Shannon 的个人资料VisitorInvasion照片日志列表更多  |  工具 帮助 |
|
Thanks for visiting!
VisitorInvasion9月22日 VI offering competitive sales commissionsGreat news!
VisitorInvasion.com members now earn competitive commissions on all direct sales.
Wow! Great advertising with free options and commissions simply for helping promote the site.
Wondering how that works?
Simple. While promoting your business, simply add one of the affiliate codes provided in the Referral section of your VI account. Any sales made by you will be credited to your VI account and may be requested at a minimum of $10 via PayPal or AlertPay.
Members can log in here: VI Login
New advertisers may sign up free here: VI Signup
6月16日 Ed & Elaine Browne have a fighting chanceEd & Elaine Browne have been held hostage in their own homes by federal agents due to their refusal to be taken into custody for failure to comply with a law that no official involved could show them. Yes, I'm talking about federal income taxes. Here's the latest scoop. Attorney General, Paul Andrew Mitchell, so ordered on June 15, 2007, that "The alleged 'liability' was fabricated by the Internal Revenue Service, but there is no corresponding Act of Congress creating that specific liability for any income taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A." What the heck does that mean, you ask? Read the cease and desist order here. 8月9日 Rhetoric on the Two-tier Internet SchemeRhetoric on the Two-tier Internet Scheme
by Shannon Whitehead
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the United States support the “two-tier” internet system. Currently, the internet is one huge network that anyone who has a connection can access or upload content, making it a “one-tier” internet system. All data runs through the same “pipes” (conductors) from the originating point of the data right into homes, businesses, and educational centers world wide. Recently, these pipes have been upgraded from copper conductors to fiber optic conductors to improve the speed that information travels online as well as the quality of fast-loading graphics and videos. This service is known as the “broadband” connection through which cable and DSL (digital subscriber line) services are provided. The investment into the upgrading of these pipes is the act that originated the proposal of the two-tier internet system. When this system is imposed, it will create a dual-level internet that will separate commerce-based web content from non-commerce-based web content. Commerce and information-based websites will have to pay to upload their content to each ISP individually in order to be accessible by all internet connections. Although the telecommunications industry disagrees, this new system has an infinite amount of drawbacks. Though the two-tier internet is predicted to be a good thing by the ISPs, it will in fact be the downfall of the internet system as a whole because it will force many internet marketers offline while narrowing options for online consumers, raise costs for those who upload data to the web while inadvertently costing consumers more due to inevitable membership fees that currently free websites will be forced to charge and ultimately lead to censorship and controlled communication.
Though the two-tier system is disguised by the telecommunications companies as a way to “repair” the “broken” internet system by allowing major online conglomerates to pay for preferential email delivery and other services, the new system is going to change the internet for the worse and affect millions of lives (Olowski). Suppose that Joannie, a young single mother who can barely make ends meet, finds a second income online as a bulk e-mail marketer. Imagine that Joannie offers her services of spam-free bulk e-mailing of the clients’ ads to her database of 20,000 opt-in e-mail recipients for $29.95 per mailing on the present internet system. According to Jason Miller, writer for WebProNews.com, the cost of the new preferential e-mailing service through the two-tier internet system is going to require bulk e-mail marketers to pay up to $0.01 per e-mail sent (Miller). Thus, the new system will potentially cost Joannie $200.00 for one mass e-mail for one client. Joannie’s business will go under quickly even if she does raise fees to make up for overhead costs. Left no other choice, Joannie goes to the nearest strip-joint to earn money to take care of her seven children. This new line of work drives Joannie to drinking heavily, which naturally inhibits her ability to be aware of her surroundings. She unwittingly leaves her drink on the table where she was sitting entertaining a customer, returns to the table, finishing her drink not knowing that the customer had drugged the drink. Joannie does not realize right away that the odd sensation she is feeling is not due to the alcohol, but to the drug the customer had put in her drink in hopes that being unable to drive, Joannie would ask him to drive her home. Joannie continues to drink and dance until she collapses to the floor, unconscious. The manager assumes that Joannie is only drunk and has the bouncer carry her to the dressing room to sleep it off. Come closing time, one of the other entertainers tries to awaken Joannie only to realize that she is dead. Seven children have been orphaned due to the greed of the telecommunications companies. In addition to this tragedy, Joannie’s online clients have lost their choice in bulk e-mailing companies. Unfortunately, Joannie’s clients are not the only web users who are about to lose their choices in what they browse or buy online. Millions of internet browsers may soon be limited as to what sites they are able to view from their paid web connection. If content providers are going to be forced to pay each ISP fees to be allowed web traffic from each ISP’s customers, it is safe to say that this will limit internet consumers’ options on what they may shop for while browsing from their connections. According to William Tinning, even the inventor of the internet, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, is against the imposition of the two-tier internet system, “A two-tier system would mean people would have full access only to those portions of the Web for which they paid (Tinning).” Imagine for a moment that the two-tier internet scheme has already been imposed. Suppose that a woman named “Francis” loves to make crafts and sell them at the local flea market. For several years she has been browsing the internet for affordable supplies with which to make her crafts. Unfortunately for Francis, the specialty websites from which she does most of her purchasing of supplies are all using different servers than those Francis’ ISPs allow their customers to browse, and she no longer can access the supplies she needs online. This situation not only hurts Francis’ ability to earn income, it hurts the web stores that she, and presumably many others, may no longer shop. Not only is this situation against the rights of the American consumer to shop where they please, it is against the rights of those with information to share to get that information seen. Changing to the two-tier internet system is going to cost information providers an extra undetermined fee to upload content and have it seen on each ISP available. Kieron O’Brien, CEO of PacketExchange.com, states, “When you look closely at the private Internet solutions top level ISPs and content providers use to bypass delays in content delivery to end users, a two tier Internet is very much a commercial reality – indeed a ‘business class‘ Internet for the future is very much the way things are going (PacketExchange.com).” This is the corporation’s way of “snow-balling” the public into believing that the two-tier internet is not about the greed of some of the major telecommunications industries around the world. As it stands now, anyone with an internet connection and uploading capabilities is able to add content of almost any kind to the internet from anywhere in the world, making it accessible to anyone in the world that also has an internet connection. Imagine that Google pays AT&T for their internet connection. Imagine that America Online (AOL) will not allow their internet customers access to Google because Google does not have a contract agreement to pay AOL “x” amount of dollars to allow Google traffic on AOL pipes. There are several solutions to this problem. Google could, in fact, end up paying every ISP known to mankind—a separate monthly fee to each ISP globally in addition to AT&T’s connection fee--in order to reach every internet user on the planet. Internet customers could theoretically pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per month to each telecom for individual connection fees in order to ensure they have access to all their favorite websites and information sources. Or, suppose that AT&T, AOL, and Verizon suddenly realize that their proposal of the two-tier internet plan will cause more harm than good in the long run and decide that the investment they made into fiber optic pipes will eventually pay for itself over time with increased numbers in broadband customers throughout the world. If the latter does not occur, the two-tier internet plan could potentially end up costing consumers membership fees to use Google and other currently free-to-use websites. According to Alexa.com, there are 4.5 billion ranked websites currently online. Imagine the percentage of those 4.5 billion websites that are available to anyone with a connection at no charge. Anyone can access E-bay, Google, Yahoo, or MSN, among countless others, at anytime they choose. Theoretically, any or all presently free-to-use websites may be forced to charge their users a monthly membership fee in order to make up the fees charged by the ISPs just to make their sites available to all their users. Assume that a “Jared” is a student working his way through college. With a full-time job that barely covers his tuition, books, rent, and food, Jared has little spare time and must rely heavily on the internet to serve any research needs he may have for his classes. Jared has grown accustomed to using several different search engines to locate resources for his assignments. Under the two-tier internet system, the search engines, which have always been free-to-use, relying only on advertisers for income, now must charge users a monthly membership fee in order to afford to make their data available. Jared, who has managed to remain on the Dean’s List at his college for 7 consecutive semesters, now has to slack somewhat on his homework in order to pick up over-time hours at work so that he can pay the monthly fees to several search engines because the use of only one search engine limits his ability to research all possible aspects of his assignments. Unfortunately, Jared’s grades have suffered, knocking him off the Dean’s List during his final semester, thus destroying his chances of gaining scholarship funding for medical school. As one can plainly see, the two-tier internet plan gives the ISPs total control over what their customers are allowed to view, which is a form of