Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but she
just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I intend on using one
to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. Anything I should
know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?

nb

notbob wrote:
>
> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but she
> just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I intend on using one
> to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. Anything I should
> know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?
>
> nb

I hope you have a large baking sheet to put everything on, since the bag
isn't going to provide support.

The turkey is not likely to brown in the bag, but if you tear open the
top near the end of cooking and crank up the oven you'll probably do ok.

The fond at the bottom of the bag will be more difficult to deglaze to
use for gravy making.

Personally I'd just hit the local grocery store for one of the large
disposable AL roasting pans.

notbob wrote:
> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the
> legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?

Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
anyway.

She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
wonderful gravy.

nancy

On Thu 27 Nov 2008 08:56:24a, notbob told us...

> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but
she
> just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I intend on using
one
> to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. Anything I
should
> know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?
>
> nb
>

Yes, I use one every year. You still have to put the bag in a pan,
however.

Add a copy of tablespoons of flour to the bag. Cut several slits in the
top of the bag.

The skin does brown, but more of a golden brown, not deep brown. It also
will not be as crisp, but the meat will be much jucier.

If you want to brown and crisp the skin, you can slip it under the broiler
after removing from the bag, or use a blowtorch.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************** **********************
Not only am I a master of suspense, but I ...
************************************************** **********************

On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:13:55a, Nancy Young told us...

> notbob wrote:
>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the
>> legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?
>
> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
> anyway.

I think it makes a great turkey, but it’s true that the skin isn’t as
crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That helps. You
can also brown it under the broiler after removing from the bag.

> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
> wonderful gravy.

Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.


--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************** **********************
'And then you turn the corner . . .' And the DM starts chuckling.
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:13:55a, Nancy Young told us...
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off
>>> the legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a
>>> bag?
>>
>> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
>> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
>> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
>> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
>> anyway.
>
> I think it makes a great turkey, but it’s true that the skin isn’t as
> crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That
> helps. You can also brown it under the broiler after removing from
> the bag.

Perfect. The skin isn't a big deal for me, but I know people like
it, plus you'd want that nice browned look.

>> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
>> wonderful gravy.
>
> Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.

Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
hated turkey. (laugh)

nancy

On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:22:20a, Nancy Young told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:13:55a, Nancy Young told us...
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>>>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>>>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off
>>>> the legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a
>>>> bag?
>>>
>>> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
>>> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
>>> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
>>> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
>>> anyway.
>>
>> I think it makes a great turkey, but it’s true that the skin isn’t as
>> crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That
>> helps. You can also brown it under the broiler after removing from
>> the bag.
>
> Perfect. The skin isn't a big deal for me, but I know people like
> it, plus you'd want that nice browned look.
>
>>> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
>>> wonderful gravy.
>>
>> Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.
>
> Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
> advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
> hated turkey. (laugh)
>
> nancy

Heh! I do hate turkey, Nancy, but I always cook a bone-in turkey breast
because David loves turkey. I do like the gravy, however, since it’s made
primarily with chicken stock. I will eat a token slice of turkey at the
main meal, and one turkey sandwich later in the day. After that I’m *done*
with turkey for another year.

Having said that, I use the same technique for roasting a capon, which I
really love.


--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************** **********************
'The friendship that can cease has never been real.'- St. Jerome
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:22:20a, Nancy Young told us...

>> Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
>> advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
>> hated turkey. (laugh)

> Heh! I do hate turkey, Nancy, but I always cook a bone-in turkey
> breast because David loves turkey.

That's a great compromise, and if it was up to me, I'd
never make whole turkeys even though I prefer the dark
meat.

Turkey on Thanksgiving, then leftover sandwiches, then that's
it for me. The glaring hole in that story is that I buy turkey
breast for sandwiches all year long. Love my turkey sandwiches.
Other leftovers are just a desperate attempt to get rid of the
rest of the monster.

I think I was traumatized by my childhood when we'd have
turkey leftovers for what seemed like a month. Surely
we didn't.

>I do like the gravy, however,
> since it’s made primarily with chicken stock. I will eat a token
> slice of turkey at the main meal, and one turkey sandwich later in
> the day. After that I’m *done* with turkey for another year.
>
> Having said that, I use the same technique for roasting a capon,
> which I really love.

I've never had one, never mind made one.

nancy

On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:38:07a, Nancy Young told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:22:20a, Nancy Young told us...
>
>>> Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
>>> advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
>>> hated turkey. (laugh)
>
>> Heh! I do hate turkey, Nancy, but I always cook a bone-in turkey
>> breast because David loves turkey.
>
> That's a great compromise, and if it was up to me, I'd
> never make whole turkeys even though I prefer the dark
> meat.
>
> Turkey on Thanksgiving, then leftover sandwiches, then that's
> it for me. The glaring hole in that story is that I buy turkey
> breast for sandwiches all year long. Love my turkey sandwiches.
> Other leftovers are just a desperate attempt to get rid of the
> rest of the monster.
>
> I think I was traumatized by my childhood when we'd have
> turkey leftovers for what seemed like a month. Surely
> we didn't.
>
>>I do like the gravy, however,
>> since it’s made primarily with chicken stock. I will eat a token
>> slice of turkey at the main meal, and one turkey sandwich later in
>> the day. After that I’m *done* with turkey for another year.
>>
>> Having said that, I use the same technique for roasting a capon,
>> which I really love.
>
> I've never had one, never mind made one.
>
> nancy

I would never buy any part of the turkey if it weren’t for David. Our
family tradition (on both sides) was always capon. I guess I just never
got used to the flavor of turkey. Capons, IMO, are wonderful and superior.
Since the rooster is neutered as a chick, it has no male hormones and,
consequently, grows huge breasts, and grows into a rather large rooster.
The dark meat is not as dark as turkey, no darker than regular chicken.
There’s also a nice fat layer to make the meat juicy. They’re not always
easy to find. I was quite surprised this year to find at least a dozen or
more frozen capons at my local Fry’s.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 11(XI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Today is: Thanksgiving Day (U.S.)
************************************************** **********************
Have you waxed your armadillo today?
************************************************** **********************

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:56:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but she
>just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I intend on using one
>to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. Anything I should
>know? Does the turkey brown with a bag?

My brother's mother-in-law makes the best turkey I have ever eaten by
following the directions and recipe on the oven bag package.

Tara

notbob wrote:
> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but she
> just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. �I intend on using one
> to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. �Anything I should
> know? �Does the turkey brown with a bag?

Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:53:51 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but she
>> just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. ?I intend on using one
>> to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. ?Anything I should
>> know? ?Does the turkey brown with a bag?
>
>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.

He's out in the boondocks. Not many dollar stores around, if I
remember that area correctly.

Christine

On 2008-11-27, Christine Dabney > wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:53:51 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
> wrote:

>>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
>>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
>>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
>>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.

Mom's pan was "just" big enough, so didn't use bag. Lacked a rack so placed
bird on 3 spring tongs on bottom of pan opened and layed out like a chevron.
Worked great. Unfortunately, bird still came out a bit dry, even though I
yanked at 165 deg F. Probably shoulda yanked at 160. I may try a bag at
xmas, jes as a goof.

> He's out in the boondocks. Not many dollar stores around, if I
> remember that area correctly.

We just got brand new one. Haven't been yet, but tend to avoid them. Over
the years, I've only found one or two items worth buying in over a dozen
dollar stores. Ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the stuff is
worthless junk.

nb

On Nov 27, 6:51�pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2008-11-27, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:53:51 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
> > wrote:
> >>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
> >>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
> >>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. �Unless you
> >>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.
>
> Mom's pan was "just" big enough, so didn't use bag. �Lacked a rack so placed
> bird on 3 spring tongs on bottom of pan opened and layed out like a chevron.
> Worked great. �Unfortunately, bird still came out a bit dry, even though I
> yanked at 165 deg F. �Probably shoulda yanked at 160. �I may try a bag at
> xmas, jes as a goof.
>
> > He's out in the boondocks. �Not many dollar stores around, if I
> > remember that area correctly. �
>
> We just got brand new one. �Haven't been yet, but tend to avoid them. �Over
> the years, I've only found one or two items worth buying in over a dozen
> dollar stores. �Ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the stuff is
> worthless junk.
>
> nb

I wouldn't go out of my way but there's a Dollar store right next to
the liquor store, and some things are a very good buy... just two
weeks ago I needed black shoelaces, so since I was already there I
stopped in, they had an entire rack of laces, all kinds, all lengths.
all colors, even combo packs... I bought a pack of six pair of extra
long flat black laces for a buck. When I went into the stupidmarket
they had the exact same laces one pair for $1.29. In case anyone is
wondering the laces weren't for shoes, I really needed only part of
one lace to repair an old antique picture frame, the kind that sits on
a dresser like an easel stand, the black ribbon holding the movable
portion finally gave way. The flat black lace was perfect. I usually
stop in just to look, and usually buy some holiday decorations, cheapo
Halloween stuff was fine. Disposable aluminum pans are a bargain
there. But I agree, most of the Dollar store stuff is dreck.

On 2008-11-28, Sheldon > wrote:

> there. But I agree, most of the Dollar store stuff is dreck.

I still go in 'em and do a quick look-see. One of the rare deals I did find
in one dollar store was some lrg SS restaurant grade stock pot spoons (some
slotted), the kind the resto sply stores charge $8-10 ea for. Bought out
their entire stock and gave 'em out as gifts.

nb

"notbob" 'boondocks' wrote in message
> On 2008-11-27, Christine Dabney <wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:53:51 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >> wrote:
>
>>>Hurry over to your nearest Dollar store, etc. and buy a couple of
>>>large disposable aluminum pans... place one inside the other for
>>>strength and place on a sheet pan for easier handling. Unless you
>>>like braised turkey forget about turkey in a bag.
>
> Mom's pan was "just" big enough, so didn't use bag. Lacked a rack so
> placed
> bird on 3 spring tongs on bottom of pan opened and layed out like a
> chevron.
> Worked great. Unfortunately, bird still came out a bit dry, even though I
> yanked at 165 deg F. Probably shoulda yanked at 160. I may try a bag at
> xmas, jes as a goof.
>
>> He's out in the boondocks. Not many dollar stores around, if I
>> remember that area correctly.
>
> We just got brand new one. Haven't been yet, but tend to avoid them.
> Over
> the years, I've only found one or two items worth buying in over a dozen
> dollar stores. Ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the stuff is
> worthless junk.
>
> nb

I agree with Sheldon, try another method of trapping moisture in the turkey.
We tried a 16 lb in a bag once, ok the breast was more moist, but the bird
was swimming around in a gallon of juice and you miss the traditional roast
smell.
If we tried it again, might puncture holes in the bottom of the bag, sit it
on a wire rack, in a tray and remember to empty the tray every 30 mins.
Bertie
p.s. 'boondocks eh! your secret is safe with me :-)

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:22:20 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:13:55a, Nancy Young told us...
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>>>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>>>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off
>>>> the legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a
>>>> bag?
>>>
>>> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
>>> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
>>> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
>>> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
>>> anyway.
>>
>> I think it makes a great turkey, but it¢s true that the skin isn¢t as
>> crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That
>> helps. You can also brown it under the broiler after removing from
>> the bag.
>
> Perfect. The skin isn't a big deal for me, but I know people like
> it, plus you'd want that nice browned look.
>
>>> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
>>> wonderful gravy.
>>
>> Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.
>
> Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
> advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
> hated turkey. (laugh)
>
> nancy

it's called 'know the enemy.'

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:38:46 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-11-28, Sheldon > wrote:
>
>> there. But I agree, most of the Dollar store stuff is dreck.
>
>I still go in 'em and do a quick look-see. One of the rare deals I did find
>in one dollar store was some lrg SS restaurant grade stock pot spoons (some
>slotted), the kind the resto sply stores charge $8-10 ea for. Bought out
>their entire stock and gave 'em out as gifts.

Reading glasses for a buck. I stop in even when I don't need them
because I destroy them pretty fast. I even found a pair of reading
sunglasses for a buck. They would have been at least $200 to have
made and they're perfect.

Lou

My parents used one last year and it was awful. Tasted steamed.
However, they seem to screw up turkey no matter how they cook it.



On Nov 27, 9:56*am, notbob > wrote:
> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey, but she
> just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. *I intend on using one
> to prevent splatter and possible drippage off the legs. *Anything I should
> know? *Does the turkey brown with a bag?
>
> nb

On Fri 28 Nov 2008 10:09:59a, blake murphy told us...

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:22:20 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Thu 27 Nov 2008 09:13:55a, Nancy Young told us...
>>>
>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>> Turns out mom's roasting pan is a wee bit too small for the turkey,
>>>>> but she just happens to have a couple turkey-size oven bags. I
>>>>> intend on using one to prevent splatter and possible drippage off
>>>>> the legs. Anything I should know? Does the turkey brown with a
>>>>> bag?
>>>>
>>>> Sara Moulton was on Good Morning America, someone called
>>>> in with that question. A) She liked the way the turkey turned
>>>> out, very moist, B) She didn't follow directions that said to put
>>>> oil on the skin, so it wasn't crispy. I doubt it would be crispy
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> I think it makes a great turkey, but it¢s true that the skin isn¢t as
>>> crispy. I rub mine with butter, under and over the skin. That
>>> helps. You can also brown it under the broiler after removing from
>>> the bag.
>>
>> Perfect. The skin isn't a big deal for me, but I know people like
>> it, plus you'd want that nice browned look.
>>
>>>> She also said it produced a good amount of drippings that made
>>>> wonderful gravy.
>>>
>>> Yes, the drippings are great, and they do make a wonderful gravy.
>>
>> Sounds good to me. Seems funny that you would have the
>> advice since maybe I'm just really confused, but I thought you
>> hated turkey. (laugh)
>>
>> nancy
>
> it's called 'know the enemy.'
>
> your pal,
> blake
>
>

LOL! It is indeed.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Friday, 11(XI)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Today is: Day After Thanksgiving
Countdown till Christmas Day
3wks 5dys 11hrs 21mins
************************************************** **********************
My, don't we all look _smashing_ in red.
************************************************** **********************

On 2008-11-28, Lou Decruss > wrote:

> Reading glasses for a buck. I stop in even when I don't need them
> because I destroy them pretty fast. I even found a pair of reading
> sunglasses for a buck. They would have been at least $200 to have
> made and they're perfect.

That's a great idea, Lou. I've been getting mine at a thrift shop, but new
ones at a dollar store would probably be better. Better selection, too. I
absolutely refuse to pay the insane prices they charge in most retail
stores, usually at least $20 for cheap plastic Chinese glasses! I was gonna
buy mom a beaded eyeglasses lanyard, but those too were over $15 ...for a
string of cheap plastic beads!! Un-freakin-believable. I swear, some
markets are nothing but a coldly calculated rip-off of seniors.

nb

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:16:20 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-11-28, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>> Reading glasses for a buck. I stop in even when I don't need them
>> because I destroy them pretty fast. I even found a pair of reading
>> sunglasses for a buck. They would have been at least $200 to have
>> made and they're perfect.
>
>That's a great idea, Lou.

Thank you.

>I've been getting mine at a thrift shop, but new ones at a dollar store
>would probably be better.

I've looked there but you never know the script.

>Better selection, too.

Sometimes there's boxes to look through. Sometimes I walk out empty
handed. It's worth the stop anyway.

>I absolutely refuse to pay the insane prices they charge in most retail
>stores, usually at least $20 for cheap plastic Chinese glasses!

Yep. They're the same crap you can buy for a buck. Flea markets are
also a good place to look but we don't go to those much. The key is
when you find some buy a bunch. Like 10 pairs and your set for
awhile.

>I was gonna buy mom a beaded eyeglasses lanyard, but those too were over $15 ...
>for a string of cheap plastic beads!! Un-freakin-believable. I swear, some
>markets are nothing but a coldly calculated rip-off of seniors.

Mine are on and off hundreds of times during a day and I too need the
strap. The best ones for me are the ones with a plastic tube that
slides over the ear part of the glasses and has a rope between. I've
made them with automotive tubing and a shoelace for next to nothing.
Next time I need some I'm going to try shrink wrap and some string
from a fabric store. It will be permanent but for a buck who cares?

Lou

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

notbob wrote:
> Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> > Reading glasses for a buck. �I stop in even when I don't need them
> > because I destroy them pretty fast. �I even found a pair of reading
> > sunglasses for a buck. �They would have been at least $200 to have
> > made and they're perfect. �
>
> That's a great idea, Lou. �I've been getting mine at a thrift shop, but new
> ones at a dollar store would probably be better. �Better selection, too. �I
> absolutely refuse to pay the insane prices they charge in most retail
> stores, usually at least $20 for cheap plastic Chinese glasses! �I was gonna
> buy mom a beaded eyeglasses lanyard, but those too were over $15 ...for a
> string of cheap plastic beads!! �Un-freakin-believable. �I swear, some
> markets are nothing but a coldly calculated rip-off of seniors. �
>
> nb

Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices). It's
critical to have ones eyes examined yearly by a qualified medical
specialist (Opthalmologist), not only for a proper prescription but to
check for occular diseases too. No one need pay a bundle for glasses
unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different). Anyone
spending as much time at a computer screen each day as I'm sure you do
must have their eyes regularly examined by a real doctor and never
wear any lenses but those prescribed. If yoose are constantly
breaking/losing your glasses then you need to see a *different* kind
of doctor.

Sheldon said...

> If yoose are constantly
> breaking/losing your glasses then you need to see a *different* kind
> of doctor.


Yoose is not a word in the English language. You've been endeavoring to make
it one but it's not and never will be.

"Stupidmarket," Def: undefined noun: believed to be anywhere Sheldon shops.

You're every doctor's "dream" study!!! DON'T stop the ritalin.

Andy

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>> Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>> > Reading glasses for a buck. ?I stop in even when I don't need them
>> > because I destroy them pretty fast. ?I even found a pair of reading
>> > sunglasses for a buck. ?They would have been at least $200 to have
>> > made and they're perfect. ?
>>
>> That's a great idea, Lou. ?I've been getting mine at a thrift shop, but new
>> ones at a dollar store would probably be better. ?Better selection, too. ?I
>> absolutely refuse to pay the insane prices they charge in most retail
>> stores, usually at least $20 for cheap plastic Chinese glasses! ?I was gonna
>> buy mom a beaded eyeglasses lanyard, but those too were over $15 ...for a
>> string of cheap plastic beads!! ?Un-freakin-believable. ?I swear, some
>> markets are nothing but a coldly calculated rip-off of seniors. ?
>>
>> nb
>
>Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
>crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
>correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
>pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
>magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices). It's
>critical to have ones eyes examined yearly by a qualified medical
>specialist (Opthalmologist), not only for a proper prescription but to
>check for occular diseases too. No one need pay a bundle for glasses
>unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
>lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
>and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different). Anyone
>spending as much time at a computer screen each day as I'm sure you do
>must have their eyes regularly examined by a real doctor and never
>wear any lenses but those prescribed.

One of my eyes needs a 1.50 and one needs a 1.75. Either one will
work just fine for both eyes and have been doing the job just fine for
well over 10 years. Spending a couple hundred bucks on something I
can buy for a buck is pretty silly. Especially when the difference is
not noticeable.

>If yoose are constantly breaking/losing your glasses then you need to
>see a *different* kind of doctor.

That's silly Shemp.

Lou

Andy wrote:
> Sheldon said...
>
> > If yoose are constantly
> > breaking/losing your glasses then you need to see a *different* kind
> > of doctor.
>
> Yoose is not a word in the English language. You've been endeavoring to make
> it one but it's not and never will be.

Lissen up and lissen good... when I use a word it means just what I
choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

In article >,
Lou Decruss > wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
> wrote:

> >Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
> >crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
> >correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
> >pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
> >magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices).

Many, many years ago, somebody figured out that if you took a magnifying
glass and attached it to a frame that stayed on your head, that it freed
up your hands, moved as you moved your head and went where you went.
You can buy reading glasses at the drugstore for US$20 or from a doctor
for US$200. My doctor tells me to get them at the drugstore. Certain
people need them from the doctor. Ask your doctor.

> It's
> >critical to have ones eyes examined yearly by a qualified medical
> >specialist (Opthalmologist), not only for a proper prescription but to
> >check for occular diseases too.

An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor. They go through medical school,
internship and residency before they learn anything about eyes. A lot
of what they learn is how to do eye surgery. An optometrist is not a
medical doctor. They go to optometry school for several years just to
learn about eyes. They are a doctor just like a dentist is. Their
training is in prescribing glasses (and contacts), and in diagnosing eye
diseases. They are just as quick as any other doctor to refer you to a
specialist if that's what you need. Most people do not need to see an
ophthalmologist anymore than they need to hire a hydraulic engineer to
fix a leaky faucet. I see an ophthalmologist twice a year. He does not
prescribe glasses nor check to see what correction I might need. He has
a nurse who does basic vision screening, and technicians to run tests.
When I need glasses I see my optometrist.


> No one need pay a bundle for glasses
> >unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
> >lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
> >and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different).

Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
is the best person to talk to about this.

> Anyone
> >spending as much time at a computer screen each day as I'm sure you do
> >must have their eyes regularly examined by a real doctor and never
> >wear any lenses but those prescribed.

Wearing no glasses (if you need them) or the wrong ones will cause
headaches, eye fatigue and blurry vision. There is no long term harm,
as far as I know. If you can see fine with no glasses or the ones you
have (including drug store reading glasses), then continue on.
Everybody should have regular eye exams, though.

> One of my eyes needs a 1.50 and one needs a 1.75. Either one will
> work just fine for both eyes and have been doing the job just fine for
> well over 10 years. Spending a couple hundred bucks on something I
> can buy for a buck is pretty silly. Especially when the difference is
> not noticeable.

I asked my optometrist if I should get prescription reading glasses,
since my eyes are really screwed. He checked my near vision. He said I
needed +1.75 in one eye and +2.25 in the other. He recommended +2.00
drug store reading glasses. He said that he would be happy to sell me
prescription reading glasses for lots more money if I thought I was
still having problems.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:19:41 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
> put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
> those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
> waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
> inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
> is the best person to talk to about this.
>

presbyopia.

origin: 1785€“95; < Gk presby- (comb. form of présbys old, old man) +
-opia

heh, heh 'old man eyes.' one of my favorite words.

your pal,
blake

On Dec 3, 11:19�pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
> I asked my optometrist if I should get prescription reading glasses,
> since my eyes are really screwed. �He checked my near vision. �He said I
> needed +1.75 in one eye and +2.25 in the other. �He recommended +2.00
> drug store reading glasses. �He said that he would be happy to sell me
> prescription reading glasses for lots more money if I thought I was
> still having problems.

It's no wonder your eyes are "really screwed", mostly from excessive
jerking off but you ain't gonna jerk me off... you're a liar, and
very, VERY stupid... there are no Optomotrists that will recommend
those crackerjack toy glasses, you made that up to justify your cheap
*******ness.

Idiots who use that non-prescription eyewear are simply misers... one
day they'll wish they did otherwise... vision is the most precious
gift one gets, it is too important to **** around with.

Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-8064AA.20194103122008@c-61-
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
>> wrote:

>> No one need pay a bundle for glasses
>> >unless they are into designer frames... ordinary prescription half
>> >lenses are inexpensive but more importantly they are optically correct
>> >and made for *your* eyes (both your eyes are different).
>
> Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
> put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
> those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
> waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
> inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
> is the best person to talk to about this.

When I read Sheldon's post I did wonder if glasses were perhaps a lot
cheaper in the US than they are here. I am short sighted and have an
astigmatism (which affects focus so unfortunately the magnifying ones you
buy at the store don't work for me) and have had to wear glasses since I
was 8.

My last pair of glasses was over $700 and less than $200 of that was
frames. At my last checkup (and you've reminded me that I'm overdue for one
- thank you!) I was told that I'd probably need to get multifocals soon
(I'm 43) and they'll be even pricier I imagine.

I told the optometrist I didn't think it was fair that the advent of age
related long sightedness didn't just counteract my myopia and improve my
vision :-)

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

In article >,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-8064AA.20194103122008@c-61-
> 68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> > Many people spend hundreds of dollars just on the lenses. They can be
> > put in cheap frames or designer frames. It doesn't matter. If you need
> > those type of glasses, they are worth it. If you don't, they are a
> > waste. It is generally older people who need them, due to changes
> > inside the eye. Older means starting in the mid-40's. Your eye doctor
> > is the best person to talk to about this.
>
> When I read Sheldon's post I did wonder if glasses were perhaps a lot
> cheaper in the US than they are here. I am short sighted and have an
> astigmatism (which affects focus so unfortunately the magnifying ones you
> buy at the store don't work for me) and have had to wear glasses since I
> was 8.
>
> My last pair of glasses was over $700

AU or US dollars? (and no, I don't know the conversion anyway).

> and less than $200 of that was
> frames. At my last checkup (and you've reminded me that I'm overdue for one
> - thank you!) I was told that I'd probably need to get multifocals soon
> (I'm 43) and they'll be even pricier I imagine.

It sounds like the US is indeed cheaper. Hundred of dollars for lenses
would be for the very fanciest progressives, which some people find
indispensable. Single vision (not multifocal) lenses to correct
astigmatism and myopia ran US$25 each, last time I checked. Nice frames
are less than US$100.

Although good vision is very important for both eating and cooking,
we're a little off the topic here. Send me an Email (my address is
valid), preferably with full prescription, and I will give you my more
detailed amateur advice.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Rhonda Anderson wrote:
>
> I told the optometrist I didn't think it was fair that the advent of age
> related long sightedness didn't just counteract my myopia and improve my
> vision :-)

As I understand it, the vision problem that arises
in middle age is caused by reduced ability of the
muscles in the eye to accommodate for focus.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Rhonda Anderson wrote:
> >
> > I told the optometrist I didn't think it was fair that the advent of age
> > related long sightedness didn't just counteract my myopia and improve my
> > vision :-)
>
> As I understand it, the vision problem that arises
> in middle age is caused by reduced ability of the
> muscles in the eye to accommodate for focus.


One thing I've noticed as of late is this new fad of light - colored print
on a white background, I've been gifted with several nice books lately that
are virtually unreadable, much of the pages consist of light orange or
yellow or pink print on white background pages...

It's hassle enough to sometimes read, but this makes it all the much more
difficult...


--
Best
Greg

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:00:20 -0800 (PST), Sheldon >
>> wrote:
>
>>> Yoose obviously don't value your eyes. Those cheap plastic
>>> crackerjack prize so-called reading glasses are as in-optically
>>> correct as is possible and will definitely damage your eyes... in a
>>> pinch you are far better off reading with a quality hand held
>>> magnifier (Bausche & Lomb has many styles at reasonable prices).
>
> Many, many years ago, somebody figured out that if you took a magnifying
> glass and attached it to a frame that stayed on your head, that it freed
> up your hands, moved as you moved your head and went where you went.
> You can buy reading glasses at the drugstore for US$20 or from a doctor
> for US$200. My doctor tells me to get them at the drugstore. Certain
> people need them from the doctor. Ask your doctor.
>

zennioptical.com

HTH, :-)
Bob

Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> One thing I've noticed as of late is this new fad of light - colored print
> on a white background, I've been gifted with several nice books lately that
> are virtually unreadable, much of the pages consist of light orange or
> yellow or pink print on white background pages...
>
> It's hassle enough to sometimes read, but this makes it all the much more
> difficult...

Try reading it under green or blue light.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> One thing I've noticed as of late is this new fad of light - colored print
> on a white background, I've been gifted with several nice books lately that
> are virtually unreadable, much of the pages consist of light orange or
> yellow or pink print on white background pages...

