On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:10:07 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:49:58 -0300, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:55:20 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:46:43 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:14:31 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:23:04 AM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:19:34 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:18:05 AM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:24:25 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> >On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:20:52 PM UTC-7, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> On 8/23/2016 5:09 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> > My favorite roasted potatoes are the kind most Brits make..
>>>>>> >> >> > Peel and cut potatoes into good sized chunks.
>>>>>> >> >> > Simmer a bit till the tester fork barely goes in the potato.
>>>>>> >> >> > Drain and then shake them around in the collander to bang up the softened surface of the potato. This helps the fat you are going to roast them in cling to the potato.
>>>>>> >> >> > Put in a baking pan with bacon fat, or goose fat or duck fat and roast till potatoes are nicely browned, turn them a couple of time for even browning.
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> > These always turn out with a beautiful deep golden brown crust and velvet soft creamy interiors.
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> > You can use yukon golds, or red potatoes, or even russets, they all work well.
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> I just drained them in a colander, but the roughing up sounds like a
>>>>>> >> >> good ides. Next time.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >Yup, if you like a nice crust, this will do it.
>>>>>> >> >Here's a picture of my last batch, done in bacon fat.
>>>>>> >> >Not a good photo, but you get the idea.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >https://goo.gl/photos/8wbmVFjbQSNApocn8
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I see no benefit to boiling prior to roasting, none whatsoever!
>>>>>> >> I neither peel or boil... dried scrubed spuds sliced into wedges
>>>>>> >> placed in a roasting pan, coated lightly with olive oil, sprinkled
>>>>>> >> lightly with kosher salt, and roasted at 375ºF... flip with a spatula
>>>>>> >> a couple times until done to your liking... goes well with London
>>>>>> >> broil etc.:
>>>>>> >> http://i65.tinypic.com/20af5dy.jpg
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Sheldon. Try this just once, just for shits and grins. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>>>>>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>>>>>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>>>>>
>>>>>I posted this earlier in the thread. I guess you missed it.
>>>>>Here's a picture of my last batch, done in bacon fat. Not a good photo, but you get the idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://goo.gl/photos/8wbmVFjbQSNApocn8
>>>>
>>>>I knew somebody posted some tasty looking spuds
>>>
>>>If you think those maggoty lumps look tasty then you are seriously
>>>afflicted with TIAD... those thingies look exactly like the critter
>>>scat I see here... those gotta be skunk doo doo.
>>
>>It's clear YOU have never seen skunk shit
>
>I've seen plenty of skunk shit, I've even stepped in it... there was a
>skunk on my deck last evening munching cat food. I usually bring in
>the cat food at about 9 PM but this time the skunk arrived at about
>7:30 PM, once it's on the deck it's too late to open the door, skunks
>are very protective of their food, I don't need to live with eau du
>skunk for a month. Skunks are very pretty critters but they stink.
>http://i63.tinypic.com/f9f3oh.jpg
>
>> - however - you admit you
>>have never tried roasting spuds this way so how the hell do you think
>>you know what they taste like? When you have tried doing it then we
>>(Mags and I) might value your opinion!
>
>I already posted that I've tried, several times. I saw no benefit,
>none. Those things in that picture look about as appetizing as what I
>scoop from a litter pan... were you smart you'd never have posted it
>and you'd delete it from your PC.

You're and/or drunk - I didn't post the pics!

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:17:56 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Yes, there was a pic.
>>>>
>>>> Show me... show me something that looks appetizing, not a pic that
>>>> looks like skunk scat. There's no good reason to boil taters before
>>>> roasting them, makes no sense, no sense whatsoever... and I've still
>>>> not seen a photo that proves that method produces a dish that looks
>>>> more appetizing than canned meow mix in the litter pan.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK Sheldon. Here is a picture of the finished potatoes on the plate
>>> with
>>> a roast chicken dinner. Doesn't matter, you will make fun of it
>>> regardless. I don't understand why you have to be so unpleasant.
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>>
>>I think they look wonderful, but Mr. Negativity wouldn't know wonderful
>>looking food if it bit him in the butt.
>>
>>Cheri
>
> Hey, there's an idea, maybe the skunk could bite him in the butt!

LOL, pity the skunk in that case.

Cheri

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:16:44 PM UTC-4, Cheri wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > It's clear YOU have never seen skunk shit - however - you admit you
>>> > have never tried roasting spuds this way so how the hell do you think
>>> > you know what they taste like? When you have tried doing it then we
>>> > (Mags and I) might value your opinion!
>>>
>>> He's famous for that! He hassles people for naming brands, posting pics
>>
>>He hassles people for not posting pictures. When they post pictures, he
>>rips their plating and photography. He gets 'em coming and going.
>>
>>
>>Cindy Hamilton
>
> Well he thinks he does, but how many here care what he thinks ?

I usually get a good laugh from his thoughts, but care? NO!

Cheri

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:26:37 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:17:56 -0700, "Cheri" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >Yes, there was a pic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me... show me something that looks appetizing, not a pic that
>>>>> looks like skunk scat. There's no good reason to boil taters before
>>>>> roasting them, makes no sense, no sense whatsoever... and I've still
>>>>> not seen a photo that proves that method produces a dish that looks
>>>>> more appetizing than canned meow mix in the litter pan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK Sheldon. Here is a picture of the finished potatoes on the plate
>>>> with
>>>> a roast chicken dinner. Doesn't matter, you will make fun of it
>>>> regardless. I don't understand why you have to be so unpleasant.
>>>>
>>>> https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>>>
>>>I think they look wonderful, but Mr. Negativity wouldn't know wonderful
>>>looking food if it bit him in the butt.
>>>
>>>Cheri
>>
>> Hey, there's an idea, maybe the skunk could bite him in the butt!
>
>LOL, pity the skunk in that case.
>
>Cheri

True!

On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
> demonstrating what's accomplished.

There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
taste like by looking at a photo.

Jill

In article >,
says...
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:26:37 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:17:56 -0700, "Cheri" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> >Yes, there was a pic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Show me... show me something that looks appetizing, not a pic that
> >>>>> looks like skunk scat. There's no good reason to boil taters before
> >>>>> roasting them, makes no sense, no sense whatsoever... and I've still
> >>>>> not seen a photo that proves that method produces a dish that looks
> >>>>> more appetizing than canned meow mix in the litter pan.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OK Sheldon. Here is a picture of the finished potatoes on the plate
> >>>> with
> >>>> a roast chicken dinner. Doesn't matter, you will make fun of it
> >>>> regardless. I don't understand why you have to be so unpleasant.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
> >>>
> >>>I think they look wonderful, but Mr. Negativity wouldn't know wonderful
> >>>looking food if it bit him in the butt.
> >>>
> >>>Cheri
> >>
> >> Hey, there's an idea, maybe the skunk could bite him in the butt!
> >
> >LOL, pity the skunk in that case.
> >
> >Cheri
>
> True!

You two will never skip a passing bandwagon, will you? Safety in numbers
and all that.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>
>There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
>taste like by looking at a photo.
>
>Jill

A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
less appetizing.

On 8/25/2016 5:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>>
>> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
>> taste like by looking at a photo.
>>
>> Jill
>
> A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
> looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
> less appetizing.
>
Sure, fine. You cannot state the method shown in photos will taste bad
or good. Would you rather food *look good* or *taste* good? You are
the one who is always chiding people about not posting photos.

We aren't professional photographers. We are people who enjoy cooking
some sometimes take pics of food.

If you've ever seen a documentary or read an artical about commercial
food advertising food photography you'd know... that "perfect" shot of
ice cream in a cone was likley tinted shortening.

Please don't claim to be an expert in food photography. You're just a
mean old grouch.

Jill

On 8/25/2016 4:25 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 5:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>>>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>>>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>>>
>>> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
>>> taste like by looking at a photo.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
>> looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
>> less appetizing.
>>
> Sure, fine. You cannot state the method shown in photos will taste bad
> or good. Would you rather food *look good* or *taste* good? You are
> the one who is always chiding people about not posting photos.
>
> We aren't professional photographers. We are people who enjoy cooking
> some sometimes take pics of food.
>
> If you've ever seen a documentary or read an artical about commercial
> food advertising food photography you'd know... that "perfect" shot of
> ice cream in a cone was likley tinted shortening.
>
> Please don't claim to be an expert in food photography. You're just a
> mean old grouch.
>
> Jill

At least you give him credit for being an expert in that.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:25:38 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 8/25/2016 5:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>>>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>>>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>>>
>>> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
>>> taste like by looking at a photo.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
>> looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
>> less appetizing.
>>
>Sure, fine. You cannot state the method shown in photos will taste bad
>or good. Would you rather food *look good* or *taste* good? You are
>the one who is always chiding people about not posting photos.
>
>We aren't professional photographers. We are people who enjoy cooking
>some sometimes take pics of food.
>
>If you've ever seen a documentary or read an artical about commercial
>food advertising food photography you'd know... that "perfect" shot of
>ice cream in a cone was likley tinted shortening.
>
>Please don't claim to be an expert in food photography. You're just a
>mean old grouch.
>
>Jill

Too true, years ago when I worked for a commercial photographer I
remember him taking shots of some clam chowder for an ad. The bowl
the company wanted to use was beautiful but the amount of soup they
sent made it look skimpy in the bottom.

So first we placed some foam rubber in the bottom of the bowl, then we
weighted that down with something then we poured the soup over it,
cold.

When he was ready to take the shot, I took a big drag on a cigarette
and blew the smoke into the chowder with a straw. He shot as the
smoke broke the surface and rose.

It looked very tempting and I always thought to myself if they only
knew!

On 8/25/2016 4:56 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:25:38 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/25/2016 5:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>>>>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>>>>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>>>>
>>>> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
>>>> taste like by looking at a photo.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>
>>> A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
>>> looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
>>> less appetizing.
>>>
>> Sure, fine. You cannot state the method shown in photos will taste bad
>> or good. Would you rather food *look good* or *taste* good? You are
>> the one who is always chiding people about not posting photos.
>>
>> We aren't professional photographers. We are people who enjoy cooking
>> some sometimes take pics of food.
>>
>> If you've ever seen a documentary or read an artical about commercial
>> food advertising food photography you'd know... that "perfect" shot of
>> ice cream in a cone was likley tinted shortening.
>>
>> Please don't claim to be an expert in food photography. You're just a
>> mean old grouch.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Too true, years ago when I worked for a commercial photographer I
> remember him taking shots of some clam chowder for an ad. The bowl
> the company wanted to use was beautiful but the amount of soup they
> sent made it look skimpy in the bottom.
>
> So first we placed some foam rubber in the bottom of the bowl, then we
> weighted that down with something then we poured the soup over it,
> cold.
>
> When he was ready to take the shot, I took a big drag on a cigarette
> and blew the smoke into the chowder with a straw. He shot as the
> smoke broke the surface and rose.
>
> It looked very tempting and I always thought to myself if they only
> knew!
>


Anyone remember Campbell's Cream of Marble Soup - they put marbles in
the soup to make the veggies rise and be more visible. (when they took
the pictures, not when canning!)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:13:24 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> >Yes, there was a pic.
>>>
>>> Show me... show me something that looks appetizing, not a pic that
>>> looks like skunk scat. There's no good reason to boil taters before
>>> roasting them, makes no sense, no sense whatsoever... and I've still
>>> not seen a photo that proves that method produces a dish that looks
>>> more appetizing than canned meow mix in the litter pan.
>>
>>
>>OK Sheldon. Here is a picture of the finished potatoes on the plate with a roast chicken dinner. Doesn't matter, you will make fun of it regardless. I don't understand why you have to be so unpleasant.
>>
>>https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>
>I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
>don't a google account nor do I want to create one.

So how did you see the first pic then? Hmm?

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>
> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
> taste like by looking at a photo.
>
> Jill

Or anything for that matter.

Cheri

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:25:38 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>>On 8/25/2016 5:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>>>>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>>>>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>>>>
>>>> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
>>>> taste like by looking at a photo.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>
>>> A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
>>> looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
>>> less appetizing.
>>>
>>Sure, fine. You cannot state the method shown in photos will taste bad
>>or good. Would you rather food *look good* or *taste* good? You are
>>the one who is always chiding people about not posting photos.
>>
>>We aren't professional photographers. We are people who enjoy cooking
>>some sometimes take pics of food.
>>
>>If you've ever seen a documentary or read an artical about commercial
>>food advertising food photography you'd know... that "perfect" shot of
>>ice cream in a cone was likley tinted shortening.
>>
>>Please don't claim to be an expert in food photography. You're just a
>>mean old grouch.
>>
>>Jill
>
> Too true, years ago when I worked for a commercial photographer I
> remember him taking shots of some clam chowder for an ad. The bowl
> the company wanted to use was beautiful but the amount of soup they
> sent made it look skimpy in the bottom.
>
> So first we placed some foam rubber in the bottom of the bowl, then we
> weighted that down with something then we poured the soup over it,
> cold.
>
> When he was ready to take the shot, I took a big drag on a cigarette
> and blew the smoke into the chowder with a straw. He shot as the
> smoke broke the surface and rose.
>
> It looked very tempting and I always thought to myself if they only
> knew!

I imagine most people do know that professional food pics are completely
doctored up. They've actually done TV shows about how many ads etc. are
really done.

Cheri

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:13:24 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
> >
> > I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
> > don't a google account nor do I want to create one.
>
> You don't need a Google account to view those pics. I have no Google
> account or Google cookies on my computer.

I'm with Sheldon on this one. I also can't see the picture.
The page only shows "sign in to your google acct" then it says the
ImStillMags link which does nothing.

This not on my outdated computer and software. It's the laptop...Window
7 and Firefox vs46.0

I hate all these nifty photo sharing pages...most don't work for me. I
even rarely see your pics anymore.
Photo sharing pages constantly update and they don't allow for backward
compatability.

Wish people would use a plain "show a .jpg" site like Tinypics or the 2
that Jebus recommended. There is absolutely no need for all this fancy
website bullshit just to show a picture.

Also annoying is a 5mb picture that only shows a loaf of bread or
whatever.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:47:30 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:13:24 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>> >
>> > I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
>> > don't a google account nor do I want to create one.
>>
>> You don't need a Google account to view those pics. I have no Google
>> account or Google cookies on my computer.
>
>I'm with Sheldon on this one. I also can't see the picture.
>The page only shows "sign in to your google acct" then it says the
>ImStillMags link which does nothing.
>
>This not on my outdated computer and software. It's the laptop...Window
>7 and Firefox vs46.0
>
>I hate all these nifty photo sharing pages...most don't work for me. I
>even rarely see your pics anymore.
>Photo sharing pages constantly update and they don't allow for backward
>compatability.
>
>Wish people would use a plain "show a .jpg" site like Tinypics or the 2
>that Jebus recommended. There is absolutely no need for all this fancy
>website bullshit just to show a picture.
>
>Also annoying is a 5mb picture that only shows a loaf of bread or
>whatever.

Postimage.org - that was one Jeßus recommended and I have used it ever
since. Very slick and none of the ads etc of tinypic.

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-4, Cheri wrote:
>
> I imagine most people do know that professional food pics are completely
> doctored up. They've actually done TV shows about how many ads etc. are
> really done.
>
> Cheri

I've always wanted to go into a fast food place with an advert picture in my pocket. When receiving the food I would pull out the picture and say "This is what I want, not what you've given me". If enough people did this maybe something would change. Probably not.

I've always chickened out.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:47:30 -0400, Gary > wrote:

> I'm with Sheldon on this one. I also can't see the picture.
> The page only shows "sign in to your google acct" then it says the
> ImStillMags link which does nothing.
>
> This not on my outdated computer and software. It's the laptop...Window
> 7 and Firefox vs46.0

Weird. I'm not signed in, but I can see it - switch browsers and try
Chrome, that's the one I used. Version 52.0.2743.116 m (64-bit)

Switched to Firefox (it's v 49.0b6) and I can see the image there too
- still not signed in.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:13:32 AM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >> >Yes, there was a pic.
> >>
> >> Show me... show me something that looks appetizing, not a pic that
> >> looks like skunk scat. There's no good reason to boil taters before
> >> roasting them, makes no sense, no sense whatsoever... and I've still
> >> not seen a photo that proves that method produces a dish that looks
> >> more appetizing than canned meow mix in the litter pan.
> >
> >
> >OK Sheldon. Here is a picture of the finished potatoes on the plate with a roast chicken dinner. Doesn't matter, you will make fun of it regardless. I don't understand why you have to be so unpleasant.
> >
> >https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>
> I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
> don't a google account nor do I want to create one.



I double checked and made sure it was a sharable pic. Here's a link.
https://goo.gl/photos/3A6rN2KS9syVJijF9

"ImStillMags" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:13:32 AM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >> >Yes, there was a pic.
> >>
> >> Show me... show me something that looks appetizing, not a pic that
> >> looks like skunk scat. There's no good reason to boil taters before
> >> roasting them, makes no sense, no sense whatsoever... and I've still
> >> not seen a photo that proves that method produces a dish that looks
> >> more appetizing than canned meow mix in the litter pan.
> >
> >
> >OK Sheldon. Here is a picture of the finished potatoes on the plate
> >with a roast chicken dinner. Doesn't matter, you will make fun of it
> >regardless. I don't understand why you have to be so unpleasant.
> >
> >https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>
> I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
> don't a google account nor do I want to create one.



I double checked and made sure it was a sharable pic. Here's a link.
https://goo.gl/photos/3A6rN2KS9syVJijF9

=============

The problem is ... your pic flashes up and instantly the sign in window for
Google pops up. There is no time to look at it properly.



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

On 8/26/2016 11:06 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-4, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> I imagine most people do know that professional food pics are completely
>> doctored up. They've actually done TV shows about how many ads etc. are
>> really done.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> I've always wanted to go into a fast food place with an advert picture in my pocket. When receiving the food I would pull out the picture and say "This is what I want, not what you've given me". If enough people did this maybe something would change. Probably not.
>
> I've always chickened out.
>
Did you ever see the movie 'Falling Down'? [Michael Douglas, circa
1993]. Part of the plot includes this scene as described on Wikipedia:

"At a Whammy Burger fast food restaurant, Foster becomes angry when they
refuse to serve breakfast because it is three minutes into lunch.
Pulling out a gun he accidentally fires into the ceiling, terrifying
everybody. He changes his mind about ordering lunch, but becomes further
annoyed when the burger he is served does not resemble an advertisement."

In the film he was actually looking at the picture of the food on the
wall behind the fast food counter.

I sincerely hope if you decide to do the advertisment thing at a fast
food joint you aren't carrying a gun.

Jill

On 2016-08-26, ImStillMags > wrote:

> https://goo.gl/photos/3A6rN2KS9syVJijF9

Shortened URLs:

https://www.stopthehacker.com/2010/0...rl-shorteners/

nb

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:09:33 AM UTC-10, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:06:50 PM UTC-7, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > Finally made some roasted potatoes we really liked. Yukon Gold cut into
> > chunks. Simmered them a bit longer, used a little more olive oil and
> > then seasoned them.
> >
> > Dinner was a spatchcocked chicken on the grill so i put a tray of spuds
> > on the other side. Fresh picked tomato and lettuce for the salad,
> > bottle of Pinot Grigio.
>
> My favorite roasted potatoes are the kind most Brits make..
> Peel and cut potatoes into good sized chunks.
> Simmer a bit till the tester fork barely goes in the potato.
> Drain and then shake them around in the collander to bang up the softened surface of the potato. This helps the fat you are going to roast them in cling to the potato.
> Put in a baking pan with bacon fat, or goose fat or duck fat and roast till potatoes are nicely browned, turn them a couple of time for even browning.
>
> These always turn out with a beautiful deep golden brown crust and velvet soft creamy interiors.
>
> You can use yukon golds, or red potatoes, or even russets, they all work well.

Roughing up a potato is a new idea for me OTOH, so is boiling and roasting potatoes. It makes a lot of sense to me. I'd probably just fry the potatoes after boiling though - I got a lot of oil but little time.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:47:30 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:13:24 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>> >
>> > I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
>> > don't a google account nor do I want to create one.
>>
>> You don't need a Google account to view those pics. I have no Google
>> account or Google cookies on my computer.
>
>I'm with Sheldon on this one. I also can't see the picture.
>The page only shows "sign in to your google acct" then it says the
>ImStillMags link which does nothing.

That's what came up, a place to sign in with a Google Acct., or create
one... obviously the dwarf has a Google Acct residing on his computer
that he no longer uses and never canceled/deleted/unistalled it.

>This not on my outdated computer and software. It's the laptop...Window
>7 and Firefox vs46.0
>
>I hate all these nifty photo sharing pages...most don't work for me. I
>even rarely see your pics anymore.
>Photo sharing pages constantly update and they don't allow for backward
>compatability.
>
>Wish people would use a plain "show a .jpg" site like Tinypics or the 2
>that Jebus recommended. There is absolutely no need for all this fancy
>website bullshit just to show a picture.

That's why I use TinyPic... never gives a problem except occasionally
they are working on the site so I need to come back later only they
don't tell you but most times a few minutes later it works, sometimes
it could be an hour.

>Also annoying is a 5mb picture that only shows a loaf of bread or
>whatever.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:13:24 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>> >
>> > I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
>> > don't a google account nor do I want to create one.
>>
>> You don't need a Google account to view those pics. I have no Google
>> account or Google cookies on my computer.
>
> I'm with Sheldon on this one. I also can't see the picture.
> The page only shows "sign in to your google acct" then it says the
> ImStillMags link which does nothing.
>
> This not on my outdated computer and software. It's the laptop...Window
> 7 and Firefox vs46.0
>
> I hate all these nifty photo sharing pages...most don't work for me. I
> even rarely see your pics anymore.
> Photo sharing pages constantly update and they don't allow for backward
> compatability.
>
> Wish people would use a plain "show a .jpg" site like Tinypics or the 2
> that Jebus recommended. There is absolutely no need for all this fancy
> website bullshit just to show a picture.

Why? So people can change the tags on Tinypic?

Cheri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/26/2016 11:06 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>> On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-4, Cheri wrote:
>>>
>>> I imagine most people do know that professional food pics are completely
>>> doctored up. They've actually done TV shows about how many ads etc. are
>>> really done.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> I've always wanted to go into a fast food place with an advert picture in
>> my pocket. When receiving the food I would pull out the picture and say
>> "This is what I want, not what you've given me". If enough people did
>> this maybe something would change. Probably not.
>>
>> I've always chickened out.
>>
> Did you ever see the movie 'Falling Down'? [Michael Douglas, circa 1993].
> Part of the plot includes this scene as described on Wikipedia:
>
> "At a Whammy Burger fast food restaurant, Foster becomes angry when they
> refuse to serve breakfast because it is three minutes into lunch. Pulling
> out a gun he accidentally fires into the ceiling, terrifying everybody. He
> changes his mind about ordering lunch, but becomes further annoyed when
> the burger he is served does not resemble an advertisement."
>
> In the film he was actually looking at the picture of the food on the wall
> behind the fast food counter.
>
> I sincerely hope if you decide to do the advertisment thing at a fast food
> joint you aren't carrying a gun.
>
> Jill

That is absolutely one of my favorite movies, I especially like the golf
course/cart scene. LOL

Cheri

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:52:52 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:25:38 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/25/2016 5:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
>>>>>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
>>>>>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
>>>>> taste like by looking at a photo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>> A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
>>>> looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
>>>> less appetizing.
>>>>
>>>Sure, fine. You cannot state the method shown in photos will taste bad
>>>or good. Would you rather food *look good* or *taste* good? You are
>>>the one who is always chiding people about not posting photos.
>>>
>>>We aren't professional photographers. We are people who enjoy cooking
>>>some sometimes take pics of food.
>>>
>>>If you've ever seen a documentary or read an artical about commercial
>>>food advertising food photography you'd know... that "perfect" shot of
>>>ice cream in a cone was likley tinted shortening.
>>>
>>>Please don't claim to be an expert in food photography. You're just a
>>>mean old grouch.
>>>
>>>Jill
>>
>> Too true, years ago when I worked for a commercial photographer I
>> remember him taking shots of some clam chowder for an ad. The bowl
>> the company wanted to use was beautiful but the amount of soup they
>> sent made it look skimpy in the bottom.
>>
>> So first we placed some foam rubber in the bottom of the bowl, then we
>> weighted that down with something then we poured the soup over it,
>> cold.
>>
>> When he was ready to take the shot, I took a big drag on a cigarette
>> and blew the smoke into the chowder with a straw. He shot as the
>> smoke broke the surface and rose.
>>
>> It looked very tempting and I always thought to myself if they only
>> knew!
>
>I imagine most people do know that professional food pics are completely
>doctored up.

If one makes the effort they can come darn close to professional
quality pics at home with no doctoring. Naturally a decent camera is
needed and proper lighting... cell phone cameras have come a long way
but I don't know of any that incorporate a flash. One can't taste
food from a picture but with a decent photo one can tell whether the
food is appetizing, and people do eat with their eyes, the visual
plays a major role in how food tastes even when real food is set in
front of someone, that's why presentation is so critical even when the
food is dreck. If someone served me potatoes as presented in that
picture I wouldn't bother to taste them, they looked disgusting... I
must say I've scooped more appetizing cat litter pans.

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message

> If one makes the effort they can come darn close to professional
> quality pics at home with no doctoring. Naturally a decent camera is
> needed and proper lighting... cell phone cameras have come a long way
> but I don't know of any that incorporate a flash. One can't taste
> food from a picture but with a decent photo one can tell whether the
> food is appetizing, and people do eat with their eyes, the visual
> plays a major role in how food tastes even when real food is set in
> front of someone, that's why presentation is so critical even when the
> food is dreck. If someone served me potatoes as presented in that
> picture I wouldn't bother to taste them, they looked disgusting... I
> must say I've scooped more appetizing cat litter pans.

Yes, you've said that several times now Sheldon, and I still don't agree. I
thought they looked very good and as to your assertion that visual is
important, koko always does a beautiful presentation, and you still hassle
her, so you're just blowing smoke...and you wonder why people choose to post
their pics in another newsgroup?

Cheri

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>
> I double checked and made sure it was a sharable pic. Here's a link.
> https://goo.gl/photos/3A6rN2KS9syVJijF9

Once again, it showed up beautifully - still not signed into Gmail.
It looks like those who don't have a gmail acct. are out of luck.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Sheldon wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:47:30 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> >Sqwertz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:13:24 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
> >> >
> >> > I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
> >> > don't a google account nor do I want to create one.
> >>
> >> You don't need a Google account to view those pics. I have no Google
> >> account or Google cookies on my computer.
> >
> >I'm with Sheldon on this one. I also can't see the picture.
> >The page only shows "sign in to your google acct" then it says the
> >ImStillMags link which does nothing.
>
> That's what came up, a place to sign in with a Google Acct., or create
> one... obviously the dwarf has a Google Acct residing on his computer
> that he no longer uses and never canceled/deleted/unistalled it.

Didja know that I just checked my Gmail account (which I do about once every 4 months), and the dwarf had emailed me a bunch of times, Youtube links or some such...

I immediately dumped the carnage, I did not want to see his YouLUBE vids,,,,


--
Best
Greg

Jill McQuown wrote:

> On 8/25/2016 5:32 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:40:20 -0400, jmcquown >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/24/2016 2:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>> I've already roasted boiled potatoes, a few times... just extra effort
> >>> and time for nothing... and so far no one here has posted a photo
> >>> demonstrating what's accomplished.
> >>
> >> There was a photo somewhere. However, you can't tell what the potatoes
> >> taste like by looking at a photo.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >
> > A decent photo demonstrates that they look edible... the photo I saw
> > looked like what I scoop from a cat litter pan, actually looked far
> > less appetizing.
> >
> Sure, fine. You cannot state the method shown in photos will taste bad
> or good. Would you rather food *look good* or *taste* good? You are
> the one who is always chiding people about not posting photos.
>
> We aren't professional photographers. We are people who enjoy cooking
> some sometimes take pics of food.
>
> If you've ever seen a documentary or read an artical about commercial
> food advertising food photography you'd know... that "perfect" shot of
> ice cream in a cone was likley tinted shortening.
>
> Please don't claim to be an expert in food photography. You're just a
> mean old grouch.


If someone posts a decent food photo, Sheldon will so compliment. He will say, "Nice presentation", and he will offer constructive criticism plating, etc....he is honest, has no "agenda".

The photo being discussed did not look appetizing at all, it was a bunch of random burnt spuds scattered about a random pan...

Jill, you are one of these tired clucking and nattering rfc stewing hens, you know you are soon to be turned into fish chow, so you show your insecurities by petty and pecking remarks. Sheldon struts amongst you, a fine - feathered and strong cock, ignoring you, because he is seeking younger chicks to mount...y'all don't stand a chance at romance...!!!

;-P


--
Best
Greg

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:23:44 AM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:09:33 AM UTC-10, ImStillMags wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:06:50 PM UTC-7, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > Finally made some roasted potatoes we really liked. Yukon Gold cut into
> > > chunks. Simmered them a bit longer, used a little more olive oil and
> > > then seasoned them.
> > >
> > > Dinner was a spatchcocked chicken on the grill so i put a tray of spuds
> > > on the other side. Fresh picked tomato and lettuce for the salad,
> > > bottle of Pinot Grigio.
> >
> > My favorite roasted potatoes are the kind most Brits make..
> > Peel and cut potatoes into good sized chunks.
> > Simmer a bit till the tester fork barely goes in the potato.
> > Drain and then shake them around in the collander to bang up the softened surface of the potato. This helps the fat you are going to roast them in cling to the potato.
> > Put in a baking pan with bacon fat, or goose fat or duck fat and roast till potatoes are nicely browned, turn them a couple of time for even browning.
> >
> > These always turn out with a beautiful deep golden brown crust and velvet soft creamy interiors.
> >
> > You can use yukon golds, or red potatoes, or even russets, they all work well.
>
> Roughing up a potato is a new idea for me OTOH, so is boiling and roasting potatoes. It makes a lot of sense to me. I'd probably just fry the potatoes after boiling though - I got a lot of oil but little time.

Only a bully "roughs up" potatoes...poor little guys...always someone picking on them.
====

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:02:38 AM UTC-10, Roy wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:23:44 AM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:09:33 AM UTC-10, ImStillMags wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:06:50 PM UTC-7, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > Finally made some roasted potatoes we really liked. Yukon Gold cut into
> > > > chunks. Simmered them a bit longer, used a little more olive oil and
> > > > then seasoned them.
> > > >
> > > > Dinner was a spatchcocked chicken on the grill so i put a tray of spuds
> > > > on the other side. Fresh picked tomato and lettuce for the salad,
> > > > bottle of Pinot Grigio.
> > >
> > > My favorite roasted potatoes are the kind most Brits make..
> > > Peel and cut potatoes into good sized chunks.
> > > Simmer a bit till the tester fork barely goes in the potato.
> > > Drain and then shake them around in the collander to bang up the softened surface of the potato. This helps the fat you are going to roast them in cling to the potato.
> > > Put in a baking pan with bacon fat, or goose fat or duck fat and roast till potatoes are nicely browned, turn them a couple of time for even browning.
> > >
> > > These always turn out with a beautiful deep golden brown crust and velvet soft creamy interiors.
> > >
> > > You can use yukon golds, or red potatoes, or even russets, they all work well.
> >
> > Roughing up a potato is a new idea for me OTOH, so is boiling and roasting potatoes. It makes a lot of sense to me. I'd probably just fry the potatoes after boiling though - I got a lot of oil but little time.
>
> Only a bully "roughs up" potatoes...poor little guys...always someone picking on them.
> ====

It might seem unfair to bully some helpless potatoes that never did no harm to nobody. OTOH, this is merely a reflection of our current attitude to things we eat. There is much fear, distrust, and disrespect for foods that have only one noble purpose; to sustain us. For more information on this, please go to the r.f.c. newsgroup. Oops, you're already here.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:13:32 AM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Yes, there was a pic.
>> >>
>> >> Show me... show me something that looks appetizing, not a pic that
>> >> looks like skunk scat. There's no good reason to boil taters before
>> >> roasting them, makes no sense, no sense whatsoever... and I've still
>> >> not seen a photo that proves that method produces a dish that looks
>> >> more appetizing than canned meow mix in the litter pan.
>> >
>> >
>> >OK Sheldon. Here is a picture of the finished potatoes on the plate with a roast chicken dinner. Doesn't matter, you will make fun of it regardless. I don't understand why you have to be so unpleasant.
>> >
>> >https://goo.gl/photos/uczPiJfzTxQkHNos7
>>
>> I can't see that picture unless I sign in with my google account and I
>> don't a google account nor do I want to create one.
>
>
>
>I double checked and made sure it was a sharable pic. Here's a link.
>https://goo.gl/photos/3A6rN2KS9syVJijF9

Says: Sign in with your Google Account

Doh.

Cheri wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> If one makes the effort they can come darn close to professional
>> quality pics at home with no doctoring. Naturally a decent camera is
>> needed and proper lighting... cell phone cameras have come a long way
>> but I don't know of any that incorporate a flash. One can't taste
>> food from a picture but with a decent photo one can tell whether the
>> food is appetizing, and people do eat with their eyes, the visual
>> plays a major role in how food tastes even when real food is set in
>> front of someone, that's why presentation is so critical even when the
>> food is dreck. If someone served me potatoes as presented in that
>> picture I wouldn't bother to taste them, they looked disgusting... I
>> must say I've scooped more appetizing cat litter pans.
>
>Yes, you've said that several times now Sheldon, and I still don't agree. I
>thought they looked very good and as to your assertion that visual is
>important, koko always does a beautiful presentation, and you still hassle
>her, so you're just blowing smoke...and you wonder why people choose to post
>their pics in another newsgroup?

To date Cheri hasn't posted one photo of something she's cooked... all
anyone can assume is that CHERI CAN'T COOK. I don't think she owns a
stove or a pot.

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> Cheri wrote:
>>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> If one makes the effort they can come darn close to professional
>>> quality pics at home with no doctoring. Naturally a decent camera is
>>> needed and proper lighting... cell phone cameras have come a long way
>>> but I don't know of any that incorporate a flash. One can't taste
>>> food from a picture but with a decent photo one can tell whether the
>>> food is appetizing, and people do eat with their eyes, the visual
>>> plays a major role in how food tastes even when real food is set in
>>> front of someone, that's why presentation is so critical even when the
>>> food is dreck. If someone served me potatoes as presented in that
>>> picture I wouldn't bother to taste them, they looked disgusting... I
>>> must say I've scooped more appetizing cat litter pans.
>>
>>Yes, you've said that several times now Sheldon, and I still don't agree.
>>I
>>thought they looked very good and as to your assertion that visual is
>>important, koko always does a beautiful presentation, and you still hassle
>>her, so you're just blowing smoke...and you wonder why people choose to
>>post
>>their pics in another newsgroup?
>
> To date Cheri hasn't posted one photo of something she's cooked... all
> anyone can assume is that CHERI CAN'T COOK. I don't think she owns a
> stove or a pot.

That's a lie and more smoke blowing. I posted a pic recently of a porchetta
pork roast, also a pic not long ago of Ophelia's recipe for maple pork
roast, a pic of maple baked chicken a few months ago from a recipe that
someone had posted here, also a pic of the carmelized onions that started
out in the crock pot and ended up cooked on the stove in a cast iron
skillet.

You also said you didn't believe that I worked at a satellite school that
delivered around 1200 school lunches a day since I had never posted about
it, when I had posted about it a few time before, not as many as your
endless navy cooking stories to be sure, but I had, so obviously you don't
pay attention or your memory is gone, nimrod.

Cheri

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:22:37 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:00:12 -0300, wrote:
>
>> Postimage.org - that was one Jeßus recommended and I have used it ever
>> since. Very slick and none of the ads etc of tinypic.
>
>If you want to save, organize, and present your photos, postimg is
>useless and flickr is the way to go. I would only use postimg and
>tinypic for throwaway images I do not want to save nor want in my
>portfolio - which you'll see me do sometimes.
>
>-sw

Agreed but it's sometimes a bother for other people going to flickr.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:28:13 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:00:12 -0300, wrote:
>
>> Postimage.org - that was one Jeßus recommended and I have used it ever
>> since. Very slick and none of the ads etc of tinypic.
>
>You need to use an adblocker such as uBlock Origin. I never see
>tinypic ads.
>
>-sw

I'm using Adblockedge and UBlock but still see them there!

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 20:49:32 -0300, wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:28:13 -0500, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:00:12 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> Postimage.org - that was one Jeßus recommended and I have used it ever
>>> since. Very slick and none of the ads etc of tinypic.
>>
>>You need to use an adblocker such as uBlock Origin. I never see
>>tinypic ads.
>
>I'm using Adblockedge and UBlock but still see them there!

Even using those, you still get a lot of unnecessary bloat from
tinypic.

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:02:38 AM UTC-10, Roy wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:23:44 AM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:09:33 AM UTC-10, ImStillMags wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:06:50 PM UTC-7, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > Finally made some roasted potatoes we really liked. Yukon Gold cut
> > > > into
> > > > chunks. Simmered them a bit longer, used a little more olive oil and
> > > > then seasoned them.
> > > >
> > > > Dinner was a spatchcocked chicken on the grill so i put a tray of
> > > > spuds
> > > > on the other side. Fresh picked tomato and lettuce for the salad,
> > > > bottle of Pinot Grigio.
> > >
> > > My favorite roasted potatoes are the kind most Brits make..
> > > Peel and cut potatoes into good sized chunks.
> > > Simmer a bit till the tester fork barely goes in the potato.
> > > Drain and then shake them around in the collander to bang up the
> > > softened surface of the potato. This helps the fat you are going to
> > > roast them in cling to the potato.
> > > Put in a baking pan with bacon fat, or goose fat or duck fat and roast
> > > till potatoes are nicely browned, turn them a couple of time for even
> > > browning.
> > >
> > > These always turn out with a beautiful deep golden brown crust and
> > > velvet soft creamy interiors.
> > >
> > > You can use yukon golds, or red potatoes, or even russets, they all
> > > work well.
> >
> > Roughing up a potato is a new idea for me OTOH, so is boiling and
> > roasting potatoes. It makes a lot of sense to me. I'd probably just fry
> > the potatoes after boiling though - I got a lot of oil but little time.
> >
>
> Only a bully "roughs up" potatoes...poor little guys...always someone
> picking on them.
> ====

It might seem unfair to bully some helpless potatoes that never did no harm
to nobody. OTOH, this is merely a reflection of our current attitude to
things we eat. There is much fear, distrust, and disrespect for foods that
have only one noble purpose; to sustain us. For more information on this,
please go to the r.f.c. newsgroup. Oops, you're already here.

====

I rough mine up in hot fat before roasting and they crisp up beautifully. I
don't like mine overdone though, I prefer mine light brown. They don't need
to be cooked again just browned. I usually do mine in my wee oven. I keep
turning them and it takes about 20 minutes.



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