General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-04-2007, 10:56 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Default First-class Bad Butter

Hi:

Here is how my 1st-class butter is made.

Raw, uncooked, organic, un-homogenized, un-pasteurized cow's milk is
used. Purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria are what indirectly
turn the milk into butter. Throughout the process, the butter is
mysteriously protected completely against any degradation or
abnormality [e.g. rancidity] other than bacterial decay.

No microbes other than purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria enter
the milk/butter or travel anywhere near the milk/butter or their
containers.

First, any and all minerals, metals, ions, and electrolytes are
removed from the milk. Then the bacteria enter the milk. These
bacteria initially feed on all substances in the milk *excluding* the
following entities naturally present in the milk:

Lipids [including non-greasy lipids]
Greasy substances [including greasy substances not classified as
lipids]
Elastic substances
Natural emulsifiers
Creamy substances
Slimy substances

The bacteria produce odorous compounds - including but not limited to
-- skatole, indole, acetoin, methyl ketones [such as diacetyl],
amines, butyric acid, isobutryic acid, caproic acid, propionic acid,
isovaleric acid, and valeric acid.

After all the bacterial processes are finished, the water content in
the concoction is decreased to 15% [about the same water as most high-
quality butter].

This butter smells bad like stinky cheese [including stale Swiss
cheese that has been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for
at least 30 years], smelly feet, sweaty shirts, dirty socks, neck-
sweat, back-sweat, filthy scalp and unwashed hair.

You now have 1st-class butter!!!!

Anyone want to try some of this delicious butter??

Important note on bacteria: All bacteria used in the above process are
not pathogenic. IOW - much like intestinal bacteria -- they do not
cause any disease or infection. In addition, none of these bacteria
use oxygen for any of their biochemical processes. Some of them can
survive in oxygen, while others can't. However, none of them use
oxygen. Acetic-acid bacteria are an example of bacteria that are not
used in the butter-making processes because - while they maybe
anaerobic - they still require oxygen to produce acetic acid.


Regards,

Radium


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 12:24 AM posted to rec.food.cooking,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,sci.chem,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 110
Default First-class Bad Butter

Radium wrote:

Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 12:36 AM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Default First-class Bad Butter

On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave wrote:

Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?


I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 01:07 AM posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 60
Default First-class Bad Butter

Radium wrote:
Hi:

Here is how my 1st-class butter is made.


*Massive snip*

Whatever "Radium" is describing, it ain't butter. Butter is not a
product of fermentation.

(All cross-posts removed. I don't post to groups I don't read)
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 01:07 AM posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Default First-class Bad Butter

On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, none wrote:

Butter is not a
product of fermentation.


It could be, though. Right?



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 01:48 AM posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 60
Default First-class Bad Butter

Radium wrote:
On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, none wrote:

Butter is not a
product of fermentation.


It could be, though. Right?

No
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 05:37 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 63
Default First-class Bad Butter

Radium wrote:
On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave wrote:

Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?


I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.


You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet. Plus,
you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup.


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 05:46 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 18
Default First-class Bad Butter

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote:

Radium wrote:

On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave wrote:

Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?


I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.


You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet.


No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
not excessive.

Plus, you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup.


Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers.

What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if we
were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down.

tom

--
Operate all mechanisms!
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 06:10 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 63
Default First-class Bad Butter

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote:

Radium wrote:

On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave wrote:

Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?

I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.


You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet.


No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups
is not excessive.


So, add the nonexistent newsgroup and he started out with five.

Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers.

What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if
we were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down.


Yes, the post *is* nonsense, yet the PITA is that responses to that
nonsense from posters on all the groups will show up here. Note: I am
deliberately crossposting, to get my message across that crossposting
can result in indignant responses from many.


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 06:32 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,sci.chem,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Default First-class Bad Butter

On 29 Apr 2007 14:56:42 -0700, Radium wrote:

Hi:

Here is how my 1st-class butter is made.

Raw, uncooked, organic, un-homogenized, un-pasteurized cow's milk is
used. Purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria are what indirectly
turn the milk into butter. Throughout the process, the butter is
mysteriously protected completely against any degradation or
abnormality [e.g. rancidity] other than bacterial decay.

No microbes other than purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria enter
the milk/butter or travel anywhere near the milk/butter or their
containers.

First, any and all minerals, metals, ions, and electrolytes are
removed from the milk. Then the bacteria enter the milk. These
bacteria initially feed on all substances in the milk *excluding* the
following entities naturally present in the milk:

Lipids [including non-greasy lipids]
Greasy substances [including greasy substances not classified as
lipids]
Elastic substances
Natural emulsifiers
Creamy substances
Slimy substances

The bacteria produce odorous compounds - including but not limited to
-- skatole, indole, acetoin, methyl ketones [such as diacetyl],
amines, butyric acid, isobutryic acid, caproic acid, propionic acid,
isovaleric acid, and valeric acid.

After all the bacterial processes are finished, the water content in
the concoction is decreased to 15% [about the same water as most high-
quality butter].

This butter smells bad like stinky cheese [including stale Swiss
cheese that has been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for
at least 30 years], smelly feet, sweaty shirts, dirty socks, neck-
sweat, back-sweat, filthy scalp and unwashed hair.

You now have 1st-class butter!!!!

Anyone want to try some of this delicious butter??

Important note on bacteria: All bacteria used in the above process are
not pathogenic. IOW - much like intestinal bacteria -- they do not
cause any disease or infection. In addition, none of these bacteria
use oxygen for any of their biochemical processes. Some of them can
survive in oxygen, while others can't. However, none of them use
oxygen. Acetic-acid bacteria are an example of bacteria that are not
used in the butter-making processes because - while they maybe
anaerobic - they still require oxygen to produce acetic acid.


Regards,

Radium


Sounds like something you'd get at The Fat Duck.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2007, 07:24 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Default First-class Bad Butter

On Apr 30, 10:32 am, Sherry Medina wrote:

Sounds like something you'd get at The Fat Duck.


Whats the "Fat Duck"?

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2007, 01:08 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22
Default First-class Bad Butter

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:

No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
not excessive.


True.

But look at the Followup-To: line:

Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec.
+ food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.
+ sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec.
+ photo.equipment.35mm

The article was clearly a troll.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2007, 03:01 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 18
Default First-class Bad Butter

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Richard Tobin wrote:

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:

No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
not excessive.


True.


And in response to limey, i wouldn't say five is either.

But look at the Followup-To: line:

Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec.
+ food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.
+ sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec.
+ photo.equipment.35mm

The article was clearly a troll.


Excellent point. I mean, the content marks it out as being either trolling
or kookery, but this is damning evidence.

tom

--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2007, 03:08 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 567
Default First-class Bad Butter

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting)....


Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for
example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a
billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both.

-- Larry
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2007, 03:15 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,306
Default First-class Bad Butter

pltrgyst wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting)....


Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for
example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a
billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both.

-- Larry


That takes balls.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tea culture class icetea8 Tea 0 02-02-2012 01:50 AM
When It Comes To Sushi, I Have No Class [email protected] Sushi 0 17-06-2007 11:16 AM
First-class Bad Butter Adam Funk Barbecue 0 01-05-2007 07:41 PM
First-class Bad Butter Radium[_2_] Cooking Equipment 11 01-05-2007 03:15 PM
Survey for a class dt-b General Cooking 10 24-10-2005 07:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017