Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-ca...018-story.html

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to

By Russ Parsons contact the reporter

Rich, earthy, hearty — there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
pot of beans simmering in the oven when cool weather comes along. So why
don't more people cook them? One of the main reasons is the planning
that's required to soak them overnight before you start. I know the look
— the idea that some people have meals planned a day in advance
continues to astonish me.

But here's the thing: In most cases you don't need to. Many years ago I
set out to discover if there wasn't some way to shortcut the soaking and
cooking process. What I learned surprised me. And it has allowed me to
fix up a pot of beans for dinner whenever I like.

"Almost every recipe in every cookbook you've ever read says you must
soak dried beans before you cook them. In almost every case that advice
is wrong." That's what I wrote when I first ran the experiments 20 years
ago. And it's true.
lRelated The Persimmon Paradox: Two very different fruits, same sweet flavor

For most dried beans, you can simply put them straight into a pot and
simmer them until tender without any soaking at all. Not only is it more
convenient, it actually improves them. A lot. Beans cooked without
soaking have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste more "beany." And the
cooking broth is rich and thick as well.

I can't claim this as my discovery, not when it's the way many Mexican
cooks have been fixing beans for centuries. It's just knowledge that
somehow had fallen by the wayside (just as we've forgotten that, as
every Indian and Persian cook knows, we should soak long-grain rice for
an hour or so before cooking).
Beans cooked without soaking have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste
more 'beany.' - Russ Parsons

Doing without soaking does increase beans' cooking time — but for most
varieties that's only by a matter of 20 to 30 minutes, and that's
unaccompanied time anyway. Black beans, pinto beans, Great Northern
beans, cannellini beans, navy beans, they all cook without a whiff of
trouble.

There are a couple of caveats. First, if you're using very old beans —
ones that have been in the back of your pantry for a year or so, or that
you bought from a store that doesn't turn over its stock — then they
might have dried out so much that soaking is advisable.

And there are some types of beans that do require soaking. I still soak
chickpeas, of course (not technically a bean but a legume, so there you
are).

I also talked to my favorite bean expert, Steve Sando of Rancho Gordo
(if you haven't tried its specialty beans, you're missing something). He
said that, in general, he recommends always soaking beans from the
runner species, Phaseolus coccineus. These are extremely large, dense
beans that will become beautifully creamy when cooked — but they do need
soaking to soften in a reasonable manner of time.

Also, not soaking works best for beans for soups or stews. If you're
going to be using the beans in salads or other dishes in which you want
them to be separate and distinct, you should either soak them or at the
very least give them a rinse after they've cooked.

You want proof? Cook these black beans soaked and unsoaked and compare
the two. Whenever I serve this recipe, people ask me what the secret
ingredient is. And since cooking it without soaking requires all of 10
minutes to put together, it's actually something you can fix all the time.

Imagine that. An everyday pot of beans.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On 2014-10-19, Travis McGee > wrote:
>
> Rich, earthy, hearty ? there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
> pot of beans simmering........

Can't argue that. But, I'll add my usual 2 cents worth, jes the same.
To summarize ...not the article, my POV.... If you like chewy skins,
soak dry beans. If you prefer soft diaphanous skins, never soak. Not
for a single minute ('cept'n ta' wash). ;)

