"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause

wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker?
Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker????
A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice
and
water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is
about
the
size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're
inexpensive.
They're also called "rice steamers."

Here's one:

http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html


Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike
rice
cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units.

I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I
guess
I
was wrong. :-)




You was wrong.

Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the
same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to
keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only
keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop
burner.

Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it
properly.
If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is
your
method
of choice.

For once, I have to agree with John. Perhaps some people have issues with
measuring cups, or getting used to a particular stove. There are only 3
variables: Quantities, time and heat. Harry...tune into Emeril Live now
and
then. :-)


Crap. If you're agreeing with me, I must be doing something wrong. : )

Damn, now I have to agree with Doug as well :-) He hit it on the
nose.......quantities, time and heat.



--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:26:47 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your
excessive
drinking or your physical abuse of her?

Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in
contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking
rice
properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-)

You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned
while watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use
Minute Rice.

Most Chinese restaurants and most Japanese restaurants use rice cookers.
They are good for more than just ordinary rice. Do you make homemade
sushi? I do. With a rice cooker, you can make "sticky rice" properly so
you can form it into the shapes you want for your sushi.

I heard Fritz was divorced because, among other things, he burned
cooking bag rice.

Sticky rice comes out fine in a pot with a lid.

I see harry continues with his lying ways........and proves he doesn't know
how to cook either.




--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing.


No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension abilities
fall into the category of "adult". We'll let you hang around the group if
you like, but your duties will be limited to parking cars and licking boots.


Is this one of Kevin's more 'adult' moments?

"Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim?"



--
John H.

John, how does that compare with YOUR famous quote, posted hundreds of
times:
"Harry, you're a ****ing liar"?

John H. wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 13:34:09 -0700, wrote:



John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS
WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove
identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any
information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's
lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying
Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on
speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew
Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight
confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging
something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself
has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been
clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as
the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's
letting on

Conjecture.

What tripe.

Conjecture??? Sorry, dimbulb, but the LAW states: the disclosure of
"any
information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal.
How is that conjecture?

HarryKrause wrote:
P. Fritz wrote:

So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive
drinking or your physical abuse of her?




I think it was because of his abuse of his kid. He's having a hell of a
time raising the child now because of his abusive nature. He's abusive
to them, because he's not much of a man, and know it, so it helps his
deflated ego. That's why he acts like such a childish ass here, too.
That and the fact that his lover JimH eggs him on.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing.




Kevin could not figure out the difference between libel and slander without
a bitchslapping, can't figure out the proper use of "your" vs. "you're" or
"there" and "their" yet he knows the law better than the law's
author........and he wonders why he is still "King" What a mar00n.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing.


No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension
abilities
fall into the category of "adult".

I guess that rules you out. So all that is left on *your* side of the
fence
is Kevin Noble.

You must be awful proud Dougy.

And wrong

************************************************** **************************
*****

"It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in
which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts
have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony
sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling
"government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and
negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we
can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support
evidence of criminal conduct.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter
who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published
the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also
did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for
an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover
identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the
prosecutor to charge the leaker.
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover
must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the
United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not
mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent
assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington
for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a
desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a
serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the
knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal
[the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame
works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is
keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If
it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that
Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no
reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative
measures" were being taken to protect her cover. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

************************************************** **************************
****8

On 14 Jul 2005 06:30:56 -0700, wrote:



John H. wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 13:34:09 -0700, wrote:



John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS
WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove
identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any
information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's
lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying
Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on
speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew
Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight
confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging
something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself
has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been
clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as
the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's
letting on

Conjecture.

What tripe.

Conjecture??? Sorry, dimbulb, but the LAW states: the disclosure of
"any
information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal.
How is that conjecture?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

Read it.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On 14 Jul 2005 06:28:23 -0700, wrote:



John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing.


No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension abilities
fall into the category of "adult". We'll let you hang around the group if
you like, but your duties will be limited to parking cars and licking boots.


Is this one of Kevin's more 'adult' moments?

"Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim?"



--
John H.

John, how does that compare with YOUR famous quote, posted hundreds of
times:
"Harry, you're a ****ing liar"?

Well, I was stating a fact. You were acting like an adolescent. (Which you may
well be.)

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"John H." wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2005 06:30:56 -0700, wrote:



John H. wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 13:34:09 -0700, wrote:



John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS
WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove
identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any
information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's
lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying
Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on
speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew
Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight
confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging
something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself
has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been
clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as
the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's
letting on

Conjecture.

What tripe.

Conjecture??? Sorry, dimbulb, but the LAW states: the disclosure of
"any
information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal.
How is that conjecture?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

Read it.

But we all know Kevin's limits on reading comprehension!


--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD