On 31 Mar 2006 17:16:08 -0800, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>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

Cool! I've been elevated to slut bucket! Whoo-hoo!

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

Please. Is that the best you can do? You've been losing your edge
over the past few months. Tragic, really.

>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.

Just so you know, I did not create that page. It was merely brought
to my attention.

It's such an honor to be in your killfile. Is anyone else in there
with me?

Smooches!
Carol

In article et>,
"Gregory Morrow"
> 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.

You dork! LOL! Good think you were there to keep things under
control.
--
-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."

jmcquown wrote:
> Goomba38 wrote:
>
>>Pete C. wrote:
>>, 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
>
Jill, do not toss the wooden spoons yet. My Grandparents on my
Father's side had a large Silicone Tree orchard just outside of
Vienna. Those trees produced great spoons and it looked so impressive
when the spoons were almost ripe and hung down from the trees. )

It's strange, I have not one of them left, but I still have several
wooden ones, from trees that grew wild near that orchard. They had to
be carved, they did not just grow on trees. My mother gave them to me;
she had had them from the time she got married in 1920. I suppose the
bacteria kept them in such good shape until now. )

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:05:58 GMT, Margaret Suran
> wrote:

>Jill, do not toss the wooden spoons yet. My Grandparents on my
>Father's side had a large Silicone Tree orchard just outside of
>Vienna. Those trees produced great spoons and it looked so impressive
>when the spoons were almost ripe and hung down from the trees. )

That was hilarious!

>It's strange, I have not one of them left, but I still have several
>wooden ones, from trees that grew wild near that orchard. They had to
>be carved, they did not just grow on trees. My mother gave them to me;
>she had had them from the time she got married in 1920. I suppose the
>bacteria kept them in such good shape until now. )

I'm so happy that you have things that hold such very special memories
for you.

Huggles, kisslettes, and admiration,
Carol

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

Oh, most definitely. At least I'd hope so. One of these days, I still
want to get into canning. Hopefully this fall...

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

"Margaret Suran" > wrote

> Jill, do not toss the wooden spoons yet. My Grandparents on my Father's
> side had a large Silicone Tree orchard just outside of Vienna. Those
> trees produced great spoons and it looked so impressive when the spoons
> were almost ripe and hung down from the trees. )
>
> It's strange, I have not one of them left, but I still have several wooden
> ones, from trees that grew wild near that orchard. They had to be carved,
> they did not just grow on trees. My mother gave them to me; she had had
> them from the time she got married in 1920. I suppose the bacteria kept
> them in such good shape until now. )

You just make me laugh, you're so fun.

nancy

"Margaret Suran" wrote:

> Jill, do not toss the wooden spoons yet. My Grandparents on my Father's
> side had a large Silicone Tree orchard just outside of Vienna. Those
> trees produced great spoons and it looked so impressive when the spoons
> were almost ripe and hung down from the trees. )

Well, learn something new every day! I thought it was just money that grew
on trees!!
>

> It's strange, I have not one of them left, but I still have several wooden
> ones, from trees that grew wild near that orchard. They had to be carved,
> they did not just grow on trees. My mother gave them to me; she had had
> them from the time she got married in 1920. I suppose the bacteria kept
> them in such good shape until now. )

Lovely treasures, Margaret.

Dora

~patches~ > writes:
>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

>> Please see a psychiatrist,

I've always wondered, do people who say this kind of thing really
think they're qualified to make statements about someone's mental health
based solely on some Usenet posts?
Because people can be putting on a persona, they could be horrible at
communicating at writing, maybe they're not familiar with the English
language, maybe they tend to fly off the handle online but keep it
together in real life, etc. There's so many factors. Even if someone
had a PhD or MD in the field they couldn't determine mental health based
on Usenet posts. I mean, I may call someone (ahem) a kook if they
threaten legal action often, or chastize people for doing the EXACT
things they do, but it is ridiculous for me to suppose that means they
have mental problems.

>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.

FWIW, on all the other forums I go to (political blogs, journals,
web discussion groups, and other Usenet groups) people post just like
you did. As long as it's labelled a rant or you say you're lurking and
might be back, no one bats an eye.
Anyway, you know people on rfc defend Sheldon. Racist, homophobic,
sexist Sheldon, the guy who makes threats regularly. It's because he's
a regular. Did you not think they'd defend Lyn? She's a regular.
They don't care if Lyn threatens you or flies off the handle or tells
someone they don't count or claims to call the cops on someone for a
Usenet post, as long as they can ignore it. Once you call attention to
it, they flip. THAT'S what they're upset about. Their little community
getting stirred up and they feel like they're being asked to take sides.

Stacia

~patches~ > writes:
>Jen wrote:
>> "Jen" > wrote:

>>>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.
>>
>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.

I don't even know what they think you lied about. I mean, I've read
most of the posts today (jeez louise how long is this going to go on?)
and the best I can tell, people can find out facts for themselves by
Googling for a few minutes.
So I wouldn't worry about it. To put it perspective, even if you were
lying... well, who cares? It's not like others involved haven't lied or
acted inappropriately. I'd like to think people who tolerate threats,
racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. would also tolerate the occasional lie
(or crossposting, haw haw) but it doesn't always work that way.

Stacia

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> 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.

Where exactly do you see that? The closest statement
I can find on that web page to what you assert is:

"If accidentally overheated, non-stick cookware can
emit fumes that may be harmful to birds, as can any
type of cookware preheated with cooking oil, fats,
margarine and butter. This is why you should always
move your birds out of the kitchen before cooking."

That statement doesn't say the level of danger
is the same as for any other cookware. In fact,
the danger is way way higher for non-stick. However,
smoke from other types of cookware can be dangerous
for birds, too.

I'm sure their statement was carefully engineered
to give you the impression you got, even though
that is not literally what it said. The part
about other forms of cookware was a red herring
designed to leave that impression.



Avian Dis. 2000 Apr-Jun;44(2):449-53.
Polytetrafluoroethylene gas intoxication in
broiler chickens.
Boucher M, Ehmler TJ, Bermudez AJ.
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology,
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Missouri-Columbia, 65211, USA.

A poultry research facility that housed 2400
Peterson x Hubbard cross broilers (48 pens of
50 chicks each) experienced 4% mortality within
24 hr of chick placement. Mortality started
within 4 hr of placement, and within 72 hr,
cumulative mortality had reached 52%. Mild
dyspnea was the only clinical sign noted in
some chicks prior to death. The primary gross
lesion noted in the chicks submitted was
moderate to severe pulmonary congestion.
The lungs of four of these chicks sank
in formalin, and blood-tinged fluid was noted
in the mouth and nares of two chicks. The
microscopic lesions noted in the affected
chicks were moderate to severe pulmonary
edema and congestion. The diagnosis indicated
to the submitter was that pulmonary edema
caused by exposure to an unidentified noxious
gas caused the death of the chicks. The
poultry house environment was tested for
sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, and volatile organic
compounds (as produced by combustion engines);
all tests were negative for significant levels
of these compounds. A second broiler flock was
placed in the same facility and the mortality
at 6 wk was 11%, which was greater than the
2.5%-4.7% mortality seen in the previous four
flocks on the farm. Further investigation
revealed that the only change in management
practice in this facility prior to the onset
of the severe mortality problem was the
replacement of 48 heat lamp bulbs (one for each
pen). The new heat lamp bulbs were
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coated. PTFE gas
intoxication has been reported in several
exotic avian species, but this intoxication has
not been previously reported in a poultry flock.

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 02:38:06 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
Ninja) wrote:

>>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
>>> Please see a psychiatrist,
>
> I've always wondered, do people who say this kind of thing really
>think they're qualified to make statements about someone's mental health
>based solely on some Usenet posts?

It's unfortunate that you chose to omit the second half of that
sentence. It would have made a difference in meaning if it had been
put into context.

I'm mentally ill. I know what it looks like. I know what it feels
like. If the party in question does have problems, seeing a
professional could be extremely beneficial.

I hate to see anyone as unhappy and miserable as she portrays herself
to be. If this *is* a fake persona, it's a rather destructive one.

Peace,
Carol

In article >,
(jj - rfc) wrote:

> One time on Usenet, Melba's Jammin' >
> said:
> > 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?
>
> Oh, most definitely. At least I'd hope so. One of these days, I still
> want to get into canning. Hopefully this fall...

rec.food.preserving. "Be there or be square." I'll bet you'll have
strawberries where you live in another month? There's always strawberry
jam . . . r.f.p.
--
-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."

