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  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,446
Default Magic Marketing

Steamers.

1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will take
heat & pressure without exploding.
3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and "be
careful HOT"
5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.

Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a microwave
safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.

Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.

NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!
--
Dimitri

Chicken Loaf

http://kitchenguide.wordpress.com.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 9:13*am, "Dimitri" > wrote:
> Baaaaahhhh *we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.
>
> NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!

Next time? Krusteaz frozen pancakes have been my preference for years
now. They're worth the extra cost, no-bother factor to me. I only
want a stack of four, or even just a few pancakes three or four times
a year. No mixing, no mess to wash up, no spoilage!
....Picky
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
aem aem is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,523
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 10:23 am, "rec.food.baking" > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:13 am, "Dimitri" > wrote:> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.
>
> > NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!

>
> Next time? Krusteaz frozen pancakes have been my preference for years
> now. They're worth the extra cost, no-bother factor to me. I only
> want a stack of four, or even just a few pancakes three or four times
> a year. No mixing, no mess to wash up, no spoilage!
> ...Picky


Might not work for you since you want them so rarely, but I often have
the convenience of frozen pancakes. I almost always make more pancake
batter than we will eat and rather than throw out the excess I cook it
up, put the extra pancakes in a ziploc bag and put it in the freezer.
Works fine. -aem
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,847
Default Magic Marketing


Dimitri wrote:
>
> Steamers.
>
> 1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
> 2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will take
> heat & pressure without exploding.
> 3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
> 4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and "be
> careful HOT"
> 5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
>
> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a microwave
> safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.
>
> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.
>
> NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!
> --
> Dimitri
>
> Chicken Loaf
>
> http://kitchenguide.wordpress.com.


Who's this "we"? I don't buy that crap, indeed I have long nuked frozen
veggies in the standard bag and have never had any melting or exploding.
I can't say that I see anything wrong with fleecing the ignorant with
such marketing however, as those ignorant folks would surely find a
worse used for their money if they were allowed to keep it.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,446
Default Magic Marketing

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ter.com...
>
> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> Steamers.
>>
>> 1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
>> 2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will
>> take
>> heat & pressure without exploding.
>> 3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
>> 4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and "be
>> careful HOT"
>> 5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
>>
>> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a microwave
>> safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.
>>
>> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.
>>
>> NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!
>> --
>> Dimitri
>>
>> Chicken Loaf
>>
>> http://kitchenguide.wordpress.com.

>
> Who's this "we"?


If it were not successful you would not see it either advertized or on the
shelf any more. Ergo there must be some "we" purchasing this and other
"convenience items"



I don't buy that crap, indeed I have long nuked frozen
> veggies in the standard bag and have never had any melting or exploding.


> I can't say that I see anything wrong with fleecing the ignorant with
> such marketing however, as those ignorant folks would surely find a
> worse used for their money if they were allowed to keep it.


Hmmm I am not sure I agree with your premise.


--
Dimitri

Chicken Loaf

http://kitchenguide.wordpress.com.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Magic Marketing


> In article
> >,
> aem > wrote:
>
>> Might not work for you since you want them so rarely, but I often have
>> the convenience of frozen pancakes. I almost always make more pancake
>> batter than we will eat and rather than throw out the excess I cook it
>> up, put the extra pancakes in a ziploc bag and put it in the freezer.
>> Works fine. -aem




Our extras get torn apart and put out int he back yard for the birds,
foxes, or any other critter that's hungry.

gloria p
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,987
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 12:13*pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
> Steamers.
>
> 1. * *Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
> 2. * *Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will take
> heat & pressure without exploding.
> 3. * *Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
> 4. * *Print some inane instructions on the bag like *"Hold here" and "be
> careful HOT"
> 5. * *Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
>
> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a microwave
> safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.
>
> Baaaaahhhh *we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.



I don't know about 'being taken'. People who buy this convenience
stuff just don't bother or know how to take the time to do some cost
figuring. But no one's twisting any arms. If that's how they wanna
throw their money away.....but, wait, maybe they don't see it that
way.

  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,987
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 1:37*pm, aem > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 10:23 am, "rec.food.baking" > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 9:13 am, "Dimitri" > wrote:> Baaaaahhhh *we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.

>
> > > NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!

>
> > Next time? *Krusteaz frozen pancakes have been my preference for years
> > now. *They're worth the extra cost, no-bother factor to me. *I only
> > want a stack of four, or even just a few pancakes three or four times
> > a year. *No mixing, no mess to wash up, no spoilage!
> > ...Picky

>
> Might not work for you since you want them so rarely, but I often have
> the convenience of frozen pancakes. *I almost always make more pancake
> batter than we will eat and rather than throw out the excess I cook it
> up, put the extra pancakes in a ziploc bag and put it in the freezer.



I do the same - made 8 waffles the other day, froze some with wax
paper between. Makes for a quick b'fast after popping them into the
toaster over.
Spread with cream cheese, orange marmalade..... not baaaad.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,077
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 12:23*pm, "rec.food.baking" > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:13*am, "Dimitri" > wrote:> Baaaaahhhh *we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.
>
> > NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!

>
> Next time? *Krusteaz frozen pancakes have been my preference for years
> now. *They're worth the extra cost, no-bother factor to me. *I only
> want a stack of four, or even just a few pancakes three or four times
> a year. *No mixing, no mess to wash up, no spoilage!
> ...Picky


Obviously, you are NOT picky. Might I recommend Banquet TV dinners?
Hey, there's, "No mixing, no mess to wash up, no spoilage!"

--Bryan
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,077
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 2:42*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 1:37*pm, aem > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 10:23 am, "rec.food.baking" > wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 5, 9:13 am, "Dimitri" > wrote:> Baaaaahhhh *we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.

>
> > > > NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!

>
> > > Next time? *Krusteaz frozen pancakes have been my preference for years
> > > now. *They're worth the extra cost, no-bother factor to me. *I only
> > > want a stack of four, or even just a few pancakes three or four times
> > > a year. *No mixing, no mess to wash up, no spoilage!
> > > ...Picky

>
> > Might not work for you since you want them so rarely, but I often have
> > the convenience of frozen pancakes. *I almost always make more pancake
> > batter than we will eat and rather than throw out the excess I cook it
> > up, put the extra pancakes in a ziploc bag and put it in the freezer.

>
> I do the same - made 8 waffles the other day, froze some with wax
> paper between. *Makes for a quick b'fast after popping them into the
> toaster over.
> Spread with cream cheese, orange marmalade..... not baaaad.


But not goooood either.

--Bryan


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,847
Default Magic Marketing


Dimitri wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ter.com...
> >
> > Dimitri wrote:
> >>
> >> Steamers.
> >>
> >> 1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
> >> 2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will
> >> take
> >> heat & pressure without exploding.
> >> 3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
> >> 4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and "be
> >> careful HOT"
> >> 5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
> >>
> >> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a microwave
> >> safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.
> >>
> >> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.
> >>
> >> NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!
> >> --
> >> Dimitri
> >>
> >> Chicken Loaf
> >>
> >> http://kitchenguide.wordpress.com.

> >
> > Who's this "we"?

>
> If it were not successful you would not see it either advertized or on the
> shelf any more. Ergo there must be some "we" purchasing this and other
> "convenience items"


The correct term would be "they" as in "They're being taken to the
slaughter like sheep", while "we're" continuing to not buy that crap.

>
> I don't buy that crap, indeed I have long nuked frozen
> > veggies in the standard bag and have never had any melting or exploding.

>
> > I can't say that I see anything wrong with fleecing the ignorant with
> > such marketing however, as those ignorant folks would surely find a
> > worse used for their money if they were allowed to keep it.

>
> Hmmm I am not sure I agree with your premise.


They might find a worse use for their money, one which may threaten /
harm me.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,446
Default Magic Marketing

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 12:13 pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
>
> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.



I don't know about 'being taken'. People who buy this convenience
stuff just don't bother or know how to take the time to do some cost
figuring. But no one's twisting any arms. If that's how they wanna
throw their money away.....but, wait, maybe they don't see it that
way.


More "MarketSpeak"

"In the unlikely event of a water landing." Only one was there a succeeeful
"Water Landng" I think they used to call it ditching at sea.

Dimitri

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,651
Default Magic Marketing

Dimitri wrote:
> Steamers.
>
> 1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12
> Oz.
> 2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will
> take heat & pressure without exploding.
> 3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
> 4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and
> "be careful HOT"
> 5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
>
> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a
> microwave safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.


That's funny. I wondered what made those packages special.
I have bought them a couple of times on sale when they were cheaper
than the other brands. I still put them in a little Corningware pot
I have with a glass lid and nuke them.

nancy
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,057
Default Magic Marketing

On 4/5/2010 5:21 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Apr 5, 12:13 pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>
>> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.

>
>
> I don't know about 'being taken'. People who buy this convenience
> stuff just don't bother or know how to take the time to do some cost
> figuring. But no one's twisting any arms. If that's how they wanna
> throw their money away.....but, wait, maybe they don't see it that
> way.
>
>
> More "MarketSpeak"
>
> "In the unlikely event of a water landing." I think they used to call it ditching at sea.


What do you mean by "Only one was there a succeeeful 'Water Landng'"?
There have been many "water landings" with no loss of life, if that's
what you mean by "successful".

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,446
Default Magic Marketing

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/5/2010 5:21 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Apr 5, 12:13 pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.

>>
>>
>> I don't know about 'being taken'. People who buy this convenience
>> stuff just don't bother or know how to take the time to do some cost
>> figuring. But no one's twisting any arms. If that's how they wanna
>> throw their money away.....but, wait, maybe they don't see it that
>> way.
>>
>>
>> More "MarketSpeak"
>>
>> "In the unlikely event of a water landing." I think they used to call it
>> ditching at sea.

>
> What do you mean by "Only one was there a succeeeful 'Water Landng'"?
> There have been many "water landings" with no loss of life, if that's what
> you mean by "successful".
>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing

Dimitri



  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,057
Default Magic Marketing

On 4/5/2010 6:42 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> "J. Clarke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/5/2010 5:21 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>>> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Apr 5, 12:13 pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know about 'being taken'. People who buy this convenience
>>> stuff just don't bother or know how to take the time to do some cost
>>> figuring. But no one's twisting any arms. If that's how they wanna
>>> throw their money away.....but, wait, maybe they don't see it that
>>> way.
>>>
>>>
>>> More "MarketSpeak"
>>>
>>> "In the unlikely event of a water landing." I think they used to call
>>> it ditching at sea.

>>
>> What do you mean by "Only one was there a succeeeful 'Water Landng'"?
>> There have been many "water landings" with no loss of life, if that's
>> what you mean by "successful".
>>

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing


I don't understand your point in linking that article. It lists a large
number of successful water landings, which would be inconsistent with
your assertion that "only one there was a succeeeful 'Water Landing'".
Or perhaps I am simply misinterpreting your typographical errors--I
interpret that statement to mean "only once was there a successful
'Water Landing'". Did you mean something else?

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,223
Default Magic Marketing

Dimitri wrote:
> Steamers.
>
> 1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
> 2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will
> take heat & pressure without exploding.
> 3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
> 4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and "be
> careful HOT"
> 5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
>
> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a
> microwave safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.
>
> Baaaaahhhh we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.


Totally. However, when I had a coupon/sale combination last week that
made them half the price of regular, I got some. And I don't even have a
microwave, so I guess I'll just steam them as usual. Don't tell the
Bird's Eye people; they may have to kill me to make an example of me.

> NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!


How about that freakin' spray-on pancake stuff? That makes me laugh so hard.

Serene
--
"I tend to come down on the side of autonomy. Once people are grown up,
I believe they have the right to go to hell in the handbasket of their
choosing." -- Pat Kight, on alt.polyamory
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,446
Default Magic Marketing

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
...


<snip>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing

>
> I don't understand your point in linking that article. It lists a large
> number of successful water landings, which would be inconsistent with your
> assertion that "only one there was a succeeeful 'Water Landing'". Or
> perhaps I am simply misinterpreting your typographical errors--I interpret
> that statement to mean "only once was there a successful 'Water Landing'".
> Did you mean something else?


Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes
you're correct some people have survived. What I said - it was an over
exaggeration.... Which I tend to do.

IIRC Sully was able to put the plane down successfully for may reasons 1 of
which was his experience flying gliders (dead stick landings).

"By Matt Phillips
One of the more interesting elements on the resume of Capt. Chesley 'Sully'
Sullenberger - the pilot at the helm of US Airways flight 1549 - is his
training flying gliders. It stands to reason that familiarity flying such
engine-less aircraft could come in handy since he reportedly lost both
engines on the Airbus A320 Thursday afternoon, possibly after striking
birds. "


If the Flight attendants say " in the unlikely event we have to DITCH AT
SEA" people lose confidence. Marketing speak softens the concept to WATER
LANDING as if a 747 or a jumbo jet has pontoons. Marketing Speak is
designed to make the unacceptable acceptable. IMHO....

Dimitri

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default Magic Marketing

Dimitri > wrote:

>Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes


Not true. They all have water landing procedures, which include
closing off vents on the bottom side of the airplane and
landing at a certain angle (generally nose-up).

I really doubt they would certify an airliner that couldn't
at least nominally be expected to land in water, as well
as perform a dead-stick landing on land.


Steve
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,057
Default Magic Marketing

On 4/5/2010 8:30 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> "J. Clarke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing

>>
>> I don't understand your point in linking that article. It lists a
>> large number of successful water landings, which would be inconsistent
>> with your assertion that "only one there was a succeeeful 'Water
>> Landing'". Or perhaps I am simply misinterpreting your typographical
>> errors--I interpret that statement to mean "only once was there a
>> successful 'Water Landing'". Did you mean something else?

>
> Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes
> you're correct some people have survived. What I said - it was an over
> exaggeration.... Which I tend to do.
>
> IIRC Sully was able to put the plane down successfully for may reasons 1
> of which was his experience flying gliders (dead stick landings).
>
> "By Matt Phillips
> One of the more interesting elements on the resume of Capt. Chesley
> 'Sully' Sullenberger - the pilot at the helm of US Airways flight 1549 -
> is his training flying gliders. It stands to reason that familiarity
> flying such engine-less aircraft could come in handy since he reportedly
> lost both engines on the Airbus A320 Thursday afternoon, possibly after
> striking birds. "
>
>
> If the Flight attendants say " in the unlikely event we have to DITCH AT
> SEA" people lose confidence. Marketing speak softens the concept to
> WATER LANDING as if a 747 or a jumbo jet has pontoons. Marketing Speak
> is designed to make the unacceptable acceptable. IMHO....


Flight 1549 did not "ditch at sea". There was no "sea" involved. So
give us a phrasing that covers everything that "water landing" covers in
three words or less.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,987
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 3:57*pm, Food Snob® > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2:42*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 1:37*pm, aem > wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 5, 10:23 am, "rec.food.baking" > wrote:

>
> > > > On Apr 5, 9:13 am, "Dimitri" > wrote:> Baaaaahhhh *we're being taken to the slaughter like sheep.

>
> > > > > NEXT TIME - Frozen Pancakes!

>
> > > > Next time? *Krusteaz frozen pancakes have been my preference for years
> > > > now. *They're worth the extra cost, no-bother factor to me. *I only
> > > > want a stack of four, or even just a few pancakes three or four times
> > > > a year. *No mixing, no mess to wash up, no spoilage!
> > > > ...Picky

>
> > > Might not work for you since you want them so rarely, but I often have
> > > the convenience of frozen pancakes. *I almost always make more pancake
> > > batter than we will eat and rather than throw out the excess I cook it
> > > up, put the extra pancakes in a ziploc bag and put it in the freezer.

>
> > I do the same - made 8 waffles the other day, froze some with wax
> > paper between. *Makes for a quick b'fast after popping them into the
> > toaster over.
> > Spread with cream cheese, orange marmalade..... not baaaad.

>
> But not goooood either.



What do you like on a waffle? Mind you, I like to make a waffle
sandwich I can eat in my hand, not lying in a puddle of maple syrup.
Sometimes it even gets to ride in the car. : )) B'fast on the go.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61,789
Default Magic Marketing

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:

> What do you like on a waffle? Mind you, I like to make a waffle
> sandwich I can eat in my hand, not lying in a puddle of maple syrup.


I like exactly what you don't like. I want lots of butter and even
more real maple syrup.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,847
Default Magic Marketing


"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> On 4/5/2010 8:30 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing
> >>
> >> I don't understand your point in linking that article. It lists a
> >> large number of successful water landings, which would be inconsistent
> >> with your assertion that "only one there was a succeeeful 'Water
> >> Landing'". Or perhaps I am simply misinterpreting your typographical
> >> errors--I interpret that statement to mean "only once was there a
> >> successful 'Water Landing'". Did you mean something else?

> >
> > Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes
> > you're correct some people have survived. What I said - it was an over
> > exaggeration.... Which I tend to do.
> >
> > IIRC Sully was able to put the plane down successfully for may reasons 1
> > of which was his experience flying gliders (dead stick landings).
> >
> > "By Matt Phillips
> > One of the more interesting elements on the resume of Capt. Chesley
> > 'Sully' Sullenberger - the pilot at the helm of US Airways flight 1549 -
> > is his training flying gliders. It stands to reason that familiarity
> > flying such engine-less aircraft could come in handy since he reportedly
> > lost both engines on the Airbus A320 Thursday afternoon, possibly after
> > striking birds. "
> >
> >
> > If the Flight attendants say " in the unlikely event we have to DITCH AT
> > SEA" people lose confidence. Marketing speak softens the concept to
> > WATER LANDING as if a 747 or a jumbo jet has pontoons. Marketing Speak
> > is designed to make the unacceptable acceptable. IMHO....

>
> Flight 1549 did not "ditch at sea". There was no "sea" involved. So
> give us a phrasing that covers everything that "water landing" covers in
> three words or less.


"Crash in water"
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,446
Default Magic Marketing

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri > wrote:
>
>>Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes

>
> Not true. They all have water landing procedures, which include
> closing off vents on the bottom side of the airplane and
> landing at a certain angle (generally nose-up).
>
> I really doubt they would certify an airliner that couldn't
> at least nominally be expected to land in water, as well
> as perform a dead-stick landing on land.
>
>
> Steve


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing

"The FAA does not require commercial pilots to train to ditch, regulating
instead the distance a plane can stray from an airfield.



<SNIP>

While there have been several 'successful' (survivable) water landings by
narrow-body and propeller-driven airliners, few commercial jets have ever
touched down 'perfectly' on water. There has been a good deal of popular
controversy over the efficiency of life vests and rafts. For example, Ralph
Nader's Aviation Consumer Action Project had been quoted as saying that a
wide body jet would “shatter like a raw egg dropped on pavement, killing
most if not all passengers on impact, even in calm seas with well-trained
pilots and good landing trajectories."[2]

Also, in December 2002, The Economist had quoted an expert as claiming that
"No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water" in an
article that goes on to charge, "So the life jackets ... have little purpose
other than to make passengers feel better."[3][4] This idea was repeated in
The Economist in September 2006 in an article which reported that "in the
history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made
successful landings on water is zero."[5] "

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default Magic Marketing

Dimitri > wrote:

>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message


>> Dimitri > wrote:


>>>Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes


>> Not true. They all have water landing procedures, which include
>> closing off vents on the bottom side of the airplane and
>> landing at a certain angle (generally nose-up).


>> I really doubt they would certify an airliner that couldn't
>> at least nominally be expected to land in water, as well
>> as perform a dead-stick landing on land.


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing


>"The FAA does not require commercial pilots to train to ditch, regulating
>instead the distance a plane can stray from an airfield.


As is often the case, the Wikipedia contributor is flat-ass wrong.

From the FAA Website:

"Section 25.801 of the regulations [for transport category
aircraft] broadly states that the behavior of the airplane in
a ditching situation must not cause immediate injury to the
occupants or make it impossible for them to escape. The rules
also say the flotation time and attitude of the airplane in
the water must let the occupants evacuate the airplane."

