On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:04:59 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "pavane" > wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>| On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:40:45 -0500, brooklyn1 wrote:
>>|
>>| > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:11:51 -0500, "cybercat" >
>>| > wrote:
>
>>| >>plain eggs lightly, gets an 8-inch nonstick fry pan hot, puts in a
>>| >>tablespoon of butter, waits until it foams and dies down, then puts the
>>| >>2-3
>>| >>eggs in
>>| >
>>| > Hmm, an 8" pan is too small for a three egg omelet, unless they're
>>| > peewee sized. An omelet pan needs to be large enough so that when the
>>| > eggs are poured in they don't reach the pan sides... a three large egg
>>| > omelet needs a 10"-11" pan... actually an omelet turns out best when
>>| > cooked on a gridle.
>>| >
>>|
>>| in the navy, maybe.
>>|
>>| blake
>>
>> OMIGOD I missed the griddle comment. Un****inbelievable !!
>
> When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>
> BTW, I agree, an 8 inch pan is *way* too small for 3 large eggs. Maybe
> 2 medium.

i use a seven-inch revereware (stainless) for two-egg omelets and usually
get good results. but i use a lot of butter (one tablespoon).

your pal,
blake