"MaryL" wrote:
>"Brooklyn1" wrote:
>"MaryL" wrote:
>>
>>If a person doesn't like wine, why would they cook with it?
>
>Don't, not necessary... with most recipes all wine adds is sugar... a
>little fruit juice or honey does the same thing. With red meat dishes
>I find beer works better than wine. And putting pricey wines in stews
>is like using top shelf booze in mixed drinks. I rarely drink wine, I
>don't much care for it, I can't remember the last time I used wine in
>a recipe... more often than not the dish is perfect and adding wine
>ruins it... of course the keyboard kooks will taste it and swoon the
>same as they do over The Emporer's New Clothes.
>
><<<<<>>>>>
>
>I'm not sure what happened here, but I did not write that line.

Well, I'm sorry but that's how I found it attributed... I omited all
the rest because that was the only question. I didn't save your post
nor will I try to find it but if you find it you will see that you
asked that question or it appears so from the attributions. If folks
would learn to trim posts and especially to trim extraneous
attributions misqoutes would rarely occur. You didn't trim the
attributions here either, I did it for you... and don't insert those
silly arrows either, just looks like so much schmutz and as more folks
respond and it gets messy it will make it more difficult to follow who
said what. Very few posters here neaten their posts anymore.

Ophelia wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote:
>
>> You mentioned mead. I brew my own. I cook with mead. It's not unusual
>> for some of the mead to get into the food. Mead goes well in food. Not
>> as well as in the cook. Mead. Mmmmmmmead.
>
> lol share your recipe for mead, please?

Short answer -

Here's a very simple way to make low alcohol dry still mead. Buy a Mr
Beer kit. Practice with it by making the beer kit it comes with. Then
use its beer directions to figure out how to make mead in it. For the
first batch make it at 6% using the volumes of sweetener in the
directions to tell you how much honey to use and it will be fast. For
the second batch double the volume of honey to make it 12% and it will
be slow. That's it.

Long answer -

First the caveat - Asking for a recipe for mead is like asking for a
recipe for wine. There are all sorts of kinds. You need to know the
brewers preferences or goals to be able to figure out if you want to try
that recipe. Meads range from high alcohol (for wine) to low, sweet to
dry, sparkling to still, fruity to pure honey. There's even an Old
Saxon vocabulary for "mead like stuff" made with stuff in addition to
honey. Odin brought mead to humanity to give us inspiration. In Old
Saxon he'd be called Wodan or Woden as in Wednesday.

My preference is low alcohol. Fortunately that means it is ready much
sooner. My prefernence is for dry. That's good because all of the
sugar in honey is fermentable by yeast so with a simple honey mead any
attempt to make it low alcohol makes it dry. My preference is for still
mead. I like to experiment with additions so some batches are fruity or
spicey others are not.

I have an addition preference that's separate. A friend is deathly
allergic to honey, as in one person does the injection into her chest
while another is on 911 while another does CPR. She likes mead. Go
figure. I will make the occasional batch of emulator using some source
other than honey. Sorghum sweet works rather well to make "mead like
stuff" that doesn't kill her.

In the directions of the Mr Beer kit it tells what volumes of sweetener
to use to make a two gallon batch of beer that's around 6% alcohol. You
can use the same volume of honey that was specified for the beer and end
up with a light mead around 6% alcohol. You can double that amount and
end up with a slow mead around 12% alcohol or you can estimate anywhere
in between for a medium alcohol mead. For the first batch I suggest
going low alcohol to get a 6% mead. It's fast and easy. Use only
honey, water, heating to boil, cooling to bring down to where it won't
kill the yeast, yeast and time. For 6% age it like it's beer then
bottle it. You can charge the bottle like you're making beer for a
slightly sparkling light mead or just bottle for still mead. That's
it.

I ended up melting my Mr Beer kit when I tried to make an apple skin
flavored honey and maple syrup batch. Not sure if that would be braggot
or methilgin. I just called it apple mead.

Now I have a five gallon kit. I still use the formula in the directions
of the Mr Beer kit. I still decide my target alcohol based on that
formula. For 6% use the volumes in the directions times 5/2 to make a 5
gallon batch not a 2 gallon batch. For 12% use twice that. For in
between use in between that.

