Are the testers trained cooks or just amateurs? Although I love the
magazine, I have trouble believing the story behind their arrival at
some recipes. For instance, there was one article about how
"research" suggested that beating softened butter with sugar was
making their cookies puffy. And another about how they had to invent
the idea of a two-level fire on a grill. I mean, these are basic
concepts. I suspect that the author of the story was taking great
liberties with the facts in order to make it sound more like an
adventure.

On Feb 18, 11:43 pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> Are the testers trained cooks or just amateurs? Although I love the
> magazine, I have trouble believing the story behind their arrival at
> some recipes. For instance, there was one article about how
> "research" suggested that beating softened butter with sugar was
> making their cookies puffy. And another about how they had to invent
> the idea of a two-level fire on a grill. I mean, these are basic
> concepts. I suspect that the author of the story was taking great
> liberties with the facts in order to make it sound more like an
> adventure.

Agreed.

I also love Cooks Illustrated, and their "Best Of" cookbook is
exceptional.

That said...

Sometimes I feel that their obsession with making 'the perfect x' (be
it roast chicken, pot roast or, even dumplings) is a little
ridiculous.

I'm reminded of 'Consumer Reports', another publication I hold in high
regard, where (with regard to culinary matters) the editors are trying
to find 'the best', by some quantitative metric.

My problem with Cooks's is that there's no room left for subjectivity:
sometimes, the best roast chicken is the way your mom made it--period.

So are they trained chefs? Does it matter?

And more importantly, does it taste good?

-a

Mortimer wrote:

<<So are they trained chefs? Does it matter?>>

Maybe not; it just gives me information to understand better the basis
for their decision. I suppose that I grant someone with formal
training more authority, but perhaps granting anyone "authority" would
be a mistake. I don't really know how thorough even the best culinary
training is. Do they really understand the science, or is it mainly
vocational training, like "Do X, it works?"

I too love Consumer Reports, but you're right, sometimes they rank
things by somewhat arbitrary standards, rendering the results only
marginally useful. Much more interesting to me than the results is
the data both magazines accumulate while arriving at their
destination. Discovering that baking soda makes things brown better
is interesting, more useful than their decision to use baking soda in
a particular recipe. That provides me with a tool to use later when I
want to make my own recipes, or to diagnose where one went wrong.

I'm a little suspicious, though, of some of their explanations of the
"why's". I keep thinking, "How do you know?" Sometimes their
explanations from one article to the next seem a bit contradictory,
but, to be fair, perhaps it's my own lack of knowledge that makes it
seem so.

On 2008-02-19, Greg Esres > wrote:

> concepts. I suspect that the author of the story was taking great
> liberties with the facts in order to make it sound more like an
> adventure.

Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. He's a journalism major. His goal is
to establish a publishing empire. He's right on schedule. Do you actually
believe his insipid tripe?

nb

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:43:53 -0800 (PST), Greg Esres
> wrote:

>Are the testers trained cooks or just amateurs? Although I love the
>magazine, I have trouble believing the story behind their arrival at
>some recipes. For instance, there was one article about how
>"research" suggested that beating softened butter with sugar was
>making their cookies puffy. And another about how they had to invent
>the idea of a two-level fire on a grill. I mean, these are basic
>concepts. I suspect that the author of the story was taking great
>liberties with the facts in order to make it sound more like an
>adventure.

"Taunton's Fine Cooking" is very similar. I like CI, but I think I
like TFC just as much.

http://www.taunton.com/finecooking/

Lou

notbob wrote:

<<Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. *He's a journalism major. *His
goal is to establish a publishing empire. *He's right on schedule. *Do
you actually believe his insipid tripe?>>

Journalism major, huh? I wish they'd stop using "seriously" as an
adjective so much, as in "seriously crisp" or "seriously crunchy" or
"seriously chocolate."

