It came to my attention awhile ago the there are semi-fixed temperatures
ranges and oil amounts for panfry and sautee. That panfry temps are a
little lower than the sautee temps and requires more oil. But what is the
cooking method that requires a little higher temp and more oil than sautee?

In the past I always used the term panfry as meaning cooked in a pan with
say 1/8 to 1/4 inch oil at the higher end of medium high; where I should of
used a different term.

And for sautee the medium range of medium high with just enough oil to
barely cover the pan.

News to me:
Apparently pan frying reqiures a slightly lower temp than sautee.

Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> It came to my attention awhile ago the there are semi-fixed temperatures
> ranges and oil amounts for panfry and sautee. That panfry temps are a
> little lower than the sautee temps and requires more oil. But what is the
> cooking method that requires a little higher temp and more oil than sautee?
>
> In the past I always used the term panfry as meaning cooked in a pan with
> say 1/8 to 1/4 inch oil at the higher end of medium high; where I should of
> used a different term.
>
> And for sautee the medium range of medium high with just enough oil to
> barely cover the pan.
>
> News to me:
> Apparently pan frying reqiures a slightly lower temp than sautee.

If I understand your question correctly what your asking is at what
temperature to fry food. If so than my only question is which food?

Sheldon wrote on 15 Jan 2007 in rec.food.cooking

>
> Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> > It came to my attention awhile ago the there are semi-fixed
> > temperatures ranges and oil amounts for panfry and sautee. That
> > panfry temps are a little lower than the sautee temps and requires
> > more oil. But what is the cooking method that requires a little
> > higher temp and more oil than sautee?
> >
> > In the past I always used the term panfry as meaning cooked in a pan
> > with say 1/8 to 1/4 inch oil at the higher end of medium high; where
> > I should of used a different term.
> >
> > And for sautee the medium range of medium high with just enough oil
> > to barely cover the pan.
> >
> > News to me:
> > Apparently pan frying reqiures a slightly lower temp than sautee.
>
> If I understand your question correctly what your asking is at what
> temperature to fry food. If so than my only question is which food?
>
>

No you don't understand my question...perhaps I stated it wrongly.

I'm asking what is the name of the cooking technique that requires higher
heat and more oil than sautee.

An example of stuff cooked...say a stirfry but not in a wok, say
browning/searing some meat that you will finish in the oven at 375F.

No... not deep fry.

Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> > > It came to my attention awhile ago the there are semi-fixed
> > > temperatures ranges and oil amounts for panfry and sautee. That
> > > panfry temps are a little lower than the sautee temps and requires
> > > more oil. But what is the cooking method that requires a little
> > > higher temp and more oil than sautee?
> > >
> > > In the past I always used the term panfry as meaning cooked in a pan
> > > with say 1/8 to 1/4 inch oil at the higher end of medium high; where
> > > I should of used a different term.
> > >
> > > And for sautee the medium range of medium high with just enough oil
> > > to barely cover the pan.
> > >
> > > News to me:
> > > Apparently pan frying reqiures a slightly lower temp than sautee.
> >
> > If I understand your question correctly what your asking is at what
> > temperature to fry food. If so than my only question is which food?
> >
> >
>
> No you don't understand my question...perhaps I stated it wrongly.
>
> I'm asking what is the name of the cooking technique that requires higher
> heat and more oil than sautee.

"Higher and more than" are not specifics.

> An example of stuff cooked...say a stirfry but not in a wok, say
> browning/searing some meat that you will finish in the oven at 375F.

"Stuff" is not a type of food... and stuff is certainly not a cooking
technique as in frying... you're confusing methodology with
quantification.

You really do need to learn how to write... I'm surprised you can read
a recipe and comprehend... perhaps you can't, which would explain your
post.

Saute and stir fry are exactly precisely synonomous. Quantity of oil
used is directly proportional to the quantity of food, and whatever fat
fetishes one has. What type of cooking vessel one chooses makes no
nevermind, so long as it doesn't leak. Deep frying implys that the fat
is deep enough to completely submerge the food, but the same results
can be achieved with only enough fat to submerge food halfway, if one
is experienced. How much fat the food will absorb is primarily a
product of cooking temperature, and secondarily the type of food.

But you're talking about utilizing two different cooking methods, as
many recipes do.

You heard of Shake N' Bake... well you're doing Sear N' Bake

Frying simply means cooking in fat... only parameters to consider for
choosing a cooking temperature are type of food and smoke point, which
is a very narrow range, all frying is done somewhere between
350ºF-400ºF, with the majority occuring at/near 375ºF. You really
don't have much of a choice regarding frying temperatures... most all
frying is done within a ten degree range. Experineced cooks don't
measure fryiing temperature, they observe cooking results and
interpolate, something only experience can impart.

I don't think you really have any question... you're merely
illustrating that you're confused... did you have too much gin last
night... I'm giving you the benefit of any doubt so don't get
emotional, eh.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote on 15 Jan 2007 in rec.food.cooking


>
> But you're talking about utilizing two different cooking methods, as
> many recipes do.
>
> You heard of Shake N' Bake... well you're doing Sear N' Bake
>
> Frying simply means cooking in fat... only parameters to consider for
> choosing a cooking temperature are type of food and smoke point, which
> is a very narrow range, all frying is done somewhere between
> 350ºF-400ºF, with the majority occuring at/near 375ºF. You really
> don't have much of a choice regarding frying temperatures... most all
> frying is done within a ten degree range. Experineced cooks don't
> measure fryiing temperature, they observe cooking results and
> interpolate, something only experience can impart.
>
> I don't think you really have any question... you're merely
> illustrating that you're confused... did you have too much gin last
> night... I'm giving you the benefit of any doubt so don't get
> emotional, eh.
>
> Sheldon
>
>

Thanks for that sheldon, that proves it isn't the way I wrote the question
that was the problem. But instead the way you interperted it. Still
awaiting an answer...

Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> Sheldon wrote on 15 Jan 2007 in rec.food.cooking
>
>
>> But you're talking about utilizing two different cooking methods, as
>> many recipes do.
>>
>> You heard of Shake N' Bake... well you're doing Sear N' Bake
>>
>> Frying simply means cooking in fat... only parameters to consider for
>> choosing a cooking temperature are type of food and smoke point, which
>> is a very narrow range, all frying is done somewhere between
>> 350ºF-400ºF, with the majority occuring at/near 375ºF. You really
>> don't have much of a choice regarding frying temperatures... most all
>> frying is done within a ten degree range. Experineced cooks don't
>> measure fryiing temperature, they observe cooking results and
>> interpolate, something only experience can impart.
>>
>> I don't think you really have any question... you're merely
>> illustrating that you're confused... did you have too much gin last
>> night... I'm giving you the benefit of any doubt so don't get
>> emotional, eh.
>>
>> Sheldon
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for that sheldon, that proves it isn't the way I wrote the question
> that was the problem. But instead the way you interperted it. Still
> awaiting an answer...

If a long time lurker can come out and play, may I try to answer your
question?

The types of frying I know of are Deep fat frying, Pan frying, Saute,
and stir frying. I guess you could place searing in there, too, under
the umbrella of "pan frying".

Deep fat frying is when you submerge it under the fat and it's cooked at
usually higher temperatures. Not all cooking in deep fat is frying as
you can poach in deep fat, too.

Pan frying is done at moderate to high temp, more oil than a saute. You
are trying to FRY the food without having to submerge it. You also are
trying to get thick fond on the bottom of your pan.

Saute is when you cook something in little fat and keep it moving around
the pan with lots of room all around. The pan is fairly empty. The heat
is usually high moderate to high. You are trying to sear the outside of
the food quickly. You get less fond because the food is so briefly left
in the pan.

Stir frying is always very high heat. Fat amount is whatever you need to
use or is appropriate to the dish. The food is stirred or moved around
the pan but usually only after an initial browning sear. You can have
lots of food in the pan during stir frying as opposed to saute.

This is how I have always understood the terms. It's more a definition
of temperature and method than amount of fat in the pan. I've noticed
however, in the last few years how correct terms have disappeared from
recipes in books, magazines, Internet and tv show recipes. Now they just
say what size pan or pot and use the distinct term "cook" the food. I
guess it's a total dumbdown for the newbie cooks but sure isn't very
exact or educational.

Hope you don't mind my butting in for a minute or two.

Melondy

Melondy Hill wrote on 15 Jan 2007 in rec.food.cooking

> Hope you don't mind my butting in for a minute or two.
>
> Melondy
>
>

Thank you...Apparently pan fry is the correct term ....I was looking for.

In article >,
Melondy Hill > wrote:

> This is how I have always understood the terms. It's more a definition
> of temperature and method than amount of fat in the pan. I've noticed
> however, in the last few years how correct terms have disappeared from
> recipes in books, magazines, Internet and tv show recipes. Now they just
> say what size pan or pot and use the distinct term "cook" the food. I
> guess it's a total dumbdown for the newbie cooks but sure isn't very
> exact or educational.
>
> Hope you don't mind my butting in for a minute or two.
>
> Melondy

It is exactly a total dumbdown for inexperienced cooks. I had an
interesting conversation about it with the former editor of the local
rag's food section. I hadn't noticed it (because I don't read cookbooks
the way she still does) but she pointed out how method instructions have
changed. "They don't teach how to cream butter and sugar in Home Ec
classes any more. If you can find a Home Ec class."

I like your explanations, Melondy. Thanks for coming forth. Since you
have, I'm curious about something. You can email me if you wish. Why
do you lurk and not post? What do you get from the group? No insults
or anything -- just curiosity. Thanks. :-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller - blahblahblog -
1/11/2007,Pork Tenderloin and Oven Roasted Potatoes
http://jamlady.eboard.com
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor

> It is exactly a total dumbdown for inexperienced cooks. I had an
> interesting conversation about it with the former editor of the local
> rag's food section. I hadn't noticed it (because I don't read cookbooks
> the way she still does) but she pointed out how method instructions have
> changed. "They don't teach how to cream butter and sugar in Home Ec
> classes any more. If you can find a Home Ec class."
>
> I like your explanations, Melondy. Thanks for coming forth. Since you
> have, I'm curious about something. You can email me if you wish. Why
> do you lurk and not post? What do you get from the group? No insults
> or anything -- just curiosity. Thanks. :-)

Barb,

I found this very interesting and have realized the same thing with each
newer edition cookbook I acquire. When I got married in 1987 I received a
copy of The Joy of Cooking, The Complete Betty Crocker Cookbook, and The
Illustrated Cook. All three are still the ones I use most and that have the
"tried and trues" that I have memorized.

Newer cookbooks don't seem to require any understanding of the mechanics of
cooking and food preparation at all. Most people don't have any idea that
there are different grades of beef, varieties of vegetables, degrees of
pasta doneness, etcetera. It surprises me, and makes for a real
inconsistency in food quality and in recipe reliability. Maybe it's just me
though.

Cindi



> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
> http://web.mac.com/barbschaller - blahblahblog -
> 1/11/2007,Pork Tenderloin and Oven Roasted Potatoes
> http://jamlady.eboard.com
> http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor

Melondy Hill wrote:
> Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> > Sheldon wrote on 15 Jan 2007 in rec.food.cooking
> >
> >
> >> But you're talking about utilizing two different cooking methods, as
> >> many recipes do.
> >>
> >> You heard of Shake N' Bake... well you're doing Sear N' Bake
> >>
> >> Frying simply means cooking in fat... only parameters to consider for
> >> choosing a cooking temperature are type of food and smoke point, which
> >> is a very narrow range, all frying is done somewhere between
> >> 350ºF-400ºF, with the majority occuring at/near 375ºF. You really
> >> don't have much of a choice regarding frying temperatures... most all
> >> frying is done within a ten degree range. Experineced cooks don't
> >> measure fryiing temperature, they observe cooking results and
> >> interpolate, something only experience can impart.
> >>
> >> I don't think you really have any question... you're merely
> >> illustrating that you're confused... did you have too much gin last
> >> night... I'm giving you the benefit of any doubt so don't get
> >> emotional, eh.
> >>
> >> Sheldon
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for that sheldon, that proves it isn't the way I wrote the question
> > that was the problem. But instead the way you interperted it. Still
> > awaiting an answer...
>
> If a long time lurker can come out and play, may I try to answer your
> question?
>
> The types of frying I know of are Deep fat frying, Pan frying, Saute,
> and stir frying. I guess you could place searing in there, too, under
> the umbrella of "pan frying".
>
> Deep fat frying is when you submerge it under the fat and it's cooked at
> usually higher temperatures. Not all cooking in deep fat is frying as
> you can poach in deep fat, too.
>
> Pan frying is done at moderate to high temp, more oil than a saute. You
> are trying to FRY the food without having to submerge it. You also are
> trying to get thick fond on the bottom of your pan.
>
> Saute is when you cook something in little fat and keep it moving around
> the pan with lots of room all around. The pan is fairly empty. The heat
> is usually high moderate to high. You are trying to sear the outside of
> the food quickly. You get less fond because the food is so briefly left
> in the pan.
>
> Stir frying is always very high heat. Fat amount is whatever you need to
> use or is appropriate to the dish. The food is stirred or moved around
> the pan but usually only after an initial browning sear. You can have
> lots of food in the pan during stir frying as opposed to saute.
>
> This is how I have always understood the terms. It's more a definition
> of temperature and method than amount of fat in the pan. I've noticed
> however, in the last few years how correct terms have disappeared from
> recipes in books, magazines, Internet and tv show recipes. Now they just
> say what size pan or pot and use the distinct term "cook" the food. I
> guess it's a total dumbdown for the newbie cooks but sure isn't very
> exact or educational.
>
> Hope you don't mind my butting in for a minute or two.

I don't mind anyone butting in only you don't know what you're talking
about... all frying is cooking in fat within a very narrow temperature
range... defining frying by the type of vessel used is just plain
ignorant.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> Melondy wrote:
>
> > This is how I have always understood the terms. It's more a definition
> > of temperature and method than amount of fat in the pan. I've noticed
> > however, in the last few years how correct terms have disappeared from
> > recipes in books, magazines, Internet and tv show recipes. Now they just
> > say what size pan or pot and use the distinct term "cook" the food. I
> > guess it's a total dumbdown for the newbie cooks but sure isn't very
> > exact or educational.
> >
> > Hope you don't mind my butting in for a minute or two.
> >
> > Melondy
>
> It is exactly a total dumbdown for inexperienced cooks. I had an
> interesting conversation about it with the former editor of the local
> rag's food section. I hadn't noticed it (because I don't read cookbooks
> the way she still does) but she pointed out how method instructions have
> changed. "They don't teach how to cream butter and sugar in Home Ec
> classes any more. If you can find a Home Ec class."
>

What dumbdown... most cookbooks are dumb, always have been, always will
be... anyone can write a cookbook, even those who don't cook, which is
why there are so darned many produced. And there are no more Home Ec
classes because they were sexist... I'm suprised at you.

> I like your explanations, Melondy.

Her explanations are stupid, all of them.

>Thanks for coming forth. Since you
> have, I'm curious about something. You can email me if you wish. Why
> do you lurk and not post? What do you get from the group? No insults
> or anything -- just curiosity. Thanks. :-)

It's obvious to me why she lurks, same reason all lurkers lurk,
cowardice.

Sheldon

In article >,
jay > wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:54:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> > -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
>
> I have hesitated to ask trying not to continue to be a catfish/mackerel of
> sorts.....but what is a HOSSSPoJ?
>
> jay

LOL. The Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller - blahblahblog -
1/11/2007,Pork Tenderloin and Oven Roasted Potatoes
http://jamlady.eboard.com
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> jay > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:54:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> >
> > > -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
> >
> > I have hesitated to ask trying not to continue to be a catfish/mackerel of
> > sorts.....but what is a HOSSSPoJ?
> >
> > jay
>
> LOL. The Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella.

If you're going to use that last lower case P"o"J then
you need to be consistant. "THOotSSoSPoJ"

Sheldon

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:
> why there are so darned many produced. And there are no more Home Ec
> classes because they were sexist... I'm suprised at you.

> Sheldon

Must've been the school I went to in the late 50's -- the guys had to
have at least a quarter (it was the quarter system then) and the girls
had to have at least a quarter of shop. I still have my letter holder
from that class.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller - blahblahblog -
1/11/2007,Pork Tenderloin and Oven Roasted Potatoes
http://jamlady.eboard.com
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > In article >,
> > jay > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:54:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > >
> > > > -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
> > >
> > > I have hesitated to ask trying not to continue to be a catfish/mackerel of
> > > sorts.....but what is a HOSSSPoJ?
> > >
> > > jay
> >
> > LOL. The Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella.
>
> If you're going to use that last lower case P"o"J then
> you need to be consistant. "THOotSSoSPoJ"
>
> Sheldon

And you need to learn to spell. Bite me. LOL!
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller - blahblahblog -
1/11/2007,Pork Tenderloin and Oven Roasted Potatoes
http://jamlady.eboard.com
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor

Mr Libido Incognito > wrote:
>It came to my attention awhile ago the there are semi-fixed temperatures
>ranges and oil amounts for panfry and sautee. That panfry temps are a
>little lower than the sautee temps and requires more oil. But what is the
>cooking method that requires a little higher temp and more oil than sautee?

Sauteeing is pan-frying while shaking the pan.

You can't "sautee" a crab-cake, for instance, it'd
break into a million pieces from the violence.

>News to me:
>Apparently pan frying reqiures a slightly lower temp than sautee.

Part of the point of the shaking is to keep the food from
burning before it's cooked, while letting it sear a little.

To get to the point you need to do that you start with a
higher temperature and less oil.

But the terms are more about the action than the heat and oil.

--Blair

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:41:23 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article .com>,
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>> why there are so darned many produced. And there are no more Home Ec
>> classes because they were sexist... I'm suprised at you.
>
>> Sheldon
>
>Must've been the school I went to in the late 50's -- the guys had to
>have at least a quarter (it was the quarter system then) and the girls
>had to have at least a quarter of shop. I still have my letter holder
>from that class.

My son went to the last Jr Hi in my city that had woodshop and home ec
or whatever it was called at that time. Cooking, he already knew
because he learned it from me.... but he actually learned to use a
needle & thread *and* a sewing machine, so when his clothes needed
mending - he did it. And that's a good thing.

--
See return address to reply by email

Sheldon replied to Melondy:

> I don't mind anyone butting in only you don't know what you're talking
> about... all frying is cooking in fat within a very narrow temperature
> range... defining frying by the type of vessel used is just plain
> ignorant.


Welcome to the PARTICIPATING members, Melondy! Pay no attention to Sheldon;
he's impotent and stupid, with all the charm of a malignant tumor on the
anus of a toad.

Classically, sautéing is done in an uncrowded straight-sided sauté pan,
exactly as you described. The term "stir-frying" leaped into the American
lexicon in connection with wok cookery.

Sheldon doesn't understand how the vessel shape affects the cooking process,
but that's because he's just plain ignorant. Cook's Illustrated had an
article a couple years ago regarding the classic sauté, along with a fairly
good explanation of why that straight-sided pan was a good pan for the job.

Alan, the term "pan-frying" is a broad one; it includes sautéing. Since
sautéing is done right around the smoking point of whatever fat is being
used, there's not really a higher-temp version of it. Searing differs from
sautéing in that when you're searing something you leave it alone in the pan
until the surface in contact with the pan begins to turn dark brown, whereas
in sautéing, you keep the food in constant motion. Blackening is a sear-like
technique where you DO crank the heat way up, but it differs from pan-frying
(or sautéing) in that no fat is used in the pan.

Bob

Melba's Jammin' wrote on 15 Jan 2007 in rec.food.cooking

> And you need to learn to spell. Bite me. LOL!
>

Hey I can spell bite me....b i t e m e see!

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> Melondy Hill > wrote:
>
>> This is how I have always understood the terms. It's more a definition
>> of temperature and method than amount of fat in the pan. I've noticed
>> however, in the last few years how correct terms have disappeared from
>> recipes in books, magazines, Internet and tv show recipes. Now they just
>> say what size pan or pot and use the distinct term "cook" the food. I
>> guess it's a total dumbdown for the newbie cooks but sure isn't very
>> exact or educational.
>>
>> Hope you don't mind my butting in for a minute or two.
>>
>> Melondy
>
> It is exactly a total dumbdown for inexperienced cooks. I had an
> interesting conversation about it with the former editor of the local
> rag's food section. I hadn't noticed it (because I don't read cookbooks
> the way she still does) but she pointed out how method instructions have
> changed. "They don't teach how to cream butter and sugar in Home Ec
> classes any more. If you can find a Home Ec class."
>
> I like your explanations, Melondy. Thanks for coming forth. Since you
> have, I'm curious about something. You can email me if you wish. Why
> do you lurk and not post? What do you get from the group? No insults
> or anything -- just curiosity. Thanks. :-)


Hmmm... Why lurk and not post? Well, I used to post occasionally back
when I first got on the internet in 1996 and found my pathway to the
wonderful world of "Newsgroups!" Spent most of my time around food
groups, especially bread and baking, but mostly I 'hung out' at
rec.equestrian. I think I stopped posting because of a big huge battle
that happened there. It just got so ugly and nasty and totally off
topic, I just couldn't keep up with all the filtering I had to do and
back then my filters didn't work as easily as they do know. And most of
the trouble centered around one individual that, believe me, could have
given lessons to Sheldon in being the ultimate PITA poster, with the
best English and literary skills. Talk about being able to stir the pot!
I guess I reached a point where the discomfort outweighed the community
joy I had had. I even quit lurking in most of the newsgroups, just
going to Deja News for research type info.

Then when I finally ventured back to newsgroups, it seemed like so many
new people had found Usenet and had their communities up to speed that
I, as a rather quiet, shy person, didn't like to interrupt other people.
That's so silly, too. I can hear my mom's voice telling me to not
"interrupt your elders, be a good girl." But that's really what Usenet
is all about, isn't it? LOL! Trying to make yourself heard and sharing
with other people. I guess I miss that, especially when it comes to
things I really love, like food and cooking.

And then, I guess one other reason to not post but just lurk is sheer
laziness or time constraints. It's so easy to just pop in and read a
few, laugh at a few posts, tell my hubby what's the latest, and not
contribute. But I do feel bad about that sometimes. It seems so just
'take, take, take' and never giving back. So I guess that's why I
decided to come out to play. Test the waters. See if there was room for
one more, at least occasional poster and not just lurker. I know I'm
not the only busy person here, and that others make time for it in their
lives, so why shouldn't I if it's for one of my favorite subjects.... FOOD!

So that's why I'm here now. Nice to finally meet you. I've 'read' alot
about you over the years.

Melondy

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Sheldon replied to Melondy:
>
>> I don't mind anyone butting in only you don't know what you're talking
>> about... all frying is cooking in fat within a very narrow temperature
>> range... defining frying by the type of vessel used is just plain
>> ignorant.
>
>
> Welcome to the PARTICIPATING members, Melondy! Pay no attention to Sheldon;
> he's impotent and stupid, with all the charm of a malignant tumor on the
> anus of a toad.
>
> Bob

You have such a way with words! And i would love to participate more if
you will indulge my intrusions. Hope I can add a little to a delightful
corner of the internet.

Melondy

"Melondy Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> > Sheldon replied to Melondy:
> >
> >> I don't mind anyone butting in only you don't know what you're talking
> >> about... all frying is cooking in fat within a very narrow temperature
> >> range... defining frying by the type of vessel used is just plain
> >> ignorant.
> >
> >
> > Welcome to the PARTICIPATING members, Melondy! Pay no attention to
Sheldon;
> > he's impotent and stupid, with all the charm of a malignant tumor on the
> > anus of a toad.
> >
> > Bob
>
> You have such a way with words! And i would love to participate more if
> you will indulge my intrusions. Hope I can add a little to a delightful
> corner of the internet.
>
> Melondy

Intrude away! :~)

kili

In article >,
Melondy Hill > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Melondy Hill > wrote:
(snip)
> >> Hope you don't mind my butting in for a minute or two.
> >>
> >> Melondy
(snip)
> > I like your explanations, Melondy. Thanks for coming forth. Since you
> > have, I'm curious about something. You can email me if you wish. Why
> > do you lurk and not post? What do you get from the group? No insults
> > or anything -- just curiosity. Thanks. :-)
>
>
> Hmmm... Why lurk and not post? Well, I used to post occasionally back
> when I first got on the internet in 1996 and found my pathway to the
> wonderful world of "Newsgroups!" Spent most of my time around food
> groups, especially bread and baking, but mostly I 'hung out' at
> rec.equestrian. I think I stopped posting because of a big huge battle
> that happened there. It just got so ugly and nasty and totally off
> topic, I just couldn't keep up with all the filtering I had to do and
> back then my filters didn't work as easily as they do know. And most of
> the trouble centered around one individual that, believe me, could have
> given lessons to Sheldon in being the ultimate PITA poster, with the
> best English and literary skills. Talk about being able to stir the pot!

(snip)

> And then, I guess one other reason to not post but just lurk is sheer
> laziness or time constraints. It's so easy to just pop in and read a
> few, laugh at a few posts, tell my hubby what's the latest, and not
> contribute. But I do feel bad about that sometimes. It seems so just
> 'take, take, take' and never giving back. So I guess that's why I
> decided to come out to play. Test the waters. See if there was room for
> one more, at least occasional poster and not just lurker. I know I'm
> not the only busy person here, and that others make time for it in their
> lives, so why shouldn't I if it's for one of my favorite subjects.... FOOD!
>
> So that's why I'm here now. Nice to finally meet you. I've 'read' alot
> about you over the years.
>
> Melondy

You're just smarter than the rest of us, not lazier. :-) And you have
a life! I hope you'll post more.

There's always room for one more, especially if the posts are on topic
and done with good spirit. I think the most important qualities one
must have to survive a group like this one are a sense of humor and a
thick skin. I've learned lots here and made a lot of acquaintances and
a few good friends. And I've picked up at least three good and usable
recipes. OMAlex, two of the three that came immediately to mind (maybe
because I've made these in the last 10 days) are from Nancy Young: the
Hungarian Short Ribs thang she posted in November and the Spicy Chicken
Tortilla Soup. I made both while Firstborn was here, to his great
pleasure.

If you come to Minneapolis, ring me up and I'll give you my RFC Visitors
Tour of the Twin Cities. And a jar or two of jam. :-) Nice to meet
you, too.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller - blahblahblog -
1/11/2007,Pork Tenderloin and Oven Roasted Potatoes
http://jamlady.eboard.com
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor

In article >,
Melondy Hill > wrote:


> You have such a way with words! And i would love to participate more if
> you will indulge my intrusions. Hope I can add a little to a delightful
> corner of the internet.


It's not called intrusion, it's called participation. If you wish to
participate, then I welcome you. If not, then I still wish you well.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>
> There's always room for one more, especially if the posts are on topic
> and done with good spirit. I think the most important qualities one
> must have to survive a group like this one are a sense of humor and a
> thick skin. I've learned lots here and made a lot of acquaintances and
> a few good friends. And I've picked up at least three good and usable
> recipes. OMAlex, two of the three that came immediately to mind (maybe
> because I've made these in the last 10 days) are from Nancy Young: the
> Hungarian Short Ribs thang she posted in November and the Spicy Chicken
> Tortilla Soup. I made both while Firstborn was here, to his great
> pleasure.
>
> If you come to Minneapolis, ring me up and I'll give you my RFC Visitors
> Tour of the Twin Cities. And a jar or two of jam. :-) Nice to meet
> you, too.

I have found a few nice recipes from hear as well. One that pops into my
head is Jill's Butternut Squash Soup. I love roasting onions, pears and
apples along with the squash and i add rosemary or sage in the oil that
coats the roasting fruits. And I've taken to adding a small dollop of
sour cream or yogurt on the top before serving. It's a great versatile
soup. One of our favorites now.

I'd love to visit Minneapolis. I have one Internet friend in that area
already and a promise to visit her one day. SO maybe I will take you up
one it :-)

Melondy

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:44:06 GMT, Melondy Hill >
wrote:

>Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Sheldon replied to Melondy:
>>
>>> I don't mind anyone butting in only you don't know what you're talking
>>> about... all frying is cooking in fat within a very narrow temperature
>>> range... defining frying by the type of vessel used is just plain
>>> ignorant.
>>
>>
>> Welcome to the PARTICIPATING members, Melondy! Pay no attention to Sheldon;
>> he's impotent and stupid, with all the charm of a malignant tumor on the
>> anus of a toad.
>>
>> Bob
>
>You have such a way with words! And i would love to participate more if
>you will indulge my intrusions. Hope I can add a little to a delightful
>corner of the internet.
>
You don't need an invitation to make a comment. Just post what's on
your mind. Of course, social norms are in place here... however much
certain people choose to disregard them. That's why kill files were
invented. If you have one, learn to use it. I put most people on a
time limit because I know they will eventually change tracks... but
certain posters are in my permanent KF. I've only killed 3 posters.
One is permanent (and not in this news group). All the other two have
to do is shut up for two days and they are out of my KF.... but that
won't happen any time soon, so I'm safe. LOL

--
See return address to reply by email

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:52:47 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>thick skin

I remember when we said "put on your asbestos underwear".
What happened? Did the EPA step in?


--
See return address to reply by email

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:44:06 GMT, Melondy Hill >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>>>Sheldon replied to Melondy:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't mind anyone butting in only you don't know what you're talking
>>>>about... all frying is cooking in fat within a very narrow temperature
>>>>range... defining frying by the type of vessel used is just plain
>>>>ignorant.
>>>
>>>
>>>Welcome to the PARTICIPATING members, Melondy! Pay no attention to Sheldon;
>>>he's impotent and stupid, with all the charm of a malignant tumor on the
>>>anus of a toad.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>
>>You have such a way with words! And i would love to participate more if
>>you will indulge my intrusions. Hope I can add a little to a delightful
>>corner of the internet.
>>
>
> You don't need an invitation to make a comment. Just post what's on
> your mind. Of course, social norms are in place here... however much
> certain people choose to disregard them. That's why kill files were
> invented. If you have one, learn to use it. I put most people on a
> time limit because I know they will eventually change tracks... but
> certain posters are in my permanent KF. I've only killed 3 posters.
> One is permanent (and not in this news group). All the other two have
> to do is shut up for two days and they are out of my KF.... but that
> won't happen any time soon, so I'm safe. LOL
>

I use my mail filters much more liberally at this point i have over 50
"people" filtered, but none of them regular contributors to this news
group, well ok one who don't even need to be named, the rest are all
cross posters from the more absurdist "kook" groups.

Call ne a immature felinis domesticus but i don't even want to see the
titles some of those "people" put on their posts.
--
JL