[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: snip Have you ever eaten sausages? Same thing. But American's don't know that becaue they think sausages are made in a factory from something. THEY ARE MADE FROM the LINING of INTESTINES. The *casings* are made from the lining of intestines. The casings are then filled with ground meat, fat, and flavorings. Which is the same way Haggis is made, only using the stomach lining instead of the intestine linings. It is the same thing, except haggis does not add fat inside. It is mostly barley, spices, and some ground meat. OffWorld 1) Have you ever eaten haggis and, if so, what is it like? 2) Have you ever heard of a vegetarian haggis and, if so, have you ever tried one and what was it like? (I ask this because it seems from your answer above that there is more non-meat stuff than meat stuff in it). Yes I have eaten haggis as a kid. But only when we were in these competition hikes (2-3 day hikes about 25 miles a day - running with a 30 pund backpack, orienteering - we won the Britisha national competition one year) We sometimes brought haggis slices (but only when we were training) and fried them. It was actually good. Was not like some greasy sausage , and had a lot of grains and spices in it, and I'm pretty sure there was not a lot of meat in them. No-one in my family ever ate it as a meal. Yes, when I lived near the TM dome in Skelmersdale England there was a TM store and they had vegetarian haggis. You can still buy it in Britain. It is not as good though, and I don't know why, I guess the extra fat from the small amount of meat that is real haggis was just enough to make it not so dry as vegetarian haggis. Thats my haggis story. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
I wrote to Rick in email about this, agreeing that his proposal is a Dumb Idea. However... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an alternative, I would consider raising the weekly limit to 50 IF similtaneously, we institute a ZERO TOLERANCE on over posting. Go over the limit an you are instantly banned for the duration of the week AND the following week. Do it twice and its TWO weeks, and ratchet it up for additional infractions, etc. I would agree with this, AS LONG AS everyone is *completely* responsible for keeping their own tally, but that Rick's tally wins, every time. That means no whining, Your count is wrong, Rick, or Buh...buh...but the Yahoo Search Engine said I still had 5 posts left. If you go over, you're out for the next week PERIOD. No excuses, no exceptions. Do it twice, and you're out for the next two weeks, no excuses, no exceptions. That's the only way it could work. We already know that Rick is not active enough here to monitor instantly when a person has gone over their limit. So that's not going to happen. If someone loses it and gets carried away over the limit of 50, chances are they'll rack up 60 or more posts before Rick notices. So the only teeth in this rule is what happens to the person the *following* week. That's why there can't be any exceptions or appeals. Go over the limit one week, and you're banned the next week, PERIOD. Go over the limit twice, and you're banned for the next two weeks, PERIOD. Go over the limit three times and you're banned for the next three weeks, PERIOD. And I would say, go over the limit four times within a three-month period, and you're banned for two or three full months, PERIOD. All of this said, I don't think there is anything wrong with the current 35-per-week limit. The *only* reason I'm checking in on this non-issue is that the point has to be made that there if the limit is raised, it has to be on a zero tolerance basis. No possibility of appeal or arguing or weaseling out of the consequences if Rick's count says you went over the limit. Otherwise, the people who have been trying to fuck with the current limit will just continue to fuck with the new limit. Common sense, people.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:02 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting I wrote to Rick in email about this, agreeing that his proposal is a Dumb Idea. However... I like this suggestion because in a way, it simplifies my task. I’ve been lenient about people going over here and there, but that’s unfair to those who carefully stick to the limit. Your suggestion (50 post limit but clear-cut consequences for violating it) removes the subjectivity from the equation. Anyone else feel strongly about this, one way or the other? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 11/16/2007 9:52 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would vote strongly against this Rick, as being too arbitrary. And in the case of the debate you entered into, its not exactly stellar in terms of no personal attacks. To give personal degraders more posts seems counterproductive. You're right. As an alternative, I would consider raising the weekly limit to 50 IF similtaneously, we institute a ZERO TOLERANCE on over posting. Go over the limit an you are instantly banned for the duration of the week AND the following week. Do it twice and its TWO weeks, and ratchet it up for additional infractions, etc. The extra 15 posts a week would give people breathing room -- the ideas is don't even come close to the limit if you are a lazy or imprecise counter. What do ya'll think? Are 35 posts too few? There are a few people who post quality stuff who always seem to run out. And to encourage rehabilitation, if a person is in the 2-3+ week ban category, they can have their ratchet amount eliminated if they stay unbanned for three months. But they need to apply for such a waiver, requesting it of you and the group. Now it's getting complicated. Gotta keep it simple if you want me to administer it. The posting limit topic is resurfacing so frequently on FFL that I'm beginning to see that history may regard the topic of posting limits as FFL's contribution to history. A technological solution to enforce posting limits would be welcome at this point, to simplify limit administration. We appreciate your flexibility to improve the discourse, but IMHO. 35 / week is a good level. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 11/16/2007 9:52 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would vote strongly against this Rick, as being too arbitrary. And in the case of the debate you entered into, its not exactly stellar in terms of no personal attacks. To give personal degraders more posts seems counterproductive. You're right. As an alternative, I would consider raising the weekly limit to 50 IF similtaneously, we institute a ZERO TOLERANCE on over posting. Go over the limit an you are instantly banned for the duration of the week AND the following week. Do it twice and its TWO weeks, and ratchet it up for additional infractions, etc. The extra 15 posts a week would give people breathing room -- the ideas is don't even come close to the limit if you are a lazy or imprecise counter. What do ya'll think? Are 35 posts too few? There are a few people who post quality stuff who always seem to run out. Raise the limit ONLY if its linked to a Zero Tolerance for overposting the new limit. And to encourage rehabilitation, if a person is in the 2-3+ week ban category, they can have their ratchet amount eliminated if they stay unbanned for three months. But they need to apply for such a waiver, requesting it of you and the group. Now it's getting complicated. Gotta keep it simple if you want me to administer it. This latter rehabilitaion clause is not necessary. But I don't see much if any administrative burden. A person would need keep track of their time-out time, and when eligible request a clean slate from the group. If there are no significant objections, then you would simply eliminate their cumulative penalty. Or are you objecting to their cumultive penalty -- and your having to track that? I think it would at most be 2-3 people -- putting one number next to their name on a list, not rocket science. And you would not even have to keep track of when to reinstate them. They would be banned until they send a note to you saying my ban is up, I have learned my lesson, please reinstate me. But that too is not necessary. Maybe just keep it VERY simple. Zero tolerance for going over the limit. Do it and you are out for a week. Period. Maybe that would be a better plan. I alter my suggestion to this simplified version.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
Please if anything cut the limit back to 25 post a week. Every topic with over 50 listings isn't still talking about that topic ...alway breaks down to people just zinging each other. Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. At least 50% of the fast exchanges seem more like group encounter or comedy central or anjything but liberation. I really enjoy the rich and varied topics that come across this list wish one didn't have to wade through so much personal baggage. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:02 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting I wrote to Rick in email about this, agreeing that his proposal is a Dumb Idea. However... I like this suggestion because in a way, it simplifies my task. I've been lenient about people going over here and there, but that's unfair to those who carefully stick to the limit. Your suggestion (50 post limit but clear-cut consequences for violating it) removes the subjectivity from the equation. Anyone else feel strongly about this, one way or the other? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 11/16/2007 9:52 AM
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:23 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting But that too is not necessary. Maybe just keep it VERY simple. Zero tolerance for going over the limit. Do it and you are out for a week. Period. Maybe that would be a better plan. I alter my suggestion to this simplified version. Or we could do the fancier version if you or Turq or someone kept track of the details. I would just be the guy to turn posting priviledges on and off, and to verify the count. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 11/16/2007 9:52 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:02 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting I wrote to Rick in email about this, agreeing that his proposal is a Dumb Idea. However... I like this suggestion because in a way, it simplifies my task. I’ve been lenient about people going over here and there, but that’s unfair to those who carefully stick to the limit. Your suggestion (50 post limit but clear-cut consequences for violating it) removes the subjectivity from the equation. Anyone else feel strongly about this, one way or the other? I was thinking that 35 posts didn't give much headroom and raising it would help a bit. You implement the posting limit in the middle of summer when many aren't very active on the Internet but now with winter and some folks shut in by weather they will want to spend more time online and more time here. Of course as you know I'm against posting limits altogether as the people who complained need to learn to read group messages selectively and probably those who complain probably aren't that active on the Internet so you're kind of letting the lowest common denominator rule. It's sad that some of them thought that if they skipped a message that might have the little piece of information that might pop them into moksha. Not here, this is just a chat room of folks with something in common. :) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Janet Luise wrote: I really enjoy the rich and varied topics that come across this list wish one didn't have to wade through so much personal baggage. You don't have to wade through anything, Janet--just delete them. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:02 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting I wrote to Rick in email about this, agreeing that his proposal is a Dumb Idea. However... I like this suggestion because in a way, it simplifies my task. I've been lenient about people going over here and there, but that's unfair to those who carefully stick to the limit. Your suggestion (50 post limit but clear-cut consequences for violating it) removes the subjectivity from the equation. Anyone else feel strongly about this, one way or the other? 50 post limit @ 200 words maximum per post. ...or... 75 post limit @ 100 words maximum per post. ...or... 300 post limit @ 25 words per post. ...or... 20 post limit @ 500 words per post. ...or... 35 post limit @ 300 words per post for 50% of those posts and 100 words per post for the other 50% ...or... 50 post limit @100 words per post for 33.3% of those posts, 200 words per post for another 33.3% of those posts, and 300 words per post for the remaining 33.3% of those post. ...or... 25 posts limit with unlimited words per post but you have to give every reader of the post $1,000 in monopoly money which they have to spend on an imaginary stock market which we'll set up and after 6 months we'll see who got the most capital gains. ...or... Just post however many posts per week that you want and if anyone is irritated by this, they don't have to click on any post that they don't want to. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 11/16/2007 9:52 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:02 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting I wrote to Rick in email about this, agreeing that his proposal is a Dumb Idea. However... I like this suggestion because in a way, it simplifies my task. I've been lenient about people going over here and there, but that's unfair to those who carefully stick to the limit. Your suggestion (50 post limit but clear-cut consequences for violating it) removes the subjectivity from the equation. Anyone else feel strongly about this, one way or the other? I was thinking that 35 posts didn't give much headroom and raising it would help a bit. You implement the posting limit in the middle of summer when many aren't very active on the Internet but now with winter and some folks shut in by weather they will want to spend more time online and more time here. Of course as you know I'm against posting limits altogether as the people who complained need to learn to read group messages selectively and probably those who complain probably aren't that active on the Internet so you're kind of letting the lowest common denominator rule. It's sad that some of them thought that if they skipped a message that might have the little piece of information that might pop them into moksha. Not here, this is just a chat room of folks with something in common. :) Hey, Barfitu, this is one thing we agree on! No posting limits! Learn to read group message selectively is the key here. Very simple to do. Weigh the inconvenience of reading group messages selectively against censoring people of how they choose to express themselves (like myself, I do alot of short, quick posts that easily go over the limit) and I think you have to conclude that unlimited posts is the answer. Of course, if you're into censorship, like Mr. Hall Monitor Barry Wright, you'll support posting limits.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 17, 2007, at 10:48 AM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I was away most of yesterday and didn't notice until late last night that Off World was up to 44 posts. This may be opening up a can of worms, but I wonder if we should have a policy where I grant a special dispensation of extra posts if a particularly lively conversation is taking place between two people, as long as it's substantive and not just a flame war. Barry and Judy would not be eligible. I would vote strongly against this Rick, as being too arbitrary. And in the case of the debate you entered into, its not exactly stellar in terms of no personal attacks. To give personal degraders more posts seems counterproductive. As an alternative, I would consider raising the weekly limit to 50 IF similtaneously, we institute a ZERO TOLERANCE on over posting. Best idea yet. To give Off more of a forum for his gratuitous insults--entertaining though they can be--but deny Barry and Judy one for theirs seems totally arbitrary and unfair. This idea is one I could vote for. Sal First, where do you get these claims of gratuitous insults? Calling an american who is proud of their despotic regime 'stupid' is just common sense, used by 95% of the world to describe the current administration and their proud followers. (by the way...to any of you that think I am hiding behind the internet, I DO have these discussions in real life - only even MORE animated- with real americans who are far more likely to cause me damage than anyone on FFL in real life would (ex-army types who own 10 guns, carry one at all times, and go to machine gun practice for a hobby - seriously TRUE). They usually end up saying something like yea you're right, take the country...we fucked it up. Hope you can do a better job than we did Secondly, I agree. I should not be allowed more than 40 posts per week and neither should anyone else. 40 is the best number. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
On Nov 17, 2007, at 1:09 PM, off_world_beings wrote: First, where do you get these claims of gratuitous insults? Calling an american who is proud of their despotic regime 'stupid' is just common sense, used by 95% of the world to describe the current administration and their proud followers. Yeah, you got me there, Off. The idea that you were being insulting was clearly the by-product of some hallucinogen I took long ago. Let's see now... Calling an american who is proud of their despotic regime 'stupid' is just common sense... renegade bully schoolboys...Idiot ! ! !...You are complete idiots in America!...you're an idiot...dumb Americans...I've never said that to anyone you raving drunk...Go back the bottle...You're an idiot if you think that was not deliberate (but then you are an american) ... we are here to take over from you idiots. You have fucked up, And that's just a small sample of your latest and greatest hits :) Clearly I was wrong, Off--you couldn't post an insult if your life depended on it. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 17, 2007, at 1:09 PM, off_world_beings wrote: First, where do you get these claims of gratuitous insults? Calling an american who is proud of their despotic regime 'stupid' is just common sense, used by 95% of the world to describe the current administration and their proud followers. Yeah, you got me there, Off. The idea that you were being insulting was clearly the by-product of some hallucinogen I took long ago. Let's see now... Calling an american who is proud of their despotic regime 'stupid' is just common sense... renegade bully schoolboys...Idiot ! ! !...You are complete idiots in America!...you're an idiot...dumb Americans...I've never said that to anyone you raving drunk...Go back the bottle...You're an idiot if you think that was not deliberate (but then you are an american) ... we are here to take over from you idiots. You have fucked up, And that's just a small sample of your latest and greatest hits :) Clearly I was wrong, Off--you couldn't post an insult if your life depended on it. Sal Well, maybe thats just a Scottish friendly greeting. Cultural differences -- sort of reminds me of the last scene in Barcelona -- the three (or two) american guys end up marrying spanish woemen, and moving back to the states. Ted: You see, that's one of the great things about getting involved with someone from another country. You can't take it personally. What's really terrific is that when we act in ways which might objectively seem asshole-ish or, or, incredibly annoying, they don't get upset at all. They don't take it personally. They just assume it's some national characteristic. And for non-American views of the states: Marta: Ramon is very persuasive, and he painted a terrible picture of what it would be like for her to live the rest of her life in America, with all of its crime, consumerism, and vulgarity. All those loud, badly dressed, fat people watching their eighty channels of television and visiting shopping malls. The plastic throw-everything-away society with its notorious violence and racism. And finally, the total lack of culture. And the Scots certainly have a lot of things going for them: Haggis is a traditional Scottish dish. There are many recipes, most of which have in common the following ingredients: sheep's 'pluck' (heart, liver and lungs), minced with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and traditionally boiled in the animal's stomach for approximately an hour. Or, perhaps Off is demonstrating, for all of our benefit, that projection is well and alive.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
On Nov 17, 2007, at 2:45 PM, new.morning wrote: And that's just a small sample of your latest and greatest hits :) Clearly I was wrong, Off--you couldn't post an insult if your life depended on it. Sal Well, maybe thats just a Scottish friendly greeting. That's the ticket. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 17, 2007, at 1:09 PM, off_world_beings wrote: Yeah, you got me there, Off. The idea that you were being insulting was clearly the by-product of some hallucinogen I took long ago. Let's see now... Calling an american who is proud of their despotic regime 'stupid' is just common sense... renegade bully schoolboys...Idiot ! ! !...You are complete idiots in America!...you're an idiot...dumb Americans...I've never said that to anyone you raving drunk...Go back the bottle...You're an idiot if you think that was not deliberate (but then you are an american) ... we are here to take over from you idiots. Nice. I agree completely with all of it. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: malls. The plastic throw-everything-away society with its notorious violence and racism. And finally, the total lack of culture. And the Scots certainly have a lot of things going for them: Haggis is a traditional Scottish dish. There are many recipes, most of which have in common the following ingredients: sheep's 'pluck' (heart, liver and lungs), minced with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and traditionally boiled in the animal's stomach for approximately an hour. Have you ever eaten sausages? Same thing. But American's don't know that becaue they think sausages are made in a factory from something. THEY ARE MADE FROM the LINING of INTESTINES. Exactly the same with haggis, no different. Oh, and by the way, there are more vegetarians per capita than US, so 10% of the population does not eat haggis at all, and rest of them only eat it once a year...once. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: malls. The plastic throw-everything-away society with its notorious violence and racism. And finally, the total lack of culture. And the Scots certainly have a lot of things going for them: Haggis is a traditional Scottish dish. There are many recipes, most of which have in common the following ingredients: sheep's 'pluck' (heart, liver and lungs), minced with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and traditionally boiled in the animal's stomach for approximately an hour. Have you ever eaten sausages? Same thing. But American's don't know that becaue they think sausages are made in a factory from something. THEY ARE MADE FROM the LINING of INTESTINES. Exactly the same with haggis, no different. Oh, and by the way, there are more vegetarians per capita than US, so 10% of the population does not eat haggis at all, and rest of them only eat it once a year...once. OffWorld speaking of Scottish food, I would recommend that anyone who eats oatmeal should consider abandoning using rolled oats and, instead, consider using steel cut oats. Same oats, but cut differently. However, makes a world of difference in taste. Anyone interested and I will post a simple but great recipe for steel- cut oats (which are easily available in the bin at Whole Foods) and buttermilk...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: snip Have you ever eaten sausages? Same thing. But American's don't know that becaue they think sausages are made in a factory from something. THEY ARE MADE FROM the LINING of INTESTINES. The *casings* are made from the lining of intestines. The casings are then filled with ground meat, fat, and flavorings. speaking of Scottish food, I would recommend that anyone who eats oatmeal should consider abandoning using rolled oats and, instead, consider using steel cut oats. Same oats, but cut differently. However, makes a world of difference in taste. Yes, indeed. Takes longer to cook, but well worth it. Also, more nutritious. Chewy and nutty. Anyone interested and I will post a simple but great recipe for steel-cut oats Easiest way I know: Boil for five minutes, turn off the heat, cover, let sit overnight. (which are easily available in the bin at Whole Foods) and buttermilk... That sounds good. Apple cider's nice too, with raisins, if you like it sweet. Also interesting cooked in stock as a grain side dish. We tend to think of oatmeal as exclusively a breakfast food, but it doesn't have to be. The packaged McCann's steel-cut oats are good if there's no Whole Foods nearby. Best to keep in the fridge; they go stale fairly quickly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
The *casings* are made from the lining of intestines. The casings are then filled with ground meat, fat, and flavorings. Only important to people like me who make their own sausages, but the casings are actually the external membrane around the small intestine. The insides of intestines are called chitterlings and are a part of soul food and Asian cooking. Here is where I get mine: http://tinyurl.com/35rtfm --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: snip Have you ever eaten sausages? Same thing. But American's don't know that becaue they think sausages are made in a factory from something. THEY ARE MADE FROM the LINING of INTESTINES. The *casings* are made from the lining of intestines. The casings are then filled with ground meat, fat, and flavorings. speaking of Scottish food, I would recommend that anyone who eats oatmeal should consider abandoning using rolled oats and, instead, consider using steel cut oats. Same oats, but cut differently. However, makes a world of difference in taste. Yes, indeed. Takes longer to cook, but well worth it. Also, more nutritious. Chewy and nutty. Anyone interested and I will post a simple but great recipe for steel-cut oats Easiest way I know: Boil for five minutes, turn off the heat, cover, let sit overnight. (which are easily available in the bin at Whole Foods) and buttermilk... That sounds good. Apple cider's nice too, with raisins, if you like it sweet. Also interesting cooked in stock as a grain side dish. We tend to think of oatmeal as exclusively a breakfast food, but it doesn't have to be. The packaged McCann's steel-cut oats are good if there's no Whole Foods nearby. Best to keep in the fridge; they go stale fairly quickly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: snip Have you ever eaten sausages? Same thing. But American's don't know that becaue they think sausages are made in a factory from something. THEY ARE MADE FROM the LINING of INTESTINES. The *casings* are made from the lining of intestines. The casings are then filled with ground meat, fat, and flavorings. Which is the same way Haggis is made, only using the stomach lining instead of the intestine linings. It is the same thing, except haggis does not add fat inside. It is mostly barley, spices, and some ground meat. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solution to Overposting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: snip Have you ever eaten sausages? Same thing. But American's don't know that becaue they think sausages are made in a factory from something. THEY ARE MADE FROM the LINING of INTESTINES. The *casings* are made from the lining of intestines. The casings are then filled with ground meat, fat, and flavorings. Which is the same way Haggis is made, only using the stomach lining instead of the intestine linings. It is the same thing, except haggis does not add fat inside. It is mostly barley, spices, and some ground meat. OffWorld 1) Have you ever eaten haggis and, if so, what is it like? 2) Have you ever heard of a vegetarian haggis and, if so, have you ever tried one and what was it like? (I ask this because it seems from your answer above that there is more non-meat stuff than meat stuff in it).
