| |
Main
Date: 19 Aug 2006 18:05:48
From: Godzilla
Subject: Comedy of errors
|
While waiting patiently for Santa to come down the chimney with my new
grinder, I have been making espresso more often in my Estro Vapore.
In the drawer lay a NP portafilter that I purchased some time ago on the
recommendation of someone on this newsgroup, Vaguely remembering trying
it but not recalling why I did not continue using it, my subconscious
self told me: "Give it a try."
After the requisite warm-up period with the PF and basket in place, I
ground my precious beans. Then, I attempted to remove the PF to fill the
basket. THAT was when I recalled WHY I had not continued using it, as
the PF came out and the basket remained in the grouphead. Prying the
basket loose with a potholder gave forth some residual scalding water on
the back of my hand.
Rather than let the good ground beans go to waste, I quickly grabbed the
regular pressurized PF, jammed another basket into place, filled it and
tamped it properly. Knowing full well that this was not pre-warmed, I went
ahead and inserted the PF into the group head and pressed the button.
As usual, the time to get one oz. was way short of the traditional ideal.
The color was fine, and there was 1/4 inch of crema residing on top.
Aside from the temperature of the liquid being a little lukewarm,
I pronounced it PRETTY DAMN GOOD!
Godzilla
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2006 12:09:11
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2006 09:04:08 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >You said "I don't brag on my machines"
> >Message-ID: <kk48e257lv8bnqgqgoiddncm2vvvhbsgmf@4ax.com>
> >
> >This after the original requirement was for someone that does "rave
> >about your super expensive espresso machines and grinders".
> >Message-ID: <6LDEg.27974$Uq1.9131@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
> >
> >So you yourself explicitly stated you do not meet the requirements set
> >by the original post.
> >
> >You have not posted one single example of a post that contradicts what
> >I said. Since it seems you may have forgotten what that was:
> >
> >"... specific accusation was that people who rave _on_this_group_
> >about the expense and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim
> >starbucks to produce palatable coffee
> >
> >"I think it unlikely you'll find any posting meeting this
> >specification. I'd be staggered if you can find postings from (say)
> >three different individuals that meet it."
> >Message-ID: <slrnee72nl.du6.ian@acheron.smithnet>
> >
> >Also, you do realise that there's a difference between producing
> >something and merely asserting that it exists, don't you? Quoting and
> >referencing a post demonstrates it exists. Merely saying there are
> >loads of them does no so such thing.
>
> Are you getting tired of banging your head into the wall? Most people
> would have a headache, but you lack the intelligence to register that.
That's not really a very flattering self-image you have.
At some point it will become tedious to me to be repeatedly asserting
that black is not white, I suppose.
> And did you not try to call me a liar? You have little or no room to
> complain about anyone calling you a jackass.
Well, it's difficult to do anything else when you first say one thing,
and then say the exact opposite. You first said you weren't an
example (quoted above) and then said you were an example (most posts
since). I think it is not possible for both of these statements to be
fully truthful, but I'm willing to hear your explanation of how you
can both be and not be an example of a person that brags on their
machines and finds starbucks coffee palatable.
> I have done so. Time for you to shut up or forever remove any doubt
> about your stupidity.
No you haven't. No matter how often you say you have, you have not
quoted or referenced a single post. The requirement, you will recall
is a posting from people who "rave _on_this_group_ about the expense
and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim starbucks to produce
palatable coffee". If you find one I'll be surprised. If you find
posts by three different people I'll be very surprised. That's all
that is at stake.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2006 14:49:20
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On 20 Aug 2006 12:09:11 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2006 09:04:08 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >You said "I don't brag on my machines"
>> >Message-ID: <kk48e257lv8bnqgqgoiddncm2vvvhbsgmf@4ax.com>
>> >
>> >This after the original requirement was for someone that does "rave
>> >about your super expensive espresso machines and grinders".
>> >Message-ID: <6LDEg.27974$Uq1.9131@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
>> >
>> >So you yourself explicitly stated you do not meet the requirements set
>> >by the original post.
>> >
>> >You have not posted one single example of a post that contradicts what
>> >I said. Since it seems you may have forgotten what that was:
>> >
>> >"... specific accusation was that people who rave _on_this_group_
>> >about the expense and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim
>> >starbucks to produce palatable coffee
>> >
>> >"I think it unlikely you'll find any posting meeting this
>> >specification. I'd be staggered if you can find postings from (say)
>> >three different individuals that meet it."
>> >Message-ID: <slrnee72nl.du6.ian@acheron.smithnet>
>> >
>> >Also, you do realise that there's a difference between producing
>> >something and merely asserting that it exists, don't you? Quoting and
>> >referencing a post demonstrates it exists. Merely saying there are
>> >loads of them does no so such thing.
>>
>> Are you getting tired of banging your head into the wall? Most people
>> would have a headache, but you lack the intelligence to register that.
>
>That's not really a very flattering self-image you have.
I was describing you and your behavior, as though you did not register
that. Are you a blockhead as well?
>At some point it will become tedious to me to be repeatedly asserting
>that black is not white, I suppose.
Nah, you are into getting the last word, having the last say? Cqare to
prove me wrong?
____________________________
>> And did you not try to call me a liar? You have little or no room to
>> complain about anyone calling you a jackass.
>
>Well, it's difficult to do anything else when you first say one thing,
>and then say the exact opposite. You first said you weren't an
>example (quoted above) and then said you were an example (most posts
>since). I think it is not possible for both of these statements to be
>fully truthful, but I'm willing to hear your explanation of how you
>can both be and not be an example of a person that brags on their
>machines and finds starbucks coffee palatable.
Well, sfb - you deserve the appelation very well by now, I explained
the dfifference between current and past tense. But I take it you are
too damn lazy to do a bit of research and look back into the archives.
Prophetic - you do not wabt to fact the stupidity of your own words.
>> I have done so. Time for you to shut up or forever remove any doubt
>> about your stupidity.
>
>No you haven't. No matter how often you say you have, you have not
>quoted or referenced a single post. The requirement, you will recall
>is a posting from people who "rave _on_this_group_ about the expense
>and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim starbucks to produce
>palatable coffee". If you find one I'll be surprised. If you find
>posts by three different people I'll be very surprised. That's all
>that is at stake.
I have done so. No one would ever expect you to be able to admit that
given your ego probelms. But here you go, sfb, another place for you
to get the last word in. Have at it and keep your fragile ego intact:
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
jim
>
>regards, Ian SMith
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 19:08:09
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2006 12:09:11 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> And did you not try to call me a liar? You have little or no room to
> >> complain about anyone calling you a jackass.
> >
> >Well, it's difficult to do anything else when you first say one thing,
> >and then say the exact opposite. You first said you weren't an
> >example (quoted above) and then said you were an example (most posts
> >since). I think it is not possible for both of these statements to be
> >fully truthful, but I'm willing to hear your explanation of how you
> >can both be and not be an example of a person that brags on their
> >machines and finds starbucks coffee palatable.
>
> Well, sfb - you deserve the appelation very well by now, I explained
> the dfifference between current and past tense. But I take it you are
> too damn lazy to do a bit of research and look back into the archives.
No, I'm quite happy with sticking with the current, since the
discussion (until you decided to start harking back 7 years) was in
the current tense - the original post made no reference to the past,
and there's no reason to extend the comments made to the distant past.
Besides, you haven't even posted any evidence that you met the
requirements way back then - all you've done is assert that you used
to like Starbucks coffee. Unfortunately, that doesn't qualify.
> >No you haven't. No matter how often you say you have, you have not
> >quoted or referenced a single post. The requirement, you will recall
> >is a posting from people who "rave _on_this_group_ about the expense
> >and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim starbucks to produce
> >palatable coffee". If you find one I'll be surprised. If you find
> >posts by three different people I'll be very surprised. That's all
> >that is at stake.
>
> I have done so.
No, you've merely asserted again.
No evidence has been forthcoming at any time.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
|
