Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name, how does
one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that you or the other
John? Please email me

Jill

in article , jmcquown at
wrote on 4/25/04 6:47 AM:

> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name, how does
> one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that you or the other
> John? Please email me
>
> Jill
>
>

Will you be moving your blog over there?
I

>Sheryl Rosen writes:
>
>jmcquown wrote:
>
>> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name, how does
>> one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that you or the other
>> John? Please email me
>
>Will you be moving your blog over there?

What's a "blog"?


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

PENMART01 wrote:
>> Sheryl Rosen writes:
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name,
>>> how does one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that
>>> you or the other John? Please email me
>>
>> Will you be moving your blog over there?
>
> What's a "blog"?
>
I doubt she even knows what she typed. Blog = a Weblog - "a website that
contains periodic reverse, chronologically ordered posts on a common web
page. Individual posts (which taken together are the weblog) either share a
particular theme, or a single small group of authors."

She has no idea about the rfc website. It's not a blog.

I still have to wonder why she picks on my posts. It's not like I direct
them to her.

Jill

in article , PENMART01 at
wrote on 4/25/04 12:11 PM:

>> Sheryl Rosen writes:
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name, how does
>>> one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that you or the other
>>> John? Please email me
>>
>> Will you be moving your blog over there?
>
> What's a "blog"?

Forgive me.
I meant to type "diary".

in article , jmcquown at
wrote on 4/25/04 12:41 PM:

> PENMART01 wrote:
>>> Sheryl Rosen writes:
>>>
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name,
>>>> how does one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that
>>>> you or the other John? Please email me
>>>
>>> Will you be moving your blog over there?
>>
>> What's a "blog"?
>>
> I doubt she even knows what she typed. Blog = a Weblog - "a website that
> contains periodic reverse, chronologically ordered posts on a common web
> page. Individual posts (which taken together are the weblog) either share a
> particular theme, or a single small group of authors."
>
> She has no idea about the rfc website. It's not a blog.
>
> I still have to wonder why she picks on my posts. It's not like I direct
> them to her.
>
> Jill
>
>

I know all about the RFC website.
It's not a blog, and it wasn't intended to be one.
Neither is RFC itself.

But that never stopped you from posting every random thought you ever had,
food-related or not.

I was just hoping you'd move your web-journal over there, and spare those of
us who aren't interested in your latest stud all of the gory details.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> in article , jmcquown at
> wrote on 4/25/04 12:41 PM:
>
>> PENMART01 wrote:
>>>> Sheryl Rosen writes:
>>>>
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name,
>>>>> how does one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that
>>>>> you or the other John? Please email me
>>>>
>>>> Will you be moving your blog over there?
>>>
>>> What's a "blog"?
>>>
>> She has no idea about the rfc website. It's not a blog.
>>
>> I still have to wonder why she picks on my posts. It's not like I
>> direct them to her.
>>
>> Jill
>>
> I know all about the RFC website.
> It's not a blog, and it wasn't intended to be one.

So why did you suggest I move my "blog" over there, eh? It's not a posting
site you nitwit.

> Neither is RFC itself.

Funny, anyone else can post whatever and you don't slam them for it.

> But that never stopped you from posting every random thought you ever
> had, food-related or not.
>
> I was just hoping you'd move your web-journal over there, and spare
> those of us who aren't interested in your latest stud all of the gory
> details.

Don't know why you think I'm posting gory details... I posted about
restaurants in Addison/North Dallas. Shared food and restaurant info. If
some of the details were a bit like Buffy Liar's ridiculous travel posts, so
be it.

I haven't mentioned anything about my "stud" (by the way, you're afraid of a
man in his 50's aren't you? Silly woman) other than to ask for wine
recommendations for a trip next month. You are the one who was so insistant
to determine it wasn't Ray I met in Dallas. I can only think you must be
terribly jealous.

Now lay the **** off. I don't pick on your posts; so please don't pick on
mine.

Jill

in article , jmcquown at
wrote on 4/25/04 1:55 PM:

> I haven't mentioned anything about my "stud" (by the way, you're afraid of a
> man in his 50's aren't you? Silly woman)

Well, yeah, you have, but whatever.
And I don't discuss the men I date here, so where do you get any basis for
that statement? I'm not afraid of any man.
And I'm CERTAINLY not jealous of you.

in article , jmcquown at
wrote on 4/25/04 1:55 PM:

> You are the one who was so insistant
> to determine it wasn't Ray I met in Dallas.

Insistent?
I merely mentioned that I noticed you didn't say it was Ray.
How is that insistent? Insistent implies I asked several times.
That's not true. And I think someone else inquired as well.

Frankly, who gives a ****? That's the point I'm getting at.
I DON'T CARE WHO YOU SCREW!
Or even if you do or not. I don't care about you.
I don't like reading about you. And even if I killfile you, I STILL have to
read all about it, because it's quoted.

