"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "pavane" > wrote:
>
>> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> | In article >,
>> | "cybercat" > wrote:
>> |
>> | > http://www.foodclassics.com/re3487/recipes.php
>> | >
>> | > Google "embrochette recipes." There are plenty more.
>> |
>> | That doesn't make it right.
>> |
>> | > Here's to following Goomba's petty, anal lead.
>> |
>> | I think it's wrong. Google "en brochette recipes" and you'll get
>> | 652,000 hits. "Embrochette recipes" gets 16,800.
>>
>> That is interesting. So given that major restaurants, websites, name
>> chefs and the cooking traditions of arguably the best food city in
>> the country recognize "embrochette" as a valid term, please tell us
>> how many hits are necessary, in your opinion, to have it acceptable
>> to you? Not 16,800, obviously. Maybe 25,000? Or 50,000? And why
>> would anyone else care, given so many hits and such obvious acceptance?
>> Is there any reason that anyone should give a damn?
>
> Yeah. Maybe if they can't spell, they can't cook either? Not always
> true, but when I don't spell it correctly, and I get 16,800 hits, I'm
> suspicious. Then I look at the recipes. Many are just garbage.
>
> There's a recent poster on this group who boasts about how many recipes
> he has. He posts them sometimes. He hasn't tried them. Some don't
> look too good.
>
> Perhaps "embrochette" is a real deal, in a limited way, in some limited
> locale. But cybercat doesn't have a good reputation on this group for
> having good information about food. I'm not even going to check it out.
>

Well now that was just mean. But then, you are a half-witted old ****head
with serious arterial flow problems, so I'll let you live out your miserable
little greasy life.