Bob/Pastorio:

Unlike you, I will not bother to list the degrees I have, as that is
irrelevant in this discussion. However I will state for the record
that your comment:

> most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina
> of psychobabble.

is interesting in light of the fact that in a career from which I am
now retired, I was responsible for providing counseling and therapy to
approximately 32,000 adult and minor patients, and for training a
number of UCLA adolescent psychiatrists in the treatment of severely
emotionally disturbed children.

There are two things I am impressed with in your post. 1.) You know
Lewis Carroll and, 2. ) you have actually taken the time to cut and
paste that into your message. I enjoyed that. I have a facsimile
of the original hand written version by Carroll. Very nice to read
rather than the machine printed versions.

You have tried very hard to introduce a "scientific" aspect into this
discussion that somehow morphs cooking into a hard science. (Note: I
am not dismissing Food or Cereal scientist here. There is quite a bit
of hard science in these fields.) That would be perfect ,if we were
in fact discussing a hard science. In my opinion, We are not
discussing a subject where exactitude of the same magnitude is
paramount. Exactitude domains include, among other things, computer
languages where a misplaced word, a comma, a period etc , makes code
useless, physics, either classical ,or quantum, where accuracy and
precision are paramount. The mathematical rigor necessary in these
cases are not to be toyed with, and indeed words mean specific things.
Chemistry is another science where there is little opportunity to
change terms at will. A double bond with specific pi-bond values is
just that, it is not another thing that is easier to remember.
Quantum Electro Dynamics, and the rigor necessary to discuss that is
well known, and words that make this subject more difficult, or
easier to understand need to be carefully chosen. I agree with you
that in these cases that " any old word will not do..." But I
reiterate, we are talking about a recipe here, and not a scientific
conundrum that more words will resolve. Additionally, taking things
out of context, as you do on most of your posts, only works for a
while. Sooner or later, your prose begins to contradict itself.
Re-read them, and you will see for yourself.

Obviously, I do not agree that your positions about food, and the
rigor you are trying to establish. You seem more interested in
flaunting your experience, degrees, opinions, and literary breadth
than in cognizant thought. You write well, and your erudition is
precise, but not very accurate, in my opinion. We who cook, whether
for personal or professional purposes, are not engineers, software or
otherwise, or chemists, or physicists, or microbiologists, or
frankly anything like this. That may bother you, especially if you
consider what you do science. It is not. There are in fact food
scientists, and they master incredible amounts of scientific data,
methodology and do so with a rigor that most cooks/chefs only think
about occasionally, or never at all. That does not mean that a chef
does not have to understand scientific notions as they relate to food.
Because one takes courses in hygiene, food chemistry, basic physics,
heat transfer etc, while pursuing a course of study does not
necessarily make him or her a scientist. It may make him or her a
better chef or baker, but that is a different issue.

It may come as a shock to you but one can be too anal, obsessive
compulsive or fixated on a topic, and not be on top of their subject.
To obsess about a word or a number is not the same as being careful,
accurate, and precise. Obsessive compulsive behavior is never good,
no matter how much one tries to justify it. Obsession cannot be
justified because one is trying to save the world from itself.

Finally, I would like to correct one thing. You state:

>So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
>derisive.

As far as how I feel about them, my posts are not defensive, but I
freely admit they are at times, derisive.

It is clear that no matter how often we harangue each other, we will
most likely never agree about most things, so I will sign off from
this thread. Contrary to what a few have stated, I have not chosen to
pick a fight for the fun of it, nor do I do so happily. As I stated
in my last post,I enjoy a good argument, and when I do argue, it is
for reasons stated. Additionally, I am not interested in more time
wasted, on my part on this issue.

If that makes you happy, or increases you standing in the chef
community, please feel free to declare victory in this discussion,
and feel good about it .

Have a good day/night/life and try not to take yourself too seriously.

