I have a nice starter and I was wondering how do I make any of my
basic bread recipes sourdough? Do I just sub out some flour and water
and add the starter or what?

wrote:
> I have a nice starter and I was wondering how do I make any of my
> basic bread recipes sourdough? Do I just sub out some flour and water
> and add the starter or what?

I use a formula found in The Joy Of Cooking cookbook which says 2 cups
of sponge equal 1 measure of yeast. My 2 cups of sponge stirs down to 1
cup. I usually have to adjust the liquid slightly that the recipe calls
for.

I use this all the time with good success. The rise times will be
different than the recipe also, but letting something 'double' is still
double no matter if it takes 1 hour or 3.

Sourdough pizza is wicked.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com

"Mike Romain" > wrote in message g.com...
> I use a formula found in The Joy Of Cooking cookbook which says 2 cups
> of sponge equal 1 measure of yeast. My 2 cups of sponge stirs down to 1
> cup.

Which measure was that? Are we saying that one measure of yeast actually
actually has the leavening power of one cup of stirred-down sponge and
that The Joy forgot to mention about stirring down?

Not everyone can remember this, but the little spoon that came with
each Gilbert chemistry set was called "the measure". (Just a little bit of
nostalgia here to round things out.) That measure, actually an itty-bitty
spatula with a rounded tip, would measure maybe 25 milligrams. That
much yeast would actually be enough to leaven a couple of loaves of
bread, but it might take over 24 hours to do it.

--
Dicky

wrote:
> I have a nice starter and I was wondering how do I make any of my
> basic bread recipes sourdough? Do I just sub out some flour and
> water and add the starter or what?

Yes.

In Message-ID: >:

"I have been successful in converting conventional recipes to sourdough
by substituting the water and flour in this way:

Assume the recipe calls for one cup of water.

Replace the water by half that amount of starter (1/2 cup in this case)
plus half the amount (1/2 cup in this case of water).

Reduce the flour by half the amount (1/2 cup) of the water.

Omit the yeast."

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message g.com...
>> I use a formula found in The Joy Of Cooking cookbook which says 2 cups
>> of sponge equal 1 measure of yeast. My 2 cups of sponge stirs down to 1
>> cup.
>
> Which measure was that? Are we saying that one measure of yeast actually
> actually has the leavening power of one cup of stirred-down sponge and
> that The Joy forgot to mention about stirring down?
>
> Not everyone can remember this, but the little spoon that came with
> each Gilbert chemistry set was called "the measure". (Just a little bit of
> nostalgia here to round things out.) That measure, actually an itty-bitty
> spatula with a rounded tip, would measure maybe 25 milligrams. That
> much yeast would actually be enough to leaven a couple of loaves of
> bread, but it might take over 24 hours to do it.
>
> --
> Dicky

Every cookbook that I read and every brand of yeast that I buy 'all'
call one 'measure' of yeast either one individual pack of yeast which
equals 2 1/4 teaspoons which equals one cake which equals one scant
tablespoon.

Now I 'am' in Canada eh, so maybe they measure yeast different where you
are, sorry if I confused you. I wasn't aware that there was any other
'measure' for yeast.

To Quote The Joy of Cooking, just to keep you happy: Two cups of this
foamy mixture are substituted for one cake or package of yeast and it's
liquid. End Quote.

2 cups of 'My' active 'foamy mixture' stirs down to one cup, yours may
not. Don't see how that could confuse you too, but hey.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com

The tid-bit that nearly everyone overlooks is: Unless the recipe is for a
"sweet" bread, leave out the sugar. The only purpose for the sugar is to
feed the yeast (except for those things that are supposed to be sweet). And
if you're making bread, it's probably not meant to be sweet tasting.


L8r all,
Dusty -- Everett, Wa.


> wrote in message
...
>I have a nice starter and I was wondering how do I make any of my
> basic bread recipes sourdough? Do I just sub out some flour and water
> and add the starter or what?

"Mike Romain" > wrote in message g.com...
> Every cookbook that I read and every brand of yeast that I buy 'all'
> call one 'measure' of yeast either one individual pack of yeast which
> equals 2 1/4 teaspoons which equals one cake which equals one scant
> tablespoon.

Nope, cookbooks do not measure yeast in units of 'measure', nor do
brands of yeast bought by you or anybody else.

Your web photos indicate that you can make bread and take photos,
which is a wonder considering the fuzziness of your thought and the
imprecision of your exposition.

On 28 Feb, 17:57, " >
wrote:
> I have a nice starter and I was wondering how do I make any of my
> basic bread recipes sourdough? *Do I just sub out some flour and water
> and add the starter or what?

You don't need any formula, lol, from some numpty that obviously
hasn't got a clue. All you have to do is use the recipe that's been
given, leave out the yeast, and use some of the water and flour from
the recipe to feed a small bit of your starter, say a teaspoon, how
long all this takes depends on your starter, the temperature and how
big the bread in recipe is. How you build isn't important as long as
your starter is a regular starter and not one of those made by other
numpty authors such as Nancy Silverton. If you know how much water and
flour is in your starter then you can start from however much starter
you like or have. Again timing is up to you and your starter so keep
an eye on it. I regularly bake from just a teaspoon of starter into
four pounds of dough it takes up to about 24 hours but that can be
useful, this isn't rocket science so really anything will work within
reason. Though if you want to make a dough the same as in the recipe
then following someone's advice about substituting two cups of flour
for a measure of yeast, whatever that is, a cup? lol, you're in for
disappointment or two cups of spare dough at the end. lol

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:20:53 -0800 (PST), TG
> wrote:

>On 28 Feb, 17:57, " >
>wrote:
>> I have a nice starter and I was wondering how do I make any of my
>> basic bread recipes sourdough? *Do I just sub out some flour and water
>> and add the starter or what?
>
>You don't need any formula, lol, from some numpty that obviously
>hasn't got a clue. All you have to do is use the recipe that's been
>given, leave out the yeast, and use some of the water and flour from
>the recipe to feed a small bit of your starter, say a teaspoon, how
>long all this takes depends on your starter, the temperature and how
>big the bread in recipe is. How you build isn't important as long as
>your starter is a regular starter and not one of those made by other
>numpty authors such as Nancy Silverton. If you know how much water and
>flour is in your starter then you can start from however much starter
>you like or have. Again timing is up to you and your starter so keep
>an eye on it. I regularly bake from just a teaspoon of starter into
>four pounds of dough it takes up to about 24 hours but that can be
>useful, this isn't rocket science so really anything will work within
>reason. Though if you want to make a dough the same as in the recipe
>then following someone's advice about substituting two cups of flour
>for a measure of yeast, whatever that is, a cup? lol, you're in for
>disappointment or two cups of spare dough at the end. lol

Howdy,

Though your "teaspoon" of starter approach will certainly
work, matters are not quite a simple as you suggest.

That is because the proportion of starter to other
ingredients is a significant variable. The results would be
different were you to suggest using an amount of starter
that would provide, say, a third of the flour in the loaf.

Also, what is your beef with Nancy Silverton? The only
difficulty I have seen with her starter generation method is
that of quantity. (She does not discard anything, and, as a
result, ends up with oceans of the stuff.)

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message g.com...
>> Every cookbook that I read and every brand of yeast that I buy 'all'
>> call one 'measure' of yeast either one individual pack of yeast which
>> equals 2 1/4 teaspoons which equals one cake which equals one scant
>> tablespoon.
>
> Nope, cookbooks do not measure yeast in units of 'measure', nor do
> brands of yeast bought by you or anybody else.
>
> Your web photos indicate that you can make bread and take photos,
> which is a wonder considering the fuzziness of your thought and the
> imprecision of your exposition.
>

Well, I tried Google and found the whole world all seems to think one
measure of yeast is 1 packet or one cube or 2 1/4 tsp or 7-8 gm
(depending on brand) or 1/4 oz or 1 scant tbsp.

Wikipedia calls one measure a 'dose' of yeast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker%27s_yeast

They describe it as, Quote: yeast for home use is often packaged in
pre-measured doses, either small squares for compressed yeast or sealed
packets for dry or instant. A single dose (reckoned for the average
bread recipe of between 500g and 1000g of dough) is generally about 2.5
tsp or about 7g. End Quote.

Maybe the whole world is wrong also, but 'my' bread sure turns out nice
using those equivalents with the 2 cups of sponge as one of them
according to 'The Joy of Cooking'....