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:37:00 -0800 (PST), Greg Esres
> wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>
><<Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. *He's a journalism major. *His
>goal is to establish a publishing empire. *He's right on schedule. *Do
>you actually believe his insipid tripe?>>
>
>Journalism major, huh? I wish they'd stop using "seriously" as an
>adjective so much, as in "seriously crisp" or "seriously crunchy" or
>"seriously chocolate."

all educated people know that the proper intensifier is '****ing.'

your pal,
blake

On Feb 20, 9:29*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:37:00 -0800 (PST), Greg Esres
>
> > wrote:
> >notbob wrote:
>
> ><<Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. *He's a journalism major. *His
> >goal is to establish a publishing empire. *He's right on schedule. *Do
> >you actually believe his insipid tripe?>>
>
> >Journalism major, huh? *I wish they'd stop using "seriously" as an
> >adjective so much, as in "seriously crisp" or "seriously crunchy" or
> >"seriously chocolate."
>
> all educated people know that the proper intensifier is '****ing.'
>
> your pal,
> blake

Are you sure it's not "seriously ****ing"?

merryb wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:29 am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:37:00 -0800 (PST), Greg Esres
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> notbob wrote:
>>> <<Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. He's a journalism major. His
>>> goal is to establish a publishing empire. He's right on schedule. Do
>>> you actually believe his insipid tripe?>>
>>> Journalism major, huh? I wish they'd stop using "seriously" as an
>>> adjective so much, as in "seriously crisp" or "seriously crunchy" or
>>> "seriously chocolate."
>> all educated people know that the proper intensifier is '****ing.'
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Are you sure it's not "seriously ****ing"?

****ing seriously!

In article >, notbob > wrote:
>On 2008-02-19, Greg Esres > wrote:
>
>> concepts. I suspect that the author of the story was taking great
>> liberties with the facts in order to make it sound more like an
>> adventure.
>
>Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. He's a journalism major. His goal is
>to establish a publishing empire. He's right on schedule. Do you actually
>believe his insipid tripe?

I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
be typical of you yanks! ;-)

[Translation: That's "ass" as in "donkey"; not "ass" as in "arse".]

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:44:02 -0800 (PST), merryb >
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 9:29*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:37:00 -0800 (PST), Greg Esres
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >notbob wrote:
>>
>> ><<Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. *He's a journalism major. *His
>> >goal is to establish a publishing empire. *He's right on schedule. *Do
>> >you actually believe his insipid tripe?>>
>>
>> >Journalism major, huh? *I wish they'd stop using "seriously" as an
>> >adjective so much, as in "seriously crisp" or "seriously crunchy" or
>> >"seriously chocolate."
>>
>> all educated people know that the proper intensifier is '****ing.'
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>Are you sure it's not "seriously ****ing"?

that's only if you want really, really intensified.

your pal,
blake

On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>
> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
> be typical of you yanks! ;-)

Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life, except
with a tux.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
>> be typical of you yanks! ;-)
>
> Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life, except
> with a tux.
>
> nb

So not true. I know a lovely surgeon who always wears them almost
exclusively. They do seem to be his trademark. They're actually more
hygienic since they don't droop onto the patient or anything, and still
present a professional image with his white coat.

On 2008-02-21, Goomba38 > wrote:

> present a professional image with his white coat.

Sorry. ******.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-02-21, Goomba38 > wrote:
>
>> present a professional image with his white coat.
>
> Sorry. ******.
>
> nb

When his hands are inside your chest, do you think you'd think that at
the time?

On 2008-02-21, Goomba38 > wrote:

> When his hands are inside your chest, do you think you'd think that at
> the time?

If they are, he BETTER have that damn bow-tie off. I don't want no
restricted blood flow to his brain.

nb

Goomba38 wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>>> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
>>> be typical of you yanks! ;-)
>>
>> Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life,
>> except
>> with a tux.
>>
>> nb
>
> So not true. I know a lovely surgeon who always wears them almost
> exclusively. They do seem to be his trademark. They're actually more
> hygienic since they don't droop onto the patient or anything, and still
> present a professional image with his white coat.


I'm sure the Dr. looks very suave, but a bow tie always
reminds me of Mr. Peepers.
(Hmmm--how old do you have to be to remember him?)

gloria p

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-02-21, Goomba38 > wrote:
>
>> When his hands are inside your chest, do you think you'd think that at
>> the time?
>
> If they are, he BETTER have that damn bow-tie off. I don't want no
> restricted blood flow to his brain.
>
> nb

lol, good point.
I think he looks charming and handsome. Not a ****** in my book!

Puester wrote:

>
> I'm sure the Dr. looks very suave, but a bow tie always reminds me of
> Mr. Peepers.
> (Hmmm--how old do you have to be to remember him?)
>
> gloria p

Um.... older than I, I suspect? I have never heard of him?

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:36 GMT, Puester >
wrote:

>Goomba38 wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>>>> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
>>>> be typical of you yanks! ;-)
>>>
>>> Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life,
>>> except
>>> with a tux.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> So not true. I know a lovely surgeon who always wears them almost
>> exclusively. They do seem to be his trademark. They're actually more
>> hygienic since they don't droop onto the patient or anything, and still
>> present a professional image with his white coat.
>
>
>I'm sure the Dr. looks very suave, but a bow tie always
>reminds me of Mr. Peepers.
>(Hmmm--how old do you have to be to remember him?)
>
>gloria p

At least my age. I remember Mr. Peepers and Our Miss Brooks.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On 2008-02-21, Puester > wrote:

> reminds me of Mr. Peepers.
> (Hmmm--how old do you have to be to remember him?)

Old enough to know better than to wear a bow-tie! <shudder>

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-02-19, Greg Esres > wrote:
>
>> concepts. I suspect that the author of the story was taking great
>> liberties with the facts in order to make it sound more like an
>> adventure.
>
> Welcome to Pompous-Bowtie-Man's scam. He's a journalism major. His goal
> is
> to establish a publishing empire. He's right on schedule. Do you
> actually
> believe his insipid tripe?
>
> nb


Grrrr! I am so totally irritated at those Test Kitchen people .
I wanted a recipe from the TV show, had to register at the site, agree to
get a newsletter , blah blah blah, so I could get the recipe. OK. fine.
(Good recipe, btw, orange chicken, yums were had by all).
Now, I seem to have agreed to get "Cooks Country" Magazine. I got one issue
(a free trial, apparently, that turns into a subscription unless you send
back a refusal form, with your own postage), and now they are sending me
bills.
It's a perfectly fine magazine but I DO NOT WANT.
I feel like an idiot (an unusual state for me), but they *totally* suckered
me!
Blargh.

"Puester" > wrote in message
...
> Goomba38 wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>>>> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
>>>> be typical of you yanks! ;-)
>>>
>>> Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life,
>>> except
>>> with a tux.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> So not true. I know a lovely surgeon who always wears them almost
>> exclusively. They do seem to be his trademark. They're actually more
>> hygienic since they don't droop onto the patient or anything, and still
>> present a professional image with his white coat.

ALL ties should be banned. They are stupid. I don't trust men who wear ties.

"deja.blues" > wrote in message
news:CDrvj.9105$zo3.729@trndny04...
>
> "Puester" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Goomba38 wrote:
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>>>>> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
>>>>> be typical of you yanks! ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life,
>>>> except
>>>> with a tux.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>
>>> So not true. I know a lovely surgeon who always wears them almost
>>> exclusively. They do seem to be his trademark. They're actually more
>>> hygienic since they don't droop onto the patient or anything, and still
>>> present a professional image with his white coat.
>
> ALL ties should be banned. They are stupid. I don't trust men who wear
> ties.

I agree.

"deja.blues" > wrote in message
>
> ALL ties should be banned. They are stupid. I don't trust men who wear
> ties.
>

I used to wear a tie every day but that is long gone (thankfully).

