It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
that something new or did I not notice it before?

In article . net>,
margaret suran > wrote:

> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> that something new or did I not notice it before?


Huh! Kind of like a 1# can of coffee now weighing 13 oz. Or a 2# box
of graham crackers now weighing ~26 oz. Da bums!
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com
http:/http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor/

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:58:08 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article . net>,
> margaret suran > wrote:
>
>> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
>> that something new or did I not notice it before?
>
>
>Huh! Kind of like a 1# can of coffee now weighing 13 oz. Or a 2# box
>of graham crackers now weighing ~26 oz. Da bums!

Yeah, and a pound of crawfish tail meat is 12 ounces.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article . net>,
lid says...
> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> that something new or did I not notice it before?
>

Does the package say 1 pound? Or, are you just assuming that it's one
pound?


--
Peter Aitken

On Jun 21, 7:35 pm, margaret suran >
wrote:
> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> that something new or did I not notice it before?

I searched all over for Ronzoni fettucine and finally found some in CT
last week (I live in VA). It was $1.19, but I'll have to see whether
it is 13.25 oz. I don't mind it being in a smaller package as long as
it is equal cost per oz.

I usually cook up the whole pound because I don't like repackaging it.
Dee Dee

"margaret suran" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> that something new or did I not notice it before?

Gee, didn't you know that the 16 oz pound of anything (unless you bag the
stuff yourself) went the same way as a gallon of gasoline for under $3.00
here in SoCal. Price at the self-service Arco for regular was $3.09/gallon
today.

Harriet & critters in Azusa, CA

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" <moc.etoyok@modom> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:58:08 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
> >In article . net>,
> > margaret suran > wrote:
> >
> >> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> >> that something new or did I not notice it before?
> >
> >
> >Huh! Kind of like a 1# can of coffee now weighing 13 oz. Or a 2# box
> >of graham crackers now weighing ~26 oz. Da bums!
>
> Yeah, and a pound of crawfish tail meat is 12 ounces.

That's because crawfish uses Troy weight, like gold.

Isaac

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:13:42 -0700, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> "modom (palindrome guy)" <moc.etoyok@modom> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:58:08 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article . net>,
>> > margaret suran > wrote:
>> >
>> >> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
>> >> that something new or did I not notice it before?
>> >
>> >Huh! Kind of like a 1# can of coffee now weighing 13 oz. Or a 2# box
>> >of graham crackers now weighing ~26 oz. Da bums!
>>
>> Yeah, and a pound of crawfish tail meat is 12 ounces.
>
>That's because crawfish uses Troy weight, like gold.
>
>Isaac

Ah, it all becomes clear to me now.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jun 21, 10:55 pm, "Harriet Neal" > wrote:
> "margaret suran" > wrote in message
....
>
> > It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> > that something new or did I not notice it before?
>
> Gee, didn't you know that the 16 oz pound of anything (unless you bag the
> stuff yourself) went the same way as a gallon of gasoline for under $3.00
> here in SoCal. Price at the self-service Arco for regular was $3.09/gallon
> today.
>
> Harriet & critters in Azusa, CA

The milk at the farm where I buy my milk just went up today -- from
$5.25 to $6 a gallon -- I'll pay the price tho - . Almost always 2
cups to 2-1/2 cups cream on top; ice cream or butter once a week.
I read in the news that milk in the supermarket went up also, and that
groceries will go up quite a bit this year.
Dee Dee

On Jun 21, 10:40?pm, Dee Dee > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:35 pm, margaret suran >
> wrote:
>
> > It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> > that something new or did I not notice it before?
>
> I searched all over for Ronzoni fettucine and finally found some in CT
> last week (I live in VA). It was $1.19, but I'll have to see whether
> it is 13.25 oz. I don't mind it being in a smaller package as long as
> it is equal cost per oz.
>
> I usually cook up the whole pound because I don't like repackaging it.

C'mon, tell the truth... not only do you have to boil the pot of water
anyway but you enjoy cold left over pasta for breakfast. heheh

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:40?pm, Dee Dee > wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 7:35 pm, margaret suran >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces.
>>> Is that something new or did I not notice it before?
>>
>> I searched all over for Ronzoni fettucine and finally found some in
>> CT last week (I live in VA). It was $1.19, but I'll have to see
>> whether it is 13.25 oz. I don't mind it being in a smaller package
>> as long as it is equal cost per oz.
>>
>> I usually cook up the whole pound because I don't like repackaging
>> it.
>
> C'mon, tell the truth... not only do you have to boil the pot of water
> anyway but you enjoy cold left over pasta for breakfast. heheh
>
> Sheldon

I cook the whole batch and whatever I don't use, I heat up in a buttered
skillet the next day and add freshly grated parmesan cheese and a touch of
garlic. Simplicity at its best AND some of the pasta gets deliciously
crispy. Yum.

kili

kilikini wrote:

> I cook the whole batch and whatever I don't use, I heat up in a
> buttered skillet the next day and add freshly grated parmesan cheese
> and a touch of garlic. Simplicity at its best AND some of the pasta
> gets deliciously crispy. Yum.

Re-heated pasta can be boring, but if done only sometimes it's a nice change
up. Me too use some butter or oil to keep it moist while it reheats, and
sometimes I like to almost stir-fry it, to get that crispiness you say. It's
a totally different dish from what it was the day before, and it's a nice
alternative to polpette / frittelle.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

Vilco wrote:
> kilikini wrote:
>
>> I cook the whole batch and whatever I don't use, I heat up in a
>> buttered skillet the next day and add freshly grated parmesan cheese
>> and a touch of garlic. Simplicity at its best AND some of the pasta
>> gets deliciously crispy. Yum.
>
> Re-heated pasta can be boring, but if done only sometimes it's a nice change
> up. Me too use some butter or oil to keep it moist while it reheats, and
> sometimes I like to almost stir-fry it, to get that crispiness you say. It's
> a totally different dish from what it was the day before, and it's a nice
> alternative to polpette / frittelle.

My cats like it, but they each prefer a different sauce. One trembles
with joy when it is pesto.

The 13.5 ounces is a stupid amount, because assuming 100 g per meal
sized serving, or 3.5 ounces dry weight, it doesn't add up to anything
except having cooked too much or too little.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

As long as I can remember,
fettucini is sold in 12 oz. packages.

( I don't know why )



On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:40:39 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:

>On Jun 21, 7:35 pm, margaret suran >
>wrote:
>> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
>> that something new or did I not notice it before?
>
>I searched all over for Ronzoni fettucine and finally found some in CT
>last week (I live in VA). It was $1.19, but I'll have to see whether
>it is 13.25 oz. I don't mind it being in a smaller package as long as
>it is equal cost per oz.
>
>I usually cook up the whole pound because I don't like repackaging it.
>Dee Dee

<rj>

how nice to see you posting again!



"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> margaret suran > wrote:
>
>> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
>> that something new or did I not notice it before?
>
>
> Huh! Kind of like a 1# can of coffee now weighing 13 oz. Or a 2# box
> of graham crackers now weighing ~26 oz. Da bums!
> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
> http://www.jamlady.eboard.com
> http:/http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor/

In article >,
"readandpostrosie" > wrote:

> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Huh! Kind of like a 1# can of coffee now weighing 13 oz. Or a 2# box
> > of graham crackers now weighing ~26 oz. Da bums!
> > --
> > -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ

> how nice to see you posting again!
>

Huh? Me?
Thanks, I guess. The only place I've been recently is Louisiana and
that was a month ago. And I was posting then.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com
http:/http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor/

Sheldon wrote:

>>> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
>>> that something new or did I not notice it before?


>> I searched all over for Ronzoni fettucine and finally found some in CT
>> last week (I live in VA). It was $1.19, but I'll have to see whether
>> it is 13.25 oz. I don't mind it being in a smaller package as long as
>> it is equal cost per oz.

> Sheldon
>

The Ronzoni Spaghetti in my kitchen cabinet is still 16 ounces.

The new weekly circular has this listing (Morton Williams, Associated
Stores)

> Ronz Hh Wheat 13.25z Box 0.99
> (Spagh,Thnspg,Ling,Mgspg,Rotini,Penrig,Wdndls)

I will look when I go shopping the next time.

Harriet Neal wrote:
> "margaret suran" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
>> that something new or did I not notice it before?
>
> Gee, didn't you know that the 16 oz pound of anything (unless you bag the
> stuff yourself) went the same way as a gallon of gasoline for under $3.00
> here in SoCal. Price at the self-service Arco for regular was $3.09/gallon
> today.
>
> Harriet & critters in Azusa, CA
>
>
And some five pound bags of sugar weigh four pounds now. ( Same
price, of course.

In article . net>,
says...
>
> "margaret suran" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> > that something new or did I not notice it before?
>
> Gee, didn't you know that the 16 oz pound of anything (unless you bag the
> stuff yourself) went the same way as a gallon of gasoline for under $3.00
> here in SoCal. Price at the self-service Arco for regular was $3.09/gallon
> today.
>
> Harriet & critters in Azusa, CA
>
>
>

Interesting, the price here in Providence, RI has been hovering around
$2.94 for the past couple weeks. Of course Bush is coming in a week so
that's probably why.

In article . net>,
margaret suran > wrote:

> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> that something new or did I not notice it before?

It's happening all over. Food companies say it's so they can address
their higher costs without raising the price of a "unit" of their
product. They say customers don't want to pay more for the product.
*rolls eyes*

I'm waiting for the first petroleum company to have the /chutzpah/
to redefine a gallon of gasoline as, say, 100 ounces, so they can
keep the price under $3 a gallon.

sd

On Jun 24, 1:32 pm, sd > wrote:

>
> I'm waiting for the first petroleum company to have the /chutzpah/
> to redefine a gallon of gasoline as, say, 100 ounces, so they can
> keep the price under $3 a gallon.
>
> sd


Don't they (or did they?) already do that in Hawaii -- where it is by
liters? Can't really remember, but I know I used to always go thru
mental gyrations trying to convert the price to gallons. Real PITA.

Dee Dee

Dee Dee wrote:
> On Jun 24, 1:32 pm, sd > wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm waiting for the first petroleum company to have the /chutzpah/
>> to redefine a gallon of gasoline as, say, 100 ounces, so they can
>> keep the price under $3 a gallon.
>>
>> sd
>
>
> Don't they (or did they?) already do that in Hawaii -- where it is by
> liters? Can't really remember, but I know I used to always go thru
> mental gyrations trying to convert the price to gallons. Real PITA.
>
> Dee Dee

No, Hawaii is still gallons. At least it was when I left 2 and a half years
ago.

kili

On Jun 24, 2:06 pm, "kilikini" > wrote:
> Dee Dee wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 1:32 pm, sd > wrote:
>
> >> I'm waiting for the first petroleum company to have the /chutzpah/
> >> to redefine a gallon of gasoline as, say, 100 ounces, so they can
> >> keep the price under $3 a gallon.
>
> >> sd
>
> > Don't they (or did they?) already do that in Hawaii -- where it is by
> > liters? Can't really remember, but I know I used to always go thru
> > mental gyrations trying to convert the price to gallons. Real PITA.
>
> > Dee Dee
>
> No, Hawaii is still gallons. At least it was when I left 2 and a half years
> ago.
>
> kili- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good thing I didn't bet the farm on that one. My mind is going, I do
believe.
Thanks, kili
Dee Dee

>> >> I'm waiting for the first petroleum company to have the /chutzpah/
>> >> to redefine a gallon of gasoline as, say, 100 ounces, so they can
>> >> keep the price under $3 a gallon.
>>
>> >> sd
>>
>> > Don't they (or did they?) already do that in Hawaii -- where it is by
>> > liters? Can't really remember, but I know I used to always go thru
>> > mental gyrations trying to convert the price to gallons. Real PITA.
>>
>> > Dee Dee
>>
>> No, Hawaii is still gallons. At least it was when I left 2 and a half
>> years
>> ago.
>>
>> kili- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Good thing I didn't bet the farm on that one. My mind is going, I do
> believe.
> Thanks, kili
> Dee Dee
>

Dee,

Not in Hawaii, but they do sell milk and gas by the liter in Canada..
drives me nuts when we are up there.

Been to Canada lately... you're probably not losing it after all.

(no spam) wrote:
>>>>> I'm waiting for the first petroleum company to have the /chutzpah/
>>>>> to redefine a gallon of gasoline as, say, 100 ounces, so they can
>>>>> keep the price under $3 a gallon.
>>>>> sd
>>>> Don't they (or did they?) already do that in Hawaii -- where it is by
>>>> liters? Can't really remember, but I know I used to always go thru
>>>> mental gyrations trying to convert the price to gallons. Real PITA.
>>>> Dee Dee
>>> No, Hawaii is still gallons. At least it was when I left 2 and a half
>>> years
>>> ago.

>
> Not in Hawaii, but they do sell milk and gas by the liter in Canada..
> drives me nuts when we are up there.
>
> Been to Canada lately... you're probably not losing it after all.
>
Actually, in the entire world except the US. Strange, no?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article . net>,
margaret suran > wrote:

> It seems that the 1 pound box of Ronzoni Pasta weigh 13.25 ounces. Is
> that something new or did I not notice it before?

Is the actual amount of pasta that's printed on the box also 13.25 oz?
If the amount of pasta printed on the box says 16 ounces, then that's
what should be in the box. If the amount of pasta in the box differs
from what the box say should be in there, you should definitely file a
complaint with Ronzi and the New York City agency that regulates that
sort of thing.

On the other hand, if the amount printed on the box says 13.25 oz, then
you are simply noticing Ronzi's attempt at cost cutting.

>>>>>> I'm waiting for the first petroleum company to have the /chutzpah/
>>>>>> to redefine a gallon of gasoline as, say, 100 ounces, so they can
>>>>>> keep the price under $3 a gallon.
>>>>>> sd
>>>>> Don't they (or did they?) already do that in Hawaii -- where it is by
>>>>> liters? Can't really remember, but I know I used to always go thru
>>>>> mental gyrations trying to convert the price to gallons. Real PITA.
>>>>> Dee Dee
>>>> No, Hawaii is still gallons. At least it was when I left 2 and a half
>>>> years
>>>> ago.
>
>>
>> Not in Hawaii, but they do sell milk and gas by the liter in Canada..
>> drives me nuts when we are up there.
>>
>> Been to Canada lately... you're probably not losing it after all.
> Actually, in the entire world except the US. Strange, no?

Yes strange... the US has been metric resistant for many years. I believe
sometime during 1960's the US was gradually supposed to join the rest of the
world and go metric. For the most part it did not happen with a few
exceptions. Most US products have both metric and Imperial units on them
however.

If anybody cares:

http://www.metric-conversion-tables....easurement.htm

(no spam) wrote:

>> Actually, in the entire world except the US. Strange, no?
>
> Yes strange... the US has been metric resistant for many years. I believe
> sometime during 1960's the US was gradually supposed to join the rest of the
> world and go metric. For the most part it did not happen with a few
> exceptions. Most US products have both metric and Imperial units on them
> however.
>
> If anybody cares:
>
> http://www.metric-conversion-tables....easurement.htm

We were told we had 5 years to convert in 1974. Hahaha! I started, and
then did some work which had to have both measurements and three
languages. I bought the tools. And it never happened.

As to food, however, here in Italy a full serving of pasta for a man or
if one is eating only pasta and not a meat course is thought to be 100
grams. That's about 3.5 ounces.

My daughter in the US tells me the pasta per serving has less calories
in the US. Huh?

Then she tells me that a serving on her box of pasta is 2 ounces! In a
country where there is almost never a meat course after the pasta. So,
they can charge more, they sell 13.5 ounce packages which don't come out
even in either measurement, and the pasta has fewer calories. Magic...

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I've been using Ronzoni exclusively for 2 1/2 years, and it's always
been 13.5 ounces for me.

On Jun 25, 5:25 pm, Giusi > wrote:
> (no spam) wrote:
> >> Actually, in the entire world except the US. Strange, no?
>
> > Yes strange... the US has been metric resistant for many years. I believe
> > sometime during 1960's the US was gradually supposed to join the rest of the
> > world and go metric. For the most part it did not happen with a few
> > exceptions. Most US products have both metric and Imperial units on them
> > however.
>
> > If anybody cares:
>
> >http://www.metric-conversion-tables....easurement.htm
>
> We were told we had 5 years to convert in 1974. Hahaha! I started, and
> then did some work which had to have both measurements and three
> languages. I bought the tools. And it never happened.
>
> As to food, however, here in Italy a full serving of pasta for a man or
> if one is eating only pasta and not a meat course is thought to be 100
> grams. That's about 3.5 ounces.
>
> My daughter in the US tells me the pasta per serving has less calories
> in the US. Huh?
>
> Then she tells me that a serving on her box of pasta is 2 ounces! In a
> country where there is almost never a meat course after the pasta. So,
> they can charge more, they sell 13.5 ounce packages which don't come out
> even in either measurement, and the pasta has fewer calories. Magic...

In the U.S., pasta usually has meat in or on it.

I serve myself one ounce of pasta and my husband, two ounces. That's
the
dry weight before cooking.

Cindy Hamilton

>
> In the U.S., pasta usually has meat in or on it.

> Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

Hardly ever has meat on it at my house. However, I may be that one in
300 million.;-))
Virginia, U.S.A.

"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>
>> In the U.S., pasta usually has meat in or on it.
>
>> Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -
>
> Hardly ever has meat on it at my house. However, I may be that one in
> 300 million.;-))
> Virginia, U.S.A.

Make that two in 300 million. We usually have a tossed salad and Italian
bread with our spaghetti, although I have been known on rare occasions to
toss in a sausage or two.

Felice

(no spam)" wrote:
>
>
> Yes strange... the US has been metric resistant for many years. I believe
> sometime during 1960's the US was gradually supposed to join the rest of the
> world and go metric. For the most part it did not happen with a few
> exceptions. Most US products have both metric and Imperial units on them
> however.


The US was supposed to go metric back in the 70s along with most of its
trading partners. It has gone the way of most other international
agreements.... down the tubes. It's a damned shame that so many people
are so resistant to changing to a more sensible system of measurement,
especially considering that so many of them are only partially familiar
with the one they insist is better.


>
> If anybody cares:
>
> http://www.metric-conversion-tables....easurement.htm

Felice Friese wrote:
>
>
> Make that two in 300 million. We usually have a tossed salad and Italian
> bread with our spaghetti, although I have been known on rare occasions to
> toss in a sausage or two.

I rarely have been with pasta. The only time I do is when the pasta dish
is the main dish, which is rare. When I do have meat it is likely to be
sausage or meatballs. I tend to have pasta as a side dish, usually with
garlic and oil. In the cooler weather I like to have macaroni and cheese or
three cheese penne. Sometimes I do the garlic and oil and add chopped
asparagus.

It is my understanding that pasta is traditionally one of several courses
in a proper Italian dinner. It seems to be only in North America where a
big dish of spaghetti is the meal.

On Jun 26, 12:43 pm, Dee Dee > wrote:
> > In the U.S., pasta usually has meat in or on it.
> > Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -
>
> Hardly ever has meat on it at my house. However, I may be that one in
> 300 million.;-))
> Virginia, U.S.A.

Well, yeah. However, I'd say that most common pasta prep in the
U.S. is spaghetti with something that resembles bolognese (but
doesn't resemble it very closely). Ground meat browned and cooked
in a tomato sauce.

We're not what you'd call average here in RFC.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Jun 26, 12:43 pm, Dee Dee > wrote:
>>> In the U.S., pasta usually has meat in or on it.
>>> Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -
>> Hardly ever has meat on it at my house. However, I may be that one in
>> 300 million.;-))
>> Virginia, U.S.A.
>
> Well, yeah. However, I'd say that most common pasta prep in the
> U.S. is spaghetti with something that resembles bolognese (but
> doesn't resemble it very closely). Ground meat browned and cooked
> in a tomato sauce.

>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
Well, I'm working on that, one recipe at a time. Slow going, but when a
cook gets pasta al limone in her mouth, rockets go off. Pesto seems to
sell pretty well, too.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> Yes strange... the US has been metric resistant for many years. I
>> believe
>> sometime during 1960's the US was gradually supposed to join the rest of
>> the
>> world and go metric. For the most part it did not happen with a few
>> exceptions. Most US products have both metric and Imperial units on them
>> however.
>
>
> The US was supposed to go metric back in the 70s along with most of its
> trading partners. It has gone the way of most other international
> agreements.... down the tubes. It's a damned shame that so many people
> are so resistant to changing to a more sensible system of measurement,
> especially considering that so many of them are only partially familiar
> with the one they insist is better.
>
>
>>
>> If anybody cares:
>>
>> http://www.metric-conversion-tables....easurement.htm

Isn't Canada somewhat resistant to metric also... I have some (though
certainly not all) Canadian friends who refuse to think in Celsius, but
prefer Fahrenheit when it comes to temps. Same seems to be true for recipes.

(no spam)" wrote:
>
>> The US was supposed to go metric back in the 70s along with most of its
> > trading partners. It has gone the way of most other international
> > agreements.... down the tubes. It's a damned shame that so many people
> > are so resistant to changing to a more sensible system of measurement,
> > especially considering that so many of them are only partially familiar
> > with the one they insist is better.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If anybody cares:
> >>
> >> http://www.metric-conversion-tables....easurement.htm
>
> Isn't Canada somewhat resistant to metric also... I have some (though
> certainly not all) Canadian friends who refuse to think in Celsius, but
> prefer Fahrenheit when it comes to temps. Same seems to be true for recipes.
>


Yes.... somewhat. Many of us who grew up with the Imperial system tend to
be more comfortable with what they learned in school and used for years.
People of my son's generation were taught only the metric system in school
and have adapted to it quite well. I worked in a field that used metric and
became quite comfortable with it. Personally, I prefer it. I find that
temperatures make a lot more sense for weather, though recipes and ovens
still use F. The problem is that most people seem to be convinced that
they have to convert everything, which is unnecessary if you just stick to
the one system.

Dave Smith wrote:


> I worked in a
> field that used metric and became quite comfortable with it.
> Personally, I prefer it. I find that temperatures make a lot more
> sense for weather, though recipes and ovens still use F.

I think the opposite, F is better for weather. 100F is a fine near
top-end that people experience, as is 0F. 100C is not an earthly
atmospheric temp, and 0C is freezing, so cold but not seriously. Also,
degrees C are large enough that they use fractions in weather reports
and such. The finer granularity of F doesn't need that.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Jun 26, 4:28 pm, Cindy Hamilton >
wrote:
> On Jun 26, 12:43 pm, Dee Dee > wrote:
>
> > > In the U.S., pasta usually has meat in or on it.
> > > Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Hardly ever has meat on it at my house. However, I may be that one in
> > 300 million.;-))
> > Virginia, U.S.A.
>
> Well, yeah. However, I'd say that most common pasta prep in the
> U.S. is spaghetti with something that resembles bolognese (but
> doesn't resemble it very closely). Ground meat browned and cooked
> in a tomato sauce.
>
> We're not what you'd call average here in RFC.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

:-) I used to be average and would only eat pasta with bolognese-type
sauce. I wouldn't eat it unless it was made this way and just
couldn't understand why anyone would eat spaghetti any other way.

I think this bolognese-type of spaghetti is why Americans typically
make spaghetti a whole meal instead of a side dish.

I 'try' to include other dishes when I have spaghetti; mainly because
I want to have a balanced meal for health reasons. Always some kind
of salad, some kind of squash/zucchini, or cooked spinach; and a small
amount of Italian sausage or chicken or fish.
Dee Dee