Don't let yer meat loaf

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Wolfgang wrote:

I just did a Google search on molé poblano--368 hits, and on mole
poblano--about 11,000 hits. Didn't research any of the sites with
an
eye toward authenticity, but the numbers are suggestive.....at
least.


I would ordinarily assume that some who poses as an expert on
cooking
mole would know how it's pronounced, but not in your case.

I would assume that anyone who doesn't read something would find it
exceedingly difficult to come up with a sensible response. It would
appear that my assumption is entirely justified. I would further
assume that there exist in this world a good few people oblivious to
the demonstrated fact that there are numerous disjuncts between
orthography and pronunciation in every language that has a written
form. This assumption is bolstered by the recent proof of the
existence of at least one such individual. A third assumption, that
it must be very difficult, if at all possible, for someone to make a
pronouncement worthy of consideration on how someone else pronounces a
word without ever having heard that individual speak it, is self
evident.

Wolfgang
who assumes that you WILL read this........go ahead......prove me
wrong.
hee, hee, hee

Wolfgang wrote:

I would assume that anyone who doesn't read something would find it
exceedingly difficult to come up with a sensible response. It would
appear that my assumption is entirely justified. I would further
assume that there exist in this world a good few people oblivious to
the demonstrated fact that there are numerous disjuncts between
orthography and pronunciation in every language that has a written
form. This assumption is bolstered by the recent proof of the
existence of at least one such individual. A third assumption, that
it must be very difficult, if at all possible, for someone to make a
pronouncement worthy of consideration on how someone else pronounces a
word without ever having heard that individual speak it, is self
evident.

Wolfgang
who assumes that you WILL read this........go ahead......prove me
wrong.
hee, hee, hee

I read it, because I'm fascinated by the gyrations of an intellectual
poseur who simply cannot tolerate being caught in an absurd error.

What's the soup du jour of the day?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Wolfgang wrote:


...Wolfgang
who assumes that you WILL read this........go ahead......prove me
wrong.
hee, hee, hee

I read it, because I'm fascinated by the gyrations of an
intellectual
poseur who simply cannot tolerate being caught in an absurd error.

Begging the question of how anyone who has at least twice clearly
stated that he never reads anything written by a certain individual
would know that he is an "intellectual poseur". Fortunately, several
years experience here puts us in a position to answer this question
with ease. When dealing with a person whose most endearing quality is
that he is an inept liar who, due to an irresistable urge to do
something.....anything.....to impress someone.....anyone....repeatedly
puts himself in a position that is intolerable but from which he can
neither retreat nor move forward, one can hardly be surprised that he
frequently resorts to the obvious (however futile and amusing) tactic
of pretending that a perceived antagonist simply doesn't exist. That
this strategem invariably fails is as irrelevant as it is
certain......ya use the only thing ya got.

Now, to the matter of "absurd" errors. Since I went to the trouble of
answering the question implicit in your disingenuous snit, I think it
would only be fair for you to reciprocate by answering one for me.
What, exactly, do you find absurd in my erroneous use of a diacritical
mark?

What's the soup du jour of the day?

You ever wonder how to avoid cringing when you read what you've
written? Ever wonder what adults feel like?

Wolfgang
who is really REALLY sure that he won't read it this time.....hey, he
SAID so, TWICE!

Wolfgang wrote:

Now, to the matter of "absurd" errors. Since I went to the trouble of
answering the question implicit in your disingenuous snit, I think it
would only be fair for you to reciprocate by answering one for me.
What, exactly, do you find absurd in my erroneous use of a diacritical
mark?

Sure. Glad to oblige.

Leaving an accent mark off of a foreign word that requires one (I assume
we're writing in English) is merely a common, lazy, unremarkable error.

Going to the trouble of putting one on a foreign word that shouldn't
have one is an absurd error.

In the context of your lecture about the finer points of mole, when you
should know (at least) how the word is pronounced, it's an hilariously
absurd error.

Finally, your obvious discomfort at being caught in the error, and your
increasingly desperate efforts to hide the hilarious absurdity of it,
are even funnier. Did you actually count Google hits on the
alternatives? Why didn't you just think about the pronunciation of mole,
compare it to your spelling, and realize you ****ed up?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Wolfgang wrote:

Now, to the matter of "absurd" errors. Since I went to the
trouble of
answering the question implicit in your disingenuous snit, I think
it
would only be fair for you to reciprocate by answering one for me.
What, exactly, do you find absurd in my erroneous use of a
diacritical
mark?

Sure. Glad to oblige.

Leaving an accent mark off of a foreign word that requires one (I
assume
we're writing in English) is merely a common, lazy, unremarkable
error.

Why is that lazy? Do you really believe that everyone has....or even
should have, for that matter....a facility with languages equal to
yours?

Going to the trouble of putting one on a foreign word that shouldn't
have one is an absurd error.

Well, it really wasn't any troublé at all, but thanks for the concern.
Now, if it isn't too much trouble, I wonder if you could tell me why
such an error is absurd.

In the context of your lecture about the finer points of mole, when
you
should know (at least) how the word is pronounced,

Which brings us back to the matter of how you know whether or not I
know how to pronounce a word you've never heard me speak. I really
would like an explanation for that. I am also very interested in why
you are so certain that I "should know" how mole is pronounced. If I
were conversant in even one Mexican dialect of Spanish I would gladly
accept such a weighty responsibility, but I think it's a little unfair
to expected to be able to pronounce a word that someone has already
demonstrated I can't even SPELL properly. And don't you think that
"lecture" is a bit inflated? I mean, the two sentences I wrote in
response to Frank hardly constitute a lecture, do they? There were
also two sentences concerning my understanding of what moles are
written in response to Chuck, but even all four of these combined are
a pitiful excuse for a lecture. If you have any trouble following my
line of reasoning here, please let me know. I believe I can come up
with a suitable example of a lecture to make the distinction clear.

it's an hilariously absurd error.

Well, there ya go again! It's getting just a little bit frustrating
to have you continue to repeat that it's absurd without ever providing
a clue as to why it is so. WHY is it absurd?

Finally, your obvious discomfort at being caught in the error,

It shows, huh? What tipped you off?

and your
increasingly desperate efforts to hide the hilarious absurdity of
it,
are even funnier.

O.K., I can see that. Increasingly desperate efforts to hide
hilarious absurdity are ALWAYS screamingly funny. Hell, just writing
it cracks me up every time!

Did you actually count Google hits on the
alternatives?

No, I didn't need to. Google has this really neat feature
that.......well, I don't want to spoil the surprise. Try this: go to
Google and in the box next to where it says "Google Search" type "molé
poblano".....um.....you don't have to include the quote
marks....that's just a way of demarcating the part you're supposed to
type....and then hit the enter key. Now, watch what happens.....pay
particular attention to the right side of the blue bar near the top of
the page. Neat, huh? Now do the same with "mole poblano". COOL!


Why didn't you just think about the pronunciation of mole,

Well, actually, I have thought about it.....a lot. In fact, on those
cold January nights when there's nothing good on T.V. and even ROFF's
resident idiots seem to have gone into hibernation, that's mostly what
do.....I sit quietly and think about the pronunciation of
molé.....well, that and those fuzzy little balls you get on wool
sweaters.

compare it to your spelling,

I admit I'd never thought of that. I'll give that a try next month.

and realize you ****ed up?

Hey now, that's just absu.......um....oh......HA! HA!.....I get it!


Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in news:bp0jfm$1jbh9a$1@ID-
205717.news.uni-berlin.de:

well, that and those fuzzy little balls you get on wool
sweaters.


It's little known, but those are actually sweater eggs, and they are
obviously a critical step in sweater metamorphasis.

The sweater eggs migrate to the sleeve cuffs, where they await the
opportunity to jump off and seek shelter under a couch. Thus safely
hidden, they metamorphise into their larval state, the sweat sock.

Scott

Wolfgang wrote:

Which brings us back to the matter of how you know whether or not I
know how to pronounce a word you've never heard me speak. I really
would like an explanation for that. I am also very interested in why
you are so certain that I "should know" how mole is pronounced.

I guess I jumped to the outrageous conclusion that because you went to
the trouble of putting an accent mark on it, you at least THOUGHT you
knew how to pronounce it.

That's enough requests for explanations for now, thank you very much.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Has anyone tied any good patterns to match the hatch?

LOL,
Tim H



Scott Seidman wrote:

"Wolfgang" wrote in news:bp0jfm$1jbh9a$1@ID-
205717.news.uni-berlin.de:

well, that and those fuzzy little balls you get on wool
sweaters.


It's little known, but those are actually sweater eggs, and they are
obviously a critical step in sweater metamorphasis.

The sweater eggs migrate to the sleeve cuffs, where they await the
opportunity to jump off and seek shelter under a couch. Thus safely
hidden, they metamorphise into their larval state, the sweat sock.

Scott

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Wolfgang" wrote in news:bp0jfm$1jbh9a$1@ID-
205717.news.uni-berlin.de:

well, that and those fuzzy little balls you get on wool
sweaters.


It's little known, but those are actually sweater eggs, and they are
obviously a critical step in sweater metamorphasis.

The sweater eggs migrate to the sleeve cuffs, where they await the
opportunity to jump off and seek shelter under a couch. Thus safely
hidden, they metamorphise into their larval state, the sweat sock.

Man, biology is always just GROSS when you get down to the nitty
gritty details.

Wolfgang
yuck.

Wolfgang wrote:

The sweater eggs migrate to the sleeve cuffs, where they await the
opportunity to jump off and seek shelter under a couch. Thus safely
hidden, they metamorphise into their larval state, the sweat sock.


Man, biology is always just GROSS when you get down to the nitty
gritty details.

In this case, it's knitty gritty. (Boo. Hiss.)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.