Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello All:
We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple of recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope you will try them, as well as enjoy them. They a Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad: http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm and Eggplant Stuffed with Pasta: http://www.theartisan.net/melanzane_..._con_pasta.htm Both of these recipe can also be found on The New Stuff Page: http://www.theartisan.net/NewStuff.htm and on the Food Page: http://www.theartisan.net/recipesfrm.htm Any errors are mine, and should you find any, please feel free to let me know, so that I can correct them. NOTE: For the bread bakers on this or other News Groups, we have done quite a bit of work on The Flour Treatise, and will be posting the additions/revisions to that before too long. Regards Jerry @ The Artisan http://www.theartisan.net |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:54:49 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote: >Hello All: > >We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white >eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple of >recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope >you will try them, as well as enjoy them. > >They a > >Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad: >http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm What a coincidence- I saw a similar recipe for Zucchini Carpaccio in Gourmet Magazine yesterday but wasn't in a position to copy the recipe. Thanks! It's somewhat like a wilted cucumber salad. BTW, IIRC, Gourmet added coarsely grated parmegiano reggiano in their version. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Curley Sue:
We do not subscribe to Gourmet, so I did not see that. I guess we are in pretty good company. The Parmesan would add a nice touch. I have thought about making a chipotle olive oil, and using that instead of unflavored extra virgin. That may be good for the spice hunters in the group. Regards Jerry @ The Artisan http://www.theartisan.net "Curly Sue" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:54:49 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis" > > wrote: > >>Hello All: >> >>We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white >>eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple >>of >>recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope >>you will try them, as well as enjoy them. >> >>They a >> >>Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad: >>http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm > > What a coincidence- I saw a similar recipe for Zucchini Carpaccio in > Gourmet Magazine yesterday but wasn't in a position to copy the > recipe. Thanks! It's somewhat like a wilted cucumber salad. BTW, > IIRC, Gourmet added coarsely grated parmegiano reggiano in their > version. > > Sue(tm) > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> Hello All: > > We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white > eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple of > recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope > you will try them, as well as enjoy them. > > They a > > Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad: > http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm It says on that page, "We have named this a carpaccio as it is prepared from "raw" Zucchini. When we described this dish to a chef friend, his response was "Ah, a carpaccio." So we kept the name!" You would have done better to correct your "chef" friend. This is plain silly. Carpaccio refers to a specific dish comprised of thinly sliced raw beef or tuna, almost always presented as an appetizer, and the name - its etymology - comes from the Italian painter, who used red colors suggestive of raw beef. Carpaccio doesn't mean raw. Crudo (-a) means raw. Might as well use "tartare" or "sashimi" and completely pervert the meanings of the words. Or you could just call it a salad and be clear. It isn't even laid out like a beef carpaccio would be according to the recipe. It's just a salad. Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper. Pastorio > Eggplant Stuffed with Pasta: > http://www.theartisan.net/melanzane_..._con_pasta.htm > > Both of these recipe can also be found on The New Stuff Page: > http://www.theartisan.net/NewStuff.htm > > and on the Food Page: http://www.theartisan.net/recipesfrm.htm > > Any errors are mine, and should you find any, please feel free to let > me know, so that I can correct them. > > NOTE: For the bread bakers on this or other News Groups, we have done > quite a bit of work on The Flour Treatise, and will be posting the > additions/revisions to that before too long. > > Regards > > Jerry @ The Artisan > http://www.theartisan.net > > |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote: > Jerry DeAngelis wrote: > > Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad: > > http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm > > It says on that page, "We have named this a carpaccio as it > is prepared from "raw" Zucchini. When we described this > dish to a chef friend, his response was "Ah, a carpaccio." > So we kept the name!" You would have done better to correct > your "chef" friend. > > This is plain silly. Carpaccio refers to a specific dish > comprised of thinly sliced raw beef or tuna, almost always > presented as an appetizer, and the name - its etymology - > comes from the Italian painter, who used red colors > suggestive of raw beef. > > Carpaccio doesn't mean raw. Crudo (-a) means raw. Might as > well use "tartare" or "sashimi" and completely pervert the > meanings of the words. Or you could just call it a salad and > be clear. It isn't even laid out like a beef carpaccio would > be according to the recipe. It's just a salad. > > Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper. > > Pastorio I'm with you Bob. It's gotten to a point where menus are almost unreadable, particularly in the trendier foux-foux restaurants. Another silly practice is giving foreign names to local food products such as calling tunas by their Hawaiian names. And I could go on... Anyway, it all makes for shitty communication. D.M. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob (this one) wrote:
(spammage snip) You beat me to it! (and my take on "zucchini tartare" would be "relish.") B/ |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Brian Mailman wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote: > > (spammage snip) > > You beat me to it! > > (and my take on "zucchini tartare" would be "relish.") <LOL> Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello All:
You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all relate to when it comes to food. I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at the mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as well as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid mane for the product, but it is the name they chose. So I spent 2 minutes learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying de-constructed food. Have a great day. Jerry @ The Artisan http://www.theartisan.net PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it. ================================================== =============================== "Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message ink.net... > Hello All: > > We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white > eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple > of recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we > hope you will try them, as well as enjoy them. > > They a > > Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad: > http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm > > and > > Eggplant Stuffed with Pasta: > http://www.theartisan.net/melanzane_..._con_pasta.htm > > Both of these recipe can also be found on The New Stuff Page: > http://www.theartisan.net/NewStuff.htm > > and on the Food Page: http://www.theartisan.net/recipesfrm.htm > > Any errors are mine, and should you find any, please feel free to > let me know, so that I can correct them. > > NOTE: For the bread bakers on this or other News Groups, we have > done quite a bit of work on The Flour Treatise, and will be posting > the additions/revisions to that before too long. > > Regards > > Jerry @ The Artisan > http://www.theartisan.net > |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:45:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote: >Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper. And you wonder why you've been missed! LOL! Carol |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote: >You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and >that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call >it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive >oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all >relate to when it comes to food. Atta boy, Jerry. You've invented vegetarian |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote: >You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and >that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call >it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive >oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all >relate to when it comes to food. You tell 'em, Jerry. They should be thankful that they now have a vegetarian version of carpaccio that they can turn to when non-carnivorous guests are expected. Carol |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Damsel:
I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote my last post as I was rushing to an engagement. Since then, I have had a chance to think about it more, and offer the following: It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information, especially when provided with an air of infallibility. Consequently I will add a bit to this note as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit narrow-minded. Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio, scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio. Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon, but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list of possibilities. Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation: "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today the term Carpaccio is used variably and often refers to any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes, langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..." We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to respond. This is our 8th year hosting the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as we were when we started the site. Regards Jerry @ The Artisan http://www.theartisan.net "Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:45:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > > > wrote: > >>Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper. > > And you wonder why you've been missed! LOL! > > Carol |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to > respond. This is our 8th year hosting > the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as > we were when we started the site. > > Regards > > Jerry @ The Artisan > http://www.theartisan.net Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it. Show your face more often though, y'hear? Goomba |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Goomba38" > wrote > Jerry DeAngelis wrote: > >> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to >> respond. This is our 8th year hosting >> the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as we >> were when we started the site. > Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate > all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it. > Show your face more often though, y'hear? What she said. His website makes for a really good read, too. I'm thinking I could go for some pasta fazool. nancy |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jones DeAngelis wrote:
> I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote my last post shame you didnt decide to write think rewrite post youre a bag of hot air and nothing more catfish dredged in flour after being washed with egg and fried in hot canoil |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Goomba38 wrote:
> Jerry DeAngelis wrote: > > We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to > > respond. This is our 8th year hosting the site, and we are still as > > interested and passionate about food as we were when we started > > the site. > Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate > all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it. > Show your face more often though, y'hear? wish u would dry up and blowwwww away |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> You've invented vegetarian vegetarian spam maybe but nothing worth continuing to brag about so hes been spamming for 8 months big deal |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and > that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. How about be less of a horse's ass, Jerry? It's not a matter of being confounded, it's a matter of your "chef" and his utter lack of understanding where names come from and what they mean. And your endorsing that ignorance. As for your flaccid effort to strike out at people who look for coherent intelligence in the kitchen, save that energy for your bread doughs. It'll be less painful in the long run. I bet this guy piles up foods and calls the heap a "Napoleon." Or he makes a blueberry pie and calls it a "clafouti." > Let's just call > it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive > oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all > relate to when it comes to food. If you and your web site demonstrated deep knowledge and extraordinary skill, you might be able to pull that snide crap off. Your stuff is pretty good, but you ain't the top of the mountain. > I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at the > mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as well > as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid mane > for the product, but it is the name they chose. More ignorance, Jerry. When Adria introduced foams at El Bulli, they were precisely and exactly that - foams. They were dispensed from devices usually used for whipped cream. When various and sundry morons tried to swing onto his bandwagon (about three years after he'd already moved on), they were as well informed as your "chef" and squirted out all sorts of hilarious perversions of the real thing. Adria is truly in a class of his own. The would-be clones who try to imitate him are so far off the mark as to deserve gentle snickers and a dismissive wave of the hand. > So I spent 2 minutes > learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you > want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying > de-constructed food. One great danger you seem to have fallen prey to is thinking that because you just learned something that nobody else knows it already. The notion of deconstruction is as old as passing on recipes. And actively dismantling foods to create separated variants is likewise nothing new. Two whole minutes, huh? Real science... I've written probably 500 articles that specifically deconstructed traditional foods. Or factory foods. Or something a neighbor made. Or a wild-assed idea like blueberry nuke cakes. > Jerry @ The Artisan > http://www.theartisan.net Your baked stuff is rather good. Don't get too comfortable. > PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name > is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it. Hey, Jerry. The name is never irrelevant except to knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for whom language is a burden, a trifle, rather than a means to the end of transmitting information. Childish attempts to be oh-so-modern with names that are uninformative and even wrong brands those users with an unfortunate mark. Here's some free advice about language and writing: Don't write it so they can understand it. Write it so they can't misunderstand it. Zucchini carpaccio, your "chef's" ass. Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread > information, especially when provided with an air of > infallibility. Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot, your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info is a lot better than this offering. > Consequently I will add a bit to this note > as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows > who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit > narrow-minded. "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it won't be confusing. "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of saying what they mean. > Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio > d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and > originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English > in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are > listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original > beef carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio, > scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio. > Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has > added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not > suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon, > but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list > of possibilities. > > Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation: > "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw > beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today > the term Carpaccio is used variably See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no longer has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word. > and often See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef" friend are using it just as carelessly. > refers to > any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can > range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes, > langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly > the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from > none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully > cooked..." And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point. Here's the point. The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the less it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in between. It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish "and a great many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the colors used by the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin slices." It no longer has a referent that creates a definition beyond thin slices. And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that thin slices already had a name. Thin slices. > We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for > allowing us to respond. <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day... Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:32:06 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote: > >"Goomba38" > wrote > >> Jerry DeAngelis wrote: >> >>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to >>> respond. This is our 8th year hosting >>> the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as we >>> were when we started the site. > >> Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate >> all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it. >> Show your face more often though, y'hear? > >What she said. Ditto. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote: >Hello All: > >You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and >that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call >it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive >oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all >relate to when it comes to food. > >I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at the >mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as well >as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid mane >for the product, but it is the name they chose. So I spent 2 minutes >learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you >want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying >de-constructed food. > >Have a great day. > >Jerry @ The Artisan >http://www.theartisan.net > >PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name >is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it. You have a marvelous web site, Jerry. I cannot tell you the number of times I have used it for advice and recipes. Keep up the good work and don't let the crazies bother you. They've nowhere near the talent or class you have shown. Boron |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob/Pastorio
You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or choose not to, as I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of what Carpaccio is, or should be. I stand by the Zucchini Carpaccio, as do the references I provided. You seem to think because you write articles, you wear the white robe of a Pope. You don't, and your diatribe suggests you never will. It is nice to see that you are familiar with foams and deconstructed foods. I too have written about them, but have no need to impress anyone here. In short, I find them silly and of limited value in the real world inhabited by most people. When you have 1.3 million visitors a year to your website - from all parts of the world - you can crow a bit. If indeed you have web site please, provide the URL so that we can visit it, and be enlightened. Jerry "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > Jerry DeAngelis wrote: > |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boron
Thank you. I know that we have strong opinions, and over the years have made others angry because of them. It is nice to know, that we have not done that with everyone! Regards Jerry "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis" > > wrote: > >>Hello All: >> >>You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and >>that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just >>call >>it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive >>oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could >>all >>relate to when it comes to food. >> >>I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at >>the >>mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as >>well >>as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid >>mane >>for the product, but it is the name they chose. So I spent 2 >>minutes >>learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you >>want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying >>de-constructed food. >> >>Have a great day. >> >>Jerry @ The Artisan >>http://www.theartisan.net >> >>PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the >>name >>is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it. > > You have a marvelous web site, Jerry. I cannot tell you the number > of > times I have used it for advice and recipes. > > Keep up the good work and don't let the crazies bother you. They've > nowhere near the talent or class you have shown. > > Boron |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob/Pastorio:
At the risk of insulting you, I have only a single response in that regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean" borders on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking at that part of your psyche as you do the words used by others. As far a your comment: > "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of > saying what they mean I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person of Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and to do so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully will continue to do so until they close the cover on my box. When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am. If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe these changes) is derivative, and evolves as those making and eating it determine, there is noting I can say that will fit into your world view. Regards Jerry "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > Jerry DeAngelis wrote: > >> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information, >> especially when provided with an air of >> infallibility. > > Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot, > your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info is > a lot better than this offering. > > > Consequently I will add a bit to this note >> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows >> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit narrow-minded. > > "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with > words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it > won't be confusing. > > "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of > saying what they mean. > >> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio >> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and >> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English >> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are >> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef >> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio, >> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio. >> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has >> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not >> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon, >> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list >> of possibilities. >> >> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation: >> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw >> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today >> the term Carpaccio is used variably > > See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no longer > has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word. > > > and often > > See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef" > friend are using it just as carelessly. > > > refers to >> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can >> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes, >> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly >> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from >> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..." > > And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point. > > Here's the point. > > The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the less > it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in between. > It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish "and a great > many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the colors used by > the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin slices." It no > longer has a referent that creates a definition beyond thin slices. > And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that thin slices already > had a name. > > Thin slices. > >> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for >> allowing us to respond. > > <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day... > > Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Goomba:
Thanx! I have been remiss in not logging on more that I have. It is easier at this time of the year because last year's wines are bottled, and this years grapes are not ripe enough to harvest. Our olives still have a long way to go before they are ready to be picked. Once grape harvest and wine making begin, we will be pressed for time. Regardless, we will still answer all emails to The Artisan, and try to keep up. We need to do better, and will definitely try! Regards Jerry @ The Artisan |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:07:16 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote: >When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am. If >it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe these >changes) is derivative, and evolves as those making and eating it >determine, there is noting I can say that will fit into your world >view. > As people who are passionate of cooking and food, there is no doubt we will never agree completely. And I think that is just fine. It used to bother me when others did not share the same taste as I, but as I've gotten older I can accept that. I know that my taste is entirely my own and may not excite everyone. BTW, your site is quite good. As I will have more time shortly, I may also try to develop the best English site on Japanese cooking. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello rinshi:
When you develop your site on Japanese cooking, I hope to be one of the first to log on, and try some of the recipes. We enjoy Japanese food, as do many in our small city. There are about 220,000 people in the entire county (45,000 in the city where we live), and we have approximately 16 Japanese restaurants. I have at times tried to make a little Japanese food, but failed miserably. The proper seasoning(s) escape(s) me. I imagine that the problem is that I have neither an inherent feeling of what a dish is supposed to taste like, nor any knowledge of how to accomplish that end. Until I can log onto your site, my wife and I will simply have to eat out at Japanese restaurants as often as we can. Regards, Jerry @ The Artisan http://www.theartisan.net |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or choose not to, as > I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of > what Carpaccio is, or should be. Jerry, you posted two references, both of which I dealt with, and took it further to full explanation of why I made the assertions. You've just repeated your initial notion that because you did it, it was right. Carpaccio should be red meat on a plate - to echo the color palette of the painter Carpaccio, as originally construed at Harry's Bar. That others misuse, misconstrue or simply want to sound more swell and nifty by using it to mean that which it doesn't, merely demonstrates that while 100 is the average IQ, it isn't necessarily sufficient. > I stand by the Zucchini Carpaccio, > as do the references I provided. You seem to think because you write > articles, you wear the white robe of a Pope. You don't, and your > diatribe suggests you never will. Jerry, I'm a chef with more than 30 years experience, with European and American training, and ownership of many, and operation of many more restaurants. I'm a member of several professional organizations involved with foodservice. I also have a degree in English and have written more than 1500 articles which have been published in places like the NYTimes and LATimes syndicates as well as many other magazines and newspapers, even an encyclopedia. I've been doing a call-in radio program for nearly 20 years about food and cooking. I'm not the pope and I don't play him on tv. But I surely do have a lengthy professional background in this field. And while I may not be the smartest kitchen hand, the - literally - thousands of books in my library, all of which I've read and used, would seem to comprise a reasonably exhaustive source bank. I ain't the pope, but I also ain't a rookie. I don't think I'm going to defer to your literary criticism, given your own writing, although "diatribe" was a nice touch. > It is nice to see that you are familiar with foams and deconstructed > foods. I too have written about them, but have no need to impress > anyone here. In short, I find them silly and of limited value in the > real world inhabited by most people. <LOL> Of course. That's why you brought them up to try to seem more widely knowledgeable than you are. And assumed that others - probably me - aren't as versed as you are. But I somewhat agree with your assessment of foams. They do have a real, if limited, place in culinaria, as foie gras, caviar, balut, Velveeta, durian and Miracle Whip do. The table is nothing if not democratic. If the "real world as inhabited by most people" were to be the sole criterion for value, there would be no great music, architecture, art or literature. Or cuisine. Perhaps try to aspire higher. > When you have 1.3 million visitors a year to your website - from all > parts of the world - you can crow a bit. If indeed you have web site > please, provide the URL so that we can visit it, and be enlightened. I don't have a web site up. That total of visitors is a large number. I note that you've just bragged about your web site, but above you say you "have no need to impress anyone here." Perhaps a tiny contradiction. Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> Bob/Pastorio: What/Jerry? > At the risk of insulting you, <LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...? > I have only a single response in that > regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean" borders > on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking at that > part of your psyche as you do the words used by others. <LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who had sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina of psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of thinking, I say. I guess engineers shouldn't worry about exactitude and musicians shouldn't bother to tune their instruments. Too anal. Anything goes, anytime, anywhere. Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can understand it, write it so they can't misunderstand it." And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from another post, > You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or choose not to, as > I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of > what Carpaccio is, or should be. So I went to your web site and I found this: <http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm> "What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The Artisan. Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as defined in Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder; error in etiquette: Tactless act or remark..." For us, they are recipes which purport to be Italian, but are so in name only and not execution." So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it. But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm> "Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and number of other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany and is made in a particular way....otherwise it is not Panzanella. [...] "Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make it, we cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The ingredients, per se, are tasty. We probably would not have used any chicken broth, but the rest sound plausible in a salad. Regardless, it is not Panzanella. It might be called Insalata Panzanella Americana." <LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant" Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name does matter. Go figure. I get so confused... > As far a your comment: > >> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of >> saying what they mean > > I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person of > Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and to do > so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully will > continue to do so until they close the cover on my box. So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean things while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can only mean one thing. For you, any old word is fine and you shouldn't be accountable for using it any old way. Except when it isn't. Or doesn't. Or something. I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the Germanic punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean presentation. > When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am. Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're dealing with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a bad idea to name things with words that don't actually describe them and, further, are likely to confuse the reader. The crux of this disagreement is that you think it's ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the antecedent. I say doing that removes useful terms from the language and reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well call it Zucchini a la Flerche. But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense. > If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe these > changes) is derivative, Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There aren't too many absolutely original recipes. The terms are at issue. It has apparently escaped your notice that culinary terms are created to be technical terms. They're created to be specific, and misuse dilutes and finally voids the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a "Napoleon" isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a chicken dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or fruit. It escapes you that misusing words like that reduces them to mere sounds with no meaning beyond that exact dish. In which case, it's pure romance and moonlight on the curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name, describing nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth when saying it. > and evolves as those making and eating it determine, The fact that someone decides to make a change in the meaning of a word or of a term doesn't automatically confer a new correctness. Doesn't generate respect for the change. That's what people who write text messages and IM's to each other say. They reduce the language to a collection of primitive textual grunts. no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u wuda luvdit. Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right... 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!' 'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?' 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.' 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone. 