nb

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

"Travis McGee" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-ca...018-story.html
>
> Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
>
> By Russ Parsons contact the reporter
>
> Rich, earthy, hearty — there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a pot
> of beans simmering in the oven when cool weather comes along. So why don't
> more people cook them? One of the main reasons is the planning that's
> required to soak them overnight before you start. I know the look — the
> idea that some people have meals planned a day in advance continues to
> astonish me.
>
> But here's the thing: In most cases you don't need to. Many years ago I
> set out to discover if there wasn't some way to shortcut the soaking and
> cooking process. What I learned surprised me. And it has allowed me to fix
> up a pot of beans for dinner whenever I like.
>
> "Almost every recipe in every cookbook you've ever read says you must soak
> dried beans before you cook them. In almost every case that advice is
> wrong." That's what I wrote when I first ran the experiments 20 years ago.
> And it's true.
> lRelated The Persimmon Paradox: Two very different fruits, same sweet
> flavor
>
> For most dried beans, you can simply put them straight into a pot and
> simmer them until tender without any soaking at all. Not only is it more
> convenient, it actually improves them. A lot. Beans cooked without soaking
> have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste more "beany." And the cooking
> broth is rich and thick as well.
>
> I can't claim this as my discovery, not when it's the way many Mexican
> cooks have been fixing beans for centuries. It's just knowledge that
> somehow had fallen by the wayside (just as we've forgotten that, as every
> Indian and Persian cook knows, we should soak long-grain rice for an hour
> or so before cooking).
> Beans cooked without soaking have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste more
> 'beany.' - Russ Parsons
>
> Doing without soaking does increase beans' cooking time — but for most
> varieties that's only by a matter of 20 to 30 minutes, and that's
> unaccompanied time anyway. Black beans, pinto beans, Great Northern beans,
> cannellini beans, navy beans, they all cook without a whiff of trouble.
>
> There are a couple of caveats. First, if you're using very old beans —
> ones that have been in the back of your pantry for a year or so, or that
> you bought from a store that doesn't turn over its stock — then they might
> have dried out so much that soaking is advisable.
>
> And there are some types of beans that do require soaking. I still soak
> chickpeas, of course (not technically a bean but a legume, so there you
> are).
>
> I also talked to my favorite bean expert, Steve Sando of Rancho Gordo (if
> you haven't tried its specialty beans, you're missing something). He said
> that, in general, he recommends always soaking beans from the runner
> species, Phaseolus coccineus. These are extremely large, dense beans that
> will become beautifully creamy when cooked — but they do need soaking to
> soften in a reasonable manner of time.
>
> Also, not soaking works best for beans for soups or stews. If you're going
> to be using the beans in salads or other dishes in which you want them to
> be separate and distinct, you should either soak them or at the very least
> give them a rinse after they've cooked.
>
> You want proof? Cook these black beans soaked and unsoaked and compare the
> two. Whenever I serve this recipe, people ask me what the secret
> ingredient is. And since cooking it without soaking requires all of 10
> minutes to put together, it's actually something you can fix all the time.
>
> Imagine that. An everyday pot of beans.

I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but I
thought that the soaking process helped to degass them. I also know that
soaking for too long can cause fermentation. Jaques Pepin says to be very
careful not to soak for too long. I always use the quick soak method now.

Put water over the beans. The owner of one of my favorite Mexican
restaurants told me to always use as much water as the pot will hold. Bring
to a boil and boil for 1-3 minutes depending on the type of bean. I think
it is kidney that needs the longest boil. Turn off heat. Instructions say
to cover but I never do.

Let sit for an hour. Drain and rinse.

Fill pot with water again, bring to a boil, turn down heat, cover. Cook
till done. Most beans that I've cooked are done within 45 minutes to
perhaps an hour and fifteen minutes. And that includes beans that have been
sitting in the cupboard for a year.

I do not usually buy bulk beans because there is no way of telling how old
they are. Now when Whole Foods first opened, I did buy bulk. New store, so
presumably new beans.

I have also learned that I can quick soak extra and put in the freezer.
This works much better for me than trying to freeze cooked beans or soup.
Takes up far less room than soup and they can easily be thawed in water as
it comes to a boil. They cook just like dry beans but you have shaved an
hour off because you don't have to soak them again.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 18:29:31 -0400, Travis McGee >
wrote:

>http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-ca...018-story.html
>
>Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
>
>By Russ Parsons contact the reporter
>
>Rich, earthy, hearty — there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
>pot of beans simmering in the oven when cool weather comes along. So why
>don't more people cook them? One of the main reasons is the planning
>that's required to soak them overnight before you start. I know the look
>— the idea that some people have meals planned a day in advance
>continues to astonish me.
>
>But here's the thing: In most cases you don't need to. Many years ago I
>set out to discover if there wasn't some way to shortcut the soaking and
>cooking process. What I learned surprised me. And it has allowed me to
>fix up a pot of beans for dinner whenever I like.
>
>"Almost every recipe in every cookbook you've ever read says you must
>soak dried beans before you cook them. In almost every case that advice
>is wrong." That's what I wrote when I first ran the experiments 20 years
>ago. And it's true.
>lRelated The Persimmon Paradox: Two very different fruits, same sweet flavor
>
>For most dried beans, you can simply put them straight into a pot and
>simmer them until tender without any soaking at all. Not only is it more
>convenient, it actually improves them. A lot. Beans cooked without
>soaking have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste more "beany." And the
>cooking broth is rich and thick as well.
>
>I can't claim this as my discovery, not when it's the way many Mexican
>cooks have been fixing beans for centuries. It's just knowledge that
>somehow had fallen by the wayside (just as we've forgotten that, as
>every Indian and Persian cook knows, we should soak long-grain rice for
>an hour or so before cooking).
>Beans cooked without soaking have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste
>more 'beany.' - Russ Parsons
>
>Doing without soaking does increase beans' cooking time — but for most
>varieties that's only by a matter of 20 to 30 minutes, and that's
>unaccompanied time anyway. Black beans, pinto beans, Great Northern
>beans, cannellini beans, navy beans, they all cook without a whiff of
>trouble.
>
>There are a couple of caveats. First, if you're using very old beans —
>ones that have been in the back of your pantry for a year or so, or that
>you bought from a store that doesn't turn over its stock — then they
>might have dried out so much that soaking is advisable.
>
>And there are some types of beans that do require soaking. I still soak
>chickpeas, of course (not technically a bean but a legume, so there you
>are).
>
>I also talked to my favorite bean expert, Steve Sando of Rancho Gordo
>(if you haven't tried its specialty beans, you're missing something). He
>said that, in general, he recommends always soaking beans from the
>runner species, Phaseolus coccineus. These are extremely large, dense
>beans that will become beautifully creamy when cooked — but they do need
>soaking to soften in a reasonable manner of time.
>
>Also, not soaking works best for beans for soups or stews. If you're
>going to be using the beans in salads or other dishes in which you want
>them to be separate and distinct, you should either soak them or at the
>very least give them a rinse after they've cooked.
>
>You want proof? Cook these black beans soaked and unsoaked and compare
>the two. Whenever I serve this recipe, people ask me what the secret
>ingredient is. And since cooking it without soaking requires all of 10
>minutes to put together, it's actually something you can fix all the time.
>
>Imagine that. An everyday pot of beans.

Maybe, but they come out the way I like them when I soak them.

I soak at least 4 or 5 hours, sometimes overnight, then rinse, cook 15
or 20mins or until tender, then combine with my ingredients for my
"baked beans".

John Kuthe...

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:25:21 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but I
thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>
>
That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On 20 Oct 2014 00:06:42 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2014-10-19, Travis McGee > wrote:
> >
> > Rich, earthy, hearty ? there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
> > pot of beans simmering........
>
> Can't argue that. But, I'll add my usual 2 cents worth, jes the same.
> To summarize ...not the article, my POV.... If you like chewy skins,
> soak dry beans. If you prefer soft diaphanous skins, never soak. Not
> for a single minute ('cept'n ta' wash). ;)
>
and fart for hours.



--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2014-10-19, Travis McGee > wrote:
>>
>> Rich, earthy, hearty ? there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
>> pot of beans simmering........
>
> Can't argue that. But, I'll add my usual 2 cents worth, jes the same.
> To summarize ...not the article, my POV.... If you like chewy skins,
> soak dry beans. If you prefer soft diaphanous skins, never soak. Not
> for a single minute ('cept'n ta' wash). ;)
>
> nb

I disagree. I almost always use the quick soak. They are never chewy.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

> wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:25:21 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but I
> thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>>
>>
> That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?

Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On 10/19/2014 9:58 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:25:21 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but I
> thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>>
>>
> That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>
Hey, now you're just poking the bear with a stick. ;) Everyone knows
she uses canned beans. Me, I simply can't imagine eating beans all the
time.

Jill

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:38:00 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2014-10-19, Travis McGee > wrote:
> >>
> >> Rich, earthy, hearty ? there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
> >> pot of beans simmering........
> >
> > Can't argue that. But, I'll add my usual 2 cents worth, jes the same.
> > To summarize ...not the article, my POV.... If you like chewy skins,
> > soak dry beans. If you prefer soft diaphanous skins, never soak. Not
> > for a single minute ('cept'n ta' wash). ;)
> >
> > nb
>
> I disagree. I almost always use the quick soak. They are never chewy.

He's going to pontificate about it and act like his way is the only
way and then eventually he'll find out that he's wrong. It happens
over and over.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:38:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:25:21 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but I
> > thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
> >>
> >>
> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>
> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?

I think mainly our bodies need to get used to eating beans, the more
we eat them the less gassy we are digesting them. I hadn't cooked
beans in a few months and made a lentil stew the other night. Hubby
said it gave him gas that night. Lentils, really? They didn't bother
me in the slightest.
http://www.thejoykitchen.com/ingredi...ng-dried-beans
http://beaninstitute.com/recipes/coo...ith-dry-beans/


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On 10/19/2014 8:58 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:25:21 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but I
> thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>>
>>
> That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?

Good one ;) Think it'll work? Nah, doesn't seem it did . . .
definitely worth a try, though.

Sky

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Monday, October 20, 2014 3:38:51 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> >
> >> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but I
> > thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>
>
> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>
>
> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
>
>
I was just commiserating with you and wondered what you were going to do about your question.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:25:21 PM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:

>
> I have also learned that I can quick soak extra and put in the freezer.
>
> This works much better for me than trying to freeze cooked beans or soup.
>
> Takes up far less room than soup and they can easily be thawed in water as
>
> it comes to a boil. They cook just like dry beans but you have shaved an
>
> hour off because you don't have to soak them again.


And it's just like keeping other frozen vegetables available.

I heard that after you soak them, it's good to rinse them AFTER draining
them - it washes away some of the sugars or something. Also, freezing
them after that makes them swell, thus breaking the fibers, which cuts
down on the boiling time. Not sure which step reduces the gassiness.

Lenona.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On 10/20/2014 3:44 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:25:21 PM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>>
>> I have also learned that I can quick soak extra and put in the freezer.
>>
>> This works much better for me than trying to freeze cooked beans or soup.
>>
>> Takes up far less room than soup and they can easily be thawed in water as
>>
>> it comes to a boil. They cook just like dry beans but you have shaved an
>>
>> hour off because you don't have to soak them again.
>
>
> And it's just like keeping other frozen vegetables available.
>
> I heard that after you soak them, it's good to rinse them AFTER draining
> them - it washes away some of the sugars or something. Also, freezing
> them after that makes them swell, thus breaking the fibers, which cuts
> down on the boiling time. Not sure which step reduces the gassiness.
>
> Lenona.
>


Adding ginger?

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:38:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:25:21 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here
>> >> but I
>> > thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>>
>> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
>
> I think mainly our bodies need to get used to eating beans, the more
> we eat them the less gassy we are digesting them. I hadn't cooked
> beans in a few months and made a lentil stew the other night. Hubby
> said it gave him gas that night. Lentils, really? They didn't bother
> me in the slightest.
> http://www.thejoykitchen.com/ingredi...ng-dried-beans
> http://beaninstitute.com/recipes/coo...ith-dry-beans/

Beans never make me gassy. Cabbage will. And we won't talk about eggs!

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, October 20, 2014 3:38:51 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> >
>> >> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here
>> >> but I
>> > thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>>
>>
>> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>>
>>
>> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
>>
>>
> I was just commiserating with you and wondered what you were going to do
> about your question.

Do you see a question mark in my reply? I don't. I didn't ask a question.
And I apologize for the extra "s" that sneaked in there. I know that things
like that upset you. :)

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/19/2014 9:58 PM, wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:25:21 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> I know that you can cook without soaking. And I could be wrong here but
>>> I
>> thought that the soaking process helped to degass them.
>>>
>>>
>> That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>>
> Hey, now you're just poking the bear with a stick. ;) Everyone knows she
> uses canned beans. Me, I simply can't imagine eating beans all the time.

I used both. Did you not see my post about the Mayocoba bean soup? I used
dried beans for that. Also for the navy bean soup and the chili that I made
within the last month or so.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:38:00 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 2014-10-19, Travis McGee > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Rich, earthy, hearty ? there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
>> >> pot of beans simmering........
>> >
>> > Can't argue that. But, I'll add my usual 2 cents worth, jes the same.
>> > To summarize ...not the article, my POV.... If you like chewy skins,
>> > soak dry beans. If you prefer soft diaphanous skins, never soak. Not
>> > for a single minute ('cept'n ta' wash). ;)
>> >
>> > nb
>>
>> I disagree. I almost always use the quick soak. They are never chewy.
>
> He's going to pontificate about it and act like his way is the only
> way and then eventually he'll find out that he's wrong. It happens
> over and over.

Probably. But I have likely cooked more beans than anyone else here as they
are my favorite food. I did have trouble with them back in the 70's when we
would buy beans and have no idea how old they were. I also didn't know not
to add salt or tomatoes to them prior to cooking. I did that a few times.
I remember cooking beans all day and they never got soft. I know better
now.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

> wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:25:21 PM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>>
>> I have also learned that I can quick soak extra and put in the freezer.
>>
>> This works much better for me than trying to freeze cooked beans or soup.
>>
>> Takes up far less room than soup and they can easily be thawed in water
>> as
>>
>> it comes to a boil. They cook just like dry beans but you have shaved an
>>
>> hour off because you don't have to soak them again.
>
>
> And it's just like keeping other frozen vegetables available.
>
> I heard that after you soak them, it's good to rinse them AFTER draining
> them - it washes away some of the sugars or something. Also, freezing
> them after that makes them swell, thus breaking the fibers, which cuts
> down on the boiling time. Not sure which step reduces the gassiness.

I do that too.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Monday, October 20, 2014 5:36:50 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
>
> >> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>
> >> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
>
>
> > I was just commiserating with you and wondered what you were going to do
> > about your question.
>
>
> Do you see a question mark in my reply? I don't. I didn't ask a question.
>
>
That's too bad, what are you going to do about it?

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, October 20, 2014 5:36:50 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> >> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>>
>> >> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
>>
>>
>> > I was just commiserating with you and wondered what you were going to
>> > do
>> > about your question.
>>
>>
>> Do you see a question mark in my reply? I don't. I didn't ask a
>> question.
>>
>>
> That's too bad, what are you going to do about it?

You have issues.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...

> Probably. But I have likely cooked more beans than anyone else here as
> they are my favorite food. I did have trouble with them back in the 70's
> when we would buy beans and have no idea how old they were. I also didn't
> know not to add salt or tomatoes to them prior to cooking. I did that a
> few times. I remember cooking beans all day and they never got soft. I
> know better now.

