On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:

> Any noticeable difference in the end result?

Not that I could tell.

Well, maybe jes a tad. Seems the steamed egg had a tiny bit o'
overcooked yolk, but not enough to be concerned over. Mostly a runny
yolk.

nb

On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:

> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
> reason - that was the way to go apparently.

Musta been Limey Fords (Cortina, Anglia). Even USA Fords are the
pits.

I never had much mechanical problems with true British products
(Triumph, MGA, Austin). They were always jes a step up from a rock,
mechanically speaking. Jags were always a prob, what with their drool
overhead cam engines, but I never owned one of those.

nb

On 10/6/2015 4:02 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
>
>> I'd agree on nerdy, but I find them in many cases to be engineering
>> -minded and practical.
>
> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
> practical" is an oxymoron.
>
> nb

I confess I have not worked with any German engineers. They do tend to
gild the lily getting to a "solution".

"Mirrror of TrVth" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/5/2015 9:58 PM, wrote:
>> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:16:17 PM UTC-5, Sky wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, the irony - VBG!!! I happen to like the bow-tie guy, but I
>>> appreciate the 'staff' more! As always, YMMV! The two magazines aren't
>>> so shabby either, unlike many others :>
>>>
>>> Sky
>>>
>>>
>> Me, too. I don't understand all this hostility toward
>> Chris Kimball. He doesn't dress tawdrily, he's not grinning
>> into the camera like an idiot, he doesn't correct people's
>> pronunciation of 'foreign' words, he doesn't discuss 'table
>> scapes, etc.
>>
>
> +1!

Personally, I like him a lot, much better than many of them.

Cheri

On 2015-10-06, > wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2015 22:02:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>>You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
>>practical" is an oxymoron.

> Ain't that the trewth

Testify!

That's why engineers need technicians.

nb

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:25:45 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-10-06 6:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>
>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>
>One of the funniest things I ever heard was a story about an astronaut
>getting seated in a rocket that was to take him into Orbit and looking
>at a switch and seeing the manufacturer's name.... Lucas.

Ha... an infamous name there

>Then there is the question about why the English drink their beer warm
>.... refrigeration by Lucas.

Actually, I like certain beers at room temperature during winter.

On 6 Oct 2015 22:54:37 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>
>Musta been Limey Fords (Cortina, Anglia). Even USA Fords are the
>pits.

Not just Fords, Jags and a lot of cars I suspect were much more common
here than in the U.S.

>I never had much mechanical problems with true British products
>(Triumph, MGA, Austin). They were always jes a step up from a rock,
>mechanically speaking.

True that. But inherently unreliable all the same, you must have been
very lucky not to have many problems. Triumphs were one of the better
examples I can think of as being awfully engineered.

>Jags were always a prob, what with their drool
>overhead cam engines, but I never owned one of those.

Yep. Despite that, the E-type is one exception I could live with. I
have a soft spot for the old E-type. Way out of my budget though!
I also have a soft spot for Aston Martins... but still not enough to
sway me away from Japanese made vehicles.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:22:46 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-10-06 6:02 PM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
>>
>>> I'd agree on nerdy, but I find them in many cases to be engineering
>>> -minded and practical.
>>
>> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
>> practical" is an oxymoron.
>>
>
>My late brother in law was a engineer. He loved to plan things. He would
>spend hours and hours and hours making scale diagrams and writing out
>detailed plans about how to tackle a simple project that a competent
>handyman could have completed in less than an hour.
>
>As an example.... he spent more than a day on a plan to install a roof
>peak ventilation thingamabob on his ski chalet. He bought a saw with a
>special diamond studded blade to slice a line through the shingles. Then
>he spent four hours sketching and writing plans on how to best cut the
>straight line to remove the shingles. When his plan failed he finally
>agreed to my plan which was to simply pop off the cap shingles and cut
>though the exposed plywood. My plan involved less than an hour of work,
>less than a quarter the time he spent on his useless plan.

A perfect example right there

On 6 Oct 2015 22:35:56 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Any noticeable difference in the end result?
>
>Not that I could tell.
>
>Well, maybe jes a tad. Seems the steamed egg had a tiny bit o'
>overcooked yolk, but not enough to be concerned over. Mostly a runny
>yolk.

Thanks notbob. I see no point in steaming in that case - but I *will*
try it all the same, just in case I find some advantage.

On 06/10/2015 4:12 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2015 22:02:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>
>> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
>> practical" is an oxymoron.
>
> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>
Then you should have worked on my 1980s Olds Cutlas! That had
unnecessarily complicated bits too!
Graham

On 06/10/2015 4:54 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>
> Musta been Limey Fords (Cortina, Anglia). Even USA Fords are the
> pits.
>
> I never had much mechanical problems with true British products
> (Triumph, MGA, Austin). They were always jes a step up from a rock,
> mechanically speaking. Jags were always a prob, what with their drool
> overhead cam engines, but I never owned one of those.
>
> nb
>
My neighbour owns an Austin Healey 3000, an XK-140, an XK-150 and an
XK-Etype (that Enzo Ferrari called the most beautiful car ever made). I
always know when Spring has arrived when I here the inevitable tune up
of the E-type.
Graham

On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:

> Actually, I like certain beers at room temperature during winter.

As you should.

I find most ppl that parrot the Lucas myth have little or no
experience with the brand. In all the years I've owned and wrenched
on Limey vehicles, I've only experienced one "Lucas" failure. That
was a blown motorcycle (Matchless) headlight bulb when I missed a
shift and over-revved the engine, a classic failure on a zenier diode
charging system. As a savvy Limey bike rider, I had a spare bulb.

nb

On 06/10/2015 4:25 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-06 6:12 PM, Je�us wrote:
>
>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>
> One of the funniest things I ever heard was a story about an astronaut
> getting seated in a rocket that was to take him into Orbit and looking
> at a switch and seeing the manufacturer's name.... Lucas.
>
> Then there is the question about why the English drink their beer warm
> .... refrigeration by Lucas.
>
>
>
Yer can't drink quaffing beers when they are really cold.
Graham

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:33:30 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 06/10/2015 4:54 PM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>>
>> Musta been Limey Fords (Cortina, Anglia). Even USA Fords are the
>> pits.
>>
>> I never had much mechanical problems with true British products
>> (Triumph, MGA, Austin). They were always jes a step up from a rock,
>> mechanically speaking. Jags were always a prob, what with their drool
>> overhead cam engines, but I never owned one of those.
>>
>> nb
>>
>My neighbour owns an Austin Healey 3000, an XK-140, an XK-150 and an
>XK-Etype (that Enzo Ferrari called the most beautiful car ever made). I
>always know when Spring has arrived when I here the inevitable tune up
>of the E-type.

LOL, and therein lies the problem with E-types... the never-ending
tuning of carburetors Beautiful cars though when they're running
right.

On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:

> Thanks notbob.

My pleasure. It's allegedly why this newsgroup exists, although
sometimes I wonder.

> I see no point in steaming in that case....

I must agree. If half an inch of water in a pan will do the job, why
drag out and dirty up a full 3-piece steamer setup. Jes make sure you
have a fairly good lid fer that pan-only approach.

nb

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:30:12 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 06/10/2015 4:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On 6 Oct 2015 22:02:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
>>> practical" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>>
>Then you should have worked on my 1980s Olds Cutlas! That had
>unnecessarily complicated bits too!

Heh, I don't doubt it for a second I much prefer Japanese
engineered and built cars myself, my only gripe at times is that you
need extremely dextrous and tiny hands to get at things sometimes.

Still, any late model car is now pretty much beyond the abilities of
the backyard mechanic. Why is why I prefer older model cars for the
most part. My Subaru Forester GT was built in 2001, and even on that
most things I won't do myself, unless it's brakes or general
maintenance. I have three Toyota Hiluxes, which are entirely different
propositions - nothing is complicated and I can do all work on them at
home.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:35:59 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 06/10/2015 4:25 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-10-06 6:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>
>>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>>
>> One of the funniest things I ever heard was a story about an astronaut
>> getting seated in a rocket that was to take him into Orbit and looking
>> at a switch and seeing the manufacturer's name.... Lucas.
>>
>> Then there is the question about why the English drink their beer warm
>> .... refrigeration by Lucas.
>>
>>
>>
>Yer can't drink quaffing beers when they are really cold.

Mostly agree with that, but not entirely. I do remember when I ran an
avocado farm in Queensland, circa 1996... the summer days were
meltingly hot and humid. There was nothing better than stopping at the
Cooroy pub for an ice-cold beer straight from the tap on the way home.

Generally though, I drink my beer at room temperature during winter
and I like them lightly chilled during the warmer months. And when I
say 'beer', I mean properly brewed beer, not the foamy mass-produced
crap that the big breweries produce.

On 2015-10-06, Jeßus > wrote:

> I much prefer Japanese engineered and built cars myself, my only
> gripe at times is that you need extremely dextrous and tiny hands to
> get at things sometimes.

I hadda replace my '87 Honda Civic Si hatchback's starter motor. It
was strictly a braille operation.

> I have three Toyota Hiluxes, which are entirely different
> propositions - nothing is complicated and I can do all work on them
> at home.

No doubt cuz they're older --and no more complicated-- than dirt!

nb

On 2015-10-06 19:53, Je�us wrote:


>> Yer can't drink quaffing beers when they are really cold.
>
> Mostly agree with that, but not entirely. I do remember when I ran an
> avocado farm in Queensland, circa 1996... the summer days were
> meltingly hot and humid. There was nothing better than stopping at the
> Cooroy pub for an ice-cold beer straight from the tap on the way home.
>
> Generally though, I drink my beer at room temperature during winter
> and I like them lightly chilled during the warmer months. And when I
> say 'beer', I mean properly brewed beer, not the foamy mass-produced
> crap that the big breweries produce.


It is strange, but a lot of people seem to be under the impression that
British beers being served warm has something to do with their inability
to refrigerate it when the reason is that their production of great
beers preceded refrigeration and beers were made to taste good at room
temperature. They did not need to be cold to taste good.

It is unfortunate that so many people base their rating of beer on the
amount they can choke down without unfortunate side effects. Beer
drinkers tend to be loyal to their brands and don't appreciate that
beers can be paired with certain foods.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:13:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> I have a terrible won-loss record when it comes to over easy eggs. I shove
> in the spatula, I lift, I sob as I break the yolk.
>
>
Maybe you're not letting the white firm up enough to be
turned over?? And a Teflon pan might help in this
endeavor if you're not presently using one.

Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:53:03 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:
>
wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:16:17 PM UTC-5, Sky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, the irony - VBG!!! I happen to like the bow-tie guy, but I
>>>> appreciate the 'staff' more! As always, YMMV! The two magazines aren't
>>>> so shabby either, unlike many others :>
>>>>
>>>> Sky
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Me, too. I don't understand all this hostility toward
>>> Chris Kimball. He doesn't dress tawdrily, he's not grinning
>>> into the camera like an idiot, he doesn't correct people's
>>> pronunciation of 'foreign' words, he doesn't discuss 'table
>>> scapes, etc.
>>
>>he wears a bow tie
>>
>>that's negative 100 points right there
>
> I'd rather watch an old fart with a bow tie who knows what he's
> talking about, than a hipster beard with purple pants who talks
> hogwash.

except he doesn't know anything about cooking -- he knows about
running a publishing business

he's just reading his lines

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:50:08 PM UTC-5, tert in seattle wrote:
>
> except he doesn't know anything about cooking -- he knows about
> running a publishing business
>
> he's just reading his lines
>
>
We're going to have to agree to disagree.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:02:46 PM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
>
> > I'd agree on nerdy, but I find them in many cases to be engineering
> > -minded and practical.
>
> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
> practical" is an oxymoron.

Please provide evidence for your assertion. I work with engineers,
live with an engineer, and most of our friends are engineers. There
are all kinds of engineers, practical and not-so-much.

When my college drafting instructor was in college, engineers had
to learn blacksmithing. That's no longer part of the curriculum,
sadly.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:22:53 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-06 6:02 PM, notbob wrote:
> > On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
> >
> >> I'd agree on nerdy, but I find them in many cases to be engineering
> >> -minded and practical.
> >
> > You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
> > practical" is an oxymoron.
> >
>
> My late brother in law was a engineer. He loved to plan things. He would
> spend hours and hours and hours making scale diagrams and writing out
> detailed plans about how to tackle a simple project that a competent
> handyman could have completed in less than an hour.
>
> As an example.... he spent more than a day on a plan to install a roof
> peak ventilation thingamabob on his ski chalet. He bought a saw with a
> special diamond studded blade to slice a line through the shingles. Then
> he spent four hours sketching and writing plans on how to best cut the
> straight line to remove the shingles. When his plan failed he finally
> agreed to my plan which was to simply pop off the cap shingles and cut
> though the exposed plywood. My plan involved less than an hour of work,
> less than a quarter the time he spent on his useless plan.

What kind of engineer was he? Electrical? Mechanical? Chemical?
It makes a big difference.

Did he have much experience with house "stuff"?

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> When my college drafting instructor was in college, engineers had
> to learn blacksmithing. That's no longer part of the curriculum,
> sadly.

That's interesting. Please tell more.

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 7:29:12 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > When my college drafting instructor was in college, engineers had
> > to learn blacksmithing. That's no longer part of the curriculum,
> > sadly.
>
> That's interesting. Please tell more.

Well, there isn't really much more to tell. It was a brief anecdote
in a class I took in 1976. The only other thing I remember about
the guy was that he didn't like having women in his classes, because
he couldn't tell his best jokes with them present.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2015-10-07, l not -l > wrote:

> A very smooth, non-stick surface and a little practice flipping the wrist
> and the spatula can be left in a drawer. After flipping and the second side
> is done, a tip of the pan over (and close) to the plate and the eggs just
> slide onto the plate with no broken yolks.

> All it takes is practice and a slick non-stick pan.

I completely agree. I've flipped 3 eggs at a time w/ no yolk
breakage.

I think this subject requires a new thread.

nb

On 10/6/2015 4:02 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
>
>> I'd agree on nerdy, but I find them in many cases to be engineering
>> -minded and practical.
>
> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
> practical" is an oxymoron.
>
> nb
>

Counter-intuitive.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 10/6/2015 4:57 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "Mirrror of TrVth" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/5/2015 9:58 PM, wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:16:17 PM UTC-5, Sky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, the irony - VBG!!! I happen to like the bow-tie guy, but I
>>>> appreciate the 'staff' more! As always, YMMV! The two magazines
>>>> aren't
>>>> so shabby either, unlike many others :>
>>>>
>>>> Sky
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Me, too. I don't understand all this hostility toward
>>> Chris Kimball. He doesn't dress tawdrily, he's not grinning
>>> into the camera like an idiot, he doesn't correct people's
>>> pronunciation of 'foreign' words, he doesn't discuss 'table
>>> scapes, etc.
>>>
>>
>> +1!
>
> Personally, I like him a lot, much better than many of them.
>
> Cheri

Ditto, a pleasant and well-read chap. His "Letter from Vermont" column
in Cooks Illustrated is always great reading.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 10/6/2015 5:01 PM, wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2015 22:02:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
>>
>>> I'd agree on nerdy, but I find them in many cases to be engineering
>>> -minded and practical.
>>
>> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
>> practical" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> nb
>
> Ain't that the trewth
>

It ain't.

What's more practical than engineering something?

Using It I guess. But otherwise?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 10/6/2015 10:42 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>> I'd rather watch an old fart with a bow tie who knows what he's
>> >talking about, than a hipster beard with purple pants who talks
>> >hogwash.
> except he doesn't know anything about cooking -- he knows about
> running a publishing business
>
> he's just reading his lines
>
>

Dead wrong, it's YOU who know NOTHING about him!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 10/6/2015 5:12 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-10-06, > wrote:
>
>> On 6 Oct 2015 22:02:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
>>> practical" is an oxymoron.
>
>> Ain't that the trewth
>
> Testify!
>
> That's why engineers need technicians.
>
> nb
>

Which doesn't make either one of them impractical in thinking.

If anything that would be inventors, who tend to dream.

On 10/6/2015 5:30 PM, graham wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 4:12 PM, Je�us wrote:
>> On 6 Oct 2015 22:02:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You've obviously never worked with engineers. "Engineering-minded and
>>> practical" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> The first thing I thought of when reading your comment was British
>> cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If they could find a way to
>> unnecessarily complicate and/or makes things difficult for no good
>> reason - that was the way to go apparently.
>>
> Then you should have worked on my 1980s Olds Cutlas! That had
> unnecessarily complicated bits too!
> Graham

Mostly due to stronger emissions mandates.

On 10/6/2015 10:42 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:53:03 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:16:17 PM UTC-5, Sky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, the irony - VBG!!! I happen to like the bow-tie guy, but I
>>>>> appreciate the 'staff' more! As always, YMMV! The two magazines aren't
>>>>> so shabby either, unlike many others :>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sky
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Me, too. I don't understand all this hostility toward
>>>> Chris Kimball. He doesn't dress tawdrily, he's not grinning
>>>> into the camera like an idiot, he doesn't correct people's
>>>> pronunciation of 'foreign' words, he doesn't discuss 'table
>>>> scapes, etc.
>>>
>>> he wears a bow tie
>>>
>>> that's negative 100 points right there
>>
>> I'd rather watch an old fart with a bow tie who knows what he's
>> talking about, than a hipster beard with purple pants who talks
>> hogwash.
>
> except he doesn't know anything about cooking -- he knows about
> running a publishing business
>
> he's just reading his lines

Not according to the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/ma...ball.html?_r=0

It was in Westport that he began taking classes at a culinary school run
by Malvina Kinard, a middle-aged divorcée and friend of Julia Child. “I
drove the instructors crazy,” Kimball recalls. He needled them about
minute points of food science — “I wanted to know how much salt was in a
pinch, why you have to scald milk to make a béchamel” — and received
indignant, unsatisfying answers. Soon after, with seed money raised from
his brother-in-law and a handful of investors, he decided he would
answer those questions himself by starting a magazine titled, simply,
Cook’s.

On 10/6/2015 10:59 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:42:56 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:53:03 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:16:17 PM UTC-5, Sky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, the irony - VBG!!! I happen to like the bow-tie guy, but I
>>>>>> appreciate the 'staff' more! As always, YMMV! The two magazines aren't
>>>>>> so shabby either, unlike many others :>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sky
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Me, too. I don't understand all this hostility toward
>>>>> Chris Kimball. He doesn't dress tawdrily, he's not grinning
>>>>> into the camera like an idiot, he doesn't correct people's
>>>>> pronunciation of 'foreign' words, he doesn't discuss 'table
>>>>> scapes, etc.
>>>>
>>>> he wears a bow tie
>>>>
>>>> that's negative 100 points right there
>>>
>>> I'd rather watch an old fart with a bow tie who knows what he's
>>> talking about, than a hipster beard with purple pants who talks
>>> hogwash.
>>
>> except he doesn't know anything about cooking -- he knows about
>> running a publishing business
>>
>> he's just reading his lines
>
> Someone's got to be the main host.
>

Ah...he invented it, so...

On 10/7/2015 3:30 AM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:50:08 PM UTC-5, tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>> except he doesn't know anything about cooking -- he knows about
>> running a publishing business
>>
>> he's just reading his lines
>>
>>
> We're going to have to agree to disagree.

I've seen him cooking on morning shows, he appears to know
his subject and handles the tools as competently as anyone
else I've seen cooking on tv.

I don't think you need a degree from the CIA to be a very
good if not great cook. All while being successful in some
unrelated career.

nancy

On 6 Oct 2015 21:09:22 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
>
> > Bow tie people tend to be quirky, but thoughtful.
>
> I'd say nerdy, but imperious. IOW, know-it-alls.
>
> nb

My grandfather wore a bow tie... the kind you tie, not the snap on
kind and he was a very successful businessman. He knew a lot, but he
wasn't a know it all - nor was he quirky (aka: weird).

--

sf

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:28:30 +1100, Bruce > wrote:

> I'd rather watch an old fart with a bow tie who knows what he's
> talking about, than a hipster beard with purple pants who talks
> hogwash.

His staff does the research and presentations... he's there to taste
and ask questions. He plays Claudine and they are Jacques Pepin.

--

sf

Bruce wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:53:03 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:16:17 PM UTC-5, Sky wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Oh, the irony - VBG!!! I happen to like the bow-tie guy, but
> I >>> appreciate the 'staff' more! As always, YMMV! The two
> magazines aren't >>> so shabby either, unlike many others :>
> >>>
> >>> Sky
> > > >
> > > >
> >> Me, too. I don't understand all this hostility toward
> >> Chris Kimball. He doesn't dress tawdrily, he's not grinning
> >> into the camera like an idiot, he doesn't correct people's
> >> pronunciation of 'foreign' words, he doesn't discuss 'table
> >> scapes, etc.
> >
> > he wears a bow tie
> >
> > that's negative 100 points right there
>
> I'd rather watch an old fart with a bow tie who knows what he's
> talking about, than a hipster beard with purple pants who talks
> hogwash.

Agreed Bruce. Actually I don't expect a TV cook to have a tie on when
working but hey, that's just me maybe.

Carol

--

sf wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2015 21:09:22 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-10-06, Embudo > wrote:
>>
>> > Bow tie people tend to be quirky, but thoughtful.
>>
>> I'd say nerdy, but imperious. IOW, know-it-alls.
>>
>> nb
>
> My grandfather wore a bow tie... the kind you tie, not the snap on
> kind and he was a very successful businessman. He knew a lot, but he
> wasn't a know it all - nor was he quirky (aka: weird).

there was a time when normal people could wear a bow tie

that time has passed