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.' 'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark. 'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.' (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I can't tell you.) 'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice. 'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?' 'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the poems that ever were invented just yet.' This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:-- 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves, Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves And the mome raths outgrabe. 'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: 'there are plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four o'clock in the afternoon - the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.' 'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?' 'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the same as "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings packed up into one word.' 'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are "toves"?' 'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're something like lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.' 'They must be very curious-looking creatures.' 'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their nests under sundials - also they live on cheese.' 'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?' 'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To "gimble" is to make holes like a gimlet.' 'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I suppose?' said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity. 'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it-----' 'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added. 'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable" (there's another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a thin shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all around - something like a live mop.' 'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving you a great deal of trouble.' 'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not certain about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning that they'd lost their way, you know.' 'And what does "outgrabe" mean?' 'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done, maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content. Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?' 'I read it in a book,' said Alice. From Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not to mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes on the vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole cabbage. Tagine of raw tofu gelato. > there is noting I can say that will fit into your world > view. <LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of helter-skelter nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta talk about. Your bread stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on throwing stones on this subject were I you. > Regards Likewise, I'm sure. Jerry of the angels, go in peace. Pastorio > "Bob (this one)" > wrote > >> Jerry DeAngelis wrote: >> >>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information, >>> especially when provided with an air of >>> infallibility. >> >> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot, >> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info is >> a lot better than this offering. >> >>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note >>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows >>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit narrow-minded. >> >> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with >> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it >> won't be confusing. >> >> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of >> saying what they mean. >> >>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio >>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and >>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English >>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are >>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef >>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio, >>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio. >>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has >>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not >>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon, >>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list >>> of possibilities. >>> >>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation: >>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw >>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today >>> the term Carpaccio is used variably >> >> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no longer >> has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word. >> >>> and often >> >> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef" >> friend are using it just as carelessly. >> >>> refers to >>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can >>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes, >>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly >>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from >>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..." >> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point. >> >> Here's the point. >> >> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the less >> it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in between. >> It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish "and a great >> many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the colors used by >> the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin slices." It no >> longer has a referent that creates a definition beyond thin slices. >> And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that thin slices already >> had a name. >> >> Thin slices. >> >>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for >>> allowing us to respond. >> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day... >> >> Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > ... I also have a degree in English and have written more than > 1500 articles which have been published in places like the > NYTimes and LATimes syndicates as well as many other > magazines and newspapers, even an encyclopedia. ... Welcome. It is very nice to find posters who seem literate. > (Foams) have a real, if limited, place in culinaria, as foie gras, > caviar, balut, Velveeta, durian and Miracle Whip do. I suppose that having a "place in culinaria" can be taken to imply that they are edible. I have always been partial to Miracle Whip -- I wonder if you (Bob) can help me understand how it is made? Can do mayonnaise, but not Miracle Whip. Balut and durian do not seem very interesting, particularly balut. One thing I have always liked is a fried baloney sandwich on sourdough bread, with Miracle Whip and kimchee. -- Dicky |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob (this one) wrote:
> Jerry, you posted two references, both of which I dealt > with, and took it further to full explanation of why I made > the assertions. You've just repeated your initial notion > that because you did it, it was right. Carpaccio should be > red meat on a plate - to echo the color palette of the > painter Carpaccio, as originally construed at Harry's Bar. The same Harry's that developed "Fettucini(e) Alfredo" I imagine.... Well, I suppose this was a reflection on the aspects of raw, and thin slices. The same can be said of positing that a strawberry shortcake becomes a napoleon, or a moldless trifle. I think the appelation "-tini" now applies to just about anything, I"ve seen a "cheesecaketini" which was simply a cream cheese mousseline poured into martini glass and garnished with piece of candied fruit on a toothpick. I *believe* it was Pierre Troisgrois (sp?) who was known for telling jokes with dishes, such as his salmon scallopine--he was playing on large flat disks of flesh and referring to "leg of salmon" which some would find amusing. The problem is when someone doesn't realize they're pulling the finger and takes themselves too seriously. B/ |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:48:27 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote: >Bob (this one) wrote: > >> Jerry, you posted two references, both of which I dealt >> with, and took it further to full explanation of why I made >> the assertions. You've just repeated your initial notion >> that because you did it, it was right. Carpaccio should be >> red meat on a plate - to echo the color palette of the >> painter Carpaccio, as originally construed at Harry's Bar. > >The same Harry's that developed "Fettucini(e) Alfredo" I imagine.... > >Well, I suppose this was a reflection on the aspects of raw, and thin >slices. The same can be said of positing that a strawberry shortcake >becomes a napoleon, or a moldless trifle. I think the appelation >"-tini" now applies to just about anything, I"ve seen a "cheesecaketini" >which was simply a cream cheese mousseline poured into martini glass and >garnished with piece of candied fruit on a toothpick. > >I *believe* it was Pierre Troisgrois (sp?) who was known for telling >jokes with dishes, such as his salmon scallopine--he was playing on >large flat disks of flesh and referring to "leg of salmon" which some >would find amusing. > >The problem is when someone doesn't realize they're pulling the finger >and takes themselves too seriously. > >B/ Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any sort of food joke. The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale. ********************************************* http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sp...carpaccio.html Vegetable Carpaccio Carpaccio Vegetale Robbio is a farming town in Lombardy, near Alessandria, not too far from the Piedmont border. In the heart of rice-growing country, Robbio is surrounded by paddies, which produce Italy's famed Baldo, Arbono, and Carnaroli rice. Da Mino, a small restaurant located in the center of town, specializes in typical rural dishes of the area, and I was particularly taken by Chef Enrica Abatte's unusual fresh vegetable carpaccio. Made with produce from the garden of Pietro Lorizzo, her husband and the restaurants owner, the macerated paper-thin vegetables came to the table lightly chilled, tender, and full of texture and flavor. When I have the time, I prepare the carpaccio as they do at Da Mino, but when I don't want to wait, I simply toss all the vegetables and seasonings together and serve it immediately. The styles are different; both are delicious. Try this with a light, luscious, and dry red, such as Bonarda dell'Oltrepó Pavese. 4 medium zucchini, trimmed and cut into paper-thin rounds 2 teaspoons best-quality red wine vinegar 2 small red bell peppers, stemmed, seeds and pith removed, cut into paper-thin strips Fine sea salt Freshly ground black pepper (optional) 2 cups arugula, rinsed, patted dry, and torn into bite-size pieces 2 ounces Parmigiano-Reggiano, shaved into paper-thin curls (see Segreti) 2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil 1. Cover the bottom of a 12-inch round nonreactive dish with a layer of the zucchini, using half the rounds, slightly over-lapping them in concentric circles. Using a pastry brush, brush half the vinegar as evenly as possible over the zucchini. Scatter half the bell pepper slices over the zucchini, then season lightly with salt and, if desired, black pepper. Arrange half the arugula leaves on top with half the Parmesan cheese curls. Drizzle with half the olive oil and season lightly again with salt and, if desired, pepper. Repeat the layers using the remaining ingredients. 2. Cover the dish tightly with aluminum foil and refrigerate for 18 to 24 hours. Remove from the refrigerator about 15 minutes before serving. Segreti To shave Parmesan cheese, use a vegetable peeler and simply "peel" the curls from the hunk of cheese, holding it right over the salad. ******************************* And here is a restaurant in Italy that has it on its menu: http://www.aeolia.com/menu/1991/06menu.htm Boron |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:58:34 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:48:27 -0700, Brian Mailman > wrote: > >>Bob (this one) wrote: >>I *believe* it was Pierre Troisgrois (sp?) who was known for telling >>jokes with dishes, such as his salmon scallopine--he was playing on >>large flat disks of flesh and referring to "leg of salmon" which some >>would find amusing. >> >>The problem is when someone doesn't realize they're pulling the finger >>and takes themselves too seriously. >Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any >sort of food joke. > >The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale. Of course, these Italians, if they _really are_ Italians, are obviously poseurs and take themselves too seriously. "Carpaccio Vegetale", indeed. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boron Elgar wrote:
> [snip preceding] > Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any > sort of food joke. > > The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale. > > ********************************************* > http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sp...carpaccio.html > > Vegetable Carpaccio > Carpaccio Vegetale [snip article and recipe] > And here is a restaurant in Italy that has it on its menu: > > http://www.aeolia.com/menu/1991/06menu.htm > > Boron Oh, he probably already knows that he's fighting a rearguard action against a change in languages [English and Italian] that is well under way. We've all seen many examples of specific names morphing into descriptives for semi-related things. It's quite like the way brand names and trademarks become generic words, notwithstanding the efforts of trademark lawyers. I've made similar objections a number of times here in rfc, usually saying something like, "That sounds like an interesting recipe, but don't call it ___[some misappropriated name]_____ , make up a new name for it." He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
aem wrote:
> He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't > really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem > Small Man Syndrome? LOL |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 21 Aug 2006 14:32:24 -0700, "aem" > wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote: >> [snip preceding] >> Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any >> sort of food joke. >> >> The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale. >> >> ********************************************* >> http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sp...carpaccio.html >> >> Vegetable Carpaccio >> Carpaccio Vegetale > > [snip article and recipe] > >> And here is a restaurant in Italy that has it on its menu: >> >> http://www.aeolia.com/menu/1991/06menu.htm >> >> Boron > >Oh, he probably already knows that he's fighting a rearguard action >against a change in languages [English and Italian] that is well under >way. We've all seen many examples of specific names morphing into >descriptives for semi-related things. It's quite like the way brand >names and trademarks become generic words, notwithstanding the efforts >of trademark lawyers. I've made similar objections a number of times >here in rfc, usually saying something like, "That sounds like an >interesting recipe, but don't call it ___[some misappropriated >name]_____ , make up a new name for it." > >He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't >really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem I feel that Jerry is real delight and swell fellow. He deserves the defense. Frankly, I have Past-o in the KF. Boron |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob/Pastorio:
Unlike you, I will not bother to list the degrees I have, as that is irrelevant in this discussion. However I will state for the record that your comment: > most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina > of psychobabble. is interesting in light of the fact that in a career from which I am now retired, I was responsible for providing counseling and therapy to approximately 32,000 adult and minor patients, and for training a number of UCLA adolescent psychiatrists in the treatment of severely emotionally disturbed children. There are two things I am impressed with in your post. 1.) You know Lewis Carroll and, 2. ) you have actually taken the time to cut and paste that into your message. I enjoyed that. I have a facsimile of the original hand written version by Carroll. Very nice to read rather than the machine printed versions. You have tried very hard to introduce a "scientific" aspect into this discussion that somehow morphs cooking into a hard science. (Note: I am not dismissing Food or Cereal scientist here. There is quite a bit of hard science in these fields.) That would be perfect ,if we were in fact discussing a hard science. In my opinion, We are not discussing a subject where exactitude of the same magnitude is paramount. Exactitude domains include, among other things, computer languages where a misplaced word, a comma, a period etc , makes code useless, physics, either classical ,or quantum, where accuracy and precision are paramount. The mathematical rigor necessary in these cases are not to be toyed with, and indeed words mean specific things. Chemistry is another science where there is little opportunity to change terms at will. A double bond with specific pi-bond values is just that, it is not another thing that is easier to remember. Quantum Electro Dynamics, and the rigor necessary to discuss that is well known, and words that make this subject more difficult, or easier to understand need to be carefully chosen. I agree with you that in these cases that " any old word will not do..." But I reiterate, we are talking about a recipe here, and not a scientific conundrum that more words will resolve. Additionally, taking things out of context, as you do on most of your posts, only works for a while. Sooner or later, your prose begins to contradict itself. Re-read them, and you will see for yourself. Obviously, I do not agree that your positions about food, and the rigor you are trying to establish. You seem more interested in flaunting your experience, degrees, opinions, and literary breadth than in cognizant thought. You write well, and your erudition is precise, but not very accurate, in my opinion. We who cook, whether for personal or professional purposes, are not engineers, software or otherwise, or chemists, or physicists, or microbiologists, or frankly anything like this. That may bother you, especially if you consider what you do science. It is not. There are in fact food scientists, and they master incredible amounts of scientific data, methodology and do so with a rigor that most cooks/chefs only think about occasionally, or never at all. That does not mean that a chef does not have to understand scientific notions as they relate to food. Because one takes courses in hygiene, food chemistry, basic physics, heat transfer etc, while pursuing a course of study does not necessarily make him or her a scientist. It may make him or her a better chef or baker, but that is a different issue. It may come as a shock to you but one can be too anal, obsessive compulsive or fixated on a topic, and not be on top of their subject. To obsess about a word or a number is not the same as being careful, accurate, and precise. Obsessive compulsive behavior is never good, no matter how much one tries to justify it. Obsession cannot be justified because one is trying to save the world from itself. Finally, I would like to correct one thing. You state: >So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and >derisive. As far as how I feel about them, my posts are not defensive, but I freely admit they are at times, derisive. It is clear that no matter how often we harangue each other, we will most likely never agree about most things, so I will sign off from this thread. Contrary to what a few have stated, I have not chosen to pick a fight for the fun of it, nor do I do so happily. As I stated in my last post,I enjoy a good argument, and when I do argue, it is for reasons stated. Additionally, I am not interested in more time wasted, on my part on this issue. If that makes you happy, or increases you standing in the chef community, please feel free to declare victory in this discussion, and feel good about it . Have a good day/night/life and try not to take yourself too seriously. Jerry "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > Jerry DeAngelis wrote: >> Bob/Pastorio: > > What/Jerry? > >> At the risk of insulting you, > > <LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...? > > > I have only a single response in that >> regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean" >> borders on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking >> at that part of your psyche as you do the words used by others. > > <LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who had > sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that most of them > didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina of > psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of thinking, I say. I > guess engineers shouldn't worry about exactitude and musicians > shouldn't bother to tune their instruments. Too anal. Anything goes, > anytime, anywhere. > > Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can understand > it, write it so they can't misunderstand it." > > And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from another > post, > > You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or > choose not to, as > > I have posted a number of references that contradict your > assertion of > > what Carpaccio is, or should be. > > So I went to your web site and I found this: > <http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm> > "What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The Artisan. > Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as defined in > Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder; error in etiquette: > Tactless act or remark..." For us, they are recipes which purport to > be Italian, but are so in name only and not execution." > > So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it. > > But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm> > "Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and number of > other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany and is made in a > particular way....otherwise it is not Panzanella. > [...] > "Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make it, we > cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The ingredients, per > se, are tasty. We probably would not have used any chicken broth, > but the rest sound plausible in a salad. Regardless, it is not > Panzanella. It might be called Insalata Panzanella Americana." > > <LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch about a > recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant" > > Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name does > matter. Go figure. I get so confused... > >> As far a your comment: >> >>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of >>> saying what they mean >> >> I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person >> of Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and >> to do so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully >> will continue to do so until they close the cover on my box. > > So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and > derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean things > while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can only mean one > thing. For you, any old word is fine and you shouldn't be > accountable for using it any old way. Except when it isn't. Or > doesn't. Or something. > > I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the Germanic > punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean presentation. > >> When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am. > > Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're dealing > with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a bad idea to name > things with words that don't actually describe them and, further, > are likely to confuse the reader. The crux of this disagreement is > that you think it's ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the > antecedent. I say doing that removes useful terms from the language > and reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well call > it Zucchini a la Flerche. > > But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense. > >> If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe >> these changes) is derivative, > > Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There aren't too > many absolutely original recipes. The terms are at issue. It has > apparently escaped your notice that culinary terms are created to be > technical terms. They're created to be specific, and misuse dilutes > and finally voids the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a > "Napoleon" isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was > coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a chicken > dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or fruit. It escapes you > that misusing words like that reduces them to mere sounds with no > meaning beyond that exact dish. In which case, it's pure romance and > moonlight on the curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name, > describing nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth > when saying it. > > > and evolves as those making and eating it determine, > > The fact that someone decides to make a change in the meaning of a > word or of a term doesn't automatically confer a new correctness. > Doesn't generate respect for the change. That's what people who > write text messages and IM's to each other say. They reduce the > language to a collection of primitive textual grunts. > > no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u wuda > luvdit. > > Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right... > > 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' > it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' > 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so > many different things.' > 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - > that's all.' > Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty > Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly > verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, > but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! > Impenetrability! That's what I say!' > 'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?' > 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking > very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had > enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd > mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to > stop here all the rest of your life.' > 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a > thoughtful tone. > 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, > 'I always pay it extra.' > 'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark. > 'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty > Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to > get their wages, you know.' > (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I > can't tell you.) > 'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice. 'Would > you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?' > 'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the poems > that ever were invented just yet.' > This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:-- > 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves, > Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: > All mimsy were the borogoves > And the mome raths outgrabe. > > 'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: 'there are > plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four o'clock in the > afternoon - the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.' > 'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?' > 'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the same as > "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings > packed up into one word.' > 'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are "toves"?' > 'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're something like > lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.' > 'They must be very curious-looking creatures.' > 'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their nests > under sundials - also they live on cheese.' > 'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?' > 'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To "gimble" is > to make holes like a gimlet.' > 'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I suppose?' said > Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity. > 'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it goes a > long way before it, and a long way behind it-----' > 'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added. > 'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable" (there's > another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a thin > shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all around - > something like a live mop.' > 'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving you a > great deal of trouble.' > 'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not certain > about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning that they'd lost > their way, you know.' > 'And what does "outgrabe" mean?' > 'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling, > with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done, > maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it, > you'll be quite content. Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to > you?' > 'I read it in a book,' said Alice. > From Through The Looking Glass > by Lewis Carroll > > I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not to > mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes on the > vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole cabbage. Tagine > of raw tofu gelato. > >> there is noting I can say that will fit into your world view. > > <LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of helter-skelter > nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta talk about. Your bread > stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on throwing stones on this subject > were I you. > >> Regards > > Likewise, I'm sure. > > Jerry of the angels, go in peace. > > Pastorio > > > >> "Bob (this one)" > wrote >>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote: >>> >>>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information, >>>> especially when provided with an air of >>>> infallibility. > >> >>> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot, >>> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info >>> is a lot better than this offering. >>> >>>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note >>>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows >>>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit >>>> narrow-minded. > >> >>> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with >>> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it >>> won't be confusing. >>> >>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of >>> saying what they mean. >>> >>>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio >>>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and >>>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English >>>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are >>>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef >>>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio, >>>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio. >>>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has >>>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not >>>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon, >>>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list >>>> of possibilities. >>>> >>>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following >>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation: >>>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw >>>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today >>>> the term Carpaccio is used variably > >> >>> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no >>> longer has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word. >>> >>>> and often > >> >>> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef" >>> friend are using it just as carelessly. >>> >>>> refers to >>>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can >>>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes, >>>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly >>>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from >>>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..." >>> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point. >>> >>> Here's the point. >>> >>> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the >>> less it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in >>> between. It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish >>> "and a great many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the >>> colors used by the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin >>> slices." It no longer has a referent that creates a definition >>> beyond thin slices. And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that >>> thin slices already had a name. >>> >>> Thin slices. >>> >>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for >>>> allowing us to respond. >>> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day... >>> >>> Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Goomba38 wrote:
> aem wrote: >> He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't >> really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem >> > Small Man Syndrome? LOL As opposed to lightweight syndrome...? The two of you try so hard. Maybe I'll send some nice gold stars for you both to paste, um, somewhere. Only recently been *posting* - you don't know if I've been visiting. I love the sniping from you two exemplars for civil behavior. Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,rec.food.baking,rec.food.sourdough
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dick Adams wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > >> (Foams) have a real, if limited, place in culinaria, as foie gras, >> caviar, balut, Velveeta, durian and Miracle Whip do. > > I suppose that having a "place in culinaria" can be taken to > imply that they are edible. <LOL> At least. > I have always been partial to Miracle > Whip -- I wonder if you (Bob) can help me understand how it > is made? Can do mayonnaise, but not Miracle Whip. Balut > and durian do not seem very interesting, particularly balut. Miracle Whip is a factory product that you can't exactly duplicate at home. It's an evolution of "salad dressing" and there are lots of recipes out there for it. <http://www.recipezaar.com/41781> And balut is not interesting. Really not interesting. > One thing I have always liked is a fried baloney sandwich on > sourdough bread, with Miracle Whip and kimchee. Not a combination I've ever had. I don't especially like Miracle Whip. I find the sweetness offputting. When I was a kid, one of our neighbors used to make us Miracle Whip sandwiches on Wonder bread. We thought they were terrific. I grew up with homemade bologna (actually it was my grandfather's homemade version of mortadella) that was never fried that way. Until I got to college and my roommate introduced me to its delights. Bologna, lettuce, mayo on a New York kaiser roll at 3 in the morning in anticipation of a monster hangover in a few hours. Perfect. Pastorio |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> Bob/Pastorio: > > Unlike you, I will not bother to list the degrees I have, I didn't list them. Just one. The hauteur fairly drips from the post, Jerry. Nicely done. > as that is irrelevant in this discussion. That one listed is exactly relevant. It's B.A., English - use of language - that directly concerns the whole issue of a silly recipe name. And that's what all your blustering about concerns, as well. It's an area of my professional credentials. You know, like the ones you list for yourself below. The ones that really are irrelevant. > However I will state for the record that your comment: <tap, tap, gavel, gavel> This is officially for the record and I need silence while I deliver it. <Clears throat> "However..." >> most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina >> of psychobabble. > > is interesting in light of the fact that in a career from which I am > now retired, It's still babble, Jerry. It's a value judgement, not a diagnosis. > I was responsible for providing counseling and therapy to > approximately 32,000 adult and minor patients, and for training a > number of UCLA adolescent psychiatrists in the treatment of severely > emotionally disturbed children. You have credentials in psychology. One should expect rigor in a professional field. That would be part of the definition of professionalism, I'd suggest. Not anything like actual science - John Campbell called psychology - "the modern black arts." And your "professional" comments both above - "fixation" - and below, so casually offered, show a shocking slackness and self-serving agenda in using them. > There are two things I am impressed with in your post. 1.) You know > Lewis Carroll and, 2. ) you have actually taken the time to cut and > paste that into your message. I enjoyed that. I have a facsimile > of the original hand written version by Carroll. Very nice to read > rather than the machine printed versions. <LOL> How smarmily condescending you can be, Jerry. Same spirit as your references to foams. You're afflicted with that 'blind guys and the elephant" thingy. You see a speck and imagine it to be the whole. I typically read three to five books a week and have for more than 50 years with very few interruptions of that schedule. In areas of literature, science, history, biography, non-fiction, culinaria, religion, nature, music, bonsai, science fiction, stringed instruments, aviation, military matters, linguistics, languages... like that. And that doesn't begin to include online things and technical materials. I even looked in a phone book once. Not much plot, too many characters. Tried to set it to music, but it didn't rhyme. Never did that again. > You have tried very hard to introduce a "scientific" aspect into this > discussion that somehow morphs cooking into a hard science. Hardly. I knew it had all flown past you. We've been talking about linguistic rigor. It's all about using a recipe name uninformatively. Science is not remotely at issue, and all your words below merely show how little you've understood the issues I've raised and explained and re-explained to no apparent avail. And you fault me for my inability or choice to not read accurately. I'd say that's a tad ironic. Here's the twice-presented crux of your failu "Like I already said to you, 'Don't write it so they can understand it, write it so they can't misunderstand it.' " Remember that? Didn't think so. > (Note: I > am not dismissing Food or Cereal scientist here. There is quite a bit > of hard science in these fields.) It's not that you don't know how much, it's abundantly clear that you can't even imagine how much. You'd really enjoy a walk through the labs at National Starch. Or Sara Lee. Or Virginia Dare. Or TIC gums... > That would be perfect ,if we were > in fact discussing a hard science. In my opinion, We are not > discussing a subject where exactitude of the same magnitude is > paramount. Exactitude domains include, among other things, computer > languages where a misplaced word, a comma, a period etc , makes code > useless, physics, either classical ,or quantum, where accuracy and > precision are paramount. Accuracy and precision in quantum physics? Do you know *nothing* about the subject? Heard of Schrodinger's cat? The Uncertainty Principle? Fuzziness? Velocity-location? This is just more posturing, Jerry, and it doesn't credit you. <http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/index.html> <http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCHRCAT.HTM> > The mathematical rigor necessary in these > cases are not to be toyed with, and indeed words mean specific things. Mathematical rigor - using pure denotations - and verbal specificity - using combinations of denotations and connotations. As if they had anything to do with each other. > Chemistry is another science where there is little opportunity to > change terms at will. A double bond with specific pi-bond values is > just that, it is not another thing that is easier to remember. > Quantum Electro Dynamics, and the rigor necessary to discuss that is > well known, and words that make this subject more difficult, or > easier to understand need to be carefully chosen. I agree with you > that in these cases that " any old word will not do..." But I > reiterate, we are talking about a recipe here, and not a scientific > conundrum that more words will resolve. "Conundrum" is it? <LOL> Buy a dictionary. > Additionally, taking things > out of context, as you do on most of your posts, only works for a > while. Perhaps you would be so kind as to show one of these contextual problems? Could this be a reference to the embarrassing material on your web site that contradicts itself? I didn't quote the whole thing because everything didn't contradict everything, and because rather than this fault, you'd say I quoted too much. Still not recognizing that you contradict yourself, it appears. Where's that "I admit mistakes" stuff now? > Sooner or later, your prose begins to contradict itself. > Re-read them, and you will see for yourself. <LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I love how you've just accused me of what I've already proved about you. You *say* I contradict myself whereas I *demonstrated* that you do. And, conveniently, it's below in the message you quoted. The whole business about your "creative" redefinition of faux pas. Where *your* definition supplants the dictionary offering. Funny you choose a French expression to describe Italian things on an ostensibly Italian-oriented web site. And your both-sides-now view of Panzanella. Has to be exactly what you say it is or it can't be called "panzanella." Hee hee... > Obviously, I do not agree that your positions about food, and the > rigor you are trying to establish. You seem more interested in > flaunting your experience, degrees, opinions, and literary breadth > than in cognizant thought. "...cognizant thought." <LOL> When you take time to explain your background, it's explanation. When I do it, it's flaunting. What clarity of thought. > You write well, Thank you. So I've been told by people writing checks for it. That's snide, if true. > and your erudition is > precise, but not very accurate, in my opinion. Right. So here's your professional evaluation as a psychological professional. I can see why you had that job. > We who cook, whether > for personal or professional purposes, are not engineers, software or > otherwise, or chemists, or physicists, or microbiologists, or > frankly anything like this. That may bother you, especially if you > consider what you do science. It is not. You can't begin to imagine what I do, Jerry. And if you look at what science is - how it works - some of it is very much science. Not always, because different goals demand different methods of organization; different issues of consideration. Not a complicated thing - the scientific method. It's just the best way of dealing with information anyone has come up with. > There are in fact food scientists, I'm friends with a good many of them. > and they master incredible amounts of scientific data, > methodology and do so with a rigor that most cooks/chefs only think > about occasionally, or never at all. Jerry, you're over your head here. They're scientists, no more nor less than other scientists. But they have not one damn thing to do with your sloppiness/confusion of language usage. > That does not mean that a chef > does not have to understand scientific notions as they relate to food. Chefs absolutely don't need to know the science behind what they do. Classical chef training had nothing to do with that sort of analysis and hypothesizing. It has had everything to do with using recognized processes and techniques long-since established by trial and error to produce results. The difference between a marksman and a ballistics analyst. Guy shooting a gum doesn't need to know the techie stuff beyond the point of utility. > Because one takes courses in hygiene, food chemistry, basic physics, > heat transfer etc, while pursuing a course of study does not > necessarily make him or her a scientist. Scientists "do" science. It's not a title, it's a kind of activity. Clearly, you have no experience with it. > It may make him or her a > better chef or baker, but that is a different issue. Sorry, Jerry. It's readily apparent that you just don't understand what the scientific process is about. Most people don't involve themselves with the chemistry, biology and physics of the kitchen, but rest assured, they're all there and very much the subjects of serious inquiry and experimentation. Home cooks and most professionals aren't taking a scholarly approach to the matters of culinaria, but some of us do. You might like to read "Food Processing" magazine, or the magazine of the Research Chefs organization or any of the other trade/technical mags out there. There are several organizations that deal with the aspects of culinary science you clearly are utterly unacquainted with. But that's not the subject. It's about how your "chef" (and other poseurs) doesn't know that Cipriani named the dish for color, not slices. > It may come as a shock to you but one can be too anal, obsessive > compulsive or fixated on a topic, and not be on top of their subject. <LOL> Oh wow. Jargon. With a nice, snide stab to it. And see how irrelevant it all is? Zowie. Must be a professional writing these "diagnoses" about others. As though we didn't all take a few psyche courses as undergraduates ad long-ago mastered these words to use as blunt-instrument insults. Like this. <LOL> This is even more pompous than I get at my worst. Zany. Lashing out. When the only tool you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, huh, Jerry? > To obsess about a word or a number is not the same as being careful, > accurate, and precise. Obsessive compulsive behavior is never good, > no matter how much one tries to justify it. Obsession cannot be > justified because one is trying to save the world from itself. <LOL> Brilliantly smug, colorfully superficial and most emphatically that special blowhole posturing so clearly a hallmark of your recent notes. Hilarious. Postulates for the wall poster about mental conditions for the school guidance office. Those thudding sentences should be numbered like the bible. The Book of Jerry of DeAngelis Chapter one - The Obsession Proverbs 1 To obsess about a word or a number is not the same as being careful, accurate, and precise. 2 Obsessive compulsive behavior is never good, no matter how much one tries to justify it. 3 Obsession cannot be justified because one is trying to save the world from itself. <LOLOLOL> BTW, obsessive-compulsive is generally hyphenated for the reason that words like that are usually hyphenated. It's a language thing. And, because you obviously and startlingly - given those credentials listed above - are just using jargon you don't understand, here's what obsessional behavior and OCD are about <http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2794.htm> > Finally, I would like to correct one thing. You state: > >> So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and >> derisive. > > As far as how I feel about them, my posts are not defensive, but I > freely admit they are at times, derisive. Beauty - eye of beholder... > It is clear that no matter how often we harangue each other, we will > most likely never agree about most things, so I will sign off from > this thread. Contrary to what a few have stated, I have not chosen to > pick a fight for the fun of it, nor do I do so happily. As I stated > in my last post,I enjoy a good argument, and when I do argue, it is > for reasons stated. Additionally, I am not interested in more time > wasted, on my part on this issue. You don't seem to grasp the concept of argumentation. It's not to do phony psychological evaluations. It's not to introduce vast hunks of irrelevant smugly delivered twaddle - science, indeed. It's not to posture and preen as in "We who cook, whether for personal or professional purposes, are not engineers, software or otherwise, or chemists, or physicists, or microbiologists, or frankly anything like this." I should introduce you to Shirley Corriher. Or Harold McGee. Or... <http://www.cookingforengineers.com/> "We who cook..." is only hilarious because I can see you delivering that line with one eyebrow raised, hand held upward in a declamatory pose, trying to distinguish yourself from me, obviously a mere poseur in your opinion. I became one of those "we who cook" in the early 1950's in my parents' restaurant. I also have an undergraduate minor in hard science. See how that flows together? I didn't think so. > If that makes you happy, or increases you standing in the chef > community, please feel free to declare victory in this discussion, > and feel good about it . Jerry, forgive me. Defeating you is like stomping a pygmy. All it does is get the shoes dirty. > Have a good day/night/life and try not to take yourself too seriously. Right. Hey, tell me more about science and psychology. Maybe throw in more about literary criticism. Then a bit more from "we who cook." I'm really, really listening. Nearly. No, seriously... We're both full of shit. Pompous. Self-important. Been a pleasure. I have some French bread dough (All-trumps and a little whole wheat) in the fridge continuing a slow proof that I'm going to shape into baguettes and batards tomorrow evening. Place should smell good. Pastorio > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message > ... >> Jerry DeAngelis wrote: >>> Bob/Pastorio: >> What/Jerry? >> >>> At the risk of insulting you, >> <LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...? >> >>> I have only a single response in that >>> regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean" >>> borders on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking >>> at that part of your psyche as you do the words used by others. >> <LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who had >> sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that most of them >> didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina of >> psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of thinking, I say. I >> guess engineers shouldn't worry about exactitude and musicians >> shouldn't bother to tune their instruments. Too anal. Anything goes, >> anytime, anywhere. >> >> Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can understand >> it, write it so they can't misunderstand it." >> >> And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from another >> post, >>>You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or choose not to, as >>> I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of >>> what Carpaccio is, or should be. >> >> So I went to your web site and I found this: >> <http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm> >> "What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The Artisan. >> Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as defined in >> Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder; error in etiquette: >> Tactless act or remark..." For us, they are recipes which purport to >> be Italian, but are so in name only and not execution." >> >> So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it. >> >> But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm> >> "Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and number of >> other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany and is made in a >> particular way....otherwise it is not Panzanella. >> [...] >> "Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make it, we >> cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The ingredients, per >> se, are tasty. We probably would not have used any chicken broth, >> but the rest sound plausible in a salad. Regardless, it is not >> Panzanella. It might be called Insalata Panzanella Americana." >> >> <LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch about a >> recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant" >> >> Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name does >> matter. Go figure. I get so confused... >> >>> As far a your comment: >>> >>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of >>>> saying what they mean >>> I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person >>> of Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and >>> to do so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully >>> will continue to do so until they close the cover on my box. >> So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and >> derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean things >> while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can only mean one >> thing. For you, any old word is fine and you shouldn't be >> accountable for using it any old way. Except when it isn't. Or >> doesn't. Or something. >> >> I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the Germanic >> punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean presentation. >> >>> When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am. >> Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're dealing >> with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a bad idea to name >> things with words that don't actually describe them and, further, >> are likely to confuse the reader. The crux of this disagreement is >> that you think it's ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the >> antecedent. I say doing that removes useful terms from the language >> and reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well call >> it Zucchini a la Flerche. >> >> But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense. >> >>> If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe >>> these changes) is derivative, >> Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There aren't too >> many absolutely original recipes. The terms are at issue. It has >> apparently escaped your notice that culinary terms are created to be >> technical terms. They're created to be specific, and misuse dilutes >> and finally voids the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a >> "Napoleon" isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was >> coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a chicken >> dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or fruit. It escapes you >> that misusing words like that reduces them to mere sounds with no >> meaning beyond that exact dish. In which case, it's pure romance and >> moonlight on the curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name, >> describing nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth >> when saying it. >> >>> and evolves as those making and eating it determine, >> The fact that someone decides to make a change in the meaning of a >> word or of a term doesn't automatically confer a new correctness. >> Doesn't generate respect for the change. That's what people who >> write text messages and IM's to each other say. They reduce the >> language to a collection of primitive textual grunts. >> >> no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u wuda >> luvdit. >> >> Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right... >> >> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' >> it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' >> 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so >> many different things.' >> 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - >> that's all.' >> Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty >> Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly >> verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, >> but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! >> Impenetrability! That's what I say!' >> 'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?' >> 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking >> very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had >> enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd >> mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to >> stop here all the rest of your life.' >> 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a >> thoughtful tone. >> 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, >> 'I always pay it extra.' >> 'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark. >> 'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty >> Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to >> get their wages, you know.' >> (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I >> can't tell you.) >> 'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice. 'Would >> you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?' >> 'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the poems >> that ever were invented just yet.' >> This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:-- >> 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves, >> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: >> All mimsy were the borogoves >> And the mome raths outgrabe. >> >> 'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: 'there are >> plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four o'clock in the >> afternoon - the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.' >> 'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?' >> 'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the same as >> "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings >> packed up into one word.' >> 'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are "toves"?' >> 'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're something like >> lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.' >> 'They must be very curious-looking creatures.' >> 'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their nests >> under sundials - also they live on cheese.' >> 'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?' >> 'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To "gimble" is >> to make holes like a gimlet.' >> 'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I suppose?' said >> Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity. >> 'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it goes a >> long way before it, and a long way behind it-----' >> 'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added. >> 'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable" (there's >> another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a thin >> shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all around - >> something like a live mop.' >> 'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving you a >> great deal of trouble.' >> 'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not certain >> about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning that they'd lost >> their way, you know.' >> 'And what does "outgrabe" mean?' >> 'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling, >> with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done, >> maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it, >> you'll be quite content. Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to >> you?' >> 'I read it in a book,' said Alice. >> From Through The Looking Glass >> by Lewis Carroll >> >> I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not to >> mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes on the >> vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole cabbage. Tagine >> of raw tofu gelato. >> >>> there is noting I can say that will fit into your world view. >> <LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of helter-skelter >> nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta talk about. Your bread >> stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on throwing stones on this subject >> were I you. >> >>> Regards >> Likewise, I'm sure. >> >> Jerry of the angels, go in peace. >> >> Pastorio >> >> >> >>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote >>>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information, >>>>> especially when provided with an air of >>>>> infallibility. >>>> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot, >>>> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info >>>> is a lot better than this offering. >>>> >>>>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note >>>>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows >>>>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit >>>>> narrow-minded. >>>> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with >>>> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it >>>> won't be confusing. >>>> >>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of >>>> saying what they mean. >>>> >>>>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio >>>>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and >>>>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English >>>>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are >>>>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef >>>>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio, >>>>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio. >>>>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has >>>>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not >>>>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon, >>>>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list >>>>> of possibilities. >>>>> >>>>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following >>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation: >>>>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw >>>>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today >>>>> the term Carpaccio is used variably >>>> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no >>>> longer has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word. >>>> >>>>> and often >>>> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef" >>>> friend are using it just as carelessly. >>>> >>>>> refers to >>>>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can >>>>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes, >>>>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly >>>>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from >>>>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..." >>>> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point. >>>> >>>> Here's the point. >>>> >>>> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the >>>> less it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in >>>> between. It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish >>>> "and a great many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the >>>> colors used by the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin >>>> slices." It no longer has a referent that creates a definition >>>> beyond thin slices. And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that >>>> thin slices already had a name. >>>> >>>> Thin slices. >>>> >>>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for >>>>> allowing us to respond. >>>> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day... >>>> >>>> Pastorio > > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Artisan - Recipe Upload - 8/17/2006 | Baking | |||
The Artisan - Recipe Upload - 8/17/2006 | Sourdough | |||
Recipe upload - The Artisan - June 18, 2006 | General Cooking | |||
UPload - The Artisan - 5/5/2006 - Temperature | Sourdough | |||
The Artisan May 5, 2006 Upload - Temperature | Baking |