I wanted to ask this for a long time but always forgot. What is the best procedure for soaking salt out of canned beans, and approximately what percentage of the quoted sodium content is removed using the process?

I make fresh beans, but sometimes I like using the canned. I do not like cold beans of any kind. I also prefer beans that are cooked to the point of almost falling apart. I actually don't mind the taste or consistency of the gunk canned beans come in. But if I'm going to put them in something that already has a nice thick consistency, then I would prefer getting the salt and other junk off the canned beans. Alright dammit, I'll admit it, sometimes I'm just too lazy to cook everything from absolute scratch.

So, if anybody knows anything about this I'm awaiting your response with a thanks going out beforehand. I'm thinking about braising a pork roast for two hours and then using the natural juices to put the rinsed beans into. Then each day I'd add some of the meat and maybe some diced already cooked potatoes or other veggie. Anyway, for all future references, if anyone knows the best desalting method and also the percentage of sodium eliminated using that method, I"d love to know it. Thanks.

TJ

Tommy Joe wrote:
> I wanted to ask this for a long time but always forgot. What is
> the best procedure for soaking salt out of canned beans, and
> approximately what percentage of the quoted sodium content is removed
> using the process?
>
> I make fresh beans, but sometimes I like using the canned. I do
> not like cold beans of any kind. I also prefer beans that are cooked
> to the point of almost falling apart. I actually don't mind the
> taste or consistency of the gunk canned beans come in. But if I'm
> going to put them in something that already has a nice thick
> consistency, then I would prefer getting the salt and other junk off
> the canned beans. Alright dammit, I'll admit it, sometimes I'm just
> too lazy to cook everything from absolute scratch.
>
> So, if anybody knows anything about this I'm awaiting your
> response with a thanks going out beforehand. I'm thinking about
> braising a pork roast for two hours and then using the natural juices
> to put the rinsed beans into. Then each day I'd add some of the meat
> and maybe some diced already cooked potatoes or other veggie.
> Anyway, for all future references, if anyone knows the best desalting
> method and also the percentage of sodium eliminated using that
> method, I"d love to know it. Thanks.
>
> TJ

Either buy the low sodium ones or rinse it out. Soaking won't help. Put
them in a colander and run cold water gently over them. Won't get rid of
all of the salt but some.

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:08:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>Tommy Joe wrote:
>> I wanted to ask this for a long time but always forgot. What is
>> the best procedure for soaking salt out of canned beans, and
>> approximately what percentage of the quoted sodium content is removed
>> using the process?
>>
>> I make fresh beans, but sometimes I like using the canned. I do
>> not like cold beans of any kind. I also prefer beans that are cooked
>> to the point of almost falling apart. I actually don't mind the
>> taste or consistency of the gunk canned beans come in. But if I'm
>> going to put them in something that already has a nice thick
>> consistency, then I would prefer getting the salt and other junk off
>> the canned beans. Alright dammit, I'll admit it, sometimes I'm just
>> too lazy to cook everything from absolute scratch.
>>
>> So, if anybody knows anything about this I'm awaiting your
>> response with a thanks going out beforehand. I'm thinking about
>> braising a pork roast for two hours and then using the natural juices
>> to put the rinsed beans into. Then each day I'd add some of the meat
>> and maybe some diced already cooked potatoes or other veggie.
>> Anyway, for all future references, if anyone knows the best desalting
>> method and also the percentage of sodium eliminated using that
>> method, I"d love to know it. Thanks.
>>
>> TJ
>
>Either buy the low sodium ones or rinse it out. Soaking won't help. Put
>them in a colander and run cold water gently over them. Won't get rid of
>all of the salt but some.

All one need do is rinse canned beans to remove salt, very little salt
passes into the bean interior because beans are seeds and as with all
seeds that membrane covering only allows water to pass through, same
as a reverse osmosis membrane... if there are a lot of beans with
split skins some small quantity of salt will enter but not intact
beans. Because seed membranes are impermeable to salt is why it is
silly to cook dry beans with salt, the salt will clog the membrane and
prevent water from entering, then the beans will end up with skins
tough like toenails. Salt your beans after they're cooked. That said
ALL foods naturally contain some salt, there is no such thing as salt
free foods, only reduced salt foods

Sqwertz wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Julie Bove wrote:

> More Katz-style Bullshit. You wouldn't know osmosis if it smacked you
>
> upside the head.



Bove, Sqwertz, Brooklyn, I appreciate the comments. I don't see myself as anti-salt fanatic, I just don't like unnecessarily large amounts of it. I use salt on some things. Even foods I love, tabouli for example, I have tried with no salt and it's just not happening. Some things cry for salt, but others, like beans made fresh, I don't put salt on them during cooking and don't feel much need for it even after cooked. I know there's got to be a certain percentage of salt that is removed using a certain method, in the same way that a certain percentage of fat is removed from broth after it congeals. Anyway, just wondering because sometimes I just get tired of cooking everything and want to take a few short cuts. I don't like rinsed beans all by themselves. They lack broth that way. But to toss them into something else, like juice from a roast or whatever, in that case I won't even know they've been rinsed. Thanks to all. I'd still like to know an approximate percentage of salt lost through soaking though.

TJ

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 16:09:00 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> All one need do is rinse canned beans to remove salt, very little salt
>> passes into the bean interior because beans are seeds and as with all
>> seeds that membrane covering only allows water to pass through,
>
> More Katz-style Bullshit. You wouldn't know osmosis if it smacked you
> upside the head.
>
> -sw
>

I'd relish the chance to tattoo yer melon, bring it!

In article >,
Brooklyn1 > wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:08:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >Tommy Joe wrote:
> >> I wanted to ask this for a long time but always forgot. What is
> >> the best procedure for soaking salt out of canned beans, and
> >> approximately what percentage of the quoted sodium content is removed
> >> using the process?
> >>
> >> I make fresh beans, but sometimes I like using the canned. I do
> >> not like cold beans of any kind. I also prefer beans that are cooked
> >> to the point of almost falling apart. I actually don't mind the
> >> taste or consistency of the gunk canned beans come in. But if I'm
> >> going to put them in something that already has a nice thick
> >> consistency, then I would prefer getting the salt and other junk off
> >> the canned beans. Alright dammit, I'll admit it, sometimes I'm just
> >> too lazy to cook everything from absolute scratch.
> >>
> >> So, if anybody knows anything about this I'm awaiting your
> >> response with a thanks going out beforehand. I'm thinking about
> >> braising a pork roast for two hours and then using the natural juices
> >> to put the rinsed beans into. Then each day I'd add some of the meat
> >> and maybe some diced already cooked potatoes or other veggie.
> >> Anyway, for all future references, if anyone knows the best desalting
> >> method and also the percentage of sodium eliminated using that
> >> method, I"d love to know it. Thanks.
> >>
> >> TJ
> >
> >Either buy the low sodium ones or rinse it out. Soaking won't help. Put
> >them in a colander and run cold water gently over them. Won't get rid of
> >all of the salt but some.
>
> All one need do is rinse canned beans to remove salt, very little salt
> passes into the bean interior because beans are seeds and as with all
> seeds that membrane covering only allows water to pass through, same
> as a reverse osmosis membrane... if there are a lot of beans with
> split skins some small quantity of salt will enter but not intact
> beans. Because seed membranes are impermeable to salt is why it is
> silly to cook dry beans with salt, the salt will clog the membrane

Salt does not clog the membrane. It does not make sense that a
substance as abundant as salt will poison biological systems.

The bean membrane is impermeable to sodium and permeable to
water. Now we are in the realm of thermodynamics and physical
chemistry. Albert Einstein contributed to this field along with
many of the finest minds in physics so it is subtle. I cannot
convey this stuff in a couple paragraphs but I hope to put across
a rudimentary notion of what happens.

First remember that matter is made up of molecules and the
molecules move (even in solids where they vibrate about a fixed
position.) This is the starting point for the kinetic theory of
matter.

Beans cooked in salted water do not absorb much, if any, water.
This is because there is an energy gradient. Salt dissolving in
water gives up energy and salt in water wants to be even more
dilute as there is energy to be released in the process of
dilution. When a bean is in salted water the sodium cannot get
into it; and the salted water wants to be even more dilute; so
water in the bean migrates _out_ of the bean. Now the bean itself
has a propensity to absorb water but the salted water has an even
greater propensity. We can still soak dried beans in salted water
and they will absorb water, but only up to the point where there
is no energy gradient across the bean membrane.

In fact, I soak dried beans in salted water just so I can prevent
them from absorbing too much water and bursting overnight. While
we are on the subject discard, the soaking water. I also scald
the beans in boiling water for a couple minutes and discard the
scalding water. Then I simmer the beans.

Ask me why salt gives up energy when dissolving in water and I
will be compelled to give an even worse account than this one.
This is where it gets really subtle. It has to do with statistical
mechanics and the structure of molecules.

You all can do a web search on

kinetic theory of matter
thermodynamics
statistical mechanics
physical chemistry.

Wikipedia is usually very good for acquainting people with these things.

--
Michael Press

On Monday, July 29, 2013 2:29:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:

> When a bean is in salted water the sodium cannot get
>
> into it; and the salted water wants to be even more dilute; so
>
> water in the bean migrates _out_ of the bean. Now the bean itself
>
> has a propensity to absorb water but the salted water has an even
>
> greater propensity.


