Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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"? |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2008-02-21, Goomba38 > wrote:
> present a professional image with his white coat. Sorry. ******. nb |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cooks Illustrated scam | General Cooking | |||
Dammit Cooks Illustrated | General Cooking | |||
Cooks Illustrated Web Site Cost | General Cooking | |||
Cooks Illustrated Chat?? | Baking | |||
Unsolicited Cooks Illustrated books? | General Cooking |