felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:More off-topic rubbish from another of the usual suspects.
I won'trespond to you, either.

You just did.

You got the tense wrong. Also, I always reserve the right to respond anyway, if I deem it appropriate..

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Well, David, this got me to wondering whether it's more urgent to know the true nature of hunger, or to get cosmology right. I don't think I know the answer, so between you and me, you're going to have to help us out, here.

People with severe insulin imbalance can get so far gone that they can't understand that they're having an insulin imbalance, and then they die. Same sort of thing happens to some people who think they know everything about everything, when it turns out they don't, really. That fate is worse than death, but just not for them.

Cito,
1.) dying of an insulin imbalance isn't equivalent to dying of hunger.
2.) You may have noticed that I don't post in all threads. That's because you are incorrect to claim that I think I know everything. The truth is that I only post when I think I can contribute something that others have not yet contributed. I hope that clears things up for you.

Well, then what you should have offered was that dying of hunger (a form of malnutrition) has nothing to do with mood.

Not worth responding to, because it is a blatant wind-up attempt, as is your wont.

Don't forget, David; this is what you wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I don't think so, because hunger is nothing to do with mood.

You wrote "hunger is nothing to do with mood" even though you didn't bother to specify what you denote by either hunger or mood. I don't blame you for keeping it imprecise, but why did you bother with your comment in the first place if you weren't going to make your meaning clear?

I get it that's it's a wind-up for you whenever somebody (expecially me) notices that you're just blabbing without being able to say what's defective about somebody's comments.

DavidMcC wrote:I always reserve the right to respond anyway, if I deem it appropriate..

Well, that's to be expected. However, you don't generally stick your landings when you deem it appropriate to vault, which is what happens to people who pretend to know about everything from cosmology to hunger.

DavidMcC wrote:
You got the tense wrong. Also, I always reserve the right to respond anyway, if I deem it appropriate..

You deem it appropriate to respond to say you won't respond.

Have you ever thought about................just not responding at all?

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:More off-topic rubbish from another of the usual suspects.
I won'trespond to you, either.

You just did.

You got the tense wrong. Also, I always reserve the right to respond anyway, if I deem it appropriate..

Two responses about not responding. You’re on a roll.

And lol on your grammar lesson. You clever boy, you.

Sendraks wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Not worth responding to, because it is a blatant wind-up attempt, as is your wont. I remember that, years ago, I said I would not respond to your posts, unless they improved. Alas, they haven't, because you remain intent on off-topic provocation.

David gets owned.
David invents persecution complexes and makes false accusations
David runs away.
Nothing changes.

FIFY.

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:More off-topic rubbish from another of the usual suspects.
I won'trespond to you, either.

You just did.

You got the tense wrong.

1. He didn't.
2. Completely irrelevant to the point being made.

DavidMcC wrote: Also, I always reserve the right to respond anyway, if I deem it appropriate..

Doesn't make it any less of a lie when immediately succeeding a post where you said you wouldn't respond.

I'm in the mood for some pulled pork. The BBQ, I mean, that's not some disgusting reference to self-abuse. But I'm not hungry. Never am in the morning, it's not till around noon that my body starts doing objective things and make me subjectively hungry. So I can state, with anecdotal authority, that mood and hunger aren't related.

Am I overcomplicating this?

laklak wrote:I'm in the mood for some pulled pork.

Tried that for the first time 2 weeks ago. Loved it. From the oven though not the BBQ.

I start it in a slow oven for about 4 hours, then move it to the smoker for another 3. I've done it just in the smoker, but that takes 10-12 hours.

Need to sort myself out a proper smoker. That's still on my to do list.

I do have two pieces of brisket and a piece of silverside curing at present though, using the corned beef recipe you linked years back. Looking forward to those at the weekend.

Smoke meat does not come without its dangers. Just sayen'.

True, but everything is dangerous. Life, for example, is a terminal, sexually transmitted disease. No one who catches it survives.

Nice lak sharp as ever. But over smoking is a danger.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Nice lak sharp as ever. But over smoking is a danger.

Over- anything is a danger, that's why it's called over-

You cant be over pregnant either or over killed.

Trust me, you can be over pregnant.

I believe you.