Gary wrote:
....
> The second pack was frozen immediately and still frozen. I assume it
> will be fine and good. Might thaw it this week..maybe.

i've had a few packages end up in the freezer but i'd say
i don't like the difference in texture that can sometimes
happen. luckily a good use for those packages is to make
some fake pate' with it.

songbird

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:02:51 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 5:16 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > I'm not the grammar cop here, but my eyes roll every time I see
> > "could of", "should of", or "would of" instead of "could have"
> > "should have", or "would have".
> The one that annoys me is when someone says "I could care less" rather
> than "I couldn't care less."

The one that annoys me is when someone says "I could care less" rather
than "I couldn't care less."

That makes me cringe too. I have actually asked how much less.
Irregardless is on the list.

On 2022-12-09, Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Diagramming? Is that similar to clause analysis?

Every day, the Grade 6 afternoon teacher had
a sentence ready for each student. I believe we
started by drawing a circle around the subject.

On 12/9/2022 8:48, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> As much as I'd hate to learn all new spellings at this stage,
> I'd be willing to have regularized English spelling.

An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
speech; it would become a foreign language to many people. Non
sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-6, S Viemeister wrote:
>
> On 09/12/2022 01:47, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > Well, you probably know a LOT of people have trouble with whether the
> > e or the i comes first in some words. Remember the "i before e except
> > after c" elementary school tip?
> >
> You left off the last bit of the rhyme - "or when 'e' sounds like 'a',
> as in neighbour and weigh".
>
Ed filled that in upstream.

On 12/9/2022 1:56, GM wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:06:43 PM UTC-6, Michael Trew
> wrote:
>> Haven't you recently chided me for calling out Janet UK on her
>> repulsive social behavior -- much similar to the way that you
>> regularly call out Bruce?

This is in reference to a recent Jill post asking me "Why are you doing
this?" when I was making a pick at Janet. Simply put, with the way that
Janet has treated me, she deserves a taste of her medicine. ...Or as
Dave would say, "Yes, Ma'am".

> There ya go...
>
> Jill is relentless in slagging others here, but she gets all huffy
> when "the tables are turned", bawling all over the place that she's
> some innocent victim...

Are you standing up for Bruce?! ;)

Try as they may, no one can say that I don't acknowledge double
standards. I try to not make a point of it, though; no one likes a nag.

On 12/9/2022 5:31, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2022 10:16:44 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
> <hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-12-09, jmcquown<j_mcquown@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Look at Bruce, participating in a food discussion, only to note correct
>>> spelling by *Americans*. The assumption being we're all such uneducated
>>> slobs.
>>
>> Honestly, we are. I once asked a Dutch friend if Dutch had irregular
>> verbs and whether Dutch speakers had difficulty with them.
>> He said "Yes" and "No", respectively.
>
> But that also applies to American(s). No American would say "I waked
> up at 6 this morning." Unless that's a dialect I'm not familiar with.

I've actually heard that... It's less of a dialect, and more of
ignorant "Hill-billy" slang -- Probably what Bryan is used to hearing
with thems white-trash back-wood Missouri folk. ;)

On Fri, 09 Dec 2022 20:22:34 -0500, Michael Trew
<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:

>On 12/9/2022 1:56, GM wrote:
>
>This is in reference to a recent Jill post asking me "Why are you doing
>this?" when I was making a pick at Janet. Simply put, with the way that
>Janet has treated me, she deserves a taste of her medicine. ...Or as
>Dave would say, "Yes, Ma'am".
>
>> There ya go...
>>
>> Jill is relentless in slagging others here, but she gets all huffy
>> when "the tables are turned", bawling all over the place that she's
>> some innocent victim...
>
>Are you standing up for Bruce?! ;)
>
That's the thing with Ed. I understand that he defends someone against
GM's crass attacks, but Jill? She's one of the top 3 worst bitches of
RFC and he'll never criticise her because he wants women to like him.

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

On 12/9/2022 13:34, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2022-12-09, S Viemeister<firstname@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2022 13:37, Graham wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-09 5:56 a.m., Janet wrote:
>>>> Or uneducated Trew's favourite; "off of".
>>>
>>> That's universal American usage.
>>
>> Far from universal!
>> It largely depends on the quality of one's education. I attended a US
>> high school
>
> But not recently. I'd be willing to bet $10 that Michael Trew has
> never diagrammed a sentence.

You'd likely win that bet. I had to look it up... Unless that's
something from primary school, which I have no recollection of, it
doesn't look familiar.

>> and _none_ of my English teachers would tolerate that, nor
>> would my parents - one educated in Scotland, the other educated in the US.

This is a good example of the world/US changing, and not for the better.
As generations go on, people become progressively more stupid. I'm
starting to honestly believe in the prophecy of the movie "Idiocracy".

Sometimes, you all embarrass me, but I'd still rather learn something.
I'll even take Janet's nasty comment quoted above in stride. These
aren't things that I missed in school for lack of trying. I graduated
with a near 3.5 GPA... I believe that many of these examples are things
which are no longer commonly taught; starting with teachers who care
less than they used to in decades/generations past.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2022 20:25:36 -0500, Michael Trew
<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:

>On 12/9/2022 5:31, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2022 10:16:44 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
>> <hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-09, jmcquown<j_mcquown@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Look at Bruce, participating in a food discussion, only to note correct
>>>> spelling by *Americans*. The assumption being we're all such uneducated
>>>> slobs.
>>>
>>> Honestly, we are. I once asked a Dutch friend if Dutch had irregular
>>> verbs and whether Dutch speakers had difficulty with them.
>>> He said "Yes" and "No", respectively.
>>
>> But that also applies to American(s). No American would say "I waked
>> up at 6 this morning." Unless that's a dialect I'm not familiar with.
>
>I've actually heard that... It's less of a dialect, and more of
>ignorant "Hill-billy" slang -- Probably what Bryan is used to hearing
>with thems white-trash back-wood Missouri folk. ;)
>
Yes, I know those types. They don't use high oleic sunflower oil!

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

Michael Trew wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 1:56, GM wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:06:43 PM UTC-6, Michael Trew
>> wrote:
>>> Haven't you recently chided me for calling out Janet UK on her
>>> repulsive social behavior -- much similar to the way that you
>>> regularly call out Bruce?
>
> This is in reference to a recent Jill post asking me "Why are you
> doing this?" when I was making a pick at Janet.  Simply put, with
> the way that Janet has treated me, she deserves a taste of her
> medicine.  ...Or as Dave would say, "Yes, Ma'am".
>
>> There ya go...
>>
>> Jill is relentless in slagging others here, but she gets all huffy
>> when "the tables are turned", bawling all over the place that she's
>> some innocent victim...
>
> Are you standing up for Bruce?!  ;)
>

He better watch it on that slippery slope. The next step is hiking
your leg for bruce.

On 09/12/2022 23:11, Graham wrote:
> On 2022-12-09 11:49 a.m., S Viemeister wrote:
>> On 09/12/2022 18:34, Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>> I'd be willing to bet $10 that Michael Trew has
>>> never diagrammed a sentence.
>>>
>> I hated diagramming sentences, mostly due to a rather unpleasant
>> teacher in my freshman year, but I have found it rather useful when
>> editing documents.
>>
> Diagramming? Is that similar to clause analysis?

<https://www.grammarly.com/blog/sentence-diagramming/?>

On 2022-12-09 7:29 p.m., S Viemeister wrote:
> On 09/12/2022 23:11, Graham wrote:
>> On 2022-12-09 11:49 a.m., S Viemeister wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2022 18:34, Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>>> I'd be willing to bet $10 that Michael Trew has
>>>> never diagrammed a sentence.
>>>>
>>> I hated diagramming sentences, mostly due to a rather unpleasant
>>> teacher in my freshman year, but I have found it rather useful when
>>> editing documents.
>>>
>> Diagramming? Is that similar to clause analysis?
>
> <https://www.grammarly.com/blog/sentence-diagramming/?>

What a strange concept!

On 2022-12-10, Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 8:48, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> As much as I'd hate to learn all new spellings at this stage,
>> I'd be willing to have regularized English spelling.
>
> An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
> make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
> speech; it would become a foreign language to many people.

Have you read much Chaucer? Beowulf? Shakespeare?

How about the Declaration of Independence?

Language changes. It has always changed, and it always is in flux.

> Non
> sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
> road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
> decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
> modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).

That's the case even now.

Here: this will get you started:

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43926/the-canterbury-tales-general-prologue

And for the advanced reader:

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43521/beowulf-old-english-version

We didn't even have a notion of standardized spelling until a
few hundred years ago, and it really wasn't nailed down in the
U.S. until the 1800s. There still is disagreement about some
words.

--
Cindy Hamilton

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:48:32 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
<hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 2022-12-10, Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
>> make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
>> speech; it would become a foreign language to many people.
>
>Have you read much Chaucer? Beowulf? Shakespeare?
>
>How about the Declaration of Independence?
>
>Language changes. It has always changed, and it always is in flux.
>
>> Non
>> sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
>> road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
>> decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
>> modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).
>
>That's the case even now.
>
>Here: this will get you started:
>
>https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43926/the-canterbury-tales-general-prologue
>
>And for the advanced reader:
>
>https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43521/beowulf-old-english-version
>
>We didn't even have a notion of standardized spelling until a
>few hundred years ago, and it really wasn't nailed down in the
>U.S. until the 1800s. There still is disagreement about some
>words.

Ok, Cindy gets the Pompous Award! Make room, Janet!

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

On 2022-12-10 4:48 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2022-12-10, Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2022 8:48, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> As much as I'd hate to learn all new spellings at this stage,
>>> I'd be willing to have regularized English spelling.
>>
>> An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
>> make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
>> speech; it would become a foreign language to many people.
>
> Have you read much Chaucer? Beowulf? Shakespeare?
>
> How about the Declaration of Independence?
>
> Language changes. It has always changed, and it always is in flux.
>
>> Non
>> sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
>> road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
>> decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
>> modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).
>
> That's the case even now.
>
> Here: this will get you started:
>
> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43926/the-canterbury-tales-general-prologue
>
> And for the advanced reader:
>
> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43521/beowulf-old-english-version
>
> We didn't even have a notion of standardized spelling until a
> few hundred years ago, and it really wasn't nailed down in the
> U.S. until the 1800s. There still is disagreement about some
> words.
>

Chaucer doesn't even look much like English. I had to read it in
university. It was a chore. It helps to have been taught French.

On 2022-12-10, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 2022-12-10 4:48 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2022-12-10, Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2022 8:48, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As much as I'd hate to learn all new spellings at this stage,
>>>> I'd be willing to have regularized English spelling.
>>>
>>> An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
>>> make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
>>> speech; it would become a foreign language to many people.
>>
>> Have you read much Chaucer? Beowulf? Shakespeare?
>>
>> How about the Declaration of Independence?
>>
>> Language changes. It has always changed, and it always is in flux.
>>
>>> Non
>>> sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
>>> road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
>>> decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
>>> modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).
>>
>> That's the case even now.
>>
>> Here: this will get you started:
>>
>> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43926/the-canterbury-tales-general-prologue
>>
>> And for the advanced reader:
>>
>> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43521/beowulf-old-english-version
>>
>> We didn't even have a notion of standardized spelling until a
>> few hundred years ago, and it really wasn't nailed down in the
>> U.S. until the 1800s. There still is disagreement about some
>> words.
>>
>
> Chaucer doesn't even look much like English. I had to read it in
> university. It was a chore. It helps to have been taught French.

We read Ray Bradbury. Shakespeare as well, but I'm young enough
that they started worrying about classes being "relevant" about
the time I hit high school.

--
Cindy Hamilton

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 9:10:51 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2022-12-10 4:48 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On 2022-12-10, Michael Trew <michae...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/9/2022 8:48, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As much as I'd hate to learn all new spellings at this stage,
> >>> I'd be willing to have regularized English spelling.
> >>
> >> An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
> >> make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
> >> speech; it would become a foreign language to many people.
> >
> > Have you read much Chaucer? Beowulf? Shakespeare?
> >
> > How about the Declaration of Independence?
> >
> > Language changes. It has always changed, and it always is in flux.
> >
> >> Non
> >> sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
> >> road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
> >> decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
> >> modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).
> >
> > That's the case even now.
> >
> > Here: this will get you started:
> >
> > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43926/the-canterbury-tales-general-prologue
> >
> > And for the advanced reader:
> >
> > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43521/beowulf-old-english-version
> >
> > We didn't even have a notion of standardized spelling until a
> > few hundred years ago, and it really wasn't nailed down in the
> > U.S. until the 1800s. There still is disagreement about some
> > words.
> >
> Chaucer doesn't even look much like English. I had to read it in
> university. It was a chore. It helps to have been taught French.

Right on down to the very last name of "Chaucer, which is old French.

On 2022-12-10 2:48 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2022-12-10, Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2022 8:48, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> As much as I'd hate to learn all new spellings at this stage,
>>> I'd be willing to have regularized English spelling.
>>
>> An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
>> make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
>> speech; it would become a foreign language to many people.
>
> Have you read much Chaucer? Beowulf? Shakespeare?
>
> How about the Declaration of Independence?
>
> Language changes. It has always changed, and it always is in flux.
>
>> Non
>> sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
>> road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
>> decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
>> modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).
>
> That's the case even now.
>
> Here: this will get you started:
>
> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43926/the-canterbury-tales-general-prologue
>
> And for the advanced reader:
>
> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43521/beowulf-old-english-version
>
I have read and have both of those, admittedly the latter in
translation. I last read War & Peace some 55years ago, so it's time to
take it off the shelf and read it again. In this case, the translation
is very important. Some are terrible.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:47:30 -0700, Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-12-10 2:48 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2022-12-10, Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2022 8:48, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As much as I'd hate to learn all new spellings at this stage,
>>>> I'd be willing to have regularized English spelling.
>>>
>>> An issue with doing that, which I've heard brought up, is that it would
>>> make it far more difficult to understand historical documents and
>>> speech; it would become a foreign language to many people.
>>
>> Have you read much Chaucer? Beowulf? Shakespeare?
>>
>> How about the Declaration of Independence?
>>
>> Language changes. It has always changed, and it always is in flux.
>>
>>> Non
>>> sentimental people might not be concerned, but generations down the
>>> road, there would only be a select number of historians who could
>>> decipher "ancient English", when all modern people are taught sensible
>>> modern spellings (which will have to keep changing with time).
>>
>> That's the case even now.
>>
>> Here: this will get you started:
>>
>> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43926/the-canterbury-tales-general-prologue
>>
>> And for the advanced reader:
>>
>> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43521/beowulf-old-english-version
>>
>I have read and have both of those, admittedly the latter in
>translation. I last read War & Peace some 55years ago, so it's time to
>take it off the shelf and read it again. In this case, the translation
>is very important. Some are terrible.

I tried reading War and Peace 2 months ago or so. "Tried" being the
operative word.

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

On 2022-12-10, S Viemeister <firstname@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
> On 09/12/2022 23:11, Graham wrote:
>> On 2022-12-09 11:49 a.m., S Viemeister wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2022 18:34, Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>>> I'd be willing to bet $10 that Michael Trew has
>>>> never diagrammed a sentence.
>>>>
>>> I hated diagramming sentences, mostly due to a rather unpleasant
>>> teacher in my freshman year, but I have found it rather useful when
>>> editing documents.
>>>
>> Diagramming? Is that similar to clause analysis?
>
><https://www.grammarly.com/blog/sentence-diagramming/?>

I'm a little late for this thread, but thanks for that. I used to be
excellent at diagramming sentences when I was a sophomore in high
school.
Unfortunately, I grew up reading Mark Twain, and he's stayed with me.
My apologies to the group.

On 2022-12-09, Thomas <canope234@gmail.com> wrote:

> That makes me cringe too. I have actually asked how much less.
> Irregardless is on the list.

Why converse when you can conversate? Where the hell did that come from?

In article <jvqoiiFcc7fU2@mid.individual.net>,
leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> On 2022-12-09, Thomas <canope234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That makes me cringe too. I have actually asked how much less.
> > Irregardless is on the list.
>
>
> Why converse when you can conversate? Where the hell did that come from?

Gifted to you by America.

Janet UK

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 1:32:14 AM UTC-6, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> On 2022-12-10, S Viemeister <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
> > On 09/12/2022 23:11, Graham wrote:
> >> On 2022-12-09 11:49 a.m., S Viemeister wrote:
> >>> On 09/12/2022 18:34, Cindy Hamilton wrote
> >>>> I'd be willing to bet $10 that Michael Trew has
> >>>> never diagrammed a sentence.
> >>>>
> >>> I hated diagramming sentences, mostly due to a rather unpleasant
> >>> teacher in my freshman year, but I have found it rather useful when
> >>> editing documents.
> >>>
> >> Diagramming? Is that similar to clause analysis?
> >
> ><https://www.grammarly.com/blog/sentence-diagramming/?>
> I'm a little late for this thread, but thanks for that. I used to be
> excellent at diagramming sentences when I was a sophomore in high
> school.
> Unfortunately, I grew up reading Mark Twain, and he's stayed with me.
> My apologies to the group.
>
""Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship
of dead radicals."
--Mark Twain.

--Bryan