JimLane wrote:
> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>>>
>>>> JimLane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling.
>>>>> Why did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras?
>>>>
>>>> It's the finished products that we were comparing.

And this should have been the end of JimLane's "brilliance." But did
he say, "Oh, I understand"? No, he didn't.

>>>> But years of
>>>> critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a
>>>> fruitless search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any
>>>> difference from experience.
>>>>
>>>> But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a
>>>> teaspoon of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in
>>>> the 9-inch cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with
>>>> spoons will make an error within that range while trying hard to be
>>>> accurate. And given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough"
>>>> category, it's hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't
>>>> fall invisibly in the cracks.
>>>>
>>>> The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It
>>>> simply disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling
>>>> and glaze. That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole
>>>> cake is way more subtle than anybody I know can pick up.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, I see only your opinion.

And then Poor JimLane posts that he only sees my opinion. Whose
opinion was I supposed to post? Or was I supposed to post a lengthy
dissertation detailing a study restricting all the variables to suit
poor JimLane and proceeding like an earnest grad student trying to get
published? Who knows, since JimLane didn't really add anything to the
discussion except some shallow bitching.

>> I'm desperately sorry I didn't convene a focus group to satisfy your
>> urgent need for FACTS to demonstrate that 0.45 grams of salt is a tiny
>> bit. And that a tiny bit of salt in more than a pound of other
>> ingredients wouldn't make a difference. I'm desolated that you haven't
>> had your yearnings for absolute 10-decimal-place accuracy satisfied.
>>
>> Here's a blast for you: kitchen measurements are *never* exact,
>> particularly volumetric ones. The equipment we work with in normal
>> kitchens isn't designed to be lab-accurate. Teaspoons and tablespoons
>> of powders, leveled or not, will be off the exact measure by up to 10%
>> depending on compaction. A tablespoon of salt of one size crystal
>> won't hold the same weight of salt of a different crystal size.
>> Recipes are written and tested by professionals with that
>> understanding in mind. Every effort is made to write them to
>> relatively exact measure, but cooking is a resilient science and
>> forgives minor departures. A bit more or less of most ingredients
>> won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks
>> by the handful and it still works.
>>
>> In this case, the "bit more" is of such a small absolute quantity that
>> it's irrelevant and below any threshold of taste.
>>
>>> Not a fact anywhere in sight.

And poor JimLane now demonstrates that he doesn't really know what a
fact is. So I explain. Does he get it? No, he doesn't.

>> Well, the measurements are factual because I did them and recorded
>> them for anyone who would wish to check. I mentioned that a dozen
>> people couldn't see any difference. Silly me, I assumed that you could
>> read some words on a screen and actually understand them. since I've
>> tested saline solutions, by taste, in researching brine strengths,
>> I've sampled concentrations down to 1 gram in a gallon of water
>> (couldn't taste salt) and up to 300 grams per gallon and had others
>> test them for subjective analyses for articles I wrote on brining and
>> for my radio program. And that's why I wrote above: "But years of
>> critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless
>> search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference
>> from experience." How would you have liked the "facts" to have been
>> determined and expressed? How many witnesses would it take for you to
>> accept the results? Just any witnesses or should they be somehow
>> qualified?
>>
>>> You are
>>> assuming that because you MIGHT not be able to taste it in the bare
>>> cake, then no one else would either. That is arrogance. And stupidity.

And now he tells me what I think. Do JimLane's wonderful analyses ever
end? We don't know, but they haven't stopped yet, apparently.

>> What's arrogant and stupid is your insistence that I do *my*
>> experiment *your* way. Perhaps you failed to note in my earlier post
>> that a dozen people tasted the cakes and were asked about any
>> differences perceived. Most of them tasted snippets of plain cake
>> after hearing the question from my daughter. Nobody tasted anything
>> different between the cakes. Period. My 12-year-old showed better
>> comprehension of what was happening than you do. We weren't trying for
>> a Nobel prize, just an informal discussion around a diner table.
>>
>> I'm assuming that since I've actually tested saline concentrations
>> from virtually nothing to very salty, I know where it begins to taste
>> different. And this ain't it.
>>
>> See, Jim, I've been a foodservice professional since the 70's. Studied
>> in Europe and traveled the world rather widely. I've operated all
>> sorts of restaurants. I'm a professional recipe developer and a
>> consultant for designing commercial products, some of which are in
>> stores around the country. All formulated to extremely exact
>> measurements with very exact processing and handling to meet FDA
>> standards and commercial requirements.
>>
>> I realize you didn't know this, but it doesn't much minimize the
>> silliness of your shitheaded note. The facts you crave include numbers
>> I provided that you seem unable to grasp or are too unskilled to
>> extrapolate from. I gave you a specific recipe to consider and assumed
>> that you could understand the significance of the facts of it. Could
>> grasp the orders of magnitude involved. Apparently not.
>>
>> Your note disqualifies you from discussions where the actual product
>> isn't in front of you. Either you utterly lack the imagination to
>> extrapolate a finished result from a recipe or you lack the kitchen
>> competence to appreciate the very small, real-world amounts we've been
>> dealing with in this question. Either way, you're over your head.
>>
>> I also notice that you didn't go test it to see if I was wrong. Just
>> be a spectator and fling the contents of your head out onto the field.
>> Go taste salt in a pint of water with 1/2 cup sugar in it. Start with
>> 0.45 grams, 1/12 of a teaspoon, and see if you can taste it. Work your
>> way up to maybe 15 grams and see. Don't have a scale that accurate?
>> Ok, borrow mine.
>>
>> And you can save your lame judgments for others who aren't light years
>> ahead of you. I'd guess that it would be a small crowd.
>>
>> Pastorio
>>
> Here's a fact for you, being as you want to be a clown about this,

Poor, Poor JimLane. Posts nonsense and wonders why he gets smacked.
Ignores what's on the screen to make his own tiny points.

> even
> the salt called for in many recipes is too much for my taste and I
> regularly halve it. I know others who do the same for the same reason.

Yes, and...

You know, if you had said that up front... Nah. You'd still be a shithead.

The salient fact is that you've offered combat and not a single test
or idea of your own. Have you bothered to do the test I described
above to find your true threshold of salt perception? No? What a
surprise. You just want to bitch about something and this seems to be it.

Have anything to contribute or will you merely continue to whine about
the flaws in my methodology for a casual culinary experiment with a
curious 12-year-old? Will you continue to prattle on about yourself
and merely prattle?

> Now did you have something to put up factually, or not?

Like it says up top:
"The facts you crave include numbers I provided that you seem unable
to grasp or are too unskilled to extrapolate from. I gave you a
specific recipe to consider and assumed that you could understand the
significance of the facts of it."

Perhaps in your dimwitted state, you missed the questions I asked in
the post quoted. What "facts" are you looking for that weren't
included above? What "facts" will make any difference to you and your
personal conditions. What sorts of "facts" do you want?

Here are some "facts" for you. You don't read/understand very well.
You don't know much about the kitchen. You are whining about salt as
perceived by normal people when you're atypical (if you're to be
believed and I wonder) and the situation doesn't apply to your tastes.
Since it wasn't about you and since you haven't raised any significant
issues, why are you bothering to post *anything* about it?

> By the way, you are stuck in reverse (the "R" does not mean race on your
> Model T.

This is your idea of wit? Have you absolutely nothing to contribute?
Why did you even bother to chime in on this topic since you've
demonstrated utter ignorance about it?

By the way, indeed...

Pastorio