hob wrote:

> I think you don't very much like to get caught being wrong, again.

I think I haven't been caught being wrong at all in this discussion. Or
are we still dealing with that last go round we had when you played the
fool nearly as elaborately as this time?

> Let's stick to the basics and to the facts germane to the discussion and
> refrain from left field factoids about refrigerators and the absolute size
> of the suspensoid.

I started this with the intent to actually answer the things you raise -
and see if I could actually get you to understand that we were talking
about *freezers* not refrigerators. And the actual nature of the
dispersed fat globules in homogenized milk. But your inability to recall
the subject and your elaborate insistence on not comprehending the
empirical information about milk points to an exercise in futility.

So the more I read, the more obvious became your ****witted bullshit,
confused about what was written by whom, so far from correct in your
corrections, and so dismally ignorant of the chemical and physical
character of milk that I'm going to forgo the delight. Snide absurdities
compounded by misunderstandings and what appears to be deliberate
obtuseness to set up merely nasty comment for the sheer sake of nasty
comment. What high aspirations you show.

When I read your characterization of Harold McGee, I knew you were
merely another blowhard who knows more than anybody else. You,
unfortunately, haven't gotten any brighter since last we met. Nor more
convincing.

>>I suggest reading "On Food and Cooking" revised 2004 for a much longer
>>and scientifically clear discussion of milk and everything about it.
>>Harold McGee is one of my heroes. Good science and good writing.
>>
> He's a hack who I have read, and who needs some peer review of his hackneyed
> pop theories - as I noted in earlier posts.

Right. Every responsible food scientist says he's good, thorough and
authoritative but you know better. He gets wonderful reviews for his old
and revised versions of his book from Scientific American but you know
better. He's recognized by science groups inside and outside the worlds
of culinaria as accurate and complete, but you know better. His new book
has been unanimously lauded in both the popular and technical press, but
you know better.

Fifteen page bibliography, has Dr. McGee in the book cited. You talk
about "his hackneyed pop theories..." as though he invents rather than
researches and reports. You obstreperous buffoon.

Good job. Wherever did you get those charming floppy shoes and that
dear, dear red wig?

No, seriously...

Pastorio