On Mon, 03 May 2010 17:07:09 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:
>
>I agree that the switch to metric measurement was unsuccessful because
>Americans were too lazy and/or too scared to learn it.

That's simply not true. Those who were raised with metric have just
as much difficulty accomodating to the British system. Spacial
perseptions are internalized from the cradle, and once whichever
system is internalized it will forever be predominent, it cannot be
unlearned. The only way that the US can adopt metric is to remove ALL
British measurement configured items from existance in one fell swoop
and still it would take at least 2-3 generations to make the switch.
People can learn both systems, and do, but just like language the one
one is born with will always be predominent... vastly predominent.
Laziness and fear hasn't a whit to do with it. I worked with both
systems all my life and can work with both, but will never feel
comfortable with metric. I've known many people the same. No one can
percieve bra size better than me but I've never had a dream about
metric boobs... and I bet you don't know your metric bra size... now
like a little hamster you're going to scramble to look it up. LOL

In article >,
"gloria.p" > wrote:

> I agree that the switch to metric measurement was unsuccessful because
> Americans were too lazy and/or too scared to learn it. It was like
> learning a foreign language, "too much work" for the average person.
> I also don't think the government or schools worked hard enough on the
> transition to make it palatable.

How comfortable are you with switching to another OS? If you are
comfortable, how comfortable do you think others are? I remember the
push around 1960. Every mechanic, professional and backyard, would have
had to buy new tools. Tough sell. Back then, that was the forefront of
the argument.
The good news is that the metric system is slowly encroaching on
American life. That's how it should be. It's a big change if you didn't
grow up with it.

leo

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add, tare
> etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise
> soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this
> ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.

My Escali electronic scale weighs in ounces (and fractions of an ounce)
as well as grams (though not, I think, kilos). I make my brownies in a
2-quart Pyrex mixing pitcher, using the scale for the dry ingredients
(chocolate and butter are pre-measured so there's no need). I like
using the scale and my Escali was reasonably priced and is accurate.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures

My, my...quite a bit of ado made over a statement that was made in jest.

Brian Christiansen

On 5/4/2010 10:28 AM, Brian Christiansen wrote:
> My, my...quite a bit of ado made over a statement that was made in jest.
>
> Brian Christiansen
>
>

I ain't worrying about it much. Folks aren't inclined to change their
ways unless there's a practical reason for change. I've used cm & mm
while working as a paste-up artist cause I couldn't figure out any easy
way to divide an inch measurement like 8.5" by 3 or 4 or 5. I'm used to
working on cars that use metric fasteners and can recognize 10, 12, 13,
14, 15, 17mm bolt heads by sight most of the time. As far as cooking is
concerned, I know is that a cup is about equal to 200 ml and that's
about all because I've never had the need to know. I don't anticipate
having to know in the future either.

The key is to indoctrinate the kids of this country to be able to think
in metric and we'll slide on over to that system nice and smooth - just
as soon as us old farts drop dead and make some room for them to take over!

On the other hand, metric use in baking almost certainly requires a scale. I don't have one, have never (otherwise) needed one, and don't wish to have one on my countertop.

N.

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>On the other hand, metric use in baking almost certainly requires a scale. I don't have one, have never (otherwise) needed one, and don't wish to have one on my countertop.
>
>N.

I use it fairly often. If we buy something in bulk it can help to
portion out specific quantities. When curing meat, I can get the
proper proportions. We do have some recipes that go by weight.

Once I started using metric at work some 24 years ago, I found it to
be easier for conversions and just another "language" I have no idea
why some people fight it so much. We are an international society
these days so you cannot avoid it forever.

On 6/10/2013 6:02 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I use it fairly often. If we buy something in bulk it can help to
> portion out specific quantities. When curing meat, I can get the
> proper proportions. We do have some recipes that go by weight.
>
> Once I started using metric at work some 24 years ago, I found it to
> be easier for conversions and just another "language" I have no idea
> why some people fight it so much. We are an international society
> these days so you cannot avoid it forever.

I wouldn't say I fight it, it just rarely comes up at all. Like
any other language, if I was immersed in it, I'd learn it. Or
for a work situation, like yours, not a problem.

All of the recipes I see in magazines/cookbooks/here on rfc for
the most part are in the familiar and descriptive cups and teaspoons,
it's not as if I stubbornly convert from metric all the time. Know
what I mean?

nancy

wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:02:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, metric use in baking almost certainly requires a scale. I don't have one, have never (otherwise) needed one, and don't wish to have one on my countertop.
>>>
>>> N.
>> I use it fairly often. If we buy something in bulk it can help to
>> portion out specific quantities. When curing meat, I can get the
>> proper proportions. We do have some recipes that go by weight.
>>
>> Once I started using metric at work some 24 years ago, I found it to
>> be easier for conversions and just another "language" I have no idea
>> why some people fight it so much. We are an international society
>> these days so you cannot avoid it forever.
>
>
> I love metric, much easier. I also weigh many things, great cooks
> will always say weight is more reliable, seems to be true. Perhaps in
> most recipes a little more or less will not matter but things like
> sponges, certain breads, Yorkshire puds, soufflés, it can make all the
> difference between so/so and excellent.
>
> Out of interest once I tried pouring 1 Cup as measured by Pyrex and
> T'ware and a couple of others, all varied one from the other and
> that's before one even starts on teaspoons, tablespoons etc.

I admit that I don't weigh ingredients, but I will also say that
weighing would be much more accurate and would lead to results
that could be exactly replicated. I have read, for example, that
there are HUGE variations in how much a cup of flour would weigh.

Are you speaking of liquids? I often speculate that the measuring
devices here are not totally accurate, but I haven't checked that
out. Perhaps your post will lead me to do that. I wonder whether
it would be good to switch to lab-type vessels?

--
Jean B.

On May 2, 3:32*pm, George Shirley > wrote:

> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
> to understand it.
>

Australia notoriously has the four-teaspoon tablespoon.

spamtrap1888 > wrote:

>Australia notoriously has the four-teaspoon tablespoon.

Ouch!

So how far away from Australia do you have to be before
you're back to three-teaspoon tablespoons?

Tonga? Samoa? Japan?

Steve

Almost every set of measuring spoons I have ever had has a spoon that is four teaspoons. My stainless steel set is the only one that doesn't. The others are plastic, including T'ware, and they do have that measure.

N.

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:35:11 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> Almost every set of measuring spoons I have ever had has a spoon that is four teaspoons. My stainless steel set is the only one that doesn't. The others are plastic, including T'ware, and they do have that measure.
>
Interesting! I've never seen that variation.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 6/10/2013 12:39 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:35:11 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> > wrote:
>
>> Almost every set of measuring spoons I have ever had has a spoon that is four teaspoons. My stainless steel set is the only one that doesn't. The others are plastic, including T'ware, and they do have that measure.
>>
> Interesting! I've never seen that variation.
>
Nor have I.

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
> Almost every set of measuring spoons I have ever had has a spoon that is
> four teaspoons. My stainless steel set is the only one that doesn't. The
> others are plastic, including T'ware, and they do have that measure.

Hmmm... I have several sets and they only go up to a Tablespoon. I think I
have seen one with a coffee measure. Might that be it?

No, it is a regular four teaspoon measure. I will say my Tupperware set dates back to 1962. I also have a cheap plastic set with that measure. A coffee measure is two tablespoons, isn't it? It generally comes with a measuring cup set, not a spoon set.

N.

Nancy2 wrote:
> Almost every set of measuring spoons I have ever had has a spoon that is four teaspoons. My stainless steel set is the only one that doesn't. The others are plastic, including T'ware, and they do have that measure.
>
> N.

I have never seen a 4-tsp measuring spoon, even though I have
normal sets and also at least one set with unusual measures like 2
tsps or 2 Tbsps.

--
Jean B.

Jean B wrote:
>Nancy2 wrote:
>
>>Almost every set of measuring spoons I have ever had has a spoon that is four teaspoons.

Perhaps you can supply a link to a 4 tsp measuring spoon... just one
will do.

>I have never seen a 4-tsp measuring spoon, even though I have
>normal sets and also at least one set with unusual measures like 2
>tsps or 2 Tbsps.

I've never seen a 4 tsp measuring spoon either; every set I've ever
seen has a 1 tsp measuring spoon, a 1/2 tsp, a 1/4 tsp, and some have
a 1/8 tsp... but none I've ever seen have more than a 1 tsp measuring
spoon. I've never seen more than a 1 Tbls measuring spoon either...
there's a 1/2 Tbls but I've never seen more than a 1 Tbls. That said
I've never used measuring spoons for measuring anything nor have I
ever seen any pro cook use measuring spoons... the ONLY practical use
for a set of measurng spoons is for entertaining infants.

On 6/11/2013 9:20 PM, Jean B. wrote:
> Nancy2 wrote:
>> Almost every set of measuring spoons I have ever had has a spoon that
>> is four teaspoons. My stainless steel set is the only one that
>> doesn't. The others are plastic, including T'ware, and they do have
>> that measure.
>>
>> N.
>
> I have never seen a 4-tsp measuring spoon, even though I have normal
> sets and also at least one set with unusual measures like 2 tsps or 2
> Tbsps.

