"jmcquown" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> 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.
>
I agree with Jill.
The dish you mentioned also has a Greek version, JL.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner