Kate Connally wrote:
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> >
> > Kate Connally wrote:
> >
> > > Damsel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I was a kid, we got boxes of spaghetti that were about 4 inches
> > > square
> > > > on the ends, and around 3 feet long. The pasta inside was folded in
> > > half,
> > > > so you were talking strands at least 5-1/2 feet long. One or two
> > > were all
> > > > that a fork could hold.
> > >
> > > Good grief! How did you get them into the pot to
> > > cook them if they were that long? Even folded in half
> > > they'd be too big for any pot I've ever seen.
> >
> > Our local Italian deli sells them, one is even a thin tubular, hollow
> > spaghetti, not a cannelloni but a long tubular spaghetti. it also sells
> > regular solid spaghetti in those lengths that are meant to be broken up,
> > but can be cooked whole in a tall stock pot.
>
> Well, Damsel was talking about stuff that was over 2 feet
> long after folding in half. I've never seen a 2 1/2-3 foot
> high stock pot.

And you won't. Even with the French style stock pots that are equaly
wide as they are tall, a 2 1/2 foot tall pot would hold some 200
quarts, about 50 gallons... filled with water would weigh nearly 500
pounds, pot alone would weigh some 75 pounds. Who's going to lift
it... even the best commercial stove would likely collapse.

Sheldon