It is rare today to see a salesman wearing a suit or tie. Bankers and
lawyers are about the only ones left that still dress up.

deja.blues wrote:

>>> So not true. I know a lovely surgeon who always wears them almost
>>> exclusively. They do seem to be his trademark. They're actually more
>>> hygienic since they don't droop onto the patient or anything, and still
>>> present a professional image with his white coat.
>
> ALL ties should be banned. They are stupid. I don't trust men who wear ties.

I disagree with that too! I think it shows a man who isn't afraid to
dress up a bit. Perhaps stand out a bit above the "too lazy to bother"
guys?
Naturally I read John Malloy's "Dress for Success" many, many years ago.
Then again, when I first went out on a date with a guy in a tux I
thought then that if men had any idea of how sexy they could
look...they'd wear them more often! James Bond and all that...
I know, I know, some just aren't comfortable looking that good

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "deja.blues" > wrote in message
>> ALL ties should be banned. They are stupid. I don't trust men who wear
>> ties.
>>
>
> I used to wear a tie every day but that is long gone (thankfully).
>
> It is rare today to see a salesman wearing a suit or tie. Bankers and
> lawyers are about the only ones left that still dress up.
>
>
I don't like seeing bank tellers in polo shirts. I sort of like the
professional image a shirt and tie (no coat!) brings to mind. It is MY
money.. I don't want them to look like they're off to the races with it! LOL

"Goomba38" > wrote

> I disagree with that too! I think it shows a man who isn't afraid to dress
> up a bit. Perhaps stand out a bit above the "too lazy to bother" guys?
> Naturally I read John Malloy's "Dress for Success" many, many years ago.
> Then again, when I first went out on a date with a guy in a tux I thought
> then that if men had any idea of how sexy they could look...they'd wear
> them more often! James Bond and all that...
> I know, I know, some just aren't comfortable looking that good

I miss men in suits. With a nice tie. Don't get me wrong, I
embraced dressed down Fridays which quickly turned into
why not be comfortable if we're just sitting in front of a
computer all day, every day? Still ...

nancy

Nancy Young said...

> I miss men in suits. With a nice tie. Don't get me wrong, I
> embraced dressed down Fridays which quickly turned into
> why not be comfortable if we're just sitting in front of a
> computer all day, every day? Still ...
>
> nancy


nancy,

I can tie a Windsor knot and dawn a pin stripe suit, when I feel like it
but you're married.

Life is a beach! I'd suggest we go formal at least once!

Alas!

<smootch>

Andy



--
OB Food: Orange Julius Caesar Salad Dressing

"Andy" <q> wrote

> Nancy Young said...
>
>> I miss men in suits. With a nice tie. Don't get me wrong, I
>> embraced dressed down Fridays which quickly turned into
>> why not be comfortable if we're just sitting in front of a
>> computer all day, every day? Still ...

> nancy,
>
> I can tie a Windsor knot and dawn a pin stripe suit, when I feel like it
> but you're married.
>
> Life is a beach! I'd suggest we go formal at least once!
>
> Alas!
>
> <smootch>

(laugh) Thanks, Andy. I'll wear heels and a dress.

nancy

Nancy Young said...

>
> "Andy" <q> wrote
>
>> Nancy Young said...
>>
>>> I miss men in suits. With a nice tie. Don't get me wrong, I
>>> embraced dressed down Fridays which quickly turned into
>>> why not be comfortable if we're just sitting in front of a
>>> computer all day, every day? Still ...
>
>> nancy,
>>
>> I can tie a Windsor knot and dawn a pin stripe suit, when I feel like it
>> but you're married.
>>
>> Life is a beach! I'd suggest we go formal at least once!
>>
>> Alas!
>>
>> <smootch>
>
> (laugh) Thanks, Andy. I'll wear heels and a dress.
>
> nancy


It's a date! We can dance around the edge of the incoming waves! Even live
dangerously and barefoot waltz. You promised me a dance!

Andy

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:05:03 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>>
>> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
>> be typical of you yanks! ;-)
>
>Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life, except
>with a tux.
>
>nb

but what about george f. will?!?!

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:36 GMT, Puester >
wrote:

>Goomba38 wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-21, Phred > wrote:
>>>> I'm glad to hear this criticism. I was worried the pompous ass might
>>>> be typical of you yanks! ;-)
>>>
>>> Please. No one but a complete ****** wears a bow-tie in real life,
>>> except
>>> with a tux.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> So not true. I know a lovely surgeon who always wears them almost
>> exclusively. They do seem to be his trademark. They're actually more
>> hygienic since they don't droop onto the patient or anything, and still
>> present a professional image with his white coat.
>
>
>I'm sure the Dr. looks very suave, but a bow tie always
>reminds me of Mr. Peepers.
>(Hmmm--how old do you have to be to remember him?)
>
>gloria p

the great wally cox, also the voice of underdog (not the stupid
movie).

your pal,
blake

Goomba38 wrote:
> deja.blues wrote:
>
>>
>> ALL ties should be banned. They are stupid. I don't trust men who wear
>> ties.
>
> I disagree with that too! I think it shows a man who isn't afraid to
> dress up a bit. Perhaps stand out a bit above the "too lazy to bother"
> guys?
> Naturally I read John Malloy's "Dress for Success" many, many years ago.
> Then again, when I first went out on a date with a guy in a tux I
> thought then that if men had any idea of how sexy they could
> look...they'd wear them more often! James Bond and all that...
> I know, I know, some just aren't comfortable looking that good


I couldn't agree more. A man in a suit and tie at a special
dinner or a
wedding reception is infinitely better looking than the guy
in the
jeans and baseball cap. "Appropriate" is the operant word.

gloria p

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "deja.blues" > wrote in message
> >
> > ALL ties should be banned. They are stupid. I don't trust men who
> > wear ties.
> >
>
> I used to wear a tie every day but that is long gone (thankfully).
>
> It is rare today to see a salesman wearing a suit or tie. Bankers
> and lawyers are about the only ones left that still dress up.

We went to permanent casual attire in 97 or so. Some of the old farts
in upper management hated it, but it's great.




Brian

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

In article
>,
Puester > wrote:

> I'm sure the Dr. looks very suave, but a bow tie always
> reminds me of Mr. Peepers.
> (Hmmm--how old do you have to be to remember him?)
>
> gloria p


Forty-three. I remember him well.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com;pics of my no-knead bread posted
Laissez les bons temps rouler!

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
> It is rare today to see a salesman wearing a suit or tie. Bankers and
> lawyers are about the only ones left that still dress up.

I know a salesman for 3M. Uniform was a suit and tie for calling on
customers. He ran into his boss one day while (salesman) was wearing a
sportcoat and tie. Boss said, "Oh, I see you're not working today." He
was working, he just got caught out of uniform.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com;pics of my no-knead bread posted
Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Nancy Young wrote:

> I miss men in suits. With a nice tie. Don't get me wrong, I
> embraced dressed down Fridays which quickly turned into
> why not be comfortable if we're just sitting in front of a
> computer all day, every day? Still ...
>
> nancy

My son owns a few blazers, and a suit or two and looks great when he's
cleaned up. He wears them mostly for frat functions. Oddly the functions
are either dressy or wrinkled slob? Very little middle ground? LOL

Andy wrote:

>
> I can tie a Windsor knot and dawn a pin stripe suit, when I feel like it
> but you're married.

half or full?
My husband insists on a full Windsor.
He used to get asked by his young soldiers to do their ties up so that
they could slip them on and off for repeated wearings without undoing
them. He thinks tying ties has become a lost skill or art.

Puester wrote:

> I couldn't agree more. A man in a suit and tie at a special dinner or a
> wedding reception is infinitely better looking than the guy in the
> jeans and baseball cap. "Appropriate" is the operant word.
>
> gloria p

I find it really sad when I see young couples on a date or High School
event and she's gone all out on some evening dress and he looks like he
barely bothered? It stands out as a disconnect. Either one is
overdressed or one under dressed.
Thankfully, I live down south where men seem to own more suits and wear
them more often. They look NICE!