The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the posts
are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session would
be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.

"ffuca" > wrote in message
...
>
> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
> posts
> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
> would
> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.

So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest? What
is your offering?

On Aug 30, 12:57 am, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "ffuca" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
> > posts
> > are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
> > would
> > be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>
> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest? What
> is your offering?

This is the best difference between r.f.c and that moderated recipe
group and the thousands of cooking sites and the millions of
cookbooks. Sure, there is measuring and techniques and tasting other
cook's food, but this is not a how-to-book or a trades journal.
Cooking is about life and culture and creativity and comraderie
and . . Sure, there is going to be some mission creep, which often
develops into something more intersting, informative, entertaining
than the OP had in mind And relatioinships, positive and negative,
develop. And some people in any community are just trouble-making
asses, at least sometimes. Is life, yes?

Most of the regulars here really know stuff, have defensible positions
about cutlery or spices or whatever. Some people have only opinions.
Vistors usually have earnest, legitimate questions. There is the
tradition labeling the OT stuff OT. Ignore it or argue with your
friends if you are in the mood. You don't have to read the threads
that degenerate into petty vitriol.

And, though I am hoping that this was close enough to on topic that I
can get away without doing it this time, most of the ramblings close
with an OB Food tidbit - at least getting in on a technicality.

Bulka

"ffuca" > wrote in message
...
>
> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
> posts
> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
> would
> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.

It does, does it? Let's see you do it.

In article >,
"cyberpurrs" > wrote:

> "ffuca" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
> > posts
> > are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
> > would
> > be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>
> It does, does it? Let's see you do it.

We could all flock to www.foodforum.ca just to please him. But it
appears to be a wasteland of useless links. I guess I was expecting too
much.
I'll be here watching the give and take until the group is disbanded or
I die. And thanks to all for the occasional tips that I'm interested in
using. I cook a bit differently thanks to this raucous joint.

leo

"bulka" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 30, 12:57 am, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>> "ffuca" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
>> > posts
>> > are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
>> > rec.bitch.session
>> > would
>> > be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>>
>> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest?
>> What
>> is your offering?
>
> This is the best difference between r.f.c and that moderated recipe
> group and the thousands of cooking sites and the millions of
> cookbooks. Sure, there is measuring and techniques and tasting other
> cook's food, but this is not a how-to-book or a trades journal.
> Cooking is about life and culture and creativity and comraderie
> and . . Sure, there is going to be some mission creep, which often
> develops into something more intersting, informative, entertaining
> than the OP had in mind And relatioinships, positive and negative,
> develop. And some people in any community are just trouble-making
> asses, at least sometimes. Is life, yes?
>
> Most of the regulars here really know stuff, have defensible positions
> about cutlery or spices or whatever. Some people have only opinions.
> Vistors usually have earnest, legitimate questions. There is the
> tradition labeling the OT stuff OT. Ignore it or argue with your
> friends if you are in the mood. You don't have to read the threads
> that degenerate into petty vitriol.
>
> And, though I am hoping that this was close enough to on topic that I
> can get away without doing it this time, most of the ramblings close
> with an OB Food tidbit - at least getting in on a technicality.

*applause*

In article >,
ffuca > wrote:

> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the posts
> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session would
> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.

Or you could post something about food.

ObFood: I finally got my GF bread working again, after three failures!
Interestingly enough it was probably the different flour that was
causing it to fail to rise, as switching back to the original source has
resulted in success. Unexpected, that!

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:57:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest? What
> is your offering?

This is the guy who keeps morphing so we can read all his posts
replying to OT posts and spam.

The guy is a complete whacko.

-sw

ffuca wrote:
> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the posts
> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session would
> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.

Such thoughts coming from someone who never contributes are always
odd.

--
Jean B.

"Miche" wrote

> ObFood: I finally got my GF bread working again, after three failures!
> Interestingly enough it was probably the different flour that was
> causing it to fail to rise, as switching back to the original source has
> resulted in success. Unexpected, that!

Glad to hear it Miche! Thats what we all suspected. A lower protien flour
mucked the recipe up.

Jean B. wrote:
> ffuca wrote:
>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
>> the posts are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
>> rec.bitch.session would be more apropos. It definately needs to be
>> cleaned up.
>
> Such thoughts coming from someone who never contributes are always
> odd.

I've rarely seen a food question go unanswered, if someone has the
answer or some advice. People respond to recipes and cooking ideas.

If that wasn't true, I could see this complaint. Ask a question!
Post a recipe. Talk about food. Or start up a newsgroup
rec.bitch.session and ffuca's post would be a fabulous first entry.

nancy

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:35:42 -0500, ffuca wrote:

>
> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the posts
> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session would
> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.

Well, please don't let the door hit you on your way out...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy > wrote in
news
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:35:42 -0500, ffuca wrote:
>
>>
>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
>> the posts are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
>> rec.bitch.session would be more apropos. It definately needs to be
>> cleaned up.
>
> Well, please don't let the door hit you on your way out...



LOL!!

Get it right Cathy!!

"There's the door. Don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split ya."!!

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "ffuca" > wrote:
>>
>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
>> posts
>> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
>> would
>> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>
> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest?
> What is your offering?
>
It offered a new way to spell definitely... and anyone who refers to their
spouse as "the wife" is a disrespectful douchebag... I bet he refers to his
dog as "My dog", his car as "My car"... I bet his dog and car even have
names. I bet her calls "the wife" Bitch.

"O'Failure" > wrote:
>
> "bulka" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Aug 30, 12:57 am, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>>> "ffuca" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
>>> > the
>>> > posts
>>> > are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
>>> > rec.bitch.session
>>> > would
>>> > be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>>>
>>> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest?
>>> What
>>> is your offering?
>>
>> This is the best difference between r.f.c and that moderated recipe
>> group and the thousands of cooking sites and the millions of
>> cookbooks. Sure, there is measuring and techniques and tasting other
>> cook's food, but this is not a how-to-book or a trades journal.
>> Cooking is about life and culture and creativity and comraderie
>> and . . Sure, there is going to be some mission creep, which often
>> develops into something more intersting, informative, entertaining
>> than the OP had in mind And relatioinships, positive and negative,
>> develop. And some people in any community are just trouble-making
>> asses, at least sometimes. Is life, yes?
>>
>> Most of the regulars here really know stuff, have defensible positions
>> about cutlery or spices or whatever. Some people have only opinions.
>> Vistors usually have earnest, legitimate questions. There is the
>> tradition labeling the OT stuff OT. Ignore it or argue with your
>> friends if you are in the mood. You don't have to read the threads
>> that degenerate into petty vitriol.
>>
>> And, though I am hoping that this was close enough to on topic that I
>> can get away without doing it this time, most of the ramblings close
>> with an OB Food tidbit - at least getting in on a technicality.
>
> *applause*
>

Idiot O'Failure can't spell.


*applesauce*

Preparation time: 45 minutes. The sugar amounts are just guidelines,
depending your taste, and on the sweetness of your apples, use less or more.
If you use less sugar, you'll likely want to use less lemon juice. The lemon
juice brightens the flavor of the apples and balances the sweetness.
Ingredients
a.. 3 to 4 lbs of peeled, cored, and quartered apples.
b.. 4 strips of lemon peel - use a vegetable peeler to strip 4 lengths
c.. Juice of one lemon, about 3-4 Tbsp
d.. 3 inches of cinnamon stick
e.. 1/4 cup of dark brown sugar
f.. up to 1/4 cup of white sugar
g.. 1 cup of water
h.. 1/2 teaspoon of salt
Method
1 Put all ingredients into a large pot. Cover. Bring to boil. Lower heat and
simmer for 20-30 minutes.

2 Remove from heat. Remove cinnamon sticks and lemon peels. Mash with potato
masher.

Ready to serve, either hot or refrigerated. Delicious with vanilla ice cream
or vanilla yogurt.

Freezes easily, lasts up to one year in a cold freezer.

----

PeterL2 wrote:

> ChattyCathy > wrote in
> news >
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:35:42 -0500, ffuca wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
>>> the posts are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
>>> rec.bitch.session would be more apropos. It definately needs to be
>>> cleaned up.
>>
>> Well, please don't let the door hit you on your way out...

> LOL!!
>
> Get it right Cathy!!
>
> "There's the door. Don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split
> ya."!!

Hey, I was trying to be um, polite.

OBFood: Chicken schnitzel tonight...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Aug 30, 1:31*am, Miche > wrote:
[snip Stupid Stu's whinge]
> ObFood: I finally got my GF bread working again, after three failures! *
> Interestingly enough it was probably the different flour that was
> causing it to fail to rise, as switching back to the original source has
> resulted in success. *Unexpected, that!

What was the "original source" material? A finer flour, different
yeast? I hope to pop out a few loaves today, if the temps don't
soar...

The Ranger

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:36:52 GMT, brooklyn1 wrote:

> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>> "ffuca" > wrote:
>>>
>>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
>>> posts
>>> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
>>> would
>>> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>>
>> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest?
>> What is your offering?
>>
> It offered a new way to spell definitely... and anyone who refers to their
> spouse as "the wife" is a disrespectful douchebag... I bet he refers to his
> dog as "My dog", his car as "My car"... I bet his dog and car even have
> names. I bet her calls "the wife" Bitch.

everyone should be a totally *respectful* douchebag like you, huh, sheldon?

blake

"The Ranger" wrote
Miche wrote:

>> ObFood: I finally got my GF bread working again, after three failures!
>> Interestingly enough it was probably the different flour that was
>> causing it to fail to rise, as switching back to the original source has
>> resulted in success. Unexpected, that!

> What was the "original source" material? A finer flour, different
> yeast? I hope to pop out a few loaves today, if the temps don't
> soar...

Unless I've lost my mind (always possible!), he'd gotten several bad loaves
out of a tried and true breadmaker recipe suddenly and was wondering if the
machine was bad but not sure. Turned out he had a new 'off brand' store
flour that was a softer wheat (lower protien) mucking the thing up.

On Aug 30, 8:11*am, "cshenk" > wrote:
> "The Ranger" wrote
>
> Miche wrote:
> >> ObFood: I finally got my GF bread working again, after three failures!
> >> Interestingly enough it was probably the different flour that was
> >> causing it to fail to rise, as switching back to the original source has
> >> resulted in success. Unexpected, that!
> >>
> > What was the "original source" material? A finer flour, different
> > yeast? I hope to pop out a few loaves today, if the temps don't
> > soar...
> >
> Unless I've lost my mind (always possible!), he'd gotten several bad loaves
> out of a tried and true breadmaker recipe suddenly and was wondering if the
> machine was bad but not sure. *Turned out he had a new 'off brand' store
> flour that was a softer wheat (lower protein) mucking the thing up.

He is a she.

Ah. Thanks. I think I remember her posting about it now that you
reminded me.

On Aug 30, 9:08*am, "Jean B." > wrote:
> ffuca wrote:
> > The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the posts
> > are OT *and nothing whatsoever to do with food. *Maybe rec.bitch.session would
> > be more apropos. *It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>
> Such thoughts coming from someone who never contributes are always
> odd.
>
> --
> Jean B.

But Jean, if you stopped into the grocery store and found only the
guns and ammo department, wouldn't you comment that "Gee, Shop&Stop
has certainly got nothing to do with food much anymore, now does it,
unless you count the meat you'll be able to shoot with the guns and
ammo.".... The poor troll is distressed that on Usenet, he's not
finding something he can download and steal for his website.

best,
maxine, now kidless

On Aug 30, 10:45*am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> PeterL2 wrote:
> > ChattyCathy > wrote in
> >news
>
> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:35:42 -0500, ffuca wrote:
>
> >>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
> >>> the posts are OT *and nothing whatsoever to do with food. *Maybe
> >>> rec.bitch.session would be more apropos. *It definately needs to be
> >>> cleaned up.
>
> >> Well, please don't let the door hit you on your way out...
> > LOL!!
>
> > Get it right Cathy!!
>
> > "There's the door. Don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split
> > ya."!!
>
> Hey, I was trying to be um, polite.

On RFC??

OB Food: my newly minted college student packed up all her Mom's
secret stash of goodies. Those college kids are gonna be living high
on the hog for a while.

maxine in ri

On Aug 30, 10:56*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:36:52 GMT, brooklyn1 wrote:
> > "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> >> "ffuca" > wrote:
>
> >>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
> >>> posts
> >>> are OT *and nothing whatsoever to do with food. *Maybe rec.bitch.session
> >>> would
> >>> be more apropos. *It definately needs to be cleaned up.
>
> >> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest?
> >> What is your offering?
>
> > It offered a new way to spell definitely... and anyone who refers to their
> > spouse as "the wife" is a disrespectful douchebag... I bet he refers to his
> > dog as "My dog", his car as "My car"... I bet his dog and car even have
> > names. *I bet her calls "the wife" Bitch.
>
> everyone should be a totally *respectful* douchebag like you, huh, sheldon?
>
> blake

Yo, blake! At least Shelly posts on-topic in between tirades.

hugs
maxine in ri

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:26:42 -0700 (PDT), bulka wrote:

> And, though I am hoping that this was close enough to on topic that I
> can get away without doing it this time, most of the ramblings close
> with an OB Food tidbit - at least getting in on a technicality.

I don't do ObFood's to make my posts legal. I do them mostly
because I had something on my mind and I don't consider it worthy of
starting a new thread. Though sometimes they do get promoted to a
new thread after somebody else shows interest in them.

Unlike Andy, I do not start a new thread every time I pass gas out
of an orifice. His posts/threads are far worse than any spammer or
OT threads when it comes to cluttering up the group.

-sw

ChattyCathy > wrote in news:_gwmm.186696
:

> PeterL2 wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy > wrote in
>> news >>
>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:35:42 -0500, ffuca wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
>>>> the posts are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
>>>> rec.bitch.session would be more apropos. It definately needs to be
>>>> cleaned up.
>>>
>>> Well, please don't let the door hit you on your way out...
>
>> LOL!!
>>
>> Get it right Cathy!!
>>
>> "There's the door. Don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split
>> ya."!!
>
> Hey, I was trying to be um, polite.



Gawd!! Give a girl a tiara and she starts acting like a Princess!!


;-P


>
> OBFood: Chicken schnitzel tonight...


Ours was nibblies at a friends house before they left to fly out to
Vietnam, and then home for a bottle of red and some scrambled eggs on
wholemeal toast, with a rocket and thinly sliced red capsicum (bell
pepper) salad on the side.


Mmmmmmmmmmm, could have gone some ChickSchnit though!!



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

In article >,
ffuca > wrote:

> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the posts
> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session would
> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.

Back in the heyday of newsgroups, people congregated around newsgroups
of a theme that interested them, and a sense of community formed. And
when friends get together, the subjects seems to drift in a myriad of
directions. The practice of put OT in an off topic from the theme post
became proper nettiquette as a courtesy to all, but the reason for
posting an off topic post in a forum you have been a long timer in is
that you want to hear/read commentary from those you consider friends,
but only see here.

Got a problem with that? Go form your own yahoo mail list group and
moderate it and dictate what can be said. Good luck with it.


ObFood: Now to get back to making my 4 gallon batch of spaghetti and
meatballs.

jt

maxine > wrote in message
...
[snip]
>> Hey, I was trying to be um, polite.
>>
> On RFC??

It can happen!

> OB Food: my newly minted college student packed up all her Mom's
> secret stash of goodies. Those college kids are gonna be living high
> on the hog for a while.

Good food is wasted on Youth in dorms. Hopefully she retains the
really-good-stash only for herself.

The Ranger

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:36:24 -0400, "cyberpurrs" > wrote:

-->
-->"ffuca" > wrote in message
.. .
-->>
-->> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
-->> posts
-->> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
-->> would
-->> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
-->
-->It does, does it? Let's see you do it.


This coming from one of the worst offenders

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:08:24 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

-->ffuca wrote:
-->> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
posts
-->> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
would
-->> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
-->
-->Such thoughts coming from someone who never contributes are always
-->odd.


Hmm this is a strange comment from you. This thread has everyone thinking
anyway, this was the main just of starting the thread. it worked.

"ffuca" > wrote in message
...
>
> The wife had a good point,

This is where I dropped out. Someone who refers to "the wife" (like "the car
or "the lawn mower") has nothing to say that I want to hear!

Felice

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> Idiot O'Failure can't spell.
>
>
> *applesauce*

You know what, Shellie? The day that I worry about what you say or think,
will be a cold day in hell)

ffuca wrote:
> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the posts
> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session would
> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.


Yep. Where's your recipe?

gloria p

"ffuca" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:08:24 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
> -->ffuca wrote:
> -->> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
> the
> posts
> -->> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
> rec.bitch.session
> would
> -->> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
> -->
> -->Such thoughts coming from someone who never contributes are always
> -->odd.
>
>
> Hmm this is a strange comment from you. This thread has everyone thinking
> anyway, this was the main just of starting the thread. it worked.

Oh FFS, another genius.

In article >,
jt august > wrote:

> became proper nettiquette as a courtesy to all, but the reason for
> posting an off topic post in a forum you have been a long timer in is
> that you want to hear/read commentary from those you consider friends,
> but only see here.

You want to contact friends? Try email.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check it out
And check this, too:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8279841&page=1

Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> I'll be here watching the give and take until the group is disbanded or
> I die. And thanks to all for the occasional tips that I'm interested in
> using. I cook a bit differently thanks to this raucous joint.
>
> leo

I like your attitude. If i had my way no body would speak above a
whisper about anything beyond the weather while munching celery to the
background sound of silver spoons gently taping teacups.

And nobody would be here to appreciate it except me

--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

Nancy Young wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> ffuca wrote:
>>
>>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of
>>> the posts are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe
>>> rec.bitch.session would be more apropos. It definately needs to be
>>> cleaned up.
>>
>>
>> Such thoughts coming from someone who never contributes are always
>> odd.
>
>
> I've rarely seen a food question go unanswered, if someone has the
> answer or some advice. People respond to recipes and cooking ideas.
>
> If that wasn't true, I could see this complaint. Ask a question! Post a
> recipe. Talk about food. Or start up a newsgroup rec.bitch.session and
> ffuca's post would be a fabulous first entry.
> nancy

I think that already exists .... alt.bitch.bitch.bitch.
--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

"Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> I'll be here watching the give and take until the group is disbanded or I
>> die. And thanks to all for the occasional tips that I'm interested in
>> using. I cook a bit differently thanks to this raucous joint. leo
>
> I like your attitude. If i had my way no body would speak above a whisper
> about anything beyond the weather while munching celery to the background
> sound of silver spoons gently taping teacups.
>
> And nobody would be here to appreciate it except me

lol nice one, Joseph

ChattyCathy wrote:
> OBFood: Chicken schnitzel tonight...

How do you do yours? I do adore the schnitzel's, would live solely on
them if i thought my health would tolerate it.

I made a 'chicken fried' pork chop the other day with rice flour, not
even seasoned, just plain rice flour and was quite pleased with it (i
seasoned the flattened pork chop and rubbed it with crushed garlic and
the S & P'ed and let it rest for 10 minutes before egg & flouring it.)

I find using a meat mallet on chicken breast a dicey proposition, i just
don't do it enough to have become proficient at it.

Once i tried cutting the raw boneless, skinless breast into several thin
slices and then very gently pounding those with the flat, smooth, side
of the meat mallet and that worked ok.
--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT), maxine > wrote:

-->On Aug 30, 9:08*am, "Jean B." > wrote:
-->> ffuca wrote:
-->> > The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
posts
-->> > are OT *and nothing whatsoever to do with food. *Maybe rec.bitch.session
would
-->> > be more apropos. *It definately needs to be cleaned up.
-->>
-->> Such thoughts coming from someone who never contributes are always
-->> odd.
-->>
-->> --
-->> Jean B.
-->
-->But Jean, if you stopped into the grocery store and found only the
-->guns and ammo department, wouldn't you comment that "Gee, Shop&Stop
-->has certainly got nothing to do with food much anymore, now does it,
-->unless you count the meat you'll be able to shoot with the guns and
-->ammo.".... The poor troll is distressed that on Usenet, he's not
-->finding something he can download and steal for his website.
-->
-->best,
-->maxine, now kidless


I'm curious as to why you think i'd want to steal from you, you're much too
full of yourself worth.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:36:52 GMT, "brooklyn1" > wrote:

-->
-->"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
-->> "ffuca" > wrote:
-->>>
-->>> The wife had a good point, why call it rec.food.cooking when 90% of the
-->>> posts
-->>> are OT and nothing whatsoever to do with food. Maybe rec.bitch.session
-->>> would
-->>> be more apropos. It definately needs to be cleaned up.
-->>
-->> So, now that you've bitched about the situation, what do you suggest?
-->> What is your offering?
-->>
-->It offered a new way to spell definitely... and anyone who refers to their
-->spouse as "the wife" is a disrespectful douchebag... I bet he refers to his
-->dog as "My dog", his car as "My car"... I bet his dog and car even have
-->names. I bet her calls "the wife" Bitch.
-->

I'd like to see you do that, you'd no longer have a set to play with