One of my sets of measuring spoons had a 1 1/2 TB measure, and my yellow
Tupperware measuring spoons, has a 1 1/2 teaspoon measure and a 4
teaspoon measure.

Becca

On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
> wrote:

<snip>

>As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
>to understand it.

Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
system.

These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
Whitworth etc.

--
Jeßus

May God protect you from his followers.

On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
>> to understand it.
>
> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
> system.

> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
> Whitworth etc.

Can't agree.
I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
feet and inches.

I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)

>
> --
> Jeßus
>
> May God protect you from his followers.

On 5/3/2010 5:54 AM, Geordie Guy wrote:
> On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
>>> to understand it.
>>
>> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
>> system.
>
>> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
>> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
>> Whitworth etc.
>
> Can't agree.
> I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
> measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
> feet and inches.
>
> I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
> two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
> and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
> pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)

Remember the name of Russel Crowe's Australian band? It wasn't "Ten Odd
Meter of Grunts".

J. Clarke wrote:
> On 5/3/2010 5:54 AM, Geordie Guy wrote:
>> On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak
>>>> Strine
>>>> to understand it.
>>>
>>> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
>>> system.
>>
>>> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
>>> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
>>> Whitworth etc.
>>
>> Can't agree.
>> I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
>> measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
>> feet and inches.
>>
>> I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
>> two".

20 ft is about 6 metres

In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
188 cm and 192 lbs

>> and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
>> pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)
>
> Remember the name of Russel Crowe's Australian band? It wasn't "Ten Odd
> Meter of Grunts".
30 odd ft of wacker more like it
>
>

In article >,
Geordie Guy > wrote:

> On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
> >> to understand it.
> >
> > Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
> > system.
>
> > These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
> > cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
> > Whitworth etc.
>
> Can't agree.
> I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
> measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
> feet and inches.
>
> I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
> two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
> and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
> pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)


187.96cm 187.39 pounds

This group has a loosely associated web page:

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/index.html

There are several handy converters in the upper right corner. There are
also pointers to the FAQ and other handy stuff, like pictures of some of
us.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:59:23 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>187.96cm 187.39 pounds
>
>This group has a loosely associated web page:
>
>http://www.recfoodcooking.com/index.html
>
>There are several handy converters in the upper right corner. There are
>also pointers to the FAQ and other handy stuff, like pictures of some of
>us.

Wayne (I think) posted this some time ago and it's a great little
program. Not for mac though.

http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/

Lou

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:54:48 +1000, Geordie Guy
> wrote:

>On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
>>> to understand it.
>>
>> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
>> system.
>
>> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
>> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
>> Whitworth etc.
>
>Can't agree.
>I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
>measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
>feet and inches.

You're right about that and I forgot about that exception.

I too automatically default to ft rather than cm when it comes to a
person's height. Having said that, I also have no difficulty using
metric for the same task if I need to.

>I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
>two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
>and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
>pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)

I can only roughly estimate my weight in pounds instead of kilos.
Mind you, it's permantly etched into my memory that 2.2lbs = 1KG.
I have no frigging idea how many pounds or kilos are in a stone though

"Jeßus" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:54:48 +1000, Geordie Guy
> > wrote:
>
> >On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> >> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
> >>> to understand it.
> >>
> >> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
> >> system.
> >
> >> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
> >> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
> >> Whitworth etc.
> >
> >Can't agree.
> >I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
> >measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
> >feet and inches.
>
> You're right about that and I forgot about that exception.
>
> I too automatically default to ft rather than cm when it comes to a
> person's height. Having said that, I also have no difficulty using
> metric for the same task if I need to.
>
> >I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
> >two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
> >and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
> >pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)
>
> I can only roughly estimate my weight in pounds instead of kilos.
> Mind you, it's permantly etched into my memory that 2.2lbs = 1KG.
> I have no frigging idea how many pounds or kilos are in a stone though
>


One stone is 14 pounds. Or 6.3636363636... kg

On Tue, 4 May 2010 16:43:48 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from Jeßus > contains these words:
>
>
>> I can only roughly estimate my weight in pounds instead of kilos.
>> Mind you, it's permantly etched into my memory that 2.2lbs = 1KG.
>> I have no frigging idea how many pounds or kilos are in a stone though
>>
>
> Did you know that America's standard system doesn't include stones? :-)

Nope, but it figures

On May 2, 5:13*pm, Geordie Guy >
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
> their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's athttp://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard any of
> these, instead saying that all the Australian English terms were
> commonplace. *That's not accurate, but some might be more common than
> others. *I'd be curious for people's comments about what is commonplace
> and what isn't, and any I might have missed.
>
> - G

Did you mean 'rutabaga' and 'bundt' pan? (just ribbin' ya on yer
spelin)

I daresay more 'murikins say chick peas than garbanzos, so maybe
that's not a fair entry.

On 3/05/2010 9:38 AM, Kalmia wrote:
> On May 2, 5:13 pm, Geordie Guy >
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
>> their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's athttp://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>>
>> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard any of
>> these, instead saying that all the Australian English terms were
>> commonplace. That's not accurate, but some might be more common than
>> others. I'd be curious for people's comments about what is commonplace
>> and what isn't, and any I might have missed.
>>
>> - G
>
> Did you mean 'rutabaga' and 'bundt' pan? (just ribbin' ya on yer
> spelin)

Thanks, I've fixed it :-)

>
> I daresay more 'murikins say chick peas than garbanzos, so maybe
> that's not a fair entry.

The note on the page is important. More 'murikins say cantaloupe than
musk melons too. It's not meant to show what's prevalent, just what
terms Australians might not have heard mean.

G

On 5/2/2010 5:13 PM, Geordie Guy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
> their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's at
> http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard any of
> these, instead saying that all the Australian English terms were
> commonplace. That's not accurate, but some might be more common than
> others. I'd be curious for people's comments about what is commonplace
> and what isn't, and any I might have missed.

FWIW, in the US "chickpea" is used, as is "garbanzo" and "ceci",
depending on region and ethnicity of the speaker.

On Sun, 02 May 2010 20:27:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>On 5/2/2010 5:13 PM, Geordie Guy wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
>> their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's at
>> http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>>
>> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard any of
>> these, instead saying that all the Australian English terms were
>> commonplace. That's not accurate, but some might be more common than
>> others. I'd be curious for people's comments about what is commonplace
>> and what isn't, and any I might have missed.
>
>FWIW, in the US "chickpea" is used, as is "garbanzo" and "ceci",
>depending on region and ethnicity of the speaker.

Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
--
Jeßus

May God protect you from his followers.

On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:

> Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
> --
> Jeßus

My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. I
thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
type of whole wheat flour. It took a while to sort out the mistake.

On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
> On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.

> My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
> thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
> would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
> type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the mistake.

If Australians know chickpea flour as Besan, why don't they call
chickpeas "channa dal"?

That would be consistent.

>On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
>> On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>> > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan'
>>flour. > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
>
>> My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
>> thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
>> would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which
>>is a type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the
>>mistake.
>
>If Australians know chickpea flour as Besan, why don't they call
>chickpeas "channa dal"?
>
>That would be consistent.

I remember an African cookbook (can't recall which country) with a
recipe for making peanut butter from groundnuts.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)

On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
> On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
> > --
> > Jeßus
>
> My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
> thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
> would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
> type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the mistake.

Graham flour and the Graham cracker were invented by the American
Presbyterian minister, Sylvester Graham, as foods that would repress
the sex drive and thus eliminate the urge to masturbate, with all the
ills that attend that unwholesome practice.

In article
>,
spamtrap1888 > wrote:

> On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
> > On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
> >
> > > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> > > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
> > > --
> > > Jeßus
> >
> > My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
> > thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
> > would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
> > type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the mistake.
>
> Graham flour and the Graham cracker were invented by the American
> Presbyterian minister, Sylvester Graham, as foods that would repress
> the sex drive and thus eliminate the urge to masturbate, with all the
> ills that attend that unwholesome practice.

I believe that is why corn flakes were invented by the Kellogg brothers,
also. One of them had some unbelievable number of children. All were
adopted, of course, since he and his wife never had sex.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 3 May 2010 01:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Gabby >
wrote:

>On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
>> Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
>> --
>> Jeßus
>
>My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. I
>thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
>would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
>type of whole wheat flour. It took a while to sort out the mistake.

Must've been fun in the kitchen mixing up two totally different flours

On May 4, 2:49*am, Jeßus > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 01:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Gabby >
> wrote:
>
> >On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> >> Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
> >> Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
> >> --
> >> Jeßus
>
> >My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
> >thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
> >would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
> >type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the mistake.
>
> Must've been fun in the kitchen mixing up two totally different flours
>

Oh, no, I wasn't doing the cooking. Someone was teaching me to make
pakoras and I was puzzled by how different their graham flour looked
compared to what Mom used. When I finally voiced the question near
the end of the cooking session it was explained exactly what 'gram
flour' was.

On May 2, 2:13*pm, Geordie Guy >
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
> their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's athttp://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard any of
> these, instead saying that all the Australian English terms were
> commonplace. *That's not accurate, but some might be more common than
> others. *I'd be curious for people's comments about what is commonplace
> and what isn't, and any I might have missed.

You left out eggplant/aubergine, and zucchini/marrow.

Brits don't tend to use foreign words for things except for French.