Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. Please note: Posts that overdo their passion and veer into name-calling or that make serious accusations without proof are going to have a hard time getting through.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Just Trying to Help

Things are too negative around here.  It appears that the chefs at Oval Cafe are having a hard time preparing peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, as this tasty American fare has been in the "Coming Soon" category since the Oval Cafe opened.  So in a positive, friendly gesture we present for the Oval Cafe crew instructions on how to make the classic Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwich (courtesy wikiHow).

Ingredients:

Bread (usually two slices to make a sandwich)
Peanut Butter
Jam or Jelly


Spread peanut butter onto one slice of bread:


Spread jam or jelly onto the other slice of bread:


Assemble your sandwich by putting the two slices of bread together.  (Note: the peanut butter and jam/jelly sides should be facing each other.)....


VoilĂ !  The classic Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwich that you can now serve to your eager customers!...


41 comments:

Anonymous said...

So THAT'S how you make a PB&J sandwich!

I've been doing it wrong all this time. Thank you STR.

C'mon everyone .... Now we can eat!!!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

The crucial step that some miss is that they do NOT face the peanut butter side with the jam/jelly side. I've seen so many ruined PB&J sandwiches where the chef flips the slices the other way, causing a real mess.

Anonymous said...

Also, remember ..... Butter and peanut butter are very different things.


Finally.... Do NOT use petroleum jelly as it is not a food product.

Anonymous said...

Too funny!!!!

Anonymous said...

Perfect.

Anonymous said...

You just know someone who works there is studying this carefully and taking notes...

Anonymous said...

Very helpful information! Maybe "Just Trying to Help" could become a standing weekly feature of The Stuyvesant Town Report. Future installments could include, "How to Effectively Enforce the 80% Carpet Rule" and I'm sure there are many others.

Hippo said...

Rejoice!
Rose & Company are applying for a new MCI.
Apparently they say adding peanut butter and jelly to white bread is a major capial improvement and they want to pass the cost along to the tenants.
Also any unsold chicken fingers will be generously donated to Beth Israel Hospital for use in digital rectal exams!
What superb management we have!

Tommyboy said...

Well they certainly have mastered the art of spreading it on thick!

Anonymous said...

Does the jelly go on the left or right side of the bread ?

Anonymous said...

Does the jelly go on the left or right side of the bread ?

July 7, 2012 2:17 PM

Depends which side of the table you're standing.

Anonymous said...

If the place is sold, it's for sure that any sponsor will want to own the 'commercial' space & we'll have very little say about that. When we hear 'commercial', we think of the peripheries: garages & the stores on 1st, 14th & 20th, Ave C. But what about concessions opening up within the complex? I would be prepared to fight very hard against the sponsor owning these. I think we all should fight against this. Eventually when the tenant owners run the board, we should control everything within the complex. And we should collect the rent for these and apply the funds against maintenance costs.
Another thought. Dog ownership will impact the grounds. Dogs will have an effect on the lawns and on the shrubs. It isn't fair that non-dog owners should have to pay such costs. Therefore, dog owners should pay a fee to own a dog witin the complex, a fee that is kept & applied strictly for grounds maintenance.

Anonymous said...

Very helpful information! Maybe "Just Trying to Help" could become a standing weekly feature of The Stuyvesant Town Report. Future installments could include, "How to Effectively Enforce the 80% Carpet Rule" and I'm sure there are many others.

Other topics I would like to humbly propose:

1. Tow to dispose of garbage down the chute
2. "Clogging," it's not OK to do in an apartment
3. Where to pee? Toilet or stairwell?
4. OK, so I threw up in the bushes. What now?
5. Ice skating--why we don't do it in the summertime and why we shouldn't have to listen to it in the winter...

I am sure there are more...

Anonymous said...

<>

Eddie, you must have one bitchin' pack of cloven hoofed monsters living above you, eh?

Anonymous said...

4:49: tenants won't be winning the bid. you can bet on that.

Anonymous said...

"If the place is sold, it's for sure that any sponsor will want to own the 'commercial' space & we'll have very little say about that. When we hear 'commercial', we think of the peripheries: garages & the stores on 1st, 14th & 20th, Ave C. But what about concessions opening up within the complex? I would be prepared to fight very hard against the sponsor owning these. I think we all should fight against this. Eventually when the tenant owners run the board, we should control everything within the complex. And we should collect the rent for these and apply the funds against maintenance costs.
Another thought. Dog ownership will impact the grounds. Dogs will have an effect on the lawns and on the shrubs. It isn't fair that non-dog owners should have to pay such costs. Therefore, dog owners should pay a fee to own a dog witin the complex, a fee that is kept & applied strictly for grounds maintenance."

Couldn't agree more. Especially regarding the "dog tax".

Anonymous said...

Oval Cafe doesn't have a kitchen staff yet, that's why they aren't cooking.

& the fact that most of you guys were complaining about how unhealthy the food was just a few days ago & are now complaining about the fact that their taking too long too sell that same unhealthy food, is kind of annoying.

We have everything in Stuy-town, yet all anyone here ever wants to do is act like spoiled brats. Get over yourselves.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>the fact that most of you guys were complaining about how unhealthy the food was just a few days ago & are now complaining about the fact that their taking too long too sell that same unhealthy food, is kind of annoying.<<

The fact that you can't see that we are joking about the peanut butter & jelly sandwiches (and certainly don't want to eat them at the Oval Cafe!) is kind of annoying, too.

Anonymous said...

Why are they open if they don't have a kitchen staff??? Must they do EVERYTHING half-assed? Coming Soon! The front door!

Anonymous said...

Love the dog tax idea, although if it were instituted, dog owners might abuse the property even more, thinking they'd paid for the privilege.

I was taking a walk around PCV the other day, checking out the new landscaping. Right in the middle of the path in front of 4 PCR was a fresh pile. I hailed a young guy driving one of the carts and asked him who cleans up such a mess, and he laughed and said, "Not me!" Hilarious. But he said he would report it. Maybe he did.

The same day I talked to the landscaping contractor. Forgot to ask him how the new types of plants being put in stand up to dog urine.

Anonymous said...

Fine! While we're at it lets tax the residents with kids! I don't have any so why should I pay for the maintenance and repairs of playgrounds?!

Anonymous said...

As a dog owner who does follow the rules, let's not be throwing around the idea of a dog tax without also tossing around maybe a kid/child tax or a 20 Something vomiting in the bushes/on the stoop tax or maybe a noisy threesome/foursome/moresome sex noise at all hours of the day or night tax. Because all of those things equally impact the quality of life around here...but hey, that's life in the big city.

I only say this because a lot of the things getting blamed on dogs, such as destroyed landscaping, are not, in fact, being caused by dogs. Did dogs plant and then dig up hundreds of perfectly good trees? Did dogs rip up acres of plush grass and ivy and then not replant it? Did dogs rip up the chains and then permit touch football, frisbee and sunbathing for most of the year? I think not.

Sure...some dog owners need a good smack down, but lets not get carried away here (and peeing on the sidewalk because a dog can't hold its urine until it reaches the border of the property isn't a capital offense).

Anonymous said...

I don't have a dog, but I am sick of these anti-dog people. I'd rather have a hundred dogs instead of one vomiting, woo-hooing, braying student or screaming brat whose mother thinks the sun shines out of his/her asshole. Very little, if any, damage is caused by dogs, but the filth, squalor, noise and general deterioration of the QOL is definitely done by the two-legged animals who live here. I see the recycling areas overflowing with dirty diapers, greasy pizza boxes, kitchen garbage and all kinds of non-recycleable shit and I don't think the dogs or their owners have much to do with that. I am woken up frequently by screaming, braying assholes who don't have any respect for their neighbors, but I seldom hear a dog barking at night or in the early hours of the morning. I've seen humans squat and take a shit on the grass and urinate against the walls. Don't blame it all on the dogs!

Anonymous said...

I'm not anti dogs or anti kids. I'm anti Rose.

Anonymous said...

Get rid of the dorms and the filth, then lets talk about the dogs.

The house is on fire. Why are we worried about replacing the shingles?

Anonymous said...

"Sure...some dog owners need a good smack down, but lets not get carried away here (and peeing on the sidewalk because a dog can't hold its urine until it reaches the border of the property isn't a capital offense)."

With all due respect, the majority of dog owners do their dog walking ON the grass, with the explicit purpose of having their dog piss or crap there. This is a fact and everyone here knows it dog owner or not. I have never seen a dog owner attempting to bring their dog to the "border" of the property or even a circular drive. To further confound things, now they have Adam Rose on their side because this behavior is sanctioned.

Anonymous said...

"Get rid of the dorms and the filth, then lets talk about the dogs."

I don't see the necessity of putting it in any order. Certainly, they all must go and I see no reason they all can't all be addressed simultaneously. I agree however, the dogs must go. We won't be able to address any of this nastiness though until if and when we assume control of the property.

Anonymous said...

The dogs can stay. Ill-mannered owners and general malcontents should go.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that at this point, if this dump remains a rental the dogs will stay. If we can assume ownership then it should come down to a vote(one vote per apartment). If the vote goes to the dogs then they stay, if not, existing dogs would probably have to be grandfathered in for the duration of their lives. It's the only egalitarian way to do this.

What dog owners can't seem to understand is that some people with children used to be able to allow them to play on the grass. Now that the grassy areas have become a toilet, this no longer is possible. this is only one (albeit significant) reason the dogs must go. Sorry, but I'm just not buying that the kids must go too because they make noise.

Anonymous said...

"What dog owners can't seem to understand is that some people with children used to be able to allow them to play on the grass."

Kids were not allowed to play on the grass before dogs were permitted by TS. If they were on the grass they were breaking the rules then in place.

Anonymous said...

"Kids were not allowed to play on the grass before dogs were permitted by TS. If they were on the grass they were breaking the rules then in place"

This is just factually incorrect. The chain link fences were taken down way before dogs were allowed. I understand that you will defend your "right" to keep your dog, this is fine, but lets keep our facts straight. Using factually incorrect arguments will get you nowhere.

Anonymous said...

Hey, "factually incorrect" accusator, post the rules with a verified timeline or let it go. I've been here a lot longer than you. What...were there three weeks when they let your kid romp on the lawn before a dog pooped on it?

We all feel your pain but no one wants to revisit it.

Anonymous said...

For approximately 6 years - 2001 to 2007 they had the chains down and let,people go on the grass BEFORE dogs were allowed.

Anonymous said...

Hey, "factually incorrect" accusator, post the rules with a verified timeline or let it go

We all feel your pain but no one wants to revisit it

I'm trying to figure out what the frig you're talking about. What rules? This isn't the NY Times editorial dept. , I don't need to provide timelines. If you're here as long as you say than you know the chains were taken down way longer than dogs allowed, but of course, you have an axe to grind. As far as revisiting pain....I need more time on that one.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

The chains were definitely down before dogs were allowed.

Anonymous said...

"This is just factually incorrect. The chain link fences were taken down way before dogs were allowed. I understand that you will defend your "right" to keep your dog, this is fine, but lets keep our facts straight. Using factually incorrect arguments will get you nowhere."

Sorry but this is true.

Anonymous said...

For how long, STR? Met didn't take them down.

Anonymous said...

Met did take them down. I was living here then. I remember them taking them down in summer 2001' just a few weeks before 9/11. No connection, of course! But some timelines stay in your mind because of event that happened around the same time. MetLife still owned then.

Anonymous said...

Rose took them down, but Met still owned. Early 2001. Way before dogs. TS allowed dogs around 2007/8 . 2008 , I think.

Anonymous said...

So the argument from the dog owners then is that since the chains came down within temporal proximity to dogs being allowed, to hell with the children and anyone else who wants beautiful plantings and gardens, my dog is shitting and pissing there! Is that the best argument you can come up with? I'll give you dogs being allowed BEFORE the chains came down (not true of course) and you're still in the wrong. It really is amazing that you people are arguing to justify your "right" to let your dogs fowl everybody's grounds. I wonder if it's even legal (Rose Associates not withstanding) to do it.

Anonymous said...

BREAKING NEWS! PB&J has been taken off the Oval Cafe menu!

http://www.pcvst.com/amenities/oval-cafe.aspx