"ms_peacock" > wrote in message
...

>
> "Sloppy Joes" also conjures up a specific thing in my mind. Just because
> you've never heard of a decades old recipe doesn't mean it's not the same
> thing.

It's not the same thing as what?

It's certainly not the same thing as what's in my mind; I can't say what's
in yours. If you like your version, that's fine; it's just not what I think
of when I think of sloppy joes.

Whether a recipe is decades old has nothing to do with it. Your recipe is
decades old, so it mine. They're different. In my world, Sloppy Joes have
been pretty much the same as prepared by my mother, by the school I went to,
by friends' parents, and now by me. Some subtle changes, but nothing to get
excited about. It's a basic comfort food from when I was a kid, and when I
think of sloppy joes, that's what I think of.

>
> Neither does Campbell's Chicken gumbo soup. It has little tiny pieces of
> chicken, rice, an occasional small chunk of okra in a faintly tomatoey
> base.

And none of those would be familiar in the sloppy joes that I make. It might
taste fine, it's just not what I think of as sloppy joes.

>
>> Call it a Cajun Gumbo Joe and I might be a little less frightened when I
>> find the okra.
>
> You will not find the okra when you make Sloppy Joes with gumbo soup

Very true, because I will not make sloppy joes with gumbo soup. And okra
belongs in gumbo, as far as I'm concerned, which is why I'll make my own
gumbo, rather than buy Campbell's in a can.

> Betty Crocker Sloppy Joes made with gumbo soup *is* sloppy joes. It is
> not radically different.

It's radically different from what I would expect. If it's what you expect,
that's fine, too. I suppose I'll find out if I like it or not if it's served
this weekend.

Donna