Text 1029, 68 rader
Skriven 2006-05-01 17:12:18 av RUTH HANSCHKA (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHAEL LOO
Ärende: Kosher for 604
======================
->  RH> My neighbors keep Kosher in their home, but in restaurants they eat
->  RH> shellfish and everything else.  I guess it goes back to the
"kosher"
->  RH> Chinese food people used to get as kids - the restaurants were open
on
->  RH> Sunday night, and was considered Kosher unless known to be
->  RH> otherwise....   
-> 
-> That's loony, and I haven't much patience for people who won't
-> let pork and shellfish into the house but go out and have
-> bacon-wrapped shrimp at restaurants or (and I've seen this) a
-> lobster boil in their backyard.
->
No one ever said it wasn't, including the people who did it.  
 
->  RH> So course I bought deli ham and discounted Passover goodies in the
->  RH> supermarket today.  
-> 
-> As your w.q. is high, you should have gotten discounted
-> Passover ham at the store.

You can't get everything, although they do sell a kosher product made of
beef that's supposed to taste like bacon.  I'm told it really doesn't, but
it's sufficiently weird that I may have to eat some eventually.  
 
 
->  ->  RH> Ever hear of a modern French composer named Roger Calmel?
->  -> Sorry. The modern composers whose names and work I'm familiar
->  -> with are usually of the bleep burp fwee school.
->  RH> Oh dear.  That bad?  
-> 
-> There's good bleep burp fwee and bad bleep burp fwee.

The good kind being defined as the sort that pays well.
 
-> Well, as an instrumentalist, I would say that the music
-> might be boring to play without being boring to sing or
-> to listen to. Yesterday's concert was at the two poles -
-> much of it was boring to play, and the rest was next to
-> impossible to play. Plus several (four, my friend Ellen
-> asserts) of the pieces we "performed" fell by the wayside
-> at rehearsal, so we were sight-reading them at the concert.
-> Very interesting, and one notes that interesting does not
-> always mean good.
-> 
In this case it meant periods of intense boredome followed by bursts of
hair tearing?  

-> 
->  -> when I took the Weirdness Test, I was unable no matter how I tried
->  -> to get below 60 percent.
->  RH> I just hit 86%.  I tried again and got 89.  I guess I can give up
on
->  RH> ever being normal.
-> 
-> The thing is that I tried my best, several times, to think like a
-> normal person, and I always got above 60%. Of course the test
-> itself is dubious, as the person who compiled it in the first place
-> had to be mightly weird indeed. By the way, if you choose all the
-> first choices, your weird quotient is 96 (46% weird), If you choose
-> all the third choices, it is 137 (98% weird). Choosing all the last
-> choices yields 158 (100% weird) - altering the response to "think
-> of a word" to "abc" changes the score to 155 (99%).

Thus speaks a man with too much time on his hands.  Either that, or you
were the recipient of an Abbie Normal brain transplant... Or is it both?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)