Thread: Ping: Julie

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:27:58 -0800, "Julie Bove"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Evelyn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]..
>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:04:24 -0500, Susan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>>On 1/3/2012 5:47 PM, Tiger Lily wrote:
>>>
>>>> ty
>>>>
>>>> see also Julie doesn't feel 100 grams of carb/day is low carb
>>>
>>>100 grams per day induces ketosis. It's low carb based upon that
>>>threshold... it's depleting glycogen.
>>>
>>>> ????
>>>>
>>>> but Julie won't define low carb HER WAY
>>>
>>>It apparently relies on nachos, rice and a lot of packaged convenience
>>>foods.
>>>
>>>
>>>Susan
>>
>>
>> Bingo!
>>
>> I make EVERYTHING from scratch. I like it that way. I know how
>> fresh the broth is, the veggies are, the meat, all of it. When you
>> buy packaged stuff, it seldom tastes as good or is as nutritious as
>> the food you make yourself from scratch!
>>
>> Tonights dinner was broccoli rabe, with garlic and olive oil made in
>> the traditional italian manner, A supermarket rotisserie chicken, a
>> tossed salad. (not in that order) I am comfortably full and I know
>> my bg's love it.
>>
>> Evelyn
>
>You people are just horribly judgmental. So you make everything from
>scratch because that's the way you want it.
>
>Well, I make things they way *I* want to. That doesn't make me wrong at
>all!


Julie, let's not even DISCUSS your cooking skills. I have read your
stuff for years. Without prepared foods, your family would starve.

Evelyn

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:27:00 -0800, "Julie Bove"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]..
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On 1/3/2012 5:47 PM, Tiger Lily wrote:
>>
>>> ty
>>>
>>> see also Julie doesn't feel 100 grams of carb/day is low carb
>>
>> 100 grams per day induces ketosis. It's low carb based upon that
>> threshold... it's depleting glycogen.
>>
>>> ????
>>>
>>> but Julie won't define low carb HER WAY
>>
>> It apparently relies on nachos, rice and a lot of packaged convenience
>> foods.
>
>FOAD Susan! Nothing wrong with nachos if you count out how many chips you
>put on the plate and eat it with a salad. Oh and... FOAD again!


Oh? So counting them removes the carbohydrates?
Smart trick!
I wonder why it doesn't work?

Evelyn

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 01:08:14 -0800, "Julie Bove"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Nick Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:20120104035258.211$[email protected]..
>> "Ozgirl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > On 1/3/2012 8:54 PM, Ozgirl wrote:
>>> >> "Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >>> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >>>> On 1/3/2012 5:47 PM, Tiger Lily wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> ty
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> see also Julie doesn't feel 100 grams of carb/day is low carb
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 100 grams per day induces ketosis. It's low carb based upon that
>>> >>
>>> >> I missed the part where she called you an "It"! That's really lowlife
>>> >> stuff. This is from someone who doesn't like ASD **** brought over
>>> >> here,
>>> >> sigh.
>>> >
>>> > Jan, no one called Julie an IT
>>> >
>>> > but, look at my sig line
>>>
>>> Sadly they did: "It apparently relies on nachos, rice and a lot of
>>> packaged convenience
>>> foods. Susan"
>>
>> I thought the 'it' referred to the diet, not to Julie.
>
>I don't think so.


Of course you don't. You are angry and your feelings are hurt, so you
take upon yourself, any meaning that ratchets up the anger level. For
what it is worth, I thought "it" referred to your diet as well, not
yourself.

Evelyn

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:26:14 -0800, "Julie Bove"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]..
>> On 1/3/2012 2:46 PM, Susan wrote:
>>> Actually, I say to reduce carbs and test the results to see which foods
>>> and meals cause spikes.
>>>
>>> Everyone has a different definition of low carb and everyone has their
>>> own personal bg targets in mind, too.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>
>> ty
>>
>> see also Julie doesn't feel 100 grams of carb/day is low carb
>>
>> ????
>>
>> but Julie won't define low carb HER WAY
>
>I sure will! I would say 60 g or less.


That would be about 4 nacho chips, wouldn't it?

Evelyn

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:30:30 -0800, "Julie Bove"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]..
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On 1/3/2012 4:10 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>> what makes you think afd should be julies personal psychiatric ward?
>>> while she
>>> occasionally does post on topic, most of her posts are rants or thinly
>>> veiled
>>> pleas for help...don't think she "rarely" asks for help. At the very
>>> least she
>>> demonstrates a lack of graciousness that is astounding but that is only
>>> exceeded
>>> by the numbers of people who think she is just fine and can't understand
>>> why she
>>> is being "attacked"
>>
>> What numbers? I count one.
>
>You people are just disgusting and pathetic!


Julie, they are not. You just get too angry when challenged.
You don't need to take everything they say seriously, but you ought to
consider that you may have played a part in this scuffle and that
other people have a right to be annoyed just as you do.

Evelyn

x-no-archive: yes

On 1/4/2012 12:48 AM, Tiger Lily wrote:
> i completely forgot this Barbie short cut
>
> soak a Cedar plank for a few hours (i use a bucket & weights and aim for
> 12 hours)
>
> place the oiled plank on the barbie, with the salmon on the OILED
> side..... season to taste.......??? pesto? rosemary? garlic? lemon?
> whatever you fancy
>
> close the cover on the barbie and allow the salmon to cook, when the
> 'top' is showing white 'juice' time to flip the salmon
>
> soon as the salmon is cooked, put the Cedar plank in a bucket of water,
> so you can use it again
>
> there are many "Salmon on Cedar BBQ" recipies on the net...... they will
> tell your some variation of what i said above (garlic? oranges? thyme?
> mango chutney?.... let your imagination go wild)
>
>

I first had this in Seattle, just love it. I always have a few planks
on hand. Tom doesn't eat salmon, but it's so easy to grill two
different types of fish for the same meal.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

On 1/4/2012 1:10 AM, Tiger Lily wrote:

> ahh, i read that just after Julie told me she eats low carb and that
> beans are ALL PROTEIN and the book i referred to was REALLY OLD AND WRONG
>
> i have a team of nutritionists and other health professionals i can
> access in seconds who would agree with me, not IT
>
> wait, i just said IT
>
> better than she/IT
> ya, i'm rather annoyed with her right now and i'll calm down and ditch
> the sig file in a bit
>
> she's nasty, rude, vile, ungrateful, ungracious.......... drop it.......
> i'm gonna
>

I didn't call Julie an, IT, that's just Jan making **** up as usual. I
was referring to her diet/food plan.

I would never refer to a person as an it.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

On 1/4/2012 6:20 AM, Evelyn wrote:

> Of course you don't. You are angry and your feelings are hurt, so you
> take upon yourself, any meaning that ratchets up the anger level. For
> what it is worth, I thought "it" referred to your diet as well, not
> yourself.

You have to pity someone who's life is so wretched, so I pretty much let
it go. Her biliousness is all she's got.

"IT" referred to the diet, specifically, IT clearly refers to the
definition of low carb. Subject, verb, object...



Susan

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 1/4/2012 1:10 AM, Tiger Lily wrote:
>
>> ahh, i read that just after Julie told me she eats low carb and that
>> beans are ALL PROTEIN and the book i referred to was REALLY OLD AND WRONG
>>
>> i have a team of nutritionists and other health professionals i can
>> access in seconds who would agree with me, not IT
>>
>> wait, i just said IT
>>
>> better than she/IT
>> ya, i'm rather annoyed with her right now and i'll calm down and ditch
>> the sig file in a bit
>>
>> she's nasty, rude, vile, ungrateful, ungracious.......... drop it.......
>> i'm gonna
>>
>
> I didn't call Julie an, IT, that's just Jan making **** up as usual. I
> was referring to her diet/food plan.
>
> I would never refer to a person as an it.
>
> Susan


I knew you were referring to her diet.

Cheri

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:00:07 -0500, Susan <[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On 1/4/2012 6:20 AM, Evelyn wrote:
>
>> Of course you don't. You are angry and your feelings are hurt, so you
>> take upon yourself, any meaning that ratchets up the anger level. For
>> what it is worth, I thought "it" referred to your diet as well, not
>> yourself.
>
>You have to pity someone who's life is so wretched, so I pretty much let
>it go. Her biliousness is all she's got.
>
>"IT" referred to the diet, specifically, IT clearly refers to the
>definition of low carb. Subject, verb, object...
>
>
>
>Susan


That's what I thought was meant! Glad to know I was right.

I agree with you about her self-admitted wretchedness. Most of it
seems to be self created and self imposed, so may she wallow in it as
long as it fills some need in her, and may she find a way out of it
someday soon.

Evelyn

"Evelyn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:01:29 -0700, Tiger Lily <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 1/3/2012 6:03 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>> and yes, you have posted about your 'bean diet' meals as a diabetic,
>>>> when
>>>> > confused as to why your bg went so high after your meal
>>>> >
>>>> > i'm dropping this convo
>>> Diet For A Small Planet is*very* outdated information. Beans do not
>>> have
>>> to be combined with other foods. And I never once posted about a bean
>>> mean
>>> and then was confused about it. Come. Really! I see why you are
>>> dropping
>>> it because you can't defend your lie!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>filter enabled, Julie is GONE
>
> Good for you! (And indirectly for the rest of us too).
>
> We usually don't argue a lot on this group, but it does occasionally
> happen. People are people, and some will tend to rankle!
>
> Evelyn


Everyone has a "I can't take one more comment without responding" point.
Thankfully, they don't last too long in this group. I'm done now. :-)

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 1/4/2012 9:53 AM, Cheri wrote:

> I knew you were referring to her diet.
>

So did Jan.