No offense, I am grateful for your interest and input, but I scanned your scientific post until I got to the part above and said, "Oh yeah baby, that's what I want to hear." So you're saying that getting all the water out of canned beans and giving them a good rinse removes a good portion of the salt? Could you take a stab at the percentage? I'm really curious. Same with olives. I imagine without salt, eating olives would be like eating tree bark. But I know there is a soaking method for getting a good deal of the salt out. Of course, an olive probably absorbs far more salt than a bean. Anyway, I'm not salt-o-phobic, but I don't like food swarming in it, so your reaffirming post has made me feel better about using the can opener more often for certain things. Thanks.

TJ

In article >,
Tommy Joe > wrote:

> On Monday, July 29, 2013 2:29:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
>
> > When a bean is in salted water the sodium cannot get
> >
> > into it; and the salted water wants to be even more dilute; so
> >
> > water in the bean migrates _out_ of the bean. Now the bean itself
> >
> > has a propensity to absorb water but the salted water has an even
> >
> > greater propensity.
>
>
> No offense, I am grateful for your interest and input, but I scanned your scientific post until I got to the part above and said, "Oh yeah baby, that's what I want to hear." So you're saying that getting all the water out of canned beans and giving them a good rinse removes a good portion of the salt? Could you take a stab at the percentage? I'm really curious. Same with olives. I imagine without salt, eating olives would be like eating tree bark. But I know there is a soaking method for getting a good deal of the salt out. Of course, an olive probably absorbs far more salt than a bean. Anyway, I'm not salt-o-phobic, but I don't like food swarming in it, so your reaffirming post has made me feel better about using the can opener more often for certain things. Thanks.

Your text has no line breaks in it making it is difficult to address
specific comments; and I am not going to take the trouble to
format it for you. I was talking about dried beans not canned.
I have no advice to offer regarding canned beans. Also it is
difficult to determine what you understand from what I wrote;
and again I am not going to take the trouble to ask you questions
aimed at figuring out what you understand and what you know and what you want.

--
Michael Press

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:54:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:

> Your text has no line breaks in it making it is difficult to address
>
> specific comments; and I am not going to take the trouble to
>
> format it for you. I was talking about dried beans not canned.
>
> I have no advice to offer regarding canned beans. Also it is
>
> difficult to determine what you understand from what I wrote;
>
> and again I am not going to take the trouble to ask you questions
>
> aimed at figuring out what you understand and what you know and what you want.


I have a very old computer with outdated software. I am very neat in my presentations. I even edit out all unnecessary text from previous posts. When my posts show up on my computer they don't look out of whack or I'd already done something about it. As for the canned bean question, I've received enough answers and am satisfied with the response and in fact have already lost interest in the topic.

TJ

On 7/28/13 2:40 AM, Tommy Joe wrote:
>
> I wanted to ask this for a long time but always forgot.

What is the best procedure for soaking salt out of canned beans,

and approximately what percentage of the quoted sodium content

is removed using the process?
>
> I make fresh beans, but sometimes I like using the canned.

I do not like cold beans of any kind. I also prefer beans that

are cooked to the point of almost falling apart. I actually don't

mind the taste or consistency of the gunk canned beans come in.

But if I'm going to put them in something that already has a nice

thick consistency, then I would prefer getting the salt and other

junk off the canned beans. Alright dammit, I'll admit it, sometimes

I'm just too lazy to cook everything from absolute scratch.
>
> So, if anybody knows anything about this I'm awaiting your

response with a thanks going out beforehand. I'm thinking about

braising a pork roast for two hours and then using the natural juices

to put the rinsed beans into. Then each day I'd add some of the meat

and maybe some diced already cooked potatoes or other veggie. Anyway,

for all future references, if anyone knows the best desalting method and

also the percentage of sodium eliminated using that method, I"d love to
know it.

Thanks.
>
> TJ
>

I checked the USDA database.
Great northern beans boiled without salt have 2mg sodium per 100g.
Great northern beans boiled with salt have 238mg sodium per 100g.

They didn't list canned great northerns, but canned pintos, drained and
rinsed, have 212mg sodium per 100g.

So beans cooked in salty water are about 1/6 as salty as seawater.

I suppose consumers like the taste of beans cooked in salty water. I've
read that soaking in salt water changes the skin so the beans soak up
more water in cooking and don't split the skin. Unsalted water can be
used for the cooking.
http://www.ehow.com/how_8535684_brin...#ixzz1ZVqBa3FA

I use a pressure cooker. I put in a teaspoon of oil to prevent foaming.
I bring them up to pressure, turn off the burner, let them sit an
hour, and cook 3-6 minutes. No salt. It's easier than fooling with a can.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:44:43 -0400, j Burns >
wrote:

> I do not like cold beans of any kind.

You don't like bean salad???

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

On 7/31/13 11:49 AM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:44:43 -0400, j Burns >
> wrote:
>
>> I do not like cold beans of any kind.
>
> You don't like bean salad???
>

That's what I get for quoting Tommy Joe and adding line breaks. I
_love_ cold beans, even if they won't melt butter.

My sister used to give me leftover three-bean salad, about a gallon at a
time. That was enough for me to have seconds!

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:14:58 -0400, j Burns >
wrote:

> On 7/31/13 11:49 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:44:43 -0400, j Burns >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I do not like cold beans of any kind.
> >
> > You don't like bean salad???
> >
>
> That's what I get for quoting Tommy Joe and adding line breaks. I
> _love_ cold beans, even if they won't melt butter.

I thought it sounded a bit odd for you!

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

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:44:43 AM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:

> I use a pressure cooker. I put in a teaspoon of oil to prevent foaming.
>
> I bring them up to pressure, turn off the burner, let them sit an
>
> hour, and cook 3-6 minutes. No salt. It's easier than fooling with a can.

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:14:58 PM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:

> That's what I get for quoting Tommy Joe and adding line breaks. I
>
> _love_ cold beans, even if they won't melt butter.
>
>
>
> My sister used to give me leftover three-bean salad, about a gallon at a
>
> time. That was enough for me to have seconds!


What is a "line break"? Somebody else in here told me yesterday that my posts are unreadable. Not the content, he was talking about the format. Does it look messed up to you too? I'm serious. I have an old computer with old programs and I'm lucky they still work. My posts look neat to me. But maybe they don't show up that way. Please let me know. By the way, you should quote me more often, the people of earth need to hear my message.

TJ

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:50:24 PM UTC-4, sf wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:14:58 -0400, j Burns >

>


> > That's what I get for quoting Tommy Joe and adding line breaks. I
>
> > _love_ cold beans, even if they won't melt butter.




> I thought it sounded a bit odd for you!


Oh, so now it's odd to not like cold beans because Tommy Joe doesn't like them that way? I am now the new barometer for oddness?

TJ

"Tommy Joe" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:14:58 PM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:
>
>> That's what I get for quoting Tommy Joe and adding line breaks. I
>>
>> _love_ cold beans, even if they won't melt butter.
>>
>>
>>
>> My sister used to give me leftover three-bean salad, about a gallon at a
>>
>> time. That was enough for me to have seconds!
>
>
> What is a "line break"? Somebody else in here told me yesterday that my
> posts are unreadable. Not the content, he was talking about the format.
> Does it look messed up to you too? I'm serious. I have an old computer
> with old programs and I'm lucky they still work. My posts look neat to
> me. But maybe they don't show up that way. Please let me know. By the
> way, you should quote me more often, the people of earth need to hear my
> message.

Looks ok to me.
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 8/1/13 6:34 AM, Tommy Joe wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:14:58 PM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:
>
>> That's what I get for quoting Tommy Joe and adding line breaks. I
>>
>> _love_ cold beans, even if they won't melt butter.
>>
>>
>>
>> My sister used to give me leftover three-bean salad, about a gallon at a
>>
>> time. That was enough for me to have seconds!
>
>
> What is a "line break"? Somebody else in here told me yesterday that my posts are unreadable. Not the content, he was talking about the format. Does it look messed up to you too? I'm serious. I have an old computer with old programs and I'm lucky they still work. My posts look neat to me. But maybe they don't show up that way. Please let me know. By the way, you should quote me more often, the people of earth need to hear my message.
>
> TJ
>
I don't understand how it works, but I know what happens. Usually,
messages appear with text wrapping. I'm using Thunderbird. If it's set
for lines to be 80 characters long, when I quote a message, the text
will wrap with lines 80 characters long.

When I quote yours, the lines don't break, so I have to scroll right to
read each line. So when I quote you, I use the return key to break the
lines at 80 characters or so. If I were more savvy, I could probably
handle it better.

On 8/1/13 3:42 PM, j Burns wrote:

> I don't understand how it works, but I know what happens. Usually,
> messages appear with text wrapping. I'm using Thunderbird. If it's set
> for lines to be 80 characters long, when I quote a message, the text
> will wrap with lines 80 characters long.
>

My mistake. Normally, the text wraps to match the width of the window I
set. I can drag the corner to make the window wider or narrower. So
it's not a certain number of characters.

On 8/1/13 6:29 AM, Tommy Joe wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:44:43 AM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:
>
>> I use a pressure cooker. I put in a teaspoon of oil to prevent
>> foaming.
>>
>> I bring them up to pressure, turn off the burner, let them sit an
>>
>> hour, and cook 3-6 minutes. No salt. It's easier than fooling
>> with a can.
>
>
>
> Without a doubt. I rarely use canned beans. I was just curious
> about how much salt gets lost in a good soaking. I have never used
> salt with beans from scratch. Here's a really simple one my
> grandparents used to make. It's Arab, by way of Brazil. Very
> simple.
>
> One pound sirloin or chuck roast (the wide and not so tall type), to
> one pound of light colored kidney beans. I don't soak, but that's
> me. Put the roast in a pot and cover with beans and 6 cups water.
> Amount of meat to beans can be adjusted to taste of course.
>
> When the beans are falling apart along with the meat (you can take it
> out if you wish), put the pot on an unlit burner. Now take a bunch
> of minced garlic (I use half a bulb or more) and put it in 1/2 stick
> of melted butter. Cook for maybe 5 minutes without letting the
> garlic get brown. Then, take the butter and garlic mix and pour it
> into the beans and meat along with a palmful of dried mint crushed
> up. And that's it. On rice, whatever. There's only 5 ingredients
> in there.
>
> TJ
>

Ha! I've found it! When I reply to you, I just have to hit "rewrap" in
the Edit menu! No more messing up your messages by adding returns!

The USDA figures refute assertions that beans don't absorb salt, but
that doesn't answer your question. I'll bet if you changed the water
you could remove nearly all the salt by soaking. I need to get some
canned beans in case a power failure prevents cooking.

Sirloin, falling-apart kidney beans, garlic, butter, mint! Sounds good!

On 7/29/2013 2:29 PM, Michael Press wrote:

> You all can do a web search on
>
> kinetic theory of matter
> thermodynamics
> statistical mechanics
> physical chemistry.
>
> Wikipedia is usually very good for acquainting people with these things.

Youtube, too.

--
CAPSLOCK€“Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 8/1/2013 3:42 PM, j Burns wrote:
>>
> I don't understand how it works, but I know what happens. Usually,
> messages appear with text wrapping. I'm using Thunderbird. If it's set
> for lines to be 80 characters long, when I quote a message, the text
> will wrap with lines 80 characters long.
>
> When I quote yours, the lines don't break, so I have to scroll right to
> read each line. So when I quote you, I use the return key to break the
> lines at 80 characters or so. If I were more savvy, I could probably
> handle it better.

Tbird can let you rewrap when you reply. One click and it's done for
you. EDIT > REWRAP

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:42:15 -0400, j Burns >
wrote:

> I don't understand how it works, but I know what happens. Usually,
> messages appear with text wrapping. I'm using Thunderbird. If it's set
> for lines to be 80 characters long, when I quote a message, the text
> will wrap with lines 80 characters long.
>
> When I quote yours, the lines don't break, so I have to scroll right to
> read each line. So when I quote you, I use the return key to break the
> lines at 80 characters or so. If I were more savvy, I could probably
> handle it better.

Jill can help you out with that. She fought with TBird until it did
what she wanted.

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

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:44:39 -0400, j Burns >
wrote:

> On 8/1/13 3:42 PM, j Burns wrote:
>
> > I don't understand how it works, but I know what happens. Usually,
> > messages appear with text wrapping. I'm using Thunderbird. If it's set
> > for lines to be 80 characters long, when I quote a message, the text
> > will wrap with lines 80 characters long.
> >
>
> My mistake. Normally, the text wraps to match the width of the window I
> set. I can drag the corner to make the window wider or narrower. So
> it's not a certain number of characters.

It wraps to your window.

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

On 8/1/13 7:02 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 7/29/2013 2:29 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
>> You all can do a web search on
>>
>> kinetic theory of matter
>> thermodynamics
>> statistical mechanics
>> physical chemistry.
>>
>> Wikipedia is usually very good for acquainting people with these things.
>
> Youtube, too.
>
The USDA site is very good for acquainting people with beans. Their
analytic chemists have found that beans cooked in salt water, then
rinsed, are full of salt.

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:

> I don't understand how it works, but I know what happens. Usually,
>
> messages appear with text wrapping. I'm using Thunderbird. If it's set
>
> for lines to be 80 characters long, when I quote a message, the text
>
> will wrap with lines 80 characters long.
>
>
>
> When I quote yours, the lines don't break, so I have to scroll right to
>
> read each line. So when I quote you, I use the return key to break the
>
> lines at 80 characters or so. If I were more savvy, I could probably
>
> handle it better.


This is the second computer I've owned. Both are more than 15 years old. They will not accept new software. I'm lucky I can still use the email program I've got. I'm sorry about the appearance. It does not look that way to me. But I don't doubt you a bit because with my first older than 15 year old computer I had a problem where the text would not wrap even to my eyes. I had to type to the end and bring the cursor back or the type would just keep going. That doesn't happen with this computer, at least not to my eyes. I don't know what to do about it, other than apologize and try to keep my messages short - a promise I obviously did not keep this time, although if I wanted to I could always make it worse. Thanks for telling me about the appearance. Funny, it's odd, but Ophelia in a post just before yours said it looks ok to her. Well, at least I'm not crashing every thread on the board. Thanks again.

TJ

"Tommy Joe" > wrote in message
...
> On Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:
>
>> I don't understand how it works, but I know what happens. Usually,
>>
>> messages appear with text wrapping. I'm using Thunderbird. If it's set
>>
>> for lines to be 80 characters long, when I quote a message, the text
>>
>> will wrap with lines 80 characters long.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I quote yours, the lines don't break, so I have to scroll right to
>>
>> read each line. So when I quote you, I use the return key to break the
>>
>> lines at 80 characters or so. If I were more savvy, I could probably
>>
>> handle it better.
>
>
> This is the second computer I've owned. Both are more than 15 years
> old. They will not accept new software. I'm lucky I can still use the
> email program I've got. I'm sorry about the appearance. It does not look
> that way to me. But I don't doubt you a bit because with my first older
> than 15 year old computer I had a problem where the text would not wrap
> even to my eyes. I had to type to the end and bring the cursor back or
> the type would just keep going. That doesn't happen with this computer,
> at least not to my eyes. I don't know what to do about it, other than
> apologize and try to keep my messages short - a promise I obviously did
> not keep this time, although if I wanted to I could always make it worse.
> Thanks for telling me about the appearance. Funny, it's odd, but Ophelia
> in a post just before yours said it looks ok to her. Well, at least I'm
> not crashing every thread on the board. Thanks again.

Tommy, hopefully this post won't show up any differently to you when you see
it than it does me. On my screen j burns is showing double spacing but not
yours. Yours looks normal! How about you post what you want. Nobody is
forced to read anything you know?

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

On Thursday, August 1, Ophelia wrote:
Tommy Joe wrote in message

> > What is a "line break"? Somebody else in here told me yesterday that my
>
> > posts are unreadable. Not the content, he was talking about the format..
>
> > Does it look messed up to you too? I'm serious. I have an old computer
>
> > with old programs and I'm lucky they still work. My posts look neat to
>
> > me. But maybe they don't show up that way. Please let me know. By the
>
> > way, you should quote me more often, the people of earth need to hear my
>
> > message.




> Looks ok to me.


But not to everybody. I know it's probably my software. I have a hard time getting to any crowded web site. I am not too concerned about that because I deal mostly with text sites without all the bells and whistles. But the bells and whistles are there even if you don't see them. It takes me forever to get into this or any site, even sites devoted only to text. When the first page comes up I get a notice saying, "Google no longer recognizes your browser", and sometimes, "Your browser is out of date." My response: Why not? I'm out of date. Anyway, to some people my formatting is off, to others I guess it looks ok. But I believe it's me and not them who is at fault. I am not upgrading though, it's not in my plans, for anything.

TJ

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:34:59 PM Burns wrote:

> Ha! I've found it! When I reply to you, I just have to hit "rewrap" in
>
> the Edit menu! No more messing up your messages by adding returns!
>
>
> The USDA figures refute assertions that beans don't absorb salt, but
>
> that doesn't answer your question.
> Sirloin, falling-apart kidney beans, garlic, butter, mint! Sounds good!


Thanks, nice of you to show such concern, but the truth is you shouldn't have to go through that ritual just to answer a post from me. I'm glad you found it though, makes things easier, because as bad as I felt about my annoying post format appearance, I was not about to stop posting just for you. But I did feel bad about it. So give me a few points for that at least..

I think science is great. But I tend to think in a more intuitive way. For example, I assume that any hard substance from hard beans to a rock will absorb some water if it sits in it long enough. I even assume that rice can be cooked just by soaking. I don't know how long it would take, but I bet it would happen. Ok, I won't bet. Just a gentleman's guess.

Thanks for yum yumming the bean dish. I use sirloin roast, but my grandparents always used lamb. They used it for almost everything. But even my old school Arab relatives, all of whom are good cooks, at least with the stuff they make consistently - even they now use beef almost exclusively and have even resorted to buying commercial yogurt rather than making it themselves which as the way of all of them when I was a kid. I made yogurt a few times when I was younger. Later I tried it and it wouldn't take. I talked with some of my relatives about that and even they said they had occasional problems with yogurt taking, problems they didn't have a few years ago. Anyway, the bean dish is exactly the same except my grandmother used clarified butter and lamb. Her version was great.

TJ

On Friday, August 2, 2013 6:41:42 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:

> Tommy, hopefully this post won't show up any differently to you when you see
>
> it than it does me. On my screen j burns is showing double spacing but not
>
> yours. Yours looks normal! How about you post what you want. Nobody is
>
> forced to read anything you know?


Thanks. I don't know what "normal" is. I got a good feeling from JBurns, no animosity at all. I believe he was being helpful. I know what you mean though. Some people like to take charge and play the power game. I'm not into that although sometimes I do like getting the last word. Let me take that back. I don't want the last word. That would mean I'm dead. I'm not ready for that format.

Your post is showing double spaced too. Maybe that is normal. I'm using google. Your post shows up in it's original form as single spaced, but when I hit "reply" your post shows up double-spaced in the response box. I think maybe double spacing the normal format for responding. I certainly am not that anal (not to that degree), as to allow single vs double spacing to occupy my worry board. Thanks for your post.

TJ

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:08:54 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:

>On Friday, August 2, 2013 6:41:42 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> Tommy, hopefully this post won't show up any differently to you when you see
>>
>> it than it does me. On my screen j burns is showing double spacing but not
>>
>> yours. Yours looks normal! How about you post what you want. Nobody is
>>
>> forced to read anything you know?
>
>
> Thanks. I don't know what "normal" is. I got a good feeling from JBurns, no animosity at all. I believe he was being helpful. I know what you mean though. Some people like to take charge and play the power game. I'm not into that although sometimes I do like getting the last word. Let me take that back. I don't want the last word. That would mean I'm dead. I'm not ready for that format.
>
> Your post is showing double spaced too. Maybe that is normal. I'm using google. Your post shows up in it's original form as single spaced, but when I hit "reply" your post shows up double-spaced in the response box. I think maybe double spacing the normal format for responding. I certainly am not that anal (not to that degree), as to allow single vs double spacing to occupy my worry board. Thanks for your post.
>
>TJ

Just to clear up, JBurns did not reply to you. There are two posters
here with a similar handle. Myself (JBurns, who did not reply to you)
and j Burns, who did. I am a *she*, no sure about he other one. My
posts are always signed off with JB.

JB

"Tommy Joe" > wrote in message
...

> But not to everybody. I know it's probably my software. I have a hard
> time getting to any crowded web site. I am not too concerned about that
> because I deal mostly with text sites without all the bells and whistles.
> But the bells and whistles are there even if you don't see them. It takes
> me forever to get into this or any site, even sites devoted only to text.
> When the first page comes up I get a notice saying, "Google no longer
> recognizes your browser", and sometimes, "Your browser is out of date."
> My response: Why not? I'm out of date. Anyway, to some people my
> formatting is off, to others I guess it looks ok. But I believe it's me
> and not them who is at fault. I am not upgrading though, it's not in my
> plans, for anything.

At least you are managing to get on) We can't
all have the latest super duper hardware and software
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 8/2/2013 6:45 AM, Tommy Joe wrote:

> But not to everybody. I know it's probably my software. I have a

Do you just keep typing and typing without hitting enter to go
to the next line after 60 characters or so?

nancy

On 8/2/13 6:37 AM, Tommy Joe wrote:
> On Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, j Burns wrote:
>
>
>
> This is the second computer I've owned. Both are more than 15 years
> old. They will not accept new software. I'm lucky I can still use
> the email program I've got. I'm sorry about the appearance. It does
> not look that way to me. But I don't doubt you a bit because with my
> first older than 15 year old computer I had a problem where the text
> would not wrap even to my eyes. I had to type to the end and bring
> the cursor back or the type would just keep going. That doesn't
> happen with this computer, at least not to my eyes. I don't know
> what to do about it, other than apologize and try to keep my messages
> short - a promise I obviously did not keep this time, although if I
> wanted to I could always make it worse. Thanks for telling me about
> the appearance. Funny, it's odd, but Ophelia in a post just before
> yours said it looks ok to her. Well, at least I'm not crashing every
> thread on the board. Thanks again.
>
> TJ
>
Actually, your posts looked fine. It was when I replied that your lines
came out unbroken. Then my lazy editing made it worse! I wish _I_
could have stayed with the same computer for 15 years.

On 8/2/13 6:58 AM, Tommy Joe wrote:
> I think science is great. But I tend to think in a more intuitive
> way. For example, I assume that any hard substance from hard beans
> to a rock will absorb some water if it sits in it long enough. I
> even assume that rice can be cooked just by soaking. I don't know
> how long it would take, but I bet it would happen. Ok, I won't bet.
> Just a gentleman's guess.

According to the web page I found about brining beans, in warm weather
they'll sprout in brine. Who would've thunk it!

I'm sure soaking would make rice chewy, but I don't think it would be
cooked. Cooking helps a human get nutrition from vegetable matter,
including starch.

The other evening I was invited to dinner. The main course was beef, on
the grill long enough to turn pinkish tan on the outside but still ice
cold and dark red inside. The cook said she hadn't intended it to be
that rare, but she knew it was safe because it had been in the freezer
two weeks.

I prefer my meat cooked for safety and sometimes chewability. However,
I believe humans can get lots of nutrition from raw meat.

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 03:40:13 -0400, j Burns >
wrote:

>On 8/1/13 7:02 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 7/29/2013 2:29 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>> You all can do a web search on
>>>
>>> kinetic theory of matter
>>> thermodynamics
>>> statistical mechanics
>>> physical chemistry.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is usually very good for acquainting people with these things.
>>
>> Youtube, too.
>>
>The USDA site is very good for acquainting people with beans. Their
>analytic chemists have found that beans cooked in salt water, then
>rinsed, are full of salt.

Your premise may be believeable had you included that particular USDA
URL.

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:45:17 +0800, JBurns >
wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:08:54 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, August 2, 2013 6:41:42 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> Tommy, hopefully this post won't show up any differently to you when you see
>>>
>>> it than it does me. On my screen j burns is showing double spacing but not
>>>
>>> yours. Yours looks normal! How about you post what you want. Nobody is
>>>
>>> forced to read anything you know?
>>
>>
>> Thanks. I don't know what "normal" is. I got a good feeling from JBurns, no animosity at all. I believe he was being helpful. I know what you mean though. Some people like to take charge and play the power game. I'm not into that although sometimes I do like getting the last word. Let me take that back. I don't want the last word. That would mean I'm dead. I'm not ready for that format.
>>
>> Your post is showing double spaced too. Maybe that is normal. I'm using google. Your post shows up in it's original form as single spaced, but when I hit "reply" your post shows up double-spaced in the response box. I think maybe double spacing the normal format for responding. I certainly am not that anal (not to that degree), as to allow single vs double spacing to occupy my worry board. Thanks for your post.
>>
>>TJ
>
>Just to clear up, JBurns did not reply to you. There are two posters
>here with a similar handle. Myself (JBurns, who did not reply to you)
>and j Burns, who did. I am a *she*, no sure about he other one. My
>posts are always signed off with JB.
>
>JB

Just Beans

On 8/2/13 3:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 03:40:13 -0400, j Burns >
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/1/13 7:02 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2013 2:29 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>>>
>>>> You all can do a web search on
>>>>
>>>> kinetic theory of matter
>>>> thermodynamics
>>>> statistical mechanics
>>>> physical chemistry.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia is usually very good for acquainting people with these things.
>>>
>>> Youtube, too.
>>>
>> The USDA site is very good for acquainting people with beans. Their
>> analytic chemists have found that beans cooked in salt water, then
>> rinsed, are full of salt.
>
> Your premise may be believeable had you included that particular USDA
> URL.
>
That's not a premise. It's a fact. "Premise" comes from "praemittere",
or "send before." Your assertion that beans have no salt is based on
your premise that all seeds are covered with a reverse-osmosis membrane.

I believe this is all a trick to get me to reveal the web address of the
USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. As you are no doubt well
aware, the USDA monitors this group. If I gave out that information,
they'd probably prosecute JBurns by mistake. I wouldn't want that on my
conscience.

On Friday, August 2, 2013 7:45:17 AM UTC-4, Golden One wrote:

> Just to clear up, JBurns did not reply to you. There are two posters
>
> here with a similar handle. Myself (JBurns, who did not reply to you)
>
> and j Burns, who did. I am a *she*, no sure about he other one. My
>
> posts are always signed off with JB.


This is outrageous! There outta be a law that two people with the same name cannot appear in the same newsgroup unless one of them agrees to alter their own for the sake of peace and understanding. I got you, Golden One, I got you. But dammit, there outta be a law.

TJ (not T J)

On Friday, August 2, 2013 8:46:57 AM UTC-4, Nancy Young wrote:

> Do you just keep typing and typing without hitting enter to go
>
> to the next line after 60 characters or so?



I don't have to hit enter, when my text reaches the right margin it automatically returns on it's own, (as it did right there between 'it' and 'automatically). But I have an old computer and there a script problem, the site even tells me so, that they (Google), no longer recognize my software, and it takes a long time to get in here or anyway. But I'm not griping. I'm just letting you know that the formatting of my posts has already been discussed. Don't worry, you won't see me in too many threads. But I'm not going to stop posting. Sorry.

TJ