In the slow cooker:

http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2

In the saucepan showing the liquid:

http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2

Finished:

http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2

Hope they all show ok.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 7/4/2014 12:44 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> In the slow cooker:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2
>
> In the saucepan showing the liquid:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2
>
> Finished:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>
> Hope they all show ok.
>
>
They look good.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/4/2014 12:44 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> In the slow cooker:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2
>>
>> In the saucepan showing the liquid:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2
>>
>> Finished:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>>
>> Hope they all show ok.
>>
>>
> They look good.

Thanks They don't taste too bad either)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 17:44:20 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

> In the slow cooker:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2

Oh, you have a fancy slow cooker... you get a temperature read out! I
bought the least expensive one I could find, because I wasn't sure how
often I'd use it, but I've certainly gotten my money's worth and more
from it!
>
> In the saucepan showing the liquid:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2
>
> Finished:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2

Wow, just reducing that liquid on the stove/hob made all the
difference! I'm wondering now if that can be done in the slow cooker
by leaving the top off at the end?
>
> Hope they all show ok.

They most certainly did and thanks for posting.


--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> In the slow cooker:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2
>
> In the saucepan showing the liquid:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2
>
> Finished:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>
> Hope they all show ok.

Looks about like mine did.

On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message

>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>
> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>
Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:13:32 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> > "sf" > wrote in message
>
> >> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
> >
> > Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
> >
> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?

You know the answer to that.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>>>
>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>>>
>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
>
> You know the answer to that.
>
If I did, I wouldn't have asked.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 21:41:38 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

> On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>> "sf" > wrote in message
> >>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
> >>>
> >>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
> >>>
> >> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
> >
> > You know the answer to that.
> >
> If I did, I wouldn't have asked.

The difference isn't enough to matter unless you're doing a scientific
experiment.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 7/4/2014 12:44 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> In the slow cooker:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2
>
> In the saucepan showing the liquid:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2
>
> Finished:
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>
> Hope they all show ok.
>
>
They did, and they look great!

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>>
>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>>
> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?

Oh lordy lordy !!!! lol well I had to measure because I couldn't remember
and it was 8 of my pints, so you tell me <g>

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
b.com...
> On 7/4/2014 12:44 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> In the slow cooker:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2
>>
>> In the saucepan showing the liquid:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2
>>
>> Finished:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>>
>> Hope they all show ok.
>>
>>
> They did, and they look great!

Thanks I am pleased enough. Now. How to use them?)) All ideas
gratefully accepted)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 7/5/2014 4:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>>>
>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>>>
>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
>
> Oh lordy lordy !!!! lol well I had to measure because I couldn't
> remember and it was 8 of my pints, so you tell me <g>
>
Four Imperial quarts, then. Approximately five US quarts.

On 7/4/2014 10:38 PM, sf wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>>>>>
>>>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>>>>>
>>>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
>>>
>>> You know the answer to that.
>>>
>> If I did, I wouldn't have asked.
>
> The difference isn't enough to matter unless you're doing a scientific
> experiment.
>
Imperial quarts are approximately 25% bigger than US ones. Not a minor
difference.
The US fluid ounce and the Imperial fluid ounce are different, too, but
that could be described as minor. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of?

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/5/2014 4:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>>>>
>>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>>>>
>>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
>>
>> Oh lordy lordy !!!! lol well I had to measure because I couldn't
>> remember and it was 8 of my pints, so you tell me <g>
>>
> Four Imperial quarts, then. Approximately five US quarts.

Ok thanks) There you go sf, mine is approx five US quarts then.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 07:01:57 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

> On 7/4/2014 10:38 PM, sf wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >> On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
> >>>>>
> >>>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
> >>>
> >>> You know the answer to that.
> >>>
> >> If I did, I wouldn't have asked.
> >
> > The difference isn't enough to matter unless you're doing a scientific
> > experiment.
> >
> Imperial quarts are approximately 25% bigger than US ones. Not a minor
> difference.
> The US fluid ounce and the Imperial fluid ounce are different, too, but
> that could be described as minor. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of?

Honestly, I don't care.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:32:37 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 7/5/2014 4:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>>> "sf" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
> >>>>
> >>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
> >>>>
> >>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
> >>
> >> Oh lordy lordy !!!! lol well I had to measure because I couldn't
> >> remember and it was 8 of my pints, so you tell me <g>
> >>
> > Four Imperial quarts, then. Approximately five US quarts.
>
> Ok thanks) There you go sf, mine is approx five US quarts then.

What that was all about, I don't know. Nothing has changed because,
you still got the better deal.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:32:37 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 7/5/2014 4:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>> >>>>
>> >>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
>> >>
>> >> Oh lordy lordy !!!! lol well I had to measure because I couldn't
>> >> remember and it was 8 of my pints, so you tell me <g>
>> >>
>> > Four Imperial quarts, then. Approximately five US quarts.
>>
>> Ok thanks) There you go sf, mine is approx five US quarts then.
>
> What that was all about, I don't know. Nothing has changed because,
> you still got the better deal.

Why because it shows the timing? Honestly it doesn't make much difference
to me.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:11:15 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

> Why because it shows the timing? Honestly it doesn't make much difference
> to me.

It's a feature that I didn't see on the least expensive crock pots I
looked at.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:11:15 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>> Why because it shows the timing? Honestly it doesn't make much
>> difference
>> to me.
>
> It's a feature that I didn't see on the least expensive crock pots I
> looked at.

Blimey! I see that mine is now £59.99 !!! I didn't pay all that but I did
get it several years ago. I wouldn't pay all that now!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> Finished:
> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>
> Hope they all show ok.

Those look good, O! Hope they taste just as good. :-D

G.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 21:41:38 -0400, S Viemeister
> > wrote:
>
> > On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > >> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> > >>> "sf" > wrote in message
> > >>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
> > >>>
> > >>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
> > >>>
> > >> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
> > >
> > > You know the answer to that.
> > >
> > If I did, I wouldn't have asked.
>
> The difference isn't enough to matter unless you're doing a scientific
> experiment.

Of course it is; the difference is more than one and a half (US)
pints.

Janet UK

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> Finished:
>> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>>
>> Hope they all show ok.
>
> Those look good, O! Hope they taste just as good. :-D

Just a wee taste and the rest are in the freezer until I decide what to do
with them

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 05:34:58 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 09:40:40 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> b.com...
>> > On 7/4/2014 12:44 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >> In the slow cooker:
>> >>
>> >> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a55/2
>> >>
>> >> In the saucepan showing the liquid:
>> >>
>> >> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3d/2
>> >>
>> >> Finished:
>> >>
>> >> http://tinypic.com/m/ic4a3k/2
>> >>
>> >> Hope they all show ok.

They show well but they are not caramelized, don't look anything like
caramelized onions... those are braised onions... those are onions
simmered in their own liquid, but the sugar contained in the onions is
definitely not caramelized. It's not possible to caramelize anything
in a covered pot, and a crockpot doesn't get hot enough to
caramelize... the best it can do is over time evaporate the water and
then you'd have dehydrated onion sludge.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 16:25:40 +0100, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 21:41:38 -0400, S Viemeister
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> > > >>> "sf" > wrote in message
> > > >>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
> > > >>>
> > > >> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
> > > >
> > > > You know the answer to that.
> > > >
> > > If I did, I wouldn't have asked.
> >
> > The difference isn't enough to matter unless you're doing a scientific
> > experiment.
>
> Of course it is; the difference is more than one and a half (US)
> pints.
>
I'm not using hers to cook, she's not using mine and we are talking
the fact that hers has a TIMER built in and mine doesn't. It's a
simple observation - the comparative sizes of Imperial vs US quarts
doesn't matter in this context. You're sounding like adolescent boys
nattering about mine is bigger than yours.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On 7/5/2014 12:33 PM, sf wrote:
> Janet > wrote:
>> says...
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
>>>>>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
>>>>>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
>>>>> You know the answer to that.
>>>> If I did, I wouldn't have asked.
>>> The difference isn't enough to matter unless you're doing a scientific
>>> experiment.
>> Of course it is; the difference is more than one and a half(US)pints.
> I'm not using hers to cook, she's not using mine and we are talking
> the fact that hers has a TIMER built in and mine doesn't. It's a
> simple observation - the comparative sizes of Imperial vs US quarts
> doesn't matter in this context. You're sounding like adolescent boys
> nattering about mine is bigger than yours.
>
Oh, for pity's sake!
_You_ asked "Just curious... how many quarts is yours?"
Ophelia answered "Four!", and I asked her which standard of measurement
she was using.
The only person getting bent out of shape is you.
Calm down.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 12:56:26 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

> On 7/5/2014 12:33 PM, sf wrote:
> > Janet > wrote:
> >> says...
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> On 7/4/2014 8:56 PM, sf wrote:
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/4/2014 5:03 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> Just curious... how many quarts is yours?
> >>>>>>> Four! (I didn't know so I just had to go and measure it) )
> >>>>>> Four US quarts, or four Imperial quarts?
> >>>>> You know the answer to that.
> >>>> If I did, I wouldn't have asked.
> >>> The difference isn't enough to matter unless you're doing a scientific
> >>> experiment.
> >> Of course it is; the difference is more than one and a half(US)pints.
> > I'm not using hers to cook, she's not using mine and we are talking
> > the fact that hers has a TIMER built in and mine doesn't. It's a
> > simple observation - the comparative sizes of Imperial vs US quarts
> > doesn't matter in this context. You're sounding like adolescent boys
> > nattering about mine is bigger than yours.
> >
> Oh, for pity's sake!
> _You_ asked "Just curious... how many quarts is yours?"
> Ophelia answered "Four!", and I asked her which standard of measurement
> she was using.
> The only person getting bent out of shape is you.
> Calm down.

You stir the pot, by bringing in an irrelevant point that you couldn't
let go and then tell *me* to calm down? That takes a lot of nerve.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila