On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:04:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:49:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 17 Apr 2006 11:15:15 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They've been around probably twenty years but FINALLY
>>>>>build a store in Manhattan -- and it's a half-hour wait to get inside
>>>>>on weekend afternoons.
>>>>
>>>> What kind of freakin' moron waits in line to go to a grocery store?
>>>
>>>It happens whenever Wegman's opens a store in a region that's new to the
>>>company. You'd have to visit one to understand. It's not unusual to have
>>>800-1000 people in the parking lot waiting for the doors to open for the
>>>first time.
>>>
>> So you're saying it's usually the moronic-type moron who would stand
>> in line to get inside a grocery store.
>
>No, stupid. It would be people who'd lived their entire lives without
>setting foot in a supermarket that was inarguably perfect. Not trendy like
>Whole Foods, but perfect.
>
Oh, my. I do believe we've struck a nerve here.
Have you calmed down now? Can I get you a tissue?
I'm beginning to suspect that you either work for Wegmans or you are
one of the morons currently under discussion. Perhaps both.
PS: Since you said that Wegmans is "inarguably perfect," I guess I
can't ask you to prove it or even ask you to define what constitutes a
"perfect" supermarket. You sure beat me to the punch with that
brilliant rhetorical strategy.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:14:39 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> The rest is all quite clear, if you
>can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
Maybe you should look at your own writing before lecturing other
people. The word "tree" should be followed by a question mark, bozo.
"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:04:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:49:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 17 Apr 2006 11:15:15 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>They've been around probably twenty years but FINALLY
>>>>>>build a store in Manhattan -- and it's a half-hour wait to get inside
>>>>>>on weekend afternoons.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of freakin' moron waits in line to go to a grocery store?
>>>>
>>>>It happens whenever Wegman's opens a store in a region that's new to the
>>>>company. You'd have to visit one to understand. It's not unusual to have
>>>>800-1000 people in the parking lot waiting for the doors to open for the
>>>>first time.
>>>>
>>> So you're saying it's usually the moronic-type moron who would stand
>>> in line to get inside a grocery store.
>>
>>No, stupid. It would be people who'd lived their entire lives without
>>setting foot in a supermarket that was inarguably perfect. Not trendy like
>>Whole Foods, but perfect.
>>
>
> Oh, my. I do believe we've struck a nerve here.
>
> Have you calmed down now? Can I get you a tissue?
>
> I'm beginning to suspect that you either work for Wegmans or you are
> one of the morons currently under discussion. Perhaps both.
>
> PS: Since you said that Wegmans is "inarguably perfect," I guess I
> can't ask you to prove it or even ask you to define what constitutes a
> "perfect" supermarket. You sure beat me to the punch with that
> brilliant rhetorical strategy.
I've been in the grocery business for a very long time, although I do NOT
work for Wegman's. I visit stores all over the country, and with almost NO
exceptions, upper management wishes they could redesign their companies to
be like Wegman's. For reasons too involved to explain, it would take most of
these companies 10-20 years to achieve this goal.
Employees seem to agree, since they've voted Wegman's into the Fortune "Best
Companies to Work For" list for the 9th year in a row. They were #1 last
year and #2 this year. This type of employee attitude is almost always
reflected in a visible way to customers.
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>They've been around probably twenty years but FINALLY
>>>>>build a store in Manhattan -- and it's a half-hour wait to get inside
>>>>>on weekend afternoons.
>>>>
>>>> What kind of freakin' moron waits in line to go to a grocery store?
>>>
>>>It happens whenever Wegman's opens a store in a region that's new to the
>>>company. You'd have to visit one to understand. It's not unusual to have
>>>800-1000 people in the parking lot waiting for the doors to open for the
>>>first time.
>>>
>> So you're saying it's usually the moronic-type moron who would stand
>> in line to get inside a grocery store.
>
> No, stupid. It would be people who'd lived their entire lives without setting
> foot in a supermarket that was inarguably perfect. Not trendy like Whole
> Foods, but perfect.
Do you enjoy looking down on people who cannot afford to live
in a neighborhood with a Trader Joe's?
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:24:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:04:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:49:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 17 Apr 2006 11:15:15 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They've been around probably twenty years but FINALLY
>>>>>>>build a store in Manhattan -- and it's a half-hour wait to get inside
>>>>>>>on weekend afternoons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What kind of freakin' moron waits in line to go to a grocery store?
>>>>>
>>>>>It happens whenever Wegman's opens a store in a region that's new to the
>>>>>company. You'd have to visit one to understand. It's not unusual to have
>>>>>800-1000 people in the parking lot waiting for the doors to open for the
>>>>>first time.
>>>>>
>>>> So you're saying it's usually the moronic-type moron who would stand
>>>> in line to get inside a grocery store.
>>>
>>>No, stupid. It would be people who'd lived their entire lives without
>>>setting foot in a supermarket that was inarguably perfect. Not trendy like
>>>Whole Foods, but perfect.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, my. I do believe we've struck a nerve here.
>>
>> Have you calmed down now? Can I get you a tissue?
>>
>> I'm beginning to suspect that you either work for Wegmans or you are
>> one of the morons currently under discussion. Perhaps both.
>>
>> PS: Since you said that Wegmans is "inarguably perfect," I guess I
>> can't ask you to prove it or even ask you to define what constitutes a
>> "perfect" supermarket. You sure beat me to the punch with that
>> brilliant rhetorical strategy.
>
>
>I've been in the grocery business for a very long time, although I do NOT
>work for Wegman's. I visit stores all over the country, and with almost NO
>exceptions, upper management wishes they could redesign their companies to
>be like Wegman's. For reasons too involved to explain, it would take most of
>these companies 10-20 years to achieve this goal.
>
>Employees seem to agree, since they've voted Wegman's into the Fortune "Best
>Companies to Work For" list for the 9th year in a row. They were #1 last
>year and #2 this year. This type of employee attitude is almost always
>reflected in a visible way to customers.
>
>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/index.html
So you meant "inarguably perfect from a management point of view."
Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
big, for one thing. And those weimaraners-they're way too
skeevy-looking.
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote
> Employees seem to agree, since they've voted Wegman's into the Fortune "Best
> Companies to Work For" list for the 9th year in a row. They were #1 last year
> and #2 this year.
If number two is perfect, what do you call number one?
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:33:47 -0700, The Ranger <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:59:44 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson <[email protected]>
>again brayed when he posted:
>> > [snip]
>> > > > Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME
>> > > > it takes to BUY a stamp every time you wanted to point
>> > > > out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
>> > > > WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY
>> > > > TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you
>> > > > wouldn't be so quick to point out some APPARENT
>> > > > contradiction between what IS and WHAT should be
>> > > > (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
>> > > > think of as IRONY)!!1!
>> > > >
>> > > Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
>> > >
>> > Doug, Kevin couldn't explain himself on something simple,
>> > even if he knew what he was talking about. Gahds' ferbid
>> > him explaining something as complex as irony or thought.
>> >
>> Maybe you should have a go at it, then, whoever you
>> are, newbie.
>
>All you bases are belong to us.
You can't even get a ubiquitous meme right. Give it up.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:29:59 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Employees seem to agree, since they've voted Wegman's into the Fortune "Best
>> Companies to Work For" list for the 9th year in a row. They were #1 last year
>> and #2 this year.
>
>If number two is perfect, what do you call number one?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:00:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:07:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:44:18 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:35:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>><[email protected]> whined:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My dad's company had a file full of these people.
>>>>>>>The same ones would find something wrong with a food product every 3
>>>>>>>weeks.
>>>>>>>Perhaps Trader Joe's finds that if person has to lift an arm to put
>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>stamp, and then go to a mail box, they actually have something valid
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>say.
>>>>>>>Maybe e-mail makes it too easy to whine for no reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good thing newsgroups don't allow that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME it takes to BUY a
>>>>> stamp every time you wanted to point out some APPARENT contradiction
>>>>> between what IS and WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY
>>>>> TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you wouldn't be so
>>>>> quick to point out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
>>>>> WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
>>>>> think of as IRONY)!!1!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
>>>
>>
>>He did not assemble them in a meaningful way.
>
> Actually, he did.
>
>>You know that. If you don't
>>agree, explain the point he believes he's making.
>
> It's all there in his sentence. Maybe that's what threw you--the fact
> that it's a long sentence. It is, however, perfectly formed and
> logical.
>
> P.S. "TOWERES" means "TOWERS." The rest is all quite clear, if you
> can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
> Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>
> BW
Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible assumption
is that you don't understand it, either.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:59:44 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson <[email protected]>
again brayed when he posted:
> > [snip]
> > > > Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME
> > > > it takes to BUY a stamp every time you wanted to point
> > > > out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
> > > > WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY
> > > > TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you
> > > > wouldn't be so quick to point out some APPARENT
> > > > contradiction between what IS and WHAT should be
> > > > (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
> > > > think of as IRONY)!!1!
> > > >
> > > Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
> > >
> > Doug, Kevin couldn't explain himself on something simple,
> > even if he knew what he was talking about. Gahds' ferbid
> > him explaining something as complex as irony or thought.
> >
> Maybe you should have a go at it, then, whoever you
> are, newbie.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
> big, for one thing.
Their success seems to indicate that your view is not widely held. You might
say that success is meaningless in a town like Rochester where they have
only two significant competitors, one of which is a joke. But, the company
worries its competition tremendously wherever it opens a new store.
"Otto Bahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Employees seem to agree, since they've voted Wegman's into the Fortune
>> "Best Companies to Work For" list for the 9th year in a row. They were #1
>> last year and #2 this year.
>
> If number two is perfect, what do you call number one?
>
> --oTTo--
>
>
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:20:49 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:14:39 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The rest is all quite clear, if you
>>can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>>Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>
>Maybe you should look at your own writing before lecturing other
>people. The word "tree" should be followed by a question mark, bozo.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:00:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:07:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:44:18 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:35:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>>><[email protected]> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My dad's company had a file full of these people.
>>>>>>>>The same ones would find something wrong with a food product every 3
>>>>>>>>weeks.
>>>>>>>>Perhaps Trader Joe's finds that if person has to lift an arm to put
>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>stamp, and then go to a mail box, they actually have something valid
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>say.
>>>>>>>>Maybe e-mail makes it too easy to whine for no reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good thing newsgroups don't allow that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME it takes to BUY a
>>>>>> stamp every time you wanted to point out some APPARENT contradiction
>>>>>> between what IS and WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY
>>>>>> TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you wouldn't be so
>>>>>> quick to point out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
>>>>>> WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
>>>>>> think of as IRONY)!!1!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He did not assemble them in a meaningful way.
>>
>> Actually, he did.
>>
>>>You know that. If you don't
>>>agree, explain the point he believes he's making.
>>
>> It's all there in his sentence. Maybe that's what threw you--the fact
>> that it's a long sentence. It is, however, perfectly formed and
>> logical.
>>
>> P.S. "TOWERES" means "TOWERS." The rest is all quite clear, if you
>> can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>> Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>>
>> BW
>
>Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible assumption
>is that you don't understand it, either.
Why is that the only possible assumption? I can think of at least two
more, right off the bat.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:35:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
>> big, for one thing.
>
>Their success seems to indicate that your view is not widely held. You might
>say that success is meaningless in a town like Rochester where they have
>only two significant competitors, one of which is a joke. But, the company
>worries its competition tremendously wherever it opens a new store.
I didn't say they weren't successful. I didn't say that lots of
people don't like them. I didn't say they didn't worry the
competition. A store can do all of those things and not be perfect.
There's a difference between "very good" and "perfect." There is a
difference between "very successful" and "perfect." There's a
difference between "widely admired" and "perfect." There's a
difference between "competitive" and "perfect."
See where this is going? No wonder you had trouble with Kevin's long
sentence. You've got a very limited grasp of abstract concepts.
"Otto Bahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>>>They've been around probably twenty years but FINALLY
>>>>>>build a store in Manhattan -- and it's a half-hour wait to get inside
>>>>>>on weekend afternoons.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of freakin' moron waits in line to go to a grocery store?
>>>>
>>>>It happens whenever Wegman's opens a store in a region that's new to the
>>>>company. You'd have to visit one to understand. It's not unusual to have
>>>>800-1000 people in the parking lot waiting for the doors to open for the
>>>>first time.
>>>>
>>> So you're saying it's usually the moronic-type moron who would stand
>>> in line to get inside a grocery store.
>>
>> No, stupid. It would be people who'd lived their entire lives without
>> setting foot in a supermarket that was inarguably perfect. Not trendy
>> like Whole Foods, but perfect.
>
> Do you enjoy looking down on people who cannot afford to live
> in a neighborhood with a Trader Joe's?
>
> --oTTo--
>
>
My comment reflects reality: A neighborhood's affluence is in no way an
indicator of the quality of grocery stores available.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:35:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
>>> big, for one thing.
>>
>>Their success seems to indicate that your view is not widely held. You
>>might
>>say that success is meaningless in a town like Rochester where they have
>>only two significant competitors, one of which is a joke. But, the company
>>worries its competition tremendously wherever it opens a new store.
>
> I didn't say they weren't successful. I didn't say that lots of
> people don't like them. I didn't say they didn't worry the
> competition. A store can do all of those things and not be perfect.
>
> There's a difference between "very good" and "perfect." There is a
> difference between "very successful" and "perfect." There's a
> difference between "widely admired" and "perfect." There's a
> difference between "competitive" and "perfect."
>
> See where this is going? No wonder you had trouble with Kevin's long
> sentence. You've got a very limited grasp of abstract concepts.
>
> BW
Sounds like you may have a knack for the grocery business. How would you
improve the stores, besides making them smaller?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:00:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:07:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:44:18 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:35:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>>>><[email protected]> whined:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My dad's company had a file full of these people.
>>>>>>>>>The same ones would find something wrong with a food product every
>>>>>>>>>3
>>>>>>>>>weeks.
>>>>>>>>>Perhaps Trader Joe's finds that if person has to lift an arm to put
>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>stamp, and then go to a mail box, they actually have something
>>>>>>>>>valid
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>say.
>>>>>>>>>Maybe e-mail makes it too easy to whine for no reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Good thing newsgroups don't allow that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME it takes to BUY
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> stamp every time you wanted to point out some APPARENT contradiction
>>>>>>> between what IS and WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your
>>>>>>> IVORY
>>>>>>> TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you wouldn't be so
>>>>>>> quick to point out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
>>>>>>> WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
>>>>>>> think of as IRONY)!!1!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He did not assemble them in a meaningful way.
>>>
>>> Actually, he did.
>>>
>>>>You know that. If you don't
>>>>agree, explain the point he believes he's making.
>>>
>>> It's all there in his sentence. Maybe that's what threw you--the fact
>>> that it's a long sentence. It is, however, perfectly formed and
>>> logical.
>>>
>>> P.S. "TOWERES" means "TOWERS." The rest is all quite clear, if you
>>> can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>>> Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>>>
>>> BW
>>
>>Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible assumption
>>is that you don't understand it, either.
>
> Why is that the only possible assumption? I can think of at least two
> more, right off the bat.
>
> BW
I'll help you. There is not, nor could there EVER be a business which would
gain Kevin's respect. He believes he's been dealt a lousy hand too often, so
all businesses suck. And, no matter how hard someone else worked to become
enormously sucessful, he thinks their success is undeserved, and perhaps
even stolen. This is why, in his little diatribe, he included such words as
"ivory tower" and "eggheads". Notice, too, that he has yet to explain
"APPARENT contradiction between what IS and WHAT should be". He cannot
explain what this means.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:53:13 -0700, The Ranger <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:32:26 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>[snip]
>> > All you bases are belong to us.
>> >
>> You can't even get a ubiquitous meme right
>
>Irony is always best exhibited through example.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:32:26 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
[snip]
> > All you bases are belong to us.
> >
> You can't even get a ubiquitous meme right
Irony is always best exhibited through example.
Don't flop about too much, dear.
ObFood: Stew.
The Ranger
--
"All Scottish cooking is based on a dare"
Mike Meyers
