Who detests ~~Wretchel Ray~~ more than I do? Even her "official"
dislike thread never came up with "Wretchel" HEH!!! So that's MINE,
kids!! Invite me onto your board please!! LOL Her voice?? Her voice
sounds like kittens stuffed into a lye soaked garbage disposal that's
also grinding hunks of tar. Her "food" is crap. Her knife skills are
so horrid one day she's going to chop off her own tits. Eeek!!
Comments?

WearingRAY-BANS! wrote:

> Who detests ~~Wretchel Ray~~ more than I do? Even her "official"
> dislike thread never came up with "Wretchel" HEH!!! So that's MINE,
> kids!! Invite me onto your board please!! LOL Her voice?? Her voice
> sounds like kittens stuffed into a lye soaked garbage disposal that's
> also grinding hunks of tar. Her "food" is crap. Her knife skills are
>
> so horrid one day she's going to chop off her own tits. Eeek!!
> Comments?

Saw her on Letteman last night. Of all the cooks he has had on his
show, she seemed to handel his goofiness better than any other. Plus
she stressed that she was a 'cook' not a 'chef' and made the distinction
of being self taught and not out to please anyone but herself. By which
i men she seemed to not care about fads or style or being 'popular'
Letterman seemed to be impressed with her work ethic and the sheer
volume of her stuff.

But this is the only time i have seen her and would not have heard of
her were it not for all the hype she gets here, where it seems she has a
large following. What is she on, cable or something?

I was surprised that Letterman, after swilling the wine and taking big
bites of butter, did not make a joke about his next heart surgery.
---
JL

Rachel Ray is on the Food TV channel, she has three shows there (you
can look it up on the Food TV site ("30 minute meals" is one of them.
) She is wildly popular. She's cheery, skilled, and works very hard.
Just great fun to watch. Oprah liked her so much she is setting her up
with her own cooking show. Another show is something like "40 dollars
a day" where she travels to different cities, and finds good
neighborhood places for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and how to find
such places.
I think you'll enjoy her.
Nancree

nancree wrote:

> Rachel Ray is on the Food TV channel, she has three shows there (you
> can look it up on the Food TV site ("30 minute meals" is one of them.
> ) She is wildly popular. She's cheery, skilled, and works very hard.
> Just great fun to watch. Oprah liked her so much she is setting her up
> with her own cooking show. Another show is something like "40 dollars
> a day" where she travels to different cities, and finds good
> neighborhood places for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and how to find
> such places.
> I think you'll enjoy her.
> Nancree

I think he already implied that he DIDN'T enjoy her?
She's okay, I like her, but I dislike that her $40 dollars a day show
NEVER shows a bad meal? No comments ever to suggest she might have
goofed or that the food could have been improved in some way. I find
that a discredit and disingenuous.
Goomba

On 26 Oct 2005 21:49:41 -0700, "WearingRAY-BANS!"
> wrote:

>Who detests

Why watch? Too many other things to do in life than bitch about a
show you don't care for?

Have you considered having your own show?

Goomba38 > wrote in
:

> She's okay, I like her, but I dislike that her $40 dollars a day
> show NEVER shows a bad meal? No comments ever to suggest she might
> have goofed or that the food could have been improved in some way.
> I find that a discredit and disingenuous.

How so? It's not a restaurant review. Obviously they won't go around
wasting time on bad stuff if the purpose is to showcase good food at
affordable prices.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel Boucher wrote:

> Goomba38 > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>She's okay, I like her, but I dislike that her $40 dollars a day
>>show NEVER shows a bad meal? No comments ever to suggest she might
>>have goofed or that the food could have been improved in some way.
>>I find that a discredit and disingenuous.
>
>
> How so? It's not a restaurant review. Obviously they won't go around
> wasting time on bad stuff if the purpose is to showcase good food at
> affordable prices.
>

I guess because when I'm sticking to a budget, I've been known to pick
the wrong place sometimes too? I also just realized that I've never seen
her go over her $40. by more than a few cents. Is it realistic? Would it
be accurate to say what you get for $40/day in Orlando might reasonably
cost you $50/day in NYC?? I still like her enough to watch, don't get
me wrong.
Gooba

Goomba38 > wrote in
:

>>>She's okay, I like her, but I dislike that her $40 dollars a day
>>>show NEVER shows a bad meal?
>>
>> How so? It's not a restaurant review. Obviously they won't go
>> around wasting time on bad stuff if the purpose is to showcase
>> good food at affordable prices.
>
> I guess because when I'm sticking to a budget, I've been known to
> pick the wrong place sometimes too?

Obviously they do their research ahead of time. She doesn't just walk
into a place without knowing what's there and if they do get something
bad, they don't air it. It's like Antiques Road Show (the original
British series). They never showed the grotty little knick-knacks that
auntie Jess brought back from her third holiday in Benidorm, only the
choice pieces like the original Chinese ware or etchings by William
Blake found in an old fish and chips wrapper.

> I also just realized that I've
> never seen her go over her $40. by more than a few cents. Is it
> realistic? Would it be accurate to say what you get for $40/day in
> Orlando might reasonably cost you $50/day in NYC??

Again, that's a question of research. If the crème caramel here is
4,95$ but it's 6,95$ over there, guess whose crème caramel goes on the
air.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"WearingRAY-BANS!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Who detests ~~Wretchel Ray~~ more than I do? Even her "official"
> dislike thread never came up with "Wretchel" HEH!!! So that's MINE,
> kids!! Invite me onto your board please!! LOL Her voice?? Her voice
> sounds like kittens stuffed into a lye soaked garbage disposal that's
> also grinding hunks of tar. Her "food" is crap. Her knife skills are
> so horrid one day she's going to chop off her own tits. Eeek!!
> Comments?
>

You bring whole new meaning to the phrase "get a life."


--
Peter Aitken

When I first saw her shows, I really disliked her giggly, smiley
personna, but gradually I came to realize that that's her personality;
I don't believe she's putting it on. So I sometimes watch her
30-Minute Meals. However, I don't know how many more times I can
listen to her say "EEVO." And I don't watch her out-of-studio shows;
on those, she seems to gush over everything and everyone. I realize it
may not sound like it, but I kinda LIKE her.

"Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote

> I was surprised that Letterman, after swilling the wine and taking big
> bites of butter, did not make a joke about his next heart surgery.

That was a little tough to take, we were talking about it on
the chat that night. Yuck. I said, if he'd put that much butter
on a bagel, I wouldn't have thought twice ... just plain like
that ... ack!

nancy

Goomba38 wrote:

> She's okay, I like her, but I dislike that her $40 dollars a day show
> NEVER shows a bad meal? No comments ever to suggest she might have
> goofed or that the food could have been improved in some way. I find
> that a discredit and disingenuous.
> Goomba


I read somewhere, perhaps on Food Network, if she talks about the
restaurant decor and goes on and on about it, then the food at that
particular establishment was not all that great. I thought that was a
little interesting. But if you've already scouted out the places, why
go to one that has so-so food and waste all that film footage on it?

I'm not a fan of hers, so I just switch the channel until something
more appealing is presented.

WearingRAY-BANS! wrote:

> Who detests ~~Wretchel Ray~


Nobody cares.

*plonk*



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

If Rachael were ugly, do you think she would be as popular?

> "WearingRAY-BANS!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Who detests ~~Wretchel Ray~~ more than I do? Even her "official"
>>dislike thread never came up with "Wretchel" HEH!!! So that's MINE,
>>kids!! Invite me onto your board please!! LOL Her voice?? Her voice
>>sounds like kittens stuffed into a lye soaked garbage disposal that's
>>also grinding hunks of tar. Her "food" is crap. Her knife skills are
>>so horrid one day she's going to chop off her own tits. Eeek!!
>>Comments?
>>
>


What a tragedy that your television has neither a channel
selector nor an off switch.

gloria p

Leo Scanlon a écrit :

> When I first saw her shows, I really disliked her giggly, smiley
> personna, but gradually I came to realize that that's her personality;
> I don't believe she's putting it on. So I sometimes watch her
> 30-Minute Meals.

I'll watch that one anytime, just to drool over that Chambers 1950 gas
stove of hers, well...the one provided for the show...whatever.

nancree wrote:

> Rachel Ray is on the Food TV channel, she has three shows there (you
> can look it up on the Food TV site ("30 minute meals" is one of them.
> ) She is wildly popular. She's cheery, skilled, and works very hard.
>
> Just great fun to watch. Oprah liked her so much she is setting her up
>
> with her own cooking show. Another show is something like "40 dollars
>
> a day" where she travels to different cities, and finds good
> neighborhood places for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and how to find
> such places.
> I think you'll enjoy her.
> Nancree

While i am not a card carrying member of the 'anti - t.v.' group, i have
less and less interest in it. Lydia Biannici (sp?) Americas Test
Kitchen, Jauques Pipan, and a few others all have shows on our local PBS
station. I have no desire to get cable and be tempted to watch the
British Parliament debate or watch old movies i have already seen. And
as far as porn on demand goes....well, probly just as well i don't have
those channels, i'd probly never get anything else done.
---
JL

Joseph Littleshoes wrote:

> While i am not a card carrying member of the 'anti - t.v.' group, i have
> less and less interest in it. Lydia Biannici (sp?) Americas Test
> Kitchen, Jauques Pipan, and a few others all have shows on our local PBS
> station. I have no desire to get cable and be tempted to watch the
> British Parliament debate or watch old movies i have already seen. And
> as far as porn on demand goes....well, probly just as well i don't have
> those channels, i'd probly never get anything else done.

I was never much of a tv watcher until we got the satellite dish. It is
handy to be able to catch shows on network channels in different time zones.
There are some good educational channels. My problem is the way they package
shows. If I want to get the cooking channel I end up with 4 or 5 other
stations that cater to women's issues and other vaguely connected interest
areas. Some of the packages include religious programs, which would be
quite entertaining if you can overlook the fact that there are a lot of poor
suckers who fall for their nonsense.

I may be dumping the Food Network soon. I am getting tired of the same old
people and their endless reruns. There aren't many TV cooks on that channel
these days that I am interested in watching. It seems that every time I
turn it on these days they are airing Iron Chef, and I just can't handle
that show.

In article
>,
Puester > wrote:

> > "WearingRAY-BANS!" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...

> >>kids!! Invite me onto your board please!!

Sorry. You didn't make the cut, so you can't join.


> What a tragedy that your television has neither a channel
> selector nor an off switch.


When somebody goes on tv, or is otherwise in the public spotlight, they
can expect some criticism. I've read some interesting and informative
criticisms of her show. The comments by Mr. Tidless were neither. Like
you posted, Gloria, if he hates the show so much, he shouldn't watch it.

The post strikes me as a cheap shot. People sometimes attack the famous
in an attempt to build themselves up. It doesn't often work. It didn't
work here.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Ward Abbott wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 2005 21:49:41 -0700, "WearingRAY-BANS!"
> > wrote:
>
> >Who detests
>
> Why watch? Too many other things to do in life than bitch about a
> show you don't care for?
eggzackly!!
>
> Have you considered having your own show?

AL wrote:
> If Rachael were ugly, do you think she would be as popular?

I've seen the 30 Minutes show several times, though not her other
shows, and I've read a fair amount of these threads. She seems to have
a three-part audience:

* novice cooks who are interested in the techniques and ingredients
that are new to them and pretty well demonstrated by RR, who actually
imparts a good deal of basic information in each show;

* those who like to watch tv and find her attractive and
entertaining;

* those who need someone to feel superior to because they lack any
other basis for self esteem.

So, if she were ugly she might lose the middle group, but not the
others. -aem

Dave Smith wrote:

> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> > While i am not a card carrying member of the 'anti - t.v.' group, i
> have
> > less and less interest in it. Lydia Biannici (sp?) Americas Test
> > Kitchen, Jauques Pipan, and a few others all have shows on our local
> PBS
> > station. I have no desire to get cable and be tempted to watch the
> > British Parliament debate or watch old movies i have already seen.
> And
> > as far as porn on demand goes....well, probly just as well i don't
> have
> > those channels, i'd probly never get anything else done.
>
> I was never much of a tv watcher until we got the satellite dish. It
> is
> handy to be able to catch shows on network channels in different time
> zones.
> There are some good educational channels. My problem is the way they
> package
> shows. If I want to get the cooking channel I end up with 4 or 5 other
>
> stations that cater to women's issues and other vaguely connected
> interest
> areas. Some of the packages include religious programs, which would
> be
> quite entertaining if you can overlook the fact that there are a lot
> of poor
> suckers who fall for their nonsense.
>
> I may be dumping the Food Network soon. I am getting tired of the
> same old
> people and their endless reruns. There aren't many TV cooks on that
> channel
> these days that I am interested in watching. It seems that every time
> I
> turn it on these days they are airing Iron Chef, and I just can't
> handle
> that show.

A few years ago i lived with cable for about but not quite 1 year. For
all that i got out of it, and it was a marvel in many respects i find
the medium too addictive. If i do not keep myself busy i end up
watching a lot of redundant and not very good t.v. (tellies?).

Fortunately my old Mac holds up halfway decently and i can get any
current text i want even if the video is a bit slow and 'jerky'.

Be nice if someone could go through all the channels and pick all the
gems and rebroadcast only them on another channel. But that's just a
sad lack of the medium, not an indictment of human creativity or
'nature'. Its only a matter of time till we can down load any t.v.
program and watch it at our leisure. And that without a monthly "Cable
Bill".

I used to love American t.v. sit - coms but they have gotten so bad
recently . Where's our Sienfields and Roseannes? Taxi! and Mary
Hatmen! Mary Hartman! Course i would add Phyliss Dillers sit com along
with All in the Family, Maud, Happy Day, the Jeffersons, Redd Foxx'
show, the motown equivalent of black t.v. in classic American T.V.
ay..ay...ay! but "hey!" that's just me, and there's the rub. NO body
will be satisfied with anything till everything is available for free.
100 years from now people looking back on it will probly be able to
winnow the wheat from the chafe.

Amazes me in how many data bases my posts to these news groups are
archived to.
---
JL

>> I was never much of a tv watcher until we got the satellite dish. It
>> is
>> handy to be able to catch shows on network channels in different time
>> zones.
>> There are some good educational channels. My problem is the way they
>> package
>> shows. If I want to get the cooking channel I end up with 4 or 5 other
>>
>> stations that cater to women's issues and other vaguely connected
>> interest
>> areas.

The technology must exist that would allow us to make our own menu of
stations to watch. I have digital cable with high definition. So far, we
only get six HD stations but that will increase soon. Of the couple hundred
options, I only watch a handful. Discovery, Discovery HD Theater, History,
Food Channel, and a dozen others tops. Network TV has gone to hell a few
years ago. There are no worthwhile sitcoms. Of course, that is good for
book sales!
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> The technology must exist that would allow us to make our own menu of
> stations to watch. I have digital cable with high definition. So far, we
> only get six HD stations but that will increase soon. Of the couple hundred
> options, I only watch a handful. Discovery, Discovery HD Theater, History,
> Food Channel, and a dozen others tops. Network TV has gone to hell a few
> years ago. There are no worthwhile sitcoms. Of course, that is good for
> book sales!

The technology does exist, and cable television companies used it widely
at one time to provide paying customers with the programming they wanted
to see. But that was while small cable companies were able to operate as
independent concerns, before cable television was deregulated. After
deregulation, fee schedules and equipment rental charges were
immediately increased, small local cable companies were consumed by
larger regional ones, and the larger companies tossed the *spirit* of
customer service out the window in their quest for profits. The true
custom package and a la carte channel selection became history.

Now, the regional cable companies are national "digital service
providers" well on their way to internationality. Customer service as we
knew it is a thing of the past. Providers have their eyes on the prize,
and as mere cable television customers we are not the source of the
prize any more. Digital service providers have bigger fish to fry.