On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
> Hark, Hark!
> It's time to bring back some decadence in rec.food.cooking. Lite cooking
> is for cardio-vascular wimps; do you really want to save yourself for cancer
> and Alzheimer's ?
> ;-)
> Herewith a recipe for Salmon Trout Villars, as served to a company of 10
> gourmets and their spouses in Paris on New Year's Eve, 1877. Those of you
> who saw "Babette's Feast" may see this as a sample from Babette's Menu.
> Awright, I admit it is not a very practical recipe; but I, for one,
> thought that just reading it was a pleasure; and I felt a bit like
> the cartoon character who reads through an extravagantly elaborate menu,
> and, overwhelmed, asks for the check, an after-dinner mint and sends his
> compliments to the chef-writer.
> The main recipe comes first, details on some ingredients are provided after.
> Since the subsidiary recipes come from elsewhere, the quantities may not
> be right for the main dish. Proceed by trial and error :-)
> Salmon Trout Villars
> Take a large salmon trout (8 lbs), stuff it with pike forcemeat (farce a
> quenelle de brochet) mixed with 3 spoonfuls of duxelle (minced mushrooms
> cooked in butter and olive oil, to which veal stock is added an reduced).
> Put the trout in a fish poacher, cover with cheesecloth, add a half bottle
> of sauternes and same quantity of fish stock (perch if possible). Add
> salt, cook slowly, basting often, counting 8mn per lb. When the fish is cooked,
> save the poaching liquid in a pan, keep the fish warm. Reduce the liquid
> to a glaze, add 1.5 pints of lobster sauce. Place the trout, drained, on a
> serving dish, remove its silver coat and gloss its pink surface with the
> sauce.
> To serve, take 15 little tarts of puff pastry, straight from the oven; top
> them with a mound of creamy sole puree, cover with Mornay sauce, sprinkle
> grated Parmesan, broil until golden. Also, take 15 large mushrooms, put in a
> covered pan with some butter, veal glaze and cream, and steam them. Top
> the mushrooms with crayfish tails bordelaise, alternate the mushrooms and
> the tartlets around the fish. At each end of the dish, arrange a litle
> bush of carp roe sausage. Serve the lobster sauce in separate sauce-dish,
> serve very hot.
> Pike forcemeat: first, to prepare the bread, add 4 tbsp boiling milk to 2 oz
> of white bread in a pan, mix well, then dry out on high heat, and let cool on
> a buttered plate. Grind 5 oz of fish (no skin or bones) with salt, pepper, a
> touch of nutmeg, to a fine paste; add the bread, 3 oz butter, 2 egg yolks,
> 1 egg white, 2 tbsp cream. Pass through a sieve.
> Lobster sauce: a hollandaise with a lobster butter. For 1.5 cups of sauce,
> crush 7 oz of butter with 5 oz of lobster eggs and coral; melt in a double
> saucepan and filter through a cheese-cloth. Use this with 5 egg yolks in a
> classic hollandaise.
> Mornay sauce: 1 pint of Bechamel sauce, boiling, to which 3 oz of Swiss
> and Parmesan cheese are added; thicken with 2 egg yolks and 1 spoonful of
> cream, add a touch of cayenne pepper, filter and add 3 oz of butter. This
> makes 3 cups of Mornay sauce.
> Crayfish bordelaise: mince in very small pieces 1 oz carot, 1 oz onion, 1/3
> oz shallots, 4 parsley stems. Add thyme and bay leaf, ground. Cook the
> resulting mirepoix in melted butter for 10 mn, very slowly. Saute 12 crayfish
> in a pan with 1 oz of butter, add 5 tbsp brandy, 1 cup sauvignon blanc, 1 tbsp
> tomato paste, the mirepoix, salt, cayenne pepper. Cover the pan, bring to a
> boil, cook on low heat 15 mn. Remove the crayfish, reduce the sauce to 3/4 cup,
> take off the stove, add 1 tbsp reduced veal stock and whisk in 2 oz butter.
> Carp roe sausages (boudins de laitance de carpe): soak 12 carp roes to
> clean them, blanch in a mixture of milk and salted water; when they are
> cooked, let them cool in the liquid. Dice them with some crayfish tails
> and some truffles: thicken with Mornay sauce and cool the mix. Spoon out
> cunks the size of a small egg and rool them into small sausages; bread
> them in beaten egg and bread crumbs, saute.
>
> If you are still hungry, here is, barely translated, the complete menu
> (the other recipes are in the same vein):
> Oysters
> Caviar
> Soup "Creme Nerval"
> Consomme Leczinska
> Salmon Trout Villars
> Lobster Tails Villemain
> Poularde Nationale
> Leg of Venison Comtesse
> Lamb Chops Bordeaux
> Supremes de Becasses a l'Essence (woodcock breasts)
> Royal Roast
> Foie gras Surprise
> Gallic Salad
> Souffle of Artichoke Hearts
> Pineapple Madeleine Palphis
> Fruit Sultane
> Punch Romaine
> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)

Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.

