When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish in
oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or bake?

"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
> in oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or bake?
>

Quicker with, far better without. You want a nice crispy skin. I clean the
chicken, slather it in corn oil, sprinkle a lot of seasoned salt on, way
more than you'd normally. Bake at 375F for 50 minutes or longer if the
chicken is more than 4 pounds. You will love the results.

Paul

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:20:18 +1200, "Fred" >
wrote:

>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish in
>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or bake?
>
No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
"Fred" >
> wrote:
>
>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
>>bake?
>>
> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.

What's he shilling or spamming?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Fred" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
>>>bake?
>>>
>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>
>What's he shilling or spamming?
>
Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
He's shilling.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Giusi wrote:
> "sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Fred" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard
>>> roasting dish in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the
>>> lid? Thermowave or bake?
>>>
>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>
> What's he shilling or spamming?

What is the difference? Spamming I understand... shilling?? An old British
coin? <g>

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Fred" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting
>>>>dish
>>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
>>>>bake?
>>>>
>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>
>>What's he shilling or spamming?
>>
> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
> He's shilling.
>
No he isn't. Just bought a new oven which happens to be a thermowave. Maybe
my terminology is wrong, should I call it fan bake? - I'm just trying to
learn something about it. I have hardly ever used an oven before, as I'm not
the cook in the house, and when I am I'm usually cooking just for one.

"Fred" > wrote in message
>>
> No he isn't. Just bought a new oven which happens to be a thermowave.
> Maybe my terminology is wrong, should I call it fan bake? - I'm just
> trying to learn something about it. I have hardly ever used an oven
> before, as I'm not the cook in the house, and when I am I'm usually
> cooking just for one.
>

That sounds like a convection oven. Cooks faster by as much as 25%. We use
it all the time and meats come out better, chicken is crispier and juicier.

Ed Pawlowski said...

>
> "Fred" > wrote in message
>>>
>> No he isn't. Just bought a new oven which happens to be a thermowave.
>> Maybe my terminology is wrong, should I call it fan bake? - I'm just
>> trying to learn something about it. I have hardly ever used an oven
>> before, as I'm not the cook in the house, and when I am I'm usually
>> cooking just for one.
>>
>
> That sounds like a convection oven. Cooks faster by as much as 25%. We
> use it all the time and meats come out better, chicken is crispier and
> juicier.


Yep!

Adding 2¢, I flip foods at "half time".

Andy
--
"I only know what I read, not what I'm talking about!"
--Andy

In article >,
"Fred" > wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> "Fred" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard
> >>>>roasting dish in oven, will it be quicker with or without the
> >>>>lid? Thermowave or bake?

(snip)
> No he isn't. Just bought a new oven which happens to be a thermowave. Maybe
> my terminology is wrong, should I call it fan bake? - I'm just trying to
> learn something about it. I have hardly ever used an oven before, as I'm not
> the cook in the house, and when I am I'm usually cooking just for one.

It sounds like a convection oven to me and I believe you'd want to be in
that mode when roasting a chicken. I'll bet a recipe book came with the
oven; have you checked that for guidance? Very often manufacturers'
websites will have recipes for using its products; have you checked
there?

If you cover the pan, you'll be trapping the moisture inside and will,
essentially be steaming it. If using the regular bake setting, the bird
will cook faster if it is covered. If you want a crispy skin on the
chicken, roast it uncovered.

I don't see any advantage to using the convection/thermowave mode on a
roast that's in a covered pan; in that mode I would bake uncovered.

That's what I think.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - good news 4-6-2009
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-Philo of Alexandria

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:32:25 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:20:18 +1200, "Fred" >
> wrote:
>
>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish in
>>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or bake?
>>
> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.

what shill or spam?

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Fred" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
>>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
>>>>bake?
>>>>
>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>
>>What's he shilling or spamming?
>>
> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
> He's shilling.

one ****ing word is evidence of spam?

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:39:31 +1200, Fred wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> "Fred" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting
>>>>>dish
>>>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
>>>>>bake?
>>>>>
>>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>>
>>>What's he shilling or spamming?
>>>
>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>> He's shilling.
>>
> No he isn't. Just bought a new oven which happens to be a thermowave. Maybe
> my terminology is wrong, should I call it fan bake? - I'm just trying to
> learn something about it. I have hardly ever used an oven before, as I'm not
> the cook in the house, and when I am I'm usually cooking just for one.

if thermowave is a convection oven, there is a handy site for converting
conventional oven times and temperatures to those convection ovens he

<http://www.convection-calculator.com/>

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:30:57 +0100, Ophelia wrote:

> Giusi wrote:
>> "sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Fred" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard
>>>> roasting dish in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the
>>>> lid? Thermowave or bake?
>>>>
>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>
>> What's he shilling or spamming?
>
> What is the difference? Spamming I understand... shilling?? An old British
> coin? <g>

shill: 1 a: one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b: one
who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

....usually it implies someone who tries to appear as if he has no financial
gain from touting a product.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> shill: 1 a: one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)
> b: one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
>
> ...usually it implies someone who tries to appear as if he has no
> financial gain from touting a product.

Thank you, Blake. That one is new to me! So, a shill in these terms, refers
to those who come here, telling us about a great product and pretending
they are nothing to do with it! We don't seem to get so many of them these
days. Perhaps they are realising we are not so stupid after all)

On Jun 17, 7:51 am, Melba's Jammin' >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> "Fred" > wrote:
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
> > >> "Fred" >
> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard
> > >>>>roasting dish in oven, will it be quicker with or without the
> > >>>>lid? Thermowave or bake?
>
> (snip)
>
> > No he isn't. Just bought a new oven which happens to be a thermowave. Maybe
> > my terminology is wrong, should I call it fan bake? - I'm just trying to
> > learn something about it. I have hardly ever used an oven before, as I'm not
> > the cook in the house, and when I am I'm usually cooking just for one.
>
> It sounds like a convection oven to me and I believe you'd want to be in
> that mode when roasting a chicken. I'll bet a recipe book came with the
> oven; have you checked that for guidance? Very often manufacturers'
> websites will have recipes for using its products; have you checked
> there?
>
> If you cover the pan, you'll be trapping the moisture inside and will,
> essentially be steaming it. If using the regular bake setting, the bird
> will cook faster if it is covered. If you want a crispy skin on the
> chicken, roast it uncovered.
>
> I don't see any advantage to using the convection/thermowave mode on a
> roast that's in a covered pan; in that mode I would bake uncovered.
>
> That's what I think.
> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJhttp://web.me.com/barbschaller- good news 4-6-2009
> "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
> -Philo of Alexandria

My combo Whirlpool convection/regular oven cookbook says convection is
best used with items in shallow pans - like cookies, and as a roast
chicken would be if it were on a low rack in a shallow pan.

You're right about covered, Barb - no need to use the convection
setting. Also, I don't use it on things that are generally enclosed
by the pan - cupcakes, cakes, etc.

N.

On Jun 17, 9:54 am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > wrote:
>
> >>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> "Fred" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
> >>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
> >>>>bake?
>
> >>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>
> >>What's he shilling or spamming?
>
> > Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
> > but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
> > He's shilling.
>
> one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>
> your pal,
> blake

It's probably nothing more than the way people use "Xerox" to mean
"copier," or "Kleenex" to mean "facial tissue."

N.

Ophelia wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
>>shill: 1 a: one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)
>>b: one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
>>
>>...usually it implies someone who tries to appear as if he has no
>>financial gain from touting a product.
>
>
> Thank you, Blake. That one is new to me! So, a shill in these terms, refers
> to those who come here, telling us about a great product and pretending
> they are nothing to do with it! We don't seem to get so many of them these
> days. Perhaps they are realising we are not so stupid after all)
>
>

Interesting set of words, shill, tout, barker, propagandist, evangelist,
promoter, producer, creator?

Etymology can be wonderfully enlightening but tedious to pursue. The
word "prostitute" originally meant to "display for sale" and had no
moral or ethical overtones, save in a presupposed distinction between
merchants and the wealthy/powerfull and the poor. Historically the
rich and powerful have disdained the merchant class as a way of exerting
a social control of them (those "in trade"), and the poor envy the
merchant class and want to become them.

Correct me if im wrong but i thought the internet term 'troll' had
certain subtleties of definition that readily distinguished it from the
more common tout, shill or barker of 'real life'.

Usually with a tout, shill or barker their victims are looking for them,
with an internet troll this is usually not the case and the troll goes
in search of its victims. Usually in a very obvious and thus easily
ignored manner. In the more restricted, dare i say 'covenanted'
neighborhoods of the net, a 'troll' if it is able to sneak in, is
quickly and summarily evicted from the neighborhood. In the more 'low
rent' areas of the net they often take up residence and are the
epistolary equivalent of noisy pipes & neighbors in a tenement.

Thus making the 'troll' by nature more predatory than your classical or
even more socially naive and casual shill, tout, barker or 'pitch man'.

I know a person who was in advertising for many years and though now
retired from Madison Avenue, they still, in general conversation, tend
to lard their speech with commercial superlatives and mercantile
phrasing of endorsement.

Fortunately they recognize this and occasionally turn it to a witty bit
of self referential irony.
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://www.dancingmice.net/Karn%20Evil%209.mp3

"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
> in oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or bake?
>
Lidded that's not roasted, that's braised.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:54:35 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> "Fred" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
>>>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
>>>>>bake?
>>>>>
>>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>>
>>>What's he shilling or spamming?
>>>
>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>> He's shilling.
>
>one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>
Maybe our definitions of SPAM are different. I didn't notice him
posting the same thing in every other ng I visit. That's SPAM to me.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:30:57 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>Giusi wrote:
>> "sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Fred" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard
>>>> roasting dish in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the
>>>> lid? Thermowave or bake?
>>>>
>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>
>> What's he shilling or spamming?
>
>What is the difference? Spamming I understand... shilling?? An old British
>coin? <g>
>
Using the term shill as a verb, O.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:53:38 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:32:25 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:20:18 +1200, "Fred" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish in
>>>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or bake?
>>>
>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>
>what shill or spam?
>
Oh, come on. If he bought a convection oven, he'd know it and say so.
Instead, he threw out a fairly unknown brand name as if we'd know wtf
he's talking about. If he's not a shill, then he's clueless,
presumptuous newbie.

Fred, roast your bird on a vertical roaster at 400° with your oven
turned to *convect* for an hour. It will have a crispy skin and juicy
meat. No need to baste the bird first, all you need to do is sprinkle
with your favorite seasonings and pop it in the oven.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Jun 17, 5:55*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:54:35 GMT, blake murphy
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"sf" *ha scritto nel messaggio
> >>> "Fred" >
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
> >>>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? *Thermowave or
> >>>>>bake?
>
> >>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>
> >>>What's he shilling or spamming?
>
> >> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? *Yes, it's a real product,
> >> but Thermowave or bake? *Convection or bake... ok. *but Thermowave?
> >> He's shilling.
>
> >one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>
> Maybe our definitions of SPAM are different. *I didn't notice him
> posting the same thing in every other ng I visit. *That's SPAM to me.

I don't assume that everyone who is a fan of something-or-another is a
spammer.
Some folks here accused me of spamming for calling attention to my
band's album in this one NG, for a couple of weeks after it was
released, and at the end of posts. It was pointed out that it was not
formatted properly as a sig, but whatever. I'm not a stranger here,
and whether someone likes me or detests me, doesn't mean that it is
legit to call me a spammer. I endorse old Corning Ware. I'm not
shilling. I think that it is a shame that Corning quit making it 20+
years ago, and that I have to buy it off of eBay. Sometimes it's
presented as collectable, but the real reason that most people buy it
is to use it. Pyroceram is nice cookware.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food

--Bryan

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:25:10 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo®
> wrote:

>I endorse old Corning Ware. I'm not
>shilling. I think that it is a shame that Corning quit making it 20+
>years ago, and that I have to buy it off of eBay. Sometimes it's
>presented as collectable, but the real reason that most people buy it
>is to use it. Pyroceram is nice cookware.

When he said: Thermowave or bake? My initial reaction was WTF is
thermowave? After I looked it up, I wondered why he was name dropping
a brand. If he'd asked "Convect or bake", I wouldn't have had a
problem with the post.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

In article
>,
Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

> legit to call me a spammer. I endorse old Corning Ware. I'm not
> shilling. I think that it is a shame that Corning quit making it 20+
> years ago, and that I have to buy it off of eBay. Sometimes it's
> presented as collectable, but the real reason that most people buy it
> is to use it. Pyroceram is nice cookware.

> --Bryan

http://www.shopworldkitchen.com/inde...geID=240&b=312

You're welcome. :-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - good news 4-6-2009
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-Philo of Alexandria

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:09:40 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article
>,
> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>
>> legit to call me a spammer. I endorse old Corning Ware. I'm not
>> shilling. I think that it is a shame that Corning quit making it 20+
>> years ago, and that I have to buy it off of eBay. Sometimes it's
>> presented as collectable, but the real reason that most people buy it
>> is to use it. Pyroceram is nice cookware.
>
>> --Bryan
>
>http://www.shopworldkitchen.com/inde...geID=240&b=312
>
>You're welcome. :-)

Good Gosh! Did you notice the prices on those things? Time to get
the stuff out of the basement and put it on Ebay or take a booth at
the antiques and collectible store.
--
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)

Bonobo wrote:
>
>I endorse old Corning Ware. I'm not
>shilling. I think that it is a shame that Corning quit making it 20+
>years ago, and that I have to buy it off of eBay. Sometimes it's
>presented as collectable, but the real reason that most people buy it
>is to use it.
>
I have two large sets of corningware, years ago they were bonuses for
opening a bank account... only cooking they're good for is microwaving...
and they're nice for storing left overs in the fridge.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2 wrote:

> On Jun 17, 9:54 am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>> "Fred" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
>>>>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or
>>>>>>bake?
>>
>>>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>
>>>>What's he shilling or spamming?
>>
>>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>>> He's shilling.
>>
>> one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> It's probably nothing more than the way people use "Xerox" to mean
> "copier," or "Kleenex" to mean "facial tissue."
>
> N.

i once had a xerox repairman tell me 'xerox' should never be used as a
verb. he preferred 'make a xerographic copy' or some such nonsense.

o.k., i'll make a note of that.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:55:11 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:54:35 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>>> He's shilling.
>>
>>one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>>
> Maybe our definitions of SPAM are different. I didn't notice him
> posting the same thing in every other ng I visit. That's SPAM to me.

which he didn't seem to be doing here. so how was it spam?

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:25:10 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Jun 17, 5:55*pm, sf > wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:54:35 GMT, blake murphy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>"sf" *ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>>> "Fred" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
>>>>>>>in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? *Thermowave or
>>>>>>>bake?
>>
>>>>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>
>>>>>What's he shilling or spamming?
>>
>>>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? *Yes, it's a real product,
>>>> but Thermowave or bake? *Convection or bake... ok. *but Thermowave?
>>>> He's shilling.
>>
>>>one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>>
>> Maybe our definitions of SPAM are different. *I didn't notice him
>> posting the same thing in every other ng I visit. *That's SPAM to me.
>
> I don't assume that everyone who is a fan of something-or-another is a
> spammer.
> Some folks here accused me of spamming for calling attention to my
> band's album in this one NG, for a couple of weeks after it was
> released, and at the end of posts. It was pointed out that it was not
> formatted properly as a sig, but whatever. I'm not a stranger here,
> and whether someone likes me or detests me, doesn't mean that it is
> legit to call me a spammer.

oh, i think it does.

blake

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:25:37 +0100, Ophelia wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> shill: 1 a: one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)
>> b: one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
>>
>> ...usually it implies someone who tries to appear as if he has no
>> financial gain from touting a product.
>
> Thank you, Blake. That one is new to me! So, a shill in these terms, refers
> to those who come here, telling us about a great product and pretending
> they are nothing to do with it!

exactly right.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:50:05 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:55:11 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:54:35 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>>>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>>>> He's shilling.
>>>
>>>one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>>>
>> Maybe our definitions of SPAM are different. I didn't notice him
>> posting the same thing in every other ng I visit. That's SPAM to me.
>
>which he didn't seem to be doing here. so how was it spam?
>
That's my point. I didn't call it SPAM, you did. I called him a
shill.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Are you related to Andy? He knows nothing, also


"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard roasting dish
> in oven, will it be quicker with or without the lid? Thermowave or bake?
>

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:50:05 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:55:11 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:54:35 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>>>>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>>>>> He's shilling.
>>>>
>>>>one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>>>>
>>> Maybe our definitions of SPAM are different. I didn't notice him
>>> posting the same thing in every other ng I visit. That's SPAM to me.
>>
>>which he didn't seem to be doing here. so how was it spam?
>>
> That's my point. I didn't call it SPAM, you did. I called him a
> shill.
>


You said, and I quote, "No one is less respected here than shills and
spammers." True, you didn't come right out and say, "Fred is a spammer.",
the accusation is obvious.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2 wrote:
>
>> On Jun 17, 9:54 am, blake murphy > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:46 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>>> "Fred" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> When roasting a chicken (or anything really) using standard
>>>>>>> roasting dish in >>oven, will it be quicker with or without the
>>>>>>> lid? Thermowave or bake?
>>>
>>>>>> No one is less respected here than shills and spammers.
>>>
>>>>> What's he shilling or spamming?
>>>
>>>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>>>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>>>> He's shilling.
>>>
>>> one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> It's probably nothing more than the way people use "Xerox" to mean
>> "copier," or "Kleenex" to mean "facial tissue."
>>
>> N.
>
> i once had a xerox repairman tell me 'xerox' should never be used as a
> verb. he preferred 'make a xerographic copy' or some such nonsense.
>
> o.k., i'll make a note of that.
>
Good. And now kleenex your nose.
And sit straight !

Your mom

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:40:07 -0400, Paco wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:50:05 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:55:11 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:54:35 GMT, blake murphy
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:35 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you actually *heard* of Thermowave? Yes, it's a real product,
>>>>>> but Thermowave or bake? Convection or bake... ok. but Thermowave?
>>>>>> He's shilling.
>>>>>
>>>>>one ****ing word is evidence of spam?
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe our definitions of SPAM are different. I didn't notice him
>>>> posting the same thing in every other ng I visit. That's SPAM to me.
>>>
>>>which he didn't seem to be doing here. so how was it spam?
>>>
>> That's my point. I didn't call it SPAM, you did. I called him a
>> shill.
>>
>
> You said, and I quote, "No one is less respected here than shills and
> spammers." True, you didn't come right out and say, "Fred is a spammer.",
> the accusation is obvious.

thanks, paco. i didn't think i plucked it from thin air.

your pal,
blake