On Sep 12, 12:21?pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> Dan Goodman wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote:
>
> >> Dan Goodman wrote:
> >>> I want to boil potatoes in a slow cooker. Googling for recipes
> >>> turns up: 1) Recipes for stuff which can be served with boiled
> >>> potatoes 2) Recipes for dishes which include boiled potatoes -- and
> >>> it seems at least half of them say to boil the potatoes and then
> >>> add them.
>
> >> I've never heard of it but I don't see why it couldn't be done.
> >> Would take a terribly long time, though, even with the slow cooker
> >> set to High. Probably more efficient to just boil them in a pan on
> >> the stove. Definitely faster!
>
> > However, a slow cooker is safer to leave unwatched.
>
> Good point I don't think your original post mentioned you wanted to cook
> them "unattended". In that case, try Julie's suggestion!


That's not true for potatoes no matter how they're cooked, unattended
they're very likely to become mush, actually they'll probably
disintergrate and all you'll end up with is thin library paste. No,
you won't burn your house down so it will be safe, but all you'll
accomplish is having a bigger clean up, a waste of electricity, and
need to eat at the fast food dive down the road.