Food TV's contest for a new cooking star
 

Yuk, They picked probably the only one(s) I would not watch.
At first the *** guy thing was different. Now it is just boring.
Of all the talent they had to pick from, I can't believe they selected
those 2. They were basically flub-ups on most of their demos.

I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
D

There is nothing wrong with queer guys teaching, I am not contesting on
the fact that the ones they picked were flub-ups.

I am queer and I am here, I think queer guys cooking would be fun as
well.

Ronnie

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is nothing wrong with queer guys teaching, I am not contesting on
> the fact that the ones they picked were flub-ups.

I don't think anyone's complaining about "queer guys teaching" -
but if they got picked BECAUSE they're "queer" (i.e., Food
Network execs saying something like "hey, we need our own
'Queer Eye'!") rather than on the basis of cooking ability or
expertise, then something's wrong here.

In other words, it's not about any objection to homosexuality -
it's about the likelihood of this being symptomatic of the typically
shallow network programming mentality, where "hey, let's get a
queer host!" becomes the formula du jour. Sort of like the
"reality TV" plague, in which a couple of successful and
moderately well-conceived programs spawned a slew of
absolutely hideous "me too!" reality-formula shows.


Bob M.

"Bob Myers" > wrote:

>I don't think anyone's complaining about "queer guys teaching" -
>but if they got picked BECAUSE they're "queer" (i.e., Food
>Network execs saying something like "hey, we need our own
>'Queer Eye'!") rather than on the basis of cooking ability or
>expertise, then something's wrong here.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. It's merely marketing - and yes,
there's something wrong here - what about the others who put all that
energy into it. They should have just been told "*** is the in thing
right now, like reality shows - if you're straight, don't apply".
Then, at least it could have been an all-out fair competition based
only on the outcome, not the demographic.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

I completely agree with you guys that if the fact were that FoodTV
picked up the *** guys because they were *** (which I can believe as
being a marketing stint), then that is completely wrong/sad.

I was only replying to
"
I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
D
"

I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.

Ronnie

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I completely agree with you guys that if the fact were that FoodTV
> picked up the *** guys because they were *** (which I can believe as
> being a marketing stint), then that is completely wrong/sad.
>
> I was only replying to
> "
> I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
> guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
> D
> "
>
> I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
> attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
> COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.

One of my fave posters on here is ***..AND .. boy.. does
he know his cooking:) So as you can see.. it matters not a single jot!

Ophelia
Scotland

On 28 Jun 2005 11:46:52 -0700, wrote:

> I completely agree with you guys that if the fact were that FoodTV
> picked up the *** guys because they were *** (which I can believe as
> being a marketing stint), then that is completely wrong/sad.
>
> I was only replying to
> "
> I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
> guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
> D
> "
>
> I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
> attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
> COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.
>
We all suffer from foot-in-mouth disease from time to time, so I'd
like to think the true meaning of that post was what you just stated.

AlleyGator wrote:
> "Bob Myers" > wrote:
>
> >I don't think anyone's complaining about "queer guys teaching" -
> >but if they got picked BECAUSE they're "queer" (i.e., Food
> >Network execs saying something like "hey, we need our own
> >'Queer Eye'!") rather than on the basis of cooking ability or
> >expertise, then something's wrong here.
>
> I agree with this wholeheartedly. It's merely marketing - and yes,
> there's something wrong here - what about the others who put all that
> energy into it. They should have just been told "*** is the in thing
> right now, like reality shows - if you're straight, don't apply".
> Then, at least it could have been an all-out fair competition based
> only on the outcome, not the demographic.


What are you talking about? Where did you get the idea that whether
they are *** or not has anything to do with their success on the show?
Have you actually watched it?



Brian

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > Yuk, They picked probably the only one(s) I would not watch.
> > At first the *** guy thing was different. Now it is just boring.
> > Of all the talent they had to pick from, I can't believe they selected
> > those 2. They were basically flub-ups on most of their demos.
> >
> > I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
> > guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
>
> And in this whole thread, no one has said, "Boy, could all those
> contestants really cook well."
>
> They were all lightweights who were more judged on personality than any
> *value to watchers*. Shallow, shallow, shallow...
>
> Pastorio


We just recently got cable TV, so therefor I'm new to Food TV. I haven't
watched the contest, so again, I can't judge, but if the two guys have good
ideas and likeable personalities, give 'em a shot! I just say, then please
remove Rachel Ray, the woman who pretends to do pasta (Gianni?), Paula Dean
(UGH!) and that bouncy blonde chick that can't make anything that didn't
originally come from a can or a freezer - homemeade my ass!

kili

kilikini wrote:

> We just recently got cable TV, so therefor I'm new to Food TV. I haven't
> watched the contest, so again, I can't judge, but if the two guys have good
> ideas and likeable personalities, give 'em a shot! I just say, then please
> remove Rachel Ray, the woman who pretends to do pasta (Gianni?), Paula Dean
> (UGH!) and that bouncy blonde chick that can't make anything that didn't
> originally come from a can or a freezer - homemeade my ass!


Uh, that's "semi-homemade".



Brian

"kilikini" > wrote in
m:

> We just recently got cable TV, so therefor I'm new to Food TV. I
> haven't watched the contest, so again, I can't judge, but if the two
> guys have good ideas and likeable personalities, give 'em a shot! I
> just say, then please remove Rachel Ray, the woman who pretends to do
> pasta (Gianni?), Paula Dean (UGH!) and that bouncy blonde chick that
> can't make anything that didn't originally come from a can or a
> freezer - homemeade my ass!
>
> kili


AND make the mindless statements "It smells SO good." and "It tastes SO
good." illegal. If it looks smells like a turd and tastes like a turd,
I'm pretty confident it's A TURD.

Oh WTF, it's all kitchen sleight of hand anyway. Don't matter much
whether they're straight, ***, spotted or have tails, imho.

Whoever the viewers choose, the sponsors will still control the staying
power of the winner.

--
Andy
http://tinyurl.com/bczgr

"Default User" > wrote:

>What are you talking about? Where did you get the idea that whether
>they are *** or not has anything to do with their success on the show?
>Have you actually watched it?

I think you mis-read my intentions. Sheesh. I'm certainly not
***-bashing here. It's very popular on TV now - there's nothing wrong
with that. I think marketing was the main issue here, not the ability
of the contestants. Obviously mass marketing is the ONLY thing FTV
has in mind these days - what a crap network. It was good in the
early days, now I rarely watch it.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

"kilikini" > wrote:

>We just recently got cable TV, so therefor I'm new to Food TV. I haven't
>watched the contest, so again, I can't judge, but if the two guys have good
>ideas and likeable personalities, give 'em a shot! I just say, then please
>remove Rachel Ray, the woman who pretends to do pasta (Gianni?), Paula Dean
>(UGH!) and that bouncy blonde chick that can't make anything that didn't
>originally come from a can or a freezer - homemeade my ass!

Foodtv is a complete waste of satellite these days. If only you could
have watched it in the years, say 96-98, it was completely different.
Two Fat Ladies, Taste, Chef du Jour, Too Hot Tamales, and the original
How to Boil Water which was very entertaining, very unlike the dopey
current one.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
> attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
> COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.

Ronnie, I just wanted to confirm that I could not possibly agree
more. I don't care if a person's sexual preferences are for men,
women, Martians, or whatever - I just don't see how any of this
is a relevant part of choosing who should have a COOKING
show!

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
>> attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
>> COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.
>
> Ronnie, I just wanted to confirm that I could not possibly agree
> more. I don't care if a person's sexual preferences are for men,
> women, Martians, or whatever - I just don't see how any of this
> is a relevant part of choosing who should have a COOKING
> show!
>
> Bob M.
>
>===========

Quite frankly, I don't see why anybody's sexual preference must be known -
at all!! It bothers me when people get on TV or seek other forms of media
and practically shout to the world that they like to have sex with whomever
they're having sex with. And I really don't think many others enjoy hearing
about it either. Do any of you really want me to jump and shout about the
fact that I have sex with my husband? No. Most likely not. Perhaps if I
were "demonstrating what I do" and you enjoyed viewing that people having
sex - well, that's a whole 'nother ball game...

Regardless, if you can cook on a TV show - then cook on a TV show but don't
tell me who and what you like to "do". I'm not interested. Your sex life
if 'your' business and should be kept as 'your' business.

Cyndi

> wrote:

> There is nothing wrong with queer guys teaching, I am not contesting on
> the fact that the ones they picked were flub-ups.
>
> I am queer and I am here, I think queer guys cooking would be fun as
> well.


I am glad these guys won. Their resto here in Chicago is barely two blocks
from me :-)

And yes, their food is very good.

--
Best
Greg

kilikini wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Yuk, They picked probably the only one(s) I would not watch.
>>>At first the *** guy thing was different. Now it is just boring.
>>>Of all the talent they had to pick from, I can't believe they selected
>>>those 2. They were basically flub-ups on most of their demos.
>>>
>>>I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
>>>guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
>>
>>And in this whole thread, no one has said, "Boy, could all those
>>contestants really cook well."
>>
>>They were all lightweights who were more judged on personality than any
>>*value to watchers*. Shallow, shallow, shallow...
>>
>>Pastorio
>
>
>
> We just recently got cable TV, so therefor I'm new to Food TV. I haven't
> watched the contest, so again, I can't judge, but if the two guys have good
> ideas and likeable personalities, give 'em a shot! I just say, then please
> remove Rachel Ray, the woman who pretends to do pasta (Gianni?),

Are you talking about Giada DeLaurentiis? Little skinny woman? Of all
the ones you've mentioned, she's the only one who actually knows what
she's doing. She has (had?) a very upscale catering business with
fancy-dancy food and an equally hoity-toity clientele. Not too many
opportunities to use those silly compound words like that. It's why I'm
so grateful to FoodTV...

> Paula Dean
> (UGH!) and that bouncy blonde chick that can't make anything that didn't
> originally come from a can or a freezer - homemeade my ass!

But I mostly agree. It's become a channel of grinny people with food in
the background. Form triumphant over content.

Pastorio

FYI -

Although the judges selected the two finalists, the TV VIEWERS
(people's choice) voted for the winner - not the judges.

iuki

Rick & Cyndi wrote:
> "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> wrote in message
groups.com...
>>
>>>I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
>>>attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
>>>COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.
>>
>>Ronnie, I just wanted to confirm that I could not possibly agree
>>more. I don't care if a person's sexual preferences are for men,
>>women, Martians, or whatever - I just don't see how any of this
>>is a relevant part of choosing who should have a COOKING
>>show!
>>
>>Bob M.
>>
>>===========
>
>
> Quite frankly, I don't see why anybody's sexual preference must be known -
> at all!! It bothers me when people get on TV or seek other forms of media
> and practically shout to the world that they like to have sex with whomever
> they're having sex with. And I really don't think many others enjoy hearing
> about it either. Do any of you really want me to jump and shout about the
> fact that I have sex with my husband? No. Most likely not. Perhaps if I
> were "demonstrating what I do" and you enjoyed viewing that people having
> sex - well, that's a whole 'nother ball game...
>
> Regardless, if you can cook on a TV show - then cook on a TV show but don't
> tell me who and what you like to "do". I'm not interested. Your sex life
> if 'your' business and should be kept as 'your' business.
>

so you never hold your husband's hand, or-goodness- kiss him in public?
You never refer to him by an appelation that is clearly meant to express
wifely devotion or what have you?


--

saerah

"It's not a gimmick, it's an incentive."- asterbark, afca

aware of the manifold possibilities of the future

"I think there's a clause in the Shaman's and Jujumen's Local #57 Union
contract that they have to have reciprocity for each other's shop rules."
-König Prüß

Cyndi (of Rick & Cyndi fame) recently wrote:

<snip>

> Quite frankly, I don't see why anybody's sexual preference must be known -
> at all!!

<snip>

I'm with you on this. I even find myself agreeing with Pastorio. My
world is turned on its head.

wrote on 6/28:

>Although the judges selected the two finalists, the TV VIEWERS
>(people's choice) voted for the winner - not the judges.

OK - fine - so a bunch of vulgarians decided.

Since I was the originator of the quote, I feel I should say
that my intention was to say the "Queer guy" thing has gotten old and
stale.
The fact that these 2 were chosen in spite of their obvious
shortcomings said volumes about FoodTV's intentions. As for the
viewers voting, I want a recount! There is probably some "hangin'
Chad" to consider. ROFLMAO
DD

sf wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2005 11:46:52 -0700, wrote:
>
> > I completely agree with you guys that if the fact were that FoodTV
> > picked up the *** guys because they were *** (which I can believe as
> > being a marketing stint), then that is completely wrong/sad.
> >
> > I was only replying to
> > "
> > I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
> > guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
> > D
> > "
> >
> > I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
> > attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
> > COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.
> >
> We all suffer from foot-in-mouth disease from time to time, so I'd
> like to think the true meaning of that post was what you just stated.

Kevin_Sheehy wrote:
>
> Cyndi (of Rick & Cyndi fame) recently wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Quite frankly, I don't see why anybody's sexual preference must be known -
>>at all!!
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm with you on this. I even find myself agreeing with Pastorio. My
> world is turned on its head.

A change of position can add a certain zing...

No, seriously...

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> kilikini wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We just recently got cable TV, so therefore I'm new to Food TV. I
haven't
> > watched the contest, so again, I can't judge, but if the two guys have
good
> > ideas and likeable personalities, give 'em a shot! I just say, then
please
> > remove Rachel Ray, the woman who pretends to do pasta (Gianni?),
>
> Are you talking about Giada DeLaurentiis? Little skinny woman? Of all
> the ones you've mentioned, she's the only one who actually knows what
> she's doing. She has (had?) a very upscale catering business with
> fancy-dancy food and an equally hoity-toity clientele. Not too many
> opportunities to use those silly compound words like that. It's why I'm
> so grateful to FoodTV...

Yeah, I was referring to her. Every time I watch her (which hasn't been
that often because something about her just *bugs* me - could it be her
wooden smile?), she's making something that is very simple and nothing new
or out of the ordinary. It's pasta with pesto, or pasta with fresh
tomatoes, basil, garlic, EVOO and parmesan. I mean, come on! Use some
imagination and make something hot, gooey and yummy.

kili

kilikini wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...

>>Are you talking about Giada DeLaurentiis? Little skinny woman? Of all
>>the ones you've mentioned, she's the only one who actually knows what
>>she's doing. She has (had?) a very upscale catering business with
>>fancy-dancy food and an equally hoity-toity clientele. Not too many
>>opportunities to use those silly compound words like that. It's why I'm
>>so grateful to FoodTV...
>
>
> Yeah, I was referring to her. Every time I watch her (which hasn't been
> that often because something about her just *bugs* me - could it be her
> wooden smile?), she's making something that is very simple and nothing new
> or out of the ordinary. It's pasta with pesto, or pasta with fresh
> tomatoes, basil, garlic, EVOO and parmesan. I mean, come on! Use some
> imagination and make something hot, gooey and yummy.

Funny the difference in our viewpoints here. Her food is very much in
the Italian spirit of freshness, immediacy, and wide variety of flavors
and textures. Do watch one of her programs all the way through. She
balances menus rather subtly. She doesn't do much gooey, perhaps because
not much Italian food is. And she doesn't do flashy.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> kilikini wrote:
>
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>Are you talking about Giada DeLaurentiis? Little skinny woman? Of all
>>>the ones you've mentioned, she's the only one who actually knows what
>>>she's doing. She has (had?) a very upscale catering business with
>>>fancy-dancy food and an equally hoity-toity clientele. Not too many
>>>opportunities to use those silly compound words like that. It's why I'm
>>>so grateful to FoodTV...
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I was referring to her. Every time I watch her (which hasn't been
>> that often because something about her just *bugs* me - could it be her
>> wooden smile?), she's making something that is very simple and nothing
>> new
>> or out of the ordinary. It's pasta with pesto, or pasta with fresh
>> tomatoes, basil, garlic, EVOO and parmesan. I mean, come on! Use some
>> imagination and make something hot, gooey and yummy.
>
> Funny the difference in our viewpoints here. Her food is very much in the
> Italian spirit of freshness, immediacy, and wide variety of flavors and
> textures. Do watch one of her programs all the way through. She balances
> menus rather subtly. She doesn't do much gooey, perhaps because not much
> Italian food is. And she doesn't do flashy.
>
> Pastorio

Giada is someone who grows on you, her cooking skills are not flashy, but
constant. Her pronounciation seemed phoney to me at first until I
understood her heritage. I see her 'wooden' smile as genuine anymore. Her
recipes are always inspiring to me and I usually get some information on
technique from her. So many things she makes are simply-simple; I like
that, too. I am sorry that I missed a lot of her programs by judging her
too severely. Now I can enjoy her.
Dee

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > kilikini wrote:
> >
> >> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >
> >>
> >> Yeah, I was referring to her. Every time I watch her (which hasn't
been
> >> that often because something about her just *bugs* me - could it be her
> >> wooden smile?), she's making something that is very simple and nothing
> >> new
> >> or out of the ordinary. It's pasta with pesto, or pasta with fresh
> >> tomatoes, basil, garlic, EVOO and parmesan. I mean, come on! Use some
> >> imagination and make something hot, gooey and yummy.
> >
> > Funny the difference in our viewpoints here. Her food is very much in
the
> > Italian spirit of freshness, immediacy, and wide variety of flavors and
> > textures. Do watch one of her programs all the way through. She balances
> > menus rather subtly. She doesn't do much gooey, perhaps because not much
> > Italian food is. And she doesn't do flashy.
> >
> > Pastorio
>
> Giada is someone who grows on you, her cooking skills are not flashy, but
> constant. Her pronounciation seemed phoney to me at first until I
> understood her heritage. I see her 'wooden' smile as genuine anymore.
Her
> recipes are always inspiring to me and I usually get some information on
> technique from her. So many things she makes are simply-simple; I like
> that, too. I am sorry that I missed a lot of her programs by judging her
> too severely. Now I can enjoy her.
> Dee
>
>

Dee & Bob (this one), I guess I'll just have to keep giving her a try.
Maybe after a while she'll grow on me too. Thanks.

kili

wrote:
> Since I was the originator of the quote, I feel I should say
> that my intention was to say the "Queer guy" thing has gotten old and
> stale.
> The fact that these 2 were chosen in spite of their obvious
> shortcomings said volumes about FoodTV's intentions. As for the
> viewers voting, I want a recount! There is probably some "hangin'
> Chad" to consider. ROFLMAO
> DD
>
> sf wrote:
> > On 28 Jun 2005 11:46:52 -0700, wrote:
> >
> > > I completely agree with you guys that if the fact were that FoodTV
> > > picked up the *** guys because they were *** (which I can believe as
> > > being a marketing stint), then that is completely wrong/sad.
> > >
> > > I was only replying to
> > > "
> > > I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
> > > guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
> > > D
> > > "
> > >
> > > I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
> > > attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
> > > COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.
> > >
> > We all suffer from foot-in-mouth disease from time to time, so I'd
> > like to think the true meaning of that post was what you just stated.

I agreed with the voters because the black chick was so obnoxious. I
was cheering for Hans, but he talked too fast. I think he could have
been coached to be terrific.

N.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:13:45 GMT, kilikini wrote:

> Dee & Bob (this one), I guess I'll just have to keep giving her a try.
> Maybe after a while she'll grow on me too. Thanks.

I like her cooking too, but I'm still waiting for her to swallow that
single bite of food she allows past her teeth.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is nothing wrong with queer guys teaching, I am not contesting on
> the fact that the ones they picked were flub-ups.
>
> I am queer and I am here, I think queer guys cooking would be fun as
> well.
>
> Ronnie

Yeah Ronnie, but I'd guess what she meant was, the flooding of certain
channels with '*** guy' this and that, totally disproportionately
represented, selling junk shows on the back of 'the *** thing', if you
will - I also think it sucks.


Cheers now!



Shaun aRe

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:13:45 GMT, kilikini wrote:
>
>> Dee & Bob (this one), I guess I'll just have to keep giving her a try.
>> Maybe after a while she'll grow on me too. Thanks.
>
> I like her cooking too, but I'm still waiting for her to swallow that
> single bite of food she allows past her teeth.

When she takes a bite and says, Yum, we get a kick out of cheering her on to
swallow. I think I MAY have seen it, but I'm not certain. She is very
nostalgic about her childhood meals, perhaps she swallowed more food then
than now.
Dee

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> wrote:
>> Since I was the originator of the quote, I feel I should say
>> that my intention was to say the "Queer guy" thing has gotten old and
>> stale.
>> The fact that these 2 were chosen in spite of their obvious
>> shortcomings said volumes about FoodTV's intentions. As for the
>> viewers voting, I want a recount! There is probably some "hangin'
>> Chad" to consider. ROFLMAO
>> DD
>>
>> sf wrote:
>> > On 28 Jun 2005 11:46:52 -0700, wrote:
>> >
>> > > I completely agree with you guys that if the fact were that FoodTV
>> > > picked up the *** guys because they were *** (which I can believe as
>> > > being a marketing stint), then that is completely wrong/sad.
>> > >
>> > > I was only replying to
>> > > "
>> > > I'm tired of the queer guys now on Bravo, and I don't want "Queer
>> > > guys Cooking" on Food TV of all places. Big time mistake, IMO
>> > > D
>> > > "
>> > >
>> > > I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
>> > > attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
>> > > COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.
>> > >
>> > We all suffer from foot-in-mouth disease from time to time, so I'd
>> > like to think the true meaning of that post was what you just stated.
>
> I agreed with the voters because the black chick was so obnoxious. I
> was cheering for Hans, but he talked too fast. I think he could have
> been coached to be terrific.
>
> N.
>
I, too, think that Hans with a little coaching would have been better. I
noticed that the woman that lost to Dan & Steve when she lost, that hardly
anyone was talking with her, I was wanting to see if she was shedding tears
as before. Also I sorta liked the young woman who said she had lost so much
weight, she was very tearful, too. Must've been awfully stressful for
everyone.
Dee

"Dee Randall" > wrote in
:

> When she takes a bite and says, Yum, we get a kick out of cheering her
> on to swallow. I think I MAY have seen it, but I'm not certain. She
> is very nostalgic about her childhood meals, perhaps she swallowed
> more food then than now.
> Dee


I saw her on an AM talk show awhile back. She's one pint-sized beauty.
Can't be better than 5' tall.

--
Andy
http://tinyurl.com/bczgr

Bob Myers wrote:

>I don't care if a person's sexual preferences are for men,
> women, Martians...

i grok in fullness ;P

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:19:49 -0400, Dee Randall wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:13:45 GMT, kilikini wrote:
> >
> >> Dee & Bob (this one), I guess I'll just have to keep giving her a try.
> >> Maybe after a while she'll grow on me too. Thanks.
> >
> > I like her cooking too, but I'm still waiting for her to swallow that
> > single bite of food she allows past her teeth.
>
> When she takes a bite and says, Yum, we get a kick out of cheering her on to
> swallow. I think I MAY have seen it, but I'm not certain.

Ahhh - the magic of television! Have you noticed the camera cuts away
a split second before she has to swallow it? Just in time to spit it
into the garbage can. ;)

> She is very nostalgic about her childhood meals, perhaps she
> swallowed more food then than now.
> Dee
>

sf wrote:

> I like her cooking too, but I'm still waiting for her to swallow that
> single bite of food she allows past her teeth.

i hear a lot of women say "she's too skinny" "she has to have an eating
disorder" etc.. personally i think she's smokin' hot and does 'everyday italian'
very well. simple, easy and fresh. i like her show and i wouldn't kick her out
of bed for eating crackers... hell, who am i kidding, i wouldn't kick her outta
bed for eating risotto with her hands! :P

"A.C." > wrote in message
...
>
> sf wrote:
>
>> I like her cooking too, but I'm still waiting for her to swallow that
>> single bite of food she allows past her teeth.
>
> i hear a lot of women say "she's too skinny" "she has to have an eating
> disorder" etc.. personally i think she's smokin' hot and does 'everyday
> italian'
> very well. simple, easy and fresh. i like her show and i wouldn't kick her
> out
> of bed for eating crackers... hell, who am i kidding, i wouldn't kick her
> outta
> bed for eating risotto with her hands! :P
>

Perhaps it is that she is not too skinny, but perhaps her head is too large
for her body, but her arms looks like she might do some weights; but her
smile and soft-spoken-ness count for a lot.
I particularly appreciate her because as of late I've started cooking
Italian, and Molto's recipes aren't always to my liking, but I think he is
'smokin' hot.' Tee Hee.
Dee