Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The cheesesteak crusader returns...
 

Perhaps. You don't know for sure. Just because he wrote what he did on that day, doesn't mean he'll be following that path FOREVER. I mean, sheesh already!!! Plus, it's not YOUR job to "worry" him about the dangers of smoking...that's MINE, thanks. *smurks*



OhmyGoddess! LMAOROTF!!! So, now if one doesn't talk about a topic, they are in denial...baaahahah, that's a good one. Rock on dude!



*sputters* I'll leave that one alone...for now. :p



Not anymore. I quit a year ago, and on MY terms, and when *I* wanted to (which is how I wanted to quit).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The cheesesteak crusader returns...
 

[ladysycamore]
> Perhaps. You don't know for sure. Just because he wrote
> what he did on that day, doesn't mean he'll be following that
> path FOREVER. I mean, sheesh already!!!

That she doesn't know for sure doesn't mean that she can't answer to something he said. The only thing she can go by are his statements; thus, it'd be nonsensical to assume he'd change his declared 'path'.

[MaggieL]
>> In the meantime, you won't engage on the topic of smoking,
>> because you'd rather play "red herring" about denial.

[ladysycamore]
> OhmyGoddess! LMAOROTF!!! So, now if one doesn't talk
> about a topic, they are in denial...baaahahah, that's a
> good one. Rock on dude!

Between your humorous exclamations, you might want to consider that MaggieL had presented a fairly good argument, which Sycamore mostly ignored. She then replied, warning that the smoking is the biggest threat to his health, a threat which he didn't seem to take too seriously in his previous postings; he didn't really reply her messages either, which made it look like he's either ignoring her. Why could he be ignoring Maggie's personally intense messages, which presented a compelling picture of what smoking can do to you? Either he doesn't really want to face up to the implications of his addiction (i.e. DENIAL), or he doesn't want to talk to MaggieL for some other mysterious reason.

(Sorry for talking for you here, Maggie)... but which one seems more likely, from her point of view? She's obviously very worried about his health, from personal experience, and he seems to be blowing it off. Maybe you want to be less aggressive next time when someone shows genuine concern for your significant other. How often do you have people genuinely *care* ?

[MaggieL]
>> Ah, addictive behavior, gotta love it...:-) A bit like the
>> five stages of grief, but postdated.

[ladysycamore]
> *sputters* I'll leave that one alone...for now.

This is somewhat infantile: 'Although your claim is obviously ridiculous, I will refuse to respond for it... right now. I will come back later and trouce your argument utterly.'

If you deride people's arguments, at least have the decency to back up your claims. How would you feel if I simply wrote: 'bah, you're wrong. I won't even tell you why, but you are. so there' ?

[ladysycamore]
> Not anymore. I quit a year ago, and on MY terms, and
> when *I* wanted to (which is how I wanted to quit)

That's great. When you get off your self-esteem pedestal, you may want to consider that cancer (and all other smoking-related diseases) doesn't care if you quit on *your* terms, or *how* you wanted to quit smoking.

If you smoke, stop doing it. As soon as you can possibly muster the willpower (or not, as MaggieL was implying was the case with Sycamore). Your ego doesn't play a role in how cancer affects you - the faster you stop, the less likely you are to die or to suffer from horrifying, expensive, and painful diseases - or both. The fact that you're letting Sycamore smoke while you stopped doesn't really say a lot about you, either (if it's around you). Passive smoking (and I'm certain you will claim that he never smokes around you) is quite likely to kill you, too. Pity you won't get to satisfy any addiction whilst killing yourself, though.

X.


Links:
http://www.wce.ac.nz/cancer/lifestyl...e/passive.html
http://www.forces.org/evidence/
http://www.helioshealth.com/cgi-bin/news/news.cgi?131
http://www.phonki.clara.net/cleanair/factin.htm
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/publicpla...lasummary.html

Originally, I had written a rather lengthy post as to why I never made a response to Maggie's posts. I happened to think about it later though, and decided that a lengthy post was unnecessary. I read the posts originally, thought about them, and made the decision not to reply to them. Period.

The words an individual speaks (or does not speak) may be the entire basis for one's opinion of said individual on the Cellar. Although the words (or lack thereof) CAN speak volumes, and CAN reveal some of the individual's personality, it is still an incomplete representation.

Gracias. :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The cheesesteak crusader returns...
 

[quote]Originally posted by Xugumad
[ladysycamore]
> Perhaps. You don't know for sure. Just because he wrote
> what he did on that day, doesn't mean he'll be following that
> path FOREVER. I mean, sheesh already!!!

That she doesn't know for sure doesn't mean that she can't answer to something he said.

I never said that she could NOT answer. Where in the heck did you see THAT in my statement??

The only thing she can go by are his statements; thus, it'd be nonsensical to assume he'd change his declared 'path'.

So, because of that, there is no "realm of possibility" that he COULD change his
path? That would mean...he'd NEVER quit, so why hound him into quitting in the first
place?

[MaggieL]
>> In the meantime, you won't engage on the topic of smoking,
>> because you'd rather play "red herring" about denial.

[ladysycamore]
> OhmyGoddess! LMAOROTF!!! So, now if one doesn't talk
> about a topic, they are in denial...baaahahah, that's a
> good one. Rock on dude!

Between your humorous exclamations, you might want to consider that MaggieL had presented a fairly good argument, which Sycamore mostly ignored.

And? Ignoring it automatically means denial?

She then replied, warning that the smoking is the biggest threat to his health, a threat which he didn't seem to take too seriously in his previous postings; he didn't really reply her messages either, which made it look like he's either ignoring her.

More ridiculous assmptions. Do YOU talk about, or go into lengthy detail about every, single, solitary issue that coms your way? And, if in the event that he WAS ignoring her...so what? She's not "allowed" to be ignored? (memories of Glenn Close in Fatal Attractionsaying, "I will NOT be ignored!") *laughs* I think not. She.just.doesn't.have.that.kind.of.power.

Why could he be ignoring Maggie's personally intense messages, which presented a compelling picture of what smoking can do to you?

Mmm...maybe because he can? Who the heck knows, and why should anyone CARE??

Either he doesn't really want to face up to the implications of his addiction (i.e. DENIAL), or he doesn't want to talk to MaggieL for some other mysterious reason.

And..how is either reason SO important in the grand scheme of things...really? I'm
curious to find out WHY Sycamore's refusal to address Maggie about smoking is such
an issue (aka, "a big deal").

(Sorry for talking for you here, Maggie)... but which one seems more likely, from her point of view? She's obviously very worried about his health, from personal experience, and he seems to be blowing it off. Maybe you want to be less aggressive next time when someone shows genuine concern for your significant other. How often do you have people genuinely *care* ?

Well, it's obvious that her take on "caring" and my take on it are coming from two different schools of thought. I mean, I didn't know that making bold, arrogant assumptions about one's thought processes and actions was "caring".

[MaggieL]
>> Ah, addictive behavior, gotta love it...:-) A bit like the
>> five stages of grief, but postdated.

[ladysycamore]
> *sputters* I'll leave that one alone...for now.

This is somewhat infantile: 'Although your claim is obviously ridiculous, I will refuse to respond for it... right now. I will come back later and trouce your argument utterly.'

*LOL!* Expressing my First Amendment right is infantile? For crying out loud...I was merely being facetious..or..um..is that not allowed here?

If you deride people's arguments, at least have the decency to back up your claims. How would you feel if I simply wrote: 'bah, you're wrong. I won't even tell you why, but you are. so there' ?

I wouldn't make a federal case about it, I know THAT much. Again: so WHAT? It's
not ruining MY day if that is the statement that you want to make...gads! I have much more important things to be concerned about!

[ladysycamore]
> Not anymore. I quit a year ago, and on MY terms, and
> when *I* wanted to (which is how I wanted to quit)

That's great. When you get off your self-esteem pedestal,

Why on EARTH would I do that? Self-esteem is important. More people should claim it, and use it for their own benefit. Low self esteem is why too many women are in abusive relationships...low self esteem is why people allow others to use them as personal welcome mats and get taken advantage of (in other words, not having the will to stand up for oneself), and so on. So...positive self-esteem is "wrong" to possess? Hey, it's helped me to do many positive things in life, and as a black female in America, I feel that it is important to
have high self-esteem, so I think I will stay on my so-called "self-esteem pedestal" if it will continue to help me through the remainder of my life, thankyouverymuch.

you may want to consider that cancer (and all other smoking-related diseases) doesn't care if you quit on *your* terms, or *how* you wanted to quit smoking.

Okayyyy.....

If you smoke, stop doing it.

Smoke free for over a year now.

As soon as you can possibly muster the willpower (or not, as MaggieL was implying was the case with Sycamore). Your ego doesn't play a role in how cancer affects you - the faster you stop, the less likely you are to die or to suffer from horrifying, expensive, and painful diseases - or both.

That still does not give anyone the license to bug the heck out of someone to get them to quit. I'm SURE that you realize that that tactic doesn't work with everyone.

The fact that you're letting Sycamore smoke while you stopped doesn't really say a lot about you, either (if it's around you).

And what does making assumptions about people's lives say about YOU, dearheart?

Passive smoking (and I'm certain you will claim that he never smokes around you) is quite likely to kill you, too.

LOL, and there's another one. Ok: I'll bite. Are you willing to bet on it? How certain are you? 50%? 70%? 100%? Ah, I love it when people THINK they know you...

Pity you won't get to satisfy any addiction whilst killing yourself, though.

Save your pity for someone who needs it, because I certainly do not...ooo, there's that nasty self-esteem again (slaps wrists). Shame, shame, shame on me!!!



:p

Bringing it back to topic...
 

I decided to make my own cheesesteak tonight, so I cobbled the ingredients together:

--One package of Amoroso's rolls
--4 oz. of Provolone cheese
--One package of Landis chicken steak
--Some leftover Quaker King steaks in the freezer
--Ketchup and mayo (already in the fridge)

I lightly toasted the rolls, threw some mayo on them, and then the cheese. Fried up the chicken and beef steaks, ripped them up, and put them on the rolls. Ketchup added last. Absolutely delicious. I must say, I outdid myself. Granted, adding the Quaker King steaks was sacriligious...and they don't exactly taste the best. But it was a pleasant combination overall.

Healthwise: About 750-800 calories for one of these cheesesteaks. Sodium and fat content are low to medium (most of the fat coming from the mayo and beef steak). Cut the beef steak, lighten up on the mayo and ketchup, and you're down to about 500-550...a Big Mac at McDonald's is 590. I would reckon that my version was probably healthier than one I would get at a restaurant...most of them pile on the ketchup and mayo unless you tell them otherwise. If you've had a light lunch or no lunch at all, you're in good shape. :)

Philly Cheesesteaks, Sycamore - MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE?
 

Not so.

A 20-second walk from where I live, a deli called 'Sycamore' sells the best sandwich I've ever eaten. It's of course a Philly Cheesesteak.

Coincidence?

I may just bloat to ludicrous dimensions eating only those sandwiches from now on. They're that damn good.

X.


PS: I stepped away from the ladysycamore talk above since it became obvious that emotion and not logic dictated the responses. Better to avoid flames than fan them, methinks. :-)

Re: Philly Cheesesteaks, Sycamore - MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE?
 

Really? Now that's funny...where is this at?

Although...if it's not in Philadelphia, it's not a real cheesesteak. ;)

You replied 10 minutes after I posted?
 

.. ahem. That was rapid. AAAAAAAnyway:


Southwestern Virginia, I'm currently visiting someone here. VT is very close.

The sandwich is incredible, the best I've ever had. I'll provide driving directions and all if people don't believe me ;)

A 12" sandwich is around $6 or so, I think. They make their own bread for it and all.

I just had a 3" sandwich section reheated after it sat in the fridge for 2 days. It was still *very* tasty.

There is a God.

Re: Philly Cheesesteaks, Sycamore - MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE?
 

My statements and questions are just as logical as anyone else's, regardless if they are filled with any emotions. I mean, I AM a human being, not a robot! :mad:

*Pfft* It doesn't matter anyway. The topic was straying anyway. *shrugs*

Cheesesteaks, anyone? :D

Re: You replied 10 minutes after I posted?
 

Got a digital camera? We Phluffians can evaluate the karma of the sandwich. We need to know, for example, if it's South Philly or Roxborough style. This is vital!

Re: Re: You replied 10 minutes after I posted?
 

Undertoad: Yes, I do have a digital camera. I will list the deli's description/ingredient list as well, and take a couple of digital photographs ASAP.

ASAP may be in a few days, though. I am currently on a week-long vegetarian trip. I was quite curious to see what it's like to be vegetarian for a couple of days.

More cheesesteaks updates later.

X.

PS: Ladysycamore - oh dear, that was a bad case of 'I MUST HAVE THE LAST WORD AT ALL COST' ;-) A 'ugogirl!' keychain is being mailed to you as we speak. ]:-)

Re: Re: You replied 10 minutes after I posted?
 

Good looking out Tony. I didn't even think about that. Truth be told, I don't think about the regional differences much.

*hangs head in shame*

Re: Re: You replied 10 minutes after I posted?
 

Good looking out Tony. I didn't even think about that. Truth be told, I don't think about the regional differences much.

*hangs head in shame*

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The cheesesteak crusader returns...
 

I'm not going to go revisit the health-impacts-of-addictions subthread...that was ages ago. I made my concerns clear, Syc made his responses. It's old news.

But I did want to pick up on something I've heard a couple times out here lately...citing "First Amendment rights". For pity's sake, there's *no* environment on this planet that's more supportive of free speech than the The Cellar.

But the Cellar tradition has been that (almost) all propositions are subject to debate. If you make a statement, and someone else calls on you to back it up with reasoning or an explanation, waving a free speech flag hasn't cut much ice around here in the past. It isn't that we don't value freedom of speech. Quite the contrary--freedom of speech is a value totally ingrained in the community culture, taken for granted, and usually doesn't even need to be mentioned.

Every one has freedom to make almost any kind of statement here, and they also have freedom of to defend them. Criticisim isn't an attempt to silence here, it usually takes the form of an invitation to amplify. But if the perception is that the speaker is blowing smoke, he or she can expect to hear about *that*, too.

*Commentary* and *criticisim* are protected speech as well...and the suggestion that that commentary or crticisim is intended to silence someone and is thus somehow in violation of their rights would itself seem intended to have a chilling effect on free speech...the notion of "political correctness" is apropos.

Fortunately the Cellar has been immune to that sort of thing so far. Long may it wave.

Re: Re: Re: You replied 10 minutes after I posted?
 

:rolleyes: Sure dude: I'll send ya my mailing address.