Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Digest for rec.food.cooking@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: May 04 10:12AM +1000

On Wed, 3 May 2017 18:38:31 -0500, Sqwertz <swertz@cluemail.compost>
wrote:
 
>underscore character, leading the wrong page. Not my fault the ywo
>dimwits use defective news clients that can't handle a perfectly valid
>URL's.
 
Ok, you've said your piece. No go back to eating.
sanne <susanne.regerriedel@googlemail.com>: May 03 05:55PM -0700

Am Donnerstag, 4. Mai 2017 02:13:01 UTC+2 schrieb Bruce:
> >dimwits use defective news clients that can't handle a perfectly valid
> >URL's.
 
> Ok, you've said your piece. No go back to eating.
 
Just a hint:
If clicking an url doesn't work (it did here, but there are sites out there
where it doesn't): just cp it to a new browser tab or window.
 
Bye, Sanne.
dsi1 <dsi100@yahoo.com>: May 03 06:17PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 2:55:53 PM UTC-10, sanne wrote:
> If clicking an url doesn't work (it did here, but there are sites out there
> where it doesn't): just cp it to a new browser tab or window.
 
> Bye, Sanne.
 
The URL is your friend. Use it but don't abuse it. :)
Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: May 03 10:45PM -0400

On 5/3/2017 4:02 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
 
 
> Plated with baked potato and green beans/snap peas.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/sqwertz/34303197971/in/photostream/lightbox/
 
> -sw
 
Looks as good as a high priced prime rib.
Roy <wilagro@outlook.com>: May 03 08:07PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 8:45:15 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/sqwertz/34303197971/in/photostream/lightbox/
 
> > -sw
 
> Looks as good as a high priced prime rib.
 
32 friggin hours to cook a thick steak? Conventional oven roast in 3.5 or 4.5
hours at 275 or 300 degrees F. would probably work as well with moist heat.
Can't see most people wanting to fuss over sous vide stuff for long.
=====
Gary <g.majors@att.net>: May 03 06:54PM -0400

On 5/3/2017 6:15 PM, Nancy2 wrote:
 
> Like I said, a silly unrealistic portrayal. I don't know how they expect this to accurately
> portray the period and the slum-dwellers.
 
> N.
 
what?
"itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net" <itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net>: May 03 06:56PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:54:29 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
 
> what?
 
Nothing, go back to sleep.
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: May 04 08:57AM +1000

On Wed, 3 May 2017 15:45:03 -0700 (PDT), sanne
 
>> I can see I'm going to have to killfile the gmail domain again for a
>> while. <sigh>
 
>Bye then. :-(
 
What's the logic behind killfiling everybody who uses a gmail address?
What does that achieve?
sanne <susanne.regerriedel@googlemail.com>: May 03 04:20PM -0700

Am Donnerstag, 4. Mai 2017 00:57:57 UTC+2 schrieb Bruce:
 
> >Bye then. :-(
 
> What's the logic behind killfiling everybody who uses a gmail address?
> What does that achieve?
 
Nothing good.
I do have a googlemail address since they offered it to me in 2004 and
always (well, almost ;-)) try to post reasonable and helpful stuff.
Before, it was AOL and others that got killfiled a lot... Oh well.
 
Bye, Sanne.
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca>: May 03 07:30PM -0400

On 2017-05-03 7:20 PM, sanne wrote:
> always (well, almost ;-)) try to post reasonable and helpful stuff.
> Before, it was AOL and others that got killfiled a lot... Oh well.
 
> Bye, Sanne.
 
You can thank the multitude of trolls using gmail addresses for the
reasonable action of filtering it.
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: May 04 09:31AM +1000

On Wed, 3 May 2017 16:20:07 -0700 (PDT), sanne
>I do have a googlemail address since they offered it to me in 2004 and
>always (well, almost ;-)) try to post reasonable and helpful stuff.
>Before, it was AOL and others that got killfiled a lot... Oh well.
 
I try that too and I fail often, but that has nothing to do with my
email address.
sanne <susanne.regerriedel@googlemail.com>: May 03 04:57PM -0700

Am Donnerstag, 4. Mai 2017 01:30:05 UTC+2 schrieb Dave Smith:
 
> > Bye, Sanne.
 
> You can thank the multitude of trolls using gmail addresses for the
> reasonable action of filtering it.
 
As I tried to point out - you may lose interesting postings.
I don't filter anything - I've seen interesting and (friendly put) not so interesting posts from one and the same posters.
No one forces me to read the latter.
If I'd filter everyone whose posts I don't always agree with - what's left?
 
Bye, Sanne.
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: May 04 10:11AM +1000

On Wed, 3 May 2017 19:30:19 -0400, Dave Smith
 
>> Bye, Sanne.
 
>You can thank the multitude of trolls using gmail addresses for the
>reasonable action of filtering it.
 
If you want to filter trolls, you can try looking at the news server
they're using. I can fill in anything as my email address.
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca>: May 03 09:19PM -0400

On 2017-05-03 8:11 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> reasonable action of filtering it.
 
> If you want to filter trolls, you can try looking at the news server
> they're using. I can fill in anything as my email address.
 
That's true. The thing is that every once in a while there is a run of
trolling, and a lot of it comes from gmail.
jmcquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>: May 03 07:59PM -0400

On 4/30/2017 10:06 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> and sprinkling it with salt to eat out in the back yard with my
> friends.
> Janet US
 
When I was a kid, my great (great?) aunt (in Pennsylvania) had rhubarb
growing in her kitchen garden. She offered a stalk, freshly picked,
washed and sprinkled with salt to us to taste.
 
To me, it looked too much like reddish-purple celery. I already knew I
did not like raw celery. I politely declined. (My brother tried it and
loved it.) At any rate, first impressions linger. I did not taste the
raw rhubarb. (My brother loved it.)
 
I have still never tasted rhubarb. And since I don't make pies and
don't like raw vegetables, I don't see any reason to ever taste it. I
don't think I'm depriving myself of anything special.
 
In any post about rhubarb, however, it seems as if lots of sugar and
often strawberries are involved. Pies. If rhubarb needs all that
stuff, is it really all that great? I'll never find out. YMMV. :)
 
Jill
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca>: May 03 09:17PM -0400

On 2017-05-03 7:59 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> did not like raw celery. I politely declined. (My brother tried it and
> loved it.) At any rate, first impressions linger. I did not taste the
> raw rhubarb. (My brother loved it.)
 
 
When I was a kid my parents had rhubarb plants in the garden and we used
to munch on it straight out of the garden.... no sugar.
 
> I have still never tasted rhubarb. And since I don't make pies and
> don't like raw vegetables, I don't see any reason to ever taste it. I
> don't think I'm depriving myself of anything special.
 
You will never know.
 
 
> In any post about rhubarb, however, it seems as if lots of sugar and
> often strawberries are involved. Pies. If rhubarb needs all that
> stuff, is it really all that great? I'll never find out. YMMV. :)
 
 
There is no more sugar in any other fruit pie than there is in rhubarb
pie. You need the sugar and starch to make the filling set. Rhubarb
maintains that tart quality that makes it so good.... for those who like
it.
dsi1 <dsi100@yahoo.com>: May 03 06:03PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 10:23:02 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
 
> Hmm well you be careful!!
 
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
 
I shall stay away from tainted food like Superman avoids kryptonite. :)
dsi1 <dsi100@yahoo.com>: May 03 06:11PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-10, sanne wrote:
 
> Like a certain someone in the movie "The Recipe"...
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1773083/
 
> Bye, Sanne.
 
I saw that movie and liked it. I'm not proud of that - it's kind of a sentimental chick flick. It created a mythology around a recipe. I like films like that.
Sqwertz <swertz@cluemail.compost>: May 03 06:38PM -0500

On Wed, 3 May 2017 15:48:53 -0700 (PDT), sanne wrote:
 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway
 
> Not here; in my browser (or why ever), the link further up goes to the
> restaurant-article only.
 
Thanks for the confirmation of what should be obvious. I suspect the
Forte Agent news client erroneously truncates the URL starting at the
underscore character, leading the wrong page. Not my fault the ywo
dimwits use defective news clients that can't handle a perfectly valid
URL's.
 
Try cutting pasting the URL manually before you make asses out of
yourselves again. It should have been painfully obvious to a 2nd
grader that the link, which has "Restaurant" in the URL, points to a
Wiki article about a *restaurant* <rolling eyes>.
 
ObFood: 'Nduja anyone?
 
-sw
Sqwertz <swertz@cluemail.compost>: May 03 07:44PM -0500

On Wed, 3 May 2017 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT), RichD wrote:
 
> What's a wine to pair with artichokes?
> Usually I steam them, whole, with aioli or melted butter dip.
 
> I figure there must be a few winos in this group -
 
How about a nice pear/apple wine such as Thunderbird?
 
-sw
Wayne Boatwright <wayneboatwright@xgmail.com>: May 03 11:27PM

On Wed 03 May 2017 11:29:00a, Janet told us...
 
 
> https://www.manualslib.com/manual/657213/Zanussi-Zl-55.html?page
> =17
 
> Janet UK
 
As does mine. The installers also took care of that for me, as th
range is also anchored to the floor.
 
--
 
~~ If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it. ~~
 
~~ A mind is a terrible thing to lose. ~~
 
**********************************************************
 
Wayne Boatwright
Thomas <canopeily@yahoo.com>: May 03 05:15PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 6:09:31 PM UTC-4, Nancy2 wrote:
> Janet, mine, too...I suspect the OP's floor may have settled a bit and it has made liquids
> slightly off. Or the levelers weren't adjusted properly to begin with.
 
> N.
 
Nope. I levelled it myself and like that bit of off. I just wondered if i was alone. I totally understand the bakers. I pretty much do not bake.
Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net>: May 03 04:59PM -0700

In article <8f46fb84-34e9-4e79-94c4-ed6d767390da@googlegroups.com>,
> to teach it dirty words, so you'd be just innocently shopping around the
> store when all of a sudden you'd be assaulted with screeching loud
> obscenities. Good old days, I wonder whatever happened to that old bird.
 
If it was a parrot, it could easily still be around swearing at a new
generation of kids. Some species of parrots live a long, long time.
 
leo
Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net>: May 03 04:47PM -0700

In article <PUbOA.27103$kW6.24309@fx21.iad>, Ed Pawlowski
> thought beef. Surprise! In the United States, we tend to consume chicken
> as our white meat of choice and beef as our red meat, but 63 percent of
> the world's population eats goat meat.
 
The best red meat I ever ate was goat. I had it one time at a soiree in
a little town in Nevada. It was cooked under dirt along with a side of
beef and a pig. There might have been a lamb there too. The goat was
hands-down the winner for taste, and all the different meats were
cooked to perfection.
I haven't had the opportunity to eat goat since. They don't sell it in
the supermarkets I frequent.
If offered a choice of cooking methods for a goat dinner, I'd prefer
underground goat.
 
leo
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: May 04 08:56AM +1000


>> I figure there must be a few winos in this group -
 
>That's my take on it all. Can you not just enjoy an artichoke on it's
>own. Need to have wine with it? I just don't get it.
 
You're the exception, not the rule, mate.
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)