On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:

>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>
> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.

You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15. Sure, you can spent lots
more but like everything else, double the price is not twice as good. I
can get it at the supermarket.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 12:10:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>
> >> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
> >> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
> >
> > Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
>
> You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15.

Nooo, I mean the serious stuff that was bottled in the actual Bordeaux or the Champagne regions of France.

On 2022-12-06, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>
>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>
>> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
>
> You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15. Sure, you can spent lots
> more but like everything else, double the price is not twice as good. I
> can get it at the supermarket.

If he's never _seen_ a bottle of Champagne, we might as well give up on
him.

Shit, you can get Dom Perignon at Hooters.

--
Cindy Hamilton

On 12/6/2022 12:43 PM, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 12:10:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>
>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>>
>>> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
>>
>> You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15.
>
> Nooo, I mean the serious stuff that was bottled in the actual Bordeaux or the Champagne regions of France.

Yes, last bottle I had a few weeks ago was $15. I don't buy the $50
stuff as I don't appreciate the small difference.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 1:13:48 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2022-12-06, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:
> > On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> >> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
> >
> >>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
> >>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
> >>
> >> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
> >
> > You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15. Sure, you can spent lots
> > more but like everything else, double the price is not twice as good. I
> > can get it at the supermarket.
> If he's never _seen_ a bottle of Champagne, we might as well give up on
> him.
>
> Shit, you can get Dom Perignon at Hooters.

I'm talking about a bottle *from* Bordeaux, Cindy. I'm talking about a bottle *from* Champagne, Cindy. That's different, Cindy.

On 2022-12-06 11:55 a.m., bruce bowser wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 1:13:48 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2022-12-06, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>>>
>>>> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
>>>
>>> You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15. Sure, you can spent lots
>>> more but like everything else, double the price is not twice as good. I
>>> can get it at the supermarket.
>> If he's never _seen_ a bottle of Champagne, we might as well give up on
>> him.
>>
>> Shit, you can get Dom Perignon at Hooters.
>
> I'm talking about a bottle *from* Bordeaux, Cindy. I'm talking about a bottle *from* Champagne, Cindy. That's different, Cindy.

You CAN get a drinkable Bordeaux for less than $20. That is, a wine from
the Bordeaux area of France.
Real champers is always expensive given the complex production method.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 2:01:18 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> On 2022-12-06 11:55 a.m., bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 1:13:48 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >> On 2022-12-06, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:
> >>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
> >>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
> >>>
> >>> You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15. Sure, you can spent lots
> >>> more but like everything else, double the price is not twice as good. I
> >>> can get it at the supermarket.
> >> If he's never _seen_ a bottle of Champagne, we might as well give up on
> >> him.
> >>
> >> Shit, you can get Dom Perignon at Hooters.
> >
> > I'm talking about a bottle *from* Bordeaux, Cindy. I'm talking about a bottle *from* Champagne, Cindy. That's different, Cindy.
> You CAN get a drinkable Bordeaux for less than $20. That is, a wine from
> the Bordeaux area of France.
> Real champers is always expensive given the complex production method.

All i've heard about are knock-offs that aren't even from those places.

On 2022-12-06 1:16 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 12:43 PM, bruce bowser wrote:

>> Nooo, I mean the serious stuff that was bottled in the actual Bordeaux
>> or the Champagne regions of France.
>
>
> Yes, last bottle I had a few weeks ago was $15.  I don't buy the $50
> stuff as I don't appreciate the small difference.

It is a waste if you don't appreciate the difference. I don't care much
for cheap champagne. The good stuff is over my wine budget limit. I
would rather have a nice still wine or a good brandy.

On 12/6/2022 1:55 PM, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 1:13:48 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2022-12-06, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>>>
>>>> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive. I've never even seen bottles of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
>>>
>>> You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15. Sure, you can spent lots
>>> more but like everything else, double the price is not twice as good. I
>>> can get it at the supermarket.
>> If he's never _seen_ a bottle of Champagne, we might as well give up on
>> him.
>>
>> Shit, you can get Dom Perignon at Hooters.
>
> I'm talking about a bottle *from* Bordeaux, Cindy. I'm talking about a bottle *from* Champagne, Cindy. That's different, Cindy.

Cheap as $13.99 right from Booordough.

https://www.totalwine.com/search/all?text=bordeaux

They have champagne from Champagne too but I didn't see any rally cheap
ones. Looks like $35 but others from France, other regions.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>
>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>
>> Bordeaux? Champagne? Too expensive.  I've never even seen bottles
>> of that stuff, let alone tried any of it.
>
> You can get decent Bordeaux for $10 to $15.  Sure, you can spent
> lots more but like everything else, double the price is not twice
> as good. I can get it at the supermarket.

Even 30 years ago?

On 12/6/2022 12:10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>
>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)

It's amusing to see that my newsreader turned this old-school figure-8
smile emoticon from a 1992 post, into a modern graphic. No one would
have seen it that way when initially posted 30 years ago.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2022-12-06 1:16 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 12/6/2022 12:43 PM, bruce bowser wrote:
>
> >> Nooo, I mean the serious stuff that was bottled in the actual Bordeaux
> >> or the Champagne regions of France.
> >
> > Yes, last bottle I had a few weeks ago was $15. I don't buy the $50
> > stuff as I don't appreciate the small difference.
>
> It is a waste if you don't appreciate the difference. I don't care much
> for cheap champagne. The good stuff is over my wine budget limit. I
> would rather have a nice still wine or a good brandy.

I've never had a bottle of anything over like maybe a 40oz bottle of Cognac. That was maybe 36 bucks.

On 12/6/2022 9:36 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 12:10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>
> It's amusing to see that my newsreader turned this old-school figure-8
> smile emoticon from a 1992 post, into a modern graphic.  No one would
> have seen it that way when initially posted 30 years ago.

Just curious, how do you know what we would have seen? Emoticons (now
known as "emojis" since the evolution of smartphones) have been around
for a very long time.

Jill

On 12/7/2022 18:17, jmcquown wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 9:36 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 12/6/2022 12:10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>
>> It's amusing to see that my newsreader turned this old-school figure-8
>> smile emoticon from a 1992 post, into a modern graphic. No one would
>> have seen it that way when initially posted 30 years ago.
>
> Just curious, how do you know what we would have seen? Emoticons (now
> known as "emojis" since the evolution of smartphones) have been around
> for a very long time.
>
> Jill

True, but news reader software from 30 years ago didn't automatically
turn the text emoticons 8 - ) into 8-) -- they only displayed the
characters, not the actual little icons. I've used plenty of old
software (although I'm not sure when the actual icons came about).

On 12/7/2022 11:34 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 18:17, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 12/6/2022 9:36 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2022 12:10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>>
>>> It's amusing to see that my newsreader turned this old-school figure-8
>>> smile emoticon from a 1992 post, into a modern graphic.  No one would
>>> have seen it that way when initially posted 30 years ago.
>>
>> Just curious, how do you know what we would have seen? Emoticons (now
>> known as "emojis" since the evolution of smartphones) have been around
>> for a very long time.
>>
>> Jill
>
> True, but news reader software from 30 years ago didn't automatically
> turn the text emoticons 8 - ) into 8-) -- they only displayed the
> characters, not the actual little icons.  I've used plenty of old
> software (although I'm not sure when the actual icons came about).

Using old software on newer machines won't tell you how those ASCII
character sets may have been converted into emoticons images back in the
day. I promise you, I saw actual smiley faces way back when. The rest
of it was text based and unless it was a binary group you could not post
photos, only links. But smiley's definitely did display as an image.

Jill

On 12/8/2022 6:46 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 11:34 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 18:17, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2022 9:36 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/2022 12:10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
>>>>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
>>>>
>>>> It's amusing to see that my newsreader turned this old-school figure-8
>>>> smile emoticon from a 1992 post, into a modern graphic.  No one would
>>>> have seen it that way when initially posted 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> Just curious, how do you know what we would have seen? Emoticons (now
>>> known as "emojis" since the evolution of smartphones) have been around
>>> for a very long time.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> True, but news reader software from 30 years ago didn't automatically
>> turn the text emoticons 8 - ) into 8-) -- they only displayed the
>> characters, not the actual little icons.  I've used plenty of old
>> software (although I'm not sure when the actual icons came about).
>
>
> Using old software on newer machines won't tell you how those ASCII
> character sets may have been converted into emoticons images back in the
> day.  I promise you, I saw actual smiley faces way back when.  The rest
> of it was text based and unless it was a binary group you could not post
> photos, only links.  But smiley's definitely did display as an image.

Originally, all Usenet was text based. If you see an actual pic of a
smiley face, it was posted or read using HTML.

I always use text when posting but I don't know how others might see it.

On 2022-12-09, Gary <g.majors@att.net> wrote:

> Originally, all Usenet was text based.

> If you see an actual pic of a smiley face,
> it was posted or read using HTML.

Not accurate. Nowadays, it is more likely
that both clients are capable of Unicode.

Just because you use smileys willy-nilly
does not make you a texpert.

On 12/9/2022 10:14 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> On 2022-12-09, Gary <g.majors@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Originally, all Usenet was text based.
>
>> If you see an actual pic of a smiley face,
>> it was posted or read using HTML.
>
> Not accurate. Nowadays, it is more likely
> that both clients are capable of Unicode.
>
> Just because you use smileys willy-nilly
> does not make you a texpert.
>

:) Mike

Jill

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 10:19:48 -0500, jmcquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 12/9/2022 10:14 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>> On 2022-12-09, Gary <g.majors@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Originally, all Usenet was text based.
>>
>>> If you see an actual pic of a smiley face,
>>> it was posted or read using HTML.
>>
>> Not accurate. Nowadays, it is more likely
>> that both clients are capable of Unicode.
>>
>> Just because you use smileys willy-nilly
>> does not make you a texpert.
>>
>
>:) Mike
>
>Jill

Going well, Muffy! Better start preparing your formal application!

--
Bruce
<https://emalm.com/?v=SQqZJ>

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:30:13 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> On 12/8/2022 6:46 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> > On 12/7/2022 11:34 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> >> On 12/7/2022 18:17, jmcquown wrote:
> >>> On 12/6/2022 9:36 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> >>>> On 12/6/2022 12:10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/6/2022 11:40 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, June 22, 1992 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-4, Francois Velde wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wines: chablis-moutonne, chateau-margaux, musigny, champagne.
> >>>>>>> We are told that the meal was a success 8-)
> >>>>
> >>>> It's amusing to see that my newsreader turned this old-school figure-8
> >>>> smile emoticon from a 1992 post, into a modern graphic. No one would
> >>>> have seen it that way when initially posted 30 years ago.
> >>>
> >>> Just curious, how do you know what we would have seen? Emoticons (now
> >>> known as "emojis" since the evolution of smartphones) have been around
> >>> for a very long time.
> >>>
> >>> Jill
> >>
> >> True, but news reader software from 30 years ago didn't automatically
> >> turn the text emoticons 8 - ) into 8-) -- they only displayed the
> >> characters, not the actual little icons. I've used plenty of old
> >> software (although I'm not sure when the actual icons came about).
> >
> >
> > Using old software on newer machines won't tell you how those ASCII
> > character sets may have been converted into emoticons images back in the
> > day. I promise you, I saw actual smiley faces way back when. The rest
> > of it was text based and unless it was a binary group you could not post
> > photos, only links. But smiley's definitely did display as an image.
> Originally, all Usenet was text based. If you see an actual pic of a
> smiley face, it was posted or read using HTML.
>
> I always use text when posting but I don't know how others might see it.

Originally, all computing was text-based. Switching to a graphical interface changed everything. An interface that relies on text is not going to make it in this modern world. However, it would be funny to see a Tesla with lines of text on the dash screen.

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:19:56 AM UTC-5, j_mc...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 10:14 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> > On 2022-12-09, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Originally, all Usenet was text based.
> >
> >> If you see an actual pic of a smiley face,
> >> it was posted or read using HTML.
> >
> > Not accurate. Nowadays, it is more likely
> > that both clients are capable of Unicode.
> >
> > Just because you use smileys willy-nilly
> > does not make you a texpert.
> >
> :) Mike

Tex? is Jill going on and on about Dallas and that job, again?