Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to change the
title of his latest release because it infringes on Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit
451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle for an apology and the film's name
change, but that litigation remains a possibility if Moore persists.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to
change the
> title of his latest release because it infringes on Bradbury's novel
Fahrenheit
> 451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle for an apology and the film's
name
> change, but that litigation remains a possibility if Moore persists.
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html

Who cares? This is a vegan newsgroup. Please try to stay at least remotely
on topic when posting.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to
change the
> title of his latest release because it infringes on Bradbury's novel
Fahrenheit
> 451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle for an apology and the film's
name
> change, but that litigation remains a possibility if Moore persists.
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
>
You mean duck and not dork?
Is good to remove lard if making Peking Duck. Maybe you message have not
to do with cooking but how you feel bad about movie.
This ok to say, but I think maybe popcorn better with movie than duck.

See James Strut wrote:
>>Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to
> change the
>>title of his latest release because it infringes on Bradbury's novel
> Fahrenheit
>>451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle for an apology and the film's
> name
>>change, but that litigation remains a possibility if Moore persists.
>>
>>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
>
> Who cares?

Apparently you don't. Do you copy CDs and DVDs and distribute MP3s?

> This is a vegan newsgroup. Please try to stay at least remotely
> on topic when posting.

It's on topic as it relates to copyright infringement, which occurs with
alarming frequency in this newsgroup and is a violation of most nearly every
AUP. What you see as trivial -- spreading the copyrighted materials of others
without permission -- is patently offensive to authors like Ray Bradbury and
artists like Metallica because you steal and/or diminish the value of their
copyrighted works. There is no difference between stealing from them and
stealing from cookbook authors like Lindsay does.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> See James Strut wrote:
> >>Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore
to
> > change the
> >>title of his latest release because it infringes on Bradbury's
novel
> > Fahrenheit
> >>451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle for an apology and
the film's
> > name
> >>change, but that litigation remains a possibility if Moore
persists.
> >>
> >>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
> >
> > Who cares?
>
> Apparently you don't. Do you copy CDs and DVDs and distribute MP3s?

Nope, never have. But I have used copied software on occasion.

> > This is a vegan newsgroup. Please try to stay at least remotely
> > on topic when posting.
>
> It's on topic as it relates to copyright infringement, which occurs
with
> alarming frequency in this newsgroup and is a violation of most
nearly every
> AUP. What you see as trivial -- spreading the copyrighted materials
of others
> without permission -- is patently offensive to authors like Ray
Bradbury and
> artists like Metallica because you steal and/or diminish the value
of their
> copyrighted works. There is no difference between stealing from them
and
> stealing from cookbook authors like Lindsay does.

I agree that copyright infringement of cookbooks is sort of on topic
for this newsgroup. But you started a thread about a movie that's
totally unrelated to vegan issues. Additionally, you imposed your
political bent by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
propagandist". I, for one, don't care.

C. James Putz wrote:
<...>
>>>Who cares?
>>
>>Apparently you don't. Do you copy CDs and DVDs and distribute MP3s?
>
> Nope, never have. But I have used copied software on occasion.

Thief.

>>>This is a vegan newsgroup. Please try to stay at least remotely
>>>on topic when posting.
>>
>>It's on topic as it relates to copyright infringement, which occurs
> with
>>alarming frequency in this newsgroup and is a violation of most
> nearly every
>>AUP. What you see as trivial -- spreading the copyrighted materials
> of others
>>without permission -- is patently offensive to authors like Ray
> Bradbury and
>>artists like Metallica because you steal and/or diminish the value
> of their
>>copyrighted works. There is no difference between stealing from them
> and
>>stealing from cookbook authors like Lindsay does.
>
> I agree that copyright infringement of cookbooks is sort of on topic
> for this newsgroup.

Good. I'm glad you finally agree, despite your protestations.

> But you started a thread about a movie that's
> totally unrelated to vegan issues.

No, look again at the subject. It's still about copyrights.

> Additionally, you imposed your
> political bent

I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat slobs who
document their lies and call it "art."

> by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
> propagandist".

All three words apply to him.

> I, for one, don't care.

Thanks for caring enough to let me know, Jimbo.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:

> > But you started a thread about a movie that's
> > totally unrelated to vegan issues.
>
> No, look again at the subject. It's still about copyrights.

I did look at the subject. It still has nothing to do with vegan
issues.

> > Additionally, you imposed your
> > political bent
>
> I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat
slobs who
> document their lies and call it "art."

What exactly did he lie about in the movie? Have you seen it?

> > by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
> > propagandist".
>
> All three words apply to him.

One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh. You are inconsistent and
biased.

> > I, for one, don't care.
>
> Thanks for caring enough to let me know, Jimbo.

No problem, Bozo.

C. James Putz wrote:
>>>But you started a thread about a movie that's
>>>totally unrelated to vegan issues.
>>
>>No, look again at the subject. It's still about copyrights.
>
> I did look at the subject. It still has nothing to do with vegan
> issues.

It does when "ethical" vegans and other leftwingers (like you) repeatedly
violate copyrights.

>>>Additionally, you imposed your
>>>political bent
>>
>>I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat
> slobs who
>>document their lies and call it "art."
>
> What exactly did he lie about in the movie?

One of the central lies is that President Bush personally arranged for the
Binladen family to leave the US following September 11th (along with a litany of
other crackpot conspiracy charges which General Wes Clark was asked if he agreed
with when Moore endorsed his campaign). The person who authorized the departure
of the Binladens and other Saudis was Richard Clarke.

http://jskelly.squarespace.com/displ...&entryId=13586

Would you like me to find the other lies and distortions in Moore's tawdry movie?

> Have you seen it?

Not yet, but I have plenty friends who have. Not one, even among my liberal
friends, was impressed.

>>>by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
>>>propagandist".
>>
>>All three words apply to him.
>
> One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe you were unaware that Mr Limbaugh has lost well over 100 pounds. One
glaring difference between Limbaugh and Moore is that Limbaugh doesn't lie to
score points; that's the only way Moore can. Still, I'm not an apologist for
Rush Limbaugh.

> You are inconsistent and biased.

Non sequitur; you haven't shown any bias or inconsistency on my part. Contrary
to what you seem to think, I don't listen to Rush. I'm more a fan of Sean
Hannity, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Michael Medved, and,
sometimes, Michael Savage.

<...>

usual suspect wrote:
<...>
> Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't listen to Rush. I'm more a
> fan of Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North,
> Michael Medved, and, sometimes, Michael Savage.

I forgot to list Laura Ingraham. How on earth could I ever forget.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>>But you started a thread about a movie that's
> >>>totally unrelated to vegan issues.
> >>
> >>No, look again at the subject. It's still about copyrights.
> >
> > I did look at the subject. It still has nothing to do with vegan
> > issues.
>
> It does when "ethical" vegans and other leftwingers (like you)
repeatedly
> violate copyrights.

I'm not left-wing at all. Then again, Newt Gingrich is liberal
compared to you.

> >>>Additionally, you imposed your
> >>>political bent
> >>
> >>I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat
> > slobs who
> >>document their lies and call it "art."
> >
> > What exactly did he lie about in the movie?
>
> One of the central lies is that President Bush personally arranged
for the
> Binladen family to leave the US following September 11th (along with
a litany of
> other crackpot conspiracy charges which General Wes Clark was asked
if he agreed
> with when Moore endorsed his campaign). The person who authorized
the departure
> of the Binladens and other Saudis was Richard Clarke.
>
>
http://jskelly.squarespace.com/displ...moduleId=15843
&entryId=13586

This is a very conservative website. It's hardly a credible source
from which to make a legitimate case.

> Would you like me to find the other lies and distortions in Moore's
tawdry movie?

Knock yourself out. Just use credible sources if you want anyone to
take you seriously.

> > Have you seen it?
>
> Not yet, but I have plenty friends who have. Not one, even among my
liberal
> friends, was impressed.

You have friends?! Liberal friends even!

> >>>by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
> >>>propagandist".
> >>
> >>All three words apply to him.
> >
> > One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh.
>
> Maybe you were unaware that Mr Limbaugh has lost well over 100
pounds. One
> glaring difference between Limbaugh and Moore is that Limbaugh
doesn't lie to
> score points; that's the only way Moore can. Still, I'm not an
apologist for
> Rush Limbaugh.

My point in this was your words "lard ass propagandist" could describe
some conservatives (Rush was my example) as well as some liberals. The
only reason you railed Moore was because he doesn't share your
political opinion. Therefore you are inconsistent and biased.

> > You are inconsistent and biased.
>
> Non sequitur; you haven't shown any bias or inconsistency on my
part.

Wrong, see above. You believe only what the conservative propaganda
machine says you should believe. You are a biased, inconsistent
parrot.

> Contrary
> to what you seem to think, I don't listen to Rush. I'm more a fan of
Sean
> Hannity, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Michael
Medved, and,
> sometimes, Michael Savage.

Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh Steeler
fan! :^)

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C. James Strutz wrote:
> > >>>But you started a thread about a movie that's
> > >>>totally unrelated to vegan issues.
> > >>
> > >>No, look again at the subject. It's still about copyrights.
> > >
> > > I did look at the subject. It still has nothing to do with vegan
> > > issues.
> >
> > It does when "ethical" vegans and other leftwingers (like you)
> repeatedly
> > violate copyrights.
>
> I'm not left-wing at all. Then again, Newt Gingrich is liberal
> compared to you.
>
> > >>>Additionally, you imposed your
> > >>>political bent
> > >>
> > >>I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat
> > > slobs who
> > >>document their lies and call it "art."
> > >
> > > What exactly did he lie about in the movie?
> >
> > One of the central lies is that President Bush personally arranged
> for the
> > Binladen family to leave the US following September 11th (along with
> a litany of
> > other crackpot conspiracy charges which General Wes Clark was asked
> if he agreed
> > with when Moore endorsed his campaign). The person who authorized
> the departure
> > of the Binladens and other Saudis was Richard Clarke.
> >
> >
> http://jskelly.squarespace.com/displ...moduleId=15843
> &entryId=13586
>
> This is a very conservative website. It's hardly a credible source
> from which to make a legitimate case.
>
> > Would you like me to find the other lies and distortions in Moore's
> tawdry movie?
>
> Knock yourself out. Just use credible sources if you want anyone to
> take you seriously.
>
> > > Have you seen it?
> >
> > Not yet, but I have plenty friends who have. Not one, even among my
> liberal
> > friends, was impressed.
>
> You have friends?! Liberal friends even!
>
> > >>>by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
> > >>>propagandist".
> > >>
> > >>All three words apply to him.
> > >
> > > One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh.
> >
> > Maybe you were unaware that Mr Limbaugh has lost well over 100
> pounds. One
> > glaring difference between Limbaugh and Moore is that Limbaugh
> doesn't lie to
> > score points; that's the only way Moore can. Still, I'm not an
> apologist for
> > Rush Limbaugh.
>
> My point in this was your words "lard ass propagandist" could describe
> some conservatives (Rush was my example) as well as some liberals. The
> only reason you railed Moore was because he doesn't share your
> political opinion. Therefore you are inconsistent and biased.
>
> > > You are inconsistent and biased.
> >
> > Non sequitur; you haven't shown any bias or inconsistency on my
> part.
>
> Wrong, see above. You believe only what the conservative propaganda
> machine says you should believe. You are a biased, inconsistent
> parrot.
>
> > Contrary
> > to what you seem to think, I don't listen to Rush. I'm more a fan of
> Sean
> > Hannity, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Michael
> Medved, and,
> > sometimes, Michael Savage.
>
> Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh Steeler
> fan! :^)
and he uses opiates to relax-of course being a Steeler fan at this time-they
both go together.


