"Fred" > wrote in message
et...
:
: "Don B" > wrote in message
: om...
: > Hi, is anyone familiar with KitchenCraft cookware? My wife
has put
: > down a deposit to buy a set of this cookware that she saw
demonstrated
: > at our local fair. It comes with a lifetime warranty but does
it cook
: > any better than anything else? Is it worth the cost for what
you get?
: >
<snip>

: > Don
:
: Don the problem isn't the product. It is method of sale and
distribution.
: I have no experience with the cookware personally but I can
tell you that
: the method of distribution and sale is very expensive so you
will always pay
: more than you would pay for a similar product sold in a more
efficient
: manner.
:

<snip>

: Fred
:=========

Why THANK YOU Fred!! That is the EXACT point I was talking about
last week... the product is great but due to the sales
distribution the prices can be outrageous. Of course, that is
why I had originally recommended to a different poster (over on
r.f.c. and I think I said it to Don, as well...) that there are
several sellers at E-Bay that sell Waterless VERY affordably.
The reason being they don't do the demos and aren't trying to
sell 1 set of pots and pans while collecting commissions for 5 +
people!

<snipping what I just wrote to keep my blood pressure under
control>

Cyndi

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:5xZdb.629784$YN5.453312@sccrnsc01...
> "Fred" > wrote in message
> et...
> :
> : "Don B" > wrote in message
> : om...
> : > Hi, is anyone familiar with KitchenCraft cookware? My wife
> has put
> : > down a deposit to buy a set of this cookware that she saw
> demonstrated
> : > at our local fair. It comes with a lifetime warranty but does
> it cook
> : > any better than anything else? Is it worth the cost for what
> you get?
> : >
> <snip>
>
> : > Don
> :
> : Don the problem isn't the product. It is method of sale and
> distribution.
> : I have no experience with the cookware personally but I can
> tell you that
> : the method of distribution and sale is very expensive so you
> will always pay
> : more than you would pay for a similar product sold in a more
> efficient
> : manner.
> :
>
> <snip>
>
> : Fred
> :=========
>
> Why THANK YOU Fred!! That is the EXACT point I was talking about
> last week... the product is great but due to the sales
> distribution the prices can be outrageous. Of course, that is
> why I had originally recommended to a different poster (over on
> r.f.c. and I think I said it to Don, as well...) that there are
> several sellers at E-Bay that sell Waterless VERY affordably.
> The reason being they don't do the demos and aren't trying to
> sell 1 set of pots and pans while collecting commissions for 5 +
> people!
>

The price is only one issue here. I have looked at a number of sites of
manufacturers of this stuff. It is basically multi-ply cookware like
All-Clad. There is nothing that I can see that would make it any more
waterless or oil-less than other SS cookware. In fact, nearly every person
who complains about it says that food sticks to it. That would be
consistent with trying to cook in a SS pan without any oil or water. The
way that the pans are sold is not only expensive but it relies on making
false and deceptive claims to coerce people into buying the stuff and
justify the exorbitant price. I disagree that the product isn't part of
the problem. Apparently it doesn't perform as advertised. It may be as
good as cookware that costs less and doesn't claim that it saves energy,
improves your heath, cleans better than other cookware, and can be use
without water or oil. The problem is that it is faulty with respect to the
claims made about its features and benefits. That is costs a small fortune
due to the method of distribution only adds insult to injury.

"Vox Humana"

<snip>
:
: The price is only one issue here. I have looked at a number of
sites of
: manufacturers of this stuff. It is basically multi-ply
cookware like
: All-Clad. There is nothing that I can see that would make it
any more
: waterless or oil-less than other SS cookware. In fact, nearly
every person
: who complains about it says that food sticks to it. That would
be
: consistent with trying to cook in a SS pan without any oil or
water. The
: way that the pans are sold is not only expensive but it relies
on making
: false and deceptive claims to coerce people into buying the
stuff and
: justify the exorbitant price. I disagree that the product
isn't part of
: the problem. Apparently it doesn't perform as advertised. It
may be as
: good as cookware that costs less and doesn't claim that it
saves energy,
: improves your heath, cleans better than other cookware, and can
be use
: without water or oil. The problem is that it is faulty with
respect to the
: claims made about its features and benefits. That is costs a
small fortune
: due to the method of distribution only adds insult to injury.
:
===========

So "who" is complaining about Waterless cookware sticking? I
have it and have NEVER had a problem with sticking... and as I
have REPEATEDLY stated, I did NOT pay a fortune for it because I
bought mine from a non-demo source. I have yet to see any faulty
claims...

I have it, I use it, and KNOW first-hand how the cookware
performs... perfectly!

What I really dislike about these Waterless threads is all of
the negative statements from people that have never even cooked
with the cookware. If you don't know FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE -
then friggin' say so and quit talking out your asses! I am sick
and tired of people using superior tones about shit they don't
know a damn thing about! If you DON'T KNOW then don't try to
pass it off as though you do.

Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:gD%db.630388$YN5.454266@sccrnsc01...
> "Vox Humana"
> ===========
>
> So "who" is complaining about Waterless cookware sticking?

I posted some messages where people complained about the sticking problem.
If there was something different about the cookware I might be able to give
it the benefit of the doubt. I did look at at least three website that
discussed the construction of the pans. They all were SS with anywhere from
two to five sheets of metal bonded between the inner and outer SS layers. I
don't see how that would make them any more or less waterless, oilless,
easier to clean, or less sticky than other similarly constructed cookware.
If you know please tell me. I also gave examples of how people were given
high pressure sales pitches and when they weren't satisfied the company was
unwilling to take the merchandise back. At least two of the messages that I
posted said that the handles on their cookware were always loose. One
message related how the sales pitch cited false and misleading information
about other cookware to position the waterless cookware in a better light.

You can find lots of opinions about this stuff online. Even the lower
priced ($699.00!!!!) set of Neova cookware got a bad review at Epinons --
Too expensive for the quality was the conclusion. The stuff had phenolic
handles. You can't put that under the broiler or in a very hot oven. Sure,
some people liked it. There is a tendency for people to like things once
they have plunked down $700 for some off-brand pots. No one wants to admit
to being taken. Furthermore, many people just don't do their research and
don't know that they could achieve the same thing in a far less expensive
set of cookware.
------------
From Epinions.com

I decided to give this cookware a trial period .
I followed all the directions and cleaned and seasoned the pots according to
the directions.
It was too hard for our family anyways to get used to.
The manufactuer recommends that you cook only on low setting . My husband
did not have the patience I wasn't any better cooking took forever.
Simple things that took me usually 20 minutes to cook were now taking
between 2 and 3 hours.To us it wasn't worth it we don't have that kind of
time.

I did not notice a big diffrence in the taste of the food either in terms of
flavor in their brochure they state that things are more flaverful and
healthy.
It was a nice sized set though everything that you could possibly need and
more.
On a postive note I did notice that when food was burned in the pots they
did clean up nice and looked as good as new.
But for the price I was disappointed I expected alot more than I recived.One
of the plastic circles on the lids broke immed after being accidently
dropped on a vinyl floor so I expected better quality for the price.

Cooking became a chore after using these pots and pans so I sent them back
they were too pricey for us anyways so that made me feel better.
I was out of the shipping and handling though after the trial period, but it
was nice to experience the product and than have the option of returning the
product if you were not satisfied how many companys offer a trial like
that.Few if any.If your curious I suggest you try the set worst case you can
return it mabey you will have a better experience than me.


The set was avaliable in one full payment or in installments with the
installments there is a $15.00 non returnable service fee they state s/h is
free to deliver and they throw in a cook book but we all know better than
that don't we.
I guess I should mention that I cooked on a electric smooth top stove.


Recommended
No

Amount Paid (US$): 699.00

"Vox Humana" & Cyndi" chatted about Waterless

<snip>

Well... I have the distinct advantage of being a former salesman
of Waterless cookware back in the 80s - but it was for a short
time because I didn't like the way the way they were priced and I
wasn't going to try to force somebody to pay for something that
even I couldn't afford. I was one of those few, hard to find
salesman that refused to do those hard sales...! I treated
everyone the way I would want to be treated. Period! By the
same time, I vowed that if I ever could get the cookware at a
decent price I would do it - in a heartbeat!

Many years later, I found that there were/are several sellers on
E-Bay that sell it for only $200.00 I got them and I love them.
I've never had any problems with mine and every set that I've
seen (by various companies) have great warrantees (sp?)... any of
those people that complained about loose handles (or anything
else) should have contacted either their sales rep or the
specific company and I'm willing to bet those pieces would have
been replaced.

Waterless cookware is similar to anything else you want to buy,
in the sense that you have to shop around. You can buy a
spoonrest at some fancy-schmancy store for $ 20.00 and you can
buy one that probably looks the same at Wal-Mart for $3.00 . The
name on the underside will be different but the construction and
quality are most likely similar. My $200. set of cookware looks
pretty close to the same thing I sold in the 80s which had a
price of... IIRC $ 1147.00 !! ... the steam release valve and
the brand name are different but it performs exactly the same.
The big difference was back then, I went into somebody's home and
showed the cookware. If they bought it 5 people in the office
made a commission... the set I bought @ E-bay paid the one person
I bought it from (and technically, the manufacturer she got it
from). With "KitchenCraft" you're paying for the guy to get a
booth (or amphitheatre) at an event and paying for his commission
and several of the people above him, at his home office... The
price bites because you're not "just" paying for the cookware.

--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in news:c51eb.372991
:

>
> "Vox Humana" & Cyndi" chatted about Waterless
>
> <snip>
>
> Well... I have the distinct advantage of being a former salesman
> of Waterless cookware back in the 80s - but it was for a short
> time because I didn't like the way the way they were priced and I
> wasn't going to try to force somebody to pay for something that
> even I couldn't afford. I was one of those few, hard to find
> salesman that refused to do those hard sales...! I treated
> everyone the way I would want to be treated. Period! By the
> same time, I vowed that if I ever could get the cookware at a
> decent price I would do it - in a heartbeat!
>
> Many years later, I found that there were/are several sellers on
> E-Bay that sell it for only $200.00 I got them and I love them.
> I've never had any problems with mine and every set that I've
> seen (by various companies) have great warrantees (sp?)... any of
> those people that complained about loose handles (or anything
> else) should have contacted either their sales rep or the
> specific company and I'm willing to bet those pieces would have
> been replaced.
>
> Waterless cookware is similar to anything else you want to buy,
> in the sense that you have to shop around. You can buy a
> spoonrest at some fancy-schmancy store for $ 20.00 and you can
> buy one that probably looks the same at Wal-Mart for $3.00 . The
> name on the underside will be different but the construction and
> quality are most likely similar. My $200. set of cookware looks
> pretty close to the same thing I sold in the 80s which had a
> price of... IIRC $ 1147.00 !! ... the steam release valve and
> the brand name are different but it performs exactly the same.
> The big difference was back then, I went into somebody's home and
> showed the cookware. If they bought it 5 people in the office
> made a commission... the set I bought @ E-bay paid the one person
> I bought it from (and technically, the manufacturer she got it
> from). With "KitchenCraft" you're paying for the guy to get a
> booth (or amphitheatre) at an event and paying for his commission
> and several of the people above him, at his home office... The
> price bites because you're not "just" paying for the cookware.
>

Cyndi,

In support of Vox, I have two bones to pick with what you are saying.

1. The construction and physical characteristics of waterless cookware.

You have never explained why this cookware you used to sell (or the
current versions) are in any way better than any of the many brands of
good-quality cookware that have stainless steel cooking surfaces, bottoms
that are sufficiently thick (according to the material used) to heat
evenly, and tight lids. How is "waterless" cookware different and
better? Don't repeat yourself about vitamins and taste (results), tell
us how the construction is different/better than other good-quality
cookware.

2. Cooking techniques that retain flavor and vitamins.

You have never explained why nuking in the microwave is not equivalent to
"waterless" cooking. Come on, say why using the same amount of water in
a covered vessel, heated to the same extent, to cook the same amount of
vegetables would give different results depending on whether a) the heat
source that turns the water to steam was a burner and the surface on
which the vegetables rest is stainless steel or b) the heat source that
turns the water to steam is microwaves and the surface on which the
vegetables rest is glass or ceramic or plastic. Are you saying that
steam created by conducted heat is different from steam created by
directly exciting the water molecules? Are you saying that the
difference affects the retention of vitamins? (Remember that microwaves
work because their frequency matches up with water molecules.) Are you
saying that stainless steel, which is supposed to not react with food,
gives different flavor results than glass or ceramic, which also are not
supposed to react with food?

Along these lines it is not at all clear to me that you loose less
vitamins by cooking that the boiling point than you do at, say, normal
oven temperatures. Can you cite any scientific analysis to back up the
claim about retaining more vitamins because the vegetables are being
steamed instead of sauteed, roasted, or grilled?

The last observation that I will make in support of Vox's comments has to
do with claims. You constantly compare "waterless" cooking with some
worst case - the sort of case that one hopes and expects is really rare.
Sales people are (sometimes) trained to do that. But one hopes that few
people cook their veggies with 1/2 stick of butter or drown them in water
before boiling them to death, and very, very, few people do not have a
microwave. No doubt there are a few bad examples like that out there,
but the arguments that you are making are most effective with the most
gullible audience that doesn't know much about cooking techniques and is
willing to accept assertions such as yours without any experience that
tells them otherwise. Combine that with your refusal to admit that other
cooking methods might give similar results without requiring special
"waterless" cookware, and I think that Vox has plenty of good reason to
say what she has.

Debbie

P.S.If you really want to get good flavor, you are best off using at
least a little fat. Not oceans, but at least a small amount, depending
on the cooking method. Some chemicals that give flavor dissolve in
oil/fat and not in water. This will carry the flavors of herbs and
spices and help spread it through the dish. Further, if you want nice,
intense flavors, try roasting or grilling your veggies. That takes
waterless cooking one step further; instead of losing flavor to water
that is poured down the drain, you are actually removing water from the
food and intensifying its flavor.

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a
throw-away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if
and when it is found by spammers.

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
. net...

> Well... I have the distinct advantage of being a former salesman
> of Waterless cookware back in the 80s - but it was for a short
> time because I didn't like the way the way they were priced and I
> wasn't going to try to force somebody to pay for something that
> even I couldn't afford.

You keep missing the point. If this stuff was so great why wouldn't a
reputable company manufacture and sell in in a more conventional manner?
Why, until the advent of ebay, could this cookware only be sold through a
demo/hardsell approach? If it can't stand up to the regular rigors of the
marketplace then how good can it be? If junk like Calphalon can be sold
conventionally but this stuff can't, well . . .

And for the record, just a few months ago I was at my county fair and sat
through the demo and tasted the food. There was nothing wrong with the food
but it was nothing so special about it to change how I cook.

Rich

"Debbie Deutsch" <
<snip>.

Debbie, you apparently must have missed my posting where I
explained that I no longer kept my "papers" on all of the
wonderful attributes that Waterless cookware has; therefore, if
you REALLY want to know... then either find somebody near you
that ACTUALLY has the cookware (just reading about it on the
Internet is only going to give opinions... and usually they're
only from Type A persons that have that "need" to tell everybody
their opinion - be it good or bad)... or contact one of those
Home-demo sales offices!

I'm done discussing it with you because you fail to understand
what I've already told you and you seem hell-bent on trying to
push your biased opinion on something that you've never actually
used or even seen!!

Buh-bye

"Rich Bednarski" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
: . net...
:
: > Well... I have the distinct advantage of being a former
salesman
: > of Waterless cookware back in the 80s - but it was for a
short
: > time because I didn't like the way the way they were priced
and I
: > wasn't going to try to force somebody to pay for something
that
: > even I couldn't afford.
:
: You keep missing the point. If this stuff was so great why
wouldn't a
: reputable company manufacture and sell in in a more
conventional manner?
: Why, until the advent of ebay, could this cookware only be sold
through a
: demo/hardsell approach? If it can't stand up to the regular
rigors of the
: marketplace then how good can it be? If junk like Calphalon
can be sold
: conventionally but this stuff can't, well . . .
:
: And for the record, just a few months ago I was at my county
fair and sat
: through the demo and tasted the food. There was nothing wrong
with the food
: but it was nothing so special about it to change how I cook.
:
: Rich
:
: =======

No Rich, I didn't miss the point... as I have REPEATEDLY said,
there are SELLERS out there that DO NOT use the same marketing.
There are sellers out there that do not have the mark ups - but
they also don't do the demos.

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:Bemeb.641208$Ho3.132394@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Rich Bednarski" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
> : . net...
> :
> : > Well... I have the distinct advantage of being a former
> salesman
> : > of Waterless cookware back in the 80s - but it was for a
> short
> : > time because I didn't like the way the way they were priced
> and I
> : > wasn't going to try to force somebody to pay for something
> that
> : > even I couldn't afford.
> :
> : You keep missing the point. If this stuff was so great why
> wouldn't a
> : reputable company manufacture and sell in in a more
> conventional manner?
> : Why, until the advent of ebay, could this cookware only be sold
> through a
> : demo/hardsell approach? If it can't stand up to the regular
> rigors of the
> : marketplace then how good can it be? If junk like Calphalon
> can be sold
> : conventionally but this stuff can't, well . . .
> :
> : And for the record, just a few months ago I was at my county
> fair and sat
> : through the demo and tasted the food. There was nothing wrong
> with the food
> : but it was nothing so special about it to change how I cook.
> :
> : Rich
> :
> : =======
>
> No Rich, I didn't miss the point... as I have REPEATEDLY said,
> there are SELLERS out there that DO NOT use the same marketing.
> There are sellers out there that do not have the mark ups - but
> they also don't do the demos.

I don't mean to prolong this discussion, but Rich asked a legitimate
question. If this stuff is so good why doesn't every cookware manufacture
make their own version and sell it through conventional channels? The
question that I have yet to be answered is just another version of Rick's
question. I still don't understand why the "waterless" cookware that is SS
with various layered of aluminum and cooper sandwiched between, is any
different than say All-Clad or Kitchenaid cookware. Why don't these
manufactures claim that their cookware is also waterless and will yield more
nutritious food? So far all you have addressed is why this stuff costs so
much when it is sold in a multi-level marketing scheme vs. over the
internet. I accept your explanation on that matter. I just haven't seen
anyone address why this stuff is any more waterless than any other multi-ply
SS cookware.

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:Vbmeb.646292$uu5.104893@sccrnsc04...
> "Debbie Deutsch" <
> <snip>.
>
> Debbie, you apparently must have missed my posting where I
> explained that I no longer kept my "papers" on all of the
> wonderful attributes that Waterless cookware has; therefore, if
> you REALLY want to know... then either find somebody near you
> that ACTUALLY has the cookware (just reading about it on the
> Internet is only going to give opinions... and usually they're
> only from Type A persons that have that "need" to tell everybody
> their opinion - be it good or bad)... or contact one of those
> Home-demo sales offices!
>
> I'm done discussing it with you because you fail to understand
> what I've already told you and you seem hell-bent on trying to
> push your biased opinion on something that you've never actually
> used or even seen!!
>
> Buh-bye

If one can't trust the opinions of people on the internet then why do you
seem so agitated when people aren't buying your claims about the cookware?
I take exception to your assertion that Debbie is being biased and you are
not. You said that the stuff was good. All we asked is why it was good,
why it was better than similar cookware, why one wouldn't be better off
using a microwave, and so on. I take it that your response is something
akin to "my dog ate my homework."

"Vox Humana" & Cyndi" <

<snip>

: I don't mean to prolong this discussion, but Rich asked a
legitimate
: question. If this stuff is so good why doesn't every cookware
manufacture
: make their own version and sell it through conventional
channels? The
: question that I have yet to be answered is just another version
of Rick's
: question. I still don't understand why the "waterless"
cookware that is SS
: with various layered of aluminum and cooper sandwiched between,
is any
: different than say All-Clad or Kitchenaid cookware. Why don't
these
: manufactures claim that their cookware is also waterless and
will yield more
: nutritious food? So far all you have addressed is why this
stuff costs so
: much when it is sold in a multi-level marketing scheme vs. over
the
: internet. I accept your explanation on that matter. :I just
haven't seen
: anyone address why this stuff is any more waterless than any
other multi-ply
: SS cookware.

: ========

Ya know Vox - I dunno. I've been out of the business so long...
I do know that there are some Waterless brands out there that
were being sold in small retail stores a few years back... but
hey, "sales" is still where the money is... home demo'ing is
similar to Dot.Com... you still have companies out there fighting
to get as much as they can for as long as they can...
Unfortunately, for them, Door-to-door/home-demos is a dying
business. Perhaps some of them have contractual issues with the
manufacturers that they buy and sell from... I just don't know.

The only things I can say for sure is that the Cookware that I
bought is very similar to what I sold *way back then*, it
appears, performs as, and seems to be of high quality and I paid
way less than what I used to sell it for and less than the
current "popular" brands of cookware.

As for "I just haven't seen anyone address why this stuff is any
more waterless than any other multi-ply SS cookware." Maybe it's
a patented process? "X" number of layers encapsulated in a
certain... heck, I don't know. Once upon a time I might have
been able to answer that or be able to get the answer... but at
this point in my life, I like them, I've got them and I don't
feel the need to justify them. I know, bad attitude... LOL

Cyndi
(remove a "b" to reply)

"Vox Humana" > wrote in
:

> I take it that your response is something
> akin to "my dog ate my homework."
>

No she cooked her dog after it ate her homework. But it was tasty. And she
didn't need water.

"Vox Humana" & Cyndi" <

<snip>

: If one can't trust the opinions of people on the internet then
why do you
: seem so agitated when people aren't buying your claims about
the cookware?
: I take exception to your assertion that Debbie is being biased
and you are
: not. You said that the stuff was good. All we asked is why it
was good,
: why it was better than similar cookware, why one wouldn't be
better off
: using a microwave, and so on. I take it that your response is
something
: akin to "my dog ate my homework."
:
: ========

No Vox... I really don't care if people like or "buy" my opinion.
Debbie kept repeating the opinions she read... and opinions are
simply that. Opinions. I told her and others that I NO LONGER
had all of the information papers that I had from "back then".
Good grief, that was nearly 20 years ago, 2 husbands, 3 houses
and a few apartment moves ago!!

My original response was to somebody else whom I advised that
"Waterless" cookware was good, I actually use it but I would not
recommend buying it from one of those "shows" unless they just
liked spending money. There are plenty of other sellers that
sell similar units for far less money.

So no, my dog didn't eat my homework - I'm no longer in school
and didn't feel that I needed to keep it. Period. I'm not
selling it so why would I need to keep it?

Hahabogus" > wrote in message
. 1...
: "Vox Humana" > wrote in
: :
:
: > I take it that your response is something
: > akin to "my dog ate my homework."
: >
:
: No she cooked her dog after it ate her homework. But it was
tasty. And she
: didn't need water.
=============

Nah... Boxer. Tough stu
--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>ff - I used the Crock pot.

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:a2neb.638877$YN5.488455@sccrnsc01...
: Hahabogus" > wrote in message
: . 1...
: : "Vox Humana" > wrote in
: : :
: :
: : > I take it that your response is something
: : > akin to "my dog ate my homework."
: : >
: :
: : No she cooked her dog after it ate her homework. But it was
: tasty. And she
: : didn't need water.
: =============
:
: Nah... Boxer. Tough stu
: --
: Cyndi
: <Remove a "b" to reply>ff - I used the Crock pot.
:
: ========

Well heck - that didn't turn out right!

Should have read:

Nah... Boxer. Tough stuff - I used the Crock pot.

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in news:k0neb.646409
$uu5.104565@sccrnsc04:

> "Vox Humana" & Cyndi" <
>
> <snip>
>
>: If one can't trust the opinions of people on the internet then
> why do you
>: seem so agitated when people aren't buying your claims about
> the cookware?
>: I take exception to your assertion that Debbie is being biased
> and you are
>: not. You said that the stuff was good. All we asked is why it
> was good,
>: why it was better than similar cookware, why one wouldn't be
> better off
>: using a microwave, and so on. I take it that your response is
> something
>: akin to "my dog ate my homework."
>:
>: ========
>
> No Vox... I really don't care if people like or "buy" my opinion.
> Debbie kept repeating the opinions she read... and opinions are
> simply that. Opinions. I told her and others that I NO LONGER
> had all of the information papers that I had from "back then".
> Good grief, that was nearly 20 years ago, 2 husbands, 3 houses
> and a few apartment moves ago!!
>
> My original response was to somebody else whom I advised that
> "Waterless" cookware was good, I actually use it but I would not
> recommend buying it from one of those "shows" unless they just
> liked spending money. There are plenty of other sellers that
> sell similar units for far less money.
>
> So no, my dog didn't eat my homework - I'm no longer in school
> and didn't feel that I needed to keep it. Period. I'm not
> selling it so why would I need to keep it?
>
>
>

Cyndi,

It is Vox who has quoted other opinions, not I. All I have been asking
is for an explanation about what makes "waterless" cookware different and
why similar results cannot be obtained using regular good quality
cookware or different methods.

A simple explanation is all I expected or hoped for. If the explanation
is too complicated for you to be able to remember it, it also would have
been difficult for you to present to your audience.

Debbie

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a
throw-away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if
and when it is found by spammers.

Debbie Deutsch wrote:
>
> It is Vox who has quoted other opinions, not I. All I have been asking
> is for an explanation about what makes "waterless" cookware different and
> why similar results cannot be obtained using regular good quality
> cookware or different methods.
>
> A simple explanation is all I expected or hoped for. If the explanation
> is too complicated for you to be able to remember it, it also would have
> been difficult for you to present to your audience.
>
> Debbie
>

Years ago, I actually endured one of those in-home demonstration. The
saleswoman performed the "same" tests using a couple of my pieces of
cookware and a Waterless saucepan (or some kind of extremely expensive
MLM stainless cookware). I quotated "same" because the tests were
manipulated to make my cookware perform as badly as possible so the
Waterless (or whatever it was) would *shine* in comparison. IIRC, the
saleswoman had me pick 2 pieces of cookware without first telling me
what we would be doing. I picked an old Corningware casserole dish and
my wife picked a cast iron skillet. Saleswoman put some water and
baking soda in the *cast iron* skillet and boiled it briefly, then
showed us how yucky it looked and smelled. She put a *bunch* of cold
water in the corningware dish and a few carrot slices, and put them on
high heat until they eventually boiled and overcooked. So of course it
took a long time and they were pretty much tasteless. The baking soda
and water test in her stainless steel looked like water and had no
smell. The carrots, she cooked over medium-low heat with maybe a
teaspoon of water until the carrots were just done. The carrots were
better than the ones that were boiled to death in much water (big surprise.)

But what I learned from all this, and it was a good lesson, is that if
you turn the heat down you can cook in a covered stainless steel pan
with very little water or fat. And the food doesn't stick. Any
stainless steel cookware will stick badly if the heat is too high. And
any well-made stainless cookware will cook "waterless" if you have the
flame adjusted right -- and a lot lower flame than you would expect.
Now I often cook "waterless" in my old revereware and my one piece of
calphalon.

Best regards,
Bob

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:Vbmeb.646292$uu5.104893@sccrnsc04...
> "Debbie Deutsch" <
> <snip>.
>
> Debbie, you apparently must have missed my posting where I
> explained that I no longer kept my "papers" on all of the
> wonderful attributes that Waterless cookware has; therefore, if
> you REALLY want to know... then either find somebody near you
> that ACTUALLY has the cookware (just reading about it on the
> Internet is only going to give opinions... and usually they're
> only from Type A persons that have that "need" to tell everybody
> their opinion - be it good or bad)... or contact one of those
> Home-demo sales offices!
>
> I'm done discussing it with you because you fail to understand
> what I've already told you and you seem hell-bent on trying to
> push your biased opinion on something that you've never actually
> used or even seen!!
>

You may not be aware of it, but it is becoming rather obvious to most people
who are in this thread that you have a serious psychological issue with
these pans. I have not seen anyone claiming that these pans are crap. I
have, however, seens several people, myself included, asking why these pans
are special - how they differ from other good quality cookware. You have
always avoided this question. Why is this? You seem bent on claiming that
this waterless cookware is superior in some way, but you refuse to say *how*
it is superior. You complain about other people's "biased opinions" while
offering only your own biased opinions. You seem to think that these pans
are perfect, while any remotely competent cook knows that no pan is perfect.
It's painful to see you embarassing yourself over and over - haven't you had
enough?


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" <& Cyndi" <

<snip>

: You may not be aware of it, but it is becoming rather obvious
to most people
: who are in this thread that you have a serious psychological
issue with
: these pans. I have not seen anyone claiming that these pans are
crap. I
: have, however, seens several people, myself included, asking
why these pans
: are special - how they differ from other good quality cookware.
You have
: always avoided this question. Why is this? You seem bent on
claiming that
: this waterless cookware is superior in some way, but you refuse
to say *how*
: it is superior. You complain about other people's "biased
opinions" while
: offering only your own biased opinions. You seem to think that
these pans
: are perfect, while any remotely competent cook knows that no
pan is perfect.
: It's painful to see you embarassing yourself over and over -
haven't you had
: enough?
:
:
: --
: Peter Aitken
:
=====

Peter - don't be so damn daft. Unfortunately, you're reading
these posts after there were about 12 others... And BTW, Debbie
had made claims that she had *read* that there had been
complaints about some of the cookware... But I'm sure you didn't
read *her* posts on that, huh?

I never said "superior" and I never said "perfect"... I'm not
embarassed nor should I be. I AM more than competent at cooking
and never said that they were THE perfect pan. Some pans are
better than other for *specific* tasks. But hey, you knew that?
Right?

I had long since told both Debbie and Rich that I was out of the
business and no longer had my little spec sheets... yet they
both kept pestering me about "proving" and "backing up" my
comments. Both of them jumped on the band wagon (or should I say
"my ass") after I had given my thoughts to SOMEBODY else who had
placed a deposit on some Waterless cookware and was wanting
advice.

Now YOU'RE doing it. Good grief.

zxcvbob > wrote in
:

>
> But what I learned from all this, and it was a good lesson, is that if
> you turn the heat down you can cook in a covered stainless steel pan
> with very little water or fat. And the food doesn't stick. Any
> stainless steel cookware will stick badly if the heat is too high.
> And any well-made stainless cookware will cook "waterless" if you have
> the flame adjusted right -- and a lot lower flame than you would
> expect. Now I often cook "waterless" in my old revereware and my one
> piece of calphalon.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob
>
>

And that is exactly what I expected was true. Thanks for confirming it.

Debbie

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a throw-
away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if and when
it is found by spammers.

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in news:l0oeb.646613$uu5.105274@sccrnsc04:


>
> Peter - don't be so damn daft. Unfortunately, you're reading
> these posts after there were about 12 others... And BTW, Debbie
> had made claims that she had *read* that there had been
> complaints about some of the cookware... But I'm sure you didn't
> read *her* posts on that, huh?
>

Sorry, Cyndi, but I never made any claims that there had been complaints. Vox did, and she quoted them.
Anyone can go back over the thread and check this. If you want to accuse me of something, at least let
it be something that I really did do!

Debbie



--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a throw-away address. It will be
invalidated and replaced with another if and when it is found by spammers.

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:Bemeb.641208$Ho3.132394@sccrnsc03...

> No Rich, I didn't miss the point... as I have REPEATEDLY said,
> there are SELLERS out there that DO NOT use the same marketing.
> There are sellers out there that do not have the mark ups - but
> they also don't do the demos.

Yes you did miss the point because until ebay came along, by your own
admission, the stuff was simply not available in a conventional manner. Why
isn't someone making it and selling it through department stores and kitchen
outlets? Why don't restaurants use it? If it cooks more quickly and
produces better tasting food, quality restaurants would be all over it. Why
is it that all of the other brands and styles of cookware can be sold
without either mlm mark-ups and demos or just over ebay?

What is it about this cookware that is so unique that it can't be
manufactured and sold through conventional retail outlets? Until you can
answer that question without handwaving this cookware will be regarded as a
scam and so will your claims.

Rich

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in message
news:HTmeb.646390$uu5.104229@sccrnsc04...

>As for "I just haven't seen anyone address why this stuff is any
> more waterless than any other multi-ply SS cookware." Maybe it's
> a patented process? "X" number of layers encapsulated in a
> certain... heck, I don't know. Once upon a time I might have
> been able to answer that or be able to get the answer... but at
> this point in my life, I like them, I've got them and I don't
> feel the need to justify them. I know, bad attitude... LOL

A very strange attitude (I don't feel the need to justify them) for someone
who has just written dozens of posts trying to justify them.

Rich

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in news:GHzeb.16596
:

> In article >,
> "Rich Bednarski" > wrote:
>
>> What is it about this cookware that is so unique that it can't be
>> manufactured and sold through conventional retail outlets?
>
> Whatever it is, it's the same thing that makes Amway shampoo so unusual
> that it can't be manufactured and sold through conventional retail
> outlets.
>
> In other words, nothing.
>
> People get so suckered by marketing, it's not funny. Nobody seems to
> think.
>
>

So how do you explain Cyndi?

Sometimes I think that she got suckered in too, but can't accept that that
may have happened to her, so she gets upset when people don't buy her
assertions.

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a throw-
away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if and when
it is found by spammers.

Debbie Deutsch > wrote in
. 97.132:

> So how do you explain Cyndi?
>

Well Cindy's mom met Cindy's dad and they fell in love and got married and
you can figure it out from there.

Debbie Deutsch wrote:

> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in news:GHzeb.16596
> :
>
>
>>In article >,
>> "Rich Bednarski" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What is it about this cookware that is so unique that it can't be
>>>manufactured and sold through conventional retail outlets?
>>
>>Whatever it is, it's the same thing that makes Amway shampoo so unusual
>>that it can't be manufactured and sold through conventional retail
>>outlets.
>>
>>In other words, nothing.
>>
>>People get so suckered by marketing, it's not funny. Nobody seems to
>>think.
>>
>>
>
>
> So how do you explain Cyndi?
>
> Sometimes I think that she got suckered in too, but can't accept that that
> may have happened to her, so she gets upset when people don't buy her
> assertions.
>

If she is happy with her cookware, what does it matter? I like my old
Revereware (copper bottoms) and Corningware, and other people here think
it's crap. I can live with that.

Best regards,
Bob

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:50:15 -0500, zxcvbob >
wrote:


>
>If she is happy with her cookware, what does it matter?

Nothing to fight about then?

Gar

zxcvbob > wrote in
:

>
> If she is happy with her cookware, what does it matter? I like my old
> Revereware (copper bottoms) and Corningware, and other people here
> think it's crap. I can live with that.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob
>

It's great that Cyndi is happy about her cookware, but it is not good if
she convinces someone to waste their money. Cyndi keeps on telling people
that "waterless cookware" is better and different, and that the results
cannot be replicated using good-quality cookware with stainless interiors
and tight-fitting lids, or by microwaving. However, she refuses to back up
her claim by explaining why when people have asked her to.

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a throw-
away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if and when
it is found by spammers.

zxcvbob > wrote:

> If she is happy with her cookware, what does it matter? I like my old
> Revereware (copper bottoms) and Corningware, and other people here think
> it's crap. I can live with that.

Hey, I have four pieces of Calphalon (not the Non-Stick) and I love
those for what they do. I have an old, old Revereware stockpot, a
slightly less old other Revereware stockpot, a couple of cast-iron
skillets and a Tupperware 3-piece microwave vegetable steamer, I love
'em all because I use 'em for what they're best at.

If she loves what she has, then hey, whatever.

"Debbie Deutsch" > wrote in message
. 97.132...

> Sometimes I think that she got suckered in too, but can't accept that that
> may have happened to her, so she gets upset when people don't buy her
> assertions.

That sound you just heard was the nail being hit right on the head.

Rich