I imagine Sheldon has cooked more beans than you. :-)

Cheri

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:28:41 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
>
> >> >> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>
> >> >> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
>
> >> > I was just commiserating with you and wondered what you were going to
> >> > do
> >> > about your question.
>
> >> Do you see a question mark in my reply? I don't. I didn't ask a
> >> question.
>
> > That's too bad, what are you going to do about it?
>
> You have issues.
>
>
No, no issues at all. I was just wondering what you were going to do about your dilemma.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Probably. But I have likely cooked more beans than anyone else here as
>> they are my favorite food. I did have trouble with them back in the 70's
>> when we would buy beans and have no idea how old they were. I also
>> didn't know not to add salt or tomatoes to them prior to cooking. I did
>> that a few times. I remember cooking beans all day and they never got
>> soft. I know better now.
>
> I imagine Sheldon has cooked more beans than you. :-)

Probably more in volume. But I do love my beans!

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:28:41 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
>>
>> >> >> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
>>
>> >> > I was just commiserating with you and wondered what you were going
>> >> > to
>> >> > do
>> >> > about your question.
>>
>> >> Do you see a question mark in my reply? I don't. I didn't ask a
>> >> question.
>>
>> > That's too bad, what are you going to do about it?
>>
>> You have issues.
>>
>>
> No, no issues at all. I was just wondering what you were going to do
> about your dilemma.

You are the one who seems to have some sort of dilemma. You and Janet UK.
Why don't you two get together and discuss it?

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:25:57 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
>
> > No, no issues at all. I was just wondering what you were going to do
> > about your dilemma.
>
>
> You are the one who seems to have some sort of dilemma. You and Janet UK.
> Why don't you two get together and discuss it?
>
>
Janet nor I have a dilemma. We're just trying to help you with yours. We're both willing to go above and beyond with yours.

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

In article >, says...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:28:41 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> >> > That's very interesting. What are you going to do about it?
> >>
> >> >> >> Why would I need to do anything? What is wrong with you?
> >>
> >> >> > I was just commiserating with you and wondered what you were going
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > about your question.
> >>
> >> >> Do you see a question mark in my reply? I don't. I didn't ask a
> >> >> question.
> >>
> >> > That's too bad, what are you going to do about it?
> >>
> >> You have issues.
> >>
> >>
> > No, no issues at all. I was just wondering what you were going to do
> > about your dilemma.
>
> You are the one who seems to have some sort of dilemma. You and Janet UK.
> Why don't you two get together and discuss it?

Your problem has already been discussed here on group, we are co-
operating with the psychological therapy suggestion.

Why aren't you?


Janet UK

Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:32:36 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Hire a bean psychic.
>
> -sw

> Omelet wrote:
>
>> He hates me 'cause I never slept with him...
>
> He hates himself because he is all he has to sleep with
> I don't know, sometimes he used to seem normal, then he went petty
> trough vindictive and now I just shun contact. I have enough crazies to
> deal with in my world without encouraging those who refuse to take their
> meds.

For the record, I never once even considered sleeping with you. And
you know that. You're the one who somehow got the idea that I was
going to move in with you - and you posted that to RFC just out of the
total blue.

After having met you twice at casual austin.food gatherings 2 or 3
years ago and not giving you any indication that there was any sort of
romantic interest in the least, you somehow twisted that into MY
MOVING IN WITH YOU?

That was just way too Psycho for me. I sat there at stared at the
screen for at least 15 minutes wondering, WTF? That was just way too
spooky. I've met weird, semi-psycho women before but you win, hands
down. Mapi of austin.general still holds the male title, but at least
he announced his psychosis right there lying on the floor of the bar
at B.D. Reilly's rather than romantically obsessing over me for 2
years.

Needless to say, you need to come to terms with what happened and why
your mind works that way and stop making up excuses for your fixation
and disappointment before we become the next Yoli and Michael. I'd
prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

And Jeremy, I was just tired of your decade of bullshit and visions of
grandeur about all these things you're "working on" or have not done
in the past. Even posting a call for meetings with imaginary people
about imaginary projects of yours at "the normal time and place", as
if you are somebody important with a life. I'm pretty sure you're
manic depressive mixed with habitual liar.

Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw