I like to cook salmon to perfection and that means just a scintilla
above raw in the middle. Sometimes I get it perfect other times I
don't. If I really want to make sure it's the way I like it I end up
having to cut into it to check. Are there any thermometers out there
sensitive enough to give me the temp reading when I stick it into a
very shallow piece of fish?

Joe > wrote:

>I like to cook salmon to perfection and that means just a scintilla
>above raw in the middle. Sometimes I get it perfect other times I
>don't. If I really want to make sure it's the way I like it I end up
>having to cut into it to check. Are there any thermometers out there
>sensitive enough to give me the temp reading when I stick it into a
>very shallow piece of fish?


I'd be interested to know this too. I try to achieve a certain
grilling temperature then go by time and weight. If I thought
I could measure internal temperature I'd do it.


Steve

Joe wrote:

> I like to cook salmon to perfection and that means just a scintilla
> above raw in the middle. Sometimes I get it perfect other times I
> don't. If I really want to make sure it's the way I like it I end up
> having to cut into it to check. Are there any thermometers out there
> sensitive enough to give me the temp reading when I stick it into a
> very shallow piece of fish?
>

My best suggestion is to learn to cook by touch, which takes into
account varying cooking temps and thickness. Press on the thick part of
the fish with your thumb. Cut in and visually confirm desired level of
doneness. Err slightly on the raw side - the fish will continue to cook
a little after being removed from the heat source. Repeat until you can
consistently identify properly done salmon by touch.

Kathleen > wrote:

>My best suggestion is to learn to cook by touch, which takes into
>account varying cooking temps and thickness. Press on the thick part of
>the fish with your thumb. Cut in and visually confirm desired level of
>doneness. Err slightly on the raw side - the fish will continue to cook
>a little after being removed from the heat source. Repeat until you can
>consistently identify properly done salmon by touch.

I like this suggestion. I've followed this practice to
a certain extent.

Steve

Joe > wrote:
>I like to cook salmon to perfection and that means just a scintilla
>above raw in the middle. Sometimes I get it perfect other times I
>don't. If I really want to make sure it's the way I like it I end up
>having to cut into it to check. Are there any thermometers out there
>sensitive enough to give me the temp reading when I stick it into a
>very shallow piece of fish?

Look for one of these:

http://easycookin.com/catalog/produc...roducts_id=524

They do just as well as my Polder digital probe thermometer
does, and the Polder won't work in thin filets.

I use the Polder for thick filets because they take longer to
cook and it's more convenient to just put the probe in and
come back when it beeps.

With a thin filet it's easier to stick around for the 5-6
minutes it will cook, see through the oven window
when the fish is close, then check it with the probe and
give it another minute if it's not quite ready.

When estimating with larger pieces, the initial temperature
will have a greater effect, so you'll be farther off. But
there's no reason this thing can't work if you're willing.

--Blair

On Aug 21, 5:18?pm, Joe > wrote:
> I like to cook salmon to perfection and that means just a scintilla
> above raw in the middle. Sometimes I get it perfect other times I
> don't. If I really want to make sure it's the way I like it I end up
> having to cut into it to check. Are there any thermometers out there
> sensitive enough to give me the temp reading when I stick it into a
> very shallow piece of fish?

With practice you will be able to tell intuitively when a piece of
fish is done perfectly to your liking every time. I think cooking
fish by temperature is the silliest concept I've heard this year...
I've never even once seen a seafood restaurant cook poking fish with
any stinkin' thermometer. In fact I've never seen any steakhouse cook
poking his meat either, not for steaks, not for large roasts either...
with practice they just know, and once they get it they never forget,
like riding a bike.

If you attempt to cook fish by poking with a thermometer it just means
yer asacred to cook... the thermometer will lull you into a false
sense of security but nine times out of ten you'll screw up... you'll
never learn, you'll need that silly crutch forever, training wheels
actually. Just practice by cooking a lot of fish.. don't try to get
every piece perfect from the get go, the mistakes are what will teach
you, if you're paying attention. By the hundreth slab of salmon
you'll be able to cook it perfectly even dead drunk. In fact you can
probably use a few stiff belts to loosen up... I can tell from your
question that you have a case of nerves... not to worry, you can't
fail, a little over cooked is no mortal sin what can't be covered up
with a blob of lemony mayo or creamy horseradish sauce.

A little trick that helps the newbies learn to grill fish is to cut
off a small chunk the same thickness of the large piece and cook both
together... when you think you're almost there try flaking off a bit
of the small piece with a fork, you'll know when it's poifect for
you... same works with beef steak, toss a couple cubes of steak on the
grill with the steaks. Probably the most difficult meat to grill
accurately with consistancy is pork chops... everyone blames the pig
farmers, but truth is they just don't know to cook pork... but there
are methods for that too. Fish is the easiest... chicken is more
difficult, a burger is yet more difficult, even sausage is more
difficult than fish.. in fact tube steak is more difficult to grill
just right... why do you think few restaurants that specialize in
grilling meat serve tubesteak, their grill men simply ain't good
enough... that's why most tubesteak emporiums boil, steam, and
rotogriddle.

Sheldon Lambskin

I like the tip about cutting off a piece the same thickness to test,
thanks. I've been cooking salmon for a long time and when just cooking
for myself I tend to err on the side of too raw - it can't be too raw
on the inside for me - the problem is my guests. I know most people
don't mind salmon overcooked - that's pretty much the only way it's
served in restaurants. But I have received accolades from guests who I
have served salmon that is pink and buttery - yet cooked - in the
middle and what I want to do with consistency is to be able to cook it
that way without destroying the steak or fillet in the process.
I will use the chunk suggestion next time but I also would like a
sensitive thermometer for my meats and breads. I've become incredible
anal about measuring and cooking food to perfection - to the point I
cannot really enjoy food that is not cooked to my liking. It's to the
point that when I get the food just right I can actually see the
difference in a person's face like they've entered another realm and I
had a hand in getting them to a place they've never been - and when I
don't perfect the cooking time it has the opposite effect - like I
just added another mediocre day to a life that already has too many.
Anyway I've found a couple of highly rated thermometers has anyone
used either:

http://tinyurl.com/27vrlu

http://www.thermoworks.com/products/...tpen_home.html

On Aug 21, 6:23 pm, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
> Joe > wrote:
> >I like to cook salmon to perfection and that means just a scintilla
> >above raw in the middle. Sometimes I get it perfect other times I
> >don't. If I really want to make sure it's the way I like it I end up
> >having to cut into it to check. Are there any thermometers out there
> >sensitive enough to give me the temp reading when I stick it into a
> >very shallow piece of fish?
>
> Look for one of these:
>
> http://easycookin.com/catalog/produc...roducts_id=524
>
> They do just as well as my Polder digital probe thermometer
> does, and the Polder won't work in thin filets.
>
> I use the Polder for thick filets because they take longer to
> cook and it's more convenient to just put the probe in and
> come back when it beeps.
>
> With a thin filet it's easier to stick around for the 5-6
> minutes it will cook, see through the oven window
> when the fish is close, then check it with the probe and
> give it another minute if it's not quite ready.
>
> When estimating with larger pieces, the initial temperature
> will have a greater effect, so you'll be farther off. But
> there's no reason this thing can't work if you're willing.
>
> --Blair

thanks Blair, I'll pick one up. I had a Taylor thermometer with an
alert/timer and it worked great for a couple of months but then broke
down. I've heard similar stories with different brands. How long have
you had your Polder and how is it holding up?

On Aug 21, 8:50?pm, Joe > wrote:
> I like the tip about cutting off a piece the same thickness to test,
> thanks. I've been cooking salmon for a long time and when just cooking
> for myself I tend to err on the side of too raw - it can't be too raw
> on the inside for me - the problem is my guests. I know most people
> don't mind salmon overcooked - that's pretty much the only way it's
> served in restaurants. But I have received accolades from guests who I
> have served salmon that is pink and buttery - yet cooked - in the
> middle and what I want to do with consistency is to be able to cook it
> that way without destroying the steak or fillet in the process.
> I will use the chunk suggestion next time but I also would like a
> sensitive thermometer for my meats and breads. I've become incredible
> anal about measuring and cooking food to perfection - to the point I
> cannot really enjoy food that is not cooked to my liking. It's to the
> point that when I get the food just right I can actually see the
> difference in a person's face like they've entered another realm and I
> had a hand in getting them to a place they've never been - and when I
> don't perfect the cooking time it has the opposite effect - like I
> just added another mediocre day to a life that already has too many.
> Anyway I've found a couple of highly rated thermometers has anyone
> used either:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27vrlu
>
> http://www.thermoworks.com/products/...tpen_home.html

Thermometers are essential for candy making, deep frying, yeast
cookery, and knowing your oven thermostat is accurate. But I really
have no use for a thermometer for poking meat... and rare fish won't
register anyway. With cooking all meats you're much better off
perfecting technique as to cooking temperature and cooking time, and
especially by cooking often enough to train your eye to accurately
judge level of doneness, by coloration and most importantly by change
in physical configuration. I can assertain the correct level of
doneness of any piece of meat solely by inspecting it's composition of
fat to lean and remembering it's physical size and texture before
cooking (the only time I feel meat is when it's raw (feeling a cooked
steak is BS, aboslute nonsense) and then accurately judging how much
it's shrunk/changed shape while cooking. I find cooking no different
than driving an automobile, both require accurate judgement that can
only be obtained by experience, and by one's level of innate ability,
and that no one can ever change, you're either born with the natual
talent to cook well or drive well or you're not... if you need to look
at your speedometer to know that you're speeding then you are an
inexperienced driver, if you drive a stick shift and need to
constantly check the tach to know when to shift than you are grossly
inexperienced at using a manual tranny. Cooking a hunk of meat is
really no different than driving a car... I can actually tell by how
my car handles +/- 2psi if a tire needs air.... same as I can tell if
a 20 pound turkey or a 20 pound fresh ham is just done to perfection
without any stinkin' thermometer thingie... you need to cook a few
hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
fergeddaboud em too... just cook.

"Joe" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> http://www.thermoworks.com/products/...tpen_home.html


You won't regret it.
Dee Dee

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ps.com...

>
> Thermometers are essential for candy making, deep frying, yeast
> cookery, and knowing your oven thermostat is accurate. But I really
> have no use for a thermometer for poking meat... and rare fish won't
> register anyway. With cooking all meats you're much better off
> perfecting technique as to cooking temperature and cooking time, and
> especially by cooking often enough to train your eye to accurately
> judge level of doneness, by coloration and most importantly by change
> in physical configuration. I can assertain the correct level of
> doneness of any piece of meat solely by inspecting it's composition of
> fat to lean and remembering it's physical size and texture before
> cooking (the only time I feel meat is when it's raw (feeling a cooked
> steak is BS, aboslute nonsense) and then accurately judging how much
> it's shrunk/changed shape while cooking. I find cooking no different
> than driving an automobile, both require accurate judgement that can
> only be obtained by experience, and by one's level of innate ability,
> and that no one can ever change, you're either born with the natual
> talent to cook well or drive well or you're not... if you need to look
> at your speedometer to know that you're speeding then you are an
> inexperienced driver, if you drive a stick shift and need to
> constantly check the tach to know when to shift than you are grossly
> inexperienced at using a manual tranny. Cooking a hunk of meat is
> really no different than driving a car... I can actually tell by how
> my car handles +/- 2psi if a tire needs air.... same as I can tell if
> a 20 pound turkey or a 20 pound fresh ham is just done to perfection
> without any stinkin' thermometer thingie... you need to cook a few
> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>
>

Wow...

Joe > wrote:
>thanks Blair, I'll pick one up. I had a Taylor thermometer with an
>alert/timer and it worked great for a couple of months but then broke
>down. I've heard similar stories with different brands. How long have
>you had your Polder and how is it holding up?

At least 6 years and it's like new despite plenty of use.

--Blair

"Paco's Tacos" wrote:
>
> WoW

That's the tattoo on your ass, when you turn upside down it says MoM.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
wrote:

>
>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> <snip>
>>you need to cook a few
>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>>
>>
>
>Wow...
>

it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
us lesser beings...

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>you need to cook a few
> >> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
> >> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
> >> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
> >> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
> >> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
> >> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Wow...
> >
>
> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
> us lesser beings...
>
> your pal,
> blake

Oh, is he still hanging around here??? I wouldn't have known without your
clipped post :-)

Life Truth
Those that know, share.
Those that can, do.
Those that don't know and can't do, scatter garbage and filth upon others.

KW

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> "Paco's Tacos" wrote:
>>
>> WoW
>
> That's the tattoo on your ass, when you turn upside down it says MoM.
>
>
>

Yup. Got your sister's name on the other butt cheek. Was part of the deal
while we were negotiating the price. Gave them a good two-for-one deal.
They working the docks in Red Hook.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>you need to cook a few
>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Wow...
>>
>
> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
> us lesser beings...
>
> your pal,
> blake

It's not easy being Sheldon.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:03:34 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>you need to cook a few
>>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
>>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
>>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wow...
>>>
>>
>> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
>> us lesser beings...
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>It's not easy being Sheldon.
>
really? i think any half-wit could do it...

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:03:34 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>you need to cook a few
>>>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
>>>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>>>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
>>>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>>>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>>>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wow...
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
>>> us lesser beings...
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>>It's not easy being Sheldon.
>>
> really? i think any half-wit could do it...
>
> your pal,
> blake

I have to disagree, Blake. Think of all of the care and thought that has to
go into each and every inane statement. And the expertise! On everything!
This requires a 24/7 commitment.

In article <HSMzi.1318$Ay3.959@trndny02>,
"Paco's Tacos" > wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:03:34 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
> groups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>you need to cook a few
> >>>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
> >>>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
> >>>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
> >>>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
> >>>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
> >>>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.

> >>> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
> >>> us lesser beings...

> >>It's not easy being Sheldon.
> >>
> > really? i think any half-wit could do it...
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> I have to disagree, Blake. Think of all of the care and thought that has to
> go into each and every inane statement. And the expertise! On everything!
> This requires a 24/7 commitment.

Sheldon has a point, though. People with experience don't need
thermometers and recipes. With experience, it is easy to tell when meat
is done. With experience, it is easy to tell whether a dough needs more
flour or more liquid. Since I, and most everyone else, doesn't have
that kind of experience, we need the damn thermometer and recipes. If I
roast a turkey twice a year, I can't afford to have it go wrong, so I
use a thermometer.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:55:35 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:03:34 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
egroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>you need to cook a few
>>>>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
>>>>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>>>>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
>>>>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>>>>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>>>>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
>>>> us lesser beings...
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>
>>>It's not easy being Sheldon.
>>>
>> really? i think any half-wit could do it...
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>I have to disagree, Blake. Think of all of the care and thought that has to
>go into each and every inane statement. And the expertise! On everything!
>This requires a 24/7 commitment.
>

you may be right. it's difficult to strike that artful balance
between idiocy and lunacy...

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:04:57 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article <HSMzi.1318$Ay3.959@trndny02>,
> "Paco's Tacos" > wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:03:34 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
>> groups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>you need to cook a few
>> >>>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
>> >>>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>> >>>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
>> >>>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>> >>>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>> >>>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>
>> >>> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
>> >>> us lesser beings...
>
>> >>It's not easy being Sheldon.
>> >>
>> > really? i think any half-wit could do it...
>> >
>> > your pal,
>> > blake
>>
>> I have to disagree, Blake. Think of all of the care and thought that has to
>> go into each and every inane statement. And the expertise! On everything!
>> This requires a 24/7 commitment.
>
>Sheldon has a point, though. People with experience don't need
>thermometers and recipes. With experience, it is easy to tell when meat
>is done. With experience, it is easy to tell whether a dough needs more
>flour or more liquid. Since I, and most everyone else, doesn't have
>that kind of experience, we need the damn thermometer and recipes. If I
>roast a turkey twice a year, I can't afford to have it go wrong, so I
>use a thermometer.

also, it's a little easier to gain that experience if in the beginning
you use a thermometer.

your pal,
blake

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <HSMzi.1318$Ay3.959@trndny02>,
> "Paco's Tacos" > wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:03:34 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
>> groups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>you need to cook a few
>> >>>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>> >>>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact
>> >>>>> I
>> >>>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>> >>>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>> >>>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>
>> >>> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
>> >>> us lesser beings...
>
>> >>It's not easy being Sheldon.
>> >>
>> > really? i think any half-wit could do it...
>> >
>> > your pal,
>> > blake
>>
>> I have to disagree, Blake. Think of all of the care and thought that has
>> to
>> go into each and every inane statement. And the expertise! On
>> everything!
>> This requires a 24/7 commitment.
>
> Sheldon has a point, though. People with experience don't need
> thermometers and recipes. With experience, it is easy to tell when meat
> is done. With experience, it is easy to tell whether a dough needs more
> flour or more liquid. Since I, and most everyone else, doesn't have
> that kind of experience, we need the damn thermometer and recipes. If I
> roast a turkey twice a year, I can't afford to have it go wrong, so I
> use a thermometer.

Yes he does, Dan. But he envelopes it with such copious amounts of BS.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:55:35 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:03:34 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:31:18 GMT, "Paco's Tacos" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
legroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>you need to cook a few
>>>>>>> hundred of each to get a feel for it, I've cooked thousands, tens of
>>>>>>> thousands, I can roast hams and turkeys of any size perfectly while
>>>>>>> drunk as a skunk... and no thermometer would help one bit, in fact I
>>>>>>> don't trust cooking by thermometer, would just **** me up. I don't
>>>>>>> need to look at your thermometers, and I didn't... you need to
>>>>>>> fergeddaboud em too... just cook.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wow...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it's a wonder how sheldon tolerates existence on this planet with all
>>>>> us lesser beings...
>>>>>
>>>>> your pal,
>>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>>It's not easy being Sheldon.
>>>>
>>> really? i think any half-wit could do it...
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>>I have to disagree, Blake. Think of all of the care and thought that has
>>to
>>go into each and every inane statement. And the expertise! On
>>everything!
>>This requires a 24/7 commitment.
>>
>
> you may be right. it's difficult to strike that artful balance
> between idiocy and lunacy...
>
> your pal,
> blake

It is a fine line that he walks so well.