notbob wrote:
> On 2010-12-27, cshenk > wrote:
>
>>"Brooklyn1" wrote
>>
>>
>>>They obviously contained some meat, the previous bones were probably
>>>stripped down to nothing but bone. You cannot make stock from bare
>>>bones (actually just wasting your time, effort, and added
>>>ingredients), they need to be meaty bones.
>>
>>I really wish you'd stop being a freaking idiot with the new cooks.
>>
>>Either you genuinely havent a clue how to make a good stock, or you are
>>lying to the new guy. Which is it?
>
>
> Sorry, but he's dead on the money! Bones, alone, do not a stock, make.
>
>
>>Your recipe below is not for a real true soup base. You are drinking boiled
>>cheap beef water.
>
>
> A) What recipe below?
> B) If there is no beef flesh, there is no beef stock.
> C) Water, of any sort, stopped being cheap a long time ago.
>
> nb
>
>
>

Bouillon, consommé, soup, vegetable, even vegan stock?
And by whose final and absolute authority do we take any definition as
unconditional?

To tell someone they cant make a stock from bones and water is as much
to mislead them as to tell them the opposite.

A bouillon and/or a consommé perhaps might be argued with more fervency
by certain fanatics, but the English language term "stock" covers a
multitude of errors
--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3