HWZ Forums

Login Register FAQ Mark Forums Read

KPC WOP - Healthy LC Meals Here

Like Tree6Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 14-05-2018, 06:13 PM   #16
High Supremacy Member
 
plasticpistola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 30,078
Eating laksa for lunch and char kway teow for dinner.


bak chor mee for moi!!!

after that jiak carrot cake
__________________
Sent from 九龍城寨 using 大哥大
plasticpistola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 06:19 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Illumuniate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,324
The mushroom looks good to be honest
Illumuniate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 06:21 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 668
not this **** again. *smh*
asdrubal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 07:14 PM   #19
Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,467
The mushroom looks good to be honest
Ya this batch of fresh Shitake was really nice-sized & plum !
Simply pan-fried in non-stick skillet with the dry seasonings together with some cherry tomatoes n the onion - as 1st batch frying
Then divided onto the 2 plates

2nd batch in skillet was just simply the 4 eggs
Made a nice clean division there - for half of each plate !
kaypohchee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 07:17 PM   #20
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Webbyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,621
Are you sure this truly LC?

I am not using proper whitish Shanghai Dumpling wrappers as YES supermarket ran out (think now under new management n things in rather a mess) so have been using the yellowish 'normal' Sui Jiow wraps instead ..




28 wrappers

Made 5 Siu Jiao for next meal there too

Tonight's dinner dumplings 7 each x 2 pax = total 14 dumplings to be pan fried shortly !
__________________
~Those still wanna hoot Amazon at 1.4 exchange rate can PM me!~
Webbyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 07:21 PM   #21
Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,467
Earlier dinner tonight as the dumplings were hot n ready to be eaten with the Black Vinegar Ginger Dip






Our yummy LC Dumpling Dinner !




Last edited by kaypohchee; 14-05-2018 at 07:47 PM..
kaypohchee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 07:28 PM   #22
Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,467
Are you sure this truly LC?
We each ate only 7 dumplings for dinner
meaning used only 7 dough wrappers there

Well I would think the amount of flour + water in simply 7 wrappers there
Would be considered LC bah - guesstimate maybe 8 - 15 grams carbs at the very very max bah ?

Overall in the total grand scheme of things
IS LC when also compared with the Meat Filling etc .....
kaypohchee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 08:27 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Yvaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 566
why so much hate towards TS? thought the food looks great
spinning_quirK likes this.
Yvaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 09:09 PM   #24
Junior Member
 
blinkywink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 51
why so much hate towards TS? thought the food looks great
yeah i like seeing her food pics for motivation to cook. otherwise i'll be too lazy to eat proper meals.
__________________
お前はもう死んでいる
blinkywink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 09:22 PM   #25
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,072
why so much hate towards TS? thought the food looks great
Her recipe threads are ok & harmless. It’s her LCHF preaching threads that need to be stopped.
gkhchay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 09:36 PM   #26
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
articland05's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 14,249
Her recipe threads are ok & harmless. It’s her LCHF preaching threads that need to be stopped.
same sentiments.
I saw the food pics and I'm impressed at the dumplings wrapping skills...is very gd in fact.
but I'm turned off when hit the WOT of capital letters mix with simi LC shiat...spoil my appetite
articland05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 10:11 PM   #27
Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,467
Her recipe threads are ok & harmless. It’s her LCHF preaching threads that need to be stopped.
same sentiments.
I saw the food pics and I'm impressed at the dumplings wrapping skills...is very gd in fact.
Thanks for saying so but feel my dumpling-wrapping skills there only so-so as have seen some much better ones - but practice helps a lot ....

but I'm turned off when hit the WOT of capital letters mix with simi LC shiat...spoil my appetite
HOW is it 'preaching'

Simply SHARING the Health-Nutrition-Diet stuff I come across only [not only LC/LCHF]
For discussion or acceptance/non acceptance - modification/adaptation to EACH specific user etc ....
NO Preaching - Forcing things down your throats - Pestering or Hassling etc

However if you STILL feel you are being 'preached'
Simple - just DON'T come into my threads/posts ....
No need to make yourself a MASOCHIST you know ?!?

Moreover I've had my BIG BIG Caveats there too
These are KPC WOT/WOP threads - Enter at your own risk

But if you do come in - kindly DON'T Troll & Personal Attack & Fight etc ....
Otherwise kindly Stay Out - such trolls/attackers/meanies etc NOT welcomed at all !
If you can't Disagree WELL or NOT in a Mean Way etc - DON'T come in here at all plz - See Below for details on HOW to Disagree Well


Read FULL Post at https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/1...1-post267.html

https://twitter.com/simongerman600/s...79912636231681

Simon Kuestenmacher
‏@simongerman600
Follow Follow @simongerman600
More
I love "The hierarchy of disagreement". We collectively need to learn how to argue and disagree in a kinder, more efficient way. The whole article is worth reading. If you are pressed for time just read the pyramid and laugh at the lowest stage. Source: https://buff.ly/2tU4hgx

Clare
‏@thebreadkiln
Apr 4
More
Trolls feed and fatten on words. Don't use them and throw emojis instead. Ass hat becomes sh*t and sh*t is also useful. So much distracting fun!

Thomas Lowery
‏@tal62
Apr 4
More
Replying to @simongerman600 @tweetzydeetzy
Theoretically I have to agree with everything in the article.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Unfortunately, when dealing with cognitive bias, somehow it appears near impossible to get through even using the best MO.


Graham Harris Graham
‏@GHarrisG
Apr 4
More
Replying to @simongerman600
Pyramid is missing a basement layer below name-calling - "You can't fix stupid"







Chivo redactie
‏@chivo_tweets
Apr 5
More
Replying to @simongerman600
I had a variation on the theme. In case you were wondering what going Full Trump means? Well, its where narcissism and fantasy meet and make babies. ;-)


paulgraham.com/disagree.html
How to Disagree

March 2008

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is.
So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.

Last edited by kaypohchee; 14-05-2018 at 10:20 PM..
kaypohchee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 10:55 PM   #28
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
articland05's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 14,249
wth!...kpc, are you ok up there?
articland05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 11:53 PM   #29
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,072
KPC - these WOT isn’t sharing: it’s downright preaching & blasting at ppl. That’s why ppl are so damn pissed off with you, including me.

Even when I was still advocating LCHF, I wrote all the posts myself: NO cut & paste bloody WOT crap like what you’re doing to piss ppl off.

You want to share? Just post links & ask ppl: this guy says etc etc, what do you think? That’s sharing. Or even saying stuff like, “I think so so is absolutely right about this,’’ would suffice.
gkhchay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 11:55 PM   #30
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,072
wth!...kpc, are you ok up there?
Obviously she’s not, as you can see with these bloody WOT; nothing but crap.
gkhchay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Terms of Service for more information.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On