On Sun, 2 May 2010 10:46:20 +0200, Giusi wrote:

> "blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> George wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2010 9:12 AM, piedmont wrote:
>>>> I have a pet peeve about recipes,
>>>> 01. Ingredients that aren't commonly known and
>>>> 02. ingredients that are local commercial brands that are more than a>>>
>>>> single spice or herb and an
>>>> 03. ingredient without quantity or to taste .
>>>> If one posts a recipe they should
>>>> help by clarifying these short comings in notes at the start.
>
>>> I view recipes as a very loose framework and most dishes I prepare are >>
>>> to taste. That certainly isn't a shortcoming. You may like more or less
>>> >> garlic than me for example. Few recipes are proportion critical
>>> which>> means there is a lot of latitude to adjust per your preference.
>>
>> all of us are not a comfortable with improvisation as you appear to be,
>> at> least the first time through.
>>
>> readers of any kind of instructions you write are likely to be in trouble>
>> from time to time. be kind to them and be as explicit as possible.
>
> People who really don't know about cooking probably should look things up as
> they run into them and ask intelligent questions when Googling doesn't
> explain it. This is a cooking group and presupposes that one understands
> cooking. If I went to a nuclear power plant building group I'd keep my
> browser open to a search page, at least for a while. It happens that I do
> know quite a lot about what people do not know about cookery, but I also
> don't want to bore everyone to tears explaining what finely minced means
> versus chopped or diced. If someone needed to ask, I'd answer... wouldn't
> you?

sure, of course. but what about all the poor shlubs reading r.f.c. from an
aggregation site? they're up doo-doo creek.

your pal,
blake