Susan

Tiger Lily <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 1/3/2012 8:59 PM, Ozgirl wrote:
: >
: >

: the shops that sell the smokers also carry the wood chips, so she would
: have an idea of where/whom to go ask

: my favs are
: hickory
: apple
: oak scotch (and such) barrels being recycled from the wine factories
: and more
: grin
: kate


: --
: Never argue with IDIOTS, they only drag you down to their level and beat
: you up with experience. Dedicated to JB 1/2/12.

What! You don't use alder wood for your salmon:-)

Wendy

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 1/4/2012 9:53 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> I knew you were referring to her diet.
>>
>
> So did Jan.
>
> Susan



I find it really odd (well perhaps not so odd) that some people would take
exception to the "it" when it was obvious what you meant, but even if it
wasn't obvious that you meant it that way, I guess the liberal use of FOAD
is exempt from a "horrible thing to say to someone?" Shaking my head at that
one.

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 1/4/2012 12:32 PM, Cheri wrote:

>
> I find it really odd (well perhaps not so odd) that some people would
> take exception to the "it" when it was obvious what you meant, but even
> if it wasn't obvious that you meant it that way, I guess the liberal use
> of FOAD is exempt from a "horrible thing to say to someone?" Shaking my
> head at that one.

It's not even worth thinking about.

Considering the source(s).

Susan

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:32:37 -0800, "Cheri" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I find it really odd (well perhaps not so odd) that some people would take
>exception to the "it" when it was obvious what you meant, but even if it
>wasn't obvious that you meant it that way, I guess the liberal use of FOAD
>is exempt from a "horrible thing to say to someone?" Shaking my head at that
>one.
>
>Cheri

I don't find any of this "odd" at all. Robert walked right into the
same mine field everyone else has at one point or another, and the
response was as expected. And the responses to the responses were as
expected. :-) There's really nothing new here -- except maybe the
huge jump to make an insult out of that silly "it" thing. This kind
of dust-up happens once a year or so.

The only thing I found surprising was the statement that no one knows
Julie -- taken slightly out of context here because, of course, no one
can really "know" anyone -- but I was under the impression that
several people in this group had met her? Maybe it was Alan during
his travels?

"BlueBrooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:32:37 -0800, "Cheri" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>I find it really odd (well perhaps not so odd) that some people would take
>>exception to the "it" when it was obvious what you meant, but even if it
>>wasn't obvious that you meant it that way, I guess the liberal use of FOAD
>>is exempt from a "horrible thing to say to someone?" Shaking my head at
>>that
>>one.
>>
>>Cheri
>
> I don't find any of this "odd" at all. Robert walked right into the
> same mine field everyone else has at one point or another, and the
> response was as expected. And the responses to the responses were as
> expected. :-) There's really nothing new here -- except maybe the
> huge jump to make an insult out of that silly "it" thing. This kind
> of dust-up happens once a year or so.
>
> The only thing I found surprising was the statement that no one knows
> Julie -- taken slightly out of context here because, of course, no one
> can really "know" anyone -- but I was under the impression that
> several people in this group had met her? Maybe it was Alan during
> his travels?

I don't remember anyone actually meeting her in person, though Alan did
meet Loretta in NY and several others in various places. That's not to say
they haven't, I just don't remember anyone saying so. Happy New Year BB.

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 1/4/2012 2:37 PM, BlueBrooke wrote:

> I don't find any of this "odd" at all. Robert walked right into the
> same mine field everyone else has at one point or another, and the
> response was as expected. And the responses to the responses were as
> expected. :-) There's really nothing new here -- except maybe the
> huge jump to make an insult out of that silly "it" thing. This kind
> of dust-up happens once a year or so.

If you think that silly "it" think is new and only happens occasionally,
you haven't been paying attention. :-) Lying about me is like a full
time job for that one.

>
> The only thing I found surprising was the statement that no one knows
> Julie -- taken slightly out of context here because, of course, no one
> can really "know" anyone -- but I was under the impression that
> several people in this group had met her? Maybe it was Alan during
> his travels?

ROFL... I would bet money against Alan making that meeting happen!


Susan

In article <[email protected]>,
Evelyn <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's what I thought was meant! Glad to know I was right.
>
> I agree with you about her self-admitted wretchedness. Most of it
> seems to be self created and self imposed, so may she wallow in it as
> long as it fills some need in her, and may she find a way out of it
> someday soon.
>
> Evelyn

sadly we know that she won't change, that she will get worse and she will seek
other venues to seek the masochism she desires. what concerns me the most is she
is raising yet another entitled teenager that will turn into a younger more
virulent version of her