Dick Adams wrote:
> "TG"wrote in:
> > Are you talking about (futz around) where you store and how you store
> > the starter?
>
> Thinner, thicker; warmer, cooler; longer, shorter; English, not-English,
> glass, ceramic; capped, not capped, stirred, shook, sat, etc.
> >
> --
> Dicky

Okay Dicky,

I think we talking at odds here, I think we agree but getting the wrong
end of the stick.

You're not saying that you can take an old unfed starter out of the
fridge and make great bread with it are you?

Because that would be the same kind of thinking that says an English
starter is better than an American.

If the qualities of the bread are inherent to the starter then it
doesn't matter what you do to it, it will always be good. If the
qualities are not inherent, and nothing can have inherent qualities,
then it does matter what you do to it. Which bits matter most or not at
all is the only thing worth considering. I know from your methods in
your instructions doc that you think what you do to the starter as far
as feeding goes matters. Otherwise why would you suggest a feeding
regime.

My experience tells me that feeding matters. I agree with you that
folks going on about their crock, and their 'active' starter they just
got in the post is annoying. Because it is the kind of thinking that
posits inherent qualities on some or all parts of the starter process.
It's just ignorance. But you can't chuck the whole thing out and say
nothing matters at all, that's just the other side of exactly the same
coin.

Jim