Is this tete a tete relevant to the Meta forum? Or, even General Chat? Please consider taking it private.

I don't even know what his point is other than that he habitually insults me wherever he sees i have posted so I assume anything he says is meant to insult me. I expect at some point someone will figure out he's acting like a troll and do something about it. This is where having the ability to prevent someone else from seeing your posts would come in handy, so yes, it is relevant to the subject.

I habitually insult you, dspeakes? Really? This coming from the person that sends nasty PMs to me whenever she disagrees with a post, in addition to challenging me without provocation in public. And yet here you are, claiming that I'm insulting you whenever I defend myself? And you are calling me a troll? WTH is wrong with you?

If there is anyone that is trolling, it is definitely you, since you can't come to grips with the fact that someone recognizes that you are not infallible.

@dspeakes wrote:

I don't even know what his point is other than that he habitually insults me wherever he sees i have posted so I assume anything he says is meant to insult me. I expect at some point someone will figure out he's acting like a troll and do something about it. This is where having the ability to prevent someone else from seeing your posts would come in handy, so yes, it is relevant to the subject.

Both of you are lacking in the troll department since you both appear to only use one forum name. And you don't target just one MSC to rag about.

Do we have the ability to block ourselves from receiving PM's from certain forum members? Now we are back on track with the thread subject.

He's wrong about the PM's. He PM'd me once when he took exception to something I said in a thread, demanding an explanation of why I said it. I refused to answer his question and a couple other messages were exchanged with him insisting I explain myself before it was dropped. (That was the thread where he misquoted me and then kept insisting he hadn't.)

He also just PM'd me asking for a truce. So let's see if he meant it.

@dspeakes, I got your PM but when I try to reply to you, I am getting one of those weird Phorum error messages. I already copied and pasted the message and sent it to Jacob in a PM. His PM went through right away.

For a public forum, it's impossible to toggle someones read ability. They can simply log out and read the message.

If you must register to read the forum, then there will be even more shill accounts created. Even if IP addresses are checked for duplicate accounts, people would then just use TOR. It's technically not possible to do that.

You obviously have selective memory. You PM'd first after I had exception with what you posted on a thread, not the other way around. Prior to that, you have never PM'd me. I answered you back asking what exactly what you meant, into which you demanded an apology for not agreeing to your position. In addition, you blamed me for having others dogpile on you when it was evident that they took exception to what you wrote as well.

For someone that claims to pay attention to detail, you consistently distort facts. Please get your facts straight, dspeakes before you cry mea culpa.

@dspeakes wrote:

He's wrong about the PM's. He PM'd me once when he took exception to something I said in a thread, demanding an explanation of why I said it. I refused to answer his question and a couple other messages were exchanged with him insisting I explain myself before it was dropped. (That was the thread where he misquoted me and then kept insisting he hadn't.)

He also just PM'd me asking for a truce. So let's see if he meant it.

Ah yes, you are correct. I overlooked that the quote from you that was in my PM to you was a quote from the thread. I decided to reply to your ludicrous, misquoting post in a PM instead of embarrassing you further by pointing out your misquote in public. Next time you make an ass of yourself in public, I'll point and laugh on the spot instead of taking it private.

But you are correct, I did indeed PM you first, to try to get you to go see what a fool you had just made of yourself on the thread since I naively thought it was an honest mistake, which I said later in the thread. When you continued denying misquoting me it was clear you had done it deliberately and somehow thought everyone was too blind or stupid to realize it.

When I saw I had quoted you in that first reply to you I thought I was quoting in reply to a PM (they look the same) and just now realized that quote from you came from the thread.

The apology I demanded was for misquoting me, not for your disagreement with what I said, which would have been hard to do since you didn't disagree with what I said, you disagreed with what you SAID I said.

You still just really don't get it, do you?

Can we just drop it now? I'm really sick to death of everything you have to say on any topic now.


That popcorn everyone is popping smells good, though.

Its hard to imagine embarrass myself when its clearly your own self-delusion that invalidates quite a bit of what you write. Your own indignation and condescending tone toward others is quite obvious to a host of other members who seem to not only find entertainment in my pointing out holes in your arguments, but also the utter ridiculousness of someone who is supposed to be a valued contributor to this forum. Instead, you are becoming somewhat of a side note to everything with exception to tax discussions on certain threads, and even that is starting to become questionable.

I clearly get your disdain for me based on your ignorance and blatant disregard, yet I think that it is you who really don't "get it." Considering your depth of experience in many matters, I expected a whole lot more from you.

@dspeakes wrote:

Ah yes, you are correct. I overlooked that the quote from you that was in my PM to you was a quote from the thread. I decided to reply to your ludicrous, misquoting post in a PM instead of embarrassing you further by pointing out your misquote in public. Next time you make an ass of yourself in public, I'll point and laugh on the spot instead of taking it private.

But you are correct, I did indeed PM you first, to try to get you to go see what a fool you had just made of yourself on the thread since I naively thought it was an honest mistake, which I said later in the thread. When you continued denying misquoting me it was clear you had done it deliberately and somehow thought everyone was too blind or stupid to realize it.

When I saw I had quoted you in that first reply to you I thought I was quoting in reply to a PM (they look the same) and just now realized that quote from you came from the thread.

The apology I demanded was for misquoting me, not for your disagreement with what I said, which would have been hard to do since you didn't disagree with what I said, you disagreed with what you SAID I said.

You still just really don't get it, do you?

Can we just drop it now? I'm really sick to death of everything you have to say on any topic now.


That popcorn everyone is popping smells good, though.

Eric, until you go back to that thread where you misquoted me and realize what you did neither I nor many other people here will ever have any respect for you. I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me because I have no respect at all for you or your opinion of anything. How you could continue denying that misquote when it was right there for all the world to see is beyond me. I can only suspect chemical interference with your perspective because this is like standing in front of a redwood and insisting there are no trees for 100 miles. You're obviously delusional and completely detached from reality.

The stalking of me by looking me up on the internet to taunt me with barbs about my alma mater's football team is nothing short of childish. And a bit creepy. And frankly, I suspect, sick.

Go away.

@Eric in Tampa wrote:

Its hard to imagine embarrass myself when its clearly your own self-delusion that invalidates quite a bit of what you write. Your own indignation and condescending tone toward others is quite obvious to a host of other members who seem to not only find entertainment in my pointing out holes in your arguments, but also the utter ridiculousness of someone who is supposed to be a valued contributor to this forum. Instead, you are becoming somewhat of a side note to everything with exception to tax discussions on certain threads, and even that is starting to become questionable.

Just preserving this little bit of libel for future reference.

RECIPE FOR CHOCOLATE OATMEAL NO-BAKE COOKIES

2 cups sugar
1/2 cup cocoa
1 stick butter
1/2 cup milk
1 tsp. vanilla
3 cups quick-cooking oatmeal
1/2 cup peanut butter
Combine sugar, cocoa, butter and milk in a saucepan. On medium heat, bring to a boil for one full minute.
Remove from heat. Stir in peanut butter (optional), vanilla and oatmeal.

Drop by spoonful onto wax paper. Let cool for at least 30 minutes.

I LOVE THOSE COOKIES!!!!

I have to tell ya, Eric....

Peanut butter is never optional. Especially when it comes to mixing it with chocolate.

Just sayin'

Oh yeah, those are god. In fact, I think since there's oatmeal, peanut butter and milk, it should be considered a breakfast food.

Okay, as my last post was loading or whatever it does while my computer "thinks", I noticed I typed "god" where I meant "good".

I think I'll leave it that way. LOL

I like how you think!

@LJ wrote:

Oh yeah, those are god. In fact, I think since there's oatmeal, peanut butter and milk, it should be considered a breakfast food.

If they are even half as good as they sound, I'm all in.

I used to make those cookies when I was growing up. Loved them. Someone brought some to work at Christmas time last year and it sure brought back memories. Hadn't had them since I was ... I don't know ... maybe 14? I didn't have time for making cookies after I started working.

Lisa,

They are MORE than half as good. And soooo easy to make. I'll have to look but I think my recipe calls for a pinch of salt - maybe to bring out the chocolate flavor? Anyway, I put mine on a wax-paper lined cookie sheet and put them in the fridge because I can never wait the 30 minutes to cool. You really don't have to - they will just be a little gooey - which isn't necessarily bad when it comes to chocolate and peanut butter.

They've always been a personal fave of mine, especially when going on the road. I first learned how to make them in a 7th grade home economics class. There was this one time when the labels for the salt and sugar were mixed up, and I wound up placing two cups of salt in place of the sugar. The reaction from my home economics teacher was epic. I think that I received my first F triple-minus from that disaster!

Oh....I can't even imagine what that would have tasted like. How much water did the teacher drink to get the taste out I wonder.

@Eric in Tampa wrote:

There was this one time when the labels for the salt and sugar were mixed up, and I wound up placing two cups of salt in place of the sugar.

Now THAT'S funny!
Yes, Kim. I think my recipe calls for a pinch of salt too and I believe it's to bring out the chocolate. I've noticed some grocery store bakeries sell them now, but NOTHING beats homemade. Especially when it's this easy.

Before this whole cookie thing, I posted a simple sentence asking "what happened to the so-called truce?" For some ridiculous reason, someone decided to remove that non-offensive and real question but all this fighting crap remains in a thread that I actually started about adding a new feature to the forum. Absolutely ridiculous!

Speaking of oatmeal, has anyone tried any of the overnight, crockpot oatmeal recipes found on Pinterest or Facebook? I have all the stuff - including steel-cut oatmeal, but I'm afraid of ending up with a block of cement that I have to chisel out of my crockpot. I thought of using a crockpot liner, but then the apples won't caramelize if I do that.

The only way I like oatmeal is in the cookies mentioned above. Sorry - not much help here.

Ooooooh... I was just looking at Pinterest and found a recipe for another no-bake cookie. It only has 3 ingredients: 3 cups of oatmeal, 1 cup peanut butter and 1/2 cup honey ( I would use local, raw honey ). You cut it into squares. Hmm. I bet that would be good too - kind of like honey-roasted peanuts, wouldn't you think?

Yeah...only gooey-er. More gooey? Oh fooey.

LOL Kim. You made me spew a malted milk egg onto my keyboard. Now IT'S gooey tooey!

@Sybil2 wrote:

I have been toggling trolls left and right lately. Yes, it prevents me from having to read their crap but it does not prevent them from still writing negative responses in response to something I posted that had nothing to do with them. Then I get PM's from other forum members letting me know that Troll #1 is saying this and Troll #2 is saying this. Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

How about a feature so a forum member can basically toggle themselves (hiding their own posts) from even being viewed by these trolls and negative, argumentative posters? Since a toggle feature is already in place, this should not be a difficult addition.