"kag" writes:

> wrote:
>> PENMART01 wrote:
>> Sure, most any *commercial* stand mixer will be better
>> than a KA, but very few consumer makes.
>>
>> Sheldon has some sort of grudge against KA. Not clear
>> what or why, but he rarely misses an opportunity to
>> complain about them.
>>
>> Bill Ranck
>> Blacksburg, Va.
>
>thanks bill-i didnt realize sheldon had a KA grudge

CONSIDER THAT <RANCKtheCRANK> HAS A GRUDGE AGAINST ME.

>but his point about
>really needing a stand mixer makes some sense to me-i honestly dont know if
>i will use it enough to justify the $
>
>i have a KA hand mixer and it does great - 5yrs old

I also have a KA hand mixer, performs flawlessly... I have no personal vendetta
against KA... I also have the KA blender, even bought one for my brother last
X-Mas gift, an excellent machine. But I suppose a tangerine hued retro look
5qt stand mixer looks great on the kitchen counter if one is obsessed with
fantisizing that they are a professonal baker.

>if i do buy one i will still consider and prob buy KA

Kenwood is in the same class, is a better designed machine engineering wise,
and gives more bang for the buck both in power and function, costs less... it's
attachments are also far superiour. KA is popular in the US due to it's
unwavering retro design... but again, unless one is somehow physically impaired
no one needs a teensy two loaf sized stand mixer. I'd also be wary concerning
any motorized machine that touts its performance in watts.. a wattage rating
indicates power *consumed*, NOT power produced.

http://www.kenwood.co.uk/clever/kframes.htm


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."