On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:21:09 -0700, Lin >
wrote:

>Ophelia wrote:
>
>> Well you can't just leave it there!! Where is the recipe, woman!!! <g>
>>
>> ...for the boiled meat and vegetables, that is
>
>It's just one of those things passed on from mother to daughter. ;-)
>
>Basically, you use some sort of cheap flat roast with bone-in. Back then
>I would use an Arm or 7-Bone roast. Without browning or searing I would
>throw it in a large stock pot with just enough water to cover, add salt,
>quartered onions, course chopped celery and big thick chunks of carrot.
>and then I'd get it boiling. Let it simmer covered till the marrow and
>blood start making those grayish meat bubbles and the water is reducing.
>I would then add a large can (you know the big tall cans) of tomato
>juice, and perhaps more. My mom would use two cans, but she was making
>soup for a clan back then. Season with what you like -- for me it was
>salt, pepper and garlic. Sometimes a bit of oregano, thyme or a little
>rosemary. Jarred pimento is also a very lovely addition. I'd let it
>simmer all day. Midway I would add thinly sliced cabbage (a whole head)
>and let that cook till soft. About an hour or so before serving I would
>peel and add quartered potatoes. (At the potato stage, the meat should
>be falling away from the bone -- and if you want to fish the bones out
>this would be a good time to do so).
>
>You can see how easy it is to add other things at the last minute, or
>even days later to make it stretch -- like peas, green beans, limas. Oh,
>and mushrooms!!!! If I had some red wine in the house, I would add that
>to the stock early on as well. It was just one of those
>"catch-as-catch-can" meals that fed us well on the cheap.
>
>I would serve it with either a sweet cornbread or beer bread.
>
Oh, that sounds good! Putting chuck roast on the shopping list.


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

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
> > ObFood: Shaken beef and salt and pepper squid (Vietnamese style)
>
> I've seen "shaking beef" on menus before, and I presume it's the same thing
> as "shaken beef," but I've never tried it. The recipe looks like a fairly
> typical stir-fry with easy-to-find ingredients, but the name intrigues me.
> Any idea why it's called that?

I do not think it is generally a good idea to use just a translated name
of a dish. In this case, it is presumably thit bò lúc lác. There is
nothing particularly exotic about it. The beef is "shaking" or "shaken"
because the wok or another frying vessel gets shaken (rather than
stirred). The name refers to the method similar, if not identical, to
sautéing, i.e. "making to jump".

Victor

Christine Dabney > wrote:

> One of these days, I am going to fix boiled beef..which is not really
> boiled. It is gently poached, in a rich beef broth, and cooked only
> til it is barely done. I will then post it on my blog, to show all
> you doubters..
>
> Maybe Margaret or Victor or even Micheal Kuettner can speak up about
> it...
>
> The pictures in the Austrian volume of the Foods of The World series
> definitely show a succulent piece of meat..that is not gray and dry.

Indeed. Invoking against boiled beef without knowing what one is
talking about is an unmistakeable sign of mental retardation requiring
immediate and permanent institutionalisation to protect the
feeble-minded from a society into which they could never fit.

Some of the greatest, monumental dishes in the world involve boiled
beef. Consider bollito misto, pot-au-feu, boeuf à la ficelle,
Tafelspitz (or another cut), or New England boiled dinner (when done
right).

Here is the _Tafelspitz for the Hofrat_ chapter (unfortunately badly
scanned) from _Blue Trout and Black Truffles_: by the immortal Joseph
Wechsberg:
<http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/1950s/1953/02/boiledbeef>.

And here are two delectable articles by the late and much lamented
R. W. Apple Jr.:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/dining/four-nations-where-forks-do-knives-work.html>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/dining/rustic-styles-coast-to-coast.html>.

Victor

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:24:51 -0700, Lin >
> wrote:
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>
>>> Not an "idea", but indisputable fact. Boiling beef has it's place,
>>> like making beef broth.
>>
>> I had a British friend that used to absolutely RAVE about my "boiled
>> meat and vegetables." In truth, it was a very meaty vegetable-beef stew.
>> He also enjoyed my Ham, Cabbage and Potatoes. He always asked when
>> coming over if we were having "boiled meat and vegetables," and then
>> wring his hands in anticipation.
>
> One of these days, I am going to fix boiled beef..which is not really
> boiled. It is gently poached, in a rich beef broth, and cooked only
> til it is barely done. I will then post it on my blog, to show all
> you doubters..
>
> Maybe Margaret or Victor or even Micheal Kuettner can speak up about
> it...
>
> The pictures in the Austrian volume of the Foods of The World series
> definitely show a succulent piece of meat..that is not gray and dry.
>

Yes, the name of the beef is Tafelspitz.
It's served with boiled, then roasted potatos, cream spinach and
Semmelkren ( special horse raddish sauce).

> Even Laurie Colwin in her classic books, Home Cooking, and More Home
> Cooking, talks about boiled beef being a real delicacy. She gives a
> method there...
>
Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:21:09 -0700, Lin >
> wrote:
>
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> Well you can't just leave it there!! Where is the recipe, woman!!!
>>> <g>
>>>
>>> ...for the boiled meat and vegetables, that is
>>
>> It's just one of those things passed on from mother to daughter. ;-)
>>
>> Basically, you use some sort of cheap flat roast with bone-in. Back
>> then I would use an Arm or 7-Bone roast. Without browning or searing
>> I would throw it in a large stock pot with just enough water to
>> cover, add salt, quartered onions, course chopped celery and big
>> thick chunks of carrot. and then I'd get it boiling. Let it simmer
>> covered till the marrow and blood start making those grayish meat
>> bubbles and the water is reducing. I would then add a large can (you
>> know the big tall cans) of tomato juice, and perhaps more. My mom
>> would use two cans, but she was making soup for a clan back then.
>> Season with what you like -- for me it was salt, pepper and garlic.
>> Sometimes a bit of oregano, thyme or a little rosemary. Jarred
>> pimento is also a very lovely addition. I'd let it simmer all day.
>> Midway I would add thinly sliced cabbage (a whole head) and let that
>> cook till soft. About an hour or so before serving I would peel and
>> add quartered potatoes. (At the potato stage, the meat should be
>> falling away from the bone -- and if you want to fish the bones out
>> this would be a good time to do so).
>>
>> You can see how easy it is to add other things at the last minute, or
>> even days later to make it stretch -- like peas, green beans, limas.
>> Oh, and mushrooms!!!! If I had some red wine in the house, I would
>> add that to the stock early on as well. It was just one of those
>> "catch-as-catch-can" meals that fed us well on the cheap.
>>
>> I would serve it with either a sweet cornbread or beer bread.
>>
> Oh, that sounds good! Putting chuck roast on the shopping list.

Piggybacking here, I didn't see Lin's post.

Well, thank you!! I take it when term 'boiled' is used, it really means
simmered?

Sound great for a big family. Hmmm who knows, when mine are all home)

Thanks again, Lin

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:12:00 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Lin wrote:
>
>>> I think if anybody took the trouble to draw up stats of that nature, sf
>>> would *definitely* not be the worst offender in that respect. My guess
>>> would be either Greg or blake.
>>
>> Hands-down, Greggie. I've seen blake post about food (certainly more often
>> than some others).
>>
>> Dear, please don't pick on my blake! Even when it has nothing to do with
>> food, his wit makes me smile. And Greg? Well, I expect no more than what
>> we've been getting, so I'm not disappointed. Maybe a bit bored, but not
>> disappointed since I have no expectations.
>>
>> This one-upsmanship-bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Play nice guys,
>> please!
>
> Well, here are the stats on "your" blake: Tallying his posts from yesterday
> and today, blake posted 65 times. ONLY SEVEN of them were about food, and of
> those seven, several were of the "I've never had that" type, with no further
> contribution given. That gives him a "food percentage" of 10.8%
>
> Here are Greg's stats: 16 posts over that same time period, with 5 posts
> about food. So *he* has a "food percentage" of 31.3% -- MUCH better than
> "your" blake.
>

if you don't like my peaches, i suggest you killfile me. i'm not a moving
target.

blake

Christine Dabney > wrote in news:7ngf85dk8b8bvujgvnflbbgsvrr2l4egk4@
4ax.com on Aug Sun 2009 am

> One of these days, I am going to fix boiled beef..which is not really
> boiled. It is gently poached, in a rich beef broth,

welcome to the world of crockpot cooking.

--
Is that your nose, or are you eatting a banana? -Alan

On Sun 16 Aug 2009 03:08:38a, sf told us...

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:42:18 -0400, Bob Muncie >
> wrote:
>
>>A troll of what?
>>
>>I actually think sw has much to say (like you) that adds value to any of
>>the RFC discussions.
>>
>>Am I a troll also?
>
> You know what? I had just read Bob T's post that said "steve", not
> squirtz and had a brain fart. I was thinking of a troll in another ng
> that uses Steve, Ste etc. I think it is killed under all personas,
> but jerks like that come back anyway.
>

Jerks always seem to come back, but good people often don't when they're
fed up. :-(

--
Wayne Boatwright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can say this for ready mixes the next generation isn't going
to have any trouble making pies exactly like mother used to make.
Earl Wilson

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:33:19 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:44:04 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>>Bob
>
> Steve is in my kill file. He's a troll.

if you think steve is a troll, you're a fool. sometimes he has a sharp
tongue, but that doesn't make a troll.

your pal,
blake

On 2009-08-16, Victor Sack > wrote:


> talking about is an unmistakeable sign of mental retardation requiring
> immediate and permanent institutionalisation to protect the
> feeble-minded from a society into which they could never fit.

As opposed to what? People who use ad hominem attacks and childish
name calling rather than provable facts to make their argument?

I've never claimed good dishes cannot be prepared by boiling meat,
only that it reduces the full flavor of the meat. Check out the
definition of water. It's classified as a solvent, which means it
desolves solubles. Three guesses on what the flavor components in
meat are before you re-impose yourself on society.

nb

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:37:21 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:40:39 GMT, notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2009-08-16, Bob Terwilliger > wrote:
>>
>>> I like using Frank's/Durkee's hot sauce in deviled ham *because* of the
>>> vinegar.
>>
>> I'm currently out of Frank's. Got several versions of Tabasco. I'm
>> stuck on the choice between mayo and sour cream. Never tried the
>> later. I also think some capers and lemon juice couldn't hurt.
>
> I find that sour cream actually sucks out the flavor in many dishes.
> I don't know the mechanism, or whether it's just my tongue, but I've
> noticed adding sour cream to some cooked dishes turn tasty into
> bland. So I generally don't use it.
>
> -sw

maybe the fat in sour cream tends to blunt any hotness from capsaicin. i
know i have used it at serving time to 'rescue' chili that i have made too
hot.

like drinking milk when you've had something hot.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:03:36 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
>> Ironically, I can't think of anybody who posts less about food here
>> in RFC than sf herself.
>
> I think if anybody took the trouble to draw up stats of that nature, sf
> would *definitely* not be the worst offender in that respect. My guess would
> be either Greg or blake.

It seems she's only involved in a many threads after they veer away
from cooking. Or were OT to begin with. I don't see Greg's posts
even when he morphs, but yeah - I've give you blake (sorry blake).
But at least his posts are usually short and sweet.

>> ObFood: Shaken beef and salt and pepper squid (Vietnamese style)
>
> I've seen "shaking beef" on menus before, and I presume it's the same thing
> as "shaken beef," but I've never tried it. The recipe looks like a fairly
> typical stir-fry with easy-to-find ingredients, but the name intrigues me.
> Any idea why it's called that?

As somebody else mentioned, it's the action of the wok. It's really
simple stuff, served on a bed of chopped or shredded lettuce,
garnished with tomato slices, and with a salt + pepper + lemon juice
dip. I ask for it with a table salad and rice papers for a couple
dollars more.

Shaking beef same as Shaken beef - just a bad translation that has
kinda stuck. It's not meat from cow going through DT's.
<http://vietworldkitchen.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/wok-seared-shak.html>
(Wow - I never knew she lived in Santa Cruz until I just saw her
mention Shopper's Corner)

What I had on Friday light was tenderloin, but it was unpeeled which
kinda blew it for me. Their specials chalkboard for Friday and
Saturday night, which was hidden back in the corner too late to see,
had some interesting stuff - Several dishes each of alligator, goat,
elk, rabbit, and wild boar.

Can't fid a website for them. Yelp says:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/le-soleil-restaurant-austin-2

(Notice the picture of the menu says, "artificial crap meats". I
missed that one).

-sw

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:12:00 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Well, here are the stats on "your" blake: Tallying his posts from yesterday
> and today, blake posted 65 times. ONLY SEVEN of them were about food, and of
> those seven, several were of the "I've never had that" type, with no further
> contribution given. That gives him a "food percentage" of 10.8%
>
> Here are Greg's stats: 16 posts over that same time period, with 5 posts
> about food. So *he* has a "food percentage" of 31.3% -- MUCH better than
> "your" blake.
>
> Since sf was mentioned, I checked out her posting over that same interval.
> Her stats a 69 posts, with 35 posts about food, for a percentage of
> 50.7%. Not bad at all, when you consider how many non-food-related posts
> there were in the thread about garbage-scavenging!
>
> Now let's check out Sheldon: Only 24 posts, with 9 of them being about food,
> for a percentage of 37.5%. (Of course, some of the posts which *were* about
> food were completely wrong.)
>
> Finally, let me take cyber**** out of my killfile, reset the server and
> download the headers for that same period... I see 33 posts, with 11 about
> food -- TWICE as many food-related posts as "your" blake! (and a respectable
> percentage of 33.3%.)
>
> And for the record, my own stats a 62 posts total, with 33 posts about
> food. (Most of the others were about Christine's trip-planning.) That
> equates to a percentage of 53.2%. Here's some of that one-upsmanship: I
> posted almost three times as many food-related posts as "your" blake and
> Greg COMBINED, while *still* posting fewer total posts than "your" blake.

Thanks for counting. In all fairness, we should count a week's
worth and then announce the new charter members of, "The 51% Club"
which comes with a complimentary killfile :-)

ObFood:+ Foster Farms Lime Tequilla Wings are a real bummer. I
can't stand that artificial lime flavor reminiscent of Trix cereal
<shiver>. Golden Grahams for me (been 25+ years, they probably suck
now too).

-sw

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:37:21 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:40:39 GMT, notbob wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-08-16, Bob Terwilliger > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like using Frank's/Durkee's hot sauce in deviled ham *because* of
>>>> the vinegar.
>>>
>>> I'm currently out of Frank's. Got several versions of Tabasco. I'm
>>> stuck on the choice between mayo and sour cream. Never tried the
>>> later. I also think some capers and lemon juice couldn't hurt.
>>
>> I find that sour cream actually sucks out the flavor in many dishes.
>> I don't know the mechanism, or whether it's just my tongue, but I've
>> noticed adding sour cream to some cooked dishes turn tasty into
>> bland. So I generally don't use it.
>>
>> -sw
>
> maybe the fat in sour cream tends to blunt any hotness from capsaicin. i
> know i have used it at serving time to 'rescue' chili that i have made
> too hot.
>
> like drinking milk when you've had something hot.
>
The trick in using sour cream is to "over-season" the dish.
Then the cream softens the spices and adds its flavour.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:08:38 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:42:18 -0400, Bob Muncie >
> wrote:
>
>>A troll of what?
>>
>>I actually think sw has much to say (like you) that adds value to any of
>>the RFC discussions.
>>
>>Am I a troll also?
>
> You know what? I had just read Bob T's post that said "steve", not
> squirtz and had a brain fart. I was thinking of a troll in another ng
> that uses Steve, Ste etc. I think it is killed under all personas,
> but jerks like that come back anyway.

Oh, yeah - sure. After I already made a semi-nasty post about you,
you take it all back. No fair.

-sw

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:56:42 -0400, blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:37:21 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> I find that sour cream actually sucks out the flavor in many dishes.
>> I don't know the mechanism, or whether it's just my tongue, but I've
>> noticed adding sour cream to some cooked dishes turn tasty into
>> bland. So I generally don't use it.
>
> maybe the fat in sour cream tends to blunt any hotness from capsaicin. i
> know i have used it at serving time to 'rescue' chili that i have made too
> hot.
>
> like drinking milk when you've had something hot.

It's not so much the heat, but it cuts down the savory-ness.
Michael might be right that I may tend to overseason and the drastic
change when adding SC is probably what turns me off.

It happens in dishes like stroganoff and Sweedish meatballs. I
don't think it detracts from tacos and baked potatoes, though (not
cooked?)

-sw

Ophelia wrote:

> Well, thank you!! I take it when term 'boiled' is used, it really means
> simmered?

Well, it certainly does start off with a pretty good boil! LOL! But yes,
it's a simmer.

I think my Brit friend picked up the term "boiled meat and vegetables"
from his days in a boarding school, as I'm betting most everything was
served that way.

> Sound great for a big family. Hmmm who knows, when mine are all home)

The kids call it my Vegetable Stewp. I still make it, but I'm all into
browning the meat first.

> Thanks again, Lin

Don't forget the cabbage! That's what really enhances the flavor of the
tomato juice stock.

--Lin

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:56:42 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:37:21 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> I find that sour cream actually sucks out the flavor in many dishes.
>>> I don't know the mechanism, or whether it's just my tongue, but I've
>>> noticed adding sour cream to some cooked dishes turn tasty into
>>> bland. So I generally don't use it.
>>
>> maybe the fat in sour cream tends to blunt any hotness from capsaicin.
>> i know i have used it at serving time to 'rescue' chili that i have
>> made too hot.
>>
>> like drinking milk when you've had something hot.
>
> It's not so much the heat, but it cuts down the savory-ness.
> Michael might be right that I may tend to overseason and the drastic
> change when adding SC is probably what turns me off.
>
No, I didn't mean that you overseason. One needs to overseason
when introducing sour cream so that it tastes just right afterwards.
If you like really strong flavours, you'll have to over-overseason ;-)

> It happens in dishes like stroganoff and Sweedish meatballs. I
> don't think it detracts from tacos and baked potatoes, though (not
> cooked?)
>
Not mixed in. You put sour cream on top of a baked potato shortly
before serving. So the tastes stay separate (yes, I know that you know
that).

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:03:10 -0700, Lin >
wrote:

>Don't forget the cabbage! That's what really enhances the flavor of the
>tomato juice stock.

If it has cabbage, it's a meal my husband will love.

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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:49:53 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-08-16, Victor Sack > wrote:
>
>> talking about is an unmistakeable sign of mental retardation requiring
>> immediate and permanent institutionalisation to protect the
>> feeble-minded from a society into which they could never fit.
>
> As opposed to what? People who use ad hominem attacks and childish
> name calling rather than provable facts to make their argument?
>
> I've never claimed good dishes cannot be prepared by boiling meat,
> only that it reduces the full flavor of the meat. Check out the
> definition of water. It's classified as a solvent, which means it
> desolves solubles. Three guesses on what the flavor components in
> meat are before you re-impose yourself on society.

Supposedly boiling actually means simmering. And simmering
supposedly takes out much less flavor than a rolling boil.
Or so I'm told. It's still too close to boiling for my intuition.
I know what happens when you bake a corned beef as opposed to
simmering it.

-sw

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> I've found several on the web, but don't like 'em. Maple syrup? I
> don't think so. I've got sour cream and prepared mustard, but no
> mustard pwdr or tarragon. Got hot sauce, but no Cayenne ppr. I think
> a bit of horseradish would go well. Whatchya think?
>
> nb



2 c. ground cooked ham
1/2 c. mayonnaise
1 tbsp. mustard
2 or 3 sweet pickles, ground


or


1 c. cooked ham
1/3 c. diced celery
2 tbsp. drained pickle relish
1/4 to 1/2 tsp. prepared horseradish
1/4 c. salad dressing

Place ham in food processor and grind up. Add remaining ingredients and
blend. Serve on bread or crackers (great appetizer) or with a bed of
lettuce. It can be made in larger quantities and frozen. This is great for
leftover bits and pieces of ham once all the good slices are used up.

Or

1 to 2 lbs. chipped ham
2 tbsp. horseradish
1 bottle Heinz chili sauce
1 c. tangy ketchup
1 tsp. ginger (optional)
1/4 c. vinegar
1 c. brown sugar

Cook until hot, reduce heat and add vinegar or brown sugar to taste.
Serve on toasted buns.

Dimitri

On 2009-08-16, Dimitri > wrote:

>
> 1 c. cooked ham
> 1/3 c. diced celery
> 2 tbsp. drained pickle relish
> 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. prepared horseradish
> 1/4 c. salad dressing
>
> Place ham in food processor and grind up. Add remaining ingredients and
> blend. Serve on bread or crackers (great appetizer) or with a bed of
> lettuce. It can be made in larger quantities and frozen. This is great for
> leftover bits and pieces of ham once all the good slices are used up.

Now this looks pretty good. Maybe add some Wust-diss-here sauce and a
few capers.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message ...
| On 2009-08-16, Dimitri > wrote:
|
| >
| > 1 c. cooked ham
| > 1/3 c. diced celery
| > 2 tbsp. drained pickle relish
| > 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. prepared horseradish
| > 1/4 c. salad dressing
| >
| > Place ham in food processor and grind up. Add remaining ingredients and
| > blend. Serve on bread or crackers (great appetizer) or with a bed of
| > lettuce. It can be made in larger quantities and frozen. This is great for
| > leftover bits and pieces of ham once all the good slices are used up.
|
| Now this looks pretty good. Maybe add some Wust-diss-here sauce and a
| few capers.

Yes, maybe...but...what in the bloody hell is "salad dressing?"

I don't mean this to be snarky, I would love to find a good deviled ham
recipe, and have been looking all over the place for a few days.

pavane

"pavane" > wrote in message
...
>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On 2009-08-16, Dimitri > wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > 1 c. cooked ham
> | > 1/3 c. diced celery
> | > 2 tbsp. drained pickle relish
> | > 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. prepared horseradish
> | > 1/4 c. salad dressing
> | >
> | > Place ham in food processor and grind up. Add remaining ingredients
> and
> | > blend. Serve on bread or crackers (great appetizer) or with a bed of
> | > lettuce. It can be made in larger quantities and frozen. This is
> great for
> | > leftover bits and pieces of ham once all the good slices are used up.
> |
> | Now this looks pretty good. Maybe add some Wust-diss-here sauce and a
> | few capers.
>
> Yes, maybe...but...what in the bloody hell is "salad dressing?"
>
> I don't mean this to be snarky, I would love to find a good deviled ham
> recipe, and have been looking all over the place for a few days.
>
> pavane


It is the LEGAL TERM for Miracle Whip because it's a cooked dressing NOT a
Mayonnaise.

Dimitri

On 2009-08-17, pavane > wrote:

> Yes, maybe...but...what in the bloody hell is "salad dressing?"
>
> I don't mean this to be snarky, I would love to find a good deviled ham
> recipe, and have been looking all over the place for a few days.

I'm thinking any Italian would do. Preferably one with psuedo
balsamic. Wishbone does it well. Avoid the fake garlic/basil, fake
balsamic, dressing. That's one fake too many.

nb

blake got all defensive:

>>>> I think if anybody took the trouble to draw up stats of that nature, sf
>>>> would *definitely* not be the worst offender in that respect. My guess
>>>> would be either Greg or blake.
>>>
>>> Hands-down, Greggie. I've seen blake post about food (certainly more
>>> often than some others).
>>>
>>> Dear, please don't pick on my blake! Even when it has nothing to do with
>>> food, his wit makes me smile. And Greg? Well, I expect no more than what
>>> we've been getting, so I'm not disappointed. Maybe a bit bored, but not
>>> disappointed since I have no expectations.
>>>
>>> This one-upsmanship-bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Play nice guys,
>>> please!
>>
>> Well, here are the stats on "your" blake: Tallying his posts from
>> yesterday and today, blake posted 65 times. ONLY SEVEN of them were about
>> food, and of those seven, several were of the "I've never had that" type,
>> with no further contribution given. That gives him a "food percentage" of
>> 10.8%
>>
>> Here are Greg's stats: 16 posts over that same time period, with 5 posts
>> about food. So *he* has a "food percentage" of 31.3% -- MUCH better than
>> "your" blake.
>>
>
> if you don't like my peaches, i suggest you killfile me. i'm not a moving
> target.

Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you post about
food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records than you in that
area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who brought up the issue of
OT postings; all I did was count and compare.

Bob

Steve wrote:

> Shaking beef same as Shaken beef - just a bad translation that has
> kinda stuck. It's not meat from cow going through DT's.

The first time I saw it on a menu I thought it was something like
very-thinly-sliced beef put onto a sizzling platter, so it would curl up
before your eyes. Once I saw the recipe I realized I was wrong, so I
wondered. But the "wok-shaken" explanation makes sense.

Bob

Steve wrote:

> Thanks for counting. In all fairness, we should count a week's
> worth and then announce the new charter members of, "The 51% Club"
> which comes with a complimentary killfile :-)

LOL... but sometimes posters get into a long discussion which is technically
OT but which is still on-topic in terms of us as a *group*. I'm thinking of
Christine in particular here. I don't think *anybody* wants to killfile her,
but many of her recent posts have been about her post-surgery planning
rather than about food. In terms of her being a member of our RFC "family,"
those posts *definitely* should have been made, even though they weren't
about food, because so many of us care about her.

Bob

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:28:25 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> LOL... but sometimes posters get into a long discussion which is technically
> OT but which is still on-topic in terms of us as a *group*. I'm thinking of
> Christine in particular here. I don't think *anybody* wants to killfile her,
> but many of her recent posts have been about her post-surgery planning
> rather than about food. In terms of her being a member of our RFC "family,"
> those posts *definitely* should have been made, even though they weren't
> about food, because so many of us care about her.

I haven't even heard about it. Maybe next week I won't be so busy
at work will have more time to read newsgroups. I'm sure you can
relate to that ;-)

Speaking of which, it's your day off. What are you doing posting?
Heh.

-sw

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:44:04 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, "Bob
Terwilliger" > wrote,
>I like using Frank's/Durkee's hot sauce in deviled ham *because* of the
>vinegar.

Vinegar is a *lot* cheaper than hot sauce.

Steve wrote:

> Speaking of which, it's your day off. What are you doing posting?
> Heh.

Covering for a coworker who's performing his annual two weeks of National
Guard duty. My weekend will start in seven hours or so, but part of it will
be taken up helping a friend with computer issues. ("I let somebody check
her e-mail on my computer, and now I can't get back to my home page on
Outlook. I can't even find the Back button.")

Bob, wondering "WHAT home page on Outlook?"

On Aug 15, 1:49*pm, notbob > wrote:
> I've found several on the web, but don't like 'em. *Maple syrup? *I
> don't think so. *I've got sour cream and prepared mustard, but no
> mustard pwdr or tarragon. *Got hot sauce, but no Cayenne ppr. *I think
> a bit of horseradish would go well. *Whatchya think?
>
> nb

As far as I have observed, "deviled" ham (the commercially prepared
stuff) is just ground up ham.

It sounds like you want to make ham salad (like tuna salad or chicken
salad). Whatever, horseradish is always good with ham.

N.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:01:17 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:56:42 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:37:21 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> I find that sour cream actually sucks out the flavor in many dishes.
>>> I don't know the mechanism, or whether it's just my tongue, but I've
>>> noticed adding sour cream to some cooked dishes turn tasty into
>>> bland. So I generally don't use it.
>>
>> maybe the fat in sour cream tends to blunt any hotness from capsaicin. i
>> know i have used it at serving time to 'rescue' chili that i have made too
>> hot.
>>
>> like drinking milk when you've had something hot.
>
> It's not so much the heat, but it cuts down the savory-ness.
> Michael might be right that I may tend to overseason and the drastic
> change when adding SC is probably what turns me off.
>
> It happens in dishes like stroganoff and Sweedish meatballs. I
> don't think it detracts from tacos and baked potatoes, though (not
> cooked?)
>
> -sw

maybe it's the not-cooked. i like sour cream with fajitas and black bean
burritos (with some hot sauce for the latter).

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:06:13 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:03:36 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>
>>> ObFood: Shaken beef and salt and pepper squid (Vietnamese style)
>>
>> I've seen "shaking beef" on menus before, and I presume it's the same thing
>> as "shaken beef," but I've never tried it. The recipe looks like a fairly
>> typical stir-fry with easy-to-find ingredients, but the name intrigues me.
>> Any idea why it's called that?
>
> As somebody else mentioned, it's the action of the wok. It's really
> simple stuff, served on a bed of chopped or shredded lettuce,
> garnished with tomato slices, and with a salt + pepper + lemon juice
> dip. I ask for it with a table salad and rice papers for a couple
> dollars more.
>
> Shaking beef same as Shaken beef - just a bad translation that has
> kinda stuck. It's not meat from cow going through DT's.
> <http://vietworldkitchen.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/wok-seared-shak.html>
> (Wow - I never knew she lived in Santa Cruz until I just saw her
> mention Shopper's Corner)

the recipe looks good, steve. bookmarked.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:28:25 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
>> Thanks for counting. In all fairness, we should count a week's
>> worth and then announce the new charter members of, "The 51% Club"
>> which comes with a complimentary killfile :-)
>
> LOL... but sometimes posters get into a long discussion which is technically
> OT but which is still on-topic in terms of us as a *group*. I'm thinking of
> Christine in particular here. I don't think *anybody* wants to killfile her,
> but many of her recent posts have been about her post-surgery planning
> rather than about food. In terms of her being a member of our RFC "family,"
> those posts *definitely* should have been made, even though they weren't
> about food, because so many of us care about her.
>
> Bob

so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?

blake

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:18:34 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake got all defensive:
>
>>>>> I think if anybody took the trouble to draw up stats of that nature, sf
>>>>> would *definitely* not be the worst offender in that respect. My guess
>>>>> would be either Greg or blake.
>>>>
>>>> Hands-down, Greggie. I've seen blake post about food (certainly more
>>>> often than some others).
>>>>
>>>> Dear, please don't pick on my blake! Even when it has nothing to do with
>>>> food, his wit makes me smile. And Greg? Well, I expect no more than what
>>>> we've been getting, so I'm not disappointed. Maybe a bit bored, but not
>>>> disappointed since I have no expectations.
>>>>
>>>> This one-upsmanship-bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Play nice guys,
>>>> please!
>>>
>>> Well, here are the stats on "your" blake: Tallying his posts from
>>> yesterday and today, blake posted 65 times. ONLY SEVEN of them were about
>>> food, and of those seven, several were of the "I've never had that" type,
>>> with no further contribution given. That gives him a "food percentage" of
>>> 10.8%
>>>
>>> Here are Greg's stats: 16 posts over that same time period, with 5 posts
>>> about food. So *he* has a "food percentage" of 31.3% -- MUCH better than
>>> "your" blake.
>>>
>>
>> if you don't like my peaches, i suggest you killfile me. i'm not a moving
>> target.
>
> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you post about
> food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records than you in that
> area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who brought up the issue of
> OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>
> Bob

sorry to have incurred your displeasure.

blake

On 2009-08-17, Nancy2 > wrote:


> It sounds like you want to make ham salad (like tuna salad or chicken
> salad). Whatever, horseradish is always good with ham.

Call it what you like.

I've done it and it came out tasty, if not exactly develish. My
recipe was basically:

cooked ham
grn onions
Goulden's mustard
celery
horseradish
Worchestershire sauce
mayo
sour cream

I tossed in a dash of sprite to loosen up the mixture, the blender
starting to smoke under the load of such a dry mixture. The sprite
loosened it up. By that time, I was tired of messing with it and jes
wanted to be done. Danged if it didn't come out pretty tasty. Even
better this morning. Killer on fresh celery sticks.

All in all, it's a good starting point. Next time I'll follow a
similar recipe, but try more "hot" ingredients to provide more
"devil".

If you don't have a FP, I suggest keeping it wet or have a really
strong blender. My attempt nearly burnt up our Waring cheapO blender.
I may have to drag out mom's old Vita-Mix. I bet that would handle
it.

nb

On 2009-08-17, notbob > wrote:

OOPS! RECIPE AMENDED:

> recipe was basically:
>
> cooked ham
> grn onions
> Goulden's mustard
> celery
> horseradish
> Worchestershire sauce
> mayo
> sour cream
> sweet pickle relish

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:28:25 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for counting. In all fairness, we should count a week's
>>> worth and then announce the new charter members of, "The 51% Club"
>>> which comes with a complimentary killfile :-)
>>
>> LOL... but sometimes posters get into a long discussion which is
>> technically OT but which is still on-topic in terms of us as a *group*.
>> I'm thinking of Christine in particular here. I don't think *anybody*
>> wants to killfile her, but many of her recent posts have been about her
>> post-surgery planning rather than about food. In terms of her being a
>> member of our RFC "family," those posts *definitely* should have been
>> made, even though they weren't about food, because so many of us care
>> about her.
>>
>> Bob
>
> so o.t. posts are o.k. for a favored few?
>
I'd say they're OK if marked thusly.
If I read another thread about pets or medical drugs or medical problems
not marked as such, I reserve the right to go postal.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:18:34 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> blake got all defensive:
>>
>>>>>> I think if anybody took the trouble to draw up stats of that
>>>>>> nature, sf would *definitely* not be the worst offender in that
>>>>>> respect. My guess would be either Greg or blake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hands-down, Greggie. I've seen blake post about food (certainly
>>>>> more often than some others).
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear, please don't pick on my blake! Even when it has nothing to
>>>>> do with food, his wit makes me smile. And Greg? Well, I expect no
>>>>> more than what we've been getting, so I'm not disappointed. Maybe
>>>>> a bit bored, but not disappointed since I have no expectations.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one-upsmanship-bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Play nice
>>>>> guys, please!
>>>>
>>>> Well, here are the stats on "your" blake: Tallying his posts from
>>>> yesterday and today, blake posted 65 times. ONLY SEVEN of them
>>>> were about food, and of those seven, several were of the "I've
>>>> never had that" type, with no further contribution given. That
>>>> gives him a "food percentage" of
>>>> 10.8%
>>>>
>>>> Here are Greg's stats: 16 posts over that same time period, with 5
>>>> posts about food. So *he* has a "food percentage" of 31.3% -- MUCH
>>>> better than "your" blake.
>>>>
>>>
>>> if you don't like my peaches, i suggest you killfile me. i'm not a
>>> moving target.
>>
>> Did I say you should be killfiled? I merely showed how seldom you
>> post about food. Even Sheldon and your ****tard have better records
>> than you in that area. OT posts don't bother me. I'm not the one who
>> brought up the issue of OT postings; all I did was count and compare.
>>
>> Bob
>
> sorry to have incurred your displeasure.


Don't you think you should grovel in shame...???

<chortle>

;-P

--
Best
Greg