I seem to have a gift. I never thought of it as a gift until I came
to understand that most cooks of even moderate experience can't tell
a good recipe from a bad one, or realize the outcome of following
the recipe as written.

I often wonder how some of these recipes manage to get promoted
and/or published. Obviously the editors are even more clueless than
the submitters and the decisions are made by forces unknown. Take
the case of the magazine that told subscribers to bring a mixture of
equal parts cooking oil and water to boil. I think it was Southern
Living Dangerously magazine, but I can't find it now. It was
discussed here, whoever it was.

Poorly written recipes are a good sign that no faith should be
granted to the writer in regards to their sense of taste. They may
have TIAD, or maybe they just have poor writing skills. Flip a coin
and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Or you can look further into your culinary crystal ball and tell
when a recipe may be worth trying (maybe with modifications), or
when to simply pass it by.

<http://find.myrecipes.com/recipes/recipefinder.dyn?action=displayRecipe&recipe_id=16 94228>

This recipe failed both tests for me. The outcome was verified by
asking my mother, "you actually made this?".

I'm not criticizing my mother in particular. It seems lots of
people eat this shit up (or at least buy the ingredients and make
it). It's the sole reason for FoodTV's existence in recent years.

Despite the obvious procedural/efficiency errors in the instructions
(do you spot them at first glance?), does this recipe sound worth
the trouble? Can you imagine the outcome?

This is just one of the many recipes I see that just irk me and am
using it as an example (compounded by a very rare weekend at home
for me - who knew there were 60 hours in a weekend?). But I see
other people doing the same thing with like recipes and wonder how
bad recipes get so far. Media rules over common sense, I guess.

ObQuestionableFood: Mix cream of mushroom soup with a half can of
water and a half cup of white wine and a couple tablespoons of cream
cheese. Simmer for 10-14 minutes and use it as a sauce for properly
cooked chicken. Immediate "TIAD" reaction or "Has Possibilities"?

-sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
>I seem to have a gift. I never thought of it as a gift until I came
> to understand that most cooks of even moderate experience can't tell
> a good recipe from a bad one, or realize the outcome of following
> the recipe as written.
>
> This is just one of the many recipes I see that just irk me and am
> using it as an example (compounded by a very rare weekend at home
> for me - who knew there were 60 hours in a weekend?). But I see
> other people doing the same thing with like recipes and wonder how
> bad recipes get so far. Media rules over common sense, I guess.
>
> ObQuestionableFood: Mix cream of mushroom soup with a half can of
> water and a half cup of white wine and a couple tablespoons of cream
> cheese. Simmer for 10-14 minutes and use it as a sauce for properly
> cooked chicken. Immediate "TIAD" reaction or "Has Possibilities"?
>
> -sw

I don't have your gift but I would try this one. Easy enough and cheap
enough so if it failed, little loss.
I like to experiment. Some things don't sound like they taste.
To each his own.

Tom

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 01:35:31 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:

> I seem to have a gift. I never thought of it as a gift until I came
> to understand that most cooks of even moderate experience can't tell
> a good recipe from a bad one, or realize the outcome of following
> the recipe as written.
>
> I often wonder how some of these recipes manage to get promoted
> and/or published. Obviously the editors are even more clueless than
> the submitters and the decisions are made by forces unknown. Take
> the case of the magazine that told subscribers to bring a mixture of
> equal parts cooking oil and water to boil. I think it was Southern
> Living Dangerously magazine, but I can't find it now. It was
> discussed here, whoever it was.
>
> Poorly written recipes are a good sign that no faith should be
> granted to the writer in regards to their sense of taste. They may
> have TIAD, or maybe they just have poor writing skills. Flip a coin
> and give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Or you can look further into your culinary crystal ball and tell
> when a recipe may be worth trying (maybe with modifications), or
> when to simply pass it by.
>
> <http://find.myrecipes.com/recipes/recipefinder.dyn?action=displayRecipe&recipe_id=16 94228>
>
> This recipe failed both tests for me. The outcome was verified by
> asking my mother, "you actually made this?".
>
> I'm not criticizing my mother in particular. It seems lots of
> people eat this shit up (or at least buy the ingredients and make
> it). It's the sole reason for FoodTV's existence in recent years.
>
> Despite the obvious procedural/efficiency errors in the instructions
> (do you spot them at first glance?), does this recipe sound worth
> the trouble? Can you imagine the outcome?
>

i don't know what the end result would be like, but the instructions didn't
seem to be all that poorly written. i must be missing something.

your pal,
blake

blake wrote on Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:46:33 -0500:

>> I seem to have a gift. I never thought of it as a gift until
>> I came to understand that most cooks of even moderate
>> experience can't tell a good recipe from a bad one, or
>> realize the outcome of following the recipe as written.
>>
>> I often wonder how some of these recipes manage to get
>> promoted and/or published. Obviously the editors are even
>> more clueless than the submitters and the decisions are made
>> by forces unknown. Take the case of the magazine that told
>> subscribers to bring a mixture of equal parts cooking oil and
>> water to boil. I think it was Southern Living Dangerously
>> magazine, but I can't find it now. It was discussed here,
>> whoever it was.
>>
>> Poorly written recipes are a good sign that no faith should
>> be granted to the writer in regards to their sense of taste.
>> They may have TIAD, or maybe they just have poor writing
>> skills. Flip a coin and give them the benefit of the doubt.

>> Or you can look further into your culinary crystal ball and
>> tell when a recipe may be worth trying (maybe with
>> modifications), or when to simply pass it by.
>>
>> <http://find.myrecipes.com/recipes/re....dyn?action=di
>> splayRecipe&recipe_id=1694228>
>>
>> This recipe failed both tests for me. The outcome was
>> verified by asking my mother, "you actually made this?".
>>
>> I'm not criticizing my mother in particular. It seems lots
>> of people eat this shit up (or at least buy the ingredients
>> and make it). It's the sole reason for FoodTV's existence in
>> recent years.
>>
>> Despite the obvious procedural/efficiency errors in the
>> instructions (do you spot them at first glance?), does this
>> recipe sound worth the trouble? Can you imagine the outcome?
>>
> i don't know what the end result would be like, but the
> instructions didn't seem to be all that poorly written. i
> must be missing something.

Even on these apparently reliable collections like recipezaar (or
something like that) or Epicurious.com, I tend to avoid those that
include things like "2 tablespoons Stroganoff seasoning."

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> <http://find.myrecipes.com/recipes/re...ayRecipe&recip
> e_id=1694228>
>
> This recipe failed both tests for me. The outcome was verified by
> asking my mother, "you actually made this?".

The concept sounds good, (I've lately been eating those freeze dried
fried and salted whole garlic cloves from Austin Central Market as they
are the GODS but give you garlic breath from hell <eg>) but I'd leave
out the salt, ROAST the garlic cloves first, and add a good cheese and
maybe some toasted bread.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> Despite the obvious procedural/efficiency errors in the instructions
> (do you spot them at first glance?), does this recipe sound worth
> the trouble? Can you imagine the outcome?

Only if I heavily altered it...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> ObQuestionableFood: Mix cream of mushroom soup with a half can of
> water and a half cup of white wine and a couple tablespoons of cream
> cheese. Simmer for 10-14 minutes and use it as a sauce for properly
> cooked chicken. Immediate "TIAD" reaction or "Has Possibilities"?
>
> -sw

Sounds tasty to me, but you forgot the garlic. <g>

And an onion...

I'd also sub vermouth for the white wine.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

Sqwertz > wrote in message
...
>I seem to have a gift. I never thought of it as a gift until I came
> to understand that most cooks of even moderate experience can't tell
> a good recipe from a bad one, or realize the outcome of following
> the recipe as written.
>
> I often wonder how some of these recipes manage to get promoted
> and/or published. Obviously the editors are even more clueless than
> the submitters and the decisions are made by forces unknown. Take
> the case of the magazine that told subscribers to bring a mixture of
> equal parts cooking oil and water to boil. I think it was Southern
> Living Dangerously magazine, but I can't find it now. It was
> discussed here, whoever it was.
>
> Poorly written recipes are a good sign that no faith should be
> granted to the writer in regards to their sense of taste. They may
> have TIAD, or maybe they just have poor writing skills. Flip a coin
> and give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Or you can look further into your culinary crystal ball and tell
> when a recipe may be worth trying (maybe with modifications), or
> when to simply pass it by.
>
> <http://find.myrecipes.com/recipes/recipefinder.dyn?action=displayRecipe&recipe_id=16 94228>
>
> This recipe failed both tests for me. The outcome was verified by
> asking my mother, "you actually made this?".
>
> I'm not criticizing my mother in particular. It seems lots of
> people eat this shit up (or at least buy the ingredients and make
> it). It's the sole reason for FoodTV's existence in recent years.
>
> Despite the obvious procedural/efficiency errors in the instructions
> (do you spot them at first glance?), does this recipe sound worth
> the trouble? Can you imagine the outcome?
>
> This is just one of the many recipes I see that just irk me and am
> using it as an example (compounded by a very rare weekend at home
> for me - who knew there were 60 hours in a weekend?). But I see
> other people doing the same thing with like recipes and wonder how
> bad recipes get so far. Media rules over common sense, I guess.
>
> ObQuestionableFood: Mix cream of mushroom soup with a half can of
> water and a half cup of white wine and a couple tablespoons of cream
> cheese. Simmer for 10-14 minutes and use it as a sauce for properly
> cooked chicken. Immediate "TIAD" reaction or "Has Possibilities"?

In the case of Sunset (or America's Test Kitchen), some magazines receive
the recipes from some already-reliable source, test them in their own
kitchens as written, modify the recipes to find the "best" results and then
publish them.

In the case of all the <insert geography/lifestyle> Living (Country,
Southern, etc.), the recipe dept. identify a group of recipes that have
potential, already have focus groups in place that they receive and test and
rate each recipe, then publish them. Some are outstanding that make it
through the screening process but some are dumbed-down to tasteless
nothingness. <shrug>

In your case, you enjoy the sharp contrasts and specific excitements that
you think extremes will create. The recipes published in most mainstream
magazines aren't meant for you that require more than simple textures and
mild tastes.

The Ranger

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:46:43 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> The concept sounds good, (I've lately been eating those freeze dried
> fried and salted whole garlic cloves from Austin Central Market as they
> are the GODS but give you garlic breath from hell <eg>)

I didn't like those at all. You can have the rest of my bag. I
also tried the okra. Also the pits. I believe they've been
discontinued.

Are you sure that's how they were made? I couldn't find any info on
the unique process/texture.

-sw

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 08:15:47 -0800, The Ranger wrote:

> In the case of Sunset (or America's Test Kitchen), some magazines receive
> the recipes from some already-reliable source, test them in their own
> kitchens as written, modify the recipes to find the "best" results and then
> publish them.

I like Sunset. I've toured the gardens (before they were remodeled)
and kitchens, as you probably have as well. It's not very widely
publicized.

Too dad they didn't test their co-branded line of home
repair/improvement books as well. They've been recalled due to
"faulty wiring".

> In the case of all the <insert geography/lifestyle> Living (Country,
> Southern, etc.), the recipe dept. identify a group of recipes that have
> potential, already have focus groups in place that they receive and test and
> rate each recipe, then publish them. Some are outstanding that make it
> through the screening process but some are dumbed-down to tasteless
> nothingness. <shrug>

One of those mags published the recipe about boiling water and oil,
and then had to recall it (the whole magazine). Anybody remember
the story or details? It was probably 5-7 years ago.

> In your case, you enjoy the sharp contrasts and specific excitements that
> you think extremes will create. The recipes published in most mainstream
> magazines aren't meant for you that require more than simple textures and
> mild tastes.

I guess it does boil down to a matter of personal taste. But
everyone I know, and even most people here, seem to share much the
same opinion. At least everybody seems to agree on FoodTV for
example. Are we not on the cutting edge of the culinary future? Or
are we the last remains of it?

Hrmpff!

-sw

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:46:33 -0500, blake murphy wrote:

> i don't know what the end result would be like, but the instructions didn't
> seem to be all that poorly written. i must be missing something.
"1. Bring a pot of water to a boil. Add garlic and cook 30 seconds.
Drain and rinse with cool water. Peel garlic.

"2. Bring 1 qt. water to a boil. Add salt and garlic. Bring back to
a boil, reduce heat, and simmer until garlic is tender when tested
with a fork, 10 to 15 minutes. Drain and let cool."

Why bring more fresh, cool water to a boil when you just had a pot
of perfectly usable boiling water they told you to dump down the
drain just 2 minutes ago? That is so un-green.

Salting the water is pointless. The salt water will not be
penetrating the garlic. And even if it did, you're going to be
wrapping this with, uh - hello? - pancetta! According to it's own
nutritional analysis, just three of these wrapped cloves has 1371mg
of sodium. 3/5ths of the USRDA in 3 little bites.

When you add 18 cloves of warm garlic and salt to a quart of boiling
water, there is no need to "bring back to a boil", then "reduce heat
and simmer" as the water will still be 210-212F (at sea level).
Just toss in the garlic and salt and reduce the heat.

15 minutes at 200+ degrees (leeching the flavor out of the garlic),
and then 15 minutes at 375F in the oven makes for mushy, tasteless
garlic. The extremely salty pancetta (made even saltier by broiling
way too long) will be the only thing you taste.

(And of course, the picture is not representative of the recipe.
Which is always a given. But that was not part of my gripe).

Had I needed to find a use for garlic and pancetta, I would have
roasted the garlic, squoosh it out mix with an equal weight of cream
cheese, mash with salt and pepper, spread gently on slices of raw
Citterio brand pancetta and roll it up (Boars Head pancetta is too
stringy, can't be eaten raw, and costs twice as much at Citterio).

I'll pit my roll-ups against those cloves of garlic any day without
having tried either recipe.

-sw

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:46:43 -0600, Omelet wrote:
>
> > The concept sounds good, (I've lately been eating those freeze dried
> > fried and salted whole garlic cloves from Austin Central Market as they
> > are the GODS but give you garlic breath from hell <eg>)
>
> I didn't like those at all. You can have the rest of my bag. I
> also tried the okra. Also the pits. I believe they've been
> discontinued.
>
> Are you sure that's how they were made? I couldn't find any info on
> the unique process/texture.
>
> -sw

I asked one of the clerks, and I agree, the Okra sucks. I fed all the
"Okra chips" to my Cockatoo and she liked them just fine. <g> So far,
I've only tried the Garlic and the Carrots (and the okra). I like the
garlic and carrots both and so does dad, but he prefers the carrots so
far!

You may try grinding up the rest of your bag and making garlic powder?
Toss it into the blender?
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe: