"Jen" > wrote in
:

>
> "Peter A" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> You people are just plain scary!! So's my husband, HE puts sugar
>>> on *lettuce*.
>>>
>>> Jen

>> Please tell me you are making this up.
>
>
> No. This is totally true. And he thinks it's normal, he tells me off
> for getting a bit of salt on mine when I sprinkle it on my plate.

I used to have sugar on lettuce as a treat when I was a kid. I have no
idea where it came from - I don't remember anyone else in my family
eating it. It wasn't part of a salad or main meal, though - it was more
like dessert or a sweet snack, and only when we were on holidays visiting
my grandparents. Iceberg lettuce - very crunchy and just washed -
sprinkled with sugar. Apart from the lettuce with sugar, I used to eat
lots of lettuce - I remember my grandmother would comment on having
bought plenty of lettuce for my visit. I used to eat Vegemite and lettuce
sandwiches also.


--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

modom > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:06:49 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> > wrote:

>>
>><snicker> Thanks for finally showing your sense of humor. ;-)
>>I have more respect for you now........
>>
>>Cheers!
>
> Do you know you are addressing the inventor of the chicken whip?
> http://tinyurl.com/hr9la

Now that's a classic Thorson post <g>
--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

In article >,
modom > wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:06:49 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >
> >> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Google for "tinfoil hat".
> >>
> >> That used to be an effective approach,
> >> back in the 1960s-early 1980s.
> >>
> >> Google "cellphone towers".
> >>
> >> A "shadow shield" on the top of
> >> your head is no longer effective.
> >> Don't trust anyone who says it is.
> >
> ><snicker> Thanks for finally showing your sense of humor. ;-)
> >I have more respect for you now........
> >
> >Cheers!
>
> Do you know you are addressing the inventor of the chicken whip?
> http://tinyurl.com/hr9la
> --
> modom

ROFL!! Mom just used a hatchet to lop their heads off. Too bad the
chicken whip wasn't around when I was a kid.
--
-Barb
<http://jamlady.eboard.com> Updated 3-30-2006 Enchiladas for Two

"If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all."

Jen wrote:
> "Goomba38" wrote
> > Jen wrote:
> >
> >> But there's nothing wrong with people showing others a bit of general
> >> respect. There's no need for anyone to be rude or nasty, even on a busy
> >> street corner. Everyone gets angry or annoyed sometimes, but there's no
> >> need to continually attack someone, it's just common curtesy.
> >>
> > I respect a lot of what Peaches does in her kitchen. She loses points on
> > common sense sometimes. And if she makes inaccurate statements, and then
> > doesn't like the corrections, she's not respecting facts. <shrug>
>
> But no one's being forced to read her posts or even believe in them.

Then no one is forcing her to read or believe others posts either.
n'yah n'yah.

> She could just make up a lot of lies if she wants to.

Others have just as much right to call her out as she does to lie.

> It's the readers decision to read them.

Yes, ALL readers, hers and yours too.

> But that doesn't give them the right to ridicule them.

Yes it does too, the right to ridicule is no different from the right
to lie... don't like what's written don't read it (your words). And
were a poll taken the vast majority would be more offended by the lying
than the ridicule thereof. She invites the ridicule with her constant
lying... if the ridicule offends her (which is the intent of ridicule)
all she need do is cease and desist from lying, just that simple.

Shit for brains (~patches~) doesn't like this group then she can
unsubscribe... there is nothing broken about rfc... anyone doesn't like
it here obviously doesn't belong here. That brainless **** (~patches~)
obviously does not fit in, and just as obviously neither do you, you
offensive shit... how dare you ridicule/attack this group in its
entirety of its soul and substance with your feeble attempt to protect
and exonorate a known liar.

What kinda douche drizzle are you who's supportive of low life lying.
Cop a walk, and take your agenda with you. Don't let the door hit your
unwashed butt.

The friggin' nerve of these newbies, right away they want to take over
and change things.

Sheldon

~patches~ wrote:
>
> <rant>What I don't get is the lack of tolerance of other people's food
> choices and/or ingredients. Ok, today the hot topic is raw sugar but
> tomorrow it will be something else. I've made absolutely no beefs about
> where I stand as to what I will use and won't use. Quite frankly I feel
> I am the best judge as to what I want to put into my body and I really
> don't give a rat's poutie whether anyone else likes my choice or not. I
> feel this is totally my choice and by no stretch of the imagination have
> I tried to *ever* tell anyone this is the only or best way to do it,
> only that it is my way. It rather ticked me off today when someone
> asked a very valid question and got the third degree instead of helpful
> answers. It is his choice to use this ingredient whether or not anyone
> else agrees. Why can't those who can answer his question just do so and
> the ones with all the judgemental comments just go off and amuse
> themselves cooking something? Is that polite enough? If not I could
> put it into terms these people might just understand. And while I'm at
> it, please don't ask me to post pics. Sorry, I simply just do not have
> the time or motivation to either post or view pics. I'm on dialup so
> I'm sure some of you can appreciate the logistics. The ones that can't
> should maybe go cook something And my final pet peeve is those who
> for whatever reason seem to think I have nothing better to do than their
> research. I will post links if I have them right handy but I just don't
> have the time to go searching for every link I have. If you can't
> handle that, perhaps you should go cook something </rant>
>
> I do hope this clarifies my position and the way I saw this ng today.
>
> ObFood: besides cooking in the rant, pizza dough is in the breadmaker.
> I use a beer with no preservatives and an unbleached flour. The
> recipe has been tinkered with to the point we have a very nice reliable
> dough. DH is going to test out the new pizza pan when he gets home. He
> does that pizza dough tossing thing like a pro which is really neat to
> watch! Oh and toppings - homemade pizza sauce, shaved ham, pepparoni,
> green olives on half, onions, sauteed mushrooms, motzrella cheese.

A bit late on the response since I was away the last couple days, but
here are my thoughts which I'm sure you won't like.

My feeling is that the populace of the group has an ethical
responsibility to counter / dispel false information that may be
propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
"white sugar" is bleached with chemicals, some claims a while back that
non organic maple syrup is treated with formaldehyde, aluminum causing
Alzheimer's, Teflon killing birds, etc.

It's one thing if someone wants to avoid a particular item for their own
misguided reasons, but quite another to make provably false allegations
about items in a public forum.

Pete C.

Pete C. wrote:

> My feeling is that the populace of the group has an ethical
> responsibility to counter / dispel false information that may be
> propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
> "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals, some claims a while back that
> non organic maple syrup is treated with formaldehyde, aluminum causing
> Alzheimer's, Teflon killing birds, etc.
>
> It's one thing if someone wants to avoid a particular item for their own
> misguided reasons, but quite another to make provably false allegations
> about items in a public forum.
>
Right.. In the past, some of her comments (IMO) have been a bit far
fetched. For example, that wooden spoons harbor dangerous bacteria. How
any of our ancestors survived some of the things she fears, is beyond me??
Goomba

One time on Usenet, Damsel in dis Dress
> said:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:51:21 GMT, (jj -
> rfc) wrote:
>
> >One time on Usenet, Damsel in dis Dress > said:
> >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:43:02 -0500, Goomba38 >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >You might be new-ish, but if I recall correctly, you've had already
> >> >multiple melt downs and tantrums over how you perceive things?
> >
> >Yup, which is why I killfiled her a long time ago. One of those "why
> >is everyone picking on me?" types. No thanks.
>
> Okay, so now I have the song, "Charlie Brown" kicking around in my
> head.

Hee hee, Dad always says I'm evil. ;-)

> >> I'm the *queen* of meltdowns and tantrums. But things always get
> >> better (especially with better meds). And they always get better for
> >> Patches. It's just a bad day.
> >
> >You're sweet to defend her, Carol, but you're nothing like that,
> >IMHO.
>
> Have you been living in a CAVE? LOL!

Cave, Western WA, same thing.

> Before I got my meds dialed in,
> I went completely berserk, too often for my tastes. I don't
> over-react nearly as often anymore, but sometimes ....
>
> >Sure, many of us get fed up and leave Usenet for a while, but
> >to couple that with yet another tirade about what's wrong with the
> >froup is just begging for attention...
>
> I'm guilty of that, too. But I actually leave and don't monitor the
> group after I'm gone. I'm uncomfortable when people write and ask me
> to stay. I don't want attention. I just want to be left alone. So I
> guess there could be a difference in motivation.

Good point.

> It's not always easy to walk a mile in someone else's head, so I try
> to give the benefit of the doubt on something like this. I wasn't
> always this nice, BTW.

That's why I've always said that you're a *lot* nicer than I am,
sweetie. I'm suspicious of people's motives. Especially when they're
repeating a pattern.

> In the past, Patches has usually calmed down within a day or two.
> Let's see what happens this time.

Oh, I suspect she'll calm down for a while, then blow up again as
soon as she needs more attention. Much more of that and she'll be
a full blown troll...

--
jj - rfc (Jani) in WA
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

In article >,
modom > wrote:

> Do you know you are addressing the inventor of the chicken whip?
> http://tinyurl.com/hr9la
> --
> modom

Oh. Lordy......... ;-o
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:02:03 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>> No one does make a ham quite like I do ... shame, really.
>
> That's certainly true. Tragic.
>
> ************************************
> Oh, if anyone plans on making contributions to their local food pantry
> this month, please consider donating some canned hams (there are some
> that don't require refrigeration). Unless you can find some canned
> lamb, of course. <G>

I have a canned ham in the pantry which I plan to include in my somewhat
meager box for the food bank. I have to say they aren't all that bad and
add that extra bit of protein which is so often lacking in donated food.
(Apologies to Dams, I know you're low-carbing) those canned hams can go a
long way in stretching a meal if some of it is diced and added to scalloped
or au gratin potatoes or mac & cheese.

Jill

Goomba38 wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> My feeling is that the populace of the group has an ethical
>> responsibility to counter / dispel false information that may be
>> propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
>> "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals, some claims a while back
>> that non organic maple syrup is treated with formaldehyde, aluminum
>> causing Alzheimer's, Teflon killing birds, etc.
>>
> Right.. In the past, some of her comments (IMO) have been a bit far
> fetched. For example, that wooden spoons harbor dangerous bacteria.
> How any of our ancestors survived some of the things she fears, is
> beyond me?? Goomba

Dayum! I need to toss my wooden spoons post-haste! (Psssst, our ancestors
used silicone spoons, didn't you know?)

Jill

Sheldon wrote:

> And
> were a poll taken the vast majority would be more offended by the lying
> than the ridicule thereof.


In my book the very *worst* epithet one can be called is "liar"...once
someone has been pegged for lying, that person just might as well be dead,
their existence has no useful purpose. That goes for Usenet as it does for
real life. In real life the low - lifers I have nailed as liars cross the
street to avoid me, they know better than to foist their folderol upon me
(and those I choose to associate with). On Usenet I've pegged quite a few
liars too, in fact a number of them have in their shame stopped posting. --
although some have no concept of shame, these are the *true* sociopaths.
These are beneath even the insect level, as insects are programmed by nature
to do as they do, they have no choice in how to behave.

--
Best
Greg

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "limey" > wrote:
>
> > >>
> > >> boy, I'm in trouble....I love salt on melon...any kind of melon....
> > >> ....Sharon
> > >
> > > Me, too, Sharon. In fact, I also put pepper on some melons like
> > > cantaloupe.
>
> > Ooh, nooo. Skip the salt and pepper on cantaloupe and try lemon instead!
>
> No, no, no!!!
>
> Lemon, then salt, then hot chile pepper!
>
> That's how they serve the mangos down at the soccer field 1/2 block from
> my house. They spray on the lemon juice from a bottle, then sprinkle
> salt and then hot chile pepper. They put them on a stick and peel them
> first. Last they wrap a napkin around the stick so the sticky juices
> don't drip (so much) on your fingers.
>
> Um, good.

EEEEEWWWWW.....lol.....Sharon
>
> --
> Dan Abel
>
> Petaluma, California, USA

jmcquown wrote:

> Goomba38 wrote:
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >
> >> My feeling is that the populace of the group has an ethical
> >> responsibility to counter / dispel false information that may be
> >> propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
> >> "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals, some claims a while back
> >> that non organic maple syrup is treated with formaldehyde, aluminum
> >> causing Alzheimer's, Teflon killing birds, etc.
> >>
> > Right.. In the past, some of her comments (IMO) have been a bit far
> > fetched. For example, that wooden spoons harbor dangerous bacteria.
> > How any of our ancestors survived some of the things she fears, is
> > beyond me?? Goomba
>
> Dayum! I need to toss my wooden spoons post-haste! (Psssst, our
ancestors
> used silicone spoons, didn't you know?)


A few years back I was sure that one of my cracked wooden spoons harbored
bacteria. So in my wisdom (actually my sheer stoopidity) I decided to put
it in the microwave (I soaked it first) for a few seconds to expunge it of
nasties (I do this regularly for my kitchen sponges and towels, I put them
in for one minute). Imagine my surprise when the spoon caught on fire.
Lotsa smoke but no real damage. This was in January and I had to keep the
windows open for several days to rid the place of that UGLI smoke smell...

Now when a wooden spoon develops a crack I pitch it, no need to start a
microwave bonfire over such a cheaply available item :-|

--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:02:53 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:26:43 -0800, Serene >
>wrote:
>
>>I'm new here, and I've felt welcomed and listened to from day one.
>>Just offering a contrary datapoint.
>
>Yeah, well, you're still such a prude!

Yeah, everyone says that about me. ;-)

serene, whose mom has to yell "TMI! TMI!" from time to time

In article et>,
says...
> In my book the very *worst* epithet one can be called is "liar"...once
> someone has been pegged for lying, that person just might as well be dead,
> their existence has no useful purpose. That goes for Usenet as it does for
> real life. In real life the low - lifers I have nailed as liars cross the
> street to avoid me, they know better than to foist their folderol upon me
> (and those I choose to associate with). On Usenet I've pegged quite a few
> liars too, in fact a number of them have in their shame stopped posting. --
> although some have no concept of shame, these are the *true* sociopaths.
> These are beneath even the insect level, as insects are programmed by nature
> to do as they do, they have no choice in how to behave.
>
>
>

Too bad you do not understand the difference between lying and being
wrong.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:43:20 GMT, (jj -
rfc) wrote:

>One time on Usenet, Damsel in dis Dress
> said:
>
>> It's not always easy to walk a mile in someone else's head, so I try
>> to give the benefit of the doubt on something like this. I wasn't
>> always this nice, BTW.
>
>That's why I've always said that you're a *lot* nicer than I am,
>sweetie. I'm suspicious of people's motives. Especially when they're
>repeating a pattern.

I need to become more suspicious and a tad less trusting. Can I do
that and still remain nice?

Peace,
Carol

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:43:20 GMT, (jj -
> rfc) wrote:
>
>
>>One time on Usenet, Damsel in dis Dress
> said:
>>
>>
>>>It's not always easy to walk a mile in someone else's head, so I try
>>>to give the benefit of the doubt on something like this. I wasn't
>>>always this nice, BTW.
>>
>>That's why I've always said that you're a *lot* nicer than I am,
>>sweetie. I'm suspicious of people's motives. Especially when they're
>>repeating a pattern.
>
>
> I need to become more suspicious and a tad less trusting. Can I do
> that and still remain nice?
>
> Peace,
> Carol

This applies more to the OP of this thread, but take
a look.

http://www.recovery-man.com/coda/codependency.htm

--
Reg

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:42:17 -0600, "jmcquown"
> wrote:

>I have a canned ham in the pantry which I plan to include in my somewhat
>meager box for the food bank. I have to say they aren't all that bad and
>add that extra bit of protein which is so often lacking in donated food.
>(Apologies to Dams, I know you're low-carbing) those canned hams can go a
>long way in stretching a meal if some of it is diced and added to scalloped
>or au gratin potatoes or mac & cheese.

No apology necessary, Jill. We have three shelves full of dried
potato products/Hamburger Helper, rice and beans, and pastas. It's
all Crash's.

I was actually thinking of Easter hams, but meal stretchers are a good
thing, too. Sounds like canned hams (and chickens when you can find
them) would be a good year-round contribution.

We found a whole picnic for $10 the other day. That will feed us for
a long, long time. Can't go wrong with leftover ham!

Give me your tired, your poor, your Betty Crocker Au Gratin Potatoes.

ObFood: Low-carb lunch today is a well-browned pork chop "braised"
with lots of sauerkraut. The 'kraut develops a very mellow flavor as
it picks up the brown stuff on the bottom of the pan.

Peace,
Carol

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> My feeling is that the populace of the group has an ethical
> responsibility to counter / dispel false information that may be
> propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
> "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals, some claims a while back that
> non organic maple syrup is treated with formaldehyde, aluminum causing
> Alzheimer's, Teflon killing birds, etc.

You might want to tell DuPont that they're
spreading false information:

http://www.teflon.com/NASApp/Teflon/...ord_birds.html

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:42:56 -0500, ~patches~
> wrote:

>I'm a newbie as far as posting here and have never
>really fit in and never will. Sorry, you guys really don't want new
>posters here. There is a lot of driving new people away. Some posters
>here love doing just that and others do it in a more subtle way but they
>still do it. When I first started posting here I thought a love of food
>and cooking would be enough, I was wrong

Sorry, Patches, I inadvertently deleted this morning's post in the
lurk thread, and I no longer have your original rant. And there was
something I wanted to reply to in today's post. Here goes.

This post was nothing but back-pedalling on what you really said.
You've left a pixel trail ...

The rant was a damnation of the newsgroup, as well as an attack on one
person from whom you were craving responses but not receiving them.

I defended you based on the assumption that, like me, you have a
mental illness and really can't help yourself when you go off like
that. This morning's post nullifies all of that, because now you're
just too busy with life to deal with the newsgroup, too. *snicker*

I've never been a good judge of character, so I tend to give a lot of
extra chances that others don't. I go out of my way to support the
underdog. You've just proven that the others were/are right, and have
had your final chance with me.

I don't even have Chung in my killfile so you'd have some company. No
need to reply. When I say I killfile, guess what? I really do!

Please see a psychiatrist, if for nothing else than to prove me wrong.

Peace,
Carol

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:25:20 -0800, Serene >
wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:02:53 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:26:43 -0800, Serene >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm new here, and I've felt welcomed and listened to from day one.
>>>Just offering a contrary datapoint.
>>
>>Yeah, well, you're still such a prude!
>
>Yeah, everyone says that about me. ;-)

You STILL haven't lost your virginity, have you?

>serene, whose mom has to yell "TMI! TMI!" from time to time

My daughter does the TMI thing with me. Gotta learn to shut up
sometimes.

Peace,
Carol

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:15:03 GMT, Reg > wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
>> I need to become more suspicious and a tad less trusting. Can I do
>> that and still remain nice?
>
>This applies more to the OP of this thread, but take
>a look.
>
>http://www.recovery-man.com/coda/codependency.htm

Sure does sound like her. I've been working on my own codependency.
It's most evident in my relationship with Crash. The cool thing about
that is we NEVER fight. Not ever. We both grew up in alcoholic
families.

Thanks for the link, Reg.

Peace,
Carol

Peter A wrote:
> > gregorymorrow wrote:
> >
> > In my book the very *worst* epithet one can be called is "liar"...once
> > someone has been pegged for lying, that person just might as well be dead,
> > their existence has no useful purpose. That goes for Usenet as it does for
> > real life. In real life the low - lifers I have nailed as liars cross the
> > street to avoid me, they know better than to foist their folderol upon me
> > (and those I choose to associate with). On Usenet I've pegged quite a few
> > liars too, in fact a number of them have in their shame stopped posting. --
> > although some have no concept of shame, these are the *true* sociopaths.
> > These are beneath even the insect level, as insects are programmed by nature
> > to do as they do, they have no choice in how to behave.
>
> Too bad you do not understand the difference between lying and being
> wrong.

I'm positive Greg knows the difference, even a shlub like you does...
when called out liars become so indignant that they run off to pout,
they hide in shame because there's no defense for lying.

However, alleged errors are either argued out, sometimes until pure
exhaustion sets in, or based on the particular participants (some
haven't the intelligence that they're worth arguing with, their
pinheads are already made up) folks just shut the **** up with no
further comment. But no one runs off to pout because of an error or
because their adversary isn't worth typing "fu".... that's why there
are kill filters, or folks just have the
inner fortitude to simply ignore. Only the liars/sickos run off.

If not for "wrong" statements Newsfroups wouldn't exist, but no one
needs a liar... and ~patches~ is indeed the consumate LIAR... good
riddance to bad rubbish. Unfortunately after a while (when her sick
little pea brain figures folks forgot she's a liar)
she'll likely return (again), her ilk (those sickos who constantly run
off in a snit) always do.

Sheldon

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:42:17 -0600, "jmcquown"
> > wrote:
>
>> I have a canned ham in the pantry which I plan to include in my
>> somewhat meager box for the food bank. I have to say they aren't
>> all that bad and add that extra bit of protein which is so often
>> lacking in donated food. (Apologies to Dams, I know you're
>> low-carbing) those canned hams can go a long way in stretching a
>> meal if some of it is diced and added to scalloped or au gratin
>> potatoes or mac & cheese.
>
> No apology necessary, Jill. We have three shelves full of dried
> potato products/Hamburger Helper, rice and beans, and pastas. It's
> all Crash's.
>
> I was actually thinking of Easter hams, but meal stretchers are a good
> thing, too. Sounds like canned hams (and chickens when you can find
> them) would be a good year-round contribution.
>
I do plan to donate the ham (among other things) prior to Easter. How they
choose to use it is up to them but I'm betting it will be on someone's table
for Easter. I remember years ago seeing *whole* canned chickens I buy
those little cans of chicken breast meat (cheaper than tuna by a long
stretch!) to put in the box along with all the other stuff we've discussed
in the past.

> We found a whole picnic for $10 the other day. That will feed us for
> a long, long time. Can't go wrong with leftover ham!
>
That's a good deal!

> ObFood: Low-carb lunch today is a well-browned pork chop "braised"
> with lots of sauerkraut. The 'kraut develops a very mellow flavor as
> it picks up the brown stuff on the bottom of the pan.
>
I have *tried* to like sauerkraut; just can't do it. But I hope you enjoy
your lunch! Since it can't decide if it's going to rain or not, I'm torn
between attempting to grill burgers or do sloppy joes. When it gets closer
to dinner time I'll have figured it out.

Jill

On 31 Mar 2006 13:21:54 -0800, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>If not for "wrong" statements Newsfroups wouldn't exist, but no one
>needs a liar... and ~patches~ is indeed the consumate LIAR

That's the pot calling the kettle black, mister tool and die man.
http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?253

Carol

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Pete C." wrote:
>>
>> My feeling is that the populace of the group has an ethical
>> responsibility to counter / dispel false information that may be
>> propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
>> "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals, some claims a while back
>> that
>> non organic maple syrup is treated with formaldehyde, aluminum
>> causing
>> Alzheimer's, Teflon killing birds, etc.
>
> You might want to tell DuPont that they're
> spreading false information:
>
>
http://www.teflon.com/NASApp/Teflon/...ord_birds.html

As someone who has owned birds since 1966, I have to say many of the
precautions listed on this website are just common sense. Birds don't
belong in the kitchen, Teflon or no Teflon.

Birds are curious, inquisitive creatures; they don't know a stove is hot.
They don't know that intriguing dark hole in the sink is the garbage
disposal. They don't know flying behind the refrigerator isn't a good idea.

Jill

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > My feeling is that the populace of the group has an ethical
> > responsibility to counter / dispel false information that may be
> > propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
> > "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals, some claims a while back that
> > non organic maple syrup is treated with formaldehyde, aluminum causing
> > Alzheimer's, Teflon killing birds, etc.
>
> You might want to tell DuPont that they're
> spreading false information:
>
> http://www.teflon.com/NASApp/Teflon/...ord_birds.html

Did you actually read the contents of the site you linked? I tend to
doubt it as the site indicates that Teflon holds no more danger for
birds than any other kitchen ware.

Pete C.

In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:

> I've never been a good judge of character, so I tend to give a lot of
> extra chances that others don't. I go out of my way to support the
> underdog. You've just proven that the others were/are right, and have
> had your final chance with me.

> Peace,
> Carol

What was that about being wishy-washy? ;-)
--
-Barb
<http://jamlady.eboard.com> Updated 3-30-2006 Enchiladas for Two

"If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all."

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:46:01 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
>> I've never been a good judge of character, so I tend to give a lot of
>> extra chances that others don't. I go out of my way to support the
>> underdog. You've just proven that the others were/are right, and have
>> had your final chance with me.
>
>What was that about being wishy-washy? ;-)

Until today, I was wishing. Today, I am washing.

Peace,
Carol

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:42:07 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:25:20 -0800, Serene >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:02:53 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:26:43 -0800, Serene >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm new here, and I've felt welcomed and listened to from day one.
>>>>Just offering a contrary datapoint.
>>>
>>>Yeah, well, you're still such a prude!
>>
>>Yeah, everyone says that about me. ;-)
>
>You STILL haven't lost your virginity, have you?

It's not lost. I know exactly where I left it.

>
>>serene, whose mom has to yell "TMI! TMI!" from time to time
>
>My daughter does the TMI thing with me. Gotta learn to shut up
>sometimes.

Yep. I have taken to warning my mom when she asks me certain questions
that she might not want to hear the answers.

My stepmom, on the other hand, wants ALL THE DETAILS. :-)

serene

One time on Usenet, Damsel in dis Dress > said:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:15:03 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
> >Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> >
> >> I need to become more suspicious and a tad less trusting. Can I do
> >> that and still remain nice?
> >
> >This applies more to the OP of this thread, but take
> >a look.
> >
> >http://www.recovery-man.com/coda/codependency.htm

Wow, how interesting!

"Codependent Personality Disorder is a dysfunctional relationship with
the self characterized by living through or for another, attempts to
control others, blaming others, a sense of victimization, attempts to
"fix" others, and intense anxiety around intimacy. It is very common
in people raised in dysfunctional families, and in the partners and
children of alcoholics and addicts."

> Sure does sound like her.

Yeah, especially the "sense of victimization" part. But I must
confess that "attempts to control others" sounds like some of my RL
relationships, so I'm not perfect either. I, however, don't take
it out on Usenet.

> I've been working on my own codependency.

How nice that you're honest about it. (Seriously.)

> It's most evident in my relationship with Crash. The cool thing about
> that is we NEVER fight. Not ever. We both grew up in alcoholic
> families.

Heh, I also grew up with an alcoholic, but Miguel and I argue a lot.
He's an inveterate smart-ass and I've got the patience of a gnat.
Still, we've managed to make it work for nearly 17 years.

> Thanks for the link, Reg.

Yeah, me too...

--
jj - rfc (Jani) in WA
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

One time on Usenet, Damsel in dis Dress
> said:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:43:20 GMT, (jj -
> rfc) wrote:
> >One time on Usenet, Damsel in dis Dress
> > said:

> >> It's not always easy to walk a mile in someone else's head, so I try
> >> to give the benefit of the doubt on something like this. I wasn't
> >> always this nice, BTW.

> >That's why I've always said that you're a *lot* nicer than I am,
> >sweetie. I'm suspicious of people's motives. Especially when they're
> >repeating a pattern.

> I need to become more suspicious and a tad less trusting. Can I do
> that and still remain nice?

If anyone can do it, you can, Carol... :-)

--
jj - rfc (Jani) in WA
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:42:56 -0500, ~patches~
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a newbie as far as posting here and have never
>>really fit in and never will. Sorry, you guys really don't want new
>>posters here. There is a lot of driving new people away. Some posters
>>here love doing just that and others do it in a more subtle way but they
>>still do it. When I first started posting here I thought a love of food
>>and cooking would be enough, I was wrong
>
>
> Sorry, Patches, I inadvertently deleted this morning's post in the
> lurk thread, and I no longer have your original rant. And there was
> something I wanted to reply to in today's post. Here goes.
>
> This post was nothing but back-pedalling on what you really said.
> You've left a pixel trail ...
>
> The rant was a damnation of the newsgroup, as well as an attack on one
> person from whom you were craving responses but not receiving them.
>
> I defended you based on the assumption that, like me, you have a
> mental illness and really can't help yourself when you go off like
> that. This morning's post nullifies all of that, because now you're
> just too busy with life to deal with the newsgroup, too. *snicker*
>
> I've never been a good judge of character, so I tend to give a lot of
> extra chances that others don't. I go out of my way to support the
> underdog. You've just proven that the others were/are right, and have
> had your final chance with me.
>
> I don't even have Chung in my killfile so you'd have some company. No
> need to reply. When I say I killfile, guess what? I really do!
>
> Please see a psychiatrist, if for nothing else than to prove me wrong.
>
> Peace,
> Carol

I don't care if you see this or not. The *rant* post is and still is
about this ng and what I don't like. Period. The *lurk* post and the
followup is about why I went into lurk mode. Two very different things.
I'm still disturbed about a lot of the things that have gone on here
but not enough to stop posting or anything else. A rant is just that, a
rant - blowing off steam. If anything it helped me finetune my twit
filters. It doesn't affect my day to day life other than when I read
this ng. The decision to mainly lurk has nothing to do with the
nastiness here as I've already mentioned the reasons why. I've posted
several times as to how life is getting hectic and how I'm having
problems in the kitchen due to current health problems. I *honestly*
thought better of you Dams. All I can say is it's your choice to
believe what you want, read what you want, and killfile whomever you
choose. Will it bother me - absolutely not. Do I care - absolutely
not. Will it stop me from posting - absolutely not. Will it change my
life in any way - absolutely not. So if it makes you feel better to
announce you have killfiled me, great. I'm glad I brought you a little
pleasure into your day.

PS. thanks for your concern regarding my mental health. I can assure
you I am quite sane.

"Jen" > wrote in message
...

>
> But no one's being forced to read her posts or even believe in them. She
> could just make up a lot of lies if she wants to. It's the readers
> decision to read them. But that doesn't give them the right to ridicule
> them.


I said that wrong, I don't mean to imply she lied, I just used the example
that she could if she wanted to.

Jen

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> On 31 Mar 2006 13:21:54 -0800, "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
>
>>If not for "wrong" statements Newsfroups wouldn't exist, but no one
>>needs a liar... and ~patches~ is indeed the consumate LIAR
>
>
> That's the pot calling the kettle black, mister tool and die man.
> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?253
>
> Carol

I'm not a liar. I made two posts one on a rant and one on lurking. The
rant was blowing off steam over what I see is a general trend here that
I just don't like. Period. The lurking post had *nothing* to do with
the rant even though it was posted the same day. I've explained it a
couple of times. Oh just forget it...

Jen wrote:

> "Jen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>But no one's being forced to read her posts or even believe in them. She
>>could just make up a lot of lies if she wants to. It's the readers
>>decision to read them. But that doesn't give them the right to ridicule
>>them.
>
>
>
> I said that wrong, I don't mean to imply she lied, I just used the example
> that she could if she wanted to.
>
> Jen
>
>
Thanks Jen. I haven't lied or even intentionally misled anyone here,
ever! I didn't take from your reply that you implied it either. I've
tried to get along, post relevant information that is on topic and enjoy.

Peter A wrote:

> In article et>,
> says...
>
>>In my book the very *worst* epithet one can be called is "liar"...once
>>someone has been pegged for lying, that person just might as well be dead,
>>their existence has no useful purpose. That goes for Usenet as it does for
>>real life. In real life the low - lifers I have nailed as liars cross the
>>street to avoid me, they know better than to foist their folderol upon me
>>(and those I choose to associate with). On Usenet I've pegged quite a few
>>liars too, in fact a number of them have in their shame stopped posting. --
>>although some have no concept of shame, these are the *true* sociopaths.
>>These are beneath even the insect level, as insects are programmed by nature
>>to do as they do, they have no choice in how to behave.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Too bad you do not understand the difference between lying and being
> wrong.
>

But I wasn't lying. I've repeated said we don't eat refined white
sugar. I didn't have instant website references and I said I have
articles on the issue. No one *could* possibly expect me to drop and
run and get the articles, type out the references just to appease them.
It's not like I have the articles sitting right beside the computer.
So I'm accused of being a liar. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No problem
but to be accused of being a liar for being wrong according to their
references? Yet my references say I'm right. I think the aftermath of
both the sugar thread and lurking post is more than proving my point in
the rant post.

In article >,
(jj - rfc) wrote:

> One time on Usenet, Melba's Jammin' >
> said:

> > rec.food.preserving. Plenty of knowledgeable folks there, civil, and
> > mostly ON-topic. "Be there or be square!" :-)
>
> Civil? Then how the heck do you fit in, Barb..? ;->

Quite well, actually. And you?
--
-Barb
<http://jamlady.eboard.com> Updated 3-30-2006 Enchiladas for Two

"If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all."

In article >,
says...
> As someone who has owned birds since 1966, I have to say many of the
> precautions listed on this website are just common sense. Birds don't
> belong in the kitchen, Teflon or no Teflon.
>
> Birds are curious, inquisitive creatures; they don't know a stove is hot.
> They don't know that intriguing dark hole in the sink is the garbage
> disposal. They don't know flying behind the refrigerator isn't a good idea.
>

Hence the phrase "bird brain."

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

~patches~ wrote:
> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
> > On 31 Mar 2006 13:21:54 -0800, "Sheldon" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If not for "wrong" statements Newsfroups wouldn't exist, but no one
> >>needs a liar... and ~patches~ is indeed the consumate LIAR
> >
> >
> > That's the pot calling the kettle black, mister tool and die man.
> > http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?253
> >
> > Carol
>
> I'm not a liar.

Yes you certainly are a liar... and slut bucket up there is a much
worse kind of liar... because anyone can fill out forms on the net with
any ficticious postorio info they want, takes mere seconds, see he

http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615

It's very easy to make up a pack of lies look like my doing because
I've never munged my real name or address, and anything I post about
myself is the absolute truth... I've often posted about my attending
stinkin' lincoln and my navy days for years. Some idiots without a
life must have spent many weeks reading over all the many thousands of
my posts garnering just enough info to create whatever bs suits their
needs.

Sheldon Martin is my real name, always has been, and to the best of my
knowlege I have only one child.

Sheldon