"Pilots must be familiar with ditching techniques, and
ditching procedures exist in their aircraft manuals and
checklists. Familiarization with the procedures is typically
done in ground school."

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10600

> Ralph Nader's Aviation Consumer Action Project


Ralph Nader is an idiot.

First Wikipedia, than Nader... you're on a roll. But surely
even Nader must know that many people have survived water
landings.

> Also, in December 2002, The Economist had quoted an expert
> as claiming that "No large airliner has ever made an emergency
> landing on water" in an article that goes on to charge, "So
> the life jackets ... have little purpose other than to make
> passengers feel better."


The Economist has a tendency to be glib.

You're 0 for 3 on sources.


Steve


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,778
Default Magic Marketing


"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
> Steamers.
>
> 1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
> 2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will take
> heat & pressure without exploding.
> 3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
> 4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and "be
> careful HOT"
> 5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
>
> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a microwave
> safe dish and covering it with a piece of plastic.
>


Or, you can make your own.
<http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5482883&CatId=4626>
or http://tinyurl.com/yk6tnzm


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,987
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 6, 12:20*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
>
> > wrote:
> > What do you like on a waffle? *Mind you, I like to make a waffle
> > sandwich I can eat in my hand, not lying in a puddle of maple syrup.

>
> I like exactly what you don't like. *I want lots of butter and even
> more real maple syrup.
>
> --
> Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.


I like syrup and butter too at times, but just not when I want a 'to-
go' waffle.
When time permits, I mix syrup, blueberries (mashed), and a bit of
raspberry preserves for "dip-it" for pancakes and waffles.

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,987
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 7:55*pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:

>


> How about that freakin' spray-on pancake stuff? That makes me laugh so hard.


What IS this stuff?
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,057
Default Magic Marketing

On 4/6/2010 4:04 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dimitri > wrote:
>>
>>> Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes

>>
>> Not true. They all have water landing procedures, which include
>> closing off vents on the bottom side of the airplane and
>> landing at a certain angle (generally nose-up).
>>
>> I really doubt they would certify an airliner that couldn't
>> at least nominally be expected to land in water, as well
>> as perform a dead-stick landing on land.
>>
>>
>> Steve

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing
>
> "The FAA does not require commercial pilots to train to ditch,
> regulating instead the distance a plane can stray from an airfield.


Note that "commercial pilot" is a different rating from that held by
airline pilots, with much lower training and experience requirements.

If anyone can cite the regulation that limits the "distance a plane can
stray from an airfield" I'd like to see it.

> <SNIP>
>
> While there have been several 'successful' (survivable) water landings
> by narrow-body and propeller-driven airliners, few commercial jets have
> ever touched down 'perfectly' on water. There has been a good deal of
> popular controversy over the efficiency of life vests and rafts. For
> example, Ralph Nader's Aviation Consumer Action Project had been quoted
> as saying that a wide body jet would “shatter like a raw egg dropped on
> pavement, killing most if not all passengers on impact, even in calm
> seas with well-trained pilots and good landing trajectories."[2]
>
> Also, in December 2002, The Economist had quoted an expert as claiming
> that "No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water" in
> an article that goes on to charge, "So the life jackets ... have little
> purpose other than to make passengers feel better."[3][4] This idea was
> repeated in The Economist in September 2006 in an article which reported
> that "in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that
> have made successful landings on water is zero."[5] "


And yet the same wikipedia article lists a number of large jet airliners
that landed on water with few fatalities.

I do wish that Ralph Nader would stick to things he understands.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Magic Marketing

On Apr 5, 6:05*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Dimitri > wrote:
> >Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" *yes

>
> Not true. *They all have water landing procedures, which include
> closing off vents on the bottom side of the airplane and
> landing at a certain angle (generally nose-up).
>
> I really doubt they would certify an airliner that couldn't
> at least nominally be expected to land in water, as well
> as perform a dead-stick landing on land.
>



"Landing" is a euphemism. If the plane is going to sink after the
"landing", then it wasn't truly a landing. It was ditched or crashed.
It just happened to do so gently enough that people survived and had
time to exit the plane.

Sully successfully ditched the plane without loss of life. He didn't
actually land it, since the plane cannot stay afloat.





  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36,804
Default Magic Marketing

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
> Steamers.
>
> 1. Reduce the frozen vegetable contents per bag from 16 Oz. to 12 Oz.
> 2. Place the frozen veggies in a bag made from a plastic that will take
> heat & pressure without exploding.
> 3. Develop a catchy name like "Steamers".
> 4. Print some inane instructions on the bag like "Hold here" and "be
> careful HOT"
> 5. Charge 3 times as much as you did for the 16 Oz package.
>
> Thus saving the user the trouble of placing frozen veggies in a microwave
> --
> Dimitri
>

These actually worked very well when I was travelling and cooking in hotel
rooms with limited facilities. Would I buy them for use at home? Nope. I
do keep frozen veggies on hand, but I'm not afraid to use the stove top with
a steamer basket to cook them. I'll even put them in a microwave dish with
a little water. Heh. But if a fresh veggie is in season that's what I
want, that's what I'm buying and cooking

Jill

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default Magic Marketing

J. Clarke > wrote:

>If anyone can cite the regulation that limits the "distance a plane can
>stray from an airfield" I'd like to see it.


I would hazard a guess that this regulation (assuming it exists)
applies to some category of short-haul, non-overwater
flights. Obviously-long haul flights can overfly most of the globe.

>I do wish that Ralph Nader would stick to things he understands.


Considering that with his 2000 presidential run he ignited a chain
of events that very nearly plunged us into world war, I agree.



Steve
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,057
Default Magic Marketing

On 4/7/2010 1:35 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> J. > wrote:
>
>> If anyone can cite the regulation that limits the "distance a plane can
>> stray from an airfield" I'd like to see it.

>
> I would hazard a guess that this regulation (assuming it exists)
> applies to some category of short-haul, non-overwater
> flights. Obviously-long haul flights can overfly most of the globe.
>
>> I do wish that Ralph Nader would stick to things he understands.

>
> Considering that with his 2000 presidential run he ignited a chain
> of events that very nearly plunged us into world war, I agree.


Yep. He should get a real job.

  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,223
Default Magic Marketing

Kalmia wrote:
> On Apr 5, 7:55 pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>
>
>> How about that freakin' spray-on pancake stuff? That makes me laugh so hard.

>
> What IS this stuff?


It's this, but don't click until you turn your sound way down:
http://www.batterblaster.com/

Guy's partner actually buys the stuff, because she's got more money than
time and buys every convenience food she can (pre-minced garlic, etc.),
which is totally fine for her, but not the way I prefer to do things.

Serene

--
"I tend to come down on the side of autonomy. Once people are grown up,
I believe they have the right to go to hell in the handbasket of their
choosing." -- Pat Kight, on alt.polyamory
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Magic Marketing

Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Kalmia wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 7:55 pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How about that freakin' spray-on pancake stuff? That makes me laugh
>>> so hard.

>>
>> What IS this stuff?

>
> It's this, but don't click until you turn your sound way down:
> http://www.batterblaster.com/
>


Eeeeuuuwwww. All organic? What's organic about the propellant and
preservatives in it? IMHO people too lazy to make real pancake batter
don't deserve to eat pancakes. And that's the truth, PHBBBBBT.

gloria p


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default Magic Marketing

gloria.p > wrote:
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
> > Kalmia wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 7:55 pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
> >>
> >>> How about that freakin' spray-on pancake stuff? That makes me laugh
> >>> so hard.
> >>
> >> What IS this stuff?

> >
> > It's this, but don't click until you turn your sound way down:
> > http://www.batterblaster.com/


> Eeeeuuuwwww. All organic? What's organic about the propellant and
> preservatives in it? IMHO people too lazy to make real pancake batter
> don't deserve to eat pancakes. And that's the truth, PHBBBBBT.


Not that I'd use the stuff, but did you read the ingredients?
No preservatives, must be refrigerated. They don't mention the
propellent. I'm guessing either carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide.
The first is certainly organic in the chemistry sense since it's
a carbon compound. The other is what they have used in canned whipped
cream for years. Anyway, they got their USDA organic cert.

It is an odd idea, though.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"