That's all. No one else posts OT with the frequency you do.
No one posts such intimate details of your life like you do.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> in article , jmcquown at
> wrote on 4/25/04 1:55 PM:
>
>> You are the one who was so insistant
>> to determine it wasn't Ray I met in Dallas.
>
> Insistent?
> I merely mentioned that I noticed you didn't say it was Ray.
> How is that insistent? Insistent implies I asked several times.
> That's not true. And I think someone else inquired as well.
>
> Frankly, who gives a ****? That's the point I'm getting at.
> I DON'T CARE WHO YOU SCREW!
> Or even if you do or not. I don't care about you.
> I don't like reading about you. And even if I killfile you, I STILL
> have to read all about it, because it's quoted.
>
> That's all. No one else posts OT with the frequency you do.
> No one posts such intimate details of your life like you do.

Hmmmm.... No one posts such intimate details? Fantasizing here about a
baseball player; about meeting his parents, making him cookies in the hopes
of interesting the *parents* and by symbiosis you.... heh. NADS? Need I
remind you of that?! Talk about personal and totally unnecessary
information!

And yes, you did several times mention in posts about my trip to Dallas
gee, doesn't sound like she's talking about Ray. Why that would matter to
you, I don't know.

Funny, you do seem to be rather obsessed with what I'm doing and posting.
Give it up. Leave me the **** alone.

Jill

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> in article , PENMART01 at
> wrote on 4/25/04 12:11 PM:
>
>>> Sheryl Rosen writes:
>>>
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name,
>>>> how does one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that
>>>> you or the other John? Please email me
>>>
>>> Will you be moving your blog over there?
>>
>> What's a "blog"?
>
> Forgive me.
> I meant to type "diary".

And while we're at it, please explain why you felt the need to respond to a
post that was not directed towards you in any way? You've proven my point.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Okay, now that the collective 'we' have preserved the domain name,
> how does one go about getting info on the site updated? Is that you
> or the other John? Please email me

Children, please play together nicely (reference to the other subthread).

I am the maintainer of the web site itself. If you want to change
something or put something new on it, please contact me via email.
Attachments are welcome if you zip them first.

When I get some time I plan on changing the site's guts to something
like a Wiki. This would allow all of you to update and change things
when necessary.

Information on and an example of Wiki:
http://www.wiki.org/
http://www.wikipedia.org/

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

in article , jmcquown at
wrote on 4/25/04 2:27 PM:

> Fantasizing here about a
> baseball player; about meeting his parents, making him cookies in the hopes
> of interesting the *parents* and by symbiosis you.... heh.

What the....?
I dare you to go to Google and find the post where I stated that I was
baking cookies for a ballplayer and meeting his parents. IT NEVER HAPPENED!

You're delusional again, Jill.

I did post about having met a ballplayer who knocked my socks off. That was
in July 2000. Never met his parents. Never made him cookies. And never
posted that I was fantasizing about him, either. Just that he knocked my
socks off.

I might have posted about meeting a friend's parents, and them thanking me
for some cookies that I made for my friend. But that was a year later, and
he wasn't a ball player. And we're still good friends 3 years later, in
fact, he was here for dinner tonight. And I posted about that here because
I got the recipe for those particular cookies from several people here on
the ng.

Wow, you used "symbiosis" in a sentence. And the context is almost right,
too! Isn't that a big word for you? Or did someone give you a word a day
calendar for Christmas?

In article >,
(PENMART01) wrote:

> >
> >Will you be moving your blog over there?
>
> What's a "blog"?
> Sheldon
> ````````````
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>

Shorthand for WebLog.
(Do a google on blog and see what comes up.)
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> updated 3-29-04.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:31:54 -0500, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:31:21 -0500, "jmcquown"
> > wrote:
>
> >And while we're at it, please explain why you felt the need to respond to a
> >post that was not directed towards you in any way? You've proven my point.
>
> It's called Usenet, dimbo. Don't post here unless you're
> addressing it to the whole world.
>
So, all of us should respond to every thread?


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:31:54 -0500, Steve Wertz
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:31:21 -0500, "jmcquown"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >And while we're at it, please explain why you felt the need to
>> respond to a >post that was not directed towards you in any way?
>> You've proven my point.
>>
>> It's called Usenet, dimbo. Don't post here unless you're
>> addressing it to the whole world.
>>
> So, all of us should respond to every thread?
>
Thank you. My point exactly. She makes excuses about not killfiling me by
saying other people will quote me so she can still read my posts. It still
does not require a response, most of which are critical, bitchy and
pointless.

As for Steve Wertz, gotta wonder why a person feels the need to have
different email addys all the time just so his worthless posts will get
through (kinda like that projectile chick). I see the name and k/f yet
another bogus address. But I read your posts, sf, even if they are tagged
onto ones like his. Last time I checked, Usenet was a free world

Jill