I think I will use the words 'dose of yeast', sounds better than
'measure of yeast', or would that be too confusing too? Should I always
say "1 packet or one cube or 2 1/4 tsp or 7-8 gm (depending on brand)
or 1/4 oz or 1 scant tbsp equals 2 cups of Sourdough sponge for
leavening power and speed' instead? Kinda long winded.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com

>" I think I will use the words 'dose of yeast', sounds better than
> 'measure of yeast', or would that be too confusing too? Should I always
> say "1 packet or one cube or 2 1/4 tsp or 7-8 gm (depending on brand)
> or 1/4 oz or 1 scant tbsp equals 2 cups of Sourdough sponge for
> leavening power and speed' instead? Kinda long winded."

Touché

"Mike Romain" > wrote in message g.com...
> I think I will use the words 'dose of yeast', sounds better than
> 'measure of yeast', or would that be too confusing too?

To me, maybe. Where I grew up, a "dose" usually referred to
Neisseria gonorrheae. But it could of course refer to a yeast,
like Candida albicans.

> Should I always say "1 packet or one cube or 2 1/4 tsp or
> 7-8 gm (depending on brand) or 1/4 oz or 1 scant tbsp equals
> 2 cups of Sourdough sponge for leavening power and speed'
> instead? Kinda long winded.

I don't think you should always say anything. Or, to put it more
mildly, I think you should say less. Grams and ounces are good
units for quantity of dry or bulk yeast. There is no good way to
know the leavening activity of someone else's sponge, or even your
own unless you have grown quite clever about such things. And
then there is no way to guess if someone, reading your words about
the activity of your sponge, has attained the same degree of clever
as you, assuming you have become clever, which so far, you have
apparently not.

Dick Adams wrote:
> There is no good way to
> know the leavening activity of someone else's sponge, or even your
> own unless you have grown quite clever about such things.

I did actually qualify that in my first answer.

Quote: The rise times will be different than the recipe also, but
letting something 'double' is still double no matter if it takes 1 hour
or 3. End Quote.

The commercial yeast 'doses' also use the same 'time variable' word,
'double'.

Mike

On 29 Feb, 15:04, Kenneth > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:20:53 -0800 (PST), TG


> Howdy,
>
> Though your "teaspoon" of starter approach will certainly
> work,

Yep, and that's all that matters.

> matters are not quite a simple as you suggest.

No shit.


> That is because the proportion of starter to other
> ingredients is a significant variable.

What are you talking about Kenneth, are you seriously going to argue
about unknowns, about hypothetical recipes? Kenneth you must rally
need to feel clever about something. My advice was general as is your
criticism. What ingredients are you talking about? What a load of
hypothetical, meaningless waste of time.
.....
>
> Also, what is your beef with Nancy Silverton?

She's a nut. Not only does she suggest making buckets of starter from
grapes, which is utterly pointless and counter productive if you want
to make a sourdough starter, okay if you're stranded in the middle of
nowhere and you need to make bread and all you have is grapes and
flour, wait, oh yeah, you don't need the grapes. Not only that, she
advocates eating it. You can't seriously tell people to get a big
bucket of rotting flour and grapes and then eat it without some advice
to the nuts daft enough to try.


Jim

On 29 Feb, 16:25, Mike Romain > wrote:


>
> Well, I tried Google and found the whole world all seems to think one
> measure of yeast is 1 packet or one cube or 2 1/4 tsp or 7-8 gm
> (depending on brand) or 1/4 oz or 1 scant tbsp.
>
LOL, Oh Mike, don't ever change. LOL

Jim

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:12:12 -0800 (PST), TG
> wrote:

>On 29 Feb, 15:04, Kenneth > wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:20:53 -0800 (PST), TG
>
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Though your "teaspoon" of starter approach will certainly
>> work,
>
>Yep, and that's all that matters.
>
>> matters are not quite a simple as you suggest.
>
>No shit.
>
>
>> That is because the proportion of starter to other
>> ingredients is a significant variable.
>
>What are you talking about Kenneth, are you seriously going to argue
>about unknowns, about hypothetical recipes? Kenneth you must rally
>need to feel clever about something. My advice was general as is your
>criticism. What ingredients are you talking about? What a load of
>hypothetical, meaningless waste of time.
>....
>>
>> Also, what is your beef with Nancy Silverton?
>
>She's a nut. Not only does she suggest making buckets of starter from
>grapes, which is utterly pointless and counter productive if you want
>to make a sourdough starter, okay if you're stranded in the middle of
>nowhere and you need to make bread and all you have is grapes and
>flour, wait, oh yeah, you don't need the grapes. Not only that, she
>advocates eating it. You can't seriously tell people to get a big
>bucket of rotting flour and grapes and then eat it without some advice
>to the nuts daft enough to try.
>
>
>Jim

Hi Jim,

Her reputation speaks for itself, but I will mention that I
had an occasion to talk with Nancy Silverton a while ago.

