Saturday, May 25, 2019

Digest for rec.food.cooking@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 6 topics

ZZyXX <zzyxx@CampSoda-Restoration-Project.tv>: May 25 12:31PM -0700

On 5/24/19 12:30 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
 
> I am SERIOUS about this! Greta Thunberg would be proud of me!!
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjsLm5PCdVQ
 
> John Kuthe, Climate Anarchist and Doing Better All The Time!
 
it's amazing how willing you are to ignore solar electric, heat, and
water but would rather to continue to support the capitalistic companies
you hate
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: May 25 12:42PM -0700

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 3:30:34 PM UTC-4, John Kuthe wrote:
> I went to Home Depot earlier today and bought a 80 Gal ELECTRIC Westinghouse LIFETIME WARRANTY water heater!!
 
Home Depot? Why didn't you go to a local retailer? HD is a big, capitalistic
corporation.
 
Cindy Hamilton
Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: May 25 02:42PM -0400

On 5/25/2019 2:27 PM, dsi1 wrote:
 
> People - especially Americans, do get emotionally invested in cars. The good news is that with the advent of electric, self-driving, cars, car culture will become as popular/relevant/trendy as butterfly collecting. Cars will no longer be cultural icons. They will be as iconic as a toaster or refrigerator. It will be a golden age for people that don't care about cars.
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xcbYz55oMY
 
You may be right. Kids today would rather have the newest phone instead
of learning to drive. You don't see modified cars like when we were
teenagers either.
GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: May 25 12:01PM -0700

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
 
 
> You may be right. Kids today would rather have the newest phone instead
> of learning to drive. You don't see modified cars like when we were
> teenagers either.
 
 
We are of an age (the Boomers) when cars were interesting when we grew up...by the time I was 10 in 1963, I could spot just about every post c. 1953 car I saw..."that's a '56 Olds...a '58 Plymouth...a '62 Impala..." Every fall when new car time came around it was like a combo of Christmas and July 4th, a very big deal...I still cherish those memories of sneaking around behind the Ford or Plymouth or Chevy dealership to get a "forbidden" peak of the new forthcoming 1965 or whatever models. When the new Plymouth Barracuda - or "Baccaruda" as we called it - debuted in early '64 I almost wet my pants with excitement when our local rural dealer got one in...I still have a large collection of sales and dealer literature from those daze, still in mint condition (now all that is online)...
 
Three HUGE things happened in early 1964 that changed our culture forever: the Beatles appearing on Ed Sullivan in February, the April debut of the Mustang, and the introduction of the mini - skirt. Those three events started the new "youth culture" and swept away the old cultural norms...I remember all that like it happened just yesterday...
 
Cars today interest me not, they all look like boring beige appliances, can't tell one from another, except maybe the Dodge Challenger, which harks back to the original model...
 
--
Best
Greg
dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: May 25 12:11PM -0700

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 8:42:24 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
 
> You may be right. Kids today would rather have the newest phone instead
> of learning to drive. You don't see modified cars like when we were
> teenagers either.
 
A civilization built around the cell phone - who saw that coming. Nobody. :)
 
I used to have a 74 Mercury Capri - the Sexy European. Ha ha. That thing had nerf bars in the front, was lowered, and the suspension stiffened. The suspension was so stiff you could feel the car moving side-wards on rough roads. It was a real bomb alright. The exhaust system was a bit loud but when you're 20, you're totally clueless as to how loud your car is to other folks.
"itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net" <itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net>: May 25 12:14PM -0700

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 2:01:06 PM UTC-5, GM wrote:
 
> We are of an age (the Boomers) when cars were interesting when we grew up...by the time I was 10 in 1963, I could spot just about every post c. 1953 car I saw..."that's a '56 Olds...a '58 Plymouth...a '62 Impala..." Every fall when new car time came around it was like a combo of Christmas and July 4th, a very big deal.
 
I can remember when the new cars were introduced each year and it was with lots
of fanfare and great anticipation. I, too, could spot many cars and the years
they were made. Not now!
 
..I still cherish those memories of sneaking around behind the Ford or Plymouth or Chevy dealership to get a "forbidden" peak of the new forthcoming 1965 or whatever models. When the new Plymouth Barracuda - or "Baccaruda" as we called it - debuted in early '64 I almost wet my pants with excitement when our local rural dealer got one in...I still have a large collection of sales and dealer literature from those daze, still in mint condition (now all that is online)...
 
> Cars today interest me not, they all look like boring beige appliances, can't tell one from another, except maybe the Dodge Challenger, which harks back to the original model...
 
> Greg
 
Most all the new cars and recent years as well, really don't interest me.
Because of no real marketing or fanfare? Probably. And probably because
most of them look quite similar, no real body distinction.
dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: May 25 12:21PM -0700

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 9:01:06 AM UTC-10, GM wrote:
 
> --
> Best
> Greg
 
My mom had a 70 Barracuda. I had a 67. She had a 318. I had a 273. My friend gave me a ride in his Hellcat. The cold, plasticky, interior reminded me of my mom's car. The amazing thing was that it drove like a regular car. He didn't show off the car's real capabilities - that's fine with me. :)
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: May 25 12:31PM -0700

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > teenagers either.
 
> A civilization built around the cell phone - who saw that coming. Nobody. :)
 
> I used to have a 74 Mercury Capri - the Sexy European. Ha ha. That thing had nerf bars in the front, was lowered, and the suspension stiffened. The suspension was so stiff you could feel the car moving side-wards on rough roads. It was a real bomb alright. The exhaust system was a bit loud but when you're 20, you're totally clueless as to how loud your car is to other folks.
 
The first car I had that wasn't a hand-me-down from my grandparents was
a Chevette.
 
Then:
Honda Civic Hatchback
Geo Prizm (Toyota Corolla clone)
Toyota Matrix
Honda CRV (hand-me-down from my husband)
Toyota Highlander (ditto)
 
I liked the Prizm the least. It had a trunk. I hated lifting stuff
out of the trunk. Much easier to slide things out of the hatchbacks
or SUVs.
 
Cindy Hamilton
GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: May 25 12:37PM -0700

dsi1 wrote:
 
> > Best
> > Greg
 
> My mom had a 70 Barracuda. I had a 67. She had a 318. I had a 273. My friend gave me a ride in his Hellcat. The cold, plasticky, interior reminded me of my mom's car. The amazing thing was that it drove like a regular car. He didn't show off the car's real capabilities - that's fine with me. :)
 
 
Shoulda kept that '70 Cuda, one recently sold for $1.98 million (your mom's was not equipped as below, but still...):
 
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2019/05/21/what-price-exclusivity-in-indianapolis-1-98-million-for-a-70-hemi-cuda-convertible/
 
When the top goes down...
1970 Plymouth Hemi Cuda convertible. Photos courtesy Mecum Auctions.
 
"For the 1970 model year, Plymouth only built 14 'Cuda convertibles with the 426-cu.in. Hemi V-8 engine. Of these, nine came bolted to the 727 TorqueFlite automatic transmission, making this a rare – and hence desirable – example of Mopar E-body muscle. Last weekend in Indiana, a High Impact Lemon Twist yellow 1970 Hemi 'Cuda convertible sold for a fee-inclusive $1.98 million, landing it a spot in the top-10 at Mecum's Indianapolis sale.
 
Adding to this 'Cuda's rarity is its history as a Canadian car, one of three 1970 Hemi 'Cuda convertibles delivered north of the border. Reportedly, one was later destroyed, while the two remaining examples were both finished in the bright yellow hue seen here. As delivered, this example came equipped with a tan interior and black top, but it was the option under the Shaker hood that mattered most.
 
Fed by a pair of Carter four-barrel carburetors, the 426 Street Hemi was rated at 425 horsepower and 490-lb.ft. of torque. When Motor Trend tested a 1970 Hemi 'Cuda coupe in May 1970, it ran from 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, on the way to a quarter-mile time of 14.0 seconds at 102 mph. With the right tires, the car would have been faster, but getting the torque to the ground through the stock E60x15 Goodyear Polyglas GT tires proved… challenging. A convertible example would have delivered slightly higher times, with the same limitations implied in the quarter-mile.
 
The example sold in Indianapolis last Friday came with a known and documented ownership history back to 1970, and benefitted from a concours-quality restoration that included assembly line production markings and tags. The body was reportedly stripped to bare metal before refinishing, while original components were refurbished where possible. No claims were made regarding the originality of the drivetrain, but its likely safe to assume a restoration of this caliber would include date-correct components.
 
1970 Plymouth Hemi Cuda 1970 Plymouth Hemi Cuda 1970 Plymouth Hemi Cuda 1970 Plymouth Hemi Cuda
 
The fee-inclusive selling price was good enough to leave the Hemi 'Cuda convertible tied for third in the sale's top-10, but fell short of the record price of $3.5 million set by four-speed '71 Hemi 'Cuda convertible in June 2014. In the case of that car, just two examples were built with a drop-top, a four-speed transmission and the 426-cu.in. Hemi V-8, proving that exclusivity will always command top dollar when it comes to Mopar muscle..."
 
</>
Jinx the Minx <jinxminx2@yahoo.com>: May 25 07:17PM


> I did toy with the idea for a while of buying just an air fryer but was pretty
> much assured the convection oven I have would do the same thing as an air
> fryer.
 
I have one, and as much as some people love them, I say you're not missing
out. It can't do anything I can't do just fine with my regular stove and
oven.
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com>: May 25 12:15PM -0700


> Me, too. To me, the crust is there just to hold all those toppings together so
> I can shove them in my mouth without stuff falling everywhere.
 
For me, a good crust is vital. Not too thin; not too thick. The toppings
and the crust must be in balance.
 
Cindy Hamilton
Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: May 25 01:07PM -0400

On 5/25/2019 11:59 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> different time for sure.
 
> That's nice, Ed!  Except I didn't post anything about Sheryl.
 
> Jill
 
Didn't notice as it was not the typical counterfeit post attributed to you.
"itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net" <itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net>: May 25 11:39AM -0700

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 1:25:12 PM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
> sometimes none are post worthy then I'll delete. I always keep my
> camera nearby for the critters and for when the light is right
> outside.
 
I don't keep my camera nearby nor do I keep the batteries in it when not in
used. Snapping pictures of food or animals is just not on my bucket list.
> on methods, everyone will cook the same food differently. And some
> will cook an interesting sounding dish but iunfortunately they ruin it
> with lousy photography and awful plating (Sir Ukelele).
 
Although I enjoy looking at others pictures, it's just not something I feel
compelled to do. Whether to share or have my efforts mauled, I'm just not
a camera person.
> most everyone with a cell phone has a camera handy... and modern cell
> phones have excellent cameras, and these days ordinary digicams are
> dirt cheap, no film or processing needed,
 
Yep, I have a cell phone but it stays off for perhaps a few times per month.
My cell phone is for emergencies only and not as an entertainment venue for
anyone. I was just at a site a few minutes ago and to be able to access it,
the turds had to send me code by text. I have to go get my phone, turn it
on, wait for it power up, unlock the screen, and THEN see the code they
sent.
 
I did say I was not a camera person and I'm not phone, cell or landline,
person either. I just don't get this fascination at looking at everybody's
food; it's like all dogs have to smell each others butts before they're
accepted.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.food.cooking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment