If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
Check your local listings.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
> Check your local listings.
>
> nancy
>
>
And it looks like all of the Chefography episodes are being repeated
over and over and over and over the whole week.

"Lobster Man" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:
>> If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
>> Check your local listings.

> And it looks like all of the Chefography episodes are being repeated over
> and over and over and over the whole week.

Heh, that's one thing with FoodTV. Don't worry if you missed it,
it will be on again, soon. Many times.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
> If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
> Check your local listings.
>
> nancy
>

On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous to
include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence with
the word "chef"?

Ken said...

>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
>> Check your local listings.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>
> On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous
> to include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence
> with the word "chef"?


Paula Dean did open and run a couple restaurants so she's a chef in that
respect. Ray and Lee are Sears "cooks," imho.

Andy

"Ken" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote
....
>> If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
>> Check your local listings.

> On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous
> to include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence
> with the word "chef"?

On what planet are Sandra Lee and Rachael Ray chefs, not this one.
I guess FoodTVPersonalityography was too long.

nancy

On Mar 19, 11:16 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "Ken" > wrote
>
>
>
> > "Nancy Young" > wrote
> ...
> >> If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
> >> Check your local listings.
> > On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous
> > to include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence
> > with the word "chef"?
>
> On what planet are Sandra Lee and Rachael Ray chefs, not this one.
> I guess FoodTVPersonalityography was too long.
>
> nancy


Personography. ;-)

N.

On Mar 18, 9:32 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
> Check your local listings.
>
> nancy

I watched the Rachel Ray "chefography" (she eagerly admits she doesn't
consider herself a chef) intermittently last night. There was a fair
amount of blatant bullshit, such as when Food Network spokespeople
claimed -- incredibly -- that Ray's reactions to what she tastes (the
rolling of eyes, the utterances of "Wow!" or "Yum-O!" the fake
orgasms) are sincere; or when some idiot came on and claimed that
Ray's disastrous mess of a talk-show would be around for many years.
The Food Network president -- the scrawny guy with the white hair --
strikes me as pure evil.

Anyway, after the RR chefography, Flay's started. But that's where I
decided to draw the line (in terms of what I REFUSE to watch).

On Mar 19, 10:33 am, "Ken" > wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> > If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
> > Check your local listings.
>
> > nancy
>
> On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous to
> include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence with
> the word "chef"?

Yes, but the pretense that there are no standards is part of the whole
FN schtick. Everybody -- or at least everyone with an FN show -- is
an Iron Chef. So they might as well pretend that everyone's a chef.

On Mar 19, 11:43 am, "Kyle" > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 9:32 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> > If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
> > Check your local listings.
>
> > nancy
>
> I watched the Rachel Ray "chefography" (she eagerly admits she doesn't
> consider herself a chef) intermittently last night. There was a fair
> amount of blatant bullshit, such as when Food Network spokespeople
> claimed -- incredibly -- that Ray's reactions to what she tastes (the
> rolling of eyes, the utterances of "Wow!" or "Yum-O!" the fake
> orgasms) are sincere; or when some idiot came on and claimed that
> Ray's disastrous mess of a talk-show would be around for many years.
> The Food Network president -- the scrawny guy with the white hair --
> strikes me as pure evil.

Another bit if annoying BS occurred when these hacks came out and
started babbling about what a perfect couple RR and her husband are.
It emerged several months ago that the husband paid prostitutes to
spit in his face and physically abuse him -- and that he's been doing
so for many years. So the program reeked pretty heavily of
propaganda.

In article >, says...
> On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous to
> include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence with
> the word "chef"?
>

Yes, me. In fact, I think the whole personality cult that is emphasized
on Food TV is just asinine. Who gives a fiddler's fart about Bobby
Flay's past? If he has something useful to teach me about cooking, fine,
but I don't care about his past.

Food TV is slowly sinking into the depths of stupidity. It is all about
"cute" and personalities and visual effects and there's essentially
nothing about serious cooking.

Christ, they even took Batali off. Jerk that he is, he really knew his
techniques and ingredients and runs a couple of highly regarded
restaurants. Instead we get to see Rachel Ray giggle, fawn, and simper,
Sandra Lee flap her boobs around while opening cans, and the like.

The fact is that FoodTV has mostly become entertainment for the
mindless. It is all about entertainment and very little about teaching
people how to cook.


--
Peter Aitken

> The fact is that FoodTV has mostly become entertainment for the
> mindless. It is all about entertainment and very little about teaching
> people how to cook.

Peter,

I think that your last sentense is the part that bothers me most about
today's Good Network. They aren't trying to teach anyone to "cook" they are
teaching people to "present" food. Occasionally I have a need for a "quick"
cooking meal, but I don't need to be told how to open cans in my pantry, or
be taught to follow the directions on the box of Shake and Bake (which is
gross imho, yomv). Most of the time presentation is the last thing on my
mind with every day meals. I am interested in knowing how to cook well and
for my food to be family pleasing. If it looks beautiful on the plate,
that's great, but it isn't my biggest concern.

Most of Food Network is quick gratification cooking from cans and boxes just
for the "look". Where are the shows that actually taught technique and
skill? PBS cooking shows were my mainstay when I was a young married. I
learned to knead dough so that the bread isn't tough, mix homemade pasta by
hand using the flour and well for water method, learned how to tell the
freshness and quality of an egg by the way it breaks and looks in the bowl,
that sort of thing. Food Network may have been birthed of PBS cooking shows,
unfortunately it's a "new generation".

Okay I have ranted enough

Cindi
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Cindi - HappyMamatoThree wrote:
>> The fact is that FoodTV has mostly become entertainment for the
>> mindless. It is all about entertainment and very little about teaching
>> people how to cook.
>
> Peter,
>
> I think that your last sentense is the part that bothers me most about
> today's Good Network. They aren't trying to teach anyone to "cook" they are
> teaching people to "present" food. Occasionally I have a need for a "quick"
> cooking meal, but I don't need to be told how to open cans in my pantry, or
> be taught to follow the directions on the box of Shake and Bake (which is
> gross imho, yomv). Most of the time presentation is the last thing on my
> mind with every day meals. I am interested in knowing how to cook well and
> for my food to be family pleasing. If it looks beautiful on the plate,
> that's great, but it isn't my biggest concern.
>
> Most of Food Network is quick gratification cooking from cans and boxes just
> for the "look". Where are the shows that actually taught technique and
> skill? PBS cooking shows were my mainstay when I was a young married. I
> learned to knead dough so that the bread isn't tough, mix homemade pasta by
> hand using the flour and well for water method, learned how to tell the
> freshness and quality of an egg by the way it breaks and looks in the bowl,
> that sort of thing. Food Network may have been birthed of PBS cooking shows,
> unfortunately it's a "new generation".
>
> Okay I have ranted enough
>
> Cindi

I remember when the Food Network was Food Tv and had just come on
satellite, the Big Ugly Dish kind. They had all sorts of shows on HOW
TO COOK. They had shows on nutrition and food quality, sort of a round
table kind of show IIRC. They had a show about Diner food which was
really interesting and fun. David Rosengarten had a very good show
where he would make one item start to finish, kind of a precursor to
Tyler's Ultimate. Even DR's show about making a tuna fish sandwich was
more interesting AND entertaining than what's on now. In the mornings
they would show one hour of old cooking shows, mostly black and white
like James Beard, Julia Child or that lady from UK can't remember her
name. They were REAL cooking shows, not alot of funny banter, lots of
good solid how to and why. People are always asking me where I studied
cokking because I seem to know so much. I tell them it's all reading and
watching TV !!! LOL!!!

I do love Alton Brown both for info and humor, however so I can't give
up watching Foodnetwork completely :-) And forgive me but Paula Deen is
like comfort food without the actual calories and mess. Both DH and I
like watching her, too, even with all the butter and mayo lol!

Melondy

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:12:26 -0400, Peter A >
wrote:

>In article >, says...
>> On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous to
>> include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence with
>> the word "chef"?
>>
>
>Yes, me. In fact, I think the whole personality cult that is emphasized
>on Food TV is just asinine. Who gives a fiddler's fart about Bobby
>Flay's past? If he has something useful to teach me about cooking, fine,
>but I don't care about his past.
>
>Food TV is slowly sinking into the depths of stupidity. It is all about
>"cute" and personalities and visual effects and there's essentially
>nothing about serious cooking.
>
>Christ, they even took Batali off. Jerk that he is, he really knew his
>techniques and ingredients and runs a couple of highly regarded
>restaurants. Instead we get to see Rachel Ray giggle, fawn, and simper,
>Sandra Lee flap her boobs around while opening cans, and the like.

Come on....implants don't flap
>
>The fact is that FoodTV has mostly become entertainment for the
>mindless. It is all about entertainment and very little about teaching
>people how to cook.


Sadly, it is what they make their money on. They started out as pure
cooking and saw what worked and didn't work. Frankly, I agree with you
- I'd rather watch someone who knows what s/he is doing than an idiot.

If I remember correctly, one of the most popular shows they have is
"Unwrapped." Go figure.

Boron

Michael "Dog3" Lonergan said...

> Andy <q> :
>
>>
>>
>> Paula Dean did open and run a couple restaurants so she's a chef in
>> that respect. Ray and Lee are Sears "cooks," imho.
>>
>> Andy
>
> I agree with your assessment Andy. I like PD for the most part.
> Although you can toss her 2 kids into the bayou for all I care. Paula
> is a chef IMO. RR is the Sears cook and Gawd only knows what SL is. I
> picture her at a Walmart showing a crowd of onlookers how to cook up
> canned, condensed soup in a non stick pot.
>
> Michael


How about the upcoming Food Network Awards???

They're better off just holding a giant FoodTV circle tongue & jerk in
private.

No one on the Food-TV payroll is going to go home empty handed!!!



Andy

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" > wrote

> Boron Elgar >

>> If I remember correctly, one of the most popular shows they have is
>> "Unwrapped." Go figure.

> IIRC "Unwrapped" is the program where they show how stuff is made. M&Ms
> etc.? Personally I don't care how stuff is made. I just want it to be
> there when I want it. Sort of like the water faucet... When I turn the
> faucet on I want water to come out. I don't care where it comes from

I find that interesting, How It's Made, like that. But, I thought it was
a special. A one time special. How many friggin times can you be
interested to watch candy go through one of the coating drum things,
or people picking over potato chips to get out the burned ones.

Give me a break.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Ken" > wrote
>
>
>>"Nancy Young" > wrote
>
> ...
>
>>>If anyone is interested, it's on tonight, a couple of times.
>>>Check your local listings.
>
>
>>On the subject of "Chefography"- does anyone else think it's ridiculous
>>to include Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen etal in the same sentence
>>with the word "chef"?
>
>
> On what planet are Sandra Lee and Rachael Ray chefs, not this one.
> I guess FoodTVPersonalityography was too long.

Good one! ;-)

Funny, throughout the Rachael Ray episode, she repeats like 20 times
"I'm not a chef."

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:15:10 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
> wrote:

>Boron Elgar >
:
>
>>
>> If I remember correctly, one of the most popular shows they have is
>> "Unwrapped." Go figure.
>>
>> Boron
>
>IIRC "Unwrapped" is the program where they show how stuff is made. M&Ms
>etc.? Personally I don't care how stuff is made. I just want it to be
>there when I want it. Sort of like the water faucet... When I turn the
>faucet on I want water to come out. I don't care where it comes from
>
>Michael

I agree. And most of the stuff they show being made isn't nearly as
interesting as M&Ms.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> >
> >IIRC "Unwrapped" is the program where they show how stuff is made. M&Ms
> >etc.? Personally I don't care how stuff is made. I just want it to be
> >there when I want it. Sort of like the water faucet... When I turn the
> >faucet on I want water to come out. I don't care where it comes from
> >
> >Michael
>
> I agree. And most of the stuff they show being made isn't nearly as
> interesting as M&Ms.
>

There isn't much of interest on Food Network Canada these days. I dropped
it about a year ago for about 6 months. I think it is time to drop it
again.

"Lobster Man" > wrote in message
...
snip
>
> Funny, throughout the Rachael Ray episode, she repeats like 20 times "I'm
> not a chef."
>
Yeah -- she's so humble. gag.
Janet

"Lobster Man" > wrote

> Funny, throughout the Rachael Ray episode, she repeats like 20 times "I'm
> not a chef."

I'm just watching the end of the Rachael Ray chefography that
I'd recorded. I had to laugh, there was a commercial, one of
those things they feel they have to do, remind you what you're
watching.

You are watching the Chefography of Sandra Lee!

I was?

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

>
> "Lobster Man" > wrote
>
> > Funny, throughout the Rachael Ray episode, she repeats like 20
> > times "I'm not a chef."
>
> I'm just watching the end of the Rachael Ray chefography that
> I'd recorded. I had to laugh, there was a commercial, one of
> those things they feel they have to do, remind you what you're
> watching.
>
> You are watching the Chefography of Sandra Lee!

The did that constantly though the run of the chefographys, saying that
you were watching a different one. Enough that it couldn't have been an
accident. I don't know what the actual purpose was.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)