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Where exactly do you see that? The closest statement
> I can find on that web page to what you assert is:
>
> "If accidentally overheated, non-stick cookware can
> emit fumes that may be harmful to birds, as can any
> type of cookware preheated with cooking oil, fats,
> margarine and butter. This is why you should always
> move your birds out of the kitchen before cooking."
>
> That statement doesn't say the level of danger
> is the same as for any other cookware. In fact,
> the danger is way way higher for non-stick. However,
> smoke from other types of cookware can be dangerous
> for birds, too.

The bottom line is that people who are stupid enough to locate filthy
birds in a kitchen and further not know how to cook kill birds, not
Teflon.

>
> I'm sure their statement was carefully engineered
> to give you the impression you got, even though
> that is not literally what it said. The part
> about other forms of cookware was a red herring
> designed to leave that impression.

I'm quite familiar with Teflon and it is about as inert as you can get
unless you seriously overheat it i.e. temperatures in excess of 600
degrees. A normal residential stove will have a very difficult time
heating a pan to that temperature even empty and it will take a
considerable amount of time. Anyone who is that careless in the kitchen
has a much better chance of killing their birds by burning the house
down than by any toxic gas emissions from severely overheated cookware.

The article you quote also contains only circumstantial information, not
any actual scientific testing with proper controls.

Pete C.



>
> Avian Dis. 2000 Apr-Jun;44(2):449-53.
> Polytetrafluoroethylene gas intoxication in
> broiler chickens.
> Boucher M, Ehmler TJ, Bermudez AJ.
> Department of Veterinary Pathobiology,
> College of Veterinary Medicine, University of
> Missouri-Columbia, 65211, USA.
>
> A poultry research facility that housed 2400
> Peterson x Hubbard cross broilers (48 pens of
> 50 chicks each) experienced 4% mortality within
> 24 hr of chick placement. Mortality started
> within 4 hr of placement, and within 72 hr,
> cumulative mortality had reached 52%. Mild
> dyspnea was the only clinical sign noted in
> some chicks prior to death. The primary gross
> lesion noted in the chicks submitted was
> moderate to severe pulmonary congestion.
> The lungs of four of these chicks sank
> in formalin, and blood-tinged fluid was noted
> in the mouth and nares of two chicks. The
> microscopic lesions noted in the affected
> chicks were moderate to severe pulmonary
> edema and congestion. The diagnosis indicated
> to the submitter was that pulmonary edema
> caused by exposure to an unidentified noxious
> gas caused the death of the chicks. The
> poultry house environment was tested for
> sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon
> monoxide, carbon dioxide, and volatile organic
> compounds (as produced by combustion engines);
> all tests were negative for significant levels
> of these compounds. A second broiler flock was
> placed in the same facility and the mortality
> at 6 wk was 11%, which was greater than the
> 2.5%-4.7% mortality seen in the previous four
> flocks on the farm. Further investigation
> revealed that the only change in management
> practice in this facility prior to the onset
> of the severe mortality problem was the
> replacement of 48 heat lamp bulbs (one for each
> pen). The new heat lamp bulbs were
> polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coated. PTFE gas
> intoxication has been reported in several
> exotic avian species, but this intoxication has
> not been previously reported in a poultry flock.

Sheldon wrote:
> ~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

Close, moron, but not quite enough balls to actually spell out your
ridiculous try at insult, huh...?

Fictitious, oh language maven. Flunked Italian and not doing much better
in English.

> 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.

<LOL> Don't flatter yourself. You'd have to be important for that to be
the case.

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

But that's a kinda funny thing, see? Because your U.S. Navy shipmates
knew you as Sheldon Katz. You acknowledged that with your email address
as "penmart01" - remember that address? How can we account for that? No
one has asserted that your name isn't Sheldon Martin. The assertion is
that it likely isn't your *whole* name. Whatever the truth is, you ain't
telling it.

Here's the navy list that says:
"DD-932 Sheldon Katz SN 61-63 Still cooking"
<http://tincansailors.org/smrdd/USS_John_Paul_Jones.html>

Some other Sheldon - with the same email, whose last name is Katz? Oh,
right. I bet that's it, huh?

Save it, lame-o. You've already proven who and what and how sleazily
trivial you are.

Pastorio

In article >, says...
> >> You have never ****ed me off. I just think you're an idiot for calling
> >> yourself vegetarian when you eat fish.
> >
> > "Fishaterian" really sounds clumsy, though, don't
> > you think?
> >
> > Bob M.
> > (Omnivore)
>
> Hmmm - omnivorian? <g>. Has a certain rhythm.
>
>

Piscatarian is an accepted term for people who eat fish but no other
meat.

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

Peter A wrote:
> says...
> > >> You have never ****ed me off. I just think you're an idiot for calling
> > >> yourself vegetarian when you eat fish.
> > >
> > > "Fishaterian" really sounds clumsy, though, don't
> > > you think?
> > >
> > > Bob M.
> > > (Omnivore)
> >
> > Hmmm - omnivorian? <g>. Has a certain rhythm.
>
> Piscatarian is an accepted term for people who eat fish but no other
> meat.

Accepted by whom... those who swallow bullshit.

Sheldon

You have shown the wrong attribution. I did not post the following:

>> says...
>> > >> You have never ****ed me off. I just think you're an idiot for
>> > >> calling
>> > >> yourself vegetarian when you eat fish.

Dora
>

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:


> propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
> "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals

Except that white sugar *is* bleached with chemicals:

http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html

Although, I would also say that sugar *is* a chemical also, just like
salt and everything else we eat:

wwwbhs.bham.wednet.edu/depts/ science/yoos/HC/Unit04Quantities.ppt

Sugar is: C12H22O11

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
>
>
>>propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
>>"white sugar" is bleached with chemicals
>
>
> Except that white sugar *is* bleached with chemicals:
>
> http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html
>
> Although, I would also say that sugar *is* a chemical also, just like
> salt and everything else we eat:
>
> wwwbhs.bham.wednet.edu/depts/ science/yoos/HC/Unit04Quantities.ppt
>
> Sugar is: C12H22O11
>

thankyou!

In article >,
Ranee Mueller > wrote:
>In article >,
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
>> They're just jealous, Nancy. Forget about them (I can't spell the New
>> Yawk version). They're all having lamb for Easter dinner because they
>> don't understand the intricacies of preparing ham. Jealous, I tell
>> ya!
>
> Ham?!! Ham on Easter??!! You know that is sacrilege. I'll have to
>report you.
>
> I actually do find it bizarre to have a ham on a holiday that
>celebrates the resurrection of a Jew, but I don't have a problem with
>other people eating them. Just not at my house.

*starts singing*

"Tra-di-tioooooon ... tradition ... tradition"

And in much of the US, it's a lot cheaper and easier to find.

But I prefer lamb, myself. (We had a lot of really bad ham for family
holidays when I was a kid.)

Here's my dad's recipe for marinated barbequed leg-o-lamb:

http://loveandcooking.blogspot.com/2...y-is-lamb.html

Jamie Utter's "Lamb on a stick" is also mighty tasty:

http://loveandcooking.blogspot.com/2...-on-stick.html

The big tip for making even people who dislike lamb eat up heartily is to
use tender lamb and trim as much fat as possible off it.

Interestingly enough, scalloped potatoes and asparagus are the traditional
sides in my family for both Easter ham and Easter lamb.

Charlotte
http://loveandcooking.blogspot.com
--

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:08:59 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's the pot calling the kettle black, mister tool and die man.
>>>>http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?253
>>>
>>>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
>
>Close, moron, but not quite enough balls to actually spell out your
>ridiculous try at insult, huh...?
>
>Fictitious, oh language maven. Flunked Italian and not doing much better
>in English.
>
>> info they want, takes mere seconds, see he
>>
>> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615

Aside from being one of the lamest pieces of 7th grade insults I've
ever seen, the above link could only have been created by someone who
had already joined the alumni association - by submitting and
application and paying a membership fee. I found this out when I went
and attempted to remove the graffiti from the website.

He's busted. Again. Mr. Sheldon Martin Katz. Picture's in the
dictionary, next to the word, "liar."

Sheesh!
Carol

In article >,
says...
> > propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
> > "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals
>
> Except that white sugar *is* bleached with chemicals:
>
> http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html
>
>
>

That site clearly indicates that no chemicals are used. It is absorption
and/or exchange techniques that are used to remove the colors. THERE IS
NO BLEACHING. If you don;t know any chemistry, fine, but then you should
not sound off on chemistry-related topics.

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

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:52:43 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> >> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615
>
I'm totally shocked it was allowed to happen. Apparently no one
monitors that site.
--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

On Sat 01 Apr 2006 04:18:48p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it sf?

> On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:52:43 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
>> >> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615
>>
> I'm totally shocked it was allowed to happen. Apparently no one
> monitors that site.

Shocked, perhaps, that it was allowed to happen. Shocked that it happened?
Consider the source. The only med he should be is cyanide.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬
_____________________

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:18:48 -0800, sf >
wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:52:43 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
>> >> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615
>>
>I'm totally shocked it was allowed to happen. Apparently no one
>monitors that site.

Sheldon entered the info on Friday night. There's probably no one
keeping track of every single entry, especially over the weekend. A
real abuse of his school's alumni website.

Peace,
Carol

sf wrote:
>
> > >> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615
> >
> I'm totally shocked it was allowed to happen. Apparently no one
> monitors that site.

How come you're not shocked that someone has been forging my info on
those type of sites and then thinks it's funny to post them and for
reasons that's none of their business, same as they do portions of
private email. The point is that it's ridiculously easy to add whatever
one wants to thousands, probably millions of sites just like those.
The difference is that I admited when I did it. The slutty liar needs
to blame some mystery person, even when it was her scuzzy toes that
typed that post. Shit for brains Subpolar parasite thinks she's
innocent of pulling the trigger because someone else (probably some
filthy WOP) loaded her gun.

Sheldon

My apologies to the group for posting the link that turned the
discussion in this direction. It's truly best to let sleeping dogs
lie, particularly if they haven't had all their shots.

Peace,
Carol

On Sat 01 Apr 2006 05:17:25p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Damsel in dis
Dress?

> On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:18:48 -0800, sf >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:52:43 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>
>>> >> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615
>>>
>>I'm totally shocked it was allowed to happen. Apparently no one
>>monitors that site.
>
> Sheldon entered the info on Friday night. There's probably no one
> keeping track of every single entry, especially over the weekend. A
> real abuse of his school's alumni website.

Sheldon would abuse his own mother if he thought it would benefit him.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬
_____________________

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article et>,
> "Gregory Morrow"
> > 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.
>
> You dork! LOL! Good think you were there to keep things under
> control.


Man, that lil' spoon produced LOTS of smoke...!!!

The microwave survived just fine (after a few cleanings)...the spot that
burned on the spoon was very small, only about a half inch or so in
size...AMAZING :-)

Yeah, I felt pretty stoopid... ;-|

Do ya know Barb, I have this explosively good recipe for making hard -
boiled eggs in the microwave...I'd be *glad* to send ya the receipt )

--
Best
Greg

Sheldon wrote:

> Peter A wrote:
> > says...
> > > >> You have never ****ed me off. I just think you're an idiot for
calling
> > > >> yourself vegetarian when you eat fish.
> > > >
> > > > "Fishaterian" really sounds clumsy, though, don't
> > > > you think?
> > > >
> > > > Bob M.
> > > > (Omnivore)
> > >
> > > Hmmm - omnivorian? <g>. Has a certain rhythm.
> >
> > Piscatarian is an accepted term for people who eat fish but no other
> > meat.
>
> Accepted by whom... those who swallow bullshit.


Yep...next thang ya know he'll be claiming that the word "piscatorial"
pertains only to *well - dressed* fish...

--
Best
Greg

In article >,
Peter A > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > > propagated. Examples of this false information are allegations that
> > > "white sugar" is bleached with chemicals
> >
> > Except that white sugar *is* bleached with chemicals:
> >
> > http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> That site clearly indicates that no chemicals are used.


Funny. I read it myself. Chemicals are used to bleach the sugar.
That's what it says.

> It is absorption
> and/or exchange techniques that are used to remove the colors.

Chemicals are used to "decolourise" the sugar. Pardon me, I guess they
don't "bleach it", they "decolourise" it. Please contact the folks who
write the dictionaries to explain that their definitions are incorrect.
I'm sure they would be happy to hear from you.


> THERE IS
> NO BLEACHING. If you don;t know any chemistry, fine, but then you should
> not sound off on chemistry-related topics.

I took a year of high school chemistry and a year of college chemistry.
My wife has a degree in chemistry and worked as a food chemist for 7
years.

If you don't understand anything about chemistry, perhaps you shouldn't
post about it.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

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.


Au contraire -- I am often wrong, but I truly endeavour not to lie...

--
Best
Greg

On 1 Apr 2006 16:32:31 -0800, Sheldon wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > > >> http://lincolnhsbrooklyn.com/MoreInfo.wcgi?615
> > >
> > I'm totally shocked it was allowed to happen. Apparently no one
> > monitors that site.
>
> How come you're not shocked that someone has been forging my info on
> those type of sites and then thinks it's funny to post them and for
> reasons that's none of their business, same as they do portions of
> private email. The point is that it's ridiculously easy to add whatever
> one wants to thousands, probably millions of sites just like those.
> The difference is that I admited when I did it. The slutty liar needs
> to blame some mystery person, even when it was her scuzzy toes that
> typed that post. Shit for brains Subpolar parasite thinks she's
> innocent of pulling the trigger because someone else (probably some
> filthy WOP) loaded her gun.
>
I don't know who did or didn't do it. I can only comment on the fact
that it was posted.
--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

In article >,
says...
> > > Except that white sugar *is* bleached with chemicals:
> > >
> > > http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html
> > >
> >
> > That site clearly indicates that no chemicals are used.
>
>
> Funny. I read it myself. Chemicals are used to bleach the sugar.
> That's what it says.

The word "bleach" does not appear anywhere on that site. Go ahead, do a
search. Your reading comprehension seems to need some work.

> > It is absorption
> > and/or exchange techniques that are used to remove the colors.
>
> Chemicals are used to "decolourise" the sugar. Pardon me, I guess they
> don't "bleach it", they "decolourise" it. Please contact the folks who
> write the dictionaries to explain that their definitions are incorrect.
> I'm sure they would be happy to hear from you.
>

Yes, they decolorize it by absorption NOT BY BLEACHING.

>
> > THERE IS
> > NO BLEACHING. If you don;t know any chemistry, fine, but then you should
> > not sound off on chemistry-related topics.
>
> I took a year of high school chemistry and a year of college chemistry.
> My wife has a degree in chemistry and worked as a food chemist for 7
> years.

Maybe your wife can explain it to you. "Bleaching" does not mean any way
of making something white - it is a specific process involving oxidation
of pigment molecules to a colorless form.

>
> If you don't understand anything about chemistry, perhaps you shouldn't
> post about it.
>

I clearly understand a whole lot more than you do.

--
Peter Aitken

In article >,
Peter A > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > > > Except that white sugar *is* bleached with chemicals:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > That site clearly indicates that no chemicals are used.
> >
> >
> > Funny. I read it myself. Chemicals are used to bleach the sugar.
> > That's what it says.
>
> The word "bleach" does not appear anywhere on that site. Go ahead, do a
> search. Your reading comprehension seems to need some work.


Seems like we're just using different definitions of the word "bleach".
This is what my dictionary says:

bleach (blTch) v. bleached bleaching bleaches v. tr. 1. To remove the
color from, as by means of chemical agents or sunlight. 2. To make white
or colorless. v. intr. 1. To become white or colorless. n. 1. A chemical
agent used for bleaching. 2. a. The act of bleaching. b. The degree of
bleaching obtained.



> > > It is absorption
> > > and/or exchange techniques that are used to remove the colors.
> >
> > Chemicals are used to "decolourise" the sugar. Pardon me, I guess they
> > don't "bleach it", they "decolourise" it. Please contact the folks who
> > write the dictionaries to explain that their definitions are incorrect.
> > I'm sure they would be happy to hear from you.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> Seems like we're just using different definitions of the word "bleach".
> This is what my dictionary says:
>
> bleach (blTch) v. bleached bleaching bleaches v. tr. 1. To remove the
> color from, as by means of chemical agents or sunlight. 2. To make white
> or colorless. v. intr. 1. To become white or colorless. n. 1. A chemical
> agent used for bleaching. 2. a. The act of bleaching. b. The degree of
> bleaching obtained.

In the context of food, especially foods that
are converted to white, I think the term "bleach"
implies use of a chemical agent -- exactly
because white flour is bleached using chemicals
such as benzoyl peroxide which are considered
suspect (by some) because they form the feared
"free radicals" (eiree music should play every
time those words are spoken). The bleaching
action is caused by these free radicals
attacking the conjugated electron orbitals
present in many colored organic compounds.

By using the term "bleach" to describe the
removal of colored compounds from sugar
by absorption into activated charcoal, you're
implying that a similar process is occurring.
It is not. Activated charcoal is almost pure
carbon (with a small mineral content), and
contains no significant levels of peroxides
or free radicals. It does not perform any
chemical reaction with the sugar. All it
does is to absorb colored impurities from the
sugar. Nobody seems to be concerned that the
water they get from their activated charcoal
filters (like Brita) has been "bleached".

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > Seems like we're just using different definitions of the word "bleach".
> > This is what my dictionary says:
> >
> > bleach (blTch) v. bleached bleaching bleaches v. tr. 1. To remove the
> > color from, as by means of chemical agents or sunlight. 2. To make white
> > or colorless. v. intr. 1. To become white or colorless. n. 1. A chemical
> > agent used for bleaching. 2. a. The act of bleaching. b. The degree of
> > bleaching obtained.

> sugar. Nobody seems to be concerned that the
> water they get from their activated charcoal
> filters (like Brita) has been "bleached".

The whole thing is pretty silly. Whatever they add during refining,
they take out. The end product is 99.9% sugar.

And most brown sugar is made out of white sugar. They take the white
sugar and spray it with molasses to make it brown (and give it back some
of the flavor they took out).

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Glitter Ninja wrote:
> Having read your posts on other ngs, I thought I'd look you up on
> Google because your little outburst here sounded familiar.

Stalker.

>Interesting
> that you have levelled very similar complaints about wanting attention
> at others on other groups.

if the shoe fits...

> Not just occasionally, or in the past, but a
> few minutes ago. And I see that you have told people to get out of
> other newsgroups, that they will never be part of the group, etc.

I have never told anyone they will "never be part of a group" unless
they shouldn't be posting there in the first place. (i.e.
alt.infertility heirarchy)

>Seems
> you find lots of people on lots of groups to chastise and to call names,
> too.

There's a lot of assholes on Usenet. I call it like I see it. That
seems to bother you.

> It's all on Google groups. Anyone who wants to can see it in the last
> two pages of your posts, found by email address, sorted by date.
> So I just find it interesting that you get so upset at patches, who
> dislikes people acting cliquish and driving people away from newsgroups.
> You got so upset you blamed it on her.

Why do you think I'm upset? I merely said if she doen't like the
group, don't let the dorr hit her on the ass on the way out.

It's typical of Usenet whiners - Come in, act like assholes, get
ignored, and then whine because the group is "so exclusive". Well, WTF
do you expect? People who whine about shit like that either A) Don't
belong on Usenet or B) Don't belong on Usenet. Take your pick.



> But then I find that you
> actually HAVE told people to leave newsgroups...

So what? You don't like what I say, killfile me. You can leave too -
I won't cry. I promise.

> Kind of clears up what you're really upset about, doesn't it?

I'm not upset. I was sick of the constant whining from attention-whore
Patches.

>
> >> That's just plain nasty! And there's no need for it.
> >
> >Too bad Mrs. Whiner. Don't like me? You have a killfile...use it.
>
> I think I just had an ironygasm.

You can go **** yourself too. You seem to take exception with my posts
time and time again. In the mean time,. I'll continue to tell anyone
I want to **** off, go **** themselves, or anything else I want. If
for no other reason than to merely irritate you.

Sheesh.

-L.

-L. wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>
>>In article . com>,
>> "-L." > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>~patches~ wrote:
>>>
>>>><rant>What I don't get is the lack of tolerance of other people's food
>>>>choices and/or ingredients.
>>>
>>>How many inane threads are you going to start merely to draw attention
>>>to yourself? You're nothing but an attention whore and a bore, too.
>>>
>>>-L.
>>>
>>
>>And you, L., are an outright bitch.
>>
>>Cheers!
>>--
>>Peace, Om.
>
>
> Thank you. And you're a ****ing ****. So I guess we're even then, eh?
> -L.
>

Wow, for someone who has turned in other posters for foul and abusive
language, this is rather funny. Talk about anger issues and foul
language. How's M---? Still getting your goat, Lyn?

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

In article .com>,
"-L." > wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "-L." > wrote:
> >
> > > ~patches~ wrote:
> > > > <rant>What I don't get is the lack of tolerance of other people's food
> > > > choices and/or ingredients.
> > >
> > > How many inane threads are you going to start merely to draw attention
> > > to yourself? You're nothing but an attention whore and a bore, too.
> > >
> > > -L.
> > >
> >
> > And you, L., are an outright bitch.
> >
> > Cheers!
> > --
> > Peace, Om.
>
> Thank you. And you're a ****ing ****. So I guess we're even then, eh?
> -L.
>

Cheers... ;-)

If you'd ever read some of my other posts, "Bitch" is usually a
complement.

And so is ****.

Cute
Uninhibited
Normal
Talented

Thank you! ;-)

BTW, why are you so negative?
And why do you hang out here?
I have yet to see you post ANYthing about cooking!
--
Peace, Om.

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