>
>

usual suspect wrote:
> Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to
> change the title of his latest release because it infringes on
> Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle
> for an apology and the film's name change, but that litigation remains a
> possibility if Moore persists.
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
>
I didn't think titles could be copyrighted. If not, what is going to be
the basis of Bradbury's litigation?

C. James Strutz > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to
> change the
> > title of his latest release because it infringes on Bradbury's novel
> Fahrenheit
> > 451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle for an apology and the
film's
> name
> > change, but that litigation remains a possibility if Moore persists.
> >
> > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
>
> Who cares? This is a vegan newsgroup. Please try to stay at least remotely
> on topic when posting.
>

Yeah!

I liked it better when all the busybodies and self-appointed policemen used
to complain blue murder about porn all the time and sit there counting the
number of occurrences of the word 'bloody' in each episode of Till Death Us
Do Part. )

And Hairy Whitmouse, sorry, Mary Whitehouse moaning about Albert Steptoe
saying he was colder than a penguin's chuff! Met her once. She was barmey!
She even went to Sweden, sat there in sex show clubs so she could
deliberately storm out in disgust when the performance started!!!

She was even instrumental in getting RTL taken off Cable TV because of the
hilariously funny and absolutely harmless stripping quiz show "Tutti
Fruity"!!

At least their antics were funny.

Anyway: To stay on topic. Really cheesy-tasting pasta sauce.

Fry up a good quantity of mushrooms with coarsely-chopped garlic until
they're well over-cooked and shrunken and the garlic well roasted, leave
them on some kitchen towel to absorb the oil and leave them aside while you
then stand well back and chuck a large tin of plum tomatoes into the hot
oil - just the toms - not the juice yet..

Keep on a high heat as singeing them a bit really brings out the "taste
factor," then turn them down to a simmer and add the juice out of the tin, a
little tarragon and a very little chilli powder, and chop the tomatoes in
the pan. Then add the mushrooms.

Stir and simmer for about 10 minutes then - the cheesy bit:

Add the juice of a lime or two and a good glug of tahini. Stir slowly and
the tahini with react with the lime juice and other acids and form an
emulsion. This is what gives it a cheesy taste.

Simmer this for a few more minutes on a very low heat and the whole lot will
sort of bind together and you'll be able to pour off any surplus oil.

Nemo wrote:
>Anyway: To stay on topic. Really cheesy-tasting pasta sauce.
>
>Fry up a good quantity of mushrooms with coarsely-chopped garlic until
>they're well over-cooked and shrunken and the garlic well roasted, leave
>them on some kitchen towel to absorb the oil and leave them aside while you
>then stand well back and chuck a large tin of plum tomatoes into the hot
>oil - just the toms - not the juice yet..
>
>Keep on a high heat as singeing them a bit really brings out the "taste
>factor," then turn them down to a simmer and add the juice out of the tin, a
>little tarragon and a very little chilli powder, and chop the tomatoes in
>the pan. Then add the mushrooms.
>
>Stir and simmer for about 10 minutes then - the cheesy bit:
>
>Add the juice of a lime or two and a good glug of tahini. Stir slowly and
>the tahini with react with the lime juice and other acids and form an
>emulsion. This is what gives it a cheesy taste.
>
>Simmer this for a few more minutes on a very low heat and the whole lot will
>sort of bind together and you'll be able to pour off any surplus oil.

Sounds tasty! Thanks Nemo for bringing this thread on topic and for the
recipe... I cracked my knuckle on my right thumb awhile ago and have developed
arthritis in it...I'm finding that spicy food makes the difference as to
whether I can bend my thumb or not... I would think that your recipe would make
a nice dip for tortilla chips as well as a pasta sauce...especially with the
addition of some hot peppers...yum!

C. James Prutz wrote:
>>It does when "ethical" vegans and other leftwingers (like you)
>>repeatedly violate copyrights.
>
> I'm not left-wing at all.

Liar. You're way left of center.

> Then again, Newt Gingrich is liberal
> compared to you.

No, he isn't, but you have a lot more in common with him than I do. I've never
left an older wife for a younger woman.

>>>>>Additionally, you imposed your
>>>>>political bent
>>>>
>>>>I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat
>>>
>>>slobs who
>>>
>>>>document their lies and call it "art."
>>>
>>>What exactly did he lie about in the movie?
>>
>>One of the central lies is that President Bush personally arranged
>>for the Binladen family to leave the US following September 11th (along with
>>a litany of other crackpot conspiracy charges which General Wes Clark was asked
>>if he agreed with when Moore endorsed his campaign). The person who authorized
>>the departure of the Binladens and other Saudis was Richard Clarke.
>>
> http://jskelly.squarespace.com/displ...moduleId=15843
> &entryId=13586
>
> This is a very conservative website.

