For Annie: Recipe Corruption :)
Lethal Injectn
Gold. Only 3 ingredients per recipe. If the simplicity of her recipes doesn't
tempt you, then I'm going to have to reconsider my strategy.
For the hot NY evenings:
Two Melon Soup
1 small ripe cantaloupe (about 2 pounds)
1/2 cup Lillet*
1 small ripe honeydew (about 2 1/4 pounds)
Remove rind from cantaloupe with a sharp knife. Cut in half and remove seeds.
Cut cantaloupe into chunks and place in food processor. Puree with 6
tablespoons Lillet and a pinch of salt until very smooth. Transfer to a clean
container or pitcher and chill until very cold.
Repeat process with honeydew melon, adding 2 tablespoons Lillet and a pinch of
salt to a clean food processor bowl. Puree until very smooth, and chill several
hours until very cold.
To serve, using pitchers or ladles, pour 2 melon purees at the same time into a
flat soup plate, keeping each puree separate. They will come together in the
middle. Serve immediately.
**Lillet is a French aperitif from the Bordeaux area, now available in a red
version. Use the originalgolden version for this recipe or Dubonnet blanc.
http://starchefs.com/RGold/recipes_123/recipe_menu.html
(Go to site for a great recipe for "Chateaubriand with Porcini Crust, Wild
Mushroom Sauce"
=================
Polenta "Lasagne" with Smoked Mozzarella
Serves 6 or more
12 ounces smoked mozzarella cheese
2 cups stone-ground yellow cornmeal
28 ounce can whole tomatoes in puree
Cut a third of the cheese into small pieces. Cut remainder into slices. In
large, heavy saucepan, bring 7 cups water to a boil. Add 2 teaspoons salt, 1/8
teaspoon freshly ground white pepper, and cornmeal in a slow, steady stream.
Stir briskly with a wooden spoon until smooth. Break up lumps with back of
spoon. Lower heat to medium.
Stir constantly until polenta begins to pull away from the sides of pan. After
20 minutes, add the small pieces of cheese and stir until melted. Continue
stirring for another 15 minutes, until polenta is very thick.
Spray an 11 by 14 inch baking pan with nonstick vegetable spray. Pour hot
polenta into pan to make an even layer. Let cool at least 2 hours at room
temperature. Polenta will harden.
Preheat broiler. Cut polenta, in pan, into 12 squares. Put under broiler for 3
minutes, or until tops are lightly browned and crisp. Remove from broiler.
Preheat oven to 350° F. Meanwhile, puree tomatoes with their liquid in a food
processor until fairly smooth. Put in a small heavy saucepan with lots of
freshly ground black pepper. Bring to a boil, lower heat, and simmer 5 minutes.
Set aside.
To assemble, put 6 pieces of polenta, touching, side by side in a 10 by 10 inch
or 9 by 11 inch casserole. Spoon on half the tomato sauce to cover. Cover
tomato sauce with half the cheese slices. Top with another layer of polenta,
sauce, and cheese. Bake for 10 to 15 minutes. Serve hot.
======================
Crisped Duck with Roasted Turnips,
Port Wine Reduction
Serves 4
5 pound fresh duck
16 small white turnips (2 pounds), peeled and cut in half
2 cups tawny port
Preheat oven to 350° F. Remove giblets and wing tips from the duck. Separate
the liver from giblets, wrapping it well and putting it in the refrigerator for
use with other recipes.
Put remaining giblets and wing tips in a medium saucepan with cold water to
cover. Add 1/4 teaspoon whole black peppercorns and 1/2 teaspoon salt. Bring to
a boil. Lower heat and cook for 1 hour. Strain through a coarse-mesh sieve into
a clean pot. Discard wing tips and save giblets for use with other recipes.
Cook stock over medium heat and reduce until you have 1/2 cup. Set aside.
Remove lobes of fat from duck and discard. Wash duck well and dry. Prick duck
skin all over with a fork. Rub salt and freshly ground black pepper into skin.
Truss duck with string.
Place duck on a rack fit in a broiler pan. Roast for 1-1/4 hours. Remove duck
from rack. Pour off fat or save fat for use in other recipes. Place duck
directly in broiler pan. Place turnips around duck and return it to oven. After
25 minutes, turn turnips over. Cook an additional 20 minutes. Raise oven
temperature to 500° F. Cook duck 15 minutes longer. Total cooking time for duck
will be 2-1/4 hours.
While duck is cooking, make the port wine reduction. In a medium saucepan, put
1/2 cup reduced duck stock and add 1 cup port. Bring to a boil and cook over
medium heat until reduced to 1/2 cup, about 15 minutes.
In a small saucepan, cook 1 cup port until it is reduced to 3 tablespoons. Add
duck stock to port reduction and cook a few minutes, until sauce is syrupy. You
will have approximately 1/2 cup. Season to taste with salt and freshly ground
black pepper.
Remove duck and turnips from oven and let duck rest. Remove string and cut duck
into quarters or as desired.
http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/special/menu/menu.html
==========================
The following recipes are from 1-2-3 as listed
on:http://www.molsol.com/Cooking/recipes123.html
LACQUERED CHICKEN WINGS
2 lbs chicken "drumettes" (disjointed wings)
1/2 cup dark soy sauce
1/2 cup packed dark brown sugar
Place the wings in a disposable roasting pan. Combine the soy sauce and brown
sugar. Sprinkle the chicken with a liberal grinding of coarse black pepper and
pour the soy-sugar mixture over the wings. Let marinate for 30 minutes.
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Bake the wings for 30 minutes. Remove pan from
oven and, with tongs, turn each piece. Bake an additional 30 minutes. Turn
again and bake 15 minutes longer. The wings will be a rich dark brown and very
tender. 4 appetizer servings.
We found that these can be made ahead and frozen in plastic zipper bags. When
ready to use, partially thaw at room temperature, place the wings and sauce in
a disposable roasting pan and reheat for 15-20 minutes at 350 degrees. Using a
disposable pan is a major time-saver for this recipe!
CHICKEN ROASTED IN A SALT CRUST
1 whole 4-pound chicken at room temperature
Fresh herbs
8-10 cups kosher salt
Preheat the oven to 450 degrees. Wash the chicken and pat it dry with paper
towels. Fill the cavity with fresh herbs and season the skin with freshly
ground pepper. Place 3 cups of kosher salt in the bottom of a deep ovenproof
casserole or a pot with a cover. Place the chicken on the salt, breast side up.
Add salt to completely cover the top the chicken. Sprinkle with 1 cup water,
patting the salt down to make a solid crust.
Bake, covered 45-60 minutes. Remove the cover and bake 20-30 minutes more.
Remove from the oven and let rest for 10 minutes. Crack the salt crust with the
back of a heavy knife. Lift the chicken from the pan and remove any remaining
salt with a dry pastry brush or paper towel. Carve chicken and serve
immediately. 4-6 servings.
MAHOGANY SHORT RIBS
3 lbs short ribs, cut into 4 pieces
1 cup teriyaki sauce
1 cup prune juice
Cover the meat in the combined teriyaki sauce and prune juice. Refrigerate,
covered, overnight. Remove the ribs from the marinade. Bring the marinade to a
boil in a large pot with 1 cup water and 1/2 tsp whole black peppercorns. Lower
the heat, add the ribs and cover. Simmer for 2 hours, or until the meat is very
tender. Remove the ribs to a platter. Reduce the sauce over medium-high heat
until thick and syrupy. Pour over the ribs. 4 servings.
CHOCOLATE TRUFFLE TORTE
1 1/2 lbs good-quality semisweet chocolate
2 TBS unsalted butter
1 1/2 cups heavy cream
Line the bottom of a 9-inch springform pan with waxed paper. Chop chocolate
into small chunks and melt in the top of a double boiler over simmering water.
Do not allow the chocolate to get too hot. When the mixture is completely
melted, remove it from the heat and place in the bowl of an electric mixer. Add
the butter and cream and whip until all ingredients are well incorporated.
Pour the chocolate mixture into the lined springform pan and refrigerate for at
least 8 hours. Before serving, run the blade of a sharp knife around the edge
of the cake to loosen it. Remove from the pan. Cut with a knife that has been
dipped in hot water. Serves 12-16.
This is an incredible recipe. We have garnished it with fresh flowers (pansies
work well) and powdered sugar. We also found it was excellent served in a small
puddle of light custard sauce (see recipe).
Wull
I know a couple who eat squash blossoms.
Not my bag but I do like dandelion salad with home
made mayonnaise.
Wull
Lethal Injectn wrote:
> This is an incredible recipe. We have garnished it with fresh flowers (pansies
> work well) and powdered sugar. We also found it was excellent served in a small
> puddle of light custard sauce (see recipe).
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Sacha
wrote on 23/10/03 10:58 pm:
> These recipes sound good.
>
> I know a couple who eat squash blossoms.
> Not my bag but I do like dandelion salad with home
> made mayonnaise.
>
> Wull
>
> Lethal Injectn wrote:
>
>> This is an incredible recipe. We have garnished it with fresh flowers
>> (pansies
>> work well) and powdered sugar. We also found it was excellent served in a
>> small
>> puddle of light custard sauce (see recipe).
>
Please, don't anyone take this amiss but how about a thread on something
royal. Hmmmmm? Royal recipes? Roast swan, anyone? There are groups
that discuss food, aren't there, if that's what some of you prefer.........?
Please don't get me wrong; now and again is lovely - fun, light amusement
when nothing much royal is happening but this is turning into a food group!
;-)
--
Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)
Sean
"Wull" <wjma...@datarecall.net> wrote in message
news:3F984F12...@datarecall.net...
> These recipes sound good.
>
> I know a couple who eat squash blossoms.
> Not my bag but I do like dandelion salad with home
> made mayonnaise.
Dandelion, as you may know, is one of the best greens for you. It is loaded
with nutrients. I have it steamed, although sometimes it's a bit hard to
swallow <g>.
> Wull
>
Lethal Injectn
>>Please, don't anyone take this amiss but how about a thread on something
royal. Hmmmmm? Royal recipes? Roast swan, anyone? There are groups
that discuss food, aren't there, if that's what some of you prefer.........?
Please don't get me wrong; now and again is lovely - fun, light amusement when
nothing much royal is happening but this is turning into a food group!
;-)
>>>
Sorry, don't agree. The thread title gives more than a hint of the topic and
if people aren't interested, let them click on by. I post more than enough
on-topic royal-related comments, posts, or questions, so if I wish to post
something in a new thread (for organizations sake) as opposed to continuing in
the old thread, then I will. It is no different from discussing astrology,
gardening, Thanksgiving, jewels, books, swedes, the Channel Islands, the
taxation rates on those islands or GM foods. These are all topics which
refresh and reinvigorate the group when things are just the same old
repetition. Almost everyone participates in them. And some posters only read
OT threads and those which involve dead royals.
Even if that weren't the case, the OT threads build a greater sense of
community and warmth, something which is invaluable given how much bickering
goes on here.
So, if I offend, then please click on by.
Sean
"Sacha" <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BBBE1053.B792%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
snip.
> Please, don't anyone take this amiss but how about a thread on something
> royal. Hmmmmm? Royal recipes? Roast swan, anyone? There are groups
> that discuss food, aren't there, if that's what some of you
prefer.........?
I can only speak for msyelf, but I post royal related new and information
all the time.In fact, more so than many. So I don' really see a problem
with my replying to or starting a few off topic posts. Since we are a small
group and 'know' one another, things are bound to get off topic now and
then. Besides, it helps to foster a sense of community. That being said, I
understand what you are saying.
Sean.
Karen Martin
"Sacha" <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BBBE1053.B792%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
wjma...@datarecall.net
> wrote on 23/10/03 10:58 pm:
>
> > These recipes sound good.
> >
> > I know a couple who eat squash blossoms.
> > Not my bag but I do like dandelion salad with home
> > made mayonnaise.
> >
> > Wull
> >
> > Lethal Injectn wrote:
> >
> >> This is an incredible recipe. We have garnished it with fresh flowers
> >> (pansies
> >> work well) and powdered sugar. We also found it was excellent served in
a
> >> small
> >> puddle of light custard sauce (see recipe).
> >
> Please, don't anyone take this amiss but how about a thread on something
> royal. Hmmmmm? Royal recipes? Roast swan, anyone?
Roasting an endangered species? I think not.
Of course Bewicks and Whoopers may be selceted but the Royals are much more
likely to dine on grouse, pheasant or goose.
> Please don't get me wrong; now and again is lovely - fun, light amusement
> when nothing much royal is happening but this is turning into a food
group!
> ;-)
> --
It seems you post the most OT posts of any one here...in the midst of
anything...feast or famine of Royal news....Pun intended...
You like to draw attention to your activities, recipes, toiletries, plants
et al, ad Infinitum
Please show some consideration for the interests of others.
Lethal Injectn
>>>>It seems you post the most OT posts of any one here...>>>
No, no, no, no, NO!!!! Totally unfair. Don't give her my title! <g> I demand
to be known as the most OT poster of all. (Hey, if Annie is the
Anti-cook/recipe person, if Loreen is the Cat Person, if Wull is the Texan,
Gioff the Aussie, then *SURELY* I can be the OT person. <g>)
But, hey, I save myself by initiating many threads on the royals. From fake
Japanese royals to endless royal historical polls to Anastasia and royal
pets....
S--- ***THE*** One and Only "OT" Queen
(well, I have to be proud of something and there aren't enough German Shepherd
fans for my Prince to qualify. :) )
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 23/10/03 11:16 pm:
It isn't a question of offence, because I'm not offended. It's a question
of trying to accommodate a largeish number of disparate people in one group
that meets to discuss royalty and not just those who wish to demonstrate
their cooking skills when the royalty under discussion lacks interest for
them.
There are many differing OT topics on here but recipes seems to have swamped
us just lately, as have dogs and cats. In the past, we've done babies and
house decoration and all kinds of OT things. But we do, usually, say that
they're OT, so that other can avoid them.
It's a normal Usenet courtesy.
I'm as happy as anyone to discuss them occasionally but I think that we're
now beginning to be swamped by them. That is my opinion only, of course.
If this group wants this to turn into a cookery and animal discussion group
and just have royal discussion as a side dish, then that's the way it will
go. But of course, we won't be talking about royalty any more, which does
appear in the group title as being of primary importance, I would suggest.
Those of us who post OT topics usually mark the subject line OT at the
beginning. It's a Usenet courtesy that makes it easier for people to ignore
the ones they want to avoid. Perhaps you could keep up your recipe sub-group
by marking the posts OT?
And as you have chosen to bring up the Channel Islands - I raise them only
when they are germane to group discussion or I'm asked questions about them.
And they are part of a British royal realm, of course.
I don't often bring up my dogs, for example, either, though *many* do and it
can be quite sweet, quite interesting for a time - I love dogs dearly but
they're not royalty, are they? Even if they think they are! ;-)
In the interests of friendliness and so forth, I'm sure we can all discuss
many things when there is nothing royal to discuss - indeed, we do - but
YET another recipe thread seems a little OTT, in that this group isn't
currently going through 'a slow news day' with regard to royalty. It would
be quite nice to discuss those.
When most of us bring up an Off Topic subject, we make that clear in the
subject line.
While it's sure that there are times when there isn't much royal stuff going
on that we can discuss, this isn't one of those times. And it's still a
normal help to ALL posters to make it clear that one is going OT. I'm not
suggesting something unusual, I assure you.
Sacha
23/10/03 11:23 pm:
Thanks, Sean. I thought you would. OT happens all the time when there's
nothing much else going on. It's fun - it's light relief etc. As I have
said to LI, marking OT subjects *as* OT would help everyone. While
sometimes it's fun to discuss recipes, dogs, cats, children, jewellery, make
up, clothes etc. it seems to be happening more and more just lately. I mean
- another recipe thread AGAIN?! And while there is real stuff going on in
the royal sense which is, after all, the thrust of this group?
I suppose what I'm saying is very much a personal reaction and I'm sure I'll
be shouted down by many but when there are royal matters to discuss, do we
have to fill the group with yet *another* recipe thread. And if we do,
could it be marked OT, please? Not a great deal to ask, I hope.
Lethal Injectn
> It's fun - it's light relief etc. As I have
>said to LI, marking OT subjects *as* OT would help everyone. While
You're right. However, I thought a thread entitled: "For Annie: recipe
corruption" would be clear enough indication that it is off-topic. Just as
Andy's "Later, Gang!" adieu was clearly an OT post from the substantive nature
of the post. That post --- as many such similar posts from Andy --- were not
admonished with a comment about needing "OT" labelling.
Why? Because that post --- just as YOUR "for Annie" post on Femail/Htchens ---
indicated, by virtue of the header, that it was a personal thing. Just as YOUR
"Purpose of GM crops" (no "OT" mentioned) was clearly something unrelated to
royals and, thus, something for people to skip if they so wished.
>> I'm sure I'll be shouted down by many but when there are royal matters to
discuss, do we have to fill the group with yet *another* recipe thread. And if
we do,
could it be marked OT, please? Not a great deal to ask, I hope.>>>
Should you really want me to go through the pro-forma rituals and add an "OT"
to a clearly non-royal header like "For Annie: Recipe Corruption," then I will
be happy to do so. But you've done the same thing as you're (gently)
chastising me for now. So, perhaps, next time you discuss GM crops, perhaps
you could "mark it as OT, please? Not a great deal to ask, I hope."
Lethal Injectn
================
I've responded to all these comments in another post which I just sent. To
briefly summarize, I post a LOT on royal topics, from the current ones on Diana
to initiating many of my own. And I always have.
As for discussing non-royal matters without labelling it as such, you have done
the same thing which you are objecting to: e.g., relying on personal references
or making OT posts which are clearly OT by virtue of their labelling. (GM
threads are just the latest example)
Furthermore, there have been others -- -such as Andy --- who have made clearly
OT posts without marking them as such because there was no need to; the wording
of the title/heading made it clear it was OT.
If you want me to play the superficial, semantic game of adding "OT" to a post
which is clearly personal and non-royal like "For Annie: recipe corruption",
then I will.
But I think it a joke and a farce. It would be akin to my posting a
horrendous thread labelled: "Stalin was Right and Gulags Should Have Burnt
People Alive" and you commenting that I need to put an "OT" before the clause
because that is the only way people would know that I was discussing something
irrelevant.
One more time: if the header seems to indicate a clearly non-royal topic (and I
think "For Annie: RECIPE corruption" makes that clear) and if you don't like
the topic, then just click "next" or put me on filter.
Ciao
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 24/10/03 12:22 am:
> From: Sacha
>
>> It's fun - it's light relief etc. As I have
>> said to LI, marking OT subjects *as* OT would help everyone. While
>
> You're right. However, I thought a thread entitled: "For Annie: recipe
> corruption" would be clear enough indication that it is off-topic. Just as
> Andy's "Later, Gang!" adieu was clearly an OT post from the substantive nature
> of the post. That post --- as many such similar posts from Andy --- were not
> admonished with a comment about needing "OT" labelling.
Andy's 'farewell' was obviously self-limiting and I don't remember him
starting a number of OT posts - though I expect he's done his fair share in
10 years, as we all have.
>
> Why? Because that post --- just as YOUR "for Annie" post on Femail/Htchens
> ---
> indicated, by virtue of the header, that it was a personal thing.
Um. Yes. But Hitchens does write about Royalty and Annie and others had,
IIRC, been asking about seeing British newspaper articles about royalty.
>Just as
> YOUR
> "Purpose of GM crops" (no "OT" mentioned) was clearly something unrelated to
> royals and, thus, something for people to skip if they so wished.
I thought that was in response to someone else. Did I start that thread -
slap on the wrist, if I did and without warning. I'll have to look back and
see.
>
>>> I'm sure I'll be shouted down by many but when there are royal matters to
> discuss, do we have to fill the group with yet *another* recipe thread. And
> if
> we do,
> could it be marked OT, please? Not a great deal to ask, I hope.>>>
>
> Should you really want me to go through the pro-forma rituals and add an "OT"
> to a clearly non-royal header like "For Annie: Recipe Corruption," then I will
> be happy to do so.
Thank you. I think it would help many of us. Nobody in a group can make
anyone else in that group DO anything but it's a normal Usenet courtesy,
that's all and I think it's a fair one. As I said before, we do get a lot
of highly entertaining and interesting OT threads here but usually, they're
marked as such and/or only occur when there is nothing of royal interest
going on. That isn't the case just now.
>But you've done the same thing as you're (gently)
> chastising me for now. So, perhaps, next time you discuss GM crops, perhaps
> you could "mark it as OT, please? Not a great deal to ask, I hope."
Not at all. Though I must say that I *think* I usually go OT by accident
and when weakly following others into a thread that develops from e.g. the
PoW is the Prince of Hell because he's anti-GM, or some such. The GM thread
developed, IIRC, from the suggestion that the PoW was pronouncing on Govt.
policy when he shouldn't be doing so e.g. a royal or at least
royal-associated topic, which developed from there. It's a thread that has
recrudesced more than once.
Not *quite* the same as 60 ways to stuff a grape, started from scratch or
even Andy's brussel sprouts and goat's cheese. ;-)
When I know that I'm going to start an OT thread, I try always to be sure
that I say so. Makes it easier for others to ignore it. Just a thought.
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 24/10/03 12:33 am:
Well, Salome, this is a bit of a change of tone. I've responded to your
earlier post, so I'm not going to respond to this one.
Two *entirely* different responses in the space of what - an hour? Very
puzzling.
G-B
Sacha wrote:
=====
Well, people tend to stew sometimes :)
Now you two, patch it up and forget about it we don't need another war here. Sacha,
go and pull some weeds and Salome go and give Kafka a brush. The world will look
better then :)
Gioff
G-B
Sacha wrote:
=======
Look we all go OT at some stage. It's an outlet and often it's like sharing
something with friends when there's no one else about - or at least no one you want
to talk too....
Gioff
Karen Martin
"Lethal Injectn" <lethal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031023184856...@mb-m19.aol.com...
Most generous of you, Darl, albeit, I've been here long enough, off and on,
to See where the majority of the off topic posts originate...even if they
aren't labeled OT.
I'll give you credit for being the most Forthright or Blatant of Off
Topicers if you so desire... =) Badges and Sashes to follow...
But let's not slight Slash with her catalog of worm farms, Possible Royal
Warrants pertaining to Her, Corrie Chicken, fly screens ( as she calls
them) , mystery novels, Bow Wows, pub encounters, Mr. Blair's platform,
bargain this that and the other, people she knows who know someone who once
saw Mrs. PB in a bus queue and felt her aura of 'warmth' .... that sort of
thing as well....and of course the obligatory marrows.
Sacha
on 24/10/03 1:00 am:
It's pitch dark and dead of night here, Gioff, so I'll give that a pass for
now. Did plenty of it this morning, though - consequently aching back, too.
;-)
Salome will of course, do as she pleases. As I've already said, nobody can
make another poster do anything, one can only make suggestions that might
help the group as a whole.
Sacha
on 24/10/03 1:03 am:
That's what I said. We all tend to do it sometimes. It's just a good idea
to mark posts OT when they are OT, that's all.
Lethal Injectn
>>Well, Salome, this is a bit of a change of tone. I've responded to your
earlier post, so I'm not going to respond to this one. Two *entirely* different
responses in the space of what - an hour? Very
puzzling. >>
I don't see the difference. Throughout this thread, my point has been that:
1--- some threads are clearly OT by virtue of their heading and, as such,
don't necessarily need an label of "OT."
2- Demanding an "OT" to be inserting when the topic is clearly so is just
semantics.
3- You yourself --- as well as many others --- have written posts without
adding in "OT" and the reason was, very simply, because it was redundant given
the heading.
--
Lethal Injectn
>Salome will of course, do as she pleases. As I've already said, nobody can
>make another poster do anything, one can only make suggestions that might
>help the group as a whole.
I have no problems with suggestions which will help a group as whole.... IF the
person suggesting them does it themselves or if they don't contrevene logic.
Telling me to add "OT" to a header that is clearly so, is just semantics and
quibbling to me. Again, it is as though you were telling me that I needed to
label a post about "Stalin's Gulags and their Totalitarian Foundations," as OT
so that people could *realise* and *understand that it didn't relate to the
Windors or royals.
I usually label posts as OT but the one time I didn't, I don't think it is
worthy of a chiding given just how OBVIOUSLY it is a personal and non-royal
post to another board member. And I deeply resent being chastised over
something which everyone --- including you yourself --- has done and which ---
in my case --- is so clearly an OT personal post which has no need for
linguistic, labelling semantics.
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 24/10/03 1:16 am:
I was trying, politely I hope, to suggest that if you were going to start
yet another recipe thread, you make that clear. There has been a lot of
them and not all of us enjoy them. By all means, if that is what the
majority of the group want, then have a free for all. That will evolve
naturally. But as this is a royalty group, I just didn't think it
unreasonable to ask you, when starting another food thread, to make it clear
that it has nothing to do with the group's originally intended subject, so
that those who want to, can killfile it or avoid it immediately. If you
choose not to do that, nobody can make you do so. It was merely a
suggestion.
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 24/10/03 1:24 am:
Yes, so you have said. Three times now, I think. I made a request, a
suggestion. Clearly you think it unreasonable, so equally clearly, you must
do as you think best.
Lethal Injectn
>That's what I said. We all tend to do it sometimes. It's just a good idea
>to mark posts OT when they are OT, that's all.
Yes. Unless posts like your "Purpose of GM crops" (focusing on your discussion
of Monsanto's business practices) are so clear in their subject matter headers
as to negate the need for the redundant "OT."
Lethal Injectn
>>>I was trying, politely I hope, to suggest that if you were going to start
yet another recipe thread, you make that clear.>>>
=============
Sorry but I thought the title, "For Annie: RECIPE corruption" [emphasis added]
was clear enough. I don't think people here are morons who are incapable of
stringing 2 concepts along. Somehow, I just assumed AGR readers were
intelligent enough to gather:
"For Annie" = personal note and, thus, probably OT
"RECIPE corruption" = something about recipes and therefore, CLEARLY,
off-topic.
However, if you insist on me playing redundancy games, then I will. To wit:
"OT: to Sacha: re: To Annie: Re Recipe Corruptions
Dear Sacha, the following thread shall be about recipes. And it shall be
posted personally to Annie. It is OT just as your thread about Monsanto's
business practices was OT. I hope I've made myself redundantly obvious and
clear. If anyone is mentally deficient and can't understand the obvious point,
let me elucidate one more time. THIS IS OFF TOPIC BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH
RECIPES AND RECIPES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROYAL FAMILY."
In case that explanation and the word "recipe" is not clear enough, how about
this: "Dear reader, the word 'recipe' pertains and relates to the act of
cooking. It involves the use of foods to create culinary dishes. As such, it
is focused on foods and not --- for the main part --- on anyone royal. Thus,
anything involving the word, "recipe" will involve cooking and be, necessarily,
OT, unless stated otherwise."
Happy?
Karen Martin
"Karen Martin" <p...@e-garfield.com> wrote in message
news:c0_lb.10047$FV.83...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
me....I stand abashed! =)
G-B
Karen Martin wrote:
======
Yes you did but only because you were clarifying something I'd said in a post on
Philip and Anne vs Charles in GM (from memory, anyway) so it wasn't completely
OT..
Gioff
G-B
Lethal Injectn wrote:
=====
<uncomfortable silence at dinner table>
[Hostess} "More wine, anyone?"
yaffaDina
>
> From the lady/cookbook I was telling you about: "Recipes 1-2-3" by Roxanne
> Gold. Only 3 ingredients per recipe. If the simplicity of her recipes doesn't
> tempt you, then I'm going to have to reconsider my strategy.
Damn you to hell, woman!
I have to go to the supermarket tomorrow and I still have the list of
things you said go with tuna. And then there's Wull's recipe which he
took the trouble to ask me about the other day. I'm beginning to get
all anxious. otoh the benefits of presenting Mr. Yaffa (I like that
btw) with a delicious handmade meal (that doesn't sound right, I know,
but "home made" sounds too plebian for something called a two melon
soupl With great effort I am trying *not* to think of that :) ) are
enormous (no slur on JFlexer) and it is the weekend and, you know, it
just somehow feels right!
You have succeeded, this is going to be awful!
yD :(
>
> For the hot NY evenings:
> Two Melon Soup
>
> 1 small ripe cantaloupe (about 2 pounds)
> 1/2 cup Lillet*
> 1 small ripe honeydew (about 2 1/4 pounds)
>
> Remove rind from cantaloupe with a sharp knife. Cut in half and remove seeds.
> Cut cantaloupe into chunks and place in food processor. Puree with 6
> tablespoons Lillet and a pinch of salt until very smooth. Transfer to a clean
> container or pitcher and chill until very cold.
>
> Repeat process with honeydew melon, adding 2 tablespoons Lillet and a pinch of
> salt to a clean food processor bowl. Puree until very smooth, and chill several
> hours until very cold.
>
> To serve, using pitchers or ladles, pour 2 melon purees at the same time into a
> flat soup plate, keeping each puree separate. They will come together in the
> middle. Serve immediately.
>
> **Lillet is a French aperitif from the Bordeaux area, now available in a red
> version. Use the originalgolden version for this recipe or Dubonnet blanc.
>
> http://starchefs.com/RGold/recipes_123/recipe_menu.html
> (Go to site for a great recipe for "Chateaubriand with Porcini Crust, Wild
> Mushroom Sauce"
> =================
>
> Polenta "Lasagne" with Smoked Mozzarella
> Serves 6 or more
>
> 12 ounces smoked mozzarella cheese
> 2 cups stone-ground yellow cornmeal
> 28 ounce can whole tomatoes in puree
>
> Cut a third of the cheese into small pieces. Cut remainder into slices. In
> large, heavy saucepan, bring 7 cups water to a boil. Add 2 teaspoons salt, 1/8
> teaspoon freshly ground white pepper, and cornmeal in a slow, steady stream.
> Stir briskly with a wooden spoon until smooth. Break up lumps with back of
> spoon. Lower heat to medium.
>
> Stir constantly until polenta begins to pull away from the sides of pan. After
> 20 minutes, add the small pieces of cheese and stir until melted. Continue
> stirring for another 15 minutes, until polenta is very thick.
>
> Spray an 11 by 14 inch baking pan with nonstick vegetable spray. Pour hot
> polenta into pan to make an even layer. Let cool at least 2 hours at room
> temperature. Polenta will harden.
>
> Preheat broiler. Cut polenta, in pan, into 12 squares. Put under broiler for 3
> minutes, or until tops are lightly browned and crisp. Remove from broiler.
> Preheat oven to 350° F. Meanwhile, puree tomatoes with their liquid in a food
> processor until fairly smooth. Put in a small heavy saucepan with lots of
> freshly ground black pepper. Bring to a boil, lower heat, and simmer 5 minutes.
> Set aside.
>
> To assemble, put 6 pieces of polenta, touching, side by side in a 10 by 10 inch
> or 9 by 11 inch casserole. Spoon on half the tomato sauce to cover. Cover
> tomato sauce with half the cheese slices. Top with another layer of polenta,
> sauce, and cheese. Bake for 10 to 15 minutes. Serve hot.
>
> ======================
> Crisped Duck with Roasted Turnips,
> Port Wine Reduction
> Serves 4
>
> 5 pound fresh duck
> 16 small white turnips (2 pounds), peeled and cut in half
> 2 cups tawny port
>
> Preheat oven to 350° F. Remove giblets and wing tips from the duck. Separate
> the liver from giblets, wrapping it well and putting it in the refrigerator for
> use with other recipes.
>
> Put remaining giblets and wing tips in a medium saucepan with cold water to
> cover. Add 1/4 teaspoon whole black peppercorns and 1/2 teaspoon salt. Bring to
> a boil. Lower heat and cook for 1 hour. Strain through a coarse-mesh sieve into
> a clean pot. Discard wing tips and save giblets for use with other recipes.
> Cook stock over medium heat and reduce until you have 1/2 cup. Set aside.
>
> Remove lobes of fat from duck and discard. Wash duck well and dry. Prick duck
> skin all over with a fork. Rub salt and freshly ground black pepper into skin.
> Truss duck with string.
>
> Place duck on a rack fit in a broiler pan. Roast for 1-1/4 hours. Remove duck
> from rack. Pour off fat or save fat for use in other recipes. Place duck
> directly in broiler pan. Place turnips around duck and return it to oven. After
> 25 minutes, turn turnips over. Cook an additional 20 minutes. Raise oven
> temperature to 500° F. Cook duck 15 minutes longer. Total cooking time for duck
> will be 2-1/4 hours.
>
> While duck is cooking, make the port wine reduction. In a medium saucepan, put
> 1/2 cup reduced duck stock and add 1 cup port. Bring to a boil and cook over
> medium heat until reduced to 1/2 cup, about 15 minutes.
>
> In a small saucepan, cook 1 cup port until it is reduced to 3 tablespoons. Add
> duck stock to port reduction and cook a few minutes, until sauce is syrupy. You
> will have approximately 1/2 cup. Season to taste with salt and freshly ground
> black pepper.
>
> Remove duck and turnips from oven and let duck rest. Remove string and cut duck
> into quarters or as desired.
>
> http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/special/menu/menu.html
>
> ==========================
> The following recipes are from 1-2-3 as listed
> on:http://www.molsol.com/Cooking/recipes123.html
>
> LACQUERED CHICKEN WINGS
> 2 lbs chicken "drumettes" (disjointed wings)
> 1/2 cup dark soy sauce
> 1/2 cup packed dark brown sugar
>
> Place the wings in a disposable roasting pan. Combine the soy sauce and brown
> sugar. Sprinkle the chicken with a liberal grinding of coarse black pepper and
> pour the soy-sugar mixture over the wings. Let marinate for 30 minutes.
>
> Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Bake the wings for 30 minutes. Remove pan from
> oven and, with tongs, turn each piece. Bake an additional 30 minutes. Turn
> again and bake 15 minutes longer. The wings will be a rich dark brown and very
> tender. 4 appetizer servings.
>
> We found that these can be made ahead and frozen in plastic zipper bags. When
> ready to use, partially thaw at room temperature, place the wings and sauce in
> a disposable roasting pan and reheat for 15-20 minutes at 350 degrees. Using a
> disposable pan is a major time-saver for this recipe!
>
> CHICKEN ROASTED IN A SALT CRUST
> 1 whole 4-pound chicken at room temperature
> Fresh herbs
> 8-10 cups kosher salt
>
> Preheat the oven to 450 degrees. Wash the chicken and pat it dry with paper
> towels. Fill the cavity with fresh herbs and season the skin with freshly
> ground pepper. Place 3 cups of kosher salt in the bottom of a deep ovenproof
> casserole or a pot with a cover. Place the chicken on the salt, breast side up.
> Add salt to completely cover the top the chicken. Sprinkle with 1 cup water,
> patting the salt down to make a solid crust.
>
> Bake, covered 45-60 minutes. Remove the cover and bake 20-30 minutes more.
> Remove from the oven and let rest for 10 minutes. Crack the salt crust with the
> back of a heavy knife. Lift the chicken from the pan and remove any remaining
> salt with a dry pastry brush or paper towel. Carve chicken and serve
> immediately. 4-6 servings.
>
> MAHOGANY SHORT RIBS
> 3 lbs short ribs, cut into 4 pieces
> 1 cup teriyaki sauce
> 1 cup prune juice
>
> Cover the meat in the combined teriyaki sauce and prune juice. Refrigerate,
> covered, overnight. Remove the ribs from the marinade. Bring the marinade to a
> boil in a large pot with 1 cup water and 1/2 tsp whole black peppercorns. Lower
> the heat, add the ribs and cover. Simmer for 2 hours, or until the meat is very
> tender. Remove the ribs to a platter. Reduce the sauce over medium-high heat
> until thick and syrupy. Pour over the ribs. 4 servings.
>
> CHOCOLATE TRUFFLE TORTE
> 1 1/2 lbs good-quality semisweet chocolate
> 2 TBS unsalted butter
> 1 1/2 cups heavy cream
>
> Line the bottom of a 9-inch springform pan with waxed paper. Chop chocolate
> into small chunks and melt in the top of a double boiler over simmering water.
> Do not allow the chocolate to get too hot. When the mixture is completely
> melted, remove it from the heat and place in the bowl of an electric mixer. Add
> the butter and cream and whip until all ingredients are well incorporated.
>
> Pour the chocolate mixture into the lined springform pan and refrigerate for at
> least 8 hours. Before serving, run the blade of a sharp knife around the edge
> of the cake to loosen it. Remove from the pan. Cut with a knife that has been
> dipped in hot water. Serves 12-16.
yaffaDina
>
> in article 3F984F12...@datarecall.net, Wull at wjma...@datarecall.net
> wrote on 23/10/03 10:58 pm:
>
> >
> > I know a couple who eat squash blossoms.
> > Not my bag but I do like dandelion salad with home
> > made mayonnaise.
> >
> > Wull
> >
> > Lethal Injectn wrote:
> >
> >> (pansies
> >> work well) and powdered sugar. We also found it was excellent served in a
> >> small
> >> puddle of light custard sauce (see recipe).
> >
> royal. Hmmmmm? Royal recipes? Roast swan, anyone? There are groups
> that discuss food, aren't there, if that's what some of you prefer.........?
> when nothing much royal is happening but this is turning into a food group!
> ;-)
>
> Sacha
> (remove the 'x' to email me)
Dammit, Sacha -- when you're right you're right, but it's too late I
have already printed out the damn recipes and have a piece of paper for
my -- greatly extended -- shopping list!
Ban these people NOW before other lives are changed irrevocably!
yD
Lethal Injectn
>>>Ban these people NOW before other lives are changed irrevocably! <>>>
LMAO!!!
Lethal Injectn
>>>otoh the benefits of presenting Mr. Yaffa (I like that
btw) with a delicious handmade meal (that doesn't sound right, I know, but
"home made" sounds too plebian for something called a two melon soupl With
great effort I am trying *not* to think of that :) ) are enormous (no slur on
JFlexer) and it is the weekend and, you know, it just somehow feels right! You
have succeeded, this is going to be awful!
yD :(
============
:)
S--- enormously pleased with herself.
yaffaDina
I think I'm back to normal now -- this cooking thing just isn't my
style.
yD
Wull
With all that domestication, next you will be
running for "Mrs America". :-)
Wull
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
yaffaDina
>
> WOW
>
> With all that domestication, next you will be
> running for "Mrs America". :-)
>
> Wull
Mrs. Resident Alien you mean!
yD
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 24/10/03 2:03 am:
AFAIR, that one led one from a general discussion - not started by me, I
*think* - about life under this government in Britain.
It is absolutely standard Usenet practice and etiquette to head an off topic
post with OT and I try always to do it if it *is* me that starts an OT
thread. Obviously, I can only speak for myself but I prefer to give people
the warning that this might not be a thread to their taste, that it is not
about royalty, which is after all, the primary purpose of this group and
that I have tried to consider their interests, too.
And that is all I'm suggesting to you because we now have so many of them,
so often; books, perfume, animals etc. It gives *everyone* the 'warning'
that this is not about royalty, may not interest them and may in fact, bore
them rather. In some newsgroups, people have their killfiles set up
automatically so as to delete everything headed OT before it hits their
screens. They don't want to wander off topic. OTOH, there is no doubt that
a lot of people on agr DO enjoy the OT threads but some people don't - why
shouldn't both have the choice?
Sacha
on 24/10/03 3:52 am:
Exactly. that's why I say that we often *wander* OT but when we start
deliberately OT posts, it's a net courtesy to say so.
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 24/10/03 2:13 am:
Not really. I'd call it a work of supererogation, myself. That's why I
suggested the simple use of 'OT'. ;-)
Sacha
on 24/10/03 7:46 am:
Or even "normal etiquette, anyone?" ;-(
Sacha
wrote on 24/10/03 2:32 pm:
> WOW
>
> With all that domestication, next you will be
> running for "Mrs America". :-)
>
> Wull
>
<snip>
Only errands........ ;-))
Lethal Injectn
>>>AFAIR, that one led one from a general discussion - not started by me, I
*think* - about life under this government in Britain. It is absolutely
standard Usenet practice and etiquette to head an off topic post with OT and I
try always to do it if it *is* me that starts an OT thread. Obviously, I can
only speak for myself but I prefer to give people the warning that this might
not be a thread to their taste, that it is not about royalty, which is after
all, the primary purpose of this group and that I have tried to consider their
interests, too. >>>
==============================
So, topics about GM food, the Blair government, the different political leaders
from the various British parties, and all your other political posts are about
"royalty, which is, after all, the primary purpose of this group"???
If you are to chastize me for not putting OT in an header whose subject matter
makes it obviously unrelated to royalty, then perhaps you should have done so
for some of the following threads:
--- PK re Jersey (ONE OF YOURS)
--- Dog Calenders (ONE OF YOURS)
--- Arnold for Governor
--- Arnold elected Gropenfuhrer of California
--- Usenet messed up?
