OT: Al Franken

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:54:42 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.

However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more Libertarian than
Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in wars.
Scientific experiments have been conducted on mice that prove cowardice
is an inherited trait- switching offspring between bold mice and timid
mice at birth allowing the bold/timid to raise the timid/bold, and
mixing/matching bold/timid pairs, the offspring exhibit their
statistical biological traits regardless. Surveys show that in times of
scarcity, the bold population dwindles, killed off by predators while
recklessly foraging ever further from protection in search of food, and
the timid mice just get skinny but mostly survive. In the human domain-
the cowards do not participate in fighting- so they either enjoy the
privileges won for them by the brave or survive in slavery- either way
they keep on breeding.

So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

John

Spehro Pefhany · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

What does it taste like? Is it one of those things like tofu that only
tastes good or even okay because of what goes with it?

From the description I looked up on the net, it seems like lutefisk
only made with corn instead of codfish.

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/ic/lutefisk.html

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 06:46:07 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.
------------------
Nonsense.

However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more Libertarian than
Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards ;-)
...Jim Thompson

There's some serious stuff behind the macho manly-man thing: you
survive and prosper by partnering with people you can trust, and you
can never trust a coward.

John
---------------
Or a brave person who disagrees with you strongly.
Figure out which is which.

-Steve

Well, people who disagree with you strongly are known quantities, and
you can make rational decisions about how to deal with them. If they
turn out to be cowards, you win. It's cowardly "allies" that are truly
dangerous. The problem is, you can't really tell who has guts and
honor until things get tough; that's why old, proven friends are the
most reliable.

It's surprising how many weenies there are, and who turns out to be
brave when it matters. I think humans sort of naturally arrange
themselves in hierarchal structures, with about one leader to maybe 20
followers in each local cluster.

John

John Woodgate · Apr 3, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <gq5u60ld94e9g0dvrdvh1mkghom8240st6@
4ax.com&gt

about 'Al Franken', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

I daren't tell you.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Jim Thompson · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:59:22 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
[snip]
They didn't like
"Loyalists" or "Tories". The other side (Liberal) here would be the
"Grits", which is unrelated to US (hominy) grits, AFAIK.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Robert C Monsen · Apr 3, 2004

"John Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c4ldkg$1ho7$1@news.iquest.net...

"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message
news:gp8s60ljj1jelh9rb00lv70au4140fp80e@4ax.com...
On 2 Apr 2004 17:11:44 -0800, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Dyson wrote...

... I believe that he is TOO political (akin to Franken) without
enough
substance (akin to Franken.) I blame him (for example) for
re-enforcing
the notion that American leftists are 'liberal.' It is exactly
UNTRUE
that the prominent American left is 'liberal' ...

Could you expound a bit on that point?

Not to put words in John D's mouth but for myself, I regard
liberal-conservative as one axis and (in the present context) the US
left-right as an orthogonal axis.

The conservative-right and liberal-left quadrants are the more populous
but the so-called Rockefeller Republicans on the one hand and the
Dixiecrats on the other would be examples of the liberal-right and
conservative-left, respectively.

Thank you!!! Your understanding is similar to mine...

In a way, in a meaningful sense, the term 'conservative' is similar to
the notion of being 'doctorinare' -- perhaps with an emphasis towards
an 'unchanging' or 'traditional' aspect.

This labeling of people or belief systems as being 'conservative' or
'liberal' is misleading and mostly ends up being a name-calling game.

The term 'liberal' generally seems to imply an open attitude towards
progressive social programs, such as Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"
legislation. Conservative, on the other hand, seems to imply a more fiscally
conservative attitude, which is usually associated with basing actions on
established economic principles. So, I'll agree with you. Under the Clinton
years, these terms were upended. The Clintons were generally quite a bit
more concered with economics than with progressive social policy, whereas
the Bush administration has shown itself to be dogmatic in the extreme,
giving tax cuts during wartime. This was unprecedented, and almost
universally condemned by economists. So, with regards to the term
'conservative', I'd place the Clinton administration in the role of more
conservative.

However, I'd also place it in the role of more liberal, in the sense that
its policies, while economically viable and based on sound economic theory,
were not geared towards demolishing social programs for the benefit of the
top 5%. Thus, I'd say that the prior administration was both more
conservative AND more liberal than the current administration.

The notion of 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' is certainly more meaningful
than popular use of the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal', but also each
person has varying beliefs that cannot be meaningfully grossly
categorized as such.

The terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' derive from the sides of the aisle
one sits on. Consequently, its by definition a 'political' definition, since
republicans sit on the right side, and democrats sit on the left side, as
seen from the back. Again, I'll agree with you, in this time of utter and
complete war between parties, which party elected a representative is far
more important than what they actually believe. Sadly... perhaps if this
wasn't true, some of the recent insanity, such as the invasion of Iraq,
could have been prevented. However, if a President is willing to lie to
Congress, its difficult for them to make objective assessments;
consequently, its possible that even with a more bipartisan congress, we
would have been dragged into this quagmire.

More specifically, Rush Limbaugh gave our doctorinaire leftist friends
a 'boost' by calling them 'liberal.' In the US, generally our most common
group of 'leftists' are also MUCH MUCH more intolerant (doctorinaire
and tied up in the traditional US leftist propaganda) than the mainstream
group of right-centrists. Most often, you'll find that 'traditional right
centrists' will be shouted down in leftist communities like ivy league
colleges than the 'traditional lefties' in equivalent communities. Even
if the 'righties' would deny the exercise of freedom of speech in their
institutions, the 'righties' don't often make self-righteous claims about
their open-mindedness.

With good reason. If Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh started making those
claims, they would be completely discredited. As it stands, they are simply
comedians. In that role, they work well. Its similar to the Andrew Dice Clay
phenomena, or the "Shock Jock" phenomena, where they say totally outrageous,
unsubstantiated things to get a laugh. Listening to Rush Limbaugh after the
Clark testimony was actually quite entertaining, what with the misstatements
of fact, outright obvious lies, and devious attempts to paint the mostly
right wing media who were reporting on these allegations as having 'left
wing liberal bias'. Like the Wall Street Journal is a left wing liberal
rag... However, I guess it depends on where you are standing. To Rush, the
left is anybody left of the American Spectator...

So, the use of 'liberal' when speaking of the mainstream US political
spectrum, it would probably be most accurate (but still defective) to
call the mainstream right as being 'liberal', while the mainstream left
is more 'conservative or doctorinare.' Refer to the rants of the
crazy old leaders of the US mainstream left e.g. Kennedy. Refer also
to the blocking of the constitutional process in congress by the
relatively leftist party leaders (the Dems), where that behavior is
more likely associated with doctorinare and narrow minded
crusaders.

This is simply wrong. Read the section above, where I compare the liberal
and conservative natures of the Clinton and Bush administrations. You seem
to be somewhat confused about what the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal'
mean.

I credit Rush with the over-emphasis and dishonest give-away to the
American left, where they are allowed to call themselves 'liberal', when
they are quite far away from being 'liberal.' It is almost as bad to
call the centrist-righties 'liberal', because even though they TEND to
be more liberal, they aren't really 'liberal.'

Again, you don't really know what the term 'liberal' means. Perhaps you
should consult some basic texts on political theory before pretending to
understand these terms?

Each side tends to be overly doctorinaire rather than 'thinking' and
'open.' This is why I aspire to being a radical centrist, where neither
the GOPers nor the Dems can take me for granted.

Ah, you are a 'thinking man'. I like that. Far better to try and figure
things out for yourself than to echo the corrupt thinking of Rush Limbaugh
or Ann Coulter (or Franken, for that matter.) These folks are, after all,
commedians. They aren't asking to be taken seriously. They are entertainers.
You, on the other hand, are asking to be taken seriously.

As it is nowadays,
the Dems have done a wonderful job of forcing a vote that advocates
their challengers. One day in the future, I hope to see more Evan Bayh
or Lieberman styles of personality (not specifically their political
advocacy), rather than the Kerry, Kennedy, Braun, or Daschle type
of personalities. Luckily, I have been able to vote for Bayh, but not
many districts/states have had good Dems to vote for. The GOPers
also have their 'wierdos', but seem to have better people in general
(WRT stability and integrity.)

Daschle, Kerry and Kennedy are well respected members of the Senate. What is
your specific criticism of them, other than the fact that they were elected
as Democrat? You seem to imply that they are 'wierdos' that are unstable and
lack integrity. You provide absolutely no evidence of this. I guess we
simply have to trust you.

Too often, the Dems tend to INVENT new criteria for integrity, apparently
to create new axis to criticise their opponents. Equivalently, the Dems
opponents don't always have to 'INVENT' new criteria for integrity, but
the Dems are good at politically spinning the matter so that the criteria
is deemed unimportant.

An excellent point from a 'radical centrist'. You seem to have difficulty
disguising your loathing for these people. Why not try looking at the issues
objectively, rather than simply attempting to rationalize your point of view
by calling it 'centrist'?

By the way, which criteria have they invented for judging integrity? Perhaps
you are referring to the issue of "Not Lying to Congress about issues that
will cost blood and money?". That one seems to be coming up alot lately.

A good example of the 'history-spin' would be

apparently dismissing Kerry's behavior and votes -- even to the extent
of effectively claiming that a very CRUMMY vote that really counted
was somehow mitigated by the very appropriate vote that didnt' count
(his silly claim about voting for a bill before voting against it.)

Apparently, you didn't really understand what he was getting at. Thats the
problem I see with Kerry, he is too smart for the average person to
understand. This is in contrast to Bush, who seems to be understandable by
any smart 6th grader. Also, if you don't really get what he is saying, the
banner behind him is always pretty clear.

Actually, I don't think I'm smart enough to be president, so I really want
the president to be much smarter than I am, more able to undersand complex
issues in this age of terrorism. I'd also like a president who doesn't LIE
TO CONGRESS ABOUT ISSUES OF BLOOD AND MONEY. I think that, based on these
two criteria, I'll be voting against Bush.

The Dems opponents only have to repeat the Dems behavior which
clearly impeaches the Dem.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Also, your prose style lacks grace.

The GOPer usually gets attacked by behavior

that has invented criteria (or even a behavior that would be deemed
acceptable for a Dem.) This pattern isn't 100% true, but is much more
true than not.

You mean like LYING TO CONGRESS AND STARTING A WAR? Was that one of the
issues the Dems invented? You don't actually list any issues, you just keep
saying that there are issues. Perhaps _you_ have issues with them?

Another good example of different criteria for Dems is that when the Bush
administration increased funding for terror by 5X over Clinton (before the
9/11) it
is apparently not deemed sufficient.

Again, this is a lie. You either made this up, or have been listening to
somebody like Rush Limbaugh. Did I mention that Rush Limbaugh is a COMEDIAN?
You probably shouldn't be taking what he says seriously...

When the attack is fully staged and

funded
by the end of 2000, with a large part of the attackers already past the US
frontier,
the Dems seem to imply that it is Bush's fault that the attacks happened
on
his
watch (after BY FAR most of the failings occuring during Clinton.)

Again, you apparently haven't been paying attention. This is simply wrong.
Its clear that Clinton had 'other problems', in the form of a concerted
attempt by his political rivals to impeach him. However, they knew the
danger, and were paying attention. They simply didn't have the political
clout to take out the taliban, which they WANTED to do, according to Richard
Clark. You are misinformed, and slant everything to your own personal
political agenda. You sound like you get your news from Rush Limbaugh. You
do know that he is a comedian, don't you?

Also,

if you look at the 'recession', it technically started in the Month
immediately
after Bush took office (when Clinton's policies were still 100% in force,
and
ABSOLUTELY no way for Bush policies to have taken hold), and the stock
market was already screwed up EVEN BEFORE BUSH WAS NOMINATED,
yet the Dems blame Bush for screwups during Clinton's presidency (even as
the transition from Clinton to Bush was impeded by McAuliffe/Gore/etc.)

This is a damned lie. Nobody impeded Bush, rumors to that effect were all
discredited by later statements by Bush's staffers. Where do you get your
news? (sigh...)