Its source for the Clarke quote isn't. Here, I'll spare you the "very
conservative" editorializing and let you read the original source yourself:
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

> It's hardly a credible source
> from which to make a legitimate case.

I think Richard Clarke's quote is legitimate. So, too, do other liberals like
Christopher Hitchens, former editor of The Nation. Hitchens himself (charitably)
calls Moore's latest flick propaganda. He even wrote, "Here we glimpse a
possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic
standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni
Riefenstahl."

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Face it, Putz, my first source wasn't "out there." Moore's distasteful piece of
shit of a film is.

>>Would you like me to find the other lies and distortions in Moore's
>>tawdry movie?
>
> Knock yourself out. Just use credible sources if you want anyone to
> take you seriously.

What exactly do you consider credible, seeing how you dismiss the Hill's
reporting that Richard Clarke -- whose own book showed a rabid anti-Bush animus
-- unambiguously admitted he authorized flights carrying the Binladens and other
Saudis out of the country following 9/11? Do you hold the same high standards
for Moore's sources, or does he get a free pass?

>>>Have you seen it?
>>
>>Not yet, but I have plenty friends who have. Not one, even among my
>>liberal friends, was impressed.
>
> You have friends?!

Many.

> Liberal friends even!

Yes, many.

>>>>>by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
>>>>>propagandist".
>>>>
>>>>All three words apply to him.
>>>
>>>One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh.
>>
>>Maybe you were unaware that Mr Limbaugh has lost well over 100
>>pounds. One
>>glaring difference between Limbaugh and Moore is that Limbaugh
>> doesn't lie to
>>score points; that's the only way Moore can. Still, I'm not an
>> apologist for Rush Limbaugh.
>
> My point in this was your words "lard ass propagandist" could describe
> some conservatives (Rush was my example) as well as some liberals. The
> only reason you railed Moore was because he doesn't share your
> political opinion.

No, I pointed out that his film is a complete piece of excrement. Read Chris
Hitchens' review. He concurs, and he's not a rabid right-wing extremist.

> Therefore you are inconsistent and biased.

No. Non sequitur.

>>>You are inconsistent and biased.
>>
>>Non sequitur; you haven't shown any bias or inconsistency on my
>> part.
>
> Wrong, see above.

No, I'm correct.

> You believe only what the conservative propaganda
> machine says you should believe.

Such as? Such as when I categorically denounced what happened at Abu Ghraib and
called for prosecution all the way up the chain of command if the soldiers
involved really were acting under orders as they and their attorneys claim?
http://snipurl.com/798q

> You are a biased, inconsistent parrot.

Show where I've ever been inconsistent, asshole.

>>Contrary
>>to what you seem to think, I don't listen to Rush. I'm more a fan of
> Sean
>>Hannity, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Michael
> Medved, and,
>>sometimes, Michael Savage.
>
> Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh Steeler
> fan! :^)

That's definitely an indelible mark of bad character -- almost as bad as being a
Pirates fan. Did you see what the Astros did to Fogg in the fifth inning last
night? Hehe.

Michael Balarama wrote:
<...>
>>Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh Steeler
>>fan! :^)
>
> and he uses opiates to relax-

No, for pain management. That's the difference between his addiction and, for
instance, Al Franken's. Rush was legitimately taking medication and became
addicted; Franken's cocaine addiction was due to poor character (he hasn't been
funny since his rehab, but it's probably for the best).

> of course being a Steeler fan at this time-they
> both go together.

They didn't during the years Rush lived in Pittsburgh. The team that bears the
name "Steelers" now bears no resemblance to the Steel Curtain. More like a chain
link fence -- the low kind that little kids can leap over.

John Knezevich wrote:
>> Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to
>> change the title of his latest release because it infringes on
>> Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451. Note that Bradbury is willing to
>> settle for an apology and the film's name change, but that litigation
>> remains a possibility if Moore persists.
>>
>> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
>>
> I didn't think titles could be copyrighted. If not, what is going to be
> the basis of Bradbury's litigation?

I think titles are fair game unless trademarked. I don't know if Bradbury has a
trademark on Fahrenheit 451 or any part(s) of it. My point was to demonstrate my
point that many authors and artists take their copyrighted works very seriously
and take strong exception to what others do with their intellectual property.

T5NF > wrote in message
...
> Nemo wrote:
> >Anyway: To stay on topic. Really cheesy-tasting pasta sauce.
> >
> >Fry up a good quantity of mushrooms with coarsely-chopped garlic until
> >they're well over-cooked and shrunken and the garlic well roasted, leave
> >them on some kitchen towel to absorb the oil and leave them aside while
you
> >then stand well back and chuck a large tin of plum tomatoes into the hot
> >oil - just the toms - not the juice yet..
> >
> >Keep on a high heat as singeing them a bit really brings out the "taste
> >factor," then turn them down to a simmer and add the juice out of the
tin, a
> >little tarragon and a very little chilli powder, and chop the tomatoes in
> >the pan. Then add the mushrooms.
> >
> >Stir and simmer for about 10 minutes then - the cheesy bit:
> >
> >Add the juice of a lime or two and a good glug of tahini. Stir slowly and
> >the tahini with react with the lime juice and other acids and form an
> >emulsion. This is what gives it a cheesy taste.
> >
> >Simmer this for a few more minutes on a very low heat and the whole lot
will
> >sort of bind together and you'll be able to pour off any surplus oil.
>
> Sounds tasty! Thanks Nemo for bringing this thread on topic and for the
> recipe... I cracked my knuckle on my right thumb awhile ago and have
developed
> arthritis in it...I'm finding that spicy food makes the difference as to
> whether I can bend my thumb or not... I would think that your recipe would
make
> a nice dip for tortilla chips as well as a pasta sauce...especially with
the
> addition of some hot peppers...yum!
>
Don't mention it.

Too late.

It's nice scooped up on crisps or big lumps of Matzo too.

You have my sympathy. Arthritis and circulatory problems are my family's two
favourite diseases. I'm already on Warfarin for DVTs and PEs and Atenolol of
AFs and I'm waiting for the rest!

I forgot to mention - it's even better with some chopped black olives added
once it's off the heat. A small amount of Soy Sauce helps to.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>It does when "ethical" vegans and other leftwingers (like you)
> >>repeatedly violate copyrights.
> >
> > I'm not left-wing at all.
>
> Liar. You're way left of center.

Wrong.

> > Then again, Newt Gingrich is liberal
> > compared to you.
>
> No, he isn't, but you have a lot more in common with him than I do.
I've never
> left an older wife for a younger woman.

What are you talking about?

> >>One of the central lies is that President Bush personally arranged
> >>for the Binladen family to leave the US following September 11th
(along with
> >>a litany of other crackpot conspiracy charges which General Wes
Clark was asked
> >>if he agreed with when Moore endorsed his campaign). The person
who authorized
> >>the departure of the Binladens and other Saudis was Richard
Clarke.
> >>
> >
http://jskelly.squarespace.com/displ...moduleId=15843
> > &entryId=13586
> >
> > This is a very conservative website.
>
> Its source for the Clarke quote isn't. Here, I'll spare you the
"very
> conservative" editorializing and let you read the original source
yourself:
> http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

It seems on the surface like a more credible source. Much better.

> > It's hardly a credible source
> > from which to make a legitimate case.
>
> I think Richard Clarke's quote is legitimate. So, too, do other
liberals like
> Christopher Hitchens, former editor of The Nation. Hitchens himself
(charitably)
> calls Moore's latest flick propaganda. He even wrote, "Here we
glimpse a
> possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the
filmic
> standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or
Leni
> Riefenstahl."
>
> http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
>
> Face it, Putz, my first source wasn't "out there." Moore's
distasteful piece of
> shit of a film is.

Your first source was "out there". It at least seemed to accurately
represent the Clarke issue.

> >>Would you like me to find the other lies and distortions in
Moore's
> >>tawdry movie?
> >
> > Knock yourself out. Just use credible sources if you want anyone
to
> > take you seriously.
>
> What exactly do you consider credible, seeing how you dismiss the
Hill's
> reporting that Richard Clarke -- whose own book showed a rabid
anti-Bush animus
> -- unambiguously admitted he authorized flights carrying the
Binladens and other
> Saudis out of the country following 9/11? Do you hold the same high
standards
> for Moore's sources, or does he get a free pass?

No, I hold the other side to the same scrutiny as I do you. It's hard
find objective sources. Perhaps the best way is to draw conclusions
from several sources.

> > You believe only what the conservative propaganda
> > machine says you should believe.
>
> Such as? Such as when I categorically denounced what happened at Abu
Ghraib and
> called for prosecution all the way up the chain of command if the
soldiers
> involved really were acting under orders as they and their attorneys
claim?
> http://snipurl.com/798q
>
> > You are a biased, inconsistent parrot.
>
> Show where I've ever been inconsistent, asshole.

At least you don't deny that you're biased.

> > Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh Steeler
> > fan! :^)
>
> That's definitely an indelible mark of bad character -- almost as
bad as being a
> Pirates fan. Did you see what the Astros did to Fogg in the fifth
inning last
> night? Hehe.

No, but I heard. The Pirates just don't seem to be able to get it
together this year. I think we're due for some managerial changes
during the off season, maybe before.

C. James Strutz wrote:

Out of a sense of generosity, I will skip to the most interesting part of your
reply.

<...>
>>>Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh Steeler
>>>fan! :^)
>>
>>That's definitely an indelible mark of bad character -- almost as
>>bad as being a Pirates fan. Did you see what the Astros did to Fogg
>>in the fifth inning last night? Hehe.
>
> No, but I heard. The Pirates just don't seem to be able to get it
> together this year. I think we're due for some managerial changes
> during the off season, maybe before.

You suffer from a similar problem as Houston's: ownership by a descendent of
overly thrifty Scotsmen. McLane and McClatchy both have demonstrated
short-sightedness when it comes to fielding their respective teams. To McLane's
credit, though, he's seen a little light -- if not with foresight, definitely
with hindsight -- that signing a player like Roger Clemens means fans will
attend regardless of how well the team is actually doing. I think all but two of
Clemens' starts at Minute Maid Park have sold out. He's more than earning his
salary.

Your problem is NOT on-field management, it's in the front office. McLendon had
the team performing much better than expected back in April and early May --
about the same time the Astros were winning. I think it's fair to point out that
the Astros were doing well until Hidalgo (recently traded to the Mets) went into
a slump and that the Pirates were doing well until Craig Wilson's torrid pace
slowed down. Both teams' pitching staffs have also suffered more recently from
poor run support, not necessarily poor pitching efforts (but, to be fair, both
pitching staffs have also endured some injuries that have affected performance).

McClatchy's miserly approach has sent some of MLB's premier players out of
Pittsburgh and to teams where those players have made significant contributions.
Jason Schmidt comes to mind. Here's a guy who's in the top five names for the NL
Cy Young Award (along with Clemens, Randy Johnson, maybe Greg Maddux if his
turn-around holds up, and Carlos Zambrano), whose salary wasn't terribly high
($8m), and who was traded along with Vander Wal for Vogelsong and Rios --
nothing but a salary dump.

McClatchy's trades have done nothing to upgrade his team, only hurt the team.
That's eventually reflected in ticket sales. He's already whining about
declining attendance, and talking about moving more players before the end of
next month (as if he can dump Kendall's salary); that's the worst thing he can
do for both short and long term. Cutting the payroll to the league minimum will
only insure nobody in Pittsburgh will care about Pirate baseball; it will also
put the team in a hole at the start of next season. Don't take my word for it,
just look at Montreal and Seattle.

Now, on to the subject of food so you can't say this is off topic. MMP has
veggie hotdogs available at the game, but the buns contain minute traces of
dairy. I want to go to PNC and catch a series later this season. Do they have
veggie hotdogs? Do they have any interesting food selections for healthy eaters?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> Out of a sense of generosity, I will skip to the most interesting
part of your
> reply.
>
> <...>
> >>>Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh
Steeler
> >>>fan! :^)
> >>
> >>That's definitely an indelible mark of bad character -- almost as
> >>bad as being a Pirates fan. Did you see what the Astros did to
Fogg
> >>in the fifth inning last night? Hehe.
> >
> > No, but I heard. The Pirates just don't seem to be able to get it
> > together this year. I think we're due for some managerial changes
> > during the off season, maybe before.
>
> You suffer from a similar problem as Houston's: ownership by a
descendent of
> overly thrifty Scotsmen. McLane and McClatchy both have demonstrated
> short-sightedness when it comes to fielding their respective teams.
To McLane's
> credit, though, he's seen a little light -- if not with foresight,
definitely
> with hindsight -- that signing a player like Roger Clemens means
fans will
> attend regardless of how well the team is actually doing. I think
all but two of
> Clemens' starts at Minute Maid Park have sold out. He's more than
earning his
> salary.
>
> Your problem is NOT on-field management, it's in the front office.
McLendon had
> the team performing much better than expected back in April and
early May --
> about the same time the Astros were winning. I think it's fair to
point out that
> the Astros were doing well until Hidalgo (recently traded to the
Mets) went into
> a slump and that the Pirates were doing well until Craig Wilson's
torrid pace
> slowed down. Both teams' pitching staffs have also suffered more
recently from
> poor run support, not necessarily poor pitching efforts (but, to be
fair, both
> pitching staffs have also endured some injuries that have affected
performance).
>
> McClatchy's miserly approach has sent some of MLB's premier players
out of
> Pittsburgh and to teams where those players have made significant
contributions.
> Jason Schmidt comes to mind. Here's a guy who's in the top five
names for the NL
> Cy Young Award (along with Clemens, Randy Johnson, maybe Greg Maddux
if his
> turn-around holds up, and Carlos Zambrano), whose salary wasn't
terribly high
> ($8m), and who was traded along with Vander Wal for Vogelsong and
Rios --
> nothing but a salary dump.
>
> McClatchy's trades have done nothing to upgrade his team, only hurt
the team.
> That's eventually reflected in ticket sales. He's already whining
about
> declining attendance, and talking about moving more players before
the end of
> next month (as if he can dump Kendall's salary); that's the worst
thing he can
> do for both short and long term. Cutting the payroll to the league
minimum will
> only insure nobody in Pittsburgh will care about Pirate baseball; it
will also
> put the team in a hole at the start of next season. Don't take my
word for it,
> just look at Montreal and Seattle.

Wow, you're way more into baseball than I am. I don't doubt anything
you say. I can only add that I hope that the Pirates don't go the way
of Montreal and Seattle. The Pirates have been around for something
like 100 years and they have as rich a history as anyone in the
league. I remember going to games with my dad at Forbes Field way back
when - the same field that the likes of Honus Wagner, Babe Ruth, Ty
Cobb, Lou Gerhig, etc. all played at. It would be a shame to lose that
kind of heritage.

> Now, on to the subject of food so you can't say this is off topic.
MMP has
> veggie hotdogs available at the game, but the buns contain minute
traces of
> dairy. I want to go to PNC and catch a series later this season. Do
they have
> veggie hotdogs? Do they have any interesting food selections for
healthy eaters?

To be honest with you, I only go to a game or two a year if I'm lucky.
I just have too many other priorities in my life at the present. When
I do go to games, I usually have beer and peanuts. I don't ever
remember seeing anything like veggie dogs or veggie burgers. I
searched the web and found
http://www.soyhappy.org/venue.htm#Pitt%20Pirates for you. It doesn't
surprise me that Pittsburgh isn't at the forefront of healthy stadium
food offerings. We aren't very progressive about things like that,
although we've made some good strides in the last few years. If you
haven't been to PNC Park before, it's awesome. Try to attend a night
game. The park is situated so that most of the seating faces the
backdrop of our city and the Allegheny River. It's a gorgeous view.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Ray Bradbury is trying to get lard ass propagandist Michael Moore to
change the
> title of his latest release because it infringes on Bradbury's novel
Fahrenheit
> 451. Note that Bradbury is willing to settle for an apology and the film's
name
> change, but that litigation remains a possibility if Moore persists.
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html

I do see a difference in this case because Moore is making money off of this
and Bradbury has a right to be the only one who makes money off of his
novel. I had wondered when I first heard the film title if Bradbury had
given Moore permission.

I loved the book Farenheight 451, and I was kind of sad that the movie was
using such a similar title. It might tarnish people's perceptions of the
book if they haven't heard of it before.

-Rubystars

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
<snip>
> One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh. You are inconsistent and
> biased.

Rush has lost a lot of weight.

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Putz wrote:
> >>>But you started a thread about a movie that's
> >>>totally unrelated to vegan issues.
> >>
> >>No, look again at the subject. It's still about copyrights.
> >
> > I did look at the subject. It still has nothing to do with vegan
> > issues.
>
> It does when "ethical" vegans and other leftwingers (like you) repeatedly
> violate copyrights.
>
> >>>Additionally, you imposed your
> >>>political bent
> >>
> >>I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat
> > slobs who
> >>document their lies and call it "art."
> >
> > What exactly did he lie about in the movie?
>
> One of the central lies is that President Bush personally arranged for the
> Binladen family to leave the US following September 11th (along with a
litany of
> other crackpot conspiracy charges which General Wes Clark was asked if he
agreed
> with when Moore endorsed his campaign). The person who authorized the
departure
> of the Binladens and other Saudis was Richard Clarke.
>
>
http://jskelly.squarespace.com/displ...&entryId=13586
>
> Would you like me to find the other lies and distortions in Moore's tawdry
movie?
>
> > Have you seen it?
>
> Not yet, but I have plenty friends who have. Not one, even among my
liberal
> friends, was impressed.
>
> >>>by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
> >>>propagandist".
> >>
> >>All three words apply to him.
> >
> > One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh.
>
> Maybe you were unaware that Mr Limbaugh has lost well over 100 pounds. One
> glaring difference between Limbaugh and Moore is that Limbaugh doesn't lie
to
> score points; that's the only way Moore can. Still, I'm not an apologist
for
> Rush Limbaugh.
>
> > You are inconsistent and biased.
>
> Non sequitur; you haven't shown any bias or inconsistency on my part.
Contrary
> to what you seem to think, I don't listen to Rush. I'm more a fan of Sean
> Hannity, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Michael Medved,
and,
> sometimes, Michael Savage.

I've listened to all of those guys sometimes, except I don't know who
Michael Medved is. I listened to Rush a ton when Clinton was in office, but
haven't much since Bush got in. If Kerry gets elected, I'll probably listen
to the radio more.

I still do, sometimes.

I don't always agree with Savage, but I'm really grateful to him for putting
up the beheading videos/pictures on his site so that we can know what kind
of enemy we're fighting.

-Rubystars

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
> Wow, you're way more into baseball than I am. I don't doubt anything
> you say. I can only add that I hope that the Pirates don't go the way
> of Montreal and Seattle.

They're there.

> The Pirates have been around for something
> like 100 years

Longer than that -- the Pirates have been around since 1891, and they were the
Alleghenys for three years before that.

> and they have as rich a history as anyone in the
> league. I remember going to games with my dad at Forbes Field way back
> when -

Before that hideous eyesore called Three Rivers was built.

> the same field that the likes of Honus Wagner, Babe Ruth, Ty
> Cobb, Lou Gerhig, etc. all played at. It would be a shame to lose that
> kind of heritage.

You already have to a large degree. Owners like to threaten relocation when they
don't get their way. I doubt McClatchy will do that anytime soon since y'all
just started paying off the new park. The flipside of relocating a team is
fielding a poor-performing one under the guise of economics. Unfortunately,
that's where teams like Pittsburgh are headed today. Firing a manager for shoddy
ownership is nothing but scapegoating. For all that's been written about Oakland
GM Billy Beane, who deserves a lot of credit for what he's been able to do with
his miserly owners, there's only so far that a low-salaried team can go in MLB.

<...>
> To be honest with you, I only go to a game or two a year if I'm lucky.
> I just have too many other priorities in my life at the present. When
> I do go to games, I usually have beer and peanuts. I don't ever
> remember seeing anything like veggie dogs or veggie burgers. I
> searched the web and found
> http://www.soyhappy.org/venue.htm#Pitt%20Pirates for you.

I've seen that site and wanted to know if you knew of anything besides fries and
onion rings.

> It doesn't
> surprise me that Pittsburgh isn't at the forefront of healthy stadium
> food offerings. We aren't very progressive about things like that,
> although we've made some good strides in the last few years. If you
> haven't been to PNC Park before, it's awesome. Try to attend a night
> game. The park is situated so that most of the seating faces the
> backdrop of our city and the Allegheny River. It's a gorgeous view.

It rained out the last time I was in Pittsburgh, but I didn't have time to go to
the park anyway. I attended about 12-15 games at Three Rivers, and I saw PNC
once while it was still being built. I've seen it many times on tv (I can't
recall any of the Astros@Pirates games not airing, so that's about 8-9x per
season at PNC) and it's definitely one of the more attractive settings in
baseball. Too bad SF didn't take any cues from it, but they wanted more OF
seating and that interferes with water views from most of the park. I remember
when Daryle Ward, still an Astro at the time, hit the first ball ever out of PNC
into the river. I'm glad he's lost some weight and is finally doing what he's
capable of doing -- I just hope he doesn't do it against the Astros.

Rubystars wrote:
<...>
> I've listened to all of those guys sometimes, except I don't know who
> Michael Medved is.

He used to be (and still is, though not exclusively) a film critic. You may have
seen him on a PBS movie review show kind of like Siskel and Ebert. He filled in
several times for Rush about 10-12 years ago, and was offered his own show. One
interesting thing about him: he attended Yale Law School with Bill and Hillary
Clinton. He knows them well. He was one of their strongest critics, and, judging
from an appearance on one of the news channels the other day in which he
discussed Clinton's self-serving book and appearance on 60 Minutes, he still is.

http://www.michaelmedved.com/

> I listened to Rush a ton when Clinton was in office, but
> haven't much since Bush got in. If Kerry gets elected, I'll probably listen
> to the radio more.

That's the way it seems to go.

> I still do, sometimes.
>
> I don't always agree with Savage,

My most significant disagreement with him has been over the way he's handled the
Kobe Bryant case, calling the alleged victim some very despicable names. He's
only entertaining (imo) when he blows a fuse. As for his political views, I
don't buy that he's as far to the right as he suggests. Maybe his conversion is
genuine and his show is more real than shtick -- he's certainly alienated his
old SF beatnik friends when he was still content with his birth name -- but I'm
unconvinced. The other hosts in my list don't rely on shock for ratings; Savage
seems to thrive on it.

> but I'm really grateful to him for putting
> up the beheading videos/pictures on his site so that we can know what kind
> of enemy we're fighting.

I already knew that without seeing pics or videos. So did Savage.

Rubystars wrote:
<...>
> I do see a difference in this case because Moore is making money off of this
> and Bradbury has a right to be the only one who makes money off of his
> novel. I had wondered when I first heard the film title if Bradbury had
> given Moore permission.
>
> I loved the book Farenheight 451, and I was kind of sad that the movie was
> using such a similar title. It might tarnish people's perceptions of the
> book if they haven't heard of it before.

Moore's movie has has nothing whatsoever to do with Bradbury's book (and the
movie from it). He just lifted a catchy title and applied it to his dubious work
even though the two have nothing in common. Bradbury called Moore a "screwed
asshole" in a Swedish interview. Nailed that one on the head.

For a good review of Moore's propagandist film, see the Hitchens review of it:
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

C. James Strutz > wrote:


> Who cares? This is a vegan newsgroup. Please try to stay at least remotely
> on topic when posting.

What do you expect? Obviously some people haven't even learn yet that
calling other people names isn't a very good strategy.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
<snip>
> My most significant disagreement with him has been over the way he's
handled the
> Kobe Bryant case, calling the alleged victim some very despicable names.
He's
> only entertaining (imo) when he blows a fuse. As for his political views,
I
> don't buy that he's as far to the right as he suggests. Maybe his
conversion is
> genuine and his show is more real than shtick -- he's certainly alienated
his
> old SF beatnik friends when he was still content with his birth name --
but I'm
> unconvinced. The other hosts in my list don't rely on shock for ratings;
Savage
> seems to thrive on it.

I noticed that too. I don't know if he's genuine or not. I tried to tell
someone I knew that he was playing it up but they don't want to listen to
me.

> > but I'm really grateful to him for putting
> > up the beheading videos/pictures on his site so that we can know what
kind
> > of enemy we're fighting.
> I already knew that without seeing pics or videos. So did Savage.

I did too, but it's one thing to hear about it, another to see it. I'm
really ****ed at those guys.

-Rubystars

Shieldmaiden wrote:
>>Who cares? This is a vegan newsgroup. Please try to stay at least remotely
>>on topic when posting.
>
> What do you expect?

I expect self-proclaimed "ethical" vegans to flagrantly violate the law and the
rights of others -- and not just the copyright issue. I further expect
self-proclaimed "tolerant" vegans to demand others follow their peculiar eating
disorder to "save the animals" or some other suggestion which has no basis in
reality. I further expect self-proclaimed "enlightened" vegans to lash out at
others rather than engage them on the merits of the subject(s) at hand.

> Obviously some people haven't even learn yet that
> calling other people names isn't a very good strategy.

Awfully rich coming from an authoritarian like you.

Rubystars wrote:
<...>
>>The other hosts in my list don't rely on shock for ratings;
>>Savage seems to thrive on it.
>
> I noticed that too. I don't know if he's genuine or not. I tried to tell
> someone I knew that he was playing it up but they don't want to listen to
> me.

You can search on his name and find some anti-Savage sites that have some of his
correspondence with Ginsburg, interviews with his old pals, and other
interesting things about him. I think I read that Savage told one of his friends
of his desire to be like a right-wing version of Lenny Bruce on the radio. I
mainly listen to him for entertainment, though he occasionally has an
interesting spin on a news story.

One person I didn't list but should've is Neal Boortz; I just looked on his site
and he's not on in Houston, but you might be able to pick him up on 1580/1620 AM
(Bryan-College Station stations). I'm usually asleep when he comes on here, but
his show used to come on earlier. He's an equal opportunity offender -- nothing
is sacred. See www.boortz.com for more info about his show or to read his "nuze"
(not sure why he spells it that way, but he did attend A&M) digest for the day
-- always informative and usually amusing.

>>>but I'm really grateful to him for putting
>>>up the beheading videos/pictures on his site so that we can know what
>>>kind of enemy we're fighting.
>
>>I already knew that without seeing pics or videos. So did Savage.
>
> I did too, but it's one thing to hear about it, another to see it. I'm
> really ****ed at those guys.

So am I. I wish there was a little more outrage here so the Saudis would be a
little more pro-active in cracking down on terrorists. I'm NOT impressed with
their amnesty program.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/...rticle03.shtml
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/world.aspx?id=25856