Redskins SUCK!

"Little Malice" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I love rice krispies, but they can't hold a candle to good old
corn flakes, at least for me, especially with bananas. I'll stick
with 1% milk though. Does anyone use rice krispies for cooking,
besides dessert? I never hear of it as a coating for chicken
or meatloaf filler...

Oddly enough I just read somewhere how they were used to
make excellent waffles. It might have been that free issue of
Cook's Country.

nancy

Goomba38 said:

ObFood- I've been on a Rice Krispies kick lately. I almost crave them! I
haven't eaten them in years and now can't get enough with sliced banana
and cold skim milk and sprinkled with Splenda.

Same here. Sometimes it is plums, ruby red grapefruit, nuts, etc.

Becca

Little Malice said:

I love rice krispies, but they can't hold a candle to good old
corn flakes, at least for me, especially with bananas. I'll stick
with 1% milk though. Does anyone use rice krispies for cooking,
besides dessert? I never hear of it as a coating for chicken
or meatloaf filler...

Yeah, but.... corn flakes don't snap, crackle or pop. Besides,
everybody knows shredded wheat w/bananas is the bomb! &:+

Becca

One time on Usenet said:

"Little Malice" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I love rice krispies, but they can't hold a candle to good old
corn flakes, at least for me, especially with bananas. I'll stick
with 1% milk though. Does anyone use rice krispies for cooking,
besides dessert? I never hear of it as a coating for chicken
or meatloaf filler...

Oddly enough I just read somewhere how they were used to
make excellent waffles. It might have been that free issue of
Cook's Country.

Oooh, I'm going to check on that. Thanks, Nancy...

--
Jani in WA

Becca said:

Little Malice said:

I love rice krispies, but they can't hold a candle to good old corn
flakes, at least for me, especially with bananas. I'll stick with 1%
milk though. Does anyone use rice krispies for cooking,
besides dessert? I never hear of it as a coating for chicken
or meatloaf filler...

Yeah, but.... corn flakes don't snap, crackle or pop. Besides,
everybody knows shredded wheat w/bananas is the bomb! &:+

Becca

I like the little mini shredded wheats as a snack eaten dry out of hand
but never, ever eat them with milk.
Corn Flakes don't "beckon" me either. There just seems to be something
about Rice Krispies that I like. I don't like 'em when they get soggy,
so have to eat them immediately after pouring the milk too.

Andy said:

Since you haven't figured it out by now, I'm free to post just about
whatever I GD please and you'll just have to suffer through them or
killfile me.

After all these years do you feel you've made any progress? Hint: NOPE.

Do I care what you think? Hint: NOPE.

Andy

Oh I know it Andy. It is obvious you don't care what anyone thinks about
you. <shrug>

One time on Usenet said:

Andy said:

Since you haven't figured it out by now, I'm free to post just about
whatever I GD please and you'll just have to suffer through them or
killfile me.

After all these years do you feel you've made any progress? Hint: NOPE.

Do I care what you think? Hint: NOPE.

Andy

Oh I know it Andy. It is obvious you don't care what anyone thinks about
you. <shrug>

Yup, and I find it sad. So many folks here have been kind
and friendly to Andy, and he repays the group by using it as
his personal wailing wall. I wouldn't mind if he's just mark
his off topic stuff as just that; OT. But I guess that's too
much trouble. I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...

--
Jani in WA

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[..] I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...

So right-click it away rather than [censored] about it already.
That's more helpful than what you posted.

ObTopic: Hail Redskins! A fan since a perfect-spiral 70-yard bomb
from Sonny Jurgensen to Larry Brown. The Redskin Faithfuls never
waiver.

ObFood: Slacker Jacks
Alton Brown, "Good Eats" -- Pop Culture Show

INGREDIENTS:
3 ounces popped popcorn, approximately 3 quarts
1 cup salted peanuts
4 ounces unsalted butter
16 ounces dark brown sugar, approximately 2 cups
1/4 cup dark corn syrup
1/2 teaspoon pure vanilla extract

METHOD:
Preheat the oven to 250 degrees F.
Spray a sheet pan with nonstick spray and line with parchment
paper. Spray the parchment paper with nonstick spray as well and
set aside.

Combine the popcorn and peanuts in a large mixing bowl. Set aside
until ready to use.

Melt the butter in a medium saucepan over medium heat. Add the
brown sugar, corn syrup and vanilla and stir until combined. Heat
the mixture until it reaches 250 degrees F, approximately 10
minutes.

Pour the syrup over the popcorn and stir to combine. You will need
to work quickly because the syrup hardens rapidly. Spread the
mixture onto the prepared sheet pan and bake in the oven for 1
hour. Cool completely.

Break into pieces and serve immediately or store in an airtight
container for 2 to 3 days.

http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_34839,00.html

The Ranger
--

Microsoft gambled that making their users fault-tolerant was
a better use of resources than making their software reliable.
-- Paul Guertin, alt.peeves, 3/20/01

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[..] I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...

So right-click it away rather than [censored] about it already.

Not all of us use Outhouse -- the process is somewhat different for
me. And how is your [censored] any more valid than mine?

Quoted message said:

That's more helpful than what you posted.

Not at all -- one can hope that Andy will take a hint...

--
Jani in WA

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[..] I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...

So right-click it away rather than [censored] about it already.

Not all of us use Outhouse -- the process is somewhat different for
me. And how is your [censored] any more valid than mine?

Quoted message said:

That's more helpful than what you posted.

Not at all -- one can hope that Andy will take a hint...

--
Jani in WA

Little Malice said...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

Andy said:

Since you haven't figured it out by now, I'm free to post just about
whatever I GD please and you'll just have to suffer through them or
killfile me.

After all these years do you feel you've made any progress? Hint:

NOPE.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do I care what you think? Hint: NOPE.

Andy

Oh I know it Andy. It is obvious you don't care what anyone thinks about
you. <shrug>

I was only addressing you. I'm fond of most members here and show them a
good deal of respect. You Goomba are just not one of them. You're
insignificant. You don't matter.

Andy

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[..] I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...

So right-click it away rather than [censored] about it already.

[..] the process is somewhat different for me.

So the process is different: Use it already.

Quoted message said:

And how is your [censored] any more valid than mine?

I don't [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's more helpful than what you posted.

Not at all -- one can hope that Andy will take a hint...

Or he'll dig his heels in even deeper. Show me any thread where
he's accepted that hint. Show me a thread for any regular that's
"taken the hint" graciously.

It's taken a few years but I've finally figured out that using
OE's filter and/or simply not responding to certain topics are
more beneficial and coincidentally reduce the noise-to-signal
simultaneously.

ObTopic: Hail Redskins.

ObFood: Roasted Potato Skins with Mexican Chili powder and diced
jalapenos.

The Ranger
--
"I can't wait 'til I'm a teenager! Then you won't be able to order
me around!"
Alpha Ranger, 1234:55, 11/30/02

Andy said:

I was only addressing you. I'm fond of most members here and show them a
good deal of respect. You Goomba are just not one of them. You're
insignificant. You don't matter.

Andy

You're right Andy. None of us here do. But I don't go out of my way, as
you do, to start stupid topics, jokes or other flotsam and jetsam to the
cooking group. Perhaps if you went out to find some real life friends to
sit around with and kvetch like a bunch of hens you'd sound less like an
old lady here.

Goomba38 said...

Quoted message said:

Andy said:

I was only addressing you. I'm fond of most members here and show them a
good deal of respect. You Goomba are just not one of them. You're
insignificant. You don't matter.

Andy

You're right Andy. None of us here do. But I don't go out of my way, as
you do, to start stupid topics, jokes or other flotsam and jetsam to the
cooking group. Perhaps if you went out to find some real life friends to
sit around with and kvetch like a bunch of hens you'd sound less like an
old lady here.

I certainly don't need advice from the likes of you!!!

Like I said this is the way it's gonna stay. So be my guest and suffer the
rest of your r.f.c days.

I never knew a masochist until you!

Andy

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [..] I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...
>
So right-click it away rather than [censored] about it already.

[..] the process is somewhat different for me.

So the process is different: Use it already.

I would, if he'd just mark his subject as OT. Otherwise, I have to
read the start of each of his threads to see if it's off topic. I
could just killfile Andy, but I don't want to do that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And how is your [censored] any more valid than mine?

I don't [censored].

Foo. And I'm not really [censored] anyway. Griping, maybe. The
difference is subtle. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's more helpful than what you posted.

Not at all -- one can hope that Andy will take a hint...

Or he'll dig his heels in even deeper. Show me any thread where
he's accepted that hint. Show me a thread for any regular that's
"taken the hint" graciously.

I'm not asking anyone to be gracious. But I do recall a thread about
politics last February in which I had the same discussion with Andy.
He seemed rather irritated with me, but shortly thereafter he began
marking off topic things "OT". I really appreciated it, and was
surprised that he's quit.

Quoted message said:

It's taken a few years but I've finally figured out that using
OE's filter and/or simply not responding to certain topics are
more beneficial and coincidentally reduce the noise-to-signal
simultaneously.

I won't argue that...

--
Jani in WA

Little Malice said...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet, "The Ranger" <[email hidden]> said:
> Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> > [..] I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...
> >
> So right-click it away rather than [censored] about it already.
>
[..] the process is somewhat different for me.

So the process is different: Use it already.

I would, if he'd just mark his subject as OT. Otherwise, I have to
read the start of each of his threads to see if it's off topic. I
could just killfile Andy, but I don't want to do that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And how is your [censored] any more valid than mine?

I don't [censored].

Foo. And I'm not really [censored] anyway. Griping, maybe. The
difference is subtle. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's more helpful than what you posted.
>
Not at all -- one can hope that Andy will take a hint...

Or he'll dig his heels in even deeper. Show me any thread where
he's accepted that hint. Show me a thread for any regular that's
"taken the hint" graciously.

I'm not asking anyone to be gracious. But I do recall a thread about
politics last February in which I had the same discussion with Andy.
He seemed rather irritated with me, but shortly thereafter he began
marking off topic things "OT". I really appreciated it, and was
surprised that he's quit.

I recall it was over Hillary Clinton.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's taken a few years but I've finally figured out that using
OE's filter and/or simply not responding to certain topics are
more beneficial and coincidentally reduce the noise-to-signal
simultaneously.

I won't argue that...

Now here's where there is a double standard. You have to read all the penis
enlargement, nike, tiffany, work from home etc., threads but mine are
somehow more bothersome? On any given day on r.f.c there are dozens more
pointless, spam threads than I post in a day that you have to waste more
time on than mine.

Sometimes I'm just responding to a non-food related post and there's Goomba
crying foul. Like I have my own personal censor which I don't appreciate in
the least. I don't do that to others. Why should I stand for that kind of
treatment?

Jani,

Flame ups come and go between members but in Goomba's case, even if I typed
every subject starting with OT: she'd still [censored].

At one time we got along but one day she did an about-face and back-stabbed
me, something I'll never forgive her for. So she's insignificant and if she
doesn't want to killfile me and be miserable about it, I'm OK with that.

OB Food: Cheerios rule!

Andy said:

Now here's where there is a double standard. You have to read all the penis
enlargement, nike, tiffany, work from home etc., threads but mine are
somehow more bothersome? On any given day on r.f.c there are dozens more
pointless, spam threads than I post in a day that you have to waste more
time on than mine.

Sometimes I'm just responding to a non-food related post and there's Goomba
crying foul. Like I have my own personal censor which I don't appreciate in
the least. I don't do that to others. Why should I stand for that kind of
treatment?

Jani,

Flame ups come and go between members but in Goomba's case, even if I typed
every subject starting with OT: she'd still [censored].

At one time we got along but one day she did an about-face and back-stabbed
me, something I'll never forgive her for. So she's insignificant and if she
doesn't want to killfile me and be miserable about it, I'm OK with that.

OB Food: Cheerios rule!

Oh put your big girl panties on and deal with it. Do remind me..what was
this "about face" you speak of?
Do you mistakenly think you're so witty or interesting that every
trivial post detailing every unremarkable event which you burp out is
somehow above reproach? You waste a lot of bandwidth feeding your own
need for attention. You dislike anyone pointing this out to you, obviously.
Perhaps I have higher standards or expectations for regulars in RFC who
know the problems we've had in recent years with heavy loss of quality
posters (who state the newer posters are ruining RFC) and the increase
in garbage? Posts that are obvious spam (Tiffany, shoes, etc.) are
actually much easier to ignore because they don't pretend to be anything
but spam. They never post about food or dining. Easy to ignore them.
We "got along" as long as I never came out and told you how annoying
your posts could be. In fact, I recall trying to send you (as a
surprise) a cup from The Masters, and asked you for your snail mail
address to send you "something neat" and you never responded. So perhaps
it is not *I* that was "the [censored]" ??

Goomba38 said...

Quoted message said:

Andy said:

Now here's where there is a double standard. You have to read all the
penis enlargement, nike, tiffany, work from home etc., threads but mine
are somehow more bothersome? On any given day on r.f.c there are dozens
more pointless, spam threads than I post in a day that you have to
waste more time on than mine.

Sometimes I'm just responding to a non-food related post and there's
Goomba crying foul. Like I have my own personal censor which I don't
appreciate in the least. I don't do that to others. Why should I stand
for that kind of treatment?

Jani,

Flame ups come and go between members but in Goomba's case, even if I
typed every subject starting with OT: she'd still [censored].

At one time we got along but one day she did an about-face and
back-stabbed me, something I'll never forgive her for. So she's
insignificant and if she doesn't want to killfile me and be miserable
about it, I'm OK with that.

OB Food: Cheerios rule!

Oh put your big girl panties on and deal with it. Do remind me..what was
this "about face" you speak of?
Do you mistakenly think you're so witty or interesting that every
trivial post detailing every unremarkable event which you burp out is
somehow above reproach? You waste a lot of bandwidth feeding your own
need for attention. You dislike anyone pointing this out to you,
obviously. Perhaps I have higher standards or expectations for regulars
in RFC who know the problems we've had in recent years with heavy loss
of quality posters (who state the newer posters are ruining RFC) and the
increase in garbage? Posts that are obvious spam (Tiffany, shoes, etc.)
are actually much easier to ignore because they don't pretend to be
anything but spam. They never post about food or dining. Easy to ignore
them. We "got along" as long as I never came out and told you how
annoying your posts could be. In fact, I recall trying to send you (as a
surprise) a cup from The Masters, and asked you for your snail mail
address to send you "something neat" and you never responded. So perhaps
it is not *I* that was "the [censored]" ??

It's not important anymore.

<plonk>

Andy

Andy q said:

Little Malice said...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

Andy wrote:

> Since you haven't figured it out by now, I'm free to post just about
> whatever I GD please and you'll just have to suffer through them or
> killfile me.
>
> After all these years do you feel you've made any progress? Hint:

NOPE.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Do I care what you think? Hint: NOPE.
>
> Andy

Oh I know it Andy. It is obvious you don't care what anyone thinks about
you. <shrug>

I was only addressing you. I'm fond of most members here and show them a
good deal of respect. You Goomba are just not one of them. You're
insignificant. You don't matter.

Andy

girl fight tonight!

your pal,
blake

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice said...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> One time on Usenet, "The Ranger" <[email hidden]> said:
>> Little Malice <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...

>> > [..] I prefer to killfile by subject, not by author...
>> >
>> So right-click it away rather than [censored] about it already.
>>
> [..] the process is somewhat different for me.

So the process is different: Use it already.

I would, if he'd just mark his subject as OT. Otherwise, I have to
read the start of each of his threads to see if it's off topic. I
could just killfile Andy, but I don't want to do that.

Quoted message said:

> And how is your [censored] any more valid than mine?

I don't [censored].

Foo. And I'm not really [censored] anyway. Griping, maybe. The
difference is subtle. ;-)

Quoted message said:

>> That's more helpful than what you posted.
>>
> Not at all -- one can hope that Andy will take a hint...

Or he'll dig his heels in even deeper. Show me any thread where
he's accepted that hint. Show me a thread for any regular that's
"taken the hint" graciously.

I'm not asking anyone to be gracious. But I do recall a thread about
politics last February in which I had the same discussion with Andy.
He seemed rather irritated with me, but shortly thereafter he began
marking off topic things "OT". I really appreciated it, and was
surprised that he's quit.

I recall it was over Hillary Clinton.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's taken a few years but I've finally figured out that using
OE's filter and/or simply not responding to certain topics are
more beneficial and coincidentally reduce the noise-to-signal
simultaneously.

I won't argue that...

Now here's where there is a double standard. You have to read all the penis
enlargement, nike, tiffany, work from home etc., threads but mine are
somehow more bothersome? On any given day on r.f.c there are dozens more
pointless, spam threads than I post in a day that you have to waste more
time on than mine.

Andy, it's very easy to filter out words like viagra, etc. I don't see
the spam you're talking about most of the time. So yes, yours are more
bothersome. Simply putting OT at the head of your non-food posts would
make my Usenet life, and that of others I'm sure, much easier.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes I'm just responding to a non-food related post

That's not the the issue, at least not for me. It's the threads *you*
start.

Quoted message said:

and there's Goomba

That's between you and Goomba.

Quoted message said:

OB Food: Cheerios rule!

Sure, if they're honey and nut... :-)

--
Jani in WA