This was a keeper!!

@@@@@ Now You're Cooking! Export Format

Asian Hot & Sour Fish

none

for the fish & batter
1 1/2 lbs tilapia fillets, cut into 1 inch cubes
3 tablespoons cornstarch
1 cup all purpose flour
3 tablespoons vegetable oil
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup water
32 oz vegetable oil for frying
for the sauce
1 tablespoon vegetable oil
1 tablespoon cornstarch
1 cup pineapple juice
6 tablespoons sugar
1/4 cup rice wine vinegar
1 teaspoon Tabasco® sauce
pinch of salt
1 teaspoon ground ginger
4 tablespoons sweet Thai chili sauce
1 teaspoon lemon juice
1 teaspoon lemon zest

1. Toss fish pieces with 3 tablespoons cornstarch to coat. Mix the
flour, 3tablespoons oil, baking powder and 1/2 teaspoon salt in a bowl
and then gradually add the water, whisking until the batter is well
incorporated and smooth. Pour the batter over the fish and stir to
coat. Allow to stand for 15 minutes at room temperature. Then fry fish
in vegetable oil heated to 375°F for about 4 minutes. Drain on paper
towels.

2. To make the sauce, mix the vinegar and cornstarch together and set
aside. Add all other ingredients to a saucepan and heat through. Add
the vinegar mixture to the saucepan and stir until thickened. Serve
immediately over the fried fish and rice.

Yield: 4


** Exported from Now You're Cooking! v5.84 **

Mr. Bill wrote:

> This was a keeper!!
>
> @@@@@ Now You're Cooking! Export Format
>
> Asian Hot & Sour Fish

Yes, and there's even a PICTURE of it at
http://chilicheesefries.net/seafood-...hot-sour-fish/, you
plagiarist!

Do you not even THINK about providing the appropriate attributions?

Bob

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Mr. Bill wrote:
>
> > This was a keeper!!
> >
> > @@@@@ Now You're Cooking! Export Format
> >
> > Asian Hot & Sour Fish
>
> Yes, and there's even a PICTURE of it at
> http://chilicheesefries.net/seafood-...hot-sour-fish/, you
> plagiarist!
>
> Do you not even THINK about providing the appropriate attributions?

I think he's playing games with you. As soon as I saw the original
post, I thought to myself, "Bob bait".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

Dan wrote:

>>> This was a keeper!!
>>>
>>> @@@@@ Now You're Cooking! Export Format
>>>
>>> Asian Hot & Sour Fish
>>
>> Yes, and there's even a PICTURE of it at
>> http://chilicheesefries.net/seafood-...hot-sour-fish/, you
>> plagiarist!
>>
>> Do you not even THINK about providing the appropriate attributions?
>
> I think he's playing games with you. As soon as I saw the original
> post, I thought to myself, "Bob bait".

Yeah, you're probably right. There's no way Billy would actually cook or eat
something so unfamiliar, even WITH a recipe.

Bob

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:40:34 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>I think he's playing games with you. As soon as I saw the original
>post, I thought to myself, "Bob bait".

When will Bob learn that I don't care what he thinks, feels, or
believes?

I don't promote web sites. If I did, then his complaint would be I
am spanning.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:08:13 -0400, Mr. Bill wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:40:34 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>I think he's playing games with you. As soon as I saw the original
>>post, I thought to myself, "Bob bait".
>
> When will Bob learn that I don't care what he thinks, feels, or
> believes?
>
> I don't promote web sites. If I did, then his complaint would be I
> am spanning.
>

i don't think it amounts to 'promoting web sites' to acknowledge your
source.

blake

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:52:58 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>i don't think it amounts to 'promoting web sites' to acknowledge your
>source.

I receive many recipes from friends and colleagues. They don't
always provide the source on most occasions. I do associate face to
face with many people on a daily basis.

Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
don't play that game any longer.

If more rfc members would spend less time in front of their keyboards
and more time in front of their range, they just might stumble onto
something of VALUE to contribute and share.

I can't recall seeing your last posting of a recipe. If you have, I
am sorry that I missed it. I am positive that you have a wealth of
valuable culinary information to share.

Mr. Bill wrote:

> I receive many recipes from friends and colleagues. They don't
> always provide the source on most occasions. I do associate face to
> face with many people on a daily basis.
>
> Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
> reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
> don't play that game any longer.

Blah, blah, blah... The translation is: "Yes, I plagiarized, but I don't see
why I have to take *responsibility* for it!"

Bob

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Mr. Bill wrote:

blah, blah, blah

> > Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
> > reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
> > don't play that game any longer.
>
> Blah, blah, blah... The translation is: "Yes, I plagiarized, but I don't see
> why I have to take *responsibility* for it!"