As a national award winning graphic designer, I detest the overuse of
fad-type and those "trendy" style pallets that only someone with 20/20
vision can read. Whenever I had an art student interning for me, I would
have to instruct them on the finer points of typography and designing
for their audience, and that varies by the marketing project. It never
occurs to them that most people don't have the eyes of teen. Somehow,
they think what an instructor (with no recent working experience in the
field) is the be all and end all. They also design things without
working through what it takes to get it produced. For instance, small,
thin, type reversed out of a color background -- which might look good
on a proof -- will be thinner and harder to read once it goes to the
press. The ink spreads just a bit. The paper chosen can be a big factor
in text readability.

Let's just say, they learned more with me in one semester than they did
in four years of school and were ready to successfully work in design
when they graduated. My legacy! ;-)

But, as to the OP of glasses ... I'm farsighted and I think that besides
my age, 25+ years in front of a monitor have trashed my vision. I wear
multi-focal contacts AND I still need to wear some sort of reading
glasses. My up-close vision sucks, so reading is a chore if the light
isn't right, my contacts are dry, or my eyes are tired. (When all three
of those factors are present -- I just kill the computer and
fuggetaboutit). I have an assortment of glasses to wear depending upon
where I am in the house. For instance, I have one particular pair that
stays in the kitchen for reading recipes, etc. My ophthalmologist would
love to sell me another pair of prescription glasses, but he says that
the readers I get are fine. I don't cry about it when a pair gets
destroyed or goes missing.

--Lin

Lin wrote:
>
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > One thing I've noticed as of late is this new fad of light - colored print
> > on a white background, I've been gifted with several nice books lately that
> > are virtually unreadable, much of the pages consist of light orange or
> > yellow or pink print on white background pages...
>
> As a national award winning graphic designer, I detest the overuse of
> fad-type and those "trendy" style pallets that only someone with 20/20
> vision can read. Whenever I had an art student interning for me, I would
> have to instruct them on the finer points of typography and designing
> for their audience, and that varies by the marketing project. It never
> occurs to them that most people don't have the eyes of teen. Somehow,
> they think what an instructor (with no recent working experience in the
> field) is the be all and end all. They also design things without
> working through what it takes to get it produced. For instance, small,
> thin, type reversed out of a color background -- which might look good
> on a proof -- will be thinner and harder to read once it goes to the
> press. The ink spreads just a bit. The paper chosen can be a big factor
> in text readability.
>
> Let's just say, they learned more with me in one semester than they did
> in four years of school and were ready to successfully work in design
> when they graduated. My legacy! ;-)
>
> But, as to the OP of glasses ... I'm farsighted and I think that besides
> my age, 25+ years in front of a monitor have trashed my vision. I wear
> multi-focal contacts AND I still need to wear some sort of reading
> glasses. My up-close vision sucks, so reading is a chore if the light
> isn't right, my contacts are dry, or my eyes are tired. (When all three
> of those factors are present -- I just kill the computer and
> fuggetaboutit). I have an assortment of glasses to wear depending upon
> where I am in the house. For instance, I have one particular pair that
> stays in the kitchen for reading recipes, etc. My ophthalmologist would
> love to sell me another pair of prescription glasses, but he says that
> the readers I get are fine. I don't cry about it when a pair gets
> destroyed or goes missing.
>
> --Lin

Back in my video production days, we always had a B&W preview monitor
and/or switched the regular monitor to B&W to double check that graphics
and sets looked reasonable for the color blind folks, including one of
our directors.

Dan Abel wrote:
>
>
>
> It sounds like the US is indeed cheaper. Hundred of dollars for lenses
> would be for the very fanciest progressives, which some people find
> indispensable. Single vision (not multifocal) lenses to correct
> astigmatism and myopia ran US$25 each, last time I checked. Nice frames
> are less than US$100.

My last pair of glasses, progressive bifocals and astigmatism
correction, with nice frames (not designer) were about $450 (Cdn).

Pete C. wrote:

> Back in my video production days, we always had a B&W preview monitor
> and/or switched the regular monitor to B&W to double check that graphics
> and sets looked reasonable for the color blind folks, including one of
> our directors.

LOL! Video is a whole other animal! I suppose someone that is color
blind probably is better at gaging the nuances of contrast, shadow and
light than those of us that deal in color.

--Lin