However, nobody blamed the recession on Bush. Everbody knew that the bubble
had burst, and that there was going to be a downturn. The real question is
what they did about it. Using their dogmatic approach, income tax cuts, did
nothing to help (nobody really expected them to help.) 9/11 clearly didn't
help, but another tax cut during wartime clearly didn't help. The fact that
we are now recovering, slowly, after 3 (or 4) years is more a statement
about the resiliency of the american economy despite bad fiscal management
than anything else.

I guess that even the Dems have higher standards for GOPers than for the
Dems themselves. This is an implicit admission about the inferiority of
the
Dems candidates, and the fact that GOPers really do have to be better
than the Dems.

Ah, another 'radical centrist' statement. I hope you are really in the
center. If you are, that means that there are only a few actual right
wingers out there, and that the November election will be a breeze for the
Democrats.

Sadly, I do try to vote for any Dem with integrity, and there are few who
have been able to get my vote. However, those who are really good people
(e.g. Bayh) do get my attention.

I find it difficult to trust your ability to judge integrity in others.

The Dem party MUST be encouraged to develop more good candidate. WHen
thinking of the Dems vs. GOPers (for involvement of Blacks), it is easy
to compare Condi (perhaps the closest person to the president other than
his wife) and Colin -- and then look at the Dems high-level people (e.g.
Jesse
Jackson, Carol M Braun, Sheila J Lee, Sharpton, etc.)

My advice to you is go write some more wonderful BSD code. Thats appears to
be a much more productive use of your time.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

Roger Gt · Apr 3, 2004

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
<snip>
: > They didn't like
: >"Loyalists" or "Tories". The other side (Liberal) here would be
the
: >"Grits", which is unrelated to US (hominy) grits, AFAIK.
:
: Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and
around
: here, occasionally, dinner) food.
: Anybody body my recipe for fried grits?

Now THAT is a threat to destroy your diet! RUN while you still
can!

When we are reduced to grits and greens we do have a depression!

Roger Gt · Apr 3, 2004

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
: Fred Bloggs wrote
: >Jim Thompson wrote:
: >>
: >> Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like
TORY.
: >>
: >> However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more
Libertarian than
: >> Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards
;-)
: >> ...Jim Thompson
: >
: >Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in
wars.
<snip>:
: So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

Because it isn't true

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:05:36 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

What does it taste like? Is it one of those things like tofu that only
tastes good or even okay because of what goes with it?

From the description I looked up on the net, it seems like lutefisk
only made with corn instead of codfish.

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/ic/lutefisk.html

Funny! But grits isn't like that. Trust me.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Grits is just a down-home, slightly granier, white version of polenta:
bleached corn meal. Cooked right, it has a slightly wheaty, faintly
bitter flavor and a soft but still granular, not gummy, texture. It's
wonderful with lots of butter, salt, and black pepper, with a couple
of runny fried eggs on the side.

If you cook a *lot*, you might have some leftovers: refrigerate
overnight, slice into thin slabs, and pan-fry in butter the next day;
serve with syrup like pancakes. Yum.

"Grits" is always singular.

Send me your address and I'll ship you a box.

John

Spehro Pefhany · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:35:04 GMT, the renowned "Roger Gt"
<not@here.net> wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
: Fred Bloggs wrote
: >Jim Thompson wrote:
:
: >> Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like
TORY.
:
: >> However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more
Libertarian than
: >> Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards
;-)
: >> ...Jim Thompson
:
: >Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in
wars.
snip>:
: So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

Because it isn't true

Maybe it is. You'd have to ask "compared to what". By insect
standards, we're probably very cowardly. By dog standards, less so.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Richard Henry · Apr 3, 2004

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:ej6u60tfl53kpa7m74n2rnnmc3g8n8o8oq@4ax.com...

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

What does it taste like? Is it one of those things like tofu that only
tastes good or even okay because of what goes with it?

I had it in my Nvy days with boiled okra and chicken-fried rabbit. they
didn't help the grits.

Jim Thompson · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:43:16 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:05:36 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
[snip]
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/ic/lutefisk.html

Funny! But grits isn't like that. Trust me.

Grits is just a down-home, slightly granier, white version of polenta:
bleached corn meal. Cooked right, it has a slightly wheaty, faintly
bitter flavor and a soft but still granular, not gummy, texture. It's
wonderful with lots of butter, salt, and black pepper, with a couple
of runny fried eggs on the side.

If you cook a *lot*, you might have some leftovers: refrigerate
overnight, slice into thin slabs, and pan-fry in butter the next day;
serve with syrup like pancakes. Yum.

"Grits" is always singular.

Send me your address and I'll ship you a box.

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:00:20 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:ej6u60tfl53kpa7m74n2rnnmc3g8n8o8oq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

What does it taste like? Is it one of those things like tofu that only
tastes good or even okay because of what goes with it?

I had it in my Nvy days with boiled okra and chicken-fried rabbit. they
didn't help the grits.

Okra is like asparagus held together with Elmer's Glue, and my
experience with wild-shot chicken-fried rabbit is that it tastes like
a ditch-diggers glove. Terrible things to do to perfectly good grits.

Navy grits was probably over-cooked; that makes it gummy and gross,
sort of like oatmeal.

John

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:57:44 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:35:04 GMT, the renowned "Roger Gt"
not@here.net> wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
: Fred Bloggs wrote
: >Jim Thompson wrote:
:
: >> Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like
TORY.
:
: >> However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more
Libertarian than
: >> Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards
;-)
: >> ...Jim Thompson
:
: >Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in
wars.
snip>:
: So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

Because it isn't true

Maybe it is. You'd have to ask "compared to what". By insect
standards, we're probably very cowardly. By dog standards, less so.

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples'
hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.

John

Spehro Pefhany · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:17:38 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples'
hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.
John

Employees, even if you feed them for years, won't attack and bite
threatening people several times their own size. Well, some will.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

John Fields · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:15:16 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:00:20 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:ej6u60tfl53kpa7m74n2rnnmc3g8n8o8oq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:54:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?
John

What does it taste like? Is it one of those things like tofu that only
tastes good or even okay because of what goes with it?

I had it in my Nvy days with boiled okra and chicken-fried rabbit. they
didn't help the grits.

Okra is like asparagus held together with Elmer's Glue, and my
experience with wild-shot chicken-fried rabbit is that it tastes like
a ditch-diggers glove. Terrible things to do to perfectly good grits.

Navy grits was probably over-cooked; that makes it gummy and gross,
sort of like oatmeal.

---
Actually, boiled okra is like tapioca held together with snot, but
slice it into disks and and heat it up with diced tomatoes and onions
that have been sauteed along with a little garlic (the onions, not the
tomatoes) and you'll be in for a treat!

Cooking oatmeal for too long is what makes it gross, but even that can
be rescued by stirring in a handful of raw oatmeal just before it's
served.

--
John Fields

Jim Thompson · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:38:49 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:17:38 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples'
hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.
John

Employees, even if you feed them for years, won't attack and bite
threatening people several times their own size. Well, some will.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:38:49 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:17:38 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples'
hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.
John

Employees, even if you feed them for years, won't attack and bite
threatening people several times their own size. Well, some will.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Ever had two female employees get into a fight? I have. I'd rather
try to separate two mad dogs ;-)

...Jim Thompson

The only really serious (and I mean work-stalking, home-stalking,
love-letters-and-death-threats-sending) sexual harassment thing we've
ever had was between two women. The victim was twice the age of the
pursuer. Kinda, umm, different. Worked it out, though.

John

Spehro Pefhany · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:32 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:38:49 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:17:38 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples'
hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.
John

Employees, even if you feed them for years, won't attack and bite
threatening people several times their own size. Well, some will.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Ever had two female employees get into a fight? I have. I'd rather
try to separate two mad dogs ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No, not a physical fight, just the relentless cruel calculated sniping
that females are socialized to do so well. I'm not sure which would be
worse.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Jim Thompson · Apr 3, 2004

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:42:24 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:44:32 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:38:49 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:17:38 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples'
hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.
John

Employees, even if you feed them for years, won't attack and bite
threatening people several times their own size. Well, some will.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Ever had two female employees get into a fight? I have. I'd rather
try to separate two mad dogs ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No, not a physical fight, just the relentless cruel calculated sniping
that females are socialized to do so well. I'm not sure which would be
worse.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

OT: Al Franken

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Robert C Monsen

Guest

Roger Gt

Guest

Roger Gt

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor