Sometime last year I posted that I had scored a copy of "Sourdough
Jack's Cookery," with the "starter" packet intact (the publication
date of the book is 1971). I had every intention of experimenting with
it then, but the book somehow vanished in among all the other
cookbooks on the shelves and I forgot about it.

Samartha suggested a serious experiment involving sterilized flour vs
out-of-the-canister and trying some starter with each, but I confess
to being less scientifically oriented this weekend. Yesterday I dumped
the entire envelope in with some flour and water (I never measure, but
go by my own "goopiness" scale, this one scoring as "overly thick
batter"), covered the container with a snap-on lid and left it.

It is bubbling this morning. It is not going crazy, but there is
surely activity. I have created a heckuva lot of my own starters
before, but have not been fortunate to get activity so quickly. I
don't think it is impossible, but in my kitchen, it is an unusual
occurrence.

Is this a coincidence? Sourdough of the Gods? (cue eerie music) Maybe,
but only a couple of weeks will tell. I won't use it until I am happy
with the smell as well as the activity.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:
> Sometime last year I posted that I had scored a copy of "Sourdough
> Jack's Cookery," with the "starter" packet intact (the publication
> date of the book is 1971). I had every intention of experimenting with
> it then, but the book somehow vanished in among all the other
> cookbooks on the shelves and I forgot about it.
>
> Samartha suggested a serious experiment involving sterilized flour vs
> out-of-the-canister and trying some starter with each, but I confess
> to being less scientifically oriented this weekend. Yesterday I dumped
> the entire envelope in with some flour and water (I never measure, but
> go by my own "goopiness" scale, this one scoring as "overly thick
> batter"), covered the container with a snap-on lid and left it.
>
> It is bubbling this morning. It is not going crazy, but there is
> surely activity. I have created a heckuva lot of my own starters
> before, but have not been fortunate to get activity so quickly. I
> don't think it is impossible, but in my kitchen, it is an unusual
> occurrence.
>
> Is this a coincidence? Sourdough of the Gods? (cue eerie music) Maybe,
> but only a couple of weeks will tell. I won't use it until I am happy
> with the smell as well as the activity.
>
> Boron

Hi Boron, I'd agree with you. It' will be interesting to here how
quickly it becomes active.

TG

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message ...

> ... I have created a heckuva lot of my own starters
> before, but have not been fortunate to get activity so quickly. I
> don't think it is impossible, but in my kitchen, it is an unusual
> occurrence. ...

Have you run a control (same flour and water under same conditions)?

???

It's not too late!

--
Dicky

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:44:16 GMT, "Dick Adams" >
wrote:

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message ...
>
>> ... I have created a heckuva lot of my own starters
>> before, but have not been fortunate to get activity so quickly. I
>> don't think it is impossible, but in my kitchen, it is an unusual
>> occurrence. ...
>
>Have you run a control (same flour and water under same conditions)?
>
>???
>
>It's not too late!


That is one refreshment behind and deader than a doornail.

Boron

>Is this a coincidence? Sourdough of the Gods? (cue eerie music) Maybe,
>but only a couple of weeks will tell. I won't use it until I am happy
>with the smell as well as the activity.

Well I think it might be unusual for a dry starter so old, but not a
dry starter that you buy new. Mine show activity by the next day. It
should be interesting to see how well it works being old. That would be
good news for those needing to store sourdough starter longterm. Good
luck, Teresa
www.northwestsourdough.com

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 12:40:44 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>Sometime last year I posted that I had scored a copy of "Sourdough
>Jack's Cookery," with the "starter" packet intact (the publication
>date of the book is 1971). I had every intention of experimenting with
>it then, but the book somehow vanished in among all the other
>cookbooks on the shelves and I forgot about it.
>
>Samartha suggested a serious experiment involving sterilized flour vs
>out-of-the-canister and trying some starter with each, but I confess
>to being less scientifically oriented this weekend. Yesterday I dumped
>the entire envelope in with some flour and water (I never measure, but
>go by my own "goopiness" scale, this one scoring as "overly thick
>batter"), covered the container with a snap-on lid and left it.
>
>It is bubbling this morning. It is not going crazy, but there is
>surely activity. I have created a heckuva lot of my own starters
>before, but have not been fortunate to get activity so quickly. I
>don't think it is impossible, but in my kitchen, it is an unusual
>occurrence.
>
>Is this a coincidence? Sourdough of the Gods? (cue eerie music) Maybe,
>but only a couple of weeks will tell. I won't use it until I am happy
>with the smell as well as the activity.
>
>Boron


As of Monday morning, the SJ mixtures are in full foam. I split them
into two containers yesterday. The plain flour and water mixture,
though one refreshment behind, has a couple of bubbles, but nothing
serious - yet. Tomorrow will tell, I think.

Boron

Teresa
> www.northwestsourdough.com
>
i$ it really nece$$ary to irritate this group with your con$tant advertizing
of your web $ite where ytou $ell $tarter and other thing$? if you want to
po$t here, plea$e do $o without pa$ting your $site after every reply. btw-
i$n't it a form of commercial advertizing to keep doing that? i thought
ng'$ were supposd to be commerecial free?

dan w

dan w wrote:
> Teresa
>
>>www.northwestsourdough.com
>>
>
> i$ it really nece$$ary to irritate this group with your con$tant advertizing
> of your web $ite where ytou $ell $tarter and other thing$? if you want to
> po$t here, plea$e do $o without pa$ting your $site after every reply. btw-
> i$n't it a form of commercial advertizing to keep doing that? i thought
> ng'$ were supposd to be commerecial free?
>
> dan w
>
>
For God's sake, Dan, how the hell much do you pay per byte of Usenet?
I can't imagine how you feel it is such a burden to you, that you need
to post this drivel in response to a perfectly reasonable posting, with
no more than an unidenrified URL in the sig. Get a life...

"Dave Bell" > wrote >>
> For God's sake, Dan, how the hell much do you pay per byte of Usenet?
> I can't imagine how you feel it is such a burden to you, that you need to
> post this drivel in response to a perfectly reasonable posting, with no
> more than an unidenrified URL in the sig. Get a life...

Sorry Dave, I am with Dan. Its the principle of the thing.

Sourdough. Keep it free.

hutchndi

northwestsourdough.com wrote:
> >Is this a coincidence? Sourdough of the Gods? (cue eerie music) Maybe,
> >but only a couple of weeks will tell. I won't use it until I am happy
> >with the smell as well as the activity.
>
> Well I think it might be unusual for a dry starter so old, but not a
> dry starter that you buy new. Mine show activity by the next day.....

Yeah, yeah. $$$ we all know about your starters from your $ite. So do
the ones from Carl's friends. Any excuse to plug it. :- O Or did you
really miss the point.

TG

hutchndi wrote:
> "Dave Bell" > wrote >>
> Sorry Dave, I am with Dan. Its the principle of the thing.
>
> Sourdough. Keep it free.
>
> hutchndi

Well so am I, I'm not interested in the principle but it's just tedious
and I can't help feeling like I've just been used. Makes me feel dirty.
She's just so bloody blatant.

rec.food.sourdough brought to you today by Kel's Frosty serial bar.
Mmm. They're yummy. Get 'em while they're fresh.

TG

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:22:42 -0500, "hutchndi" >
wrote:

>
>"Dave Bell" > wrote >>
>> For God's sake, Dan, how the hell much do you pay per byte of Usenet?
>> I can't imagine how you feel it is such a burden to you, that you need to
>> post this drivel in response to a perfectly reasonable posting, with no
>> more than an unidenrified URL in the sig. Get a life...
>
> Sorry Dave, I am with Dan. Its the principle of the thing.
>
>Sourdough. Keep it free.
>
>hutchndi
>

Amen.

Boron

"TG" said to "www.nothwestsourdough.com":

> Yeah, yeah. $$$ we all know about your starters from your $ite. So do
> the ones from Carl's friends.

Ones? What ones? Are you nuts? What do Carl's friends know about,
or have in common with, northwest sourdough?

They lose money* on every start they send out!

--
Dicky

__________________________
* But they make it up in volume.

Mike Avery wrote:

> I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been
> blatant, she should be reigned in.

How do you propose 'reigning in" someone on an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup?

B/

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message news:mailman.0.1141699128.23334.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
On 3/6/06, dan w > wrote:
Teresa
> www.northwestsourdough.com
>
i$ it really nece$$ary to irritate this group with your con$tant advertizing
of your web $ite where ytou $ell $tarter and other thing$? if you want to
po$t here, plea$e do $o without pa$ting your $site after every reply. btw-
i$n't it a form of commercial advertizing to keep doing that? i thought
ng'$ were supposd to be commerecial free?

While I'm not crazy about advertising in newsgroups, I am even less crazy about rudeness.

Many people do market through newsgroups. They do it by providing good information. A friend kept his computer store afloat by giving lots of good advice in several computer newsgroups. He was always low key. "We've always had trouble with that motherboard and video card combination. I'd suggest using a XXX card instead. If you can't find one locally, we sell them on-line for $$$." The advice was good, and he didn't really seem to care if people bought from him or not.

I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been blatant, she should be reigned in. However, one line pointing to a web site isn't rank commercialism.

As to keeping sourdough free, why? Just because the Friends of Carl are willing to perform the very wonderful public service of giving away a fantastic starter doesn't mean that they have the only starter worth using, or that everyone should give away their starters.

If you want to give it away, do so. If you want to sell your starter, that's fine too. Are we mad at Sourdoughs International, King Arthur, Mr. Baker, Sourdough Jack (wherever he is now) or Goldrush for selling their starters? I don't think so. And Sourdoughs International used to be an active participant in this forum (before my time).

If it annoys you to pay for starter, don't. But I don't see it as a religous thing. Repeat after me... "It's just a riser, not a religion."

Mike

i have no wish to be rude, and apologize if it came across that way. i am just trying to make a point. the main reason i detest advertising in ng's is that of credibility. someone that advertises and gives advise, weakens the advice given. go to any forum on say, computer monitors. ask for feedback on a monitor and which one will you believe more- the one from an advertiser, or from a user? my only point is that many will never trust information from someone motivated by money. mike, you have a web site that is really good and also sells things, yet i haven't seen you tag this ng with your site with every reply.

so teresa- please post, but

illustrate don't disseminate

criticize don't publicize

bon mot don't promote

"dan w" > wrote in message ...

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message news:mailman.0.1141699128.23334.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
On 3/6/06, dan w > wrote:
Teresa
> www.northwestsourdough.com
>
i$ it really nece$$ary to irritate this group with your con$tant advertizing
of your web $ite where ytou $ell $tarter and other thing$? if you want to
po$t here, plea$e do $o without pa$ting your $site after every reply. btw-
i$n't it a form of commercial advertizing to keep doing that? i thought
ng'$ were supposd to be commerecial free?

While I'm not crazy about advertising in newsgroups, I am even less crazy about rudeness.

Many people do market through newsgroups. They do it by providing good information. A friend kept his computer store afloat by giving lots of good advice in several computer newsgroups. He was always low key. "We've always had trouble with that motherboard and video card combination. I'd suggest using a XXX card instead. If you can't find one locally, we sell them on-line for $$$." The advice was good, and he didn't really seem to care if people bought from him or not.

I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been blatant, she should be reigned in. However, one line pointing to a web site isn't rank commercialism.

As to keeping sourdough free, why? Just because the Friends of Carl are willing to perform the very wonderful public service of giving away a fantastic starter doesn't mean that they have the only starter worth using, or that everyone should give away their starters.

If you want to give it away, do so. If you want to sell your starter, that's fine too. Are we mad at Sourdoughs International, King Arthur, Mr. Baker, Sourdough Jack (wherever he is now) or Goldrush for selling their starters? I don't think so. And Sourdoughs International used to be an active participant in this forum (before my time).

If it annoys you to pay for starter, don't. But I don't see it as a religous thing. Repeat after me... "It's just a riser, not a religion."

Mike

i have no wish to be rude, and apologize if it came across that way. i am just trying to make a point. the main reason i detest advertising in ng's is that of credibility. someone that advertises and gives advise, weakens the advice given. go to any forum on say, computer monitors. ask for feedback on a monitor and which one will you believe more- the one from an advertiser, or from a user? my only point is that many will never trust information from someone motivated by money. mike, you have a web site that is really good and also sells things, yet i haven't seen you tag this ng with your site with every reply.

so teresa- please post, but

illustrate don't disseminate

criticize don't publicize

bon mot don't promote

got so carried away forgot to tag

dan w

Dick Adams wrote:
> "TG" said to "www.nothwestsourdough.com":
>
> > Yeah, yeah. $$$ we all know about your starters from your $ite. So do
> > the ones from Carl's friends.
>
> Ones? What ones? Are you nuts? What do Carl's friends know about,
> or have in common with, northwest sourdough?
>
> They lose money* on every start they send out!
>
> --
> Dicky
>
> __________________________
> * But they make it up in volume.
Hello Dicky,

Well, I'd have to be nuts to take that petty criticism seriously Dicky.
lol. Can't you see past the 's'? Or are you saying that Carl's
friends only ever sent out one bag of starter? Lighten up Dicky. I'm
sure you've got better things to do with your time than think up silly
arguments like that. lol. I don't know what Carl's friends every did to
pixx you off, perhaps you could share it with us or have them take out
your link from their site.

TG

Brian Mailman wrote:
> Mike Avery wrote:
>
>> I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been
>> blatant, she should be reigned in.
>
> How do you propose 'reigning in" someone on an unmoderated Usenet
> newsgroup?
>
> B/

The only approach for an annoying USENET poster is to filter and ignore. On
the annoyance scale, Teresa doesn't rank very high. She just isn't very
relevant either.

On 3/6/06, Brian Mailman > wrote:
>
> Mike Avery wrote:
>
> > I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been
> > blatant, she should be reigned in.
>
> How do you propose 'reigning in" someone on an unmoderated Usenet
> newsgroup?



As someone else suggested, ignoring them is a good tactic. In usenet, if
you ignore them, they will go away.

Sending them a note out of the newsgroup also helps.

However, being rude in a newsgroup tends to reduce the overall quality of
the newsgroup, and it often causes people to sympathise with the poor
attacked person.

Mike

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:36:18 -0700, "Mike Avery"
> wrote:

>On 3/6/06, Brian Mailman > wrote:
>>
>> Mike Avery wrote:
>>
>> > I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been
>> > blatant, she should be reigned in.
>>
>> How do you propose 'reigning in" someone on an unmoderated Usenet
>> newsgroup?
>

>As someone else suggested, ignoring them is a good tactic. In usenet, if
>you ignore them, they will go away.
>
>Sending them a note out of the newsgroup also helps.

Someone did send a note out of the one of several newsgroups she
littered and from what I was told, the response was not particularly
cooperative nor particularly polite, either. The person who sent the
note, OTOH, is well known as being extremely polite and cooperative.

>However, being rude in a newsgroup tends to reduce the overall quality of
>the newsgroup, and it often causes people to sympathise with the poor
>attacked person.

I've no sympathy in this particular case.

I am involved with several groups to which people who have businesses
directly related to the group's interest post regularly, and in all
the years I have belonged to these groups, these business posters have
been far less involved in "self advertising" than this one in question
has been in just two weeks.

Boron

Mike Avery wrote:
>
>
> On 3/6/06, *Brian Mailman*
> >> wrote:
>
> Mike Avery wrote:
>
> > I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been
> > blatant, she should be reigned in.
>
> How do you propose 'reigning in" someone on an unmoderated Usenet
> newsgroup?
>
>
>
> As someone else suggested, ignoring them is a good tactic. In usenet,
> if you ignore them, they will go away.
>
> Sending them a note out of the newsgroup also helps.
>
> However, being rude in a newsgroup tends to reduce the overall quality
> of the newsgroup, and it often causes people to sympathise with the poor
> attacked person.

.... and generates far more off-topic traffic than the few lines of
advertising ever did, in this case. 'Nuff said...

Dave

Mike Avery wrote:

> On 3/6/06, *Brian Mailman*
> >> wrote:
>
> Mike Avery wrote:
>
> > I've been away, so I haven't seen Teresa's postings. If they've been
> > blatant, she should be reigned in.
>
> How do you propose 'reigning in" someone on an unmoderated Usenet
> newsgroup?

> As someone else suggested, ignoring them is a good tactic. In usenet,
> if you ignore them, they will go away.

Well, that's partially accurate and is the "Standard Advice" for dealing
with trolls or newsgroup invasions.

> Sending them a note out of the newsgroup also helps.

See Boron Elgar's comment.

However, I was curious what you'd intended by "reigned in."

B/

>Someone did send a note out of the one of several newsgroups she
>littered and from what I was told, the response was not particularly
>cooperative nor particularly polite, either. The person who sent the
>note, OTOH, is well known as being extremely polite and cooperative.

>I've no sympathy in this particular case.


In defense of myself, I will just say click on my "view profile" and
see what posts I've made. My mistake was using my url under my name,
which I won't do anymore, so as not to upset people. I have been
attacked by one person in particular no matter what I say, even though
I have no ill will towards them,
Teresa

..............
>Someone did sen.....
> attacked by one person in particular no matter what I say, even though
> I have no ill will towards them,
> Teresa

Drop a match in an empty can and nothing. Drop a match in a can full of
gas and you get a mighty bang.

The point? You're just the match Teresa. Some have empty cans some
have full and some have just a little damp paper in their can.

Personally I don't have any problem with you selling starters on you
site or even mentioning your site from time to time where relevant. But
when it's gratuitous it feels a bit yucky. So I guess you could say
I've got a bit of damp paper. Don't worry about it or take it
personally. Just take care where you put your match. : -)

TG

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, TG wrote:

> .............
> >Someone did sen.....
> > attacked by one person in particular no matter what I say, even though
> > I have no ill will towards them,
> > Teresa
>
> Drop a match in an empty can and nothing. Drop a match in a can full of
> gas and you get a mighty bang.

I think MythBusters tried that... Unless the gas(oline) has had a chance
to vaporize, and then only if the concentration is in a fairly narrow
range, do you get a bang.

But, don't try this at home! (Or in Usenet...)

Dave

>
> TG
>
>

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> Sometime last year I posted that I had scored a copy of "Sourdough
> Jack's Cookery," with the "starter" packet intact (the publication
> date of the book is 1971).

I found a copy of the book on Abe books. It claimed to have the packet with
the book. Am waiting impatiently for it to arrive.

Gordon in SW Indiana

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:21:58 GMT, "hayes.a" >
wrote:

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Sometime last year I posted that I had scored a copy of "Sourdough
>> Jack's Cookery," with the "starter" packet intact (the publication
>> date of the book is 1971).
>
>I found a copy of the book on Abe books. It claimed to have the packet with
>the book. Am waiting impatiently for it to arrive.
>
>Gordon in SW Indiana
>


I hope you have the same luck as I. This starter is as active as
Carl's and that is something I only have with my Bobolink Dairy and
Bread Alone starters. The rest are lively, but I have always admire
Carl's for its incredible bounce.

I have a sponge fermenting now. I will mix the dough tonight,
refrigerate, and bake in the morning. I may experiment, though, and
add some spelt, oats and cornmeal to half the batch.

Boron