Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> aem wrote:
>
>> On Mar 14, 4:30�pm, Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>>
>>> Its not so much that im surprised or amazed that anyone would try to
>>> suggest that not only what i write but where i write is in any way
>>> inappropriate �as much as i am curious as to why it should matter so
>>> much to you "Melba" that you could not only interpret my comments
>>> as in any way inappropriately placed but that you felt the need to
>>> express such a thought publicly, as i read it, as a criticism of my
>>> description of a dish with similar ingredients and baked rather
>>> than fried?
>>
>>
>> Are you really this dense, not to mention pompous?
>
> You hadn't noticed?
>
>> All she is gently
>> and humorously suggesting is that the dishes you and the other poster
>> describe might be good and tasty but they don't meet the ordinary
>> definition of "hash". Like many other dishes, this one is defined
>> not just by its ingredients but by its mode of cooking.
>
> Yeah but the mere fact of doing that seems a bit odd to me. Like what
> does it matter that i was tweaking the subject, changing its flow
> somewhat? its a very tasty dish and there have been several threads on
> it here comparing the French "a la boulangiere" and the Italian
> "Tuscano" versions of potato wrapped meat dishes.
>
> Were talking meat and potatoes here, and other than when talking to
> Royalty, changing the subject in a conversation is usually
> acceptable, especially when any change is just a variation on a theme.
>
> So you can see why i was a bit confused by an accusation of being
> inappropriate.
>>
Should have been a separate subject, JL. You know this, we all know this.
This isn't "thread drift", your suggested recipe is a totally different
animal (lamb, even!). And not lamb hash.

Jill