She was obviously smart, and very knowledgeable, but more
than that, was extraordinarily generous with her time, and
her efforts to assist me.

Beyond that, I have no idea what set you off, but your
hostility is a far greater burden to you than it is to me.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Mike Romain wrote:
> Dick Adams wrote:
>> There is no good way to know the leavening activity of someone else's
>> sponge, or even your own unless you have grown quite clever about such
>> things.
>
> I did actually qualify that in my first answer.
>
> Quote: The rise times will be different than the recipe also, but
> letting something 'double' is still double no matter if it takes 1 hour
> or 3. End Quote.
>
> The commercial yeast 'doses' also use the same 'time variable' word,
> 'double'.
>
> Mike
As I have a very viable starter going at present, and we had some very
old, outta date by about 10 days,buttermilk, I decided to take some of
that starter and instead of using filtered water with the flour, use
some of that old buttermilk. Well, the resulting mix doubled in about 2
hours, I stirred it down and it bounced right back up again, this time
in less than an hour! Now, as Marie just did an oatmeal bread, and we do
not use more than a loaf a week, I will just have to wait until she does
another loaf to see how that tastes. But it sure did surprise me, and my
starter smells more sour, as well as the buttermilk odor. I will let
everyone know how it pans out...cheers, Doug in BC

"Doug Irv" > wrote in message ...
> I decided to ... instead of using filtered water ... use ....buttermilk.

That is really silly, Doug-Irv. Sourdough starters don't need dairy.
S'matter of fact, dairy makes 'em rotten.

> Now, as Marie just did an oatmeal bread, and we do
> not use more than a loaf a week, I will just have to wait until she does
> another loaf to see how that tastes.

Well, you could feed Marie's oatmeal stuff to the birds, and get
the other urge out of your system before an unhealthy condition
develops.

> But it sure did surprise me, and my starter smells more sour,
> as well as the buttermilk odor.

Active starter is not sour, does not smell sour (unless maybe if
you are doing rye).

Buttermilk could be used as part of the fluid in sourdough, but
I can predict that the use of it in the starter culture will not become
popular. There is a lot of stuff in the Google r.f.s. archive about what
can and can't usefully be done with buttermilk as regards sourdough.

--
Dicky

lol, Oh Kenneth, you really do read my posts. I can assure you I have
no hostility towards you at all. If you mean to Nancy, I've already
explained that and that's as far as my feelings about her go. But if
reputation were a good measure of someones worth then I think there
would be no bad leaders. But anyway, I'm sure she's a lovely lady. I
really have no feelings about her as a person. I simply comment on her
advice as a baker. When I said, 'she's a nut' I was using American
vernacular and so joking.

It seems to me Kenneth that you like to feel someone has been 'set
off'. The amount of time you wrote to me off list bad mouthing a
certain person on the list and advising me not to reply to him speaks
volumes.

Jim

On 1 Mar, 18:45, Kenneth > wrote:...
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Her reputation speaks for itself, ...
> Beyond that, I have no idea what set you off, but your
> hostility is a far greater burden to you than it is to me.
>
> All the best,
> --
> Kenneth
> .

Hi Doug,

there's more to a naturally leavened bread than sour dough. Of course
fermenting milk will leaven dough, it doesn't mean that you've got a
sourdough starter, just a culture that lives on milk. And of course if
you let it ferment for 10 days past it's date it will smell sour. I
make kefir and it produces a lot of acid when you over ferment it, you
can even use it to make bread but it is nothing like that made with a
true sourdough culture.

But any how, none of that really matters if you enjoy eating the
bread, just don't pretend that it's sourdough. If you want milk buy a
cow, don't buy a bull and pretend you get milk.

Jim


On 1 Mar, 21:30, Doug Irv > wrote:
....
>
> As I have a very viable starter going at present, and we had some very
> old, outta date by about 10 days,buttermilk, I... Doug

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Doug Irv" > wrote in message ...
>> I decided to ... instead of using filtered water ... use ...buttermilk.
>
Hey Dicky and Jim...I already had a very viable starter before I did
that. And two days later, and a couple more feedings, I still have. That
was just an experiment to see what would happen, and as I said, the
start doubled in a big hurry. That starter now has been fed three times
with unbleached white flour and filtered water, which is what I usually
do, and is still growing, bubbling away like gangbusters. When I stirred
it this morning the bubbles just became more numerous. Might add that
this starter is now a couple of months old and has been used for several
great sourdoughs, one whole wheat/rye loaf that was exceptional. Gonna
start a sponge this morning.
Cheers, old Doug in BC

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:01:59 -0800 (PST), TG
> wrote:

>lol, Oh Kenneth, you really do read my posts. I can assure you I have
>no hostility towards you at all. If you mean to Nancy, I've already
>explained that and that's as far as my feelings about her go. But if
>reputation were a good measure of someones worth then I think there
>would be no bad leaders. But anyway, I'm sure she's a lovely lady. I
>really have no feelings about her as a person. I simply comment on her
>advice as a baker. When I said, 'she's a nut' I was using American
>vernacular and so joking.
>
>It seems to me Kenneth that you like to feel someone has been 'set
>off'. The amount of time you wrote to me off list bad mouthing a
>certain person on the list and advising me not to reply to him speaks
>volumes.
>
>Jim
>
>On 1 Mar, 18:45, Kenneth > wrote:...
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Her reputation speaks for itself, ...
>> Beyond that, I have no idea what set you off, but your
>> hostility is a far greater burden to you than it is to me.
>>
>> All the best,
>> --
>> Kenneth
>> .

Hi Jim,

Well, as is evident to all, my trust in you was grossly
misplaced...

One can only wonder how you would treat someone's trust were
you to be aware of your hostility,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:22:24 GMT, Doug Irv > wrote:

>Dick Adams wrote:
>> "Doug Irv" > wrote in message ...
>>> I decided to ... instead of using filtered water ... use ...buttermilk.
>>
>Hey Dicky and Jim...I already had a very viable starter before I did
>that. And two days later, and a couple more feedings, I still have. That
>was just an experiment to see what would happen, and as I said, the
>
great sourdoughs, one whole wheat/rye loaf that was exceptional. Gonna
>start a sponge this morning.
>Cheers, old Doug in BC

All that really matters, "Old Doug" is that you are enjoying the
experimenting. And this one cost nothing more than a bit of
buttermilk past its pull date. I'd call that cheap fun.

I hope you'll post the final results of this morning's sponge.

Burney, down south in WA




Burney dot Huff at Mindspring dot com

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:23:20 -0800, BH >
wrote:

>
>All that really matters, "Old Doug" is that you are enjoying the
>experimenting. And this one cost nothing more than a bit of
>buttermilk past its pull date. I'd call that cheap fun.
>
>I hope you'll post the final results of this morning's sponge.
>
>Burney, down south in WA
>
>
Hi Burney,

I agree completely. Far too often, it seems that folks want
to advocate some sort of baking orthodoxy.

Your comment about "cheap fun" seems exactly right to me.

I would also suggest to Doug (if you are not already in the
habit) that it is a good idea to jot down what you did.

More times than I care to describe, I have slapped something
together (because of having some extra starter, running out
of a particular ingredient, or having an unanticipated
appointment interfering with my intended baking schedule
etc.) and had thought that I could remember just what I did
should the results prove to be of interest when they came
out of the oven.

When the result is a mess, I suppose I am happy to forget my
method, but when something of value comes from such
experiments I want to be able to duplicate it. (I also
realize that such records would probably be of value in
avoiding a duplicate mess.)

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On 3 Mar, 17:22, Doug Irv > wrote:
> Dick Adams wrote:
> > "Doug Irv" > wrote in ...
> >> I decided to ... instead of using filtered water ... use ...buttermilk.
>
> Hey Dicky and Jim...I already had a very viable starter before I did
> that. And two days later, and a couple more feedings, I still have. That
> was just an experiment to see what would happen, and as I said, the
> start doubled in a big hurry. That starter now has been fed three times
> with unbleached white flour and filtered water, which is what I usually
> do, and is still growing, bubbling away like gangbusters. When I stirred
> it this morning the bubbles just became more numerous. Might add that
> this starter is now a couple of months old and has been used for several
> great sourdoughs, one whole wheat/rye loaf that was exceptional. Gonna
> start a sponge this morning.
> Cheers, old Doug in BC

Hi Doug,

I'm sure it does work, fermenting liquids do just that, the resulting
gas leavens the dough. An Indian lady I used to work with used
lemonade to make naan. I've used kefir quite a few times to make
bread but the starter won't hold up to big feeds, I suppose if you
keep feeding little feeds like most people seem to do for a long time
it gets taken over by flour flora. I don't know. But it isn't
sourdough until it has been taken over. I only commented because I got
the impression you were suggesting it was.

Thanks

Jim

Kenneth, what are you talking about? What trust are you talking about,
how have you had to depend on me for anything? I respond to what's
written, I have no feelings towards you because I don't know you, you
could for all I know be Dicky's alter ego. That would be funny. lol.

As for hostility, please, good grief man, don't be such a drama queen.
It's a news group not the vickers tea party. Don't take things so
bloody seriously.

Jim

On 3 Mar, 19:51, Kenneth > ...
> Hi Jim,
>
> Well, as is evident to all, my trust in you was grossly
> misplaced...
>
> One can only wonder how you would treat someone's trust were
> you to be aware of your hostility,
> --
> Kenneth
>

Kenneth and Burney I think you forget this is a news group where
people are free to discuss their ideas. If you aren't willing to hear
what other people think about those ideas you probably shouldn't post.
Oh wait, it wasn't your ideas we were talking about was it? No, so
stop trying to be a mother hen. I am quite sure Dicky like me is quite
happy for Doug or anyone else to have fun making mud pies in their
kitchen if that's what they want. But if they try to tell people that
it's sourdough I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to step
in and say 'hang on a minute...'

Or would you prefer this group to descend into anarchy where all
meaning in words has been so greyed out that nothing makes sense
anymore. It would end up being a load of old dears dribbling into
their knitting.

That may be your ambition Kenneth and Burney but not mine thanks very
much. (By the way as Dicky always says, there's always Yahoo's group
Sourdough if that is what you want.)

Jim


On 3 Mar, 22:36, Kenneth > wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:23:20 -0800, BH >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >All that really matters, "Old Doug" is that you are enjoying the
> >experimenting. *And this one cost nothing more than a bit of
> >buttermilk past its pull date. *I'd call that cheap fun.
>
> >I hope you'll post the final results of this morning's sponge.
>
> >Burney, down south in WA
>
> Hi Burney,
>
> I agree completely. Far too often, it seems that folks want
> to advocate some sort of baking orthodoxy.
>
> Your comment about "cheap fun" seems exactly right to me.
....
>
> All the best,
> --
> Kenneth
>

If you email... Please remove the "SENSELESS."

Oh, are you talking about when you wrote to me off list slagging off
another member of this NG that I'd keep that to my self? Well, yes, I
did keep that to myself for years but I thought it was time to point
out your hypocrisy.

Perhaps this 'hostility' that you're talking about stems from the
frustration that I feel when I see things aren't the way that they
should be. Just the same emotion that you too are feeling when you
think that I am not reacting the way that you would like. You choose
to try to get your way by trying to make yourself look ritchous by
accusing me of being 'hostile'. I pointed out that you aren't as nice
as you make out. Right or wrong I am honest about what I think. I make
mistakes. So what? I'm human and I'm learning. I try to be a better
person from the inside out rather than white washing over the cracks.

Don't be a hypocrite Kenneth. We all have emotions. Don't pretend you
don't then get personal. I probably shouldn't have said you slagged
off somebody else in a private email but it might make you think twice
about trying to take the moral high ground in future.

Jim


On 4 Mar, 11:43, TG > wrote:
> Kenneth, what are you talking about? What trust are you talking about,
> how have you had to depend on me for anything?...>
> Jim
>
> On 3 Mar, 19:51, Kenneth ...
>
>
>
> > Hi Jim,
>
> > Well, as is evident to all, my trust in you was grossly
> > misplaced...
>
> > One can only wonder how you would treat someone's trust were
> > you to be aware of your hostility,
> > --
> > Kenneth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 4, 5:43 am, TG > wrote:

> I have no feelings towards you because I don't know you...

Well Jim... I suppose I could say I don't know Kenneth either. I've
never seen him, or heard him speak...but I've been reading his posts
for several years and even replied to a few. He's one of the more
knowledgeable contributors to this community. If RFS ever had a
convention, Kenneth is one of the folks I'd want to meet.

Why don't you lighten up... Kenneth's original point about inoculation
was correct and it was polite. That bears repeating... it was correct
and it was POLITE.

Will

Hello Will, you jumping in to take sides now. This is not a
personality contest, it's not Big Brother, I'm sure Kenneth is lovely,
I replied to him in that way because I thought his criticisms were
pointless and meaningless, I thought he was just trying to make out I
was wrong without being able to back it up with anything and concluded
perhaps wrongly or rightly that he was saying more about something
else than bread.

He then got a bit personal by saying " Beyond that, I have no idea
what set you off, but your hostility is a far greater burden to you
than it is to me"

I don't think that's very polite.

Anyway, perhaps it's best left as it is rather than getting one of
those pointless 'he's a nice guy, she's a nice lady' threads going,
because nobody bothers to read what's written past the first comment
resulting in no balance. The whole things becomes just a mess. Kenneth
has also been great and inspired me with one or two things and I've
said so on many occasions. On this occasion he's acting like a prig.
No one's perfect though Will.

Jim


On 4 Mar, 14:40, Will > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:43 am, TG > wrote:
>
> > *I have no feelings towards you because I don't know you...
>
> Well Jim... I suppose I could say I don't know Kenneth either. I've
> never seen him, or heard him speak...but I've been reading his posts
> for several years and even replied to a few. He's one of the more
> knowledgeable contributors to this community. If RFS ever had a
> convention, Kenneth is one of the folks I'd want to meet.
>
> Why don't you lighten up... Kenneth's original point about inoculation
> was correct and it was polite. That bears repeating... it was correct
> and it was POLITE.
>
> Will

"Will" > wrote in message ...

> Kenneth's original point about inoculation was correct and it
> was polite. That bears repeating... it was correct and it was
> POLITE.

Kenneth is always polite.

How I hate him!

--
Dicky

Jim, my only point was that Doug should continue to have fun with his
baking - in whatever form he chooses. I'll continue to think that way
and say it whenever / wherever I choose. And, be assured I will not
be provoked to engage in a spitting contest with you.

Burney


>That may be your ambition Kenneth and Burney but not mine thanks very
>much. (By the way as Dicky always says, there's always Yahoo's group
>Sourdough if that is what you want.)
>
>Jim
>

>If you email... Please remove the "SENSELESS."




Burney dot Huff at Mindspring dot com

On Mar 4, 9:10 am, TG > wrote:

> Hello Will, you jumping in to take sides now.

Yes I am.

What Kenneth said to you was...

"... the proportion of starter to other ingredients is a significant
variable..."

If you disagree, speak up, tell us why. Changing the subject to
Kenneth's virtues, or lack of them, is trolling.

Will

TG wrote:
> Hello Will, you jumping in to take sides now.

Isn't that what you wanted, when you took this thread offtrack?

B/

On 4 Mar, 16:20, Will > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:10 am, TG > wrote:
>
> > Hello Will, you jumping in to take sides now.
>
> Yes I am.
>
> What Kenneth said to you was...
>
> "... the proportion of starter to other ingredients is a significant
> variable..."
>
> If you disagree, speak up, tell us why. Changing the subject to
> Kenneth's virtues, or lack of them, is trolling.
>
> Will

Hi Will, you should read back through, it was Kenneth who got
personal, I did ask him what he meant but he didn't want to talk about
it only to say how burdened I was. Now please don't accuse me of being
a troll that is also getting personal and by your definition trolling.
Don't you start being a hypocrite now Will.

Jim

Jim

On 4 Mar, 17:18, Brian Mailman > wrote:
> TG wrote:
> > Hello Will, you jumping in to take sides now.
>
> Isn't that what you wanted, when you took this thread offtrack?
>
> B/


No Brian, unless you are claiming to be a mind reader you don't know
what my intention was, you clearly are not a mind reader because that
was not my intention. I already quoted today the bit where Kenneth
steps over the line as far as I was concerned. I have no intention of
debating what was said by who and so on anymore on this. I am not in
the business of winning any votes as I implied already today. This is
a NG for discussing sourdough not the school election for class
president. People will make up their own mind about this and I have no
intention of debating childish title tattle anymore on this subject.
Kenneth is old enough to answer to this himself. I asked him to
comment on the subject but he refused instead making a personal dig at
me. That is the end of it.