Jerry




"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>> Bob/Pastorio:
>
> What/Jerry?
>
>> At the risk of insulting you,
>
> <LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...?
>
> > I have only a single response in that
>> regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean"
>> borders on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking
>> at that part of your psyche as you do the words used by others.
>
> <LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who had
> sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that most of them
> didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina of
> psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of thinking, I say. I
> guess engineers shouldn't worry about exactitude and musicians
> shouldn't bother to tune their instruments. Too anal. Anything goes,
> anytime, anywhere.
>
> Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can understand
> it, write it so they can't misunderstand it."
>
> And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from another
> post,
> > You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or
> choose not to, as
> > I have posted a number of references that contradict your
> assertion of
> > what Carpaccio is, or should be.
>
> So I went to your web site and I found this:
> <http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm>
> "What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The Artisan.
> Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as defined in
> Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder; error in etiquette:
> Tactless act or remark..." For us, they are recipes which purport to
> be Italian, but are so in name only and not execution."
>
> So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it.
>
> But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm>
> "Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and number of
> other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany and is made in a
> particular way....otherwise it is not Panzanella.
> [...]
> "Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make it, we
> cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The ingredients, per
> se, are tasty. We probably would not have used any chicken broth,
> but the rest sound plausible in a salad. Regardless, it is not
> Panzanella. It might be called Insalata Panzanella Americana."
>
> <LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch about a
> recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant"
>
> Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name does
> matter. Go figure. I get so confused...
>
>> As far a your comment:
>>
>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>>> saying what they mean
>>
>> I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person
>> of Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and
>> to do so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully
>> will continue to do so until they close the cover on my box.
>
> So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
> derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean things
> while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can only mean one
> thing. For you, any old word is fine and you shouldn't be
> accountable for using it any old way. Except when it isn't. Or
> doesn't. Or something.
>
> I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the Germanic
> punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean presentation.
>
>> When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am.
>
> Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're dealing
> with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a bad idea to name
> things with words that don't actually describe them and, further,
> are likely to confuse the reader. The crux of this disagreement is
> that you think it's ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the
> antecedent. I say doing that removes useful terms from the language
> and reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well call
> it Zucchini a la Flerche.
>
> But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense.
>
>> If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe
>> these changes) is derivative,
>
> Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There aren't too
> many absolutely original recipes. The terms are at issue. It has
> apparently escaped your notice that culinary terms are created to be
> technical terms. They're created to be specific, and misuse dilutes
> and finally voids the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a
> "Napoleon" isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was
> coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a chicken
> dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or fruit. It escapes you
> that misusing words like that reduces them to mere sounds with no
> meaning beyond that exact dish. In which case, it's pure romance and
> moonlight on the curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name,
> describing nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth
> when saying it.
>
> > and evolves as those making and eating it determine,
>
> The fact that someone decides to make a change in the meaning of a
> word or of a term doesn't automatically confer a new correctness.
> Doesn't generate respect for the change. That's what people who
> write text messages and IM's to each other say. They reduce the
> language to a collection of primitive textual grunts.
>
> no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u wuda
> luvdit.
>
> Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right...
>
> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
> it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
> 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so
> many different things.'
> 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -
> that's all.'
> Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty
> Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly
> verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with,
> but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them!
> Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
> 'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
> 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking
> very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had
> enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd
> mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to
> stop here all the rest of your life.'
> 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a
> thoughtful tone.
> 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty,
> 'I always pay it extra.'
> 'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
> 'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty
> Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to
> get their wages, you know.'
> (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I
> can't tell you.)
> 'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice. 'Would
> you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'
> 'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the poems
> that ever were invented just yet.'
> This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:--
> 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves,
> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
> All mimsy were the borogoves
> And the mome raths outgrabe.
>
> 'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: 'there are
> plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four o'clock in the
> afternoon - the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.'
> 'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?'
> 'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the same as
> "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings
> packed up into one word.'
> 'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are "toves"?'
> 'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're something like
> lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.'
> 'They must be very curious-looking creatures.'
> 'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their nests
> under sundials - also they live on cheese.'
> 'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?'
> 'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To "gimble" is
> to make holes like a gimlet.'
> 'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I suppose?' said
> Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
> 'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it goes a
> long way before it, and a long way behind it-----'
> 'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
> 'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable" (there's
> another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a thin
> shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all around -
> something like a live mop.'
> 'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving you a
> great deal of trouble.'
> 'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not certain
> about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning that they'd lost
> their way, you know.'
> 'And what does "outgrabe" mean?'
> 'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling,
> with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done,
> maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it,
> you'll be quite content. Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to
> you?'
> 'I read it in a book,' said Alice.
> From Through The Looking Glass
> by Lewis Carroll
>
> I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not to
> mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes on the
> vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole cabbage. Tagine
> of raw tofu gelato.
>
>> there is noting I can say that will fit into your world view.
>
> <LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of helter-skelter
> nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta talk about. Your bread
> stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on throwing stones on this subject
> were I you.
>
>> Regards
>
> Likewise, I'm sure.
>
> Jerry of the angels, go in peace.
>
> Pastorio
>
>
>
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information,
>>>> especially when provided with an air of
>>>> infallibility.
> >>
>>> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot,
>>> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info
>>> is a lot better than this offering.
>>>
>>>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note
>>>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows
>>>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit
>>>> narrow-minded.
> >>
>>> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with
>>> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it
>>> won't be confusing.
>>>
>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>>> saying what they mean.
>>>
>>>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio
>>>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and
>>>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English
>>>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are
>>>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef
>>>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio,
>>>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio.
>>>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has
>>>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not
>>>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon,
>>>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list
>>>> of possibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation:
>>>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw
>>>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today
>>>> the term Carpaccio is used variably
> >>
>>> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no
>>> longer has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word.
>>>
>>>> and often
> >>
>>> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef"
>>> friend are using it just as carelessly.
>>>
>>>> refers to
>>>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can
>>>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes,
>>>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly
>>>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from
>>>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..."
>>> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point.
>>>
>>> Here's the point.
>>>
>>> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the
>>> less it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in
>>> between. It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish
>>> "and a great many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the
>>> colors used by the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin
>>> slices." It no longer has a referent that creates a definition
>>> beyond thin slices. And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that
>>> thin slices already had a name.
>>>
>>> Thin slices.
>>>
>>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for
>>>> allowing us to respond.
>>> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day...
>>>
>>> Pastorio