Actually, not. Have you ever poked around at about.com? I didn't think
so. Might be worth wasting a few minutes of your time. The quality
varies from bad to worse. They have 750 authors. It's one of those
"work from home" scams. There are "editors", but sometimes it seems
they know less than the authors.

I just have to wonder if Mr. Bill is pulling your leg again.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:21 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>
>blah, blah, blah
>
>> > Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
>> > reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
>> > don't play that game any longer.
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah... The translation is: "Yes, I plagiarized, but I don't see
>> why I have to take *responsibility* for it!"
>
>Actually, not. Have you ever poked around at about.com? I didn't think
>so. Might be worth wasting a few minutes of your time. The quality
>varies from bad to worse. They have 750 authors. It's one of those
>"work from home" scams. There are "editors", but sometimes it seems
>they know less than the authors.
>
>I just have to wonder if Mr. Bill is pulling your leg again.

pullin something

Dan wrote:

> blah, blah, blah
>
>>> Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
>>> reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
>>> don't play that game any longer.
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah... The translation is: "Yes, I plagiarized, but I don't
>> see why I have to take *responsibility* for it!"
>
> Actually, not. Have you ever poked around at about.com? I didn't think
> so. Might be worth wasting a few minutes of your time. The quality
> varies from bad to worse. They have 750 authors. It's one of those
> "work from home" scams. There are "editors", but sometimes it seems
> they know less than the authors.

I've never poked around at about.com, and after that description, I'm even
less likely to visit! But the recipe Billy plagiarized and posted in this
thread as if it were his own was from chilicheesefries.net. I don't remember
any of his prior posts citing about.com or the fallout from it, but he's
trying to weasel out of giving attribution by saying that people attacked
him when he attributed in the past. Whatever. Googling reveals this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...c30ef7f7982b18

In a thread about Mardi Gras appetizers, Pete C wrote:

* I routinely block anything "about.com" as it is essentially a spam site.

....and from that ONE MILD IMPERSONAL POST, Billy considered himself "highly
reprimanded." Maybe Billy needs to grow some skin -- but it's more likely
that he is simply lying in an attempt to justify his bad behavior.



> I just have to wonder if Mr. Bill is pulling your leg again.

It's certainly a possibility. I feel sorry for his family.

Bob

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:21 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>I just have to wonder if Mr. Bill is pulling your leg again.

I am not here to "pull anyone's leg"...I am here to share. Any
recipe that I post has been prepared in our kitchen a minimum of two
times. Yes, friends and associates give me recipes without
attributions. I don't have a clue where they might have come
from...just a great gesture from a friend who thinks I might enjoy the
recipe. And I am not going to spend hours searching the Internet
just to see if I can find where it came from.

If I find something of value, I am going to contribute it. You have
the distinct CHOICE to use it or skip it. As more time goes by,
I have found many things to skip.

IF RFC members spent more time away from their keyboards and more time
in front of their range, they might stumble across SOMETHING OF VALUE
TO CONTRIBUTE.

It doesn't take but a moment to identify the petty, small blather.

Wishing you and yours a Blessed Holiday.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:19:19 -0400, Mr. Bill wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:52:58 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>i don't think it amounts to 'promoting web sites' to acknowledge your
>>source.
>
> I receive many recipes from friends and colleagues. They don't
> always provide the source on most occasions. I do associate face to
> face with many people on a daily basis.
>
> Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
> reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
> don't play that game any longer.
>
> If more rfc members would spend less time in front of their keyboards
> and more time in front of their range, they just might stumble onto
> something of VALUE to contribute and share.
>
> I can't recall seeing your last posting of a recipe. If you have, I
> am sorry that I missed it. I am positive that you have a wealth of
> valuable culinary information to share.

i have, from time to time, usually something i've made changes to (*always*
noting the source of the original) or when someone requests something.
other than that, blow me.

blake

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:38:50 -0500, wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:21 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>
>>blah, blah, blah
>>
>>> > Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
>>> > reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
>>> > don't play that game any longer.
>>>
>>> Blah, blah, blah... The translation is: "Yes, I plagiarized, but I don't see
>>> why I have to take *responsibility* for it!"
>>
>>Actually, not. Have you ever poked around at about.com? I didn't think
>>so. Might be worth wasting a few minutes of your time. The quality
>>varies from bad to worse. They have 750 authors. It's one of those
>>"work from home" scams. There are "editors", but sometimes it seems
>>they know less than the authors.
>>
>>I just have to wonder if Mr. Bill is pulling your leg again.
>
> pullin something

by god's third leg!

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:21 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>
> blah, blah, blah
>
>>> Previously, I have posted recipes from about.com...a reputable,
>>> reliable source. I was highly reprimanded for promoting. Homey
>>> don't play that game any longer.
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah... The translation is: "Yes, I plagiarized, but I don't see
>> why I have to take *responsibility* for it!"
>
> Actually, not. Have you ever poked around at about.com? I didn't think
> so. Might be worth wasting a few minutes of your time. The quality
> varies from bad to worse. They have 750 authors. It's one of those
> "work from home" scams. There are "editors", but sometimes it seems
> they know less than the authors.
>
> I just have to wonder if Mr. Bill is pulling your leg again.

i don't think so. mr. bill takes himself very seriously because he is a
Serious Person.

rhonda parkinson has a blog on about.com about chinese food. i subscribe
to her newsletter. she's basically pretty sound, offering both 'authentic'
ingredients and some substitutions.

<http://chinesefood.about.com/od/dimsumandpartyrecipes/u/classic_chinese.htm>

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:33:59 -0400, Mr. Bill wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:21 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>I just have to wonder if Mr. Bill is pulling your leg again.
>
> I am not here to "pull anyone's leg"...I am here to share. Any
> recipe that I post has been prepared in our kitchen a minimum of two
> times. Yes, friends and associates give me recipes without
> attributions. I don't have a clue where they might have come
> from...just a great gesture from a friend who thinks I might enjoy the
> recipe. And I am not going to spend hours searching the Internet
> just to see if I can find where it came from.
>
> If I find something of value, I am going to contribute it. You have
> the distinct CHOICE to use it or skip it. As more time goes by,
> I have found many things to skip.
>
> IF RFC members spent more time away from their keyboards and more time
> in front of their range, they might stumble across SOMETHING OF VALUE
> TO CONTRIBUTE.

but if r.f.c. members spent more of their time away from their keyboards,
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TIME TO HUMORLESSLY HECTOR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GROUP.

blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:21 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> > Actually, not. Have you ever poked around at about.com? I didn't think
> > so. Might be worth wasting a few minutes of your time. The quality
> > varies from bad to worse. They have 750 authors. It's one of those
> > "work from home" scams. There are "editors", but sometimes it seems
> > they know less than the authors.

> rhonda parkinson has a blog on about.com about chinese food. i subscribe
> to her newsletter. she's basically pretty sound, offering both 'authentic'
> ingredients and some substitutions.

Thanks for the tip. Perhaps they have some good authors. Perhaps also,
they are improving. The last year or so, when I do a Google search, and
see about.com, I just don't click on it. I've seen too much poorly
written junk.

> <http://chinesefood.about.com/od/dimsumandpartyrecipes/u/classic_chinese.htm>

Maybe that's the other thing. It's a trick. When people do a Google
search, they assume that the first part of the URL is what the site is
about. For the URL above, that would be "chinesefood". Well, it's not.
It's "about.com".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

Billy wrote:

> Any recipe that I post has been prepared in our kitchen a minimum of two
> times.

Bullshit.

Bob

Dan Abel > wrote:

> The last year or so, when I do a Google search, and
> see about.com, I just don't click on it. I've seen too much poorly
> written junk.

Check out <http://italianfood.about.com/>. Overall, it is probably the
best English-language Italian food resource - and by far the best food
site on about.com. Kyle Phillips knows his stuff.

Victor

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:12:22 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:21 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>> Actually, not. Have you ever poked around at about.com? I didn't think
>>> so. Might be worth wasting a few minutes of your time. The quality
>>> varies from bad to worse. They have 750 authors. It's one of those
>>> "work from home" scams. There are "editors", but sometimes it seems
>>> they know less than the authors.
>
>> rhonda parkinson has a blog on about.com about chinese food. i subscribe
>> to her newsletter. she's basically pretty sound, offering both 'authentic'
>> ingredients and some substitutions.
>
> Thanks for the tip. Perhaps they have some good authors. Perhaps also,
> they are improving. The last year or so, when I do a Google search, and
> see about.com, I just don't click on it. I've seen too much poorly
> written junk.
>
>> <http://chinesefood.about.com/od/dimsumandpartyrecipes/u/classic_chinese.htm>

it is true that there's fair amount of rubbish at about.com. her newsltter
has links to some pretty pedestrian stuff in other sites under the
about.com umbrella..

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:12:22 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> > Thanks for the tip. Perhaps they have some good authors. Perhaps also,
> > they are improving. The last year or so, when I do a Google search, and
> > see about.com, I just don't click on it. I've seen too much poorly
> > written junk.
> >
> >> <http://chinesefood.about.com/od/dims...sic_chinese.ht
> >> m>
>
> it is true that there's fair amount of rubbish at about.com. her newsltter
> has links to some pretty pedestrian stuff in other sites under the
> about.com umbrella..

Thanks again to you and Victor for your tips. But, I don't even mind
"pedestrian" that much. There are two things that bother me:

1. People who are paid to write who don't even run their stuff through
a spell checker!

2. Very simple information that is Just Plain Wrong.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche