On Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:34:59 PM Burns wrote:

> Ha! I've found it! When I reply to you, I just have to hit "rewrap" in
>
> the Edit menu! No more messing up your messages by adding returns!
>
>
> The USDA figures refute assertions that beans don't absorb salt, but
>
> that doesn't answer your question.
> Sirloin, falling-apart kidney beans, garlic, butter, mint! Sounds good!


Thanks, nice of you to show such concern, but the truth is you shouldn't have to go through that ritual just to answer a post from me. I'm glad you found it though, makes things easier, because as bad as I felt about my annoying post format appearance, I was not about to stop posting just for you. But I did feel bad about it. So give me a few points for that at least..

I think science is great. But I tend to think in a more intuitive way. For example, I assume that any hard substance from hard beans to a rock will absorb some water if it sits in it long enough. I even assume that rice can be cooked just by soaking. I don't know how long it would take, but I bet it would happen. Ok, I won't bet. Just a gentleman's guess.

Thanks for yum yumming the bean dish. I use sirloin roast, but my grandparents always used lamb. They used it for almost everything. But even my old school Arab relatives, all of whom are good cooks, at least with the stuff they make consistently - even they now use beef almost exclusively and have even resorted to buying commercial yogurt rather than making it themselves which as the way of all of them when I was a kid. I made yogurt a few times when I was younger. Later I tried it and it wouldn't take. I talked with some of my relatives about that and even they said they had occasional problems with yogurt taking, problems they didn't have a few years ago. Anyway, the bean dish is exactly the same except my grandmother used clarified butter and lamb. Her version was great.

TJ

On 8/2/13 6:58 AM, Tommy Joe wrote:
> I think science is great. But I tend to think in a more intuitive
> way. For example, I assume that any hard substance from hard beans
> to a rock will absorb some water if it sits in it long enough. I
> even assume that rice can be cooked just by soaking. I don't know
> how long it would take, but I bet it would happen. Ok, I won't bet.
> Just a gentleman's guess.

According to the web page I found about brining beans, in warm weather
they'll sprout in brine. Who would've thunk it!

I'm sure soaking would make rice chewy, but I don't think it would be
cooked. Cooking helps a human get nutrition from vegetable matter,
including starch.

The other evening I was invited to dinner. The main course was beef, on
the grill long enough to turn pinkish tan on the outside but still ice
cold and dark red inside. The cook said she hadn't intended it to be
that rare, but she knew it was safe because it had been in the freezer
two weeks.

I prefer my meat cooked for safety and sometimes chewability. However,
I believe humans can get lots of nutrition from raw meat.

On Friday, August 2, 2013 12:16:15 PM UTC-4, The Other J Burns wrote:

> I'm sure soaking would make rice chewy, but I don't think it would be
>
> cooked. Cooking helps a human get nutrition from vegetable matter,
>
> including starch.

> I prefer my meat cooked for safety and sometimes chewability. However,
>
> I believe humans can get lots of nutrition from raw meat.



I admire science and will take advantage of its many gifts, but I'm still inclined to think intuitively. In fact, I am an intuitive scientist, that's what I call myself. I just feel that although science and its many branches, while helpful, will never show us the whole story. For instance, just because our most sensitive machines cannot detect life in a rock, or hear a dead person screaming (example), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, while I appreciate science and its gifts, I don't like relying on it exclusively, anymore than I would rely exclusively on anything. I'll bet if rice were placed in water long enough it would go soft, just as a soft corpse placed in the proper temperature would go hard. From pure pulp to perfecto petrification we move forward with science and its big brother intuition to lead the way. I prefer intuition because it's all feel and I don't have to 'prove' anything. To hell with fact, I prefer theory - it's broader and more intelligent. Now I'm beginning to think I may be making up some of this stuff, so I'll quit now while some degree of honesty still steers my boat.

TJ

TJ