Jump to content

JFC1

NJW&W Members
  • Posts

    1,190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • County, State
    Hunterdon County, New Jersey

Recent Profile Visitors

2,680 profile views

JFC1's Achievements

  1. beautiful snakes! great shot
  2. OK, I got lazy last night (after spewing lies to a certain poster on another thread) and didn't try JHBowhunter's Mexican ceviche recipe, but instead went and redid the Peruvian "sushi"-type ceviche I first posted about. IMHO if you're trying to do Peruvian not Mexican style ceviche, it really is a lot better if you "cook" the fish in lime for a really short period. I'm talking two minutes, and then strain it, getting rid of the majority of the lime juice. The fish goes all chalky after any more than 5-10 minutes and you'll end up tasting lime and hot peppers more than fish if you do that. Again IMHO this is why I use fresh striped bass. I wanna taste the fish. Some of you write about letting it sit 45 minutes. Damn. Not my cup of tea since at that point I think it's the orange and other citruses and the hot pepper that's speaking, not the fish. But on another night with more energy I'll try that one too. Thanks to everyone for posting. Anyway: - 3/4" cubed filets from one thin, barely legal as small as possible slot fish (8 pounder) - one thinly julienned red onion - one habanero pepper, sliced thinly crosswise or shredded with a few of its seeds - juice from 4-5 limes - a tiny bit of diced fresh cilantro - one boiled sweet potato - table salt - choclo-type south american corn on the cob (buy at Paterson/Newark/Hackensack latino grocery) -canchitas fried wide south american corn, salted while fying in pan (buy at Paterson/Newark/Hackensack latino grocery) Cube the fish Boil the sweet potato and place in fridge to cool down. Boil corn, save at room temp place fish in bowl, sprinkle salt over it, dump juice of 3-4 limes on top, mix thoroughly, leave 2 minutes. Strain out the lime juice into another bowl, set aside fish (which will still be 'cooking' w/residual lime juice). Mix in the shredded jalapeno and bit of fresh cilantro leaf pour the lime juice ("leche de tigre") over the onion, 1-2 minutes. Let 'cook'. Drain off the lime juice again, and save in a cup. Put fish/pepper/cilantro mixture on top of fish and save the leche de tigre on the side for anyone who needs another shot because they like their ceviche well done. It was great this way. Just like in Lima. You can taste the fish and a nice white fish isn't at all overpowering.
  3. Your tics are clear enough. But thanks for clearing up why you chose "Oldmenrule." Birds of a feather...you and Uncle Joe.
  4. The Russian pee narrative gets re-inflected for a different side. Could both stories be wrong?
  5. I never thought for a second or said I'd been busted for confusing CA and IL, because that's irrelevant even though you argue that the confusion means I didn't read your links and is thus relevant in spite of your finally admitting the fact here, above. I read your links. Anyway, that's minor in relation to my sins-- I told you you busted me because you caught me lying that IL went all the way down. That was a dumb bit of laziness and bad faith on my part, and I should never have done it as an attempt to simply gloss over a minor--as you've just said--detail out of which you were making a big deal while not responding to anything substantive I'd written. So a bad move now gives you even more cover to tell me you know all about what I do, and what my type is. Cool. It's OK to think you know who, what I am and what I do from googling to making up facts in classrooms. But you feel no need to engage what I write that doesn't fit your narrative and false claim about Birx' words. So me admitting (yes, terrible grammar) "busted" now gets misread as stil about CA and IL Yet your promised "that" facts never materialize, even though this is the burning "that" that I supposedly do all the time. I asked you for more examples so I can eat my hat. It aint' there. But you can avoid your own clear and basic misrepresentation of the facts that you put out in your links while continuing in your omniscience about what others are and do. Yeah, I was not simply wrong, but a fool, to respond to you lazily, incorrectly, deviantly and then honestly. It doesn't get reciprocated. Straight up bile, either way. I owned up 2x, hoping that this was a discussion about reality rather than how far each of us imagines we can pee. It's the correct thing to do and I hoped it'd set an example of saying "I'm wrong. You busted me" when we engage one another here. You clearly feel no need to. So I'm good with that--consider yourself emboldened to continue on without addressing your original misrepresentation or any other point I've made to you. You're right. No worries. You know everything and you have the right to project that no matter what the other person actually says to you, even though I can't say I know what you're doing and who you are on that basis. Maybe you'll tell me I'm lying here. And it is of course my fault, at least in terms of a lie about CA and IL and follow-ups and my lazily and unfairly bullshitting you. But that doesn't address the larger fact that you seem to be unable to do what I've just done. Will you say there's no need to, on your perfect part, which knows the truth before I speak? But there is. It starts with your very first source, which doesn't say what you say it does. Enjoy your day. I love your "I might have bought that." Vinegar.
  6. I wonder if the captain will let lunatic go out again after ripping off those locations? glad you got to play with your son. sorry..."I wonder whether or not the captain will let lunatic go out, again, after ripping off those locations?" I had to use the edit function here
  7. Anyone going fishing tonight?
  8. what's an adverb? did I watch the video?
  9. Ka-ching. You sound just like Biden.
  10. OK, DV1, you busted me. CA not IL and no IL reworking of data. My sincerest apologies, no sarcasm included. I figure I'll try to start a trend here, in your honor. So how does this prove your claim that I've not read your stuff? And I challenge you to find one more "that." I'll heat my hat. Then I'll expect reciprocity. And perhaps a response that's not cherrypicking and addresses your misrepresentation of our esteemed medical association's report
  11. I promise I'll never use that particularly offensive word "Holy" again, just for you. And I'll watch my split infinitives too. Actually, now I realize I've gotta up my wholly unprofessional grammatical game here in Oldman's earthly unholy universe; only then my message will get across clearly! But, then again, "can" I? I'm not sure if I'm capable of it. I think I'll let the market sort it out, cuz that's what the market does
  12. Further reading indicates that counties in IL revised their death counts. 2 Counties is CA revising death counts shows they're being revised, not that I didn't read your stuff "The problem with the wording of alternate facts vs additional facts is that one presumes the other exists in a false reality. They are not existing in separate realities, they exist together to make up one reality...one big picture. Some people... don't want that entire picture to be seen/known." I couldn't agree more that they exist together, but calling something an alternative in fact recognizes the tension between the two, and thus that they're linked. I'm not following your logic "It seems you are one of those people." I just wrote that the two exist together. We can't have an alternative without the other alternative existing in the same reality. Or if you do, then you'll have to substantially rework the dictionary which is of course possible but not yet on my radar. Evidence suggests you are hard up to classify me but are having a tough time, so you throw up alternative facts to see if they stick and support your preconceptions. All those facts are in the same universe, whether NJWW or the planet as it exists today "It's not an either or proposition. Both under and over counting exist together to make up the entire truth of what happened during the pandemic." I couldn't agree more "Some people don't want the truth to be known, only the approved narrative. " I couldn't agree more, and that's sad. But there are multiple approved narratives, existing in the same realities. See your own words above "It's like that with most things today, and it's why we are so divided, and would fit nicely into the topic "What Ruined America" : people who value their truth over facts." I'm 100% in agreement with you "Biden acknowledged as much in his famous fax pau about valuing "Truth over facts". I can't speak for Biden because I don't follow him close enough, I don't have a map of his brain and intentions or statements, and, frankly, I think he's a dope we got saddled with only because of the malfeasance and incompetence of his predecessor. But I will say that there are plenty of actually fairly good philosophical and other arguments that might support his statement. That doesn't mean that I do, or that I think Biden has a handle on those arguments. If he did, I'd be surprised. Religious belief, however, is a prime example of truths over facts and Biden claims to be a devout Catholic. If one believes in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ one might be believing in holy truths over scientific quibbles, which produce facts that are constantly revised as you seem to be arguing. The same can be said of the truths expressed to believers by Shroud of Turin or Our Lady of Roses in NY's Flushing Meadows Park. Most of relgiion is truth over earthly facts (I think facts are defined in terms of the earth but I could be wrong). Nonetheless, many holy men would argue there are eternal truths high above the facts. "This is exactly what he meant. That creates two different realities, and is why we are such a divided nation. " See above for my perhaps incorrect explanation of why it's also why we have different religions, and why people would believe Rudy's crackpot election theories or Trump's lies when in fact his supporters cannot see into ballot boxes or others' minds. So it is why we have a divided nation but it's not why you and I agree and disagree.
×
×
  • Create New...