http://mobile.nytimes.com/
article?a=582546&f=32

New cooking channel, just what I asked for !

mike (piedmont)

"piedmont" > wrote in message
...
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/
> article?a=582546&f=32
>
> New cooking channel, just what I asked for !
>
> mike (piedmont)


Try this,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/di...ref=television

piedmont wrote:
> "piedmont" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://mobile.nytimes.com/
>> article?a=582546&f=32
>>
>> New cooking channel, just what I asked for !
>>
>> mike (piedmont)
>
>
> Try this,
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/di...ref=television

I don't get the feeling their going to bring back any authoritative,
knowledgeable shows though
The shows mentioned don't sound like they're going to teach me to cook
anything, rather just highlight something commercial or unusual.

Goomba wrote:
> piedmont wrote:

>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/di...ref=television
>
> I don't get the feeling their going to bring back any authoritative,
> knowledgeable shows though
> The shows mentioned don't sound like they're going to teach me to cook
> anything, rather just highlight something commercial or unusual.

I take that back. I missed the part further down the article that
mentioned the Canadian chefs and programs. They make me hopeful.

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> Goomba wrote:
>> piedmont wrote:
>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/di...ref=television
>>
>> I don't get the feeling their going to bring back any authoritative,
>> knowledgeable shows though
>> The shows mentioned don't sound like they're going to teach me to cook
>> anything, rather just highlight something commercial or unusual.
>
> I take that back. I missed the part further down the article that
> mentioned the Canadian chefs and programs. They make me hopeful.

And there is no Paula Deen so that is a big plus IMO.

Goomba wrote:
>Goomba wrote:
>> piedmont wrote:
>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/di...ref=television
>>
>> I don't get the feeling their going to bring back any authoritative,
>> knowledgeable shows though
>> The shows mentioned don't sound like they're going to teach me to cook
>> anything, rather just highlight something commercial or unusual.
>
>I take that back. I missed the part further down the article that
>mentioned the Canadian chefs and programs. They make me hopeful.

You don't fool me, you're a sucker for a mounty.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Goomba" > wrote in message

>> I take that back. I missed the part further down the article that
>> mentioned the Canadian chefs and programs. They make me hopeful.
>
> And there is no Paula Deen so that is a big plus IMO.

ohgod yes.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:21:50 -0700 (PDT), piedmont >
wrote:

>
>New cooking channel, just what I asked for !
>

AFAIAK any cooking channel that uses the word "eats" as a noun in any
of its show titles should be banned.

Barry in Indy

Barry in Indy wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:21:50 -0700 (PDT), piedmont >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >New cooking channel, just what I asked for !
> >
>
> AFAIAK any cooking channel that uses the word "eats" as a noun in any
> of its show titles should be banned.
>
> Barry in Indy

Maybe, maybe not, have to give it a chance first. See what line up
they end up with. If it end up with 2 second shots then. Jumps and is
simple brash for the sake of being brass with no depth, then I will
agree with you.
mike (piedmont)
The Practical BBQ'r

On 2010-04-23 04:25:12 -0700, Barry in Indy said:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:21:50 -0700 (PDT), piedmont >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> New cooking channel, just what I asked for !
>>
>
> AFAIAK any cooking channel that uses the word "eats" as a noun in any
> of its show titles should be banned.

It's a simple calculation, certainly.
--
If you limit your actions in life to things that nobody can possibly
find fault with, you will not do much. -- Lewis Carroll