Higher alcohol, longer aging, longer life. Lower alcohol, shorter
aging, shorter life. The 6% stuff is ready in two months and good on
the shelf for about a year. The 12% stuff is ready to be bottled in
half a year but better bottled after a full year. Then the 12% stuff is
ready to drink a year after it was started but will be better in two.
The 12% stuff is good on the shelf for at least 3+ years and it tends to
keep getting better for a long time.

None of my batches have ever lasted that long. It's too good to offer
to share the stuff with Odin and Frigga or Thor and Sif or whoever
happens to show up. Which is to say it's good enough to drink as an
experience and it's good enough to share with friends!

"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
...
You didn't trim the
attributions here either, I did it for you... and don't insert those
silly arrows either, just looks like so much schmutz and as more folks
respond and it gets messy it will make it more difficult to follow who
said what. Very few posters here neaten their posts anymore.

<<<<<>>>>>

The reason I am inserting the arrows is that my news reader refuses to use
markers to show information that is being quoted. I used to insert several
dashes divided by spaces (- - - - - -). That looks neater, but someone
complained that their newsreader "read" that as the marker that is often
placed above a signature at the end of a message. I realize that what I
really need to do is find a better newsreader, but I still haven't gotten
around to that. I don't like the looks of the arrows I use, either, but
it's my "workaround" to separate quoted text from new text.

MaryL

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...

> Here's a very simple way to make low alcohol dry still mead. Buy a Mr
> Beer kit. Practice with it by making the beer kit it comes with. Then
> use its beer directions to figure out how to make mead in it. For the
> first batch make it at 6% using the volumes of sweetener in the
> directions to tell you how much honey to use and it will be fast. For
> the second batch double the volume of honey to make it 12% and it will
> be slow. That's it.

I don't know what that kit is, but I will research it! I use to make beer
and wine in the dim and distant past so this isn't totally new to me.

> Long answer -
>
> First the caveat - Asking for a recipe for mead is like asking for a
> recipe for wine. There are all sorts of kinds.

Understood!

You need to know the
> brewers preferences or goals to be able to figure out if you want to try
> that recipe. Meads range from high alcohol (for wine) to low, sweet to
> dry, sparkling to still, fruity to pure honey. There's even an Old
> Saxon vocabulary for "mead like stuff" made with stuff in addition to
> honey. Odin brought mead to humanity to give us inspiration. In Old
> Saxon he'd be called Wodan or Woden as in Wednesday.

Indeed

>
> My preference is low alcohol. Fortunately that means it is ready much
> sooner. My prefernence is for dry. That's good because all of the
> sugar in honey is fermentable by yeast so with a simple honey mead any
> attempt to make it low alcohol makes it dry. My preference is for still
> mead. I like to experiment with additions so some batches are fruity or
> spicey others are not.

It hadn't occurred to me that there were so many types!


> I have an addition preference that's separate. A friend is deathly
> allergic to honey, as in one person does the injection into her chest
> while another is on 911 while another does CPR. She likes mead. Go
> figure.

Oh my!!!

I will make the occasional batch of emulator using some source
> other than honey. Sorghum sweet works rather well to make "mead like
> stuff" that doesn't kill her.

Lucky friend

> In the directions of the Mr Beer kit it tells what volumes of sweetener
> to use to make a two gallon batch of beer that's around 6% alcohol. You
> can use the same volume of honey that was specified for the beer and end
> up with a light mead around 6% alcohol. You can double that amount and
> end up with a slow mead around 12% alcohol or you can estimate anywhere
> in between for a medium alcohol mead. For the first batch I suggest
> going low alcohol to get a 6% mead. It's fast and easy. Use only
> honey, water, heating to boil, cooling to bring down to where it won't
> kill the yeast, yeast and time. For 6% age it like it's beer then
> bottle it. You can charge the bottle like you're making beer for a
> slightly sparkling light mead or just bottle for still mead. That's
> it.

I used to store my beer in a small barrel and it was fine, but I would be
happy enough with a 'still' mead.

> I ended up melting my Mr Beer kit when I tried to make an apple skin
> flavored honey and maple syrup batch. Not sure if that would be braggot
> or methilgin. I just called it apple mead.

Glory be!!! Not sure how I would feel about melting the kit!!!!! Scary
stuff I am interested in the various flavours you mention. All this is
new to me!


> Now I have a five gallon kit. I still use the formula in the directions
> of the Mr Beer kit. I still decide my target alcohol based on that
> formula. For 6% use the volumes in the directions times 5/2 to make a 5
> gallon batch not a 2 gallon batch. For 12% use twice that. For in
> between use in between that.

OK. I don't know if we have that particular kit in UK but I will look. I
don't have any beer/wine making kit now, so I will be starting again. If I
can see what this kit comprises, I can probably find if not that one,
something very similar.

> Higher alcohol, longer aging, longer life. Lower alcohol, shorter
> aging, shorter life. The 6% stuff is ready in two months and good on
> the shelf for about a year. The 12% stuff is ready to be bottled in
> half a year but better bottled after a full year. Then the 12% stuff is
> ready to drink a year after it was started but will be better in two.
> The 12% stuff is good on the shelf for at least 3+ years and it tends to
> keep getting better for a long time.

I understand!

>
> None of my batches have ever lasted that long. It's too good to offer
> to share the stuff with Odin and Frigga or Thor and Sif or whoever
> happens to show up.

Hmmm... do they often show up?

Which is to say it's good enough to drink as an
> experience and it's good enough to share with friends!

Sounds great) I have saved your post and when I am able, I will be
experimenting

Many thanks for that, I am enthused)

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

"MaryL" > wrote:

>
>
>"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
.. .
>You didn't trim the
>attributions here either, I did it for you... and don't insert those
>silly arrows either, just looks like so much schmutz and as more folks
>respond and it gets messy it will make it more difficult to follow who
>said what. Very few posters here neaten their posts anymore.
>
><<<<<>>>>>
>
>The reason I am inserting the arrows is that my news reader refuses to use
>markers to show information that is being quoted. I used to insert several
>dashes divided by spaces (- - - - - -). That looks neater, but someone
>complained that their newsreader "read" that as the marker that is often
>placed above a signature at the end of a message. I realize that what I
>really need to do is find a better newsreader, but I still haven't gotten
>around to that. I don't like the looks of the arrows I use, either, but
>it's my "workaround" to separate quoted text from new text.
>
>MaryL

Seems you're using someone elses computer; stancole1@yahoo.
I found for a newsreader Forte Agent works well.

On 18 Mar 2012 22:50:18 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2012-03-18, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> available honey at the time, this rainforest honey was $13.50/KG. I
>> won't be doing that again... it came out great, but no better than the
>> local leatherwood honey I generally stick to these days - which costs
>> me about $60 per 30L.
>
>Granted.
>
>DIY vs commercial is a crapshoot anymore. Usta be decent mead didn't
>exist on the commercial mkt, at least anything worth drinking. But,
>much like current micro-brewing, the bar has been raised. I should try
>some commercial offerings, if my local source offers it.

There are a couple of commercial offerings here locally, but the
cheapest is $20 per bottle, so it's still worthwhile making our own.
(plus you get to make it how you like it).

Even at $30-$80 per 30L batch, that works out to be 40 750ml bottles,
so relatively cheap by comparison.

"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
...

"MaryL" > wrote:

>
>
>"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
.. .
>You didn't trim the
>attributions here either, I did it for you... and don't insert those
>silly arrows either, just looks like so much schmutz and as more folks
>respond and it gets messy it will make it more difficult to follow who
>said what. Very few posters here neaten their posts anymore.
>
><<<<<>>>>>
>
>The reason I am inserting the arrows is that my news reader refuses to use
>markers to show information that is being quoted. I used to insert several
>dashes divided by spaces (- - - - - -). That looks neater, but someone
>complained that their newsreader "read" that as the marker that is often
>placed above a signature at the end of a message. I realize that what I
>really need to do is find a better newsreader, but I still haven't gotten
>around to that. I don't like the looks of the arrows I use, either, but
>it's my "workaround" to separate quoted text from new text.
>
>MaryL

Seems you're using someone elses computer; stancole1@yahoo.
I found for a newsreader Forte Agent works well.

<<<<<>>>>>

No, I'm not using someone else's computer. This is my own computer, and
that is the same email that I have used for newsgroups for quite some time.
The "invalid" part of my address is intended to reduce the possibility of
spam (that is, of people harvesting addresses and sending all sorts of
junk). Anyone personally looking at that address can easily eliminate
"invalid" and come up with the same address as you listed.

MaryL

"MaryL" > wrote in message
...

> No, I'm not using someone else's computer. This is my own computer, and
> that is the same email that I have used for newsgroups for quite some
> time. The "invalid" part of my address is intended to reduce the
> possibility of spam (that is, of people harvesting addresses and sending
> all sorts of junk). Anyone personally looking at that address can easily
> eliminate "invalid" and come up with the same address as you listed.

Mary, stop worrying! If you are to post here you need to ignore this kind
of stuff Just read what you want and respond to what you like Ignore
the rest))

Welcome)

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

"Ophelia" wrote in message ...


"MaryL" > wrote in message
...

> No, I'm not using someone else's computer. This is my own computer, and
> that is the same email that I have used for newsgroups for quite some
> time. The "invalid" part of my address is intended to reduce the
> possibility of spam (that is, of people harvesting addresses and sending
> all sorts of junk). Anyone personally looking at that address can easily
> eliminate "invalid" and come up with the same address as you listed.

Mary, stop worrying! If you are to post here you need to ignore this kind
of stuff Just read what you want and respond to what you like Ignore
the rest))

Welcome)

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

<<<<<>>>>>
Okay, thanks. I should have known that for myself. ;o)

MaryL

"MaryL" > wrote:
>"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
.. .
>
>"MaryL" > wrote:
>>"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
. ..
>>You didn't trim the
>>attributions here either, I did it for you... and don't insert those
>>silly arrows either, just looks like so much schmutz and as more folks
>>respond and it gets messy it will make it more difficult to follow who
>>said what. Very few posters here neaten their posts anymore.
>>
>><<<<<>>>>>
>>
>>The reason I am inserting the arrows is that my news reader refuses to use
>>markers to show information that is being quoted. I used to insert several
>>dashes divided by spaces (- - - - - -). That looks neater, but someone
>>complained that their newsreader "read" that as the marker that is often
>>placed above a signature at the end of a message. I realize that what I
>>really need to do is find a better newsreader, but I still haven't gotten
>>around to that. I don't like the looks of the arrows I use, either, but
>>it's my "workaround" to separate quoted text from new text.
>>
>>MaryL
>
>Seems you're using someone elses computer; stancole1@yahoo.
>I found for a newsreader Forte Agent works well.
>
><<<<<>>>>>
>
>No, I'm not using someone else's computer. This is my own computer, and
>that is the same email that I have used for newsgroups for quite some time.
>The "invalid" part of my address is intended to reduce the possibility of
>spam (that is, of people harvesting addresses and sending all sorts of
>junk). Anyone personally looking at that address can easily eliminate
>"invalid" and come up with the same address as you listed.
>
>MaryL

I did say "seems". I just thought it odd that someome who signs MaryL
would choose stancole1 as an email address... I never paid attention
to your info previously... just forget I said anything about it. Still
Forte Agent works well as a newsreader, and you won't need to doctor
your attributions anymore which will help immensely at keeping who
wrote what straight. Even I who is no computer maven had no problem
with the set up and navigating about, I probably use a minimum of
Forte Agent's features and I'm not one to do much
investigating/exploring with software lest I can't find my way back,
but it works well for my needs... I especially like that I can arrange
the fonts, colors, and layout to make it easy on my eyes. I pay about
$30/month which I feel is worth not having to deal with the hassles
and time wasting associated with the free newsreaders. Think about
it.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:23:26 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> I especially like that I can arrange
>> the fonts, colors, and layout to make it easy on my eyes. I pay about
>> $30/month which I feel is worth not having to deal with the hassles
>> and time wasting associated with the free newsreaders. Think about
>> it.
>
>Just wondering what the hassles and time wasting you think are associated
>with a free newsreader. As you can see from my headers, I use the free
>aioe.org newsreader. It works perfectly for the few newsgroups that I read
>and write to. It works just as well as when my isp hosted newsgroups.

Your news reader is Mozilla 4.73.
Your news *server* is aioe.org.

After reading your post, I was thinking there for a while that aioe
had created their own news reader...

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> I especially like that I can arrange
> the fonts, colors, and layout to make it easy on my eyes. I pay about
> $30/month which I feel is worth not having to deal with the hassles
> and time wasting associated with the free newsreaders. Think about
> it.

Just wondering what the hassles and time wasting you think are associated
with a free newsreader. As you can see from my headers, I use the free
aioe.org newsreader. It works perfectly for the few newsgroups that I read
and write to. It works just as well as when my isp hosted newsgroups.

Gary

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:54:19 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:23:26 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>>
>> >Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I especially like that I can arrange
>> >> the fonts, colors, and layout to make it easy on my eyes. I pay about
>> >> $30/month which I feel is worth not having to deal with the hassles
>> >> and time wasting associated with the free newsreaders. Think about
>> >> it.
>> >
>> >Just wondering what the hassles and time wasting you think are associated
>> >with a free newsreader. As you can see from my headers, I use the free
>> >aioe.org newsreader. It works perfectly for the few newsgroups that I read
>> >and write to. It works just as well as when my isp hosted newsgroups.
>>
>> Your news reader is Mozilla 4.73.
>> Your news *server* is aioe.org.
>>
>> After reading your post, I was thinking there for a while that aioe
>> had created their own news reader...
>
>LOL! No, I'm still using the ancient Netscape 4.73 newsreader that I've
>used forever. I've tried newer newreaders but this old one does all that I
>need it to. I can change font, colors, and layout to my satisfaction.
>
>Once my isp eliminated newsgroups, I found aioe.org and I'm back at the same
>thing...just like the isp never got rid of them.
>
>There really *are* some cases when, "if it's not broke, don't fix it."

Absolutely, why mess with something that works fine as-is?
I wish some web developers would adhere to that philosophy...

And it appears you're still using Windows 98 as well

>PS - I did use to use Free Agent for downloading and combining multi-part
>binaries but that was all I used it for.

I like it for both, although I haven't downloaded any binaries for
quite some time now.

"Jeßus" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:23:26 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
> >Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> I especially like that I can arrange
> >> the fonts, colors, and layout to make it easy on my eyes. I pay about
> >> $30/month which I feel is worth not having to deal with the hassles
> >> and time wasting associated with the free newsreaders. Think about
> >> it.
> >
> >Just wondering what the hassles and time wasting you think are associated
> >with a free newsreader. As you can see from my headers, I use the free
> >aioe.org newsreader. It works perfectly for the few newsgroups that I read
> >and write to. It works just as well as when my isp hosted newsgroups.
>
> Your news reader is Mozilla 4.73.
> Your news *server* is aioe.org.
>
> After reading your post, I was thinking there for a while that aioe
> had created their own news reader...

LOL! No, I'm still using the ancient Netscape 4.73 newsreader that I've
used forever. I've tried newer newreaders but this old one does all that I
need it to. I can change font, colors, and layout to my satisfaction.

Once my isp eliminated newsgroups, I found aioe.org and I'm back at the same
thing...just like the isp never got rid of them.

There really *are* some cases when, "if it's not broke, don't fix it."

Gary :-D

PS - I did use to use Free Agent for downloading and combining multi-part
binaries but that was all I used it for.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
wrote:

> Have you tried cooking with the red you like?

Not a big red drinker, but I am drinking "Ménage à Trois" at the
moment and have a bottle of "Hey Mambo" waiting in the wings. I
bought them only because I liked their names. I didn't know either
one existed before I saw them on the shelf. This is the third time
I've bought Ménage à Trois and I think it will be my "go to" red for a
while... unless, of course, Hey Mambo kicks it to the curb.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf > wrote in news:aurfm7ldhr54lec11lse5dc0s4i0eg6si7@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
> wrote:
>
>> Have you tried cooking with the red you like?
>
> Not a big red drinker, but I am drinking "Ménage à Trois" at the
> moment and have a bottle of "Hey Mambo" waiting in the wings. I
> bought them only because I liked their names. I didn't know either
> one existed before I saw them on the shelf. This is the third time
> I've bought Ménage à Trois and I think it will be my "go to" red for a
> while... unless, of course, Hey Mambo kicks it to the curb.
>


Well......... I'll just leave the Ménage à Trois comments at the back of
the room :-)

But with a name like that, I had to go look!!

http://www.menageatroiswines.com/red.php


3 strange bedfellows indeed!!

Well, one at least. First time I've seen Zinfandel as a 'mixer' with the
other two. Almost makes me wish I could try some and see what it's like.


I'd always found the 'holy trinity' to be a standout wine mix .... GSM's.

Grenache, Shiraz, and Mourvèdre.


But a GSM is not one I'd use for cooking with....... that would be
sacrilege!!



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:10:24 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 16, 1:31 pm, Jeßus > wrote:
>>> I should preface this by stating I'm not a wine drinker... beer, cider
>>> and mead are my drinks. Oh and green ginger wine... but anyway.
>>>
>>> I've pretty much come to the conclusion that I don't particularly like
>>> using red wine in my cooking. Admittedly I do use inexpensive wines,
>>> but I don't have the same problem with cheap white wines.
>>>
>>> The problem for me is the bitterness it often imparts on the meat, I'm
>>> guessing it might be the tannins in the red grapes, or is it something
>>> I am doing wrong? I'm not one to use high heat with such things, so I
>>> don't think it's that. I haven't used red wine for quite some time
>>> now.
>>>
>>> Maybe I just don't like red wine in food any more!
>>>
>>> Any constructive comments?
>>
>>Reds that have a lot of tannins in them will become more bitter with
>>cooking. Reds that are more fruit forward will become sweeter.
>>Especially if you are making a reduction, use a wine that leans
>>towards the sweetness level that you want in your dish. Remember that
>>reducing will concentrate the flavors immensly.
>>
>>I've always leaned towards a more fruity red for cooking. I'm not a
>>big fan of dry, acidic, tannin laden reds. Not much of a
>>tongue curler afficianado.
>
> You sound like you may be much the same as myself, not liking that
> bitterness that dominates. Must seek out a fruitier red and see how I
> go with that.


Mirrasou Pinot Noir would probably work for you.

Paul

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:18:00 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back on the laptop"
> wrote:

> http://www.menageatroiswines.com/red.php
>
>
> 3 strange bedfellows indeed!!
>
> Well, one at least. First time I've seen Zinfandel as a 'mixer' with the
> other two. Almost makes me wish I could try some and see what it's like.
>
>
> I'd always found the 'holy trinity' to be a standout wine mix .... GSM's.
>
> Grenache, Shiraz, and Mourvèdre.

I find (with reds in particular) that I prefer blends over varietals.
I don't cook much with wine, but (if I didn't have the end of a bottle
that I wasn't gaga over and wanted to finish up somehow) I wouldn't be
above cracking open a bottle of Two Buck Chuck to use in something
like a fake coq au vin or beef bourguignon.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >,
says...
>
> "Jim Elbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:38:26 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"sf" > wrote in message
> >>news > >>
> >>> I had the conversation with my DD last week. I use a red I didn't
> >>> want to drink in a bourguignon... and she gave me that line about
> >>> using a wine you'd drink. I told her that expression started so that
> >>> people wouldn't use cooking (salted) wine, not because you should cook
> >>> with expensive wine. Maybe you don't want to drink that $8 bottle of
> >>> wine with your meal, but that doesn't mean it's not suitable for
> >>> cooking your stew.
> >>
> >>I got some salted cooking wine for the first time a month or two back for
> >>the first time. It has ruined the sauces I make with it and it is going
> >>down the sink.
> >
> > Yeah-- i just spent another 30 minutes looking over the cooking mirin,
> > cooking rice wines, and cooking sherries at the Asian market. I was
> > hoping I could spot one that they's slipped by the NY alcohol board
> > that didn't have 'cooking' in its name.
> >
> > 6 shelves, 8-10 feet long of every variety of cooking beverage you
> > could imagine-- all poisoned with salt. Damn NY liquor laws-
> > won't let grocery stores sell wine.
>
> Oh dear. Tomorrow I will go to my local supermarket and pick up a box of
> (reasonably decent) red wine I will use for cooking. It will have NO salt!
> We wouldn't buy the boxed stuff for drinking, but it is pretty much the same
> stuff we buy in bottles for drinking.

There are enough liquor stores in the 1 mile radius of me that I can
pretty much get what I want when I want.

Red wine is best for the meat. White wine is somewhat bitter.

In article >,
says...
>
> Red wine is best for the meat. White wine is somewhat bitter.

Depending on the white wine, it goes really well if you add a splash to
sauteed broccoli rabe, or spinach too!

Red wine tastes better than white wine no doubt. White wine can sometimes make the food taste bitter.