Hello All:

We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white
eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple of
recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope
you will try them, as well as enjoy them.

They a

Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad:
http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm

and

Eggplant Stuffed with Pasta:
http://www.theartisan.net/melanzane_..._con_pasta.htm

Both of these recipe can also be found on The New Stuff Page:
http://www.theartisan.net/NewStuff.htm

and on the Food Page: http://www.theartisan.net/recipesfrm.htm

Any errors are mine, and should you find any, please feel free to let
me know, so that I can correct them.

NOTE: For the bread bakers on this or other News Groups, we have done
quite a bit of work on The Flour Treatise, and will be posting the
additions/revisions to that before too long.

Regards

Jerry @ The Artisan
http://www.theartisan.net

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:54:49 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote:

>Hello All:
>
>We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white
>eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple of
>recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope
>you will try them, as well as enjoy them.
>
>They a
>
>Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad:
>http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm

What a coincidence- I saw a similar recipe for Zucchini Carpaccio in
Gourmet Magazine yesterday but wasn't in a position to copy the
recipe. Thanks! It's somewhat like a wilted cucumber salad. BTW,
IIRC, Gourmet added coarsely grated parmegiano reggiano in their
version.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Hi Curley Sue:

We do not subscribe to Gourmet, so I did not see that. I guess we are
in pretty good company. The Parmesan would add a nice touch. I have
thought about making a chipotle olive oil, and using that instead of
unflavored extra virgin. That may be good for the spice hunters in
the group.

Regards

Jerry @ The Artisan
http://www.theartisan.net



"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:54:49 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> > wrote:
>
>>Hello All:
>>
>>We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white
>>eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple
>>of
>>recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope
>>you will try them, as well as enjoy them.
>>
>>They a
>>
>>Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad:
>>http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm
>
> What a coincidence- I saw a similar recipe for Zucchini Carpaccio in
> Gourmet Magazine yesterday but wasn't in a position to copy the
> recipe. Thanks! It's somewhat like a wilted cucumber salad. BTW,
> IIRC, Gourmet added coarsely grated parmegiano reggiano in their
> version.
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white
> eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple of
> recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we hope
> you will try them, as well as enjoy them.
>
> They a
>
> Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad:
> http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm

It says on that page, "We have named this a carpaccio as it
is prepared from "raw" Zucchini. When we described this
dish to a chef friend, his response was "Ah, a carpaccio."
So we kept the name!" You would have done better to correct
your "chef" friend.

This is plain silly. Carpaccio refers to a specific dish
comprised of thinly sliced raw beef or tuna, almost always
presented as an appetizer, and the name - its etymology -
comes from the Italian painter, who used red colors
suggestive of raw beef.

Carpaccio doesn't mean raw. Crudo (-a) means raw. Might as
well use "tartare" or "sashimi" and completely pervert the
meanings of the words. Or you could just call it a salad and
be clear. It isn't even laid out like a beef carpaccio would
be according to the recipe. It's just a salad.

Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper.

Pastorio

> Eggplant Stuffed with Pasta:
> http://www.theartisan.net/melanzane_..._con_pasta.htm
>
> Both of these recipe can also be found on The New Stuff Page:
> http://www.theartisan.net/NewStuff.htm
>
> and on the Food Page: http://www.theartisan.net/recipesfrm.htm
>
> Any errors are mine, and should you find any, please feel free to let
> me know, so that I can correct them.
>
> NOTE: For the bread bakers on this or other News Groups, we have done
> quite a bit of work on The Flour Treatise, and will be posting the
> additions/revisions to that before too long.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry @ The Artisan
> http://www.theartisan.net
>
>

In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:

> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> > Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad:
> > http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm
>
> It says on that page, "We have named this a carpaccio as it
> is prepared from "raw" Zucchini. When we described this
> dish to a chef friend, his response was "Ah, a carpaccio."
> So we kept the name!" You would have done better to correct
> your "chef" friend.
>
> This is plain silly. Carpaccio refers to a specific dish
> comprised of thinly sliced raw beef or tuna, almost always
> presented as an appetizer, and the name - its etymology -
> comes from the Italian painter, who used red colors
> suggestive of raw beef.
>
> Carpaccio doesn't mean raw. Crudo (-a) means raw. Might as
> well use "tartare" or "sashimi" and completely pervert the
> meanings of the words. Or you could just call it a salad and
> be clear. It isn't even laid out like a beef carpaccio would
> be according to the recipe. It's just a salad.
>
> Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper.
>
> Pastorio

I'm with you Bob. It's gotten to a point where menus are almost
unreadable, particularly in the trendier foux-foux restaurants. Another
silly practice is giving foreign names to local food products such as
calling tunas by their Hawaiian names. And I could go on... Anyway, it
all makes for shitty communication.

D.M.

Bob (this one) wrote:

(spammage snip)

You beat me to it!

(and my take on "zucchini tartare" would be "relish.")

B/

Brian Mailman wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
> (spammage snip)
>
> You beat me to it!
>
> (and my take on "zucchini tartare" would be "relish.")

<LOL>

Pastorio

Hello All:

You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and
that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call
it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive
oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all
relate to when it comes to food.

I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at the
mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as well
as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid mane
for the product, but it is the name they chose. So I spent 2 minutes
learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you
want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying
de-constructed food.

Have a great day.

Jerry @ The Artisan
http://www.theartisan.net

PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name
is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it.

================================================== ===============================

"Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Hello All:
>
> We have just harvested Zucchini, and also bought some great white
> eggplant at our local Farmer's Market. We have developed a couple
> of recipes that take advantage of these Summer vegetables, and we
> hope you will try them, as well as enjoy them.
>
> They a
>
> Zucchini "Carpaccio" Salad:
> http://www.theartisan.net/zucchini_carpaccio.htm
>
> and
>
> Eggplant Stuffed with Pasta:
> http://www.theartisan.net/melanzane_..._con_pasta.htm
>
> Both of these recipe can also be found on The New Stuff Page:
> http://www.theartisan.net/NewStuff.htm
>
> and on the Food Page: http://www.theartisan.net/recipesfrm.htm
>
> Any errors are mine, and should you find any, please feel free to
> let me know, so that I can correct them.
>
> NOTE: For the bread bakers on this or other News Groups, we have
> done quite a bit of work on The Flour Treatise, and will be posting
> the additions/revisions to that before too long.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry @ The Artisan
> http://www.theartisan.net
>

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:45:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper.

And you wonder why you've been missed! LOL!

Carol

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote:

>You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and
>that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call
>it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive
>oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all
>relate to when it comes to food.

Atta boy, Jerry. You've invented vegetarian

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote:

>You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and
>that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call
>it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive
>oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all
>relate to when it comes to food.

You tell 'em, Jerry. They should be thankful that they now have a
vegetarian version of carpaccio that they can turn to when
non-carnivorous guests are expected.

Carol

Hi Damsel:

I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote my last post as I was rushing
to an engagement. Since then,
I have had a chance to think about it more, and offer the following:

It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread
information, especially when provided with an air of infallibility.
Consequently I will add a bit to this note as an addendum to my last
to demonstrate that the
fellows who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit
narrow-minded.

Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio d'Argento),
the most successful cookbook in Italy, and originally published in
Italian in 1950 (and in English in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio"
recipes and are listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original
beef carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio, scamorza
carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio. Celery root and scamorza
are vegetables. The Artisan has added a zucchini Carpaccio to the
list. We are not suggesting
that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon, but only that another
Carpaccio has been
added to a list of possibilities.

Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation: "Carpaccio refers
to a dish made of thinly sliced raw beef or tuna, usually served as an
appetizer.....Today the term Carpaccio is used variably and often
refers to any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can range
as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes, langoustine, and trout-and a
great many more. Similarly the amount of cooking the "subject"
receives varies from none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully
cooked..."

We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to
respond. This is our 8th year hosting
the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as
we were when we started the site.

Regards

Jerry @ The Artisan
http://www.theartisan.net



"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:45:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>Zucchini Sashimi sounds like an Italian-Japanese stripper.
>
> And you wonder why you've been missed! LOL!
>
> Carol

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to
> respond. This is our 8th year hosting
> the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as
> we were when we started the site.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry @ The Artisan
> http://www.theartisan.net

Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate
all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it.
Show your face more often though, y'hear?
Goomba

"Goomba38" > wrote

> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>
>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to
>> respond. This is our 8th year hosting
>> the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as we
>> were when we started the site.

> Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate
> all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it.
> Show your face more often though, y'hear?

What she said. His website makes for a really good read, too.
I'm thinking I could go for some pasta fazool.

nancy

Jones DeAngelis wrote:
> I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote my last post

shame you didnt decide to write think rewrite post

youre a bag of hot air and nothing more

catfish dredged in flour after being washed with egg and fried in hot
canoil

Goomba38 wrote:

> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> > We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to
> > respond. This is our 8th year hosting the site, and we are still as
> > interested and passionate about food as we were when we started
> > the site.

> Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate
> all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it.
> Show your face more often though, y'hear?

wish u would dry up and blowwwww away

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> You've invented vegetarian

vegetarian spam maybe but nothing worth continuing to brag about

so hes been spamming for 8 months big deal

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and
> that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry.

How about be less of a horse's ass, Jerry?

It's not a matter of being confounded, it's a matter of your
"chef" and his utter lack of understanding where names come
from and what they mean. And your endorsing that ignorance.
As for your flaccid effort to strike out at people who look
for coherent intelligence in the kitchen, save that energy
for your bread doughs. It'll be less painful in the long run.

I bet this guy piles up foods and calls the heap a "Napoleon."

Or he makes a blueberry pie and calls it a "clafouti."

> Let's just call
> it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive
> oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all
> relate to when it comes to food.

If you and your web site demonstrated deep knowledge and
extraordinary skill, you might be able to pull that snide
crap off. Your stuff is pretty good, but you ain't the top
of the mountain.

> I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at the
> mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as well
> as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid mane
> for the product, but it is the name they chose.

More ignorance, Jerry. When Adria introduced foams at El
Bulli, they were precisely and exactly that - foams. They
were dispensed from devices usually used for whipped cream.
When various and sundry morons tried to swing onto his
bandwagon (about three years after he'd already moved on),
they were as well informed as your "chef" and squirted out
all sorts of hilarious perversions of the real thing. Adria
is truly in a class of his own. The would-be clones who try
to imitate him are so far off the mark as to deserve gentle
snickers and a dismissive wave of the hand.

> So I spent 2 minutes
> learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you
> want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying
> de-constructed food.

One great danger you seem to have fallen prey to is thinking
that because you just learned something that nobody else
knows it already. The notion of deconstruction is as old as
passing on recipes. And actively dismantling foods to create
separated variants is likewise nothing new. Two whole
minutes, huh? Real science...

I've written probably 500 articles that specifically
deconstructed traditional foods. Or factory foods. Or
something a neighbor made. Or a wild-assed idea like
blueberry nuke cakes.

> Jerry @ The Artisan
> http://www.theartisan.net

Your baked stuff is rather good. Don't get too comfortable.

> PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name
> is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it.

Hey, Jerry. The name is never irrelevant except to
knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for whom language is a burden,
a trifle, rather than a means to the end of transmitting
information. Childish attempts to be oh-so-modern with names
that are uninformative and even wrong brands those users
with an unfortunate mark.

Here's some free advice about language and writing: Don't
write it so they can understand it. Write it so they can't
misunderstand it.

Zucchini carpaccio, your "chef's" ass.

Pastorio

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread
> information, especially when provided with an air of
> infallibility.

Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a
shot, your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your
bread info is a lot better than this offering.

> Consequently I will add a bit to this note
> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows
> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit
> narrow-minded.

"Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned
with words having meaning. Concerned with describing
something so it won't be confusing.

"Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more
desirous of saying what they mean.

> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio
> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and
> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English
> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are
> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original
> beef carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio,
> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio.
> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has
> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not
> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon,
> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list
> of possibilities.
>
> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation:
> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw
> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today
> the term Carpaccio is used variably

See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it
no longer has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless
word.

> and often

See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your
"chef" friend are using it just as carelessly.

> refers to
> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can
> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes,
> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly
> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from
> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully
> cooked..."

And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point.

Here's the point.

The more the name used for utterly different preparations,
the less it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or
anyhing in between. It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin
fish, shell fish "and a great many more." So the origin of
the name drawn from the colors used by the painter Carpaccio
has devolved merely to "thin slices." It no longer has a
referent that creates a definition beyond thin slices. And,
Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that thin slices
already had a name.

Thin slices.

> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for
> allowing us to respond.

<LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day...

Pastorio

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:32:06 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>"Goomba38" > wrote
>
>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>>
>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for allowing us to
>>> respond. This is our 8th year hosting
>>> the site, and we are still as interested and passionate about food as we
>>> were when we started the site.
>
>> Hey Paisano.. I've just got to say that you're a class act. I appreciate
>> all you share here as well as the gentlemanly way you go about it.
>> Show your face more often though, y'hear?
>
>What she said.

Ditto.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote:

>Hello All:
>
>You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and
>that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just call
>it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive
>oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could all
>relate to when it comes to food.
>
>I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at the
>mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as well
>as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid mane
>for the product, but it is the name they chose. So I spent 2 minutes
>learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you
>want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying
>de-constructed food.
>
>Have a great day.
>
>Jerry @ The Artisan
>http://www.theartisan.net
>
>PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name
>is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it.

You have a marvelous web site, Jerry. I cannot tell you the number of
times I have used it for advice and recipes.

Keep up the good work and don't let the crazies bother you. They've
nowhere near the talent or class you have shown.

Boron

Bob/Pastorio

You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or choose not to, as
I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of
what Carpaccio is, or should be. I stand by the Zucchini Carpaccio,
as do the references I provided. You seem to think because you write
articles, you wear the white robe of a Pope. You don't, and your
diatribe suggests you never will.

It is nice to see that you are familiar with foams and deconstructed
foods. I too have written about them, but have no need to impress
anyone here. In short, I find them silly and of limited value in the
real world inhabited by most people.

When you have 1.3 million visitors a year to your website - from all
parts of the world - you can crow a bit. If indeed you have web site
please, provide the URL so that we can visit it, and be enlightened.

Jerry




"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>

Boron

Thank you.

I know that we have strong opinions, and over the years have made
others angry because of them. It is nice to know, that we have not
done that with everyone!

Regards

Jerry

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:44:48 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> > wrote:
>
>>Hello All:
>>
>>You guys need to lighten up. I told you where we got the name, and
>>that is the name. If this confounds you I am sorry. Let's just
>>call
>>it raw "zucchini, cut into thin strips, and then dressed with olive
>>oil and garlic." I suppose that would make it something you could
>>all
>>relate to when it comes to food.
>>
>>I imagine that when you hear the word foam you think of foaming at
>>the
>>mouth. It turns out that the most famous restaurant in Spain, as
>>well
>>as many in the USA are big into foams. I think this is a stupid
>>mane
>>for the product, but it is the name they chose. So I spent 2
>>minutes
>>learning about it, as well as about "de-constructed foods". If you
>>want something to tax your intellect, spend a bit of time studying
>>de-constructed food.
>>
>>Have a great day.
>>
>>Jerry @ The Artisan
>>http://www.theartisan.net
>>
>>PS - before you bitch about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the
>>name
>>is irrelevant. If you don't like it, delete it, or forget it.
>
> You have a marvelous web site, Jerry. I cannot tell you the number
> of
> times I have used it for advice and recipes.
>
> Keep up the good work and don't let the crazies bother you. They've
> nowhere near the talent or class you have shown.
>
> Boron

Bob/Pastorio:

At the risk of insulting you, I have only a single response in that
regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean" borders
on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking at that
part of your psyche as you do the words used by others.

As far a your comment:

> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
> saying what they mean

I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person of
Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and to do
so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully will
continue to do so until they close the cover on my box.

When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am. If
it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe these
changes) is derivative, and evolves as those making and eating it
determine, there is noting I can say that will fit into your world
view.

Regards

Jerry




"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>
>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information,
>> especially when provided with an air of
>> infallibility.
>
> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot,
> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info is
> a lot better than this offering.
>
> > Consequently I will add a bit to this note
>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows
>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit narrow-minded.
>
> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with
> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it
> won't be confusing.
>
> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
> saying what they mean.
>
>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio
>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and
>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English
>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are
>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef
>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio,
>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio.
>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has
>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not
>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon,
>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list
>> of possibilities.
>>
>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation:
>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw
>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today
>> the term Carpaccio is used variably
>
> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no longer
> has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word.
>
> > and often
>
> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef"
> friend are using it just as carelessly.
>
> > refers to
>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can
>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes,
>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly
>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from
>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..."
>
> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point.
>
> Here's the point.
>
> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the less
> it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in between.
> It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish "and a great
> many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the colors used by
> the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin slices." It no
> longer has a referent that creates a definition beyond thin slices.
> And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that thin slices already
> had a name.
>
> Thin slices.
>
>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for
>> allowing us to respond.
>
> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day...
>
> Pastorio

Goomba:

Thanx!

I have been remiss in not logging on more that I have. It is easier
at this time of the year because last year's wines are bottled, and
this years grapes are not ripe enough to harvest. Our olives still
have a long way to go before they are ready to be picked.

Once grape harvest and wine making begin, we will be pressed for time.
Regardless, we will still answer all emails to The Artisan, and try to
keep up. We need to do better, and will definitely try!

Regards

Jerry @ The Artisan

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:07:16 GMT, "Jerry DeAngelis"
> wrote:


>When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am. If
>it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe these
>changes) is derivative, and evolves as those making and eating it
>determine, there is noting I can say that will fit into your world
>view.
>

As people who are passionate of cooking and food, there is no doubt we
will never agree completely. And I think that is just fine. It used
to bother me when others did not share the same taste as I, but as
I've gotten older I can accept that. I know that my taste is
entirely my own and may not excite everyone.

BTW, your site is quite good. As I will have more time shortly, I may
also try to develop the best English site on Japanese cooking.

Hello rinshi:

When you develop your site on Japanese cooking, I hope to be one of
the first to log on, and try some of the recipes.

We enjoy Japanese food, as do many in our small city. There are about
220,000 people in the entire county (45,000 in the city where we
live), and we have approximately 16 Japanese restaurants.

I have at times tried to make a little Japanese food, but failed
miserably. The proper seasoning(s) escape(s) me. I imagine that the
problem is that I have neither an inherent feeling of what a dish is
supposed to taste like, nor any knowledge of how to accomplish that
end.

Until I can log onto your site, my wife and I will simply have to eat
out at Japanese restaurants as often as we can.

Regards,

Jerry @ The Artisan
http://www.theartisan.net

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or choose not to, as
> I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of
> what Carpaccio is, or should be.

Jerry, you posted two references, both of which I dealt
with, and took it further to full explanation of why I made
the assertions. You've just repeated your initial notion
that because you did it, it was right. Carpaccio should be
red meat on a plate - to echo the color palette of the
painter Carpaccio, as originally construed at Harry's Bar.
That others misuse, misconstrue or simply want to sound more
swell and nifty by using it to mean that which it doesn't,
merely demonstrates that while 100 is the average IQ, it
isn't necessarily sufficient.

> I stand by the Zucchini Carpaccio,
> as do the references I provided. You seem to think because you write
> articles, you wear the white robe of a Pope. You don't, and your
> diatribe suggests you never will.

Jerry, I'm a chef with more than 30 years experience, with
European and American training, and ownership of many, and
operation of many more restaurants. I'm a member of several
professional organizations involved with foodservice. I also
have a degree in English and have written more than 1500
articles which have been published in places like the
NYTimes and LATimes syndicates as well as many other
magazines and newspapers, even an encyclopedia. I've been
doing a call-in radio program for nearly 20 years about food
and cooking. I'm not the pope and I don't play him on tv.
But I surely do have a lengthy professional background in
this field. And while I may not be the smartest kitchen
hand, the - literally - thousands of books in my library,
all of which I've read and used, would seem to comprise a
reasonably exhaustive source bank. I ain't the pope, but I
also ain't a rookie.

I don't think I'm going to defer to your literary criticism,
given your own writing, although "diatribe" was a nice touch.

> It is nice to see that you are familiar with foams and deconstructed
> foods. I too have written about them, but have no need to impress
> anyone here. In short, I find them silly and of limited value in the
> real world inhabited by most people.

<LOL> Of course. That's why you brought them up to try to
seem more widely knowledgeable than you are. And assumed
that others - probably me - aren't as versed as you are. But
I somewhat agree with your assessment of foams. They do have
a real, if limited, place in culinaria, as foie gras,
caviar, balut, Velveeta, durian and Miracle Whip do. The
table is nothing if not democratic. If the "real world as
inhabited by most people" were to be the sole criterion for
value, there would be no great music, architecture, art or
literature. Or cuisine. Perhaps try to aspire higher.

> When you have 1.3 million visitors a year to your website - from all
> parts of the world - you can crow a bit. If indeed you have web site
> please, provide the URL so that we can visit it, and be enlightened.

I don't have a web site up. That total of visitors is a
large number. I note that you've just bragged about your web
site, but above you say you "have no need to impress anyone
here." Perhaps a tiny contradiction.

Pastorio

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> Bob/Pastorio:

What/Jerry?

> At the risk of insulting you,

<LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...?

> I have only a single response in that
> regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean" borders
> on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking at that
> part of your psyche as you do the words used by others.

<LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who
had sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that
most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly
patina of psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of
thinking, I say. I guess engineers shouldn't worry about
exactitude and musicians shouldn't bother to tune their
instruments. Too anal. Anything goes, anytime, anywhere.

Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can
understand it, write it so they can't misunderstand it."

And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from
another post,
> You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or
choose not to, as
> I have posted a number of references that contradict your
assertion of
> what Carpaccio is, or should be.

So I went to your web site and I found this:
<http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm>
"What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The
Artisan. Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as
defined in Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder;
error in etiquette: Tactless act or remark..." For us, they
are recipes which purport to be Italian, but are so in name
only and not execution."

So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it.

But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm>
"Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and
number of other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany
and is made in a particular way....otherwise it is not
Panzanella.
[...]
"Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make
it, we cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The
ingredients, per se, are tasty. We probably would not have
used any chicken broth, but the rest sound plausible in a
salad. Regardless, it is not Panzanella. It might be
called Insalata Panzanella Americana."

<LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch
about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant"

Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name
does matter. Go figure. I get so confused...

> As far a your comment:
>
>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>> saying what they mean
>
> I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person of
> Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and to do
> so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully will
> continue to do so until they close the cover on my box.

So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean
things while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can
only mean one thing. For you, any old word is fine and you
shouldn't be accountable for using it any old way. Except
when it isn't. Or doesn't. Or something.

I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the
Germanic punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean
presentation.

> When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am.

Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're
dealing with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a
bad idea to name things with words that don't actually
describe them and, further, are likely to confuse the
reader. The crux of this disagreement is that you think it's
ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the antecedent.
I say doing that removes useful terms from the language and
reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well
call it Zucchini a la Flerche.

But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense.

> If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe these
> changes) is derivative,

Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There
aren't too many absolutely original recipes. The terms are
at issue. It has apparently escaped your notice that
culinary terms are created to be technical terms. They're
created to be specific, and misuse dilutes and finally voids
the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a "Napoleon"
isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was
coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a
chicken dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or
fruit. It escapes you that misusing words like that reduces
them to mere sounds with no meaning beyond that exact dish.
In which case, it's pure romance and moonlight on the
curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name, describing
nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth
when saying it.

> and evolves as those making and eating it determine,

The fact that someone decides to make a change in the
meaning of a word or of a term doesn't automatically confer
a new correctness. Doesn't generate respect for the change.
That's what people who write text messages and IM's to each
other say. They reduce the language to a collection of
primitive textual grunts.

no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u
wuda luvdit.

Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather
scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean,
neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words
mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be
master - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a
minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of
them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives
you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can
manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I
say!'
'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty,
looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability"
that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just
as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I
suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in
a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said
Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any
other remark.
'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,'
Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to
side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you
see I can't tell you.)
'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice.
'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called
"Jabberwocky"?'
'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the
poems that ever were invented just yet.'
This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:--
'Twas brillig and the slithy toves,
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.

'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted:
'there are plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four
o'clock in the afternoon - the time when you begin broiling
things for dinner.'
'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?'
'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the
same as "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there
are two meanings packed up into one word.'
'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are
"toves"?'
'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're
something like lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.'
'They must be very curious-looking creatures.'
'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their
nests under sundials - also they live on cheese.'
'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?'
'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To
"gimble" is to make holes like a gimlet.'
'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I
suppose?' said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it
goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it-----'
'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable"
(there's another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a
thin shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all
around - something like a live mop.'
'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving
you a great deal of trouble.'
'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not
certain about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning
that they'd lost their way, you know.'
'And what does "outgrabe" mean?'
'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and
whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however
you'll hear it done, maybe - down in the wood yonder - and,
when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content. Who's
been repeating all that hard stuff to you?'
'I read it in a book,' said Alice.
From Through The Looking Glass
by Lewis Carroll

I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not
to mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes
on the vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole
cabbage. Tagine of raw tofu gelato.

> there is noting I can say that will fit into your world
> view.

<LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of
helter-skelter nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta
talk about. Your bread stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on
throwing stones on this subject were I you.

> Regards

Likewise, I'm sure.

Jerry of the angels, go in peace.

Pastorio



> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>>
>>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information,
>>> especially when provided with an air of
>>> infallibility.
>>
>> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot,
>> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info is
>> a lot better than this offering.
>>
>>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note
>>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows
>>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit narrow-minded.
>>
>> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with
>> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it
>> won't be confusing.
>>
>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>> saying what they mean.
>>
>>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio
>>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and
>>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English
>>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are
>>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef
>>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio,
>>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio.
>>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has
>>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not
>>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon,
>>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list
>>> of possibilities.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation:
>>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw
>>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today
>>> the term Carpaccio is used variably
>>
>> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no longer
>> has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word.
>>
>>> and often
>>
>> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef"
>> friend are using it just as carelessly.
>>
>>> refers to
>>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can
>>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes,
>>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly
>>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from
>>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..."
>> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point.
>>
>> Here's the point.
>>
>> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the less
>> it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in between.
>> It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish "and a great
>> many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the colors used by
>> the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin slices." It no
>> longer has a referent that creates a definition beyond thin slices.
>> And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that thin slices already
>> had a name.
>>
>> Thin slices.
>>
>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for
>>> allowing us to respond.
>> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day...
>>
>> Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ...

> ... I also have a degree in English and have written more than
> 1500 articles which have been published in places like the
> NYTimes and LATimes syndicates as well as many other
> magazines and newspapers, even an encyclopedia. ...

Welcome. It is very nice to find posters who seem literate.

> (Foams) have a real, if limited, place in culinaria, as foie gras,
> caviar, balut, Velveeta, durian and Miracle Whip do.

I suppose that having a "place in culinaria" can be taken to
imply that they are edible. I have always been partial to Miracle
Whip -- I wonder if you (Bob) can help me understand how it
is made? Can do mayonnaise, but not Miracle Whip. Balut
and durian do not seem very interesting, particularly balut.

One thing I have always liked is a fried baloney sandwich on
sourdough bread, with Miracle Whip and kimchee.

--
Dicky

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Jerry, you posted two references, both of which I dealt
> with, and took it further to full explanation of why I made
> the assertions. You've just repeated your initial notion
> that because you did it, it was right. Carpaccio should be
> red meat on a plate - to echo the color palette of the
> painter Carpaccio, as originally construed at Harry's Bar.

The same Harry's that developed "Fettucini(e) Alfredo" I imagine....

Well, I suppose this was a reflection on the aspects of raw, and thin
slices. The same can be said of positing that a strawberry shortcake
becomes a napoleon, or a moldless trifle. I think the appelation
"-tini" now applies to just about anything, I"ve seen a "cheesecaketini"
which was simply a cream cheese mousseline poured into martini glass and
garnished with piece of candied fruit on a toothpick.

I *believe* it was Pierre Troisgrois (sp?) who was known for telling
jokes with dishes, such as his salmon scallopine--he was playing on
large flat disks of flesh and referring to "leg of salmon" which some
would find amusing.

The problem is when someone doesn't realize they're pulling the finger
and takes themselves too seriously.

B/

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:48:27 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote:

>Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Jerry, you posted two references, both of which I dealt
>> with, and took it further to full explanation of why I made
>> the assertions. You've just repeated your initial notion
>> that because you did it, it was right. Carpaccio should be
>> red meat on a plate - to echo the color palette of the
>> painter Carpaccio, as originally construed at Harry's Bar.
>
>The same Harry's that developed "Fettucini(e) Alfredo" I imagine....
>
>Well, I suppose this was a reflection on the aspects of raw, and thin
>slices. The same can be said of positing that a strawberry shortcake
>becomes a napoleon, or a moldless trifle. I think the appelation
>"-tini" now applies to just about anything, I"ve seen a "cheesecaketini"
>which was simply a cream cheese mousseline poured into martini glass and
>garnished with piece of candied fruit on a toothpick.
>
>I *believe* it was Pierre Troisgrois (sp?) who was known for telling
>jokes with dishes, such as his salmon scallopine--he was playing on
>large flat disks of flesh and referring to "leg of salmon" which some
>would find amusing.
>
>The problem is when someone doesn't realize they're pulling the finger
>and takes themselves too seriously.
>
>B/


Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any
sort of food joke.

The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale.

*********************************************
http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sp...carpaccio.html

Vegetable Carpaccio
Carpaccio Vegetale

Robbio is a farming town in Lombardy, near Alessandria, not too far
from the Piedmont border. In the heart of rice-growing country, Robbio
is surrounded by paddies, which produce Italy's famed Baldo, Arbono,
and Carnaroli rice. Da Mino, a small restaurant located in the center
of town, specializes in typical rural dishes of the area, and I was
particularly taken by Chef Enrica Abatte's unusual fresh vegetable
carpaccio. Made with produce from the garden of Pietro Lorizzo, her
husband and the restaurants owner, the macerated paper-thin vegetables
came to the table lightly chilled, tender, and full of texture and
flavor.

When I have the time, I prepare the carpaccio as they do at Da Mino,
but when I don't want to wait, I simply toss all the vegetables and
seasonings together and serve it immediately. The styles are
different; both are delicious. Try this with a light, luscious, and
dry red, such as Bonarda dell'Oltrepó Pavese.


4 medium zucchini, trimmed and
cut into paper-thin rounds
2 teaspoons best-quality red wine vinegar
2 small red bell peppers, stemmed, seeds and pith
removed, cut into paper-thin strips
Fine sea salt
Freshly ground black pepper (optional)
2 cups arugula, rinsed, patted dry,
and torn into bite-size pieces
2 ounces Parmigiano-Reggiano, shaved
into paper-thin curls (see Segreti)
2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil


1. Cover the bottom of a 12-inch round nonreactive dish with a layer
of the zucchini, using half the rounds, slightly over-lapping them in
concentric circles. Using a pastry brush, brush half the vinegar as
evenly as possible over the zucchini. Scatter half the bell pepper
slices over the zucchini, then season lightly with salt and, if
desired, black pepper. Arrange half the arugula leaves on top with
half the Parmesan cheese curls. Drizzle with half the olive oil and
season lightly again with salt and, if desired, pepper. Repeat the
layers using the remaining ingredients.

2. Cover the dish tightly with aluminum foil and refrigerate for 18 to
24 hours. Remove from the refrigerator about 15 minutes before
serving.

Segreti
To shave Parmesan cheese, use a vegetable peeler and simply "peel" the
curls from the hunk of cheese, holding it right over the salad.


*******************************

And here is a restaurant in Italy that has it on its menu:

http://www.aeolia.com/menu/1991/06menu.htm

Boron

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:58:34 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:48:27 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote:
>
>>Bob (this one) wrote:

>>I *believe* it was Pierre Troisgrois (sp?) who was known for telling
>>jokes with dishes, such as his salmon scallopine--he was playing on
>>large flat disks of flesh and referring to "leg of salmon" which some
>>would find amusing.
>>
>>The problem is when someone doesn't realize they're pulling the finger
>>and takes themselves too seriously.

>Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any
>sort of food joke.
>
>The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale.

Of course, these Italians, if they _really are_ Italians, are
obviously poseurs and take themselves too seriously. "Carpaccio
Vegetale", indeed.

Boron Elgar wrote:
> [snip preceding]
> Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any
> sort of food joke.
>
> The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale.
>
> *********************************************
> http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sp...carpaccio.html
>
> Vegetable Carpaccio
> Carpaccio Vegetale

[snip article and recipe]

> And here is a restaurant in Italy that has it on its menu:
>
> http://www.aeolia.com/menu/1991/06menu.htm
>
> Boron

Oh, he probably already knows that he's fighting a rearguard action
against a change in languages [English and Italian] that is well under
way. We've all seen many examples of specific names morphing into
descriptives for semi-related things. It's quite like the way brand
names and trademarks become generic words, notwithstanding the efforts
of trademark lawyers. I've made similar objections a number of times
here in rfc, usually saying something like, "That sounds like an
interesting recipe, but don't call it ___[some misappropriated
name]_____ , make up a new name for it."

He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't
really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem

aem wrote:

> He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't
> really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem
>

Small Man Syndrome? LOL

On 21 Aug 2006 14:32:24 -0700, "aem" > wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>> [snip preceding]
>> Except that Vegetable Carpaccio is not unknown in Italy, nor is it any
>> sort of food joke.
>>
>> The web page below gives a recipe for Carpaccio Vegetale.
>>
>> *********************************************
>> http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sp...carpaccio.html
>>
>> Vegetable Carpaccio
>> Carpaccio Vegetale
>
> [snip article and recipe]
>
>> And here is a restaurant in Italy that has it on its menu:
>>
>> http://www.aeolia.com/menu/1991/06menu.htm
>>
>> Boron
>
>Oh, he probably already knows that he's fighting a rearguard action
>against a change in languages [English and Italian] that is well under
>way. We've all seen many examples of specific names morphing into
>descriptives for semi-related things. It's quite like the way brand
>names and trademarks become generic words, notwithstanding the efforts
>of trademark lawyers. I've made similar objections a number of times
>here in rfc, usually saying something like, "That sounds like an
>interesting recipe, but don't call it ___[some misappropriated
>name]_____ , make up a new name for it."
>
>He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't
>really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem


I feel that Jerry is real delight and swell fellow. He deserves the
defense.

Frankly, I have Past-o in the KF.

Boron

Bob/Pastorio:

Unlike you, I will not bother to list the degrees I have, as that is
irrelevant in this discussion. However I will state for the record
that your comment:

> most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina
> of psychobabble.

is interesting in light of the fact that in a career from which I am
now retired, I was responsible for providing counseling and therapy to
approximately 32,000 adult and minor patients, and for training a
number of UCLA adolescent psychiatrists in the treatment of severely
emotionally disturbed children.

There are two things I am impressed with in your post. 1.) You know
Lewis Carroll and, 2. ) you have actually taken the time to cut and
paste that into your message. I enjoyed that. I have a facsimile
of the original hand written version by Carroll. Very nice to read
rather than the machine printed versions.

You have tried very hard to introduce a "scientific" aspect into this
discussion that somehow morphs cooking into a hard science. (Note: I
am not dismissing Food or Cereal scientist here. There is quite a bit
of hard science in these fields.) That would be perfect ,if we were
in fact discussing a hard science. In my opinion, We are not
discussing a subject where exactitude of the same magnitude is
paramount. Exactitude domains include, among other things, computer
languages where a misplaced word, a comma, a period etc , makes code
useless, physics, either classical ,or quantum, where accuracy and
precision are paramount. The mathematical rigor necessary in these
cases are not to be toyed with, and indeed words mean specific things.
Chemistry is another science where there is little opportunity to
change terms at will. A double bond with specific pi-bond values is
just that, it is not another thing that is easier to remember.
Quantum Electro Dynamics, and the rigor necessary to discuss that is
well known, and words that make this subject more difficult, or
easier to understand need to be carefully chosen. I agree with you
that in these cases that " any old word will not do..." But I
reiterate, we are talking about a recipe here, and not a scientific
conundrum that more words will resolve. Additionally, taking things
out of context, as you do on most of your posts, only works for a
while. Sooner or later, your prose begins to contradict itself.
Re-read them, and you will see for yourself.

Obviously, I do not agree that your positions about food, and the
rigor you are trying to establish. You seem more interested in
flaunting your experience, degrees, opinions, and literary breadth
than in cognizant thought. You write well, and your erudition is
precise, but not very accurate, in my opinion. We who cook, whether
for personal or professional purposes, are not engineers, software or
otherwise, or chemists, or physicists, or microbiologists, or
frankly anything like this. That may bother you, especially if you
consider what you do science. It is not. There are in fact food
scientists, and they master incredible amounts of scientific data,
methodology and do so with a rigor that most cooks/chefs only think
about occasionally, or never at all. That does not mean that a chef
does not have to understand scientific notions as they relate to food.
Because one takes courses in hygiene, food chemistry, basic physics,
heat transfer etc, while pursuing a course of study does not
necessarily make him or her a scientist. It may make him or her a
better chef or baker, but that is a different issue.

It may come as a shock to you but one can be too anal, obsessive
compulsive or fixated on a topic, and not be on top of their subject.
To obsess about a word or a number is not the same as being careful,
accurate, and precise. Obsessive compulsive behavior is never good,
no matter how much one tries to justify it. Obsession cannot be
justified because one is trying to save the world from itself.

Finally, I would like to correct one thing. You state:

>So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
>derisive.

As far as how I feel about them, my posts are not defensive, but I
freely admit they are at times, derisive.

It is clear that no matter how often we harangue each other, we will
most likely never agree about most things, so I will sign off from
this thread. Contrary to what a few have stated, I have not chosen to
pick a fight for the fun of it, nor do I do so happily. As I stated
in my last post,I enjoy a good argument, and when I do argue, it is
for reasons stated. Additionally, I am not interested in more time
wasted, on my part on this issue.

If that makes you happy, or increases you standing in the chef
community, please feel free to declare victory in this discussion,
and feel good about it .

Have a good day/night/life and try not to take yourself too seriously.

Jerry




"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>> Bob/Pastorio:
>
> What/Jerry?
>
>> At the risk of insulting you,
>
> <LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...?
>
> > I have only a single response in that
>> regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean"
>> borders on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking
>> at that part of your psyche as you do the words used by others.
>
> <LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who had
> sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that most of them
> didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina of
> psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of thinking, I say. I
> guess engineers shouldn't worry about exactitude and musicians
> shouldn't bother to tune their instruments. Too anal. Anything goes,
> anytime, anywhere.
>
> Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can understand
> it, write it so they can't misunderstand it."
>
> And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from another
> post,
> > You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or
> choose not to, as
> > I have posted a number of references that contradict your
> assertion of
> > what Carpaccio is, or should be.
>
> So I went to your web site and I found this:
> <http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm>
> "What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The Artisan.
> Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as defined in
> Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder; error in etiquette:
> Tactless act or remark..." For us, they are recipes which purport to
> be Italian, but are so in name only and not execution."
>
> So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it.
>
> But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm>
> "Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and number of
> other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany and is made in a
> particular way....otherwise it is not Panzanella.
> [...]
> "Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make it, we
> cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The ingredients, per
> se, are tasty. We probably would not have used any chicken broth,
> but the rest sound plausible in a salad. Regardless, it is not
> Panzanella. It might be called Insalata Panzanella Americana."
>
> <LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch about a
> recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant"
>
> Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name does
> matter. Go figure. I get so confused...
>
>> As far a your comment:
>>
>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>>> saying what they mean
>>
>> I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person
>> of Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and
>> to do so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully
>> will continue to do so until they close the cover on my box.
>
> So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
> derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean things
> while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can only mean one
> thing. For you, any old word is fine and you shouldn't be
> accountable for using it any old way. Except when it isn't. Or
> doesn't. Or something.
>
> I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the Germanic
> punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean presentation.
>
>> When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am.
>
> Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're dealing
> with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a bad idea to name
> things with words that don't actually describe them and, further,
> are likely to confuse the reader. The crux of this disagreement is
> that you think it's ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the
> antecedent. I say doing that removes useful terms from the language
> and reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well call
> it Zucchini a la Flerche.
>
> But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense.
>
>> If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe
>> these changes) is derivative,
>
> Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There aren't too
> many absolutely original recipes. The terms are at issue. It has
> apparently escaped your notice that culinary terms are created to be
> technical terms. They're created to be specific, and misuse dilutes
> and finally voids the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a
> "Napoleon" isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was
> coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a chicken
> dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or fruit. It escapes you
> that misusing words like that reduces them to mere sounds with no
> meaning beyond that exact dish. In which case, it's pure romance and
> moonlight on the curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name,
> describing nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth
> when saying it.
>
> > and evolves as those making and eating it determine,
>
> The fact that someone decides to make a change in the meaning of a
> word or of a term doesn't automatically confer a new correctness.
> Doesn't generate respect for the change. That's what people who
> write text messages and IM's to each other say. They reduce the
> language to a collection of primitive textual grunts.
>
> no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u wuda
> luvdit.
>
> Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right...
>
> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
> it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
> 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so
> many different things.'
> 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -
> that's all.'
> Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty
> Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly
> verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with,
> but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them!
> Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
> 'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
> 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking
> very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had
> enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd
> mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to
> stop here all the rest of your life.'
> 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a
> thoughtful tone.
> 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty,
> 'I always pay it extra.'
> 'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
> 'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty
> Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to
> get their wages, you know.'
> (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I
> can't tell you.)
> 'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice. 'Would
> you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'
> 'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the poems
> that ever were invented just yet.'
> This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:--
> 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves,
> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
> All mimsy were the borogoves
> And the mome raths outgrabe.
>
> 'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: 'there are
> plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four o'clock in the
> afternoon - the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.'
> 'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?'
> 'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the same as
> "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings
> packed up into one word.'
> 'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are "toves"?'
> 'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're something like
> lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.'
> 'They must be very curious-looking creatures.'
> 'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their nests
> under sundials - also they live on cheese.'
> 'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?'
> 'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To "gimble" is
> to make holes like a gimlet.'
> 'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I suppose?' said
> Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
> 'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it goes a
> long way before it, and a long way behind it-----'
> 'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
> 'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable" (there's
> another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a thin
> shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all around -
> something like a live mop.'
> 'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving you a
> great deal of trouble.'
> 'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not certain
> about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning that they'd lost
> their way, you know.'
> 'And what does "outgrabe" mean?'
> 'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling,
> with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done,
> maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it,
> you'll be quite content. Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to
> you?'
> 'I read it in a book,' said Alice.
> From Through The Looking Glass
> by Lewis Carroll
>
> I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not to
> mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes on the
> vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole cabbage. Tagine
> of raw tofu gelato.
>
>> there is noting I can say that will fit into your world view.
>
> <LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of helter-skelter
> nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta talk about. Your bread
> stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on throwing stones on this subject
> were I you.
>
>> Regards
>
> Likewise, I'm sure.
>
> Jerry of the angels, go in peace.
>
> Pastorio
>
>
>
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information,
>>>> especially when provided with an air of
>>>> infallibility.
> >>
>>> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot,
>>> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info
>>> is a lot better than this offering.
>>>
>>>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note
>>>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows
>>>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit
>>>> narrow-minded.
> >>
>>> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with
>>> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it
>>> won't be confusing.
>>>
>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>>> saying what they mean.
>>>
>>>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio
>>>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and
>>>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English
>>>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are
>>>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef
>>>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio,
>>>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio.
>>>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has
>>>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not
>>>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon,
>>>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list
>>>> of possibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation:
>>>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw
>>>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today
>>>> the term Carpaccio is used variably
> >>
>>> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no
>>> longer has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word.
>>>
>>>> and often
> >>
>>> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef"
>>> friend are using it just as carelessly.
>>>
>>>> refers to
>>>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can
>>>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes,
>>>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly
>>>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from
>>>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..."
>>> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point.
>>>
>>> Here's the point.
>>>
>>> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the
>>> less it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in
>>> between. It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish
>>> "and a great many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the
>>> colors used by the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin
>>> slices." It no longer has a referent that creates a definition
>>> beyond thin slices. And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that
>>> thin slices already had a name.
>>>
>>> Thin slices.
>>>
>>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for
>>>> allowing us to respond.
>>> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day...
>>>
>>> Pastorio

Goomba38 wrote:
> aem wrote:
>> He's only recently been revisiting rfc anyway, and probably didn't
>> really feel at home until he tried to pick a fight. -aem
>>
> Small Man Syndrome? LOL

As opposed to lightweight syndrome...? The two of you try so
hard. Maybe I'll send some nice gold stars for you both to
paste, um, somewhere.

Only recently been *posting* - you don't know if I've been
visiting.

I love the sniping from you two exemplars for civil behavior.

Pastorio

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ...
>
>> (Foams) have a real, if limited, place in culinaria, as foie gras,
>> caviar, balut, Velveeta, durian and Miracle Whip do.
>
> I suppose that having a "place in culinaria" can be taken to
> imply that they are edible.

<LOL> At least.

> I have always been partial to Miracle
> Whip -- I wonder if you (Bob) can help me understand how it
> is made? Can do mayonnaise, but not Miracle Whip. Balut
> and durian do not seem very interesting, particularly balut.

Miracle Whip is a factory product that you can't exactly
duplicate at home. It's an evolution of "salad dressing" and
there are lots of recipes out there for it.
<http://www.recipezaar.com/41781>

And balut is not interesting. Really not interesting.

> One thing I have always liked is a fried baloney sandwich on
> sourdough bread, with Miracle Whip and kimchee.

Not a combination I've ever had. I don't especially like
Miracle Whip. I find the sweetness offputting. When I was a
kid, one of our neighbors used to make us Miracle Whip
sandwiches on Wonder bread. We thought they were terrific.

I grew up with homemade bologna (actually it was my
grandfather's homemade version of mortadella) that was never
fried that way. Until I got to college and my roommate
introduced me to its delights. Bologna, lettuce, mayo on a
New York kaiser roll at 3 in the morning in anticipation of
a monster hangover in a few hours.

Perfect.

Pastorio

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> Bob/Pastorio:
>
> Unlike you, I will not bother to list the degrees I have,

I didn't list them. Just one. The hauteur fairly drips from
the post, Jerry. Nicely done.

> as that is irrelevant in this discussion.

That one listed is exactly relevant. It's B.A., English -
use of language - that directly concerns the whole issue of
a silly recipe name. And that's what all your blustering
about concerns, as well. It's an area of my professional
credentials. You know, like the ones you list for yourself
below. The ones that really are irrelevant.

> However I will state for the record that your comment:

<tap, tap, gavel, gavel> This is officially for the record
and I need silence while I deliver it. <Clears throat>
"However..."

>> most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina
>> of psychobabble.
>
> is interesting in light of the fact that in a career from which I am
> now retired,

It's still babble, Jerry. It's a value judgement, not a
diagnosis.

> I was responsible for providing counseling and therapy to
> approximately 32,000 adult and minor patients, and for training a
> number of UCLA adolescent psychiatrists in the treatment of severely
> emotionally disturbed children.

You have credentials in psychology. One should expect rigor
in a professional field. That would be part of the
definition of professionalism, I'd suggest. Not anything
like actual science - John Campbell called psychology - "the
modern black arts." And your "professional" comments both
above - "fixation" - and below, so casually offered, show a
shocking slackness and self-serving agenda in using them.

> There are two things I am impressed with in your post. 1.) You know
> Lewis Carroll and, 2. ) you have actually taken the time to cut and
> paste that into your message. I enjoyed that. I have a facsimile
> of the original hand written version by Carroll. Very nice to read
> rather than the machine printed versions.

<LOL> How smarmily condescending you can be, Jerry. Same
spirit as your references to foams. You're afflicted with
that 'blind guys and the elephant" thingy. You see a speck
and imagine it to be the whole. I typically read three to
five books a week and have for more than 50 years with very
few interruptions of that schedule. In areas of literature,
science, history, biography, non-fiction, culinaria,
religion, nature, music, bonsai, science fiction, stringed
instruments, aviation, military matters, linguistics,
languages... like that. And that doesn't begin to include
online things and technical materials. I even looked in a
phone book once. Not much plot, too many characters. Tried
to set it to music, but it didn't rhyme. Never did that again.

> You have tried very hard to introduce a "scientific" aspect into this
> discussion that somehow morphs cooking into a hard science.

Hardly.

I knew it had all flown past you. We've been talking about
linguistic rigor. It's all about using a recipe name
uninformatively.

Science is not remotely at issue, and all your words below
merely show how little you've understood the issues I've
raised and explained and re-explained to no apparent avail.
And you fault me for my inability or choice to not read
accurately. I'd say that's a tad ironic.

Here's the twice-presented crux of your failu
"Like I already said to you, 'Don't write it so they can
understand it, write it so they can't misunderstand it.' "
Remember that? Didn't think so.

> (Note: I
> am not dismissing Food or Cereal scientist here. There is quite a bit
> of hard science in these fields.)

It's not that you don't know how much, it's abundantly clear
that you can't even imagine how much. You'd really enjoy a
walk through the labs at National Starch. Or Sara Lee. Or
Virginia Dare. Or TIC gums...

> That would be perfect ,if we were
> in fact discussing a hard science. In my opinion, We are not
> discussing a subject where exactitude of the same magnitude is
> paramount. Exactitude domains include, among other things, computer
> languages where a misplaced word, a comma, a period etc , makes code
> useless, physics, either classical ,or quantum, where accuracy and
> precision are paramount.

Accuracy and precision in quantum physics? Do you know
*nothing* about the subject? Heard of Schrodinger's cat? The
Uncertainty Principle? Fuzziness? Velocity-location? This is
just more posturing, Jerry, and it doesn't credit you.
<http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/index.html>
<http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCHRCAT.HTM>

> The mathematical rigor necessary in these
> cases are not to be toyed with, and indeed words mean specific things.

Mathematical rigor - using pure denotations - and verbal
specificity - using combinations of denotations and
connotations. As if they had anything to do with each other.

> Chemistry is another science where there is little opportunity to
> change terms at will. A double bond with specific pi-bond values is
> just that, it is not another thing that is easier to remember.
> Quantum Electro Dynamics, and the rigor necessary to discuss that is
> well known, and words that make this subject more difficult, or
> easier to understand need to be carefully chosen. I agree with you
> that in these cases that " any old word will not do..." But I
> reiterate, we are talking about a recipe here, and not a scientific
> conundrum that more words will resolve.

"Conundrum" is it? <LOL> Buy a dictionary.

> Additionally, taking things
> out of context, as you do on most of your posts, only works for a
> while.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show one of these
contextual problems? Could this be a reference to the
embarrassing material on your web site that contradicts
itself? I didn't quote the whole thing because everything
didn't contradict everything, and because rather than this
fault, you'd say I quoted too much. Still not recognizing
that you contradict yourself, it appears. Where's that "I
admit mistakes" stuff now?

> Sooner or later, your prose begins to contradict itself.
> Re-read them, and you will see for yourself.

<LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I love how you've just accused me of
what I've already proved about you. You *say* I contradict
myself whereas I *demonstrated* that you do.

And, conveniently, it's below in the message you quoted. The
whole business about your "creative" redefinition of faux
pas. Where *your* definition supplants the dictionary
offering. Funny you choose a French expression to describe
Italian things on an ostensibly Italian-oriented web site.
And your both-sides-now view of Panzanella. Has to be
exactly what you say it is or it can't be called
"panzanella." Hee hee...

> Obviously, I do not agree that your positions about food, and the
> rigor you are trying to establish. You seem more interested in
> flaunting your experience, degrees, opinions, and literary breadth
> than in cognizant thought.

"...cognizant thought." <LOL> When you take time to explain
your background, it's explanation. When I do it, it's
flaunting. What clarity of thought.

> You write well,

Thank you. So I've been told by people writing checks for
it. That's snide, if true.

> and your erudition is
> precise, but not very accurate, in my opinion.

Right. So here's your professional evaluation as a
psychological professional. I can see why you had that job.

> We who cook, whether
> for personal or professional purposes, are not engineers, software or
> otherwise, or chemists, or physicists, or microbiologists, or
> frankly anything like this. That may bother you, especially if you
> consider what you do science. It is not.

You can't begin to imagine what I do, Jerry. And if you look
at what science is - how it works - some of it is very much
science. Not always, because different goals demand
different methods of organization; different issues of
consideration. Not a complicated thing - the scientific
method. It's just the best way of dealing with information
anyone has come up with.

> There are in fact food scientists,

I'm friends with a good many of them.

> and they master incredible amounts of scientific data,
> methodology and do so with a rigor that most cooks/chefs only think
> about occasionally, or never at all.

Jerry, you're over your head here. They're scientists, no
more nor less than other scientists.

But they have not one damn thing to do with your
sloppiness/confusion of language usage.

> That does not mean that a chef
> does not have to understand scientific notions as they relate to food.

Chefs absolutely don't need to know the science behind what
they do. Classical chef training had nothing to do with that
sort of analysis and hypothesizing. It has had everything to
do with using recognized processes and techniques long-since
established by trial and error to produce results. The
difference between a marksman and a ballistics analyst. Guy
shooting a gum doesn't need to know the techie stuff beyond
the point of utility.

> Because one takes courses in hygiene, food chemistry, basic physics,
> heat transfer etc, while pursuing a course of study does not
> necessarily make him or her a scientist.

Scientists "do" science. It's not a title, it's a kind of
activity. Clearly, you have no experience with it.

> It may make him or her a
> better chef or baker, but that is a different issue.

Sorry, Jerry. It's readily apparent that you just don't
understand what the scientific process is about. Most people
don't involve themselves with the chemistry, biology and
physics of the kitchen, but rest assured, they're all there
and very much the subjects of serious inquiry and
experimentation. Home cooks and most professionals aren't
taking a scholarly approach to the matters of culinaria, but
some of us do. You might like to read "Food Processing"
magazine, or the magazine of the Research Chefs organization
or any of the other trade/technical mags out there. There
are several organizations that deal with the aspects of
culinary science you clearly are utterly unacquainted with.

But that's not the subject. It's about how your "chef" (and
other poseurs) doesn't know that Cipriani named the dish for
color, not slices.

> It may come as a shock to you but one can be too anal, obsessive
> compulsive or fixated on a topic, and not be on top of their subject.

<LOL> Oh wow. Jargon. With a nice, snide stab to it. And see
how irrelevant it all is? Zowie. Must be a professional
writing these "diagnoses" about others. As though we didn't
all take a few psyche courses as undergraduates ad long-ago
mastered these words to use as blunt-instrument insults.
Like this. <LOL> This is even more pompous than I get at my
worst. Zany. Lashing out. When the only tool you know is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail, huh, Jerry?

> To obsess about a word or a number is not the same as being careful,
> accurate, and precise. Obsessive compulsive behavior is never good,
> no matter how much one tries to justify it. Obsession cannot be
> justified because one is trying to save the world from itself.

<LOL> Brilliantly smug, colorfully superficial and most
emphatically that special blowhole posturing so clearly a
hallmark of your recent notes. Hilarious. Postulates for the
wall poster about mental conditions for the school guidance
office. Those thudding sentences should be numbered like the
bible.

The Book of Jerry of DeAngelis
Chapter one - The Obsession Proverbs
1 To obsess about a word or a number is not the same as
being careful, accurate, and precise.
2 Obsessive compulsive behavior is never good, no matter how
much one tries to justify it.
3 Obsession cannot be justified because one is trying to
save the world from itself.
<LOLOLOL>

BTW, obsessive-compulsive is generally hyphenated for the
reason that words like that are usually hyphenated. It's a
language thing. And, because you obviously and startlingly -
given those credentials listed above - are just using jargon
you don't understand, here's what obsessional behavior and
OCD are about <http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2794.htm>

> Finally, I would like to correct one thing. You state:
>
>> So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
>> derisive.
>
> As far as how I feel about them, my posts are not defensive, but I
> freely admit they are at times, derisive.

Beauty - eye of beholder...

> It is clear that no matter how often we harangue each other, we will
> most likely never agree about most things, so I will sign off from
> this thread. Contrary to what a few have stated, I have not chosen to
> pick a fight for the fun of it, nor do I do so happily. As I stated
> in my last post,I enjoy a good argument, and when I do argue, it is
> for reasons stated. Additionally, I am not interested in more time
> wasted, on my part on this issue.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of argumentation. It's
not to do phony psychological evaluations. It's not to
introduce vast hunks of irrelevant smugly delivered twaddle
- science, indeed. It's not to posture and preen as in "We
who cook, whether for personal or professional purposes, are
not engineers, software or otherwise, or chemists, or
physicists, or microbiologists, or frankly anything like
this." I should introduce you to Shirley Corriher. Or Harold
McGee. Or...
<http://www.cookingforengineers.com/>

"We who cook..." is only hilarious because I can see you
delivering that line with one eyebrow raised, hand held
upward in a declamatory pose, trying to distinguish yourself
from me, obviously a mere poseur in your opinion. I became
one of those "we who cook" in the early 1950's in my
parents' restaurant. I also have an undergraduate minor in
hard science. See how that flows together? I didn't think so.

> If that makes you happy, or increases you standing in the chef
> community, please feel free to declare victory in this discussion,
> and feel good about it .

Jerry, forgive me. Defeating you is like stomping a pygmy.
All it does is get the shoes dirty.

> Have a good day/night/life and try not to take yourself too seriously.

Right. Hey, tell me more about science and psychology. Maybe
throw in more about literary criticism. Then a bit more from
"we who cook." I'm really, really listening. Nearly.

No, seriously...

We're both full of shit. Pompous. Self-important.

Been a pleasure. I have some French bread dough (All-trumps
and a little whole wheat) in the fridge continuing a slow
proof that I'm going to shape into baguettes and batards
tomorrow evening. Place should smell good.

Pastorio

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>>> Bob/Pastorio:
>> What/Jerry?
>>
>>> At the risk of insulting you,
>> <LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...?
>>
>>> I have only a single response in that
>>> regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean"
>>> borders on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking
>>> at that part of your psyche as you do the words used by others.
>> <LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who had
>> sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that most of them
>> didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly patina of
>> psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of thinking, I say. I
>> guess engineers shouldn't worry about exactitude and musicians
>> shouldn't bother to tune their instruments. Too anal. Anything goes,
>> anytime, anywhere.
>>
>> Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can understand
>> it, write it so they can't misunderstand it."
>>
>> And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from another
>> post,
>>>You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or
choose not to, as
>>> I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of
>>> what Carpaccio is, or should be.
>>
>> So I went to your web site and I found this:
>> <http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm>
>> "What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The Artisan.
>> Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as defined in
>> Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder; error in etiquette:
>> Tactless act or remark..." For us, they are recipes which purport to
>> be Italian, but are so in name only and not execution."
>>
>> So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it.
>>
>> But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm>
>> "Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and number of
>> other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany and is made in a
>> particular way....otherwise it is not Panzanella.
>> [...]
>> "Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make it, we
>> cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The ingredients, per
>> se, are tasty. We probably would not have used any chicken broth,
>> but the rest sound plausible in a salad. Regardless, it is not
>> Panzanella. It might be called Insalata Panzanella Americana."
>>
>> <LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch about a
>> recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant"
>>
>> Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name does
>> matter. Go figure. I get so confused...
>>
>>> As far a your comment:
>>>
>>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>>>> saying what they mean
>>> I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person
>>> of Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and
>>> to do so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully
>>> will continue to do so until they close the cover on my box.
>> So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
>> derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean things
>> while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can only mean one
>> thing. For you, any old word is fine and you shouldn't be
>> accountable for using it any old way. Except when it isn't. Or
>> doesn't. Or something.
>>
>> I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the Germanic
>> punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean presentation.
>>
>>> When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am.
>> Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're dealing
>> with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a bad idea to name
>> things with words that don't actually describe them and, further,
>> are likely to confuse the reader. The crux of this disagreement is
>> that you think it's ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the
>> antecedent. I say doing that removes useful terms from the language
>> and reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well call
>> it Zucchini a la Flerche.
>>
>> But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense.
>>
>>> If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe
>>> these changes) is derivative,
>> Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There aren't too
>> many absolutely original recipes. The terms are at issue. It has
>> apparently escaped your notice that culinary terms are created to be
>> technical terms. They're created to be specific, and misuse dilutes
>> and finally voids the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a
>> "Napoleon" isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was
>> coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a chicken
>> dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or fruit. It escapes you
>> that misusing words like that reduces them to mere sounds with no
>> meaning beyond that exact dish. In which case, it's pure romance and
>> moonlight on the curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name,
>> describing nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth
>> when saying it.
>>
>>> and evolves as those making and eating it determine,
>> The fact that someone decides to make a change in the meaning of a
>> word or of a term doesn't automatically confer a new correctness.
>> Doesn't generate respect for the change. That's what people who
>> write text messages and IM's to each other say. They reduce the
>> language to a collection of primitive textual grunts.
>>
>> no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u wuda
>> luvdit.
>>
>> Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right...
>>
>> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
>> it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
>> 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so
>> many different things.'
>> 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -
>> that's all.'
>> Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty
>> Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly
>> verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with,
>> but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them!
>> Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
>> 'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
>> 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking
>> very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had
>> enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd
>> mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to
>> stop here all the rest of your life.'
>> 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a
>> thoughtful tone.
>> 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty,
>> 'I always pay it extra.'
>> 'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
>> 'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty
>> Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to
>> get their wages, you know.'
>> (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I
>> can't tell you.)
>> 'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice. 'Would
>> you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'
>> 'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the poems
>> that ever were invented just yet.'
>> This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:--
>> 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves,
>> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
>> All mimsy were the borogoves
>> And the mome raths outgrabe.
>>
>> 'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: 'there are
>> plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four o'clock in the
>> afternoon - the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.'
>> 'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?'
>> 'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the same as
>> "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings
>> packed up into one word.'
>> 'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are "toves"?'
>> 'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're something like
>> lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.'
>> 'They must be very curious-looking creatures.'
>> 'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their nests
>> under sundials - also they live on cheese.'
>> 'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?'
>> 'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To "gimble" is
>> to make holes like a gimlet.'
>> 'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I suppose?' said
>> Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
>> 'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it goes a
>> long way before it, and a long way behind it-----'
>> 'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
>> 'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable" (there's
>> another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a thin
>> shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all around -
>> something like a live mop.'
>> 'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving you a
>> great deal of trouble.'
>> 'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not certain
>> about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning that they'd lost
>> their way, you know.'
>> 'And what does "outgrabe" mean?'
>> 'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling,
>> with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done,
>> maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it,
>> you'll be quite content. Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to
>> you?'
>> 'I read it in a book,' said Alice.
>> From Through The Looking Glass
>> by Lewis Carroll
>>
>> I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not to
>> mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes on the
>> vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole cabbage. Tagine
>> of raw tofu gelato.
>>
>>> there is noting I can say that will fit into your world view.
>> <LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of helter-skelter
>> nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta talk about. Your bread
>> stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on throwing stones on this subject
>> were I you.
>>
>>> Regards
>> Likewise, I'm sure.
>>
>> Jerry of the angels, go in peace.
>>
>> Pastorio
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>>>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information,
>>>>> especially when provided with an air of
>>>>> infallibility.
>>>> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot,
>>>> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info
>>>> is a lot better than this offering.
>>>>
>>>>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note
>>>>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows
>>>>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit
>>>>> narrow-minded.
>>>> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with
>>>> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it
>>>> won't be confusing.
>>>>
>>>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>>>> saying what they mean.
>>>>
>>>>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio
>>>>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and
>>>>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English
>>>>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are
>>>>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef
>>>>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio,
>>>>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio.
>>>>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has
>>>>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not
>>>>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon,
>>>>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list
>>>>> of possibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation:
>>>>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw
>>>>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today
>>>>> the term Carpaccio is used variably
>>>> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no
>>>> longer has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word.
>>>>
>>>>> and often
>>>> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef"
>>>> friend are using it just as carelessly.
>>>>
>>>>> refers to
>>>>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can
>>>>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes,
>>>>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly
>>>>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from
>>>>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..."
>>>> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the point.
>>>>
>>>> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the
>>>> less it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in
>>>> between. It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish
>>>> "and a great many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the
>>>> colors used by the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin
>>>> slices." It no longer has a referent that creates a definition
>>>> beyond thin slices. And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that
>>>> thin slices already had a name.
>>>>
>>>> Thin slices.
>>>>
>>>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for
>>>>> allowing us to respond.
>>>> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day...
>>>>
>>>> Pastorio
>
>