"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I wouldn't recommend any of those... those Wolf and Viking units are
> commercial STYLE, which means they only LOOK like a commercial range
> but perform more like a LOW-END residential unit. Garland is a true
> commercial product but why does anyone need to rehab their kitchen to
> accomodate infernal temps when they essentially do only family coozine,
> probably only occasionally, when they ain't doing take-out. Some
> people... such egotistical self-absorbed phonys, makes ya wanna puke.

You are in the right of it, of course. But surely it is a matter of
individual choce and financial ability. As in the matter of cookware, if a
person can afford the expensive suff why not enjoy it. Sure, Farberware
Classic is the best cookware available in the low to low-upper price
cookware. Still, I enjoy the few pieces of All-Clad stainless steel cookware
that I have and think it very much superior to any other cookware I have
used (leaving enameled iron out of the equasion). The same thing with
cookers. If I could afford a Garland I would be thrilled to have it. Not
only because it is the best cooker available, but because of the pleasure it
would bring to me to have something that works so well. This does not
include Wolf and Viking which ARE as you describe. There are many ways to
waste money. Many of them are much more reprehensible than spending funds on
the finest cooking equipment available. Of course, I am a foodie a decent
cook, so I am not necessarily one of the people you are talking about. I
agree with you that people who outfit a kitchen with the most expensive
appliances yet who have no idea of how to make use of it, are "egotistical
self-absorbed phoneys".

In conclusion, I agree with your post my friend. I do see some shades of
gray in there though. Nonetheless, Viking and Wolf are a waste of money in
the same manner that spending funds on Calphalon or even Revere Ware Copper
Bottom cookware is.

Charlie