Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
on June 1st.
The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.
M

Musashi wrote:
> Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
> and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
> on June 1st.
> The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
> I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.

awww.. poor boy

Did you stop in at Hatsuhana?

--
Dan

"Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
...
> Musashi wrote:
> > Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
> > and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
> > on June 1st.
> > The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
> > I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.
>
> awww.. poor boy
>
> Did you stop in at Hatsuhana?
>

No...I stopped into Sushiden.
http://www.sushiden.com/

M., looking at your original reference in Expatica, it says:
> The best and truly Dutch method is to take the tail between your forefinger and thumb, put your head in your neck and directly lower the fish into your mouth.

I managed to google a picture of a guy doing this, but I the head, if
there is one, is already in his mouth. The fish itself looks in a bit of
hard shape. But I read in the Expatica article that the fish is gutted
leaving in the pancreas which enzymatically preserves the fish.

Does one actually take the fish head and all like this and swallow it
whole or are you supposed to chew this same whole fish. Frankly, it
doesn't look that appetizing as the herring looks similar to the
partially digested bait I find in larger fish that I've gutted.

see http://flickr.com/photos/jazzs/74567101/

Musashi wrote:
> "Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Musashi wrote:
>>
>>>Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
>>>and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
>>>on June 1st.
>>>The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
>>>I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.
>>
>>awww.. poor boy
>>
>>Did you stop in at Hatsuhana?
>>
>
>
> No...I stopped into Sushiden.
> http://www.sushiden.com/
>
>
>

--
- Peace,George

...... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
ISBN 0-452-28708-1

"George" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Does one actually take the fish head and all like this and swallow it
> whole or are you supposed to chew this same whole fish. Frankly, it
> doesn't look that appetizing as the herring looks similar to the partially
> digested bait I find in larger fish that I've gutted.
>

Fish Head is off. You take the fish as stated by the tail, slap it on some
chopped onions.
Then hold it above your head and lower the fish into your mouth.
You eat it by biting off "bitesize" pieces.

HTH.

The head is removed. And yes, the correct way apparently is to hold it by
the tail and eat it like the
gentleman in the photo. However, I have not seen anyone do this at the
Oyster Bar in New York.
Although not the "correct way"to enjoy this herring, New Yorkers seem to cut
the fish up with a knife
and fork. I read somewhere that people in Amsterdam cut up their herring.

As for the resemblance to baitfish you find when gutting a larger fish, yes,
you are absolutely right.
Especially the way the skin is partially removed.

M

"George" > wrote in message
...
> M., looking at your original reference in Expatica, it says:
> > The best and truly Dutch method is to take the tail between your
forefinger and thumb, put your head in your neck and directly lower the fish
into your mouth.
>
> I managed to google a picture of a guy doing this, but I the head, if
> there is one, is already in his mouth. The fish itself looks in a bit of
> hard shape. But I read in the Expatica article that the fish is gutted
> leaving in the pancreas which enzymatically preserves the fish.
>
> Does one actually take the fish head and all like this and swallow it
> whole or are you supposed to chew this same whole fish. Frankly, it
> doesn't look that appetizing as the herring looks similar to the
> partially digested bait I find in larger fish that I've gutted.
>
> see http://flickr.com/photos/jazzs/74567101/
>
> Musashi wrote:
> > "Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Musashi wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
> >>>and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
> >>>on June 1st.
> >>>The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
> >>>I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.
> >>
> >>awww.. poor boy
> >>
> >>Did you stop in at Hatsuhana?
> >>
> >
> >
> > No...I stopped into Sushiden.
> > http://www.sushiden.com/
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> - Peace,George
>
> ..... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
> READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
> ISBN 0-452-28708-1

Musashi wrote:
> "Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Musashi wrote:
>>
>>>Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
>>>and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
>>>on June 1st.
>>>The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
>>>I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.
>>
>>awww.. poor boy
>>
>>Did you stop in at Hatsuhana?
>>
>
>
> No...I stopped into Sushiden.
> http://www.sushiden.com/

Youch the prices!!!

--
Dan

George wrote:
> Frankly, it
> doesn't look that appetizing as the herring looks similar to the
> partially digested bait I find in larger fish that I've gutted.

Well, I could think of even less appetizing way of eating "raw" fish:
Swedish Surströmming!

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstr%C3%B6mming

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my
suespammers.org address. It's my life: http://www.laitinen.org/blog/

Thanks to everyone for their input. This is why I love the web. If you
don't learn something everyday, you're not trying.

The description of Surströmming seems to make the lobster bait the
fishermen use here in Maine a more plausible snack. It is made of
herring, but with quite a bit of salt and no attempt to can it. Folks
joke (or maybe not) with the tourists of how it can be eaten on Pilot
crackers, sort of a large saltine cracker without as much salt on it.

Seems to be no end to individual food preferences. Although I consider
myself daring, I'm sure I'll meet my match someday.

And I never mean to mock anyones 'delicacies' as I've had enough of
people doing that to me. Skål!

Esa Laitinen wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>Frankly, it
>>doesn't look that appetizing as the herring looks similar to the
>>partially digested bait I find in larger fish that I've gutted.
>
>
> Well, I could think of even less appetizing way of eating "raw" fish:
> Swedish Surströmming!
>
> See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstr%C3%B6mming
>

--
- Peace,George

...... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
ISBN 0-452-28708-1

"Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
...
> Musashi wrote:
> > "Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Musashi wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
> >>>and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
> >>>on June 1st.
> >>>The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
> >>>I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.
> >>
> >>awww.. poor boy
> >>
> >>Did you stop in at Hatsuhana?
> >>
> >
> >
> > No...I stopped into Sushiden.
> > http://www.sushiden.com/
>
> Youch the prices!!!
>
> --
> Dan

Yes...this is Manhattan.

George wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for their input. This is why I love the web. If you
> don't learn something everyday, you're not trying.

Hey, George.. just so ya know. This isn't the web, its USENET and has been
around for a lot longer. You may use a website to post USENET article..
Unless you mean the Internet.

> The description of Surströmming seems to make the lobster bait the
> fishermen use here in Maine a more plausible snack. It is made of
> herring, but with quite a bit of salt and no attempt to can it. Folks
> joke (or maybe not) with the tourists of how it can be eaten on Pilot
> crackers, sort of a large saltine cracker without as much salt on it.

What about Lutefisk.. I hear that is completely nasty!

--
Dan

Musashi wrote:

> "Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Musashi wrote:
>>
>>>"Dan Logcher" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Musashi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well I went over to Grand Central Oyster Bar
>>>>>and they said that they will start carrying the new herring
>>>>>on June 1st.
>>>>>The Calendar on their website shows May 1- May 31.
>>>>>I guess I'll just "have" to live with sushi till then.
>>>>
>>>>awww.. poor boy
>>>>
>>>>Did you stop in at Hatsuhana?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No...I stopped into Sushiden.
>>>http://www.sushiden.com/
>>
>>Youch the prices!!!
>>
>>--
>>Dan
>
>
> Yes...this is Manhattan.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that. Last time I was there was July 2001.

--
Dan

Generic terms, Dan. I knew the web when it was only text & Unix
listservs. The post in particular that I replied to included a link to
the Wikipedia Surströmming article, so I wasn't wrong and neither are you.

As for a distinction between the Web and the Internet, I don't see one
and just so you don't think I'm alone, here's my link
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internet
and here's their quote (note the last paragraph):

> Until the advent of the World-Wide Web in 1990, the Internet
> was almost entirely unknown outside universities and corporate
> research departments and was accessed mostly via command
> line interfaces such as telnet and FTP. Since then it
> has grown to become an almost-ubiquitous aspect of modern
> information systems, becoming highly commercial and a widely
> accepted medium for all sort of customer relations such as
> advertising, brand building, and online sales and services.
> Its original spirit of cooperation and freedom have, to a
> great extent, survived this explosive transformation with the
> result that the vast majority of information available on the
> Internet is free of charge.
>
> While the web (primarily in the form of HTML and HTTP) is
> the best known aspect of the Internet, there are many other
> protocols in use, supporting applications such as
> electronic mail, Usenet, chat, remote login, and file
> transfer.

Remember, Google/Dogpile/Yahoo/Dictionary.com before you speak.

On an almost unrelated note, remember when Bobby Hill ate all the
Lutefisk and became known as the "Smelly Man?"




Dan Logcher wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>> Thanks to everyone for their input. This is why I love the web. If you
>> don't learn something everyday, you're not trying.
>
>
> Hey, George.. just so ya know. This isn't the web, its USENET and has been
> around for a lot longer. You may use a website to post USENET article..
> Unless you mean the Internet.
>
>> The description of Surströmming seems to make the lobster bait the
>> fishermen use here in Maine a more plausible snack. It is made of
>> herring, but with quite a bit of salt and no attempt to can it. Folks
>> joke (or maybe not) with the tourists of how it can be eaten on Pilot
>> crackers, sort of a large saltine cracker without as much salt on it.
>
>
> What about Lutefisk.. I hear that is completely nasty!
>

--
- Peace,George

...... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
ISBN 0-452-28708-1

George wrote:
> Generic terms, Dan. I knew the web when it was only text & Unix
> listservs. The post in particular that I replied to included a link to
> the Wikipedia Surströmming article, so I wasn't wrong and neither are you.

Ah ok, I thought you were speaking of this newsgroup.

> As for a distinction between the Web and the Internet, I don't see one
> and just so you don't think I'm alone, here's my link
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internet
> and here's their quote (note the last paragraph):

I do see a difference as web refers to the www protocol that was
developed long after the creation of the Internet. Most people on the Internet
think web is all there is.. and that's fine. But if you find your way into a
USENET newsgroup, you're not an average user.

Trying to explain the differnce to an average user is much more difficult.
So I'm sure most people accept the WEB <> Internet analogy to make it simple.
I don't agree, because then you have more trouble trying discern what service
they are using if they can't probably explain.

> Remember, Google/Dogpile/Yahoo/Dictionary.com before you speak.

I remember before they were created, when Webcrawler was the only way
to search WWW. And I was on USENET way before that, playing rogue and
nethack on TOPS-20 running on PDP-11's. Ah, Supdup. We ran a CERN
webserver at college and use Mosaic as a broswer.

> On an almost unrelated note, remember when Bobby Hill ate all the
> Lutefisk and became known as the "Smelly Man?"

From what I've read, its hard to eat much of it.

--
Dan

Dan Logcher wrote:
> George wrote:
> > As for a distinction between the Web and the Internet, I don't see one
> > and just so you don't think I'm alone, here's my link
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internet
> > and here's their quote (note the last paragraph):
>
> I do see a difference as web refers to the www protocol that was
> developed long after the creation of the Internet. Most people on the Internet
> think web is all there is.. and that's fine. But if you find your way into a
> USENET newsgroup, you're not an average user.

The net is not the Internet. The Internet was a backbone created by
several network providers. Much of the traffic on today's network does
not transit the Internet proper.

Ob.sushi: Ankimo is not the Internet. They're both good for their
purpose.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Dan Logcher wrote:
>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>>As for a distinction between the Web and the Internet, I don't see one
>>>and just so you don't think I'm alone, here's my link
>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internet
>>>and here's their quote (note the last paragraph):
>>
>>I do see a difference as web refers to the www protocol that was
>>developed long after the creation of the Internet. Most people on the Internet
>>think web is all there is.. and that's fine. But if you find your way into a
>>USENET newsgroup, you're not an average user.
>
> The net is not the Internet. The Internet was a backbone created by
> several network providers. Much of the traffic on today's network does
> not transit the Internet proper.

Which net? ARPAnet? Indeed, there are much more Internet services than
WWW. Mail is probably most used of all.

> Ob.sushi: Ankimo is not the Internet. They're both good for their
> purpose.

Are you still getting fresh ankimo this late in the season? Some places
have frozen ankimo later on, but I can tell its not as good.

--
Dan

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Dan Logcher wrote:
>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>>As for a distinction between the Web and the Internet, I don't see one
>>>and just so you don't think I'm alone, here's my link
>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internet
>>>and here's their quote (note the last paragraph):
>>
>>I do see a difference as web refers to the www protocol that was
>>developed long after the creation of the Internet. Most people on the Internet
>>think web is all there is.. and that's fine. But if you find your way into a
>>USENET newsgroup, you're not an average user.
>
>
> The net is not the Internet. The Internet was a backbone created by
> several network providers. Much of the traffic on today's network does
> not transit the Internet proper.

You say Tomato, I say Tomato, no, you're right - that doesn't work as
well written as it does spoken. But folks need to eat more greens around
here, they'll help keep you flexible.

http://searchwebservices.techtarget....212370,00.html

I can find support for my statement all day long and I'm sure
nit-pickers will find their's. Here's just one more of mine from the url
noted above:

"The Internet, sometimes called simply "the Net," is a worldwide system
of computer networks... It was conceived by the Advanced Research
Projects Agency (ARPA) of the U.S. government in 1969 and was first
known as the ARPANET.
Physically, the Internet uses a portion of the total resources of the
currently existing public telecommunication networks.
The most widely used part of the Internet is the World Wide Web (often
abbreviated "WWW" or called "the Web")"

The internet was not created by "network providers." It is synonymous
with "the Net." The "Web" is a part of the "Internet" (as is Usenet and
the myriad of other net components using TCP/IP.

I concede, Dan, I should have said the _net_ instead of the _web_.

Regardless, thanks to the first three, Indo Ruwet, Musashi & Esa
Laitinen, who replied to my Usenet post on the internet and apologies to
those whom I sent scratching their heads wondering what I meant by "web."

But Blair, nice segue into Ankimo, which BTW, is where you made one
correct point, it's not the Internet. That will keep me out of a lot of
trouble with future posts ;-)


>
> Ob.sushi: Ankimo is not the Internet. They're both good for their
> purpose.
>
> --Blair
>

--
- Peace,George

...... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
ISBN 0-452-28708-1

George wrote:
> I can find support for my statement all day long

I have no doubt, as the misuse of "Internet" has become common idiom
(and the Wikipedia ****s this up, but that's its job, to ensconce
misconception as "fact").

The Internet was the NSFNet Internet Backbone (not ARPANET; that was
still a separate branch on the Internet). After that, any use of the
word is derived.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

>
> The Internet was the NSFNet Internet Backbone (not ARPANET; that was
> still a separate branch on the Internet).
"The Internet was ... NSFNet...ARPANET..was... the Internet." How's that
for parsing?

I'll stand by my original phraseology where I used 'web' and not 'Web.'
You can tell me what I meant, but that means nothing.

1958 - ARPA created
1966 - first ARPAnet plan
1967 - ARPANET design discussions held by Larry Roberts at ARPA IPTO PI
meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan
1969 - ARPANET commissioned by DoD for research into networking
1973 - first international connection to ARPANET
- Cerf and Kahn present basic Internet ideas at INWG in September
at Univ of Sussex
1979 - USENET created
- Meeting between Univ of Wisconsin, DARPA, National Science
Foundation (NSF), and computer scientists from many universities to
establish a Computer Science Department research computer network
1981 - CSNET (Computer Science NETwork) built
1982 - Norway leaves network to become an Internet connection via TCP/IP
over SATNET
1984 - (DNS) introduced
1986 - NSFNET created (backbone speed of 56Kbps) - for 5 Universities only
1990 - ARPANET ceases to exist
- The World comes on-line (world.std.com), becoming the first
commercial provider of Internet dial-up access

source - http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

Not my original point, but obviously ARPANET was the backbone of NSFNET
and without ARPANET, the NSFNET might still be only 'academic.'

Enjoyed the discussion, now, let's get back to _Sushi_.

> --Blair
>

--
- Peace,George

...... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
ISBN 0-452-28708-1

George wrote:
>
>
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>>
>> The Internet was the NSFNet Internet Backbone (not ARPANET; that was
>> still a separate branch on the Internet).
>
> "The Internet was ... NSFNet...ARPANET..was... the Internet." How's that
> for parsing?
>
> I'll stand by my original phraseology where I used 'web' and not 'Web.'
> You can tell me what I meant, but that means nothing.

But again, web is Web, is WEB is WWW. Its an Internet service.

> 1958 - ARPA created
> 1966 - first ARPAnet plan
> 1967 - ARPANET design discussions held by Larry Roberts at ARPA IPTO PI
> meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan
> 1969 - ARPANET commissioned by DoD for research into networking
> 1973 - first international connection to ARPANET
> - Cerf and Kahn present basic Internet ideas at INWG in September
> at Univ of Sussex
> 1979 - USENET created
> - Meeting between Univ of Wisconsin, DARPA, National Science
> Foundation (NSF), and computer scientists from many universities to
> establish a Computer Science Department research computer network
> 1981 - CSNET (Computer Science NETwork) built
> 1982 - Norway leaves network to become an Internet connection via TCP/IP
> over SATNET
> 1984 - (DNS) introduced
> 1986 - NSFNET created (backbone speed of 56Kbps) - for 5 Universities only
> 1990 - ARPANET ceases to exist
> - The World comes on-line (world.std.com), becoming the first
> commercial provider of Internet dial-up access
>
> source - http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
>
> Not my original point, but obviously ARPANET was the backbone of NSFNET
> and without ARPANET, the NSFNET might still be only 'academic.'

That was my understanding as well, ARPANET was .mil and .edu connections.
I was lucky enough to play around on it in 1985, it really has changed in
the last 20 years.

--
Dan

George wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
> >
> > The Internet was the NSFNet Internet Backbone (not ARPANET; that was
> > still a separate branch on the Internet).
> "The Internet was ... NSFNet...ARPANET..was... the Internet." How's that
> for parsing?
>
> I'll stand by my original phraseology where I used 'web' and not 'Web.'
> You can tell me what I meant, but that means nothing.

You can stand by anything, but it may be wrong, trebly so if your
"source data" comes from wikipedia.

ARPANET predated Internet. "The Internet" was a backbone. ARPANET
connected to it. Through a non-trivial piece of address conversion, at
that. "The Internet", afaik, is now gone. Nobody is on "The
Internet". But you won't get an argument from me that linguistic shift
hasn't made every network "the internet".

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Internet was the NSFNet Internet Backbone (not ARPANET; that was
>>>still a separate branch on the Internet).
>>
>>"The Internet was ... NSFNet...ARPANET..was... the Internet." How's that
>> for parsing?
>>
>>I'll stand by my original phraseology where I used 'web' and not 'Web.'
>>You can tell me what I meant, but that means nothing.
>
>
> You can stand by anything, but it may be wrong, trebly so if your
> "source data" comes from wikipedia.
>
> ARPANET predated Internet. "The Internet" was a backbone. ARPANET
> connected to it. Through a non-trivial piece of address conversion, at
> that. "The Internet", afaik, is now gone. Nobody is on "The
> Internet". But you won't get an argument from me that linguistic shift
> hasn't made every network "the internet".

The Internet isn't gone, its just changed from using old phone switching systems
to fibre and modern networking. The ARPANET was the first Internet.

And now there's Internet2.. or there may be Its already having issues.

--
Dan

Dan Logcher wrote:
>Blair wrote:
> > ARPANET predated Internet. "The Internet" was a backbone. ARPANET
> > connected to it. Through a non-trivial piece of address conversion, at
> > that. "The Internet", afaik, is now gone. Nobody is on "The
> > Internet". But you won't get an argument from me that linguistic shift
> > hasn't made every network "the internet".
>
> The Internet isn't gone, its just changed from using old phone switching systems
> to fibre and modern networking. The ARPANET was the first Internet.
>
> And now there's Internet2.. or there may be Its already having issues.

You're not listening. "The Internet" was a backbone. It's gone*.
Internet2 is also a backbone.

--Blair
"Issues are why there are engineers."

* - can't remember the name of the juggler who would hold up his axe
and say, "This is the hatchet George Washington used to cut down the
cherry tree. I've had to replace the handle ... and the head ... but
it occupies the same space ..." Similar deal. "The Internet" is gone,
even if something occupies the same space.

Dan Logcher wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Internet was the NSFNet Internet Backbone (not ARPANET; that was
>>>> still a separate branch on the Internet).
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Internet was ... NSFNet...ARPANET..was... the Internet." How's that
>>> for parsing?
>>>
>>> I'll stand by my original phraseology where I used 'web' and not 'Web.'
>>> You can tell me what I meant, but that means nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can stand by anything, but it may be wrong, trebly so if your
>> "source data" comes from wikipedia.
>>
>> ARPANET predated Internet. "The Internet" was a backbone. ARPANET
>> connected to it. Through a non-trivial piece of address conversion, at
>> that. "The Internet", afaik, is now gone. Nobody is on "The
>> Internet". But you won't get an argument from me that linguistic shift
>> hasn't made every network "the internet".
>
>
> The Internet isn't gone, its just changed from using old phone switching
> systems
> to fibre and modern networking. The ARPANET was the first Internet.
>
> And now there's Internet2.. or there may be Its already having issues.
>

> You're not listening. "The Internet" was a backbone. It's gone*.
> Internet2 is also a backbone.


I can't make sense anymore from his argument either, Dan. Perhaps he ran
into this site http://www.webnme.com/endoftheinternet.html and couldn't
deal with it.

But if I sliced my fish as thin as Blair is defining his argument, you'd
see nothing but rice on my nigiri and the fish would always be the same
size.

Okay, I made an error, but I thought I could get away with it. If people
paid half as much attention to the things I say on purpose as they do to
the things I say by accident, a lot less would be said.
--
- Peace,George

...... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
ISBN 0-452-28708-1

Hey Blair, **** off!

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>Okay, I made an error, but I thought I could get away with it. If people
>>paid half as much attention to the things I say on purpose as they do to
>>the things I say by accident, a lot less would be said.
>
>
> Making a mistake is understandable. Attacking someone who corrects it
> so it doesn't become persistent misinformation is the psychotic part.
>
> --Blair
>

--
- Peace,George

...... and if you want to know why we're in the mess we're in
READ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
ISBN 0-452-28708-1

George wrote:
> Hey Blair, **** off!
> - Peace,George

IHNJH, IJLS "juxtaposition"

--Blair

How does Sushiden compare to Yasuda Sushi? If I remember correctly, it
offers a broader range of items.

Also, have you been to Masa? My very favorite in NYC.

In article . com>,
says...
> How does Sushiden compare to Yasuda Sushi? If I remember correctly, it
> offers a broader range of items.
>
> Also, have you been to Masa? My very favorite in NYC.
>
>
I was thinking more $USD-£GBP and variety comparison.
It seems that Yo Sushi! is pretty much the only mainstream option in the
UK. We do have Wagamamas, but that is more a chinese style japanese
noodle house (Soba/Udon noodles).
--
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com