I could
>>> keep it down.
>>>
>>> Your point is well made tho' since my last two jobs handed me a LOT of
>>> shit with no rewards.
>>
>>
>>
>> You'll keep it down. And according to the twilight zone aspect of
>>the situation, there are no strings to the arrangement. You will not
>>get sick. You will have no complications arising from the foul
>>ingestion. I have another question along with the "Would you eat a
>>glass of shit for a million dollars?", and that is, "Would you be
>>willing to lose one leg below the knee for a million dollars?" This
>>is a tougher decision, but again it must be said that there are no
>>strings attached, no medical complications down the road. All it will
>>mean is that you will walk with a limp the rest of your life. I'd
>>take that one in a heart beat. Think about it - no pain - no
>>complications - I'm telling you, you'd get used to it in no time.
>>There are plenty of one legged people around who aren't millionaires.
>>Might as well take the cash when you never know that tomorrow you
>>might be in an accident and lose you leg and never get a dime for it.
>>Hell, for enough money I might even sell my head, as long as I could
>>continue breathing out of my neck.
>>
>>TJ
>
> So, this glass of human feces, in your "twilight zone" has no health
> effects at all. None. It then becomes a matter of desire for money.
>
> Since I live comfortably and really have no wants, then my answer
> would be no, I still would not consume something that tasted so
> disgusting that it would make anyone vomit.
>
> But then, you say it wouldn't make anyone vomit, so it must not taste
> like shit any more. Would it then taste like caviar? Maybe ground
> beef?
>
> Hahaa, I'm having fun with you. Some people would do almost anything
> for money. I'm not one.
>
> If you base others honesty on that only, you're misjudging a lot of
> honest people.
>
> I don't care if you drag a string of Hope Diamonds out of your ass,
> I'm not putting them in my mouth to gain ownership of them.

On Jun 10, 2:36*am, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Tommy Joe blathered:
>
> > The way I look at it, people who work regular jobs are eating shit 9 hours
> > a day, 5 days a week.
>
> Sounds like you must have made some very bad vocational decisions, if you
> have that opinion about holding a job.
>
> As for me, I *like* my job. I like my coworkers and I get to live in an area
> of the country that I love, but above all that is the fact that the work is
> *interesting* to me.
>
> Oh, but you were just trolling, weren't you? Never mind, then; carry on.
>
> Bob



I'm not trolling, Bob. I'm in this single thread responding to
others, not coming in fresh each time with my own original stories.
If you love your job, that's good for you. Trouble is Bob, you seem
to be a somewhat hostile person, so maybe you only think you love your
job and are afraid that admitting you really hate it would send you
into a tailspin from which you can never recover. If as many people
loved their jobs as you intimate, you can bet there wouldn't be so
many lotteries taking place all over the country. But if you're one
of those rare birds who loves his job, good, more power to you. I
just don't think you come close to representing the majority.

TJ

On Jun 10, 7:28*am, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> In article <874900d3-d12b-4085-8b12-
> >, says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 8:31*pm, sandi > wrote:
> > > Tommy Joe > wrote in
>
> > > > * * I am satisfied with google service. *I have an old
> > > > * * computer that
> > > > will not support a lot of speed. *
>
> > > I am on dial-up and use Windows 98...
> > > I wouldn't use Google for usenet.
>
> > > I like my news reader and a free news server. *:-)
>
> > >http://www.newsreaders.com/win/clients.html
>
> > * * * Back when my used computer was newer I was using Outlook Express
> > as a newsreader and was getting the newsgroups directly on my
> > computer. *But somehow something became corrupt, as they call it. *Not
> > a virus, don't think I've ever had one, but I think when they said the
> > files were corrupt they meant that the current Outlook system I was
> > using at that time was probably no longer recognized by the
> > newsgroups. *To put a stronger version on my computer was not possible
> > because it had already been bolstered to it's max, I think, and most
> > current programs are available only to mac computers that are
> > operating system 10 or higher. *Mine is lower, so I can not download
> > most new things on my computer. *In a way I'm happy with that. *I
> > don't want to join the stampede. *No matter how many lanes you put on
> > the highway, one day it's never enough.
>
> If the files were corrupt that means that Outlook Express was broken and
> a removal and reinstallation should have fixed it. *USENET hasn't
> changed in such a manner that a newsreader would stop functioning.
>
> If you can't find someone who can fix your OE you might want to consider
> MT-Newswatcher <http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/downloading.html>. *It's free
> and the OS9 version is still available for download. *If you email the
> author he might be able to provide you an OS8 version--one did exist but
> that dcesn't mean that he still has a copy of it.


Thanks. I'm not going to lie to you, doing all that techno crap
drives me nearly insane. I'm content getting by with google. I had
the newsletter thing through outlook and it was nice while it lasted,
but for now I'll skate by with google. Thanks though, really.

TJ

On Jun 10, 7:44*am, sandi > wrote:

> A few here, such as myself, use Xnews as a reader.
> Take a look at the Windows clients here.http://www.newsreaders.com/win/clients.html
> Outlook is NOT a proper newsreader.


Thank you too, and to all who responded trying to help me with
this. But I wasn't asking for help, only saying that I have grown
accustomed to using google and for now it's good enough for me. Sorry
for making you think otherwise. Even though I know little about
technology, intuitively I suspect that downloading a lot of stuff onto
ones computer may not be such a good idea.

TJ

On Jun 10, 7:42*am, "J. Clarke" > wrote:

> You've never worked for a company that practicse mushroom management
> ("keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit").
>
> When that starts happening Chapter 11 usually soon follows.


Funny, the mushroom analogy. I have driven a cab for 33 years.
All the jobs I've had were minimum wage. I have never been fired.
I'm good at all things I try (no kidding). If there is a rare job
that I am not good at or simply cannot stand, I will not be hanging
around for long. I am an admittedly complacent person in life. But I
abhor complacency in the workplace. I am a good worker even though I
openly detest it. I have met many who claim to not hate their jobs.
But I have also seen those people do their jobs, and believe me, they
usually don't do them very well. As for the cab job, I quit two weeks
ago on the basis of inheriting enough cash from an aunt to get me
through a year or so living very close to the ground as usual. Then,
if still alive, at age 65 I will qualify for age-related SSI at a
minimum of $675 a month plus probably food stamps and medical
benefits. Even though I officially quit two weeks ago - a job at
which lately I'm making less than $150 week), and am living on the
inheritance, I have kept the job open and am renting the cab from the
owner this weekend with the idea of going to work without the pressure
of actually needing to be there. I'm going out there tonight just for
something to do. If I don't do well I won't go nuts like I usually
do. It's perfect. You work, but you don't need to.

TJ

On Jun 10, 9:52*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> First you gotta have *what* to move like Halle Berry. lol




Good looks are a dime a dozen. True ugliness is far harder to come
by. I don't think Berry is all that good looking anyway. She kind of
looks like a little boy. I used to live in Hollywood. Believe me, a
lot of those people do not measure up to their image in real life.

TJ