"The modern salad can be..."

"A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."

"Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."

On 2017-07-21 11:37 AM, tert in seattle wrote:
> "The modern salad can be..."
>
> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>
> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>
It has been that way for recipes for a while. More and more newspapers
are putting at least part of their output behind a paywall.
Graham

tert in seattle wrote:

> "The modern salad can be..."
>
> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."


This is pretentious writing, and also very "twee"...


> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."


Sounds positively erotic...


--
Best
Greg

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:06:40 AM UTC-10, The Greatest! wrote:
> tert in seattle wrote:
>
> > "The modern salad can be..."
> >
> > "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>
>
> This is pretentious writing, and also very "twee"...
>
>
> > "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>
>
> Sounds positively erotic...
>
>
> --
> Best
> Greg

Well get used to it. The older generation has never grooved with how the kids get down with it anyway.

On 2017-07-21, > wrote:

> I'm sure it's because nobody buys an actual paper anymore....

At $2.50USD per copy (stand price) to look at adverts, it's no wonder.


nb

On 2017-07-21 12:28 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:02:57 -0600, graham wrote:
>
>> On 2017-07-21 11:37 AM, tert in seattle wrote:
>>> "The modern salad can be..."
>>>
>>> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>>>
>>> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>>>
>> It has been that way for recipes for a while. More and more newspapers
>> are putting at least part of their output behind a paywall.
>
> I don't think that was the problem tert is experiencing :-) But if
> people are having trouble viewing the NYTtimes recipes because of the
> login-wall, they can turn off JavScript for the site. I use the
> 'Yesscript' extension for Firefox to selectively turn off JavaScirpt
> for offending sites.
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ipt/developers
>
> tert's verbally offensive article:
> https://cooking.nytimes.com/guides/4...-salad?mcubz=1
>
> -sw
>
Thanks! It works well!
I also tried it for other newspapers but with limited success.

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> "The modern salad can be..."
>
> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>
> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."


Hehehe.

notbob wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2017-07-21, > wrote:
>
> > I'm sure it's because nobody buys an actual paper anymore....
>
> At $2.50USD per copy (stand price) to look at adverts, it's no wonder.
>
>
> nb

Yes, I think it's 2.75 for the Sunday version here at the stands (most
of the coupons are on Sunday). Thats 143$ if multiplied by 52. I pay a
little less than that a year to have it delivered 5 days a week. We
read a couple of the sections daily and get the oddball coupons on
Wednesday (those are the ones the stores don't track as well so can be
killer savings even if a smaller section).

I generally save at least 20-30$ at the grocery store with coupons each
month. Time is money, trying to filter them online then all the spam
you get if you do it that way, doesn't work for me.

Today I used a .75cent Triscit coupon (automatic double here up to
..99cents everyday and occasionally a special triple up to 1$ or a super
double up to 2$ coupon).

Harris Teeter had a 2/4$ special but the online system had a special
for me at 3/5$. (5-1.50)/3= 1.17 a box. If that 'for me' special had
not been there, I'd have gotten 2 boxes at 1.25 each. (4-1.50)/2=1.25.
I liked getting 3 for even less since we can easily store them here.


--

On 21 Jul 2017 18:59:30 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2017-07-21, > wrote:
>
>> I'm sure it's because nobody buys an actual paper anymore....
>
>At $2.50USD per copy (stand price) to look at adverts, it's no wonder.
>
>
>nb
Wow, amazing, had no idea it was that costly!

On 7/21/2017 1:37 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
> "The modern salad can be..."
>
> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>
> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>
My experience with the NY Times was a free online trial. I have about 7
days left. They do hope you will subscribe. I read a few of the
recipes but wasn't really inspired to make any of them. So no, I won't
be subscribing to the site. I also won't be having the NY Times
delivered in paper form.

Jill

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 22:07:16 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 7/21/2017 1:37 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>> "The modern salad can be..."
>>
>> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>>
>> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>>
>My experience with the NY Times was a free online trial. I have about 7
>days left. They do hope you will subscribe. I read a few of the
>recipes but wasn't really inspired to make any of them. So no, I won't
>be subscribing to the site. I also won't be having the NY Times
>delivered in paper form.
>
>Jill

my experience with the NY Times recipe site is that it was free and it
is still free to me and I didn't have to sign up for a trial newspaper
subscription. Each day I receive an email with the NY Times recipe
section for the day. I am also able to search all of the recipes at
the site. Within the last week or so I received an email from them
saying that I would still be able to receive the recipe section
without cost but that new people would have to pay a fee.
Janet US

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:37:21 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> "The modern salad can be..."
>>
>> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>>
>> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>
> Have you tried clearing your browser's cache?
>
> -sw

will that replace the editors?

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:37:21 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>>> "The modern salad can be..."
>>>
>>> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>>>
>>> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>>
>> Have you tried clearing your browser's cache?
>>
>> -sw
>
> will that replace the editors?

That needed a beverage alert.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 02:01:57 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:

>
>On 21-Jul-2017, wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jul 2017 18:59:30 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>> >On 2017-07-21, >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm sure it's because nobody buys an actual paper
>> >> anymore....
>> >
>> >At $2.50USD per copy (stand price) to look at adverts, it's no
>> >wonder.
>> >
>> >
>> >nb
>> Wow, amazing, had no idea it was that costly!
>Costly? That's much less than just about everything available at
>Starbuck's.

I don't do coffee shops either, make it at home if I want a coffee
I did once go into a Starbucks with a friend who was picking one up, I
was staggered to see the prices. She paid $5 odd for what she wanted
and since I know she goes there at least twice a day, I thought what a
waste.

On 7/22/2017 7:13 AM, wrote:
> I don't do coffee shops either, make it at home if I want a coffee
> I did once go into a Starbucks with a friend who was picking one up, I
> was staggered to see the prices. She paid $5 odd for what she wanted
> and since I know she goes there at least twice a day, I thought what a
> waste.

Starbucks is truly a waste of money. It's so touchy-feely, trending, and
also so very ***. I went one time and asked for just a "regular" coffee.
It wasn't so good. McDonalds and 7-11 coffee is better tasting, imo. My
homemade coffee is equal to those tastewise at a fraction of the cost.

Starbucks found a trendy niche....same as people spending a fortune on
bottled water. That's another joke but trendy.

On 7/22/2017 8:36 AM, heyjoe wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:34:02 -0400, Gary wrote:
>
>> Starbucks is truly a waste of money. It's so touchy-feely, trending, and
>> also so very ***. I went one time and asked for just a "regular" coffee.
>> It wasn't so good. McDonalds and 7-11 coffee is better tasting, imo. My
>> homemade coffee is equal to those tastewise at a fraction of the cost.
>
> If I couldn't make better coffee than McDonald's, I'd give up coffee.
> Every cup I've had tasted burnt and old (although their recent iteration
> IS better than it used to be).

Each to their own. I don't ever buy coffee anymore except from the
grocery store to brew myself each morning.

My 4 cup Mr.Coffee machine makes 2 mugs full. I drink one while I'm
waking up then take the extra to drink at work. That's all the coffee I
drink in a day and the two cups a day cost maybe 10 cents each.

On 7/22/2017 8:36 AM, heyjoe wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:34:02 -0400, Gary wrote:
>
>> Starbucks is truly a waste of money. It's so touchy-feely, trending, and
>> also so very ***. I went one time and asked for just a "regular" coffee.
>> It wasn't so good. McDonalds and 7-11 coffee is better tasting, imo. My
>> homemade coffee is equal to those tastewise at a fraction of the cost.
>
> If I couldn't make better coffee than McDonald's, I'd give up coffee.
> Every cup I've had tasted burnt and old (although their recent iteration
> IS better than it used to be).
>
>

In our area they use Newman's Own. Good stuff. I imagine it can vary
by region. They often have a $1 any size special too.

On 2017-07-21, > wrote:

> On 21 Jul 2017 18:59:30 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>>At $2.50USD per copy (stand price) to look at adverts, it's no wonder.

> Wow, amazing, had no idea it was that costly!

That's not a Sunday paper, either. It's the price for a a daily copy
of the NYT, bought off the paper stand in our local Safeway sprmkt.

nb

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 7:34:17 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 7:13 AM, wrote:
> > I don't do coffee shops either, make it at home if I want a coffee
> > I did once go into a Starbucks with a friend who was picking one up, I
> > was staggered to see the prices. She paid $5 odd for what she wanted
> > and since I know she goes there at least twice a day, I thought what a
> > waste.
>
> Starbucks is truly a waste of money. It's so touchy-feely, trending, and
> also so very ***. I went one time and asked for just a "regular" coffee.
> It wasn't so good. McDonalds and 7-11 coffee is better tasting, imo. My
> homemade coffee is equal to those tastewise at a fraction of the cost.

***? I'll tell my husband you said so. He doesn't like Starbucks itself,
because the coffee is over-roasted, but he does enjoy a
MochaFrappaLappaChino from time to time. (Honestly, I don't pay that
much attention to what he orders. I usually get a plain cup o' joe,
and you're right, Starbucks plain coffee sucks. That's why they have
to add all that syrup and milk to make it palatable.)

Cindy Hamilton

On 7/21/2017 1:37 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
> "The modern salad can be..."
>
> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>
> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>
Here's the response I received:

"In response to your inquiry, as of June 28, 2017 a subscription is
required to access certain features of NYT Cooking (non-subscribers have
limited access). Home Delivery and Digital Subscribers may simply login
to their accounts to get the full benefits of the NYT Cooking
subscription experience.

Users who do not currently have a NYT Subscription will be offered a
28-day free trial. After the 28 days customers will be prompted to
purchase a Cooking subscription or be limited to a selection of free
recipes."

Does that answer the question?

Jill

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:34:32 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 7/21/2017 1:37 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>> "The modern salad can be..."
>>
>> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>>
>> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>>
>Here's the response I received:
>
>"In response to your inquiry, as of June 28, 2017 a subscription is
>required to access certain features of NYT Cooking (non-subscribers have
>limited access). Home Delivery and Digital Subscribers may simply login
>to their accounts to get the full benefits of the NYT Cooking
>subscription experience.
>
>Users who do not currently have a NYT Subscription will be offered a
>28-day free trial. After the 28 days customers will be prompted to
>purchase a Cooking subscription or be limited to a selection of free
>recipes."
>
>Does that answer the question?

Which question?

"heyjoe" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:34:02 -0400, Gary wrote:
>
>> Starbucks is truly a waste of money. It's so touchy-feely, trending, and
>> also so very ***. I went one time and asked for just a "regular" coffee.
>> It wasn't so good. McDonalds and 7-11 coffee is better tasting, imo. My
>> homemade coffee is equal to those tastewise at a fraction of the cost.
>
> If I couldn't make better coffee than McDonald's, I'd give up coffee.
> Every cup I've had tasted burnt and old (although their recent iteration
> IS better than it used to be).

Yep. Their tea used to taste burnt too. Thankfully they corrected that.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
news
> On 7/21/2017 1:37 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>> "The modern salad can be..."
>>
>> "A homemade dressing is the best way to lift a salad..."
>>
>> "Muscular kale and romaine can support a thick Caesar dressing..."
>>
> Here's the response I received:
>
> "In response to your inquiry, as of June 28, 2017 a subscription is
> required to access certain features of NYT Cooking (non-subscribers have
> limited access). Home Delivery and Digital Subscribers may simply login to
> their accounts to get the full benefits of the NYT Cooking subscription
> experience.
>
> Users who do not currently have a NYT Subscription will be offered a
> 28-day free trial. After the 28 days customers will be prompted to
> purchase a Cooking subscription or be limited to a selection of free
> recipes."
>
> Does that answer the question?

No. Because you didn't ask about the editors.