[Sca-cooks] Sca-cooks Digest, Vol 8, Issue 109

[chirhart_1]

I have sent an e-mail to Ladybea at cox.net to ask her to de-lurk and end the
confusion .  chirhart


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wanda Pease" <wandap at hevanet.com>
To: "Cooks within the SCA" <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: [Sca-cooks] Sca-cooks Digest, Vol 8, Issue 109


> Sorry, but I don't think this is my post that is being replied to.  I Do
> make an effort to trim my posts.  I try very hard not to do one-liners (I
> even asked for the cookbook directly to the translator rather than
clogging
> the list with "me too's".
>
> I have sent 5 posts to SCA-Cooks since 1 January, and a check of all of
them
> show that "chitlins" appeared in none of them.  I have been deleting the
> "offal truth" posts as not being interesting to me.
>
> I noticed a reply to "wanda" and wondered what they were referring to.
>
> So, since I'm not guilty as charged, I'm not feeling bad.
>
> Regina Romsey, aka Wanda Pease
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sca-cooks-bounces at ansteorra.org
> > [mailto:sca-cooks-bounces at ansteorra.org]On Behalf Of
> > lilinah at earthlink.net
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:33 AM
> > To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org
> > Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Sca-cooks Digest, Vol 8, Issue 109
> >
> >
> > "Wanda" <ladybea at cox.net> wrote:
> > >  and nobody has even mentioned 'chitlins'' y'all, my lord
> >
> > and then included *an entire* digest with her one-liner. I have no
> > idea what message she was replying to, and i sure didn't need to see
> > the whole digest again. Someone else (or maybe Wanda) did that in
> > another digest today.
>