--- New Zealand
--- Patrick Scott Hogg
--- I got it!
--- newsgroup problems
--- Leaf Alert
--- Recipe for Italians (no, not a post of mine)
--- The Wagga Poetry Prize
--- To Teri
--- Benjamin Goldsmith & Kate Rothshild (neither are royals, AFAIK)
--- Marquess of Bristol (not a royal, AFAIK)
--- Canadian Governor General Under Fire
--- No Carrots & Swedes for Tea
--- Tony is not a nice man
--- Right That's It! (about Blair)
If you want to talk about "normal etiquette," maybe you could tell some of the
others too.....
========================
>>>It gives *everyone* the 'warning' that this is not about royalty, may not
interest them and may in fact, bore them rather. >>>
Perhaps all the posts about Blair --- which are not labelled or relabelled as
OT as they should be under your rule -- bore people too. Perhaps you should
add an OT to your many, many, MANY discussions on Blair and the various British
govt. parties so that people can be "warned" to avoid it if they should so
wish.
Then again, don't if you don't feel like it. Some of us don't try to regulate
people discussing things they are interested in or which they know interests
others.
G-B
yaffaDina wrote:
======
I know what you mean. This thread is doing my diet the world of good! :)
Gioff
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 24/10/03 6:08 pm:
I can only wonder why you have such a problem in exhibiting normal Usenet
courtesies to other people, Salome. I have not mentioned re-labelling. I
have mentioned that originating OT threads can wander off topic AND that if
they're not labelled OT, those of us that don't wish to follow everyone's
pet history or which perfume XY&Z wear, are doomed.
It seems that you want often to start threads about books, cooking, perfume,
dogs, etc. and if people here wish to follow them, I'm sure you'll all enjoy
them. Of course you will. But they are not to do with royalty, which is the
subject of this group. All I am suggesting to you is that you consider the
convenience and interest of others in this group by making it clear that
your posts have nothing to do with the group but are mostly allied to your
personal interests and those of some others. I don't think anyone is asking
you not to post on these subjects, just to use OT in the subject heading so
that we know we don't need to read the thread to find out that you're
talking about your preferred scent and not Queen Mary's, Pss Alexandra's or
Diana's. Same with the recipes - fascinating though they are - and indeed,
we've all joined in from time to time. It's just that time to time seems
now to be pretty well constant, so perhaps we should or could *all* consider
that these are not of interest to everyone on a royalty group unless they
are truly royalty related.
Please allow me to put it this way:
Almost every member of this group has a pet or pets they think the world of.
So - each of us posts about that dog, cat, parakeet, tortoise, gecko, and
its activities, say 6 times a week. Then, we also decide to post about our
favourite perfume for e.g. 10 days - and that would be how many of us? So,
we go on to books (non royalty) and recommend our favourite romances,
mysteries to each other and remark on which of those Great Aunt Blanche
enjoyed. Then we move on to recipes - well, we all enjoy our food,
so........... Multiply that by many more than just YOU or me and where do
we end up? Not on a royalty group, that's for sure. And Salome, I'm not
talking about naturally evolving discussions, I'm talking about threads
started from the 'go'.
So please, - a simple, courteous, please, just use OT when you are not
discussing a royalty subject. I am totally disinterested in threads on
perfume and (mostly) on cookery and I suspect that I am not alone in this.
I have certainly had some great book recommendations from this group but
over years, not days.
Lethal Injectn
=======================================================
1- If the issue is adding "OT" to originating OT threads, then I usually do
so. Everyone fails once in a while, including **YOU** as history shows. ("Dog
Calenders", anyone?) However, you have not chastised everyone on any occasion
for doing that. Only me. On one of the few, if ever, occasions where I
didn't put OT. Mea Culpa, I forgot. If it was such an inconvenience, the
topic thread was clear enough in showing it was OT. And, one more time, you
yourself have forgotten and done the same.
2- If the issue is the number of topic off-topic from royalty --- and that
seems to be the REAL issue given the content of your post with its numerous
references to perfumes, dogs, recipes, etc. --- let me remind you that you
yourself engage in a lot of OT discussions. Yours pertain to various govt.
ministers, the role of Blair, his violation of normal govt. traditions, his
alleged lies, etc. etc. etc. So, basically, you are saying either:
a--- it's okay for you to do it because it's you
b- it's okay for you to do it because it is a serious topic -- in YOUR eyes --
because it has to do with politics;
c--- it's okay to go off on numerous OT threads as long as it is about things
**you** are not interested in, such as books, mysteries, perfume, dogs,
recipes.
d--- there is something wrong with me in pointing all of this out to you when
you haven't commented on anyone else going OT, whether it is Andy on Arnold
Gropenfuhrer, you on endless topics, Annie on mystery books, etc. etc.
You ask what is my issue in following such simple rules, well I'll tell you.
You are inconsistent and telling me things which you don't follow yourself and
which you haven't told others about.
Again, if the issue is INITIATING off-topic threads, you have done so yourself
and you have also never said a word about numerous other people doing the same
thing. If you are going to chastise me, then follow your own damn dictates or
be consistent.
If the issue is the number of posts which are unrelated to royalty, you have
posted MORE than your fair share yourself. You have also never spoken out when
others have made posts like the following: Jen on perfume, Jeffrey on cologne,
Sean on political ME matters, Annie on books, Stephen on Arnold, Andy on
Arnold, half the board on Arnold, everyone INCLUDING YOURSELF on Bush, people
on Ann Coulter, others on Rush Limbaugh, Wull on Jamabalaya, Jeff and Annie on
airplane catastrophe books, Tara on the state of her dogs, Gggarrragh on
various aristocrats, Susan on getting a tiara, Annie and Loreen on the Petersen
murder case, Sean on several recipe threads, Tara on Italians, you on driving
in Meditterean countries, you on olives at your new house in Crete, you on the
tea you had in Turkey, you on the perfume you got from that female
perfumer-whose-name-I-can't-recall, you on the Channel Islands, you on the
murder mystery book set in the channel islands featuring a garden, you teasing
JS about having a conservatory, you talking about Swedes and British teas, you
talking about Blair and other govt. officials.....
The point is: you don't practice what you preach. And what you're preaching
now, you've singled me out for when you haven't done so for many other people
who have done the same.
I almost ALWAYS put "OT" in the beginning of my posts and I failed once. Shoot
me. But the issue isn't really the formulation of my posts. It can't be since
the OT nature of them is so very clear, since you and others have made similar
posts where the content is obviously OT, and since your entire response to me
pertains to things like dogs, books, recipes, etc. Obviously, your issue is
that you think I am making too many OT posts. My answer is:
a- if a post is initiated as OT, then why don't you skip it.
b- if a topic becomes OT, and if you have such a concern with people being
"warned" about things unrelated to royals such that they can't filter them,
then add OT to the header of **YOUR*** many Blair posts.
c- if a topic becomes OT, and you have a concern about the numerous posts
unrelated to royals, then don't engage in it **yourself** and tell off EVERYONE
who responds.
d- If you think it is such a hassle to read "boring" posts on non-royal topics
books, dogs, pets, perfume, etc., then"
1- do what you said about filters: put in all those words so that posts
including such terms in their headers can be automatically deleted;
2- don't engage in "boring" posts for "10 days" about Blair, other govt.
ministers, members of various British parties, etc.
e-- If you think it is normal Usenet courtesy, to put an "OT" in unrelated
royal threads, then:
1- do so yourself; and
2- tell **EVERYONE** to do so, not just me.
In other words, be consistent and practice what you preach. Otherwise, don't
tell me about "normal Usenet courtesies."
Finis.
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.netSPAM wrote on 24/10/03 2:30 pm:
Chinese, Japanese or Pizza? On us, chez nous.
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 25/10/03 12:27 am:
Finis? Says who? You? I don't think so.
I'll try once more. If you are going to overlook normal usenet courtesies,
then sooner or later someone is going to go after you about it. All I have
suggested is that you observe these. They're really not very hard, except
perhaps, for people who want everything their own way. We see a lot of that
on the internet, sadly. Look at this group; most people on it who post OT,
put OT in front of their first and original posting.
I will repeat this as simply as I can. If you wish to start (as in
'originate') yet another and another and another thread about the things
*you* wish to discuss but that have nothing to do with royalty, may I
suggest that you put OT in front of the subject header. Not exactly rocket
science but a small and often observed courtesy.
Lethal Injectn
>>>Finis? Says who? You? I don't think so. I'll try once more. If you are
going to overlook normal usenet courtesies, then sooner or later someone is
going to go after you about it. All I have suggested is that you observe
these. They're really not very hard, except perhaps, for people who want
everything their own way. We see a lot of that on the internet, sadly. Look
at this group; most people on it who post OT, put OT in front of their first
and original posting. I will repeat this as simply as I can. If you wish to
start (as in 'originate') yet another and another and another thread about the
things *you* wish to discuss but that have nothing to do with royalty, may I
suggest that you put OT in front of the subject header. Not exactly rocket
science but a small and often observed courtesy. >>
One more time, why don't you practice what you preach and ALSO be consistent in
making your comments. Until you tell others what you've told me -- and engage
in it yourself --- you have no basis to single me out. Not rocket science but
a small, simple matter of consistency.
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 25/10/03 1:02 am:
In that case, I can only suggest that you look at how many people, other
than yourself, direct or start threads towards their own taste or interest
in dogs, perfumes, cookery, clothes, boyfriends etc. Jolly good fun, if one
is interested, but perhaps it would be better to give posters who are not
riveted by these subjects, the chance to recognise them and ignore them or
select them.
This entire discussion started because you wanted to start yet another
thread on cookery - as provided by you. That's why I suggested you
could/should provide an OT warning, as is normal practice and that's all
there is to it, really. Good manners, don't you think? I thought it was
time to suggest that you might consider observing normal Usenet courtesy.
That's all. If you consider yourself to be above normal good Usenet practice
and politeness, which most people here observe, then there isn't much anyone
can say to you, is there? As I said before; this is just a suggestion.
Sean
Everyone has made their 'points' (many times over) on the OT issue, so can
we please drop it? For me ;(
(that's supposed to be a tear, btw)?
I hate to see two of usenet's most amazing women bickering about something
so trivial.
Thanks :)
Sean.
G-B
Sacha wrote:
Look Sacha, I get probably some of the most out of your and Salome's posts. I think
this whole thread has got out of control. We've all left the OT off at some stage
for one reason or another, in the scheme of life, it really is no big deal. All any
continuance of this matter is going to do is get to the stage that you both loathe
each other, which *really* would be a shame. Personally I love reading the posts on
AGR on topic or not because so much of people's personalities show in them and there
are so many people here I'd really like to meet. Can we just forget all this OT
sh*t before it gets our of control??
Gioff
G-B
Sean wrote:
======
Oi, Oi, Oi! Seano!
Gioff
yaffaDina1
Ah! Too soon, my dear. I looked a bit closer at the recipes and saw
"double boiler" and I thought "what!" Then I saw "blender" and said,
right, that's it. Chicken again! Stick it in the oven and after a
while, take it out.
yD
yaffaDina1
Ah! Too soon, my little friend. I read the recipes and saw "double
boiler," blinked and looked at another recipe. When I saw "blender" I
said, right, tht's it. It's chicken tonight, bung it in the oven,
wait a while, take out and eat.
yD
Wull
Wull
G-B wrote:
>
> Sean wrote:
>
> ======
> Oi, Oi, Oi! Seano!
>
> Gioff
quondam
>
> From: Sacha
>
> of trying to accommodate a largeish number of disparate people in one group
> that meets to discuss royalty and not just those who wish to demonstrate
> their cooking skills when the royalty under discussion lacks interest for
> them.
>
> There are many differing OT topics on here but recipes seems to have swamped
> us just lately, as have dogs and cats. In the past, we've done babies and
> house decoration and all kinds of OT things. But we do, usually, say that
> they're OT, so that other can avoid them.
> It's a normal Usenet courtesy.
>
> I'm as happy as anyone to discuss them occasionally but I think that we're
> now beginning to be swamped by them. That is my opinion only, of course.
> If this group wants this to turn into a cookery and animal discussion group
> and just have royal discussion as a side dish, then that's the way it will
> go. But of course, we won't be talking about royalty any more, which does
> appear in the group title as being of primary importance, I would suggest.
>
> Those of us who post OT topics usually mark the subject line OT at the
> beginning. It's a Usenet courtesy that makes it easier for people to ignore
> the ones they want to avoid. Perhaps you could keep up your recipe sub-group
> by marking the posts OT?
>
> And as you have chosen to bring up the Channel Islands - I raise them only
> when they are germane to group discussion or I'm asked questions about them.
> And they are part of a British royal realm, of course. I don't often bring up
> my dogs, for example, either, though *many* do and it can be quite sweet, quite
> interesting for a time - I love dogs dearly but they're not royalty, are they?
> Even if they think they are! ;-)
>
> In the interests of friendliness and so forth, I'm sure we can all discuss many
> things when there is nothing royal to discuss - indeed, we do - but YET
> another recipe thread seems a little OTT, in that this group isn't currently
> going through 'a slow news day' with regard to royalty. It would
> be quite nice to discuss those.
>
> When most of us bring up an Off Topic subject, we make that clear in the
> subject line. While it's sure that there are times when there isn't much royal
> stuff going on that we can discuss, this isn't one of those times. And it's
> still a
> normal help to ALL posters to make it clear that one is going OT. I'm not
> suggesting something unusual, I assure you.
> --
> ================
>
> I've responded to all these comments in another post which I just sent. To
> briefly summarize, I post a LOT on royal topics, from the current ones on Diana
> to initiating many of my own. And I always have.
>
> As for discussing non-royal matters without labelling it as such, you have done
> the same thing which you are objecting to: e.g., relying on personal references
> or making OT posts which are clearly OT by virtue of their labelling. (GM
> threads are just the latest example)
>
> Furthermore, there have been others -- -such as Andy --- who have made clearly
> OT posts without marking them as such because there was no need to; the wording
> of the title/heading made it clear it was OT.
>
> If you want me to play the superficial, semantic game of adding "OT" to a post
> which is clearly personal and non-royal like "For Annie: recipe corruption",
> then I will.
>
> But I think it a joke and a farce. It would be akin to my posting a
> horrendous thread labelled: "Stalin was Right and Gulags Should Have Burnt
> People Alive" and you commenting that I need to put an "OT" before the clause
> because that is the only way people would know that I was discussing something
> irrelevant.
>
> One more time: if the header seems to indicate a clearly non-royal topic (and I
> think "For Annie: RECIPE corruption" makes that clear) and if you don't like
> the topic, then just click "next" or put me on filter.
>
> Ciao
I think it's a matter of degree. Some people post quite a lot of personal information that has
nothing to do with royalty, and that has the effect of co-opting the conversation so that it's
about them, rather than the topic. Also, a few posters seem to write posts to a small group of
individuals within the newsgroup that are kind of personal and probably ought to be taken
to email.
The tradition is to put "OT" on a post that off-subject. Invariably, the subject line makes it
clear that it's OT, but redundant as it may be, we're supposed to add the "OT" anyway.
-- Q
Sacha
on 25/10/03 3:35 am:
LOL! You may address me as 'Grace' - I'll waive the 'Your'. ;-)
Jean Sue Libkind
on 10/25/03 4:20 AM:
> Look Sacha, I get probably some of the most out of your and Salome's posts. I
> think
> this whole thread has got out of control. We've all left the OT off at some
> stage
> for one reason or another, in the scheme of life, it really is no big deal.
> All any
> continuance of this matter is going to do is get to the stage that you both
> loathe
> each other, which *really* would be a shame. Personally I love reading the
> posts on
> AGR on topic or not because so much of people's personalities show in them and
> there
> are so many people here I'd really like to meet. Can we just forget all this
> OT
> sh*t before it gets our of control??
>
> Gioff
Every once in a while comes a voice of reason from the wilderness.....
js
Sacha
jea...@bookschlepper.com wrote on 25/10/03 6:53 pm:
I think out of control gardens are probably OT........
G-B
Sacha wrote:
=======
You should see mine right now that spring has 'sort of' hit. I didn't know plants
had so many 'companion' weeds...
Gioff
Sacha
on 25/10/03 11:56 pm:
Please note change of subject line. ;-))
A, I am deeply and seriously jealous that you mention 'spring'. While we
have had THE perfect autumn day here, crisp, cold, sunny, dry, the gardens
are suffering from drought but we also know we're headed downhill into cold,
damp and dark mornings. The clocks go back tonight. ;-(
B,The heavy rain we had two days ago went no more than 3" into the soil
here, so anything that was thinking about dying for good and all is getting
on with it. According to the papers, some 300 trees in London's parks have
died. Plus side is, I suppose it might be good for business next year but I
hate to see things die in our garden or anyone else's.
Our water bill for the nursery is going to be just vast.......can't be
helped, though.
And C, the minute you dig over a bed, you invite weeds in. We're doing it
now to some of our most important beds and we just *know* that next spring
is going to be a weeding nightmare. Nice, fresh soil, newly turned for
autumn seeds to settle on - what could be better, dammit. Just remember the
maxim "one year's seeding means seven year's weeding".
AnnaH
> =======
>
> You should see mine right now that spring has 'sort of' hit. I didn't
know plants
> had so many 'companion' weeds...
>
> Gioff
=============
I've got my fingers crossed for you hoping that Australia wont be plagued
with wild fires in the upcoming summer.
Mrs.H
Lethal Injectn
>>>In that case, I can only suggest that you look at how many people, other
than yourself, direct or start threads towards their own taste or interest
in dogs, perfumes, cookery, clothes, boyfriends etc. Jolly good fun, if one
is interested, but perhaps it would be better to give posters who are not
riveted by these subjects, the chance to recognise them and ignore them or
select them. >>>
Well, I don't *begin* more OT threads than anyone else. If you'd like, I would
be happy to go through the threads and show that to you. And numerous people
turn on-topic threads into OT ones. Yourself included, especially when it
comes to your favorite subject of Blair.
BTW, this post --- in addition to the prior ones --- shows that the issue isn't
really about *intiating* OT posts. It's about the number of OT. ON SUBJECTS
WHICH ***YOU*** regard as boring. Well, let me say, your endless posts on
Blair and other govt. ministers isn't the biggest thrill either. Furthermore,
more people participate in threads on books, pets & cooking (threads which are
often begin by others such as Annie, Sean, Wull, Jflexer, Mrs.H, AB, Tara,
etc.) than do in your OT posts on Blair.
>>>This entire discussion started because you wanted to start yet another
thread on cookery - as provided by you. >>>
Strangely enough, the last cooking/recipe thread was begun by Sean re.
Thanksgiving. Didn't say a word to him, did you? And what about Wull's many
threads on Cajun cooking, Jambalaya, etc. Not a word out of you there.
>>> That's why I suggested you could/should provide an OT warning, as is normal
practice and that's all there is to it, really. Good manners, don't you
think?>>>
Sure. Why don't you practice it yourself??? Strange how you couldn't come up
with a single response to the huge (PARTIAL) list of OT posts (not designated
as such because they were so obvious) begun in just the past 6 weeks. And not
a word about the fact that you did some of them YOURSELF..... I guess "normal
Usenet courtesy" on initiating OT posts doesn't apply to YOU, doesn't apply to
the majority of the board, and only applies to me.
>>>> I thought it was time to suggest that you might consider observing normal
Usenet courtesy. >>>
After you, Madam.
>>>That's all. If you consider yourself to be above normal good Usenet practice
and politeness, which most people here observe, then there isn't much anyone
can say to you, is there? As I said before; this is just a suggestion. >>
Again, AFTER YOU. Why don't you practice what you preach. I'm still waiting
for a response to:
1--- the list of OT posts which weren't designated as such when they were
initiated.
2--- the fact that you have engaged in precisely that conduct. AND
3--- the fact that you engage in many OT discussions yourself, even if it isn't
about your "boyfriend," "pets," "recipes" etc. and is only about:
your favorite Jo Malone perfumes, your *HUSBAND* and his inability to have too
many eggs for health reasons, the death of YOUR dogs, the health issues of your
dogs, Blair, the Channel Islands, Crete, your new villa there, gardening,
Swedes and British high tea, various form of cooked eggs, different forms of
potatoes, herbal teas, Turkish teas, British murder mysteries, your "leather"
omelets, your SON'S wedding, your experiences with Greek or Turkish drivers,
your recent Pickled Beets purchase at Marks & Sparks, your boarding school
experience, your thoughts on Bush and the war, your thoughts on the British
weapons inspector who committed suicide, your opinion of Posh & Becks, your
loathing for ironing, the sort of tea and Devon cream you serve in your tea
room, the flowers and gardening you do, the tiaras you wore with JS, the trip
you would like to make to New England to see the leaves change, the way young
girls drink out of a beer bottle nowadays, the dangers of GM foods, your dinner
in Honolulu/Waikiki with your niece....
Should I go on?? Or are you going to avoid the facts yet again?
In case you've lost track, your point is *supposedly* NOT the number of OT
posts overall but how they are marked and labelled when they are initiated. My
response is that you and others have repeatedly done the same thing and you
haven't said a peep. If you're going to chastise me, you only have credibility
if you've got a perfect record yourself and if you've told others the same
thing. You have failed on BOTH counts.
IOW, your suggestion reeks of double standards and I not only reject it, but I
reject your authority to tell me anything whatsoever, given (1) your own
failure to follow the rules, (2) your failure to tell anyone else off and (3)
the fact that you aren't the leader of this little group, you aren't my mother,
you aren't anyone but another poster. One who doesn't abide by what she says.
Lethal Injectn
I'm hardly amazing. But there are some things on which I will draw the line.
For your sake, I'll do the Ignore thing for a week. Hopefully, by then,
neither one of us will think this a meaningful issue.
Lethal Injectn
>Ah! Too soon, my little friend. I read the recipes and saw "double
>boiler," blinked and looked at another recipe. When I saw "blender" I
>said, right, tht's it. It's chicken tonight, bung it in the oven,
>wait a while, take out and eat.
>yD
1- I've learnt my lesson. The next time I try to corrupt you, I will be sure
to play the semantics game and put OT in the header;
2- who are you calling your "little friend"????????? If I remember correctly,
I'm taller than you. Sure, it's by one inch but hey, semantics is the rule
here and I'm still a giant in comparison. ;)
Lethal Injectn
>>>I think it's a matter of degree. Some people post quite a lot of personal
information that has nothing to do with royalty, and that has the effect of
co-opting the conversation so that it's about them, rather than the topic.
Also, a few posters seem to write posts to a small group of
individuals within the newsgroup that are kind of personal and probably ought
to be taken to email.
The tradition is to put "OT" on a post that off-subject. Invariably, the
subject line makes it clear that it's OT, but redundant as it may be, we're
supposed to add the "OT" anyway.-- Q
++++++++++++++++++++
1- Almost everyone engages in OT discussions of a personal nature AND which is
unrelated to royalty. From Sacha to Wull to Stephen to Annie to Adrav and you
(on those few occasions which you post). For example, quite a few of your
posts have dealt with other posters, Loreen, copyright issues, Julian, etc.
It's not a big deal because everyone goes OT but if we're talking percentages,
you have one too. And the bottom line is whether anyone has a perfect record
in avoiding OT posts. No-one does. And some more than others. Yes, that
includes me. But it also includes Sacha. She may think her OT subjects are
more substantive than mine but that doesn't change the fact that they are OT
and she has a hell of a lot of them.
2--- If the issue is how one labels posts which one initiates, then I failed
only this once (to the best of my memory and my review of the Google archives)
in not including an OT. Just ONCE. In comparison, other posters have failed
on more than one occasion. INCLUDING SACHA.
So what is the issue? The number of OT posts or how they are labelled? Either
way, Sacha has done exactly what she is criticizing me for.
I realize it is a net courtesy but I failed just once and was chastised. For
an issue more than just labelling new OT posts, IMO. Regardless, others have
done the same and they have not been told off one whit. Others have engaged in
equally frequent OT posts and they have not been told off one whit.
I refuse to be told what to do by someone who has done the same thing --- in
BOTH categories --- more than once. Especially when they haven't said a word to
anyone else.
You, Sacha, the Pope and the Dalai Lama can ALL tell me the same thing but
until:
1--- the speaker is innocent of the same transgressions;
AND
2--- they have told other people the same thing,
then I just have one comment:
Be consistent and don't have double standards.
Loreen
>snipped to point<
>You, Sacha, the Pope and the Dalai Lama can ALL tell me the same thing
The Dalai Lama wouldn't dream of telling you or anyone else what to do.
but
>until:
>
>1--- the speaker is innocent of the same transgressions;
>
>AND
>
>2--- they have told other people the same thing,
>
>then I just have one comment:
>
>Be consistent and don't have double standards.
Amen to that, sister!
>^..^<
G-B
AnnaH wrote:
=====
SO have I! Actually so far, we have had above average rainfalls so I am
hopint that continues - although that in itself is a mixed blessing as that
can mean more undergrowth...
Gioff
Sean
"Lethal Injectn" <lethal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031025231639...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> From: "Sean"
>
> > Everyone has made their 'points' (many times over) on the OT issue, so
can
> >we please drop it? For me ;(
> >(that's supposed to be a tear, btw)?
> >
> > I hate to see two of usenet's most amazing women bickering about
something
> >so trivial.
>
>
> I'm hardly amazing.
Well, I think you are (and isn't that all that really matters <g>?).
>But there are some things on which I will draw the line.
> For your sake, I'll do the Ignore thing for a week. Hopefully, by then,
> neither one of us will think this a meaningful issue.
:))
Sacha
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 26/10/03 3:14 am:
This is a bit childish of you, Salome. More foot stamping? I've already
said that posts go off topic naturally, and they do. Quite a lot of people
are interested in politics in Britain because of how it affects the
monarchy, which is certainly on topic for this group! IIRC, that was how the
last discussion about Blair and his powers or the possible dissolution of
Parliament etc. came up. That was very on topic indeed for us.
I have also already said that if I start a topic that I know is OT in the
first place, I say so. Yes, I do find the perfume and cooking threads very
boring but if others enjoy them and the group as a whole wants them, I am
certainly not trying to prevent them. Some groups would insist those were
taken to an email group. Not only would I not want to do that, I could not
do that. I am merely asking you to use normal newsgroup courtesy and mark
these threads as OT, if you're the one starting them. I have not and do not
claim an 'authority' - more petulance on your part - I have simply expressed
my own views as a member of this group and have asked you, politely, to
conform to courteous Usenet practice.
As you clearly believe that the person who is above such things is YOU,
there seems little point in trying to make you see that in fact, this group
is not all about what you want and that for those who don't want to read
about your personal life and interests, you are not behaving very well in
warning them to avoid that thread, enabling them to mark it for a killfile
or just scroll past it in the first place.
Now, you can continue to jump up and down as much as you like. I have asked
you to do something and I've asked politely. You see no reason to behave as
others usually do, so there's no more to be said, is there?
G-B
Sacha wrote:
======
We turned our clocks forward last night so at a quarter to eighth at night, it's
still light and I have just come inside after weeding for an hour. Therapeutic
tonight but not usually! Your are *so* right about turning soil! I spent a year
*trying* to be organic but with a garden this side and only me and a gardener to do
it, it just was too hard. I wish I had Charles's funds...
How sad about those park trees in London. Our summer here last year was terrible
dry and a lot of trees in town were in distress. I am hoping, that seeing this
Spring has been rather wet that this summer will be different, certainly everything
looks much more like normal at the moment but there are two sides to it. Last year
the Rhododendrons here were magnificent, I think because they weren't swamped by the
normal Spring deluge, although the azaleas have done well. Our early plants like
daffs. jonqs. tulips were terrific but after two shocking hail storms they gave up -
I don't blame them.
- We'll have to see what happens from now on!
Gioff
Sacha
on 26/10/03 8:46 am:
Don't we all. ;-) It is hard to be totally organic. We get as close as we
possibly can to it here - biological control in all the greenhouses etc. as
few pesticides outside as possible etc. but occasionally those do have to be
used in the garden if nasty caterpillars set about something. We use
nematodes against slugs and vine weevil and that really does seem to work.
We also have a lot of birds in this garden and they do a great job on aphids
etc., as do the dozens of frogs that head for the pond each year, when they
eat the slugs.
>
> How sad about those park trees in London. Our summer here last year was
> terrible
> dry and a lot of trees in town were in distress. I am hoping, that seeing
> this
> Spring has been rather wet that this summer will be different, certainly
> everything
> looks much more like normal at the moment but there are two sides to it. Last
> year
> the Rhododendrons here were magnificent, I think because they weren't swamped
> by the
> normal Spring deluge, although the azaleas have done well. Our early plants
> like
> daffs. jonqs. tulips were terrific but after two shocking hail storms they
> gave up -
> I don't blame them.
>
> - We'll have to see what happens from now on!
>
> Gioff
>
Wind is our biggest problem in this garden - it seems to go into little
eddies and knock things flat in a minute. Heartbreaking when you've been
enjoying some lovely plant!
Wull
I agree with the sentiment but let me warn you. I
have been preaching the same thing for about 6 or
7 years, I have lost track of time.
One thing most people do not want is to be pointed
to their foibles. A few of us can weather it, but
most don't. It seems to me the ones who cannot
accept criticism or any negativity are the very
ones who complain most.
I have kept out of this thread but I have wanted
to comment. This is my sentiment and I will not
post again.
Your lawyer like rebuttal to some people will only
earn you blackball points (but not from everyone)
I'm afraid Salome. So, it would be better for you
to go back to dancing and pets and not worry about
who is pleased or displeased. You know by now,
the lay of the AGR pseudo intelligentsia, :-)
Wull
Jean Sue Libkind
on 10/26/03 3:46 AM:
>
> We turned our clocks forward last night so at a quarter to eighth at night,
> it's
> still light and I have just come inside after weeding for an hour.
> Therapeutic
> tonight but not usually! Your are *so* right about turning soil! I spent a
> year
> *trying* to be organic but with a garden this side and only me and a gardener
> to do
> it, it just was too hard. I wish I had Charles's funds...
>
Oh, and we turned ou clocks back. I wish I could live in the northern
hemisphere in their summer and the southern hemisphere in their summer.
I wish I had Charles's funds too (but I'm not sure I would spend them on
gardening)...
js
quondam
>
> From: quondam
>
> >>>I think it's a matter of degree. Some people post quite a lot of personal
> information that has nothing to do with royalty, and that has the effect of
> co-opting the conversation so that it's about them, rather than the topic.
> Also, a few posters seem to write posts to a small group of
> individuals within the newsgroup that are kind of personal and probably ought
> to be taken to email.
>
> The tradition is to put "OT" on a post that off-subject. Invariably, the
> subject line makes it clear that it's OT, but redundant as it may be, we're
> supposed to add the "OT" anyway.-- Q
> ++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 1- Almost everyone engages in OT discussions of a personal nature AND which is
> unrelated to royalty. From Sacha to Wull to Stephen to Annie to Adrav and you
> (on those few occasions which you post).
As I wrote, it's a matter of degree.
>For example, quite a few of your
> posts have dealt with other posters, Loreen, copyright issues, Julian, etc.
> It's not a big deal because everyone goes OT but if we're talking percentages,
> you have one too.
As long as you 're assessing the subject matter of the things I post, I almost never start new
threads, except on those now-rare occasions when I reprint a story about royalty from one
of the papers. Quite often, BTW, those news stories have been ignored because people are too
busy talking about dogs, food, astrology, cars and birthdays.
I think copyright is on topic for this group. And I don't think it's out of order to take people
to task for (1) using degrees -- whether authentic or not -- as a way of silencing a partner
in the discussion (Loreen) (2) threatening to report people for copyright infringement
(Julian) and off-topic posts (nobody has done this lately, AFAIK, but it's been part of the AGR
culture for years) (3) Posting grotesque ontruths about the other posters (Karen, Julian --
and a few other people) (4) Saying really horrible things about any woman's looks, sanity,
morals, and supposed motives for doing things, whether it's Camilla or Diana. Excuse me,
that should read Diana, Princess of , shouldn't it. I also hate it when people interrupt a
discussion to be pedantic. One of the reasons I no longer post very often to this newsgroup
is that I don't like to be in the company -- digitally or for real -- of people who seem to
detest women. Anyway, I think all those things are pretty bad, and have generally said
so.
Since you apparently missed them, subjects where you will find posts from me include (1)
the structure of the Church of England and its position on the remarriage of divorced people
(2) Fergie's trials and triumphs and (3) the British press. I know quite a bit about these
things from my RL.
I'm probably in the minority, but I think the Burrell fuss is a tempest in a teapot, and have
no opinion about it at all. I don't really care which thing made William angry this week, or
how much money Burrell will make from his book. As far as I'm concerned, any time a
person makes a lot of money on a book about something he knows about, that's a good thing.
> And the bottom line is whether anyone has a perfect record
> in avoiding OT posts. No-one does. And some more than others. Yes, that
> includes me. But it also includes Sacha. She may think her OT subjects are
> more substantive than mine but that doesn't change the fact that they are OT
> and she has a hell of a lot of them.
I think there's a distinction betweeen starting up a thread about how one spent one's
weekend, for instance, that's completely off-topic, and posting something from one's own
experience because the thread has led to a point where it's relevant. I don't know whether
the term is in general use, but I've seen this referred to as "thread drift." Nobody has said
that people shouldn't ever go OT, only that posters should remember that a newsgroups is not
appropriately a forum where people can persistently write about anything they please, day
after day.
>
> 2--- If the issue is how one labels posts which one initiates, then I failed
> only this once (to the best of my memory and my review of the Google archives)
> in not including an OT. Just ONCE. In comparison, other posters have failed
> on more than one occasion. INCLUDING SACHA.
>
> So what is the issue? The number of OT posts or how they are labelled? Either
> way, Sacha has done exactly what she is criticizing me for.
I think the issue is the number of OT posts. Not the percentage, but the absolute number.
>
> I realize it is a net courtesy but I failed just once and was chastised. For
> an issue more than just labelling new OT posts, IMO. Regardless, others have
> done the same and they have not been told off one whit. Others have engaged in
> equally frequent OT posts and they have not been told off one whit.
At AGR -- as you;ve probably figured out by now -- people get told off for all sorts of things.
The ongoing debate about snipping posts has gotten quite testy and even vituperative from
time to time.
>
> I refuse to be told what to do by someone who has done the same thing --- in
> BOTH categories --- more than once. Especially when they haven't said a word to
> anyone else.
In the first place, you can't "refuse to be told" anything. Nobody gets a blank check like that
-- at least not in this newsgroup. What you can do is refuse to pay attention and continue to
do as you please. But, IMO, you weren't exactly being "told." It was a suggestion and not an
order.
>
> You, Sacha, the Pope and the Dalai Lama can ALL tell me the same thing but
> until:
Wow! I l-o-o-o-ove being included in this subset. Have you placed us in ascending or
descending order? -- Q
(snip)
Jean Sue Libkind
sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 10/25/03 5:09 PM:
> Can we just forget all
>>> this
>>> OT
>>> sh*t before it gets our of control??
>>>
>>> Gioff
>>
>> Every once in a while comes a voice of reason from the wilderness.....
>>
>> js
>>
> I think out of control gardens are probably OT........
LOL.
js
stephenmead
"quondam" <quo...@thesquare.comnospam> wrote in message
news:3F9C52...@thesquare.comnospam...
> Lethal Injectn wrote:
> >
> > From: quondam
> >
One of the reasons I no longer post very often to this newsgroup
> is that I don't like to be in the company -- digitally or for real -- of
people who seem to
> detest women.
> (snip)
>
Wow - who in this ng detests women???? I've never seen any evidence of that.
Could you explain please?
Stephen
G-B
Jean Sue Libkind wrote:
=======
The annoying thin js is that some *do* live 6months one and 6 the other... :(
Gioff
Sacha
jea...@bookschlepper.com wrote on 26/10/03 9:30 pm:
Pull yourself together - you already have enough tiaras! ;-))
quondam
>
> "quondam" <quo...@thesquare.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:3F9C52...@thesquare.comnospam..
> > >
> > > From: quondam
> > >
> <snip>
>
> One of the reasons I no longer post very often to this newsgroup
> > is that I don't like to be in the company -- digitally or for real -- of
> people who seem to
> > detest women.
> > (snip)
> >
> Wow - who in this ng detests women???? I've never seen any evidence of that.
> Could you explain please?
> Stephen
OK. Briefly, have a look at the epithets tossed at Camilla Parker Bowles, for starters. We see
"whore," "slut," "gold digger" -- to mention only a few. We see Camilla being criticized for
not holding a fulltime job, that is, a *meaningful* fulltime job (being a secretary isn't good
enough). Her looks -- not bad at all for a woman in her mid-fifties -- are regularly raked
over the coals. The discussion of Camilla's supposed engagement ring was a horror show for
all the projected malice it revealed.
And it doesn't get any better with Diana; the only distinction being that it's different people
doing the name calling. In beating up Diana, they gleefully pathologize behaviors that our
culture condones and even encourages in women. Even though the marriage was
essentially brokered, some have nevertheless accused Diana of "throwing herself at
Charles." Diana's job as a nursery school assistant was attacked as being not good enough.
And when posters turn on each other, it;s just as bad. They use female-specific insults such
as "psycho bitches from hell" , which appeared a few days ago, and "nit-picking witch."
They've accused women posters of posting while drunk, needing to take their meds, etc. One
recently married poster -- whose new husband was a widower -- has been accused of being a
home wrecker. Nasty. Nasty. Truly repulsive, IMO. I shudder to imagine what these people
are like in their real lives? -- Q
yaffaDina
>
> stephenmead wrote:
> >
> > "quondam" <quo...@thesquare.comnospam> wrote in message
> > news:3F9C52...@thesquare.comnospam..
> > > Lethal Injectn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: quondam
> > > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > One of the reasons I no longer post very often to this newsgroup
> > > is that I don't like to be in the company -- digitally or for real -- of
> > people who seem to
> > > detest women.
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > Wow - who in this ng detests women???? I've never seen any evidence of that.
> > Could you explain please?
> > Stephen
>
> OK. Briefly, have a look at the epithets tossed at Camilla Parker Bowles, for starters. We see
> "whore," "slut," "gold digger" -- to mention only a few. We see Camilla being criticized for
> not holding a fulltime job, that is, a *meaningful* fulltime job (being a secretary isn't good
> enough).
Emotive language, by several posters, regarding the work history of the
Royal Mistress, in particular, does not imo prove the detestation of
women in general.
Rather, it seems to me to be a reflection of the, arguably,
old-fashioned morality transformed into outrage at the path this woman
has chosen, but does not necessarily, if at all, reflect on the morality
of, for instance, those of us who have lived in an unmarried state, or
who have spent some years of their children's childhood "at home" rather
than take an outside job as well.
> Her looks -- not bad at all for a woman in her mid-fifties -- are regularly raked
> over the coals.
If you're going to talk about her hats why not her face? In any event,
there was a discussion some time ago as to whether or not a person's
face reflects their character, which is a bit more pertinent than her
features alone.
>The discussion of Camilla's supposed engagement ring was a horror show for
> all the projected malice it revealed.
Well, I certainly believe it was a deliberate action, but I don't think
that makes me "malicious." Or do you mean that such an opinion means
that *I* think CPB was malicious? If so, then the answer is no, not
malicious, but not considerate.
> And it doesn't get any better with Diana; the only distinction being that it's different people
> doing the name calling. In beating up Diana, they gleefully pathologize behaviors that our
> culture condones and even encourages in women. Even though the marriage was
> essentially brokered, some have nevertheless accused Diana of "throwing herself at
> Charles." Diana's job as a nursery school assistant was attacked as being not good enough.
>
> And when posters turn on each other, it;s just as bad. They use female-specific insults such
> as "psycho bitches from hell" , which appeared a few days ago, and "nit-picking witch."
And some of these women have responded with glee and delight -- as in
yep I am a psycho bitch from hell, ya gotta problem with that; and there
is at least one poster who is a witch, by her own admission.
The number and gender of the name caller(s), and the number of women who
are consistently called names by the same person(s) is, to my reading
anyway, quite small and not general on this ng.
> They've accused women posters of posting while drunk,
Again, if I'm not mistaken one caller to one callee. I believe Phil
accuses Serge of drunkeness on a regular basis. Englishman to
Australianman. Comments?
> needing to take their meds, etc. One
> recently married poster -- whose new husband was a widower -- has been accused of being a
> home wrecker. Nasty. Nasty.
Nasty indeed. Again, one callee if I'm not mistaken. So that doesn't
even count as a generalisation of all of us who married divorce's or
widowers.
> Truly repulsive, IMO. I shudder to imagine what these people
> are like in their real lives? -- Q
Ah -- it's hard once you start, isn't it :)
yD
stephenmead
"quondam" <quo...@thesquare.comnospam> wrote in message
Camilla/Diana/each other names, isn't it? That's the way it seems to me
anyhow. Do you feel it's a case of "self-loathing females" the way you get
people being accused of being "self-loathing" Jews or gays?
Anyway glad that the blokes on this group are not being accused of being
male chauvinists because I haven't noticed that and would personally be
mortified to be associated with such an accusation.
Stephen
yaffaDina
I have changed the subject becasue it is no longer about cooking or
specifically addressed to me. I have added the OT since it is to do
with people on this ng rather than royalty.
yD
Sean
"stephenmead" <ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bnjoho$of5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
snip.
> There is truth in what you say but it is mostly women in this ng calling
> Camilla/Diana/each other names, isn't it? That's the way it seems to me
> anyhow. Do you feel it's a case of "self-loathing females" the way you get
> people being accused of being "self-loathing" Jews or gays?
> Anyway glad that the blokes on this group are not being accused of being
> male chauvinists because I haven't noticed that and would personally be
> mortified to be associated with such an accusation.
You are forgetting Julian and his misogyny.
quondam
>
> quondam wrote:
> >
> > stephenmead wrote:
> > >
> > > "quondam" <quo...@thesquare.comnospam> wrote in message
> > > news:3F9C52...@thesquare.comnospam.
> > > > >
> > > > > From: quondam
> > > > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > One of the reasons I no longer post very often to this newsgroup
> > > > is that I don't like to be in the company -- digitally or for real -- of
> > > people who seem to
> > > > detest women.
> > > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > Wow - who in this ng detests women???? I've never seen any evidence of that.
> > > Could you explain please?
> > > Stephen
> >
> > OK. Briefly, have a look at the epithets tossed at Camilla Parker Bowles, for starters. We see
> > "whore," "slut," "gold digger" -- to mention only a few. We see Camilla being criticized for
> > not holding a fulltime job, that is, a *meaningful* fulltime job (being a secretary isn't good
> > enough).
>
> Emotive language, by several posters, regarding the work history of the
> Royal Mistress, in particular, does not imo prove the detestation of
> women in general.
I think it does. Why use the emotive language, then, if one is not in a high state of
excitement? And it's not just fiftyish royal mistresses who came of age at a time when
upper middle class women were expected to marry and not hold jobs. People who are
interested in examining CPB's behavior objectively -- instead of indulging in a hatefest,
using her as an icon -- could certainly keep the discussion ad rem if they want to. The
same is tru of the people who thought it was perfectly fine to ridicule the still-teenaged
Diana's job as a nursery school assistant.
> Rather, it seems to me to be a reflection of the, arguably,
> old-fashioned morality transformed into outrage at the path this woman
> has chosen, but does not necessarily, if at all, reflect on the morality
> of, for instance, those of us who have lived in an unmarried state, or
> who have spent some years of their children's childhood "at home" rather
> than take an outside job as well.
If you look at the bare facts of CPB's life -- taking a modest job, staying home with her
kids, and having an affair with an old beau, once her own husband strayed -- what's so
vastly different between that and the lifestyle you describe? It's only when people start
festooning this picture with luridly melodramatic -- but neverthess speculative --
motivations behind her behavior, that outrage seems justified -- to some.
>
> > Her looks -- not bad at all for a woman in her mid-fifties -- are regularly raked
> > over the coals.
>
> If you're going to talk about her hats why not her face?
The difference is that we get to choose our hats so they are our responsibility, but we grow
old and plain whether or not we've led godly, righteous and sober lives.
>
>In any event,
> there was a discussion some time ago as to whether or not a person's
> face reflects their character, which is a bit more pertinent than her
> features alone.
I thought that was a particularly foolish discussion, unworthy even of Cosmo. Have you
ever noticed -- by the way -- that magazines that are largely read by men *don't* contain
horoscopes, numerology or any of that sort of thing. Demographically, it's considered
"girl stuff." As far as I'm concerned, discussions of how faces reflect character beloing to
the same subset as hocus pocus like astrology. Actually , the face-reflects-character
discussion is worse, because it demonizes people who are not fortunate enough to be
physically attractive. And -- I'd like to add -- some of the people who regularly take Diana
to task for consulting soothsayers of various descriptions, turned out to be avid
magic-believers themselves when it came to contributing to these silly threads.
> >The discussion of Camilla's supposed engagement ring was a horror show for
> > all the projected malice it revealed.
>
> Well, I certainly believe it was a deliberate action, but I don't think
> that makes me "malicious."
I don't actually know whether you are malicious or not, but from what I've observed, I
don't suppose you are. When you, yourself, wear jewelry, or color your hair, or buy a new
dress, do you do it with the object of upstaging other people? Isn't just looking as pretty as
you can -- without reference to any of the other people in the room -- enough? Is your
every small behavior -- or the behavior of your women acquaintances (and by that I
mean women whom you actually know, and not people on the newsgroup) -- invariably
driven by competitiveness?
>Or do you mean that such an opinion means
> that *I* think CPB was malicious? If so, then the answer is no, not
> malicious, but not considerate.
I don't remember what you r participation in that thread consisted of, but quite often
people tend to judge the behavior of others by what they themselves would have done in a
similar instance. I find it incredible that anybody would think that CPB would try to
hijack anybody's party with one or two inches of ring. Equally, I think the discussion of
Diana's hairstyle change as an expression of her supposed wish to overshadow other RF
members (as if she needed a hairstyle to do it) was mean-spirited and unfair.
I think that Camilla was the victim of a slow news day, in the same way that we hear about
how "angry" William supposedly is over some boring trifle or other on days when there's
nothing much else to put on the front page of the newspaper.
>
> > And it doesn't get any better with Diana; the only distinction being that it's different people
> > doing the name calling. In beating up Diana, they gleefully pathologize behaviors that our
> > culture condones and even encourages in women. Even though the marriage was
> > essentially brokered, some have nevertheless accused Diana of "throwing herself at
> > Charles." Diana's job as a nursery school assistant was attacked as being not good enough.
> >
> > And when posters turn on each other, it;s just as bad. They use female-specific insults such
> > as "psycho bitches from hell" , which appeared a few days ago, and "nit-picking witch."
>
> And some of these women have responded with glee and delight -- as in
> yep I am a psycho bitch from hell, ya gotta problem with that; and there
> is at least one poster who is a witch, by her own admission.
You may be complimented, but you -- and people like you -- were not the intended object
of the statement, and it surely was not meant facetiously, because "psycho bitches from
hell" was set off against people who are "sweet" (your contribution) and people who are
merely "eccentric" (her contribution). The person who used the term has also applied it
to a bouple of famous women for whom her contempt is unmistakeable.
> The number and gender of the name caller(s), and the number of women who
> are consistently called names by the same person(s) is, to my reading
> anyway, quite small and not general on this ng.
It's not universal, of course, but it's substantial enough to make reading the newsgroup
unpleasant for some of us. Frankly, I think that's actually the object of some of this
grotesque behavior: to make people want to leave.
>
> > They've accused women posters of posting while drunk,
>
> Again, if I'm not mistaken one caller to one callee. I believe Phil
> accuses Serge of drunkeness on a regular basis. Englishman to
> Australianman. Comments?
I wasn't referring to posts by Phil and Serve, who run a sideshow that really has nothing
to do with the group's raison d'etre. I was discussing women in the newsgroup whose
behavior strongly suggests that they dislike women. And there were sever callers, who
are women and who post regularly. And what about the many posters who think it's just
fine to claim that people they don't like are on meds of some kind?
>
> > needing to take their meds, etc. One
> > recently married poster -- whose new husband was a widower -- has been accused of being a
> > home wrecker. Nasty. Nasty.
>
> Nasty indeed. Again, one callee if I'm not mistaken. So that doesn't
> even count as a generalisation of all of us who married divorce's or
> widowers.
There may have been only one callee -- if you don't count the dreadful AOL invasion of
several months ago -- but there were several callers who remain with us, unfortunately.
And it came about with no justification whatsoever -- only sheer malice. Why would any
sentient person want to read -- much less be the subject of -- fulminations of people who
are so glib about pulling derogatory "information" out of thin air?
>
> > Truly repulsive, IMO. I shudder to imagine what these people
> > are like in their real lives?
>
> Ah -- it's hard once you start, isn't it :)
> yD
It's like a Stephen King movie, with an all-yenta cast. -- Q
quondam
>
> "quondam" <quo...@thesquare.comnospam> wrote in message
> > stephenmead wrote:
> > >
> > > "quondam" <quo...@thesquare.comnospam> wrote in message
> > > news:3F9C52...@thesquare.comnospam.
Yes, that was the point. There's something especially sickening about women who reserve
their venom for other women. The Camilla/Charles business is a case in point. Camilla, as
"the other woman" gets most of the brickbats, instead of the person who really was
responsible for looking after the inegrity of that marriage -- Charles.
The small amount of lip service paid to the fact that it was Charles's job to refrain from
having affairs is as nothing compared with the poison directed at Camilla.
>Do you feel it's a case of "self-loathing females" the way you get
> people being accused of being "self-loathing" Jews or gays?
You have a point -- and I suspect that may well be the case in some instances of this. But I
also think our culture teaches women to compete against each other, for attention, for
men, whatever. And I think that much of what we're seeing is the squalid consequence of
the bad examples we provide for girls and women in movies, novels and even newspaper
stories. You often see this kind of spiteful, woman-against-woman behavior in the
workplace as well. Also, I believe it's very poor for women to announce -- as some do --
how much they prefer the company of men, and how they don't have much use for
women's friendship at all. I don't recall anybody saying that on AGR, however.
> Anyway glad that the blokes on this group are not being accused of being
> male chauvinists because I haven't noticed that and would personally be
> mortified to be associated with such an accusation.
> Stephen
Nope. I wasn't talking about blokes at all. -- Q
stephenmead
"Sean" <se...@spammenot.com> wrote in message
news:r%dnb.46694$EO3.2146@clgrps13...
including you.
Sean
That doesn't negate the fact that he does, AFAICT, have issues with women.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, he only has it in for men who are
supportive of the women he dislikes. He was fine with me until I spoke out
against his abusive language towards Sacha.
yaffaDina
Well, there are a couple of people, men and women, who are prone to use
the same words over and over, to the same woman. But I wouldn't say
that meant they detested all the women or even most of the women on this
ng. As to why use emotive language, well, imo it is not always due to
their high state of excitement: deliberately provacative in one case.
> And it's not just fiftyish royal mistresses who came of age at a time when
> upper middle class women were expected to marry and not hold jobs. People who are
> interested in examining CPB's behavior objectively --
Surely, that would include looking at her background and again imo she
was brought up with her ancestor as a good model <shrug> There have
been many discussions on just how far this is true, but it is my belief
that the stories of her getting as much of AK's jewels as she can and of
her decision not to marry Charles, for instance, is not only true but a
good indication that being a Royal Mistress is what she wants. I don't
think the upper middle class women you mention are *all* brought up with
that end in view.
> instead of indulging in a hatefest,
> using her as an icon -- could certainly keep the discussion ad rem if they want to.
Certainly there is strong feeling against Mrs. PB here but that and the
words some people use about her does not imo indicate a general feeling
toward women or of the women in this ng. I, for instance, refer to CPB
as The Royal Mistress, because that is what she is, and from what I can
gather, what she wants to remain. This does not mean that I hold every
woman living with a man she is not married to as a mistress, by
anybody's definition. In fact, since many of the men have children by a
previous relationship, the modern unmarried, but living with, woman
would in some degree or another be paying toward those children and/or
the ex-wfie -- that's part of what I mean by not a mistress ust because
you are not married to the man you live with.
I'm not sure what you mean by using her as an icon.
The
> same is tru of the people who thought it was perfectly fine to ridicule the still-teenaged
> Diana's job as a nursery school assistant.
But that doesn't mean they think *all* nursery school assistants or all
women are ridiculous.
Are we talking at cross-purposes here? I thought the original point was
that this is a woman detesting group and that you offered what was said
about CPB and Diana as proof of that. Did I misunderstand?
> > Rather, it seems to me to be a reflection of the, arguably,
> > old-fashioned morality transformed into outrage at the path this woman
> > has chosen, but does not necessarily, if at all, reflect on the morality
> > of, for instance, those of us who have lived in an unmarried state, or
> > who have spent some years of their children's childhood "at home" rather
> > than take an outside job as well.
>
> If you look at the bare facts of CPB's life -- taking a modest job, staying home with her
> kids, and having an affair with an old beau, once her own husband strayed -- what's so
> vastly different between that and the lifestyle you describe?
Well, yes, it is vastly different -- her "old beau" as you put it is the
heir to the throne. They went to the beds of her grandmother, his
grandmother, Mountbatten and who knows who else offered to put them up.
I think the grandparents of most 'ordinary' people would not be so
accommodating. On the contrary, CPB's role as mistress was accepted
from the beginning. But again -- how does this prove that the people on
this ng don't like women?
\
It's only when people start
> festooning this picture with luridly melodramatic -- but neverthess speculative --
> motivations behind her behavior, that outrage seems justified -- to some.
> >
> > > Her looks -- not bad at all for a woman in her mid-fifties -- are regularly raked
> > > over the coals.
> >
> > If you're going to talk about her hats why not her face?
>
> The difference is that we get to choose our hats so they are our responsibility, but we grow
> old and plain whether or not we've led godly, righteous and sober lives.
So, Charles's ears are off limits? William's looks? Harry's cuteness?
All off limits? Under no circumstances, even in a gossip group may a
woman's looks be mentioned? Only women's appearance? What abut men?
Do gay men count as honoary women? If so, does that mean their looks
are off limits to everybody on this ng? What about the compliments Andy
got when he told people where to find his picture?
Sorry -- looks and appearance are part and parcel of the entity that is
Camilla Parker Bowles.
> >
> >In any event,
> > there was a discussion some time ago as to whether or not a person's
> > face reflects their character, which is a bit more pertinent than her
> > features alone.
>
> I thought that was a particularly foolish discussion, unworthy even of Cosmo. Have you
> ever noticed -- by the way -- that magazines that are largely read by men *don't* contain
> horoscopes, numerology or any of that sort of thing. Demographically, it's considered
> "girl stuff." As far as I'm concerned, discussions of how faces reflect character beloing to
> the same subset as hocus pocus like astrology. Actually , the face-reflects-character
> discussion is worse, because it demonizes people who are not fortunate enough to be
> physically attractive.
This is an(other) earea where we disagree then. I believe that the
expression, the way a face falls into lines, to be rather good
indications of character. And nothing at all to do with features as I
made clear.
And -- I'd like to add -- some of the people who regularly take Diana
> to task for consulting soothsayers of various descriptions, turned out to be avid
> magic-believers themselves when it came to contributing to these silly threads.
:) Many people say they don't believe in all that junk but as soon as
you say ... they are very interested. But again, how does any of this
prove that this is a woman detesting ng?
>
> > >The discussion of Camilla's supposed engagement ring was a horror show for
> > > all the projected malice it revealed.
> >
> > Well, I certainly believe it was a deliberate action, but I don't think
> > that makes me "malicious."
>
> I don't actually know whether you are malicious or not, but from what I've observed, I
> don't suppose you are. When you, yourself, wear jewelry, or color your hair, or buy a new
> dress, do you do it with the object of upstaging other people?
Occasionally, as a matter of fact! Or should I say, yes, on more than
one occasion. But, with all due respect, what *I* wear is neither
here-nor -there. CPB is the center of attraction wherever she goes and
the wearing of a ring (any ring) on that finger was, imo, the result of
a deliberate decision to do so not becasue it didn't fit any other
finger or was the only ring she could find that went with her hat.
Isn't just looking as pretty as
> you can -- without reference to any of the other people in the room -- enough?
Well, frankly, I have been in rooms where how I looked in comparison to
other women *was* important.
Is your
> every small behavior -- or the behavior of your women acquaintances (and by that I
> mean women whom you actually know, and not people on the newsgroup) -- invariably
> driven by competitiveness?
Well, let's see -- if I was living with the Prince of Wales, if there
was discussion and interest in whether or not we'd marry, if I know that
I would be photographed when I left the house I would be aware of it and
aware of how such things would be interpreted.
>
> >Or do you mean that such an opinion means
> > that *I* think CPB was malicious? If so, then the answer is no, not
> > malicious, but not considerate.
>
> I don't remember what you r participation in that thread consisted of, but quite often
> people tend to judge the behavior of others by what they themselves would have done in a
> similar instance.
I find it incredible that anybody would think that CPB would try to
> hijack anybody's party with one or two inches of ring.
That may be because those of us who criticised her for doing it know
that we would not have done anything similiar at all!
Equally, I think the discussion of
> Diana's hairstyle change as an expression of her supposed wish to overshadow other RF
> members (as if she needed a hairstyle to do it) was mean-spirited and unfair.
LOL You're talking (sic) to someone who is a classic case of
whatever-it-means when you constantly change your hair style and color.
>
> I think that Camilla was the victim of a slow news day, in the same way that we hear about
> how "angry" William supposedly is over some boring trifle or other on days when there's
> nothing much else to put on the front page of the newspaper.
And that's part of the joy of subscribing to a gossip news group --
there is no slow gossip day :)
>
> >
> > > And it doesn't get any better with Diana; the only distinction being that it's different people
> > > doing the name calling. In beating up Diana, they gleefully pathologize behaviors that our
> > > culture condones and even encourages in women. Even though the marriage was
> > > essentially brokered, some have nevertheless accused Diana of "throwing herself at
> > > Charles." Diana's job as a nursery school assistant was attacked as being not good enough.
> > >
> > > And when posters turn on each other, it;s just as bad. They use female-specific insults such
> > > as "psycho bitches from hell" , which appeared a few days ago, and "nit-picking witch."
> >
> > And some of these women have responded with glee and delight -- as in
> > yep I am a psycho bitch from hell, ya gotta problem with that; and there
> > is at least one poster who is a witch, by her own admission.
>
> You may be complimented, but you -- and people like you -- were not the intended object
> of the statement,
Well, not me! I wouldn't be complimented by being called a bitch -- I
may turn it around but, trust me, I don't take it as a compliment,
indeed I don't think anyone has ever used it to me as a compliment. But
I could be wrong.
> and it surely was not meant facetiously, because "psycho bitches from
> hell" was set off against people who are "sweet" (your contribution)
> merely "eccentric" (her contribution). The person who used the term has also applied it
> to a bouple of famous women for whom her contempt is unmistakeable.
But is that proof of a general hatred or contempt or detestation of all
women, or even of the women on this ng?
>
> > The number and gender of the name caller(s), and the number of women who
> > are consistently called names by the same person(s) is, to my reading
> > anyway, quite small and not general on this ng.
>
> It's not universal, of course, but it's substantial enough to make reading the newsgroup
> unpleasant for some of us. Frankly, I think that's actually the object of some of this
> grotesque behavior: to make people want to leave.
Well, I won't argue with you there. there are a couple of people who
are, imo, deliberately provacative, I can only think of one person who I
would say is deliberately and consistently offensive, and that's only to
one person. There is, on the other side of that coin, the ones who post
an artle and feel they have to state, each time, that they offer the
article and that the offer has no bearing on their opinion. That anyone
feels they have to say this is, I agree, unpleasant.
>
> >
> > > They've accused women posters of posting while drunk,
> >
> > Again, if I'm not mistaken one caller to one callee. I believe Phil
> > accuses Serge of drunkeness on a regular basis. Englishman to
> > Australianman. Comments?
>
> I wasn't referring to posts by Phil and Serve, who run a sideshow that really has nothing
> to do with the group's raison d'etre. I was discussing women in the newsgroup whose
> behavior strongly suggests that they dislike women. And there were sever callers, who
> are women and who post regularly. And what about the many posters who think it's just
> fine to claim that people they don't like are on meds of some kind?
Again, I agree with you, but I do not think that it means that this
group is anti-women (etc.) or that the particular poster is anti-women.
> >
> > > needing to take their meds, etc. One
> > > recently married poster -- whose new husband was a widower -- has been accused of being a
> > > home wrecker. Nasty. Nasty.
> >
> > Nasty indeed. Again, one callee if I'm not mistaken. So that doesn't
> > even count as a generalisation of all of us who married divorce's or
> > widowers.
>
> There may have been only one callee -- if you don't count the dreadful AOL invasion of
> several months ago --
shudder. Yes I had not been including them at all.
but there were several callers who remain with us, unfortunately.
> And it came about with no justification whatsoever -- only sheer malice. Why would any
> sentient person want to read -- much less be the subject of -- fulminations of people who
> are so glib about pulling derogatory "information" out of thin air?
Again, Ijust don't see this as a general attitude toward all women.
> >
> > > Truly repulsive, IMO. I shudder to imagine what these people
> > > are like in their real lives?
> >
> > Ah -- it's hard once you start, isn't it :)
> > yD
>
> It's like a Stephen King movie, with an all-yenta cast. -- Q
Yenta! Who ya callin' a yenta!!! Ya gotta problem with yentas? See
how easy it is to be misunderstood :)
yD
yaffaDina
Changing the subject AGAIN to more accurately reflect the actual topic.
And I put OT even though I didn't start it.
yD
Sean
"yaffaDina" <yaffa...@netscape.netSPAM> wrote in message
news:3F9D861E...@netscape.netSPAM...
> stephenmead wrote:
snip.
> Changing the subject AGAIN to more accurately reflect the actual topic.
Why are you doing that? It becomes too hard to follow with all these
different subject headers, IMO.
yaffaDina
Well, look out Sean -- please change the headers:
and put OT -- as I am doing. 'cause I'm nice and I don't want anybody
to get into trouble. Also -- since my name was on the top I'm getting a
bit tetchy about it over such a complete side track.
yD
stephenmead
clear that she did mean women calling other women names.BTW I hope we are
not boring you too much with all this Windsor stuff at the
moment . Have you finished The Fate of the Romanovs now? Would be very
interested to hear your further thoughts.
Stephen
PS - I haven't annoyed you about anything I hope.
yaffaDina
>
> "yaffaDina" <yaffa...@netscape.netSPAM> wrote in message
> news:3F9D861E...@netscape.netSPAM...
> > stephenmead wrote:
>
> snip.
>
> > Changing the subject AGAIN to more accurately reflect the actual topic.
>
> Why are you doing that? It becomes too hard to follow with all these
> different subject headers, IMO.
But this is no longer to do with me or with cooking.
yD
Sean
snip.
> Well you would know about that better than me I guess. Quondam has made it
> clear that she did mean women calling other women names.
Yes, and I was just pointing out that there are men (or a man) on this group
who, too, has called women some pretty awful names. Thus the women shouldn't
have to take all of the blame.
BTW I hope we are
> not boring you too much with all this Windsor stuff at the
> moment .
No, not at all. I read some of the posts and others I just ignore. I don't
really have an opinion. Although I think he has a story to tell and people
are interested. I think I just may read to the book to see what all the
broohah (sp?) is about.
Have you finished The Fate of the Romanovs now? Would be very
> interested to hear your further thoughts.
I'm sorry to report that I have not as of yet. I've been ill (bad asthma) &
am trying to finish a couple of contracts by end of December. So I don't
have time for anything too heavy. I do plan on finishing it soon, though!!!
> Stephen
> PS - I haven't annoyed you about anything I hope.
Of course not!! Likewise, I hope. I was actually going to write to you about
your plans for the holidays.
P.S. I'll let YaffaD change the subject line. She's much more creative than
I.
Sean
yaffaDina
If by "creative" you mean accurate, I would refer you to a change "?" as
the subject. I do feel that changing headers is important. See the one
above -- now who is to guess that it is really about women and men who
are anti-women and how your health is and what you have on your to-do
list and what your reading is. sigh. I'll let you change this one.
yD
yaffaDina
The failure to change the header and to add an OT is beginning to annoy
me a lot!
yD
Sean
"yaffaDina" <yaffa...@netscape.netSPAM> wrote in message
> stephenmead wrote:
snip.
> The failure to change the header and to add an OT is beginning to annoy
> me a lot!
Are you being serious or are you being facetious after the events of the
other day? I can't tell. To be honest, I can't be bothered to change the
subject line each and everytime the 'conversation' goes off topic.
>
stephenmead
>
> "stephenmead" <ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bnk1g7$a59$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Sean" <se...@spammenot.com> wrote in message
> > news:iifnb.48880$EO3.4203@clgrps13...
> > >
>
> snip.
>
> No, not at all. I read some of the posts and others I just ignore. I don't
> really have an opinion. Although I think he has a story to tell and people
> are interested. I think I just may read to the book to see what all the
> broohah (sp?) is about.
>
I'm not buying it but my friend is and she will loan it to me when she's
finished.
> Have you finished The Fate of the Romanovs now? Would be very
> > interested to hear your further thoughts.
>
> I'm sorry to report that I have not as of yet. I've been ill (bad asthma)
&
> am trying to finish a couple of contracts by end of December. So I don't
> have time for anything too heavy. I do plan on finishing it soon,
though!!!
>
>
Sorry to hear you've had asthma. Romanovs is a very engrossing book, I
haven't finished it yet either, been busy with work and all this
Diana/Burrell stuff has had me reading the papers all the time ( too much)
but would enjoy chatting about the book when you get back to it.
> > Stephen
> > PS - I haven't annoyed you about anything I hope.
>
> Of course not!! Likewise, I hope. I was actually going to write to you
about
> your plans for the holidays.
>
That would be nice as I don't have your new e-mail. If you want to write to
me I think you can reply to the address on the messages or send it to the
address you did before, my business partner's e-mail janeki...@aol.com
Stephen
Sean
"yaffaDina" <yaffa...@netscape.netSPAM> wrote in message
> Sean wrote:
snip.
>
> If by "creative" you mean accurate, I would refer you to a change "?
> > P.S. I'll let YaffaD change the subject line. She's much more creative
than
> > I.
> >
> > Sean
" as
> the subject. I do feel that changing headers is important.
See the one
> above -- now who is to guess that it is really about women and men who
> are anti-women and how your health is and what you have on your to-do
> list and what your reading is.
In other words, no different from the stuff you & others post on a regular
basis (although I made mention of royalty in my post)<g>.
Lethal Injectn
>>>>>" as the subject. I do feel that changing headers is important.
>>>See the one above -- now who is to guess that it is really about women and
men who are anti-women and how your health is and what you have on your to-do
list and what your reading is.>>>
>In other words, no different from the stuff you & others post on a regular
basis (although I made mention of royalty in my post)<g>. >
=================
I may be mistaken, I think Annie was merely commenting on the need for headers
to be listed in a manner which accurately reflect the topic of conversation.
Since the subject was no longer about her or recipes, she was emphasizing the
apparent rule that headers should be changed so that readers can know the
subject of a thread and, thus, avoid things in which they are not interested.
I don't think she was singling you out as much as pointing out that the OT
issue should be applied across the board. Consistently. And TO EVERYONE.
Hence, her comment to Breton that he hadn't applied the new rule. Since others
who had made such a big fuss about the rule said nothing to him, I think she
was pointing out that *HE* too had not labelled his OT thread according to the
apparent rule about initiating OT posts. IOW, don't have the rule only apply
to me.
At least, that is how I read all this. I may be mistaken. On the other hand,
I could be right in noting how some people --- yet again --- are strangely
silent when people other than myself fail to follow the rules which they
espouse. Assuming, of course, that the issue is *really* truly what they are
officially claiming: the proper netiquette for intitiating OT threads and how
no-one is above the rules. <snort>