Jim

Jim

Burney,

you should have quoted the relevent section of what I said.

> I am quite sure Dicky *like me* is quite
> happy for Doug or anyone else to have fun making mud pies in their
> kitchen if that's what they want. ...
>


It would have made you reply redundant.

Jim

On 4 Mar, 16:05, BH > wrote:
> Jim, my only point was that Doug should continue to have fun with his
> baking - in whatever form he chooses. *I'll continue to think that way
> and say it whenever / wherever I choose.

Good and I would defend you to do so.

> *And, be assured I will not
> be provoked to engage in a spitting contest with you.
>
> Burney

Good, because I have no intention of getting personal. But like you in
the NG about sourdough will continue to speak my mind about it and
won't be bullied into silence by any mob or gang who would want to
twist my words.

Jim

Doug Irv wrote:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Dick Adams wrote:
>>> There is no good way to know the leavening activity of someone else's
>>> sponge, or even your own unless you have grown quite clever about
>>> such things.
>>
>> I did actually qualify that in my first answer.
>>
>> Quote: The rise times will be different than the recipe also, but
>> letting something 'double' is still double no matter if it takes 1
>> hour or 3. End Quote.
>>
>> The commercial yeast 'doses' also use the same 'time variable' word,
>> 'double'.
>>
>> Mike
> As I have a very viable starter going at present, and we had some very
> old, outta date by about 10 days,buttermilk, I decided to take some of
> that starter and instead of using filtered water with the flour, use
> some of that old buttermilk. Well, the resulting mix doubled in about 2
> hours, I stirred it down and it bounced right back up again, this time
> in less than an hour! Now, as Marie just did an oatmeal bread, and we do
> not use more than a loaf a week, I will just have to wait until she does
> another loaf to see how that tastes. But it sure did surprise me, and my
> starter smells more sour, as well as the buttermilk odor. I will let
> everyone know how it pans out...cheers, Doug in BC

I don't continue my milk cultures for more than one baking, but I also
use milk and buttermilk in lots of my bread recipes, both using
commercial yeast and sourdough starter. My normal SD loaf uses half
milk and half water if I want a light soft crumb loaf vs an artesian
loaf. The recipes sure don't worry about the milk going bad in an
overnight ferment, that's for sure.

I wonder if the sourdough critters are strong enough to keep the milk
base products from going bad by not allowing 'bad' critters to grow, it
would make sense.

Mike
Some bread photos: http://www.mikeromain.shutterfly.com

TG wrote:
> On 4 Mar, 17:18, Brian Mailman > wrote:
>> TG wrote:
>>> Hello Will, you jumping in to take sides now.
>>
>> Isn't that what you wanted, when you took this thread offtrack?
>
> No Brian, unless you are claiming to be a mind reader you don't know
> what my intention was, you clearly are not a mind reader because that
> was not my intention.

That's why I asked the question.

> I already quoted today the bit where Kenneth steps over the line as
> far as I was concerned.

My opinion of Kenneth has not changed one iota.

B/

Brian, again it looks like you think you know what my intention was.
Otherwise why tell me that? My intention was not to discredit Kenneth,
I have already said a number of times that this is not some high
school class president election campaign. I have already stated my
intention for saying what I did. You and your opinion was not part of
my thoughts nor anyone else's reading this. It was merely to make
Kenneth realise what he was doing. He always tries to make people
think he's so polite well when you insult someone in that manner it
leads one to conclude that the politeness is all a big sham. For the
majority of people what you say doesn't mean anything it's how you say
it that people walk away with. Even in text. People imagine your tone
of voice and are enchanted by it. What you then say is irrelevant.
Take for example when I said I was perfectly happy for Doug to have
played around with starters of different kinds. Because I didn't wrap
it all up with niceness some people thought I was saying the exact
opposite. I don't play to those who are living a dream, Brian. I am
not interested in charming people. Sometimes my motivation for saying
something is to wake the other person up, however, most people rarely
like being woken up from their dream even when it's a bad one but it
is worth it for the one or two that do.

Jim


On 5 Mar, 02:21, Brian Mailman > wrote:
......
> My opinion of Kenneth has not changed one iota.
>
> B/