censorship. The new system will provide the perfect means for the telecommunications companies to begin the practice of censoring information that their clients can access. The definition of censorship is “the act or process of deleting or hiding information (Webster, 115).” ISPs are presenting this practice under the guise that “the two-tier internet system is … necessary in order for the ISPs to exercise their right to capitalize on their investment into the new and improved fiber pipes (Whitacre, Oates)”. One could muse that this statement is a lame way of justifying online censorship. One could further suggest that the ISPs’ investments into the new broadband services will earn its return over time through fees earned by selling the broadband connection. Most businesses earn a profit on their invested funds through the sale of their product or service rather than create new ways to charge for that same service in order to gain total control over who can provide what goods, services or information to whom. Suppose CNN has a story that is not in the best interest of AOL for their customers to see. AOL cannot stop that story from making it to television and radio, but under the two-tier internet scheme, AOL would have the power to fabricate a reason to discontinue CNN’s service on their pipes in hopes of this information not finding its way to a good percentage of AOL’s customers. Eventually, the act of censorship will lead to limited to impossible communication among groups or individuals. The two-tier internet system, by giving total control to the ISPs, stands to hinder communication between people all over the world. Under the internet system currently in use, anyone anywhere in the world can communicate with whomever they choose on any ISP via chartrooms, instant messenger and conferencing software. It is common knowledge that chat rooms are monitored due to online solicitation of minors, and that is fine, but with the ISPs becoming enabled to total control, it is possible that instant messages and online conference room conversations will be monitored and controlled as well. Many relationships are held together online, both business and personal. Often the internet is the sole means of communication for online businesses. Assume that “Jack,” “Pierre,” and “Juan” are business partners from different parts of the world and communicate only via e-mail and conference software. All three men are connected to the internet through a different ISP. Under the new internet system, Juan’s ISP does not carry the conference software their company uses, or the e-mail service that Jack uses. This predicament leads to hefty overseas phone bills for the business partners and eventually causes them to terminate their long-time partnership. This is just assuming that the controlled communication will remain innocent. There is nothing barring the ISPs from choosing to allow or disallow communication with their customers for their own reasons. In short, the two-tier internet system is a controversial topic everywhere right now. Internet marketers are deeply frustrated with the ISPs for proposing the two-tier internet plan as well as the House of Representatives for voting to support it. “Their numbers are large and they will work diligently toward yet another [government] regulation knowing that governments just love to prevent the small business owner from profiting,” says Gina Weiss of NetMarketingForum.com. Students are worried that the cost of education will skyrocket under the new plan. They have a right to be worried, as the era of free information is soon to be over. Global communications will become increasingly difficult and expensive on top of the censorship internet users are sure to endure. But, the ISPs stand to make a bundle, and that is what is most important concerning the way the internet is conducted. The rest of the world should be ashamed to begrudge the CEOs of the ISPs their extra millions of dollars in profit that they seem to need so desperately. Citations: Alexa.com. “History, 2004.” Alexa.com. 31 July, 2004. Alexa.com. 19 July, 2006. <http://www.alexa.com/site/company/history> Miller, Jason. “No Good Mail for Gmail.” WebProNews.com. 20 Apr., 2006. WebProNews.com. 19 July, 2006. <http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060420NoGoodmailForGmail.html#Google> Oates, John. “Vint Cerf Condemns Two-Tier Internet: ‘Dumb Idea is Dumb,’ says man.” TheRegister. 08 Feb. 2006. TheRegister. 25 June 2006. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/08/cerf_calls_for_neutral_net/> Olowski, Andrew. “How ‘Saving the Net’ May Kill It.” TheRegister. 17 July, 2006. TheRegister. 19 July, 2006. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/17/net_neut_slow_death/> PacketExchange.com. “Two Tier Internet Debate Confuses Service Delivery Issues with Inherent System Performance Limitations, Says PacketExchange.” PacketExchange.com. 15 Mar. 2006. PacketExchange.com. 19 July, 2006. <http://www.packetexchange.net/content/2006-03-15-1.htm> Tinning, William. “Internet Pioneer Warns of Two-Tier Web.” The Herald. 26 May, 2006. TechNewsWorld.com. 19 July, 2006. <http://www.technewsworld.com/story/50712.html> Webster, Noah. “Censorship.” The New Webster’s Concise Dictionary. Copyright 2003, Typhoon International Corp. The New Webster’s Concise Dictionary. 19 July, 2006. Weiss, Gina. “How to Protest AOL’s Two-Tier Internet.” NetMarketingForum.com. 14 Mar. 2006. NetMarketingForum.com. 19 July, 2006. ----------------------------------
Please feel free to leave a link with any comments you may have.
4月20日 Aol users need to switch to Gmail ...Here is an excerpt article i received in my email today. AOL users need to tell AOL to shove it. Use it to connect then move on! Show them what you think of their little GoodMail...
 No GoodMail for Gmail
Leaving AOL further out on a limb holding its Goodmail playbook, Google said it will not be instituting a payment system to ensure email delivery to Gmail users. The power of email filtering, said the company, should rest in the hands of its users. Editor's Note: Is it getting too hot for AOL? Is it time for them to scrap their Goodmail partnership? Or is true net-neutrality and open access a fantasy of the Internet socialist? Discuss in WebProWorld.  Until now, Google had been very quiet about AOL's controversial plan to implement Goodmail's CertifiedEmail system, one that would require approved bulk mailers to pay a small fee per email in order to ensure delivery to member inboxes. After Yahoo! made a separate announcement about the use of Goodmail, many had feared a domino effect in the industry that would cost bulk mailers millions of dollars per year. The fear that Google would follow suit stemmed largely from the presence of Google Vice President Jonathan Rosenberg on Goodmail's list of strategic advisors. But in a statement to WebProNews, Google Corporate Communications' Eileen Rodriguez said there were no plans to implement any such payment process. "Gmail does not accept payment to bypass its filters, nor are there plans to charge senders to reach Gmail users," said Rodriguez. Adam Green of MoveOn.org, one AOL's harshest critics, believes Gmail's announcement to be illustrative of email service providers (ESP) increasing reluctance to be lumped in with the AOL pay-to-send scheme. "AOL is increasingly looking like the black sheep of the industry as respected titans like Google distance themselves and state for the record that they will not follow AOL's lead into a world where the big guys can pay to bypass spam filters," said Green. "Today, Google set the dominoes in motion as AOL becomes a completely isolated and tainted actor in the industry."
Indeed it does appear that way, as even Yahoo! Postmaster Miles Libby has been very pointed in delineating the difference between AOL's and Yahoo!'s arrangement with Goodmail. Libby in DM News: "The first major difference is that we are designating it for transactional e-mails only. This avoids a lot of the, 'All e-mails need to be spam' kind of concerns." Rodriguez gave the impression that Gmail's current spam detection system was an adequate defense for its users. "Gmail has a superior spam detection system that gives users ultimate control over the messages that are filtered into their spam folders," she said. The concept that inboxes should be more user-controlled as a part of larger net-neutrality argument is echoed by David Hughes, chief executive officer of Reflexion Network Solutions, a Massachusetts-based anti-spam solutions provider. "I'm glad to hear them say that (referring to giving users ultimate control)," he said. "Email is a very personal thing. (AOL) should have understood this very personal, democratic, egalitarian aspect. And I think that's where they blew it. Power should be in the hands of users." But proponents of the proposed Goodmail implementation call the free and open access philosophy (to which Google seems to ascribe) naïve. Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0 for CNet Networks thinks a world without Goodmail is unrealistic: "It's idealistic and unrealistic in a world where there are bad people; you need to spend money to protect yourself. At the moment, the costs have to be borne by the recipient. Really you want to charge through third parties [such as Goodmail] who can work together with ISP," said Dyson. "People who are anti-Goodmail say, 'Let's have an intelligent design for anti-spam systems'," she says. "I believe in evolution: there will be a lot of different attempts, and some will work and some won't, and the best will thrive." Read the Full Article
4月6日 Take a friggin break and turn on the radio...Long time no postie...
March was a long month and I, for one, am certainly glad it's over.
It's starting to warm up in Indiana--FINALLY--and everyone thinks I need to be doing something other than sitting here working. Today not much work has gotten done at all, at least not online anyway.
Today started with errand running and bill paying, then homeschooling mixed with household chores. Then low and behold, right after I checked on my sites something strange happened. I remembered I have a fondness for music.
How about that?
Constantly using music trivia in one of my programs yet have
so much going on in the office, I don't want to take up precious
CPUs running music as well. All plug-ins are full with the necessary plug-ends, no room for a stereo in here anyway.
Got 4 speakers & a woofer hooked up to this thing and I can't
take time to hear some tunes--plus my stepson is trying to work in here as well, although he swears he learns better while jamming....
Anyway, the only sounds I hear while working are the audio that
goes with certain websites. The ones with music are becoming a fondness of mine.
Doing a lot of thinking about music today...different kinds of music, certain lyrics, my favorite drum riffs in certain songs, the stereotyping and contradictions of society's "norms" and actions...just a lot about music.
Remember when we were little kids and those boys committed suicide while listening to Judas Priest? Not a big Judas Priest fan myself, but my folks listened to it then and I am sure they still enjoy it now. Guess what? They never attempted suicide.
Imagine that.
You know how society has given the gays hell for years? Trying to keep talented people out of sports, military and who knows what else based on their orientation and all that while all the while "We Will Rock You (We are the Champions)" is every bit
as popular as our National Anthem from Pro to Junior High sporting events all across the U.S. and has been ever since I can
remember. What sense does that make?
Music has been and always will be controversial.
If you aren't used to it yet, get used to it. Like it or not, it's here
to stay. Like rap? Too bad. Here to stay. Like rock? Tough noogies. Been here longer than I have and kids are still rockin
to Black Sabbath. Like country? Get over it! It's the only thing comin' in on the car radio on a rainy day. I could go on all day
about these things.
Eminem is an enormous controversy.
Vulgar? Um, yeah. Goes without saying.
Should he be banned from radio airwaves? Um, yeah. Radio cannot be parentally blocked as, cable, satellite and internet.
Should parents be paying attention to what their kids listen to
even though it could possibly bring on a migraine? Um, YEAH!
Should Marshall aka Slim Shady be censored?
Um, NO! Why? Because it's our right in this country to love it, hate it or be indifferent to it. Because the responsibility lies on
parents individually not society as a whole. Because, like it or not, even the crudest and rudest have the same inalienable right to free speech. Take away that right for one and lose it for all.
Tobey Keith won't be puttin a boot in anybody's ass if that happens. That is one right we should all be fighting to keep, putting personal opinions aside.
Is there a point to all this?
Not really, just getting some thoughts down and putting in a more recent entry. I left a lot open up there to be stomped on
or agreed with. Don't forget to leave your link of choice with your comment. Feel free to add the RSS feed to your own pages
for more content.
What?! You don't have a site?! Get one now!! click me 3月7日 The Rise and Rise of Article PR...The Rise and Rise of Article PR: What are the Implications?
By Glenn Murray | SEO Copywriter & Article PR Specialist *
Already a very popular method of achieving a high search engine ranking, article PR (aka article submission) has now entered the mainstream. As such, its popularity is increasing at a dramatic rate. While this is great for SEO copywriters like myself, there are some side-effects that need to be addressed if article PR is going to remain a viable search engine ranking technique. This article discusses some of those side-effects, along with how they might be addressed.
But First, a Little on Article PR Article PR is the process of writing 'frëe reprint articles' and submitting them to the 250+ established article submission sites on the Internet. An article submission site is simply a repository of frëe reprint articles - a place where authors can submit their articles frëe of charge, and where webmasters can find articles to use on their websites frëe of charge. In return for frëe use of your article, the webmaster includes your author bio and its links to your site. Every time your article is published, you get another link to your site and a boost to your ranking. If the quality of your article is high, it can be published hundreds of times. The Rise And Rise of Article PR Because article PR is such an effective way of generating a high search engine ranking, it has now entered the mainstream. As an SEO copywriter, I get several requests each week for quotes to write articles. These requests come almost exclusively from business owners and marketing managers who know little (if anything) about SEO. They obviously didn't go looking for article PR; article PR found them... As a result of its newfound mainstream popularity, the number of articles being written and submitted has increased by between 100% - 600% in the past year! Christopher Knight, owner of the biggest article submission site, EzineArticles, tells me that the number of article submissions to his site increased by a staggering 600% from 2004 to 2005. In 2004, EzineArticles was averaging only 1416 article submissions per month. In 2005, it was averaging 8482 article submissions per month! Similarly, at the end of 2005, when I spoke with Mel Strocen, owner of GoArticles, he reported a doubling of article submissions in the second half of the year. "In the last 6 months article submissions have increased by 100%, going from about 1,000 submissions per week to 2,000+ per week," he said.
Jason Lynch, owner of ArticleBlast, reported similar increases; between April '05 and January '06, submissions to ArticleBlast increased by over 300%. The web traffïc to these sites tells the same story. According to Alexa statistics, at the end of 2004, EzineArticles had a reach of approx 100 users per million Internet users per day. Just over a year later, the site is reaching over ten times that many Internet users. (If we take the total number of Internet users worldwide to be 964 million, EzineArticles traffïc has increased from around 96,000 per day to over 1 million visitors per day.) Alexa stats for GoArticles report similar increases in traffïc. At the end of 2004, it had a reach of approx 50 users per million Internet users per day. Just over a year later, it's reaching approx 10 times that number of users. (Again assuming 964 million Internet users worldwide, GoArticles traffïc has increased from around 48,000 per day to around half a million visitors per day.) Figures for ArticleBlast are more difficult to ascertain as the site is younger and has lower overall traffïc. Even if Alexa's figures are a little inflated (as I think they tend to be), they still provide a consistent measure for the period. As such, the percentage increases should be relatively accurate. The Side-Effects of the Rise of Article PR A number of writers have voiced the fear that article PR will die through 'over-use', just as keyword stuffing and link farms died. But I don't agree. Why? Because article PR isn't just useful to authors and SEO copywriters. The success of article PR is based on the premise that our articles are also useful to READERS. So long as the majority of articles remain useful ( i.e. helpful, informative, and easy to read), readers will still want to read them, publishers will still want to publish them, and article PR will remain a viable link building method.
This is true no matter how many people are writing and publishing frëe reprint articles. Frequent use of a tool doesn't make the tool ineffective. (Just look at traditional forms of advertising - millïons of businesses engage in radio, print, and TV advertising, and those methods remain very effective. The fierce competition simply encourages advertisers to improve the quality of their ads in order to stand out.) No, in my opinion, there's no such thing as too many articles. However, there is such a thing as too many BAD articles. Readers want helpful, credible information; they don't want badly written articles or empty words ('article sp@m') which simply carry a link.
Just as importantly, webmasters don't want to spend hours trying to find the right article to publish. At the moment, there are literally hundreds of article submission sites out there. Most of them are generic, fully automated affairs that involve no human moderation. They don't distinguish between good writing and bad, they don't cull article sp@m, and they don't categorize their articles very well. As a result, publishers have to wade through a sea of poor quality to find a handful of useful articles. These issues are the real hurdles that need to be overcome if article PR is to survive. Overcoming the Problems The article submission sites will overcome the problems. Here's how... As mentioned above, readers aren't interested in bad articles or article sp@m. This means that, in the long run, there's no real value in publishing such articles (either for webmasters or article submission sites); readers will frequent the sites that publish useful articles and ignore those that don't. Likewise, publishers will frequent the article submission sites that post useful, easy-to-find articles and ignore those that don't. This means we'll see an increase in the number of human-moderated article submission sites. And once this happens, the article PR landscape will change forever:
1) Human moderated article submission sites will offer a higher percentage of quality articles, and those articles will be easier to find; All in all, it's a positive outlook for authors and publishers of quality articles. Happy writing, publishing, and posting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Check this out: BlogBlaster Resell at full price - Blast Unlimited Ads to 100 blogs at once unlimited times - Choose your own keywords 2月25日 Refreshing and Cleansing Radish SaladInspired by The Great American Detox Diet, by Alex Jamieson (Rodale Press, 2005).
This cookbook author’s filmmaker fiance (of Supersize Me fame) suffered terrible ill effects from eating fast food for a month, so she devised this and other recipes to detoxify his system and bring him back to fitness.
INGREDIENTS
2 cups peeled and thinly sliced daikon radishes 1. Combine daikon, apple, carrot, onion, and red radish in a large mixing bowl.
2. In a small mixing bowl, whisk together the orange juice, rice syrup, lime juice, and salt.
3. Pour the liquid over the vegetables and toss well to combine. Garnish with mint and cilantro, if desired, and serve.
Serves 4 to 6. ============================ *Feel free to leave recipes of your own if you like! Get tons more free at Coodoz.com-your everything site. |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
