Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: computer bootlaces
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Wayne Throop
Oct 2, 2011, 1:49:26 PM10/2/11
to
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: Sodium is actually a bigger problem, since I have reason to watch both
: these days. There's a lot of "healthy" microwave ready foods that are
: quite reasonable in carbs, but damned few that aren't obscene in their
: sodium content.
Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned soups that have
merely naughty amounts of sodium rather than totaly obscene.
: Sodium is actually a bigger problem, since I have reason to watch both
: these days. There's a lot of "healthy" microwave ready foods that are
: quite reasonable in carbs, but damned few that aren't obscene in their
: sodium content.
Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned soups that have
merely naughty amounts of sodium rather than totaly obscene.
Robert Carnegie
Oct 2, 2011, 5:18:38 PM10/2/11
to
in UK supermarket product lines.
A lot of the UK food industry turned its face against "traffic light"
coloured indicators of nutritional factors on food packaging (green,
orange, red), some brazenly producing their own version in which
colours are random and meaningless, but if you input all the numbers
into a spereadsheet...
Retailers whose products /are/ usefully marked include Asda,
Sainsbury, Co-operative, and Marks & Spencer.
Anyway, on salt, in particular, ready-made meals and foods designed
for children are worth considering. Even for yourself. Or for me.
It may look and feel weird, but then again, there are people saving
money by feeding themselves on pet food. (I don't advise that.)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 2, 2011, 6:47:39 PM10/2/11
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
news:13175...@sheol.org:
I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery store, then.
None of the big brand names seem to be making any, or perhaps the
local store just doesn't stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the
shelves as utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving
than I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings per can.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:13175...@sheol.org:
None of the big brand names seem to be making any, or perhaps the
local store just doesn't stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the
shelves as utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving
than I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings per can.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Wayne Throop
Oct 2, 2011, 7:24:08 PM10/2/11
to
:: Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned soups that
with 1600 mg/serving. And as you say, at least two servings per can,
even though a whole can is a more reasonable amount.
In stores around here, Campbell and Progresso brands have one or
two varieties labeled low sodium, which have 400 to 500 mg/serving.
Tucked waaaay in the corner of the soup section of the aisle, or at toe
height, or above head height. Oh, and an entire brand called "Healthy
Choice", with several varieties. Add them all up, and "quite a few"
is arguably a fair characterization.
Hmmm. According to the label on this here can of not-at-all-horrid-tasting
tortellini-flavored soup, the whole can has about 1/3 the rda of sodium.
If you need less sodium than that, it gets difficult, and you're left
with going to bizarro specialty groceries patronized by hippies and such.
"Clark, listen to this. Apparently some nut in a Superman costume
just trashed a department store downtown. If I didn't know better
I'd say it was-"
"Where am Superman?!"
"Bizzaro?!"
--- from "Little Big-Head Man"
:: have merely naughty amounts of sodium rather than totaly obscene.
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery store, then.
: None of the big brand names seem to be making any, or perhaps the
: local store just doesn't stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the
: shelves as utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving than
: I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings per can.
Yes, 700 mg/serving and up is typical. I think I've seen gumbos
: local store just doesn't stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the
: shelves as utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving than
: I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings per can.
with 1600 mg/serving. And as you say, at least two servings per can,
even though a whole can is a more reasonable amount.
In stores around here, Campbell and Progresso brands have one or
two varieties labeled low sodium, which have 400 to 500 mg/serving.
Tucked waaaay in the corner of the soup section of the aisle, or at toe
height, or above head height. Oh, and an entire brand called "Healthy
Choice", with several varieties. Add them all up, and "quite a few"
is arguably a fair characterization.
Hmmm. According to the label on this here can of not-at-all-horrid-tasting
tortellini-flavored soup, the whole can has about 1/3 the rda of sodium.
If you need less sodium than that, it gets difficult, and you're left
with going to bizarro specialty groceries patronized by hippies and such.
"Clark, listen to this. Apparently some nut in a Superman costume
just trashed a department store downtown. If I didn't know better
I'd say it was-"
"Where am Superman?!"
"Bizzaro?!"
--- from "Little Big-Head Man"
Brian M. Scott
Oct 3, 2011, 4:14:20 AM10/3/11
to
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:47:39 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:Xns9F72A0A9FC...@69.16.186.7> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned
>> soups that have merely naughty amounts of sodium rather
>> than totaly obscene.
> I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery
> store, then. None of the big brand names seem to be
> making any, or perhaps the local store just doesn't
> stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the shelves as
> utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving
> than I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings
> per can.
Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg per
serving. I've not tried them, but Progresso also has some
reduced sodium soups, also at about that level. Campbell's
Healthy Request line seems to run 410 mg per serving. It's
hard to do much better than that. I *think* that Campbell's
have a low sodium line that runs in the 140-240 range, but I
don't know how widely it's stocked. Trader Joe's has a few
that run as low as 140 mg per serving and are supposed to be
fairly decent.
Brian
Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:Xns9F72A0A9FC...@69.16.186.7> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned
>> soups that have merely naughty amounts of sodium rather
>> than totaly obscene.
> I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery
> store, then. None of the big brand names seem to be
> making any, or perhaps the local store just doesn't
> stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the shelves as
> utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving
> than I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings
> per can.
serving. I've not tried them, but Progresso also has some
reduced sodium soups, also at about that level. Campbell's
Healthy Request line seems to run 410 mg per serving. It's
hard to do much better than that. I *think* that Campbell's
have a low sodium line that runs in the 140-240 range, but I
don't know how widely it's stocked. Trader Joe's has a few
that run as low as 140 mg per serving and are supposed to be
fairly decent.
Brian
Charlie Gibbs
Oct 3, 2011, 2:11:39 PM10/3/11
to
In article <13175...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
writes:
A poster that's currently at a lot of local bus stops has a drawing
of a woman sitting down to a prepackaged meal, with the caption:
Lasagna for one.
Sodium for four.
The mandatory nutrition info label on foods here lists sodium as a
percentage of recommended daily dose. One day someone was going from
door to door handing out frozen pizza samples. We tried one. Our
bodies immediately went into an addictive frenzy; the two of us
downed the large pizza almost instantaneously, and we felt like
hell afterwards. I recognized the symptoms of a sodium overdose,
and dug out the box to check the label for the pizza's content:
36% (which was probably for much less than the half we each ate).
Needless to say, we've stayed away from that brand ever since
(the flavours we had tried in the past ranged from 15% to 25%).
We now make our own pizza from scratch. Much better in every way.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
writes:
of a woman sitting down to a prepackaged meal, with the caption:
Lasagna for one.
Sodium for four.
The mandatory nutrition info label on foods here lists sodium as a
percentage of recommended daily dose. One day someone was going from
door to door handing out frozen pizza samples. We tried one. Our
bodies immediately went into an addictive frenzy; the two of us
downed the large pizza almost instantaneously, and we felt like
hell afterwards. I recognized the symptoms of a sodium overdose,
and dug out the box to check the label for the pizza's content:
36% (which was probably for much less than the half we each ate).
Needless to say, we've stayed away from that brand ever since
(the flavours we had tried in the past ranged from 15% to 25%).
We now make our own pizza from scratch. Much better in every way.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
R H Draney
Oct 3, 2011, 4:30:36 PM10/3/11
to
Charlie Gibbs filted:
sodium-per-serving marked in the mid 60% range....
But it's nothing like the record...those pickled plums that are so popular in
the Mexican markets are labeled 700%...I guess the idea is to eat one and then
fast for a week....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>The mandatory nutrition info label on foods here lists sodium as a
>percentage of recommended daily dose. One day someone was going from
>door to door handing out frozen pizza samples. We tried one. Our
>bodies immediately went into an addictive frenzy; the two of us
>downed the large pizza almost instantaneously, and we felt like
>hell afterwards. I recognized the symptoms of a sodium overdose,
>and dug out the box to check the label for the pizza's content:
>36% (which was probably for much less than the half we each ate).
>Needless to say, we've stayed away from that brand ever since
>(the flavours we had tried in the past ranged from 15% to 25%).
I thought I was onto something when I found a package with the
>The mandatory nutrition info label on foods here lists sodium as a
>percentage of recommended daily dose. One day someone was going from
>door to door handing out frozen pizza samples. We tried one. Our
>bodies immediately went into an addictive frenzy; the two of us
>downed the large pizza almost instantaneously, and we felt like
>hell afterwards. I recognized the symptoms of a sodium overdose,
>and dug out the box to check the label for the pizza's content:
>36% (which was probably for much less than the half we each ate).
>Needless to say, we've stayed away from that brand ever since
>(the flavours we had tried in the past ranged from 15% to 25%).
sodium-per-serving marked in the mid 60% range....
But it's nothing like the record...those pickled plums that are so popular in
the Mexican markets are labeled 700%...I guess the idea is to eat one and then
fast for a week....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 3, 2011, 6:40:49 PM10/3/11
to
>:: Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned soups
>:: that have merely naughty amounts of sodium rather than totaly
>:: obscene.
>
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery store,
>: then. None of the big brand names seem to be making any, or
>: perhaps the local store just doesn't stock those lines. Cuz
>: what I see on the shelves as utterly ridulous, often having
>: more sodium per serving than I'm supposed to have all day, and
>: 2 or 3 servings per can.
>
> Yes, 700 mg/serving and up is typical.
Unless your blood pressure is high already, in which case it's even
>:: that have merely naughty amounts of sodium rather than totaly
>:: obscene.
>
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery store,
>: then. None of the big brand names seem to be making any, or
>: perhaps the local store just doesn't stock those lines. Cuz
>: what I see on the shelves as utterly ridulous, often having
>: more sodium per serving than I'm supposed to have all day, and
>: 2 or 3 servings per can.
>
> Yes, 700 mg/serving and up is typical.
lower.
> I think I've seen gumbos
> with 1600 mg/serving. And as you say, at least two servings per
> can, even though a whole can is a more reasonable amount.
store a while back. About a decent meal by itself. Sodium amount
looked pretty good, until I notice it was 3 servings per container.
>
> In stores around here, Campbell and Progresso brands have one or
> two varieties labeled low sodium, which have 400 to 500
> mg/serving. Tucked waaaay in the corner of the soup section of
> the aisle, or at toe height, or above head height. Oh, and an
> entire brand called "Healthy Choice", with several varieties.
> Add them all up, and "quite a few" is arguably a fair
> characterization.
I'll take a closer look. Unfortnately, I doubt any of those flavors
> In stores around here, Campbell and Progresso brands have one or
> two varieties labeled low sodium, which have 400 to 500
> mg/serving. Tucked waaaay in the corner of the soup section of
> the aisle, or at toe height, or above head height. Oh, and an
> entire brand called "Healthy Choice", with several varieties.
> Add them all up, and "quite a few" is arguably a fair
> characterization.
will appear to me.
>
> Hmmm. According to the label on this here can of
> not-at-all-horrid-tasting tortellini-flavored soup, the whole
> can has about 1/3 the rda of sodium.
>
> If you need less sodium than that, it gets difficult, and you're
> left with going to bizarro specialty groceries patronized by
> hippies and such.
Living in southern California, there are actually several chains of
> Hmmm. According to the label on this here can of
> not-at-all-horrid-tasting tortellini-flavored soup, the whole
> can has about 1/3 the rda of sodium.
>
> If you need less sodium than that, it gets difficult, and you're
> left with going to bizarro specialty groceries patronized by
> hippies and such.
such nearby. If they had a more complete selection, I'd shop at one
regularly, but I can't be bothered to go to multiple stores to get
everything.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 3, 2011, 6:41:56 PM10/3/11
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:1v1gqqo73z679
$.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:47:39 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:Xns9F72A0A9FC...@69.16.186.7> in
> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
>> news:13175...@sheol.org:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned
>>> soups that have merely naughty amounts of sodium rather
>>> than totaly obscene.
>
>> I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery
>> store, then. None of the big brand names seem to be
>> making any, or perhaps the local store just doesn't
>> stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the shelves as
>> utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving
>> than I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings
>> per can.
>
> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg per
> serving.
One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's nearly 1000
for an actual meal.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
$.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:47:39 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:Xns9F72A0A9FC...@69.16.186.7> in
> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
>> news:13175...@sheol.org:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Well, at least there are quite a few "low sodium" canned
>>> soups that have merely naughty amounts of sodium rather
>>> than totaly obscene.
>
>> I'll have to look closer, next time I'm in the grocery
>> store, then. None of the big brand names seem to be
>> making any, or perhaps the local store just doesn't
>> stock those lines. Cuz what I see on the shelves as
>> utterly ridulous, often having more sodium per serving
>> than I'm supposed to have all day, and 2 or 3 servings
>> per can.
>
> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg per
> serving.
for an actual meal.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
Brian M. Scott
Oct 3, 2011, 8:00:06 PM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella<news:Xns9F739FB2C8A...@69.16.186.7> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:1v1gqqo73z679
> $.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
[...]
>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg
>> per serving.
> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's
> nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
Two, unfortunately. And I agree about the ridiculous notion
of what constitutes a serving.
One that I forgot is Amy's; I remember them as being a bit
pricey, but the low-sodium line is a little lower, at
290-340 mg per 'serving' (the usual two-to-a-can), and I've
seen them in several places.
Brian
Brian
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 4, 2011, 12:28:01 PM10/4/11
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:8o0eecgc3qla
$.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:Xns9F739FB2C8A...@69.16.186.7> in
> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:1v1gqqo73z679
>> $.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg
>>> per serving.
>
>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's
>> nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>
> Two, unfortunately.
I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were, on
average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding soup
with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular ones), there
wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
> And I agree about the ridiculous notion
> of what constitutes a serving.
It's a marketing game. If they put accurate, useful information on
in a clear format, everybody would know.
$.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:Xns9F739FB2C8A...@69.16.186.7> in
> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:1v1gqqo73z679
>> $.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg
>>> per serving.
>
>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's
>> nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>
> Two, unfortunately.
average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding soup
with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular ones), there
wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
> And I agree about the ridiculous notion
> of what constitutes a serving.
in a clear format, everybody would know.
>
> One that I forgot is Amy's; I remember them as being a bit
> pricey, but the low-sodium line is a little lower, at
> 290-340 mg per 'serving' (the usual two-to-a-can), and I've
> seen them in several places.
>
I'll keep an eye out for it.
> One that I forgot is Amy's; I remember them as being a bit
> pricey, but the low-sodium line is a little lower, at
> 290-340 mg per 'serving' (the usual two-to-a-can), and I've
> seen them in several places.
>
Scott Lurndal
Oct 4, 2011, 1:30:45 PM10/4/11
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:8o0eecgc3qla
>$.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:Xns9F739FB2C8A...@69.16.186.7> in
>> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>news:1v1gqqo73z679
>>> $.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg
>>>> per serving.
>>
>>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's
>>> nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>>
>> Two, unfortunately.
>
>I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were, on
>average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding soup
>with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular ones), there
>wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:8o0eecgc3qla
>$.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:Xns9F739FB2C8A...@69.16.186.7> in
>> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>news:1v1gqqo73z679
>>> $.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg
>>>> per serving.
>>
>>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's
>>> nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>>
>> Two, unfortunately.
>
>I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were, on
>average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding soup
>with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular ones), there
>wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
Just take the carcass from that grocery store or CostCo (USD4.99)
roasted chicken and simmer it with a stick of celery, a carrot
and an onion for 3 or 4 hours. Strain and freeze 2 cups in Quart
freezer bags. Makes 8 to 10 cups.
Use as necessary for soup stock and gravy.
Once you have the stock, making the soup is a matter of cutting
a carrot or two, a couple stalks of celery, some onion, fresh
mushrooms and your choice of pasta, barley or rice. Add some of the
leftover roast chicken, or the other half of that NY strip from the
night before. A little arrowroot, corn starch or flour to thicken.
Lightly salt with sea salt, or use your favorite salt substitutes.
Include some fresh tarragon, sage or Thyme for flavor.
scott
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 4, 2011, 1:37:40 PM10/4/11
to
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>news:8o0eecgc3qla $.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>>> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <news:Xns9F739FB2C8A...@69.16.186.7> in
>>> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>
>>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>news:1v1gqqo73z679
>>>> $.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg
>>>>> per serving.
>>>
>>>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's
>>>> nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>>>
>>> Two, unfortunately.
>>
>>I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were,
>>on average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding
>>soup with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular
>>ones), there wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
>
> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
Laziness, of course.
done.
done.
news:9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>news:8o0eecgc3qla $.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>>> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <news:Xns9F739FB2C8A...@69.16.186.7> in
>>> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>
>>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>news:1v1gqqo73z679
>>>> $.1eai5ukp...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg
>>>>> per serving.
>>>
>>>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's
>>>> nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>>>
>>> Two, unfortunately.
>>
>>I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were,
>>on average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding
>>soup with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular
>>ones), there wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
>
> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
>
> Just take the carcass from that grocery store or CostCo
> (USD4.99) roasted chicken and simmer it with a stick of celery,
> a carrot and an onion for 3 or 4 hours. Strain and freeze 2
> cups in Quart freezer bags. Makes 8 to 10 cups.
Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be
> Just take the carcass from that grocery store or CostCo
> (USD4.99) roasted chicken and simmer it with a stick of celery,
> a carrot and an onion for 3 or 4 hours. Strain and freeze 2
> cups in Quart freezer bags. Makes 8 to 10 cups.
done.
>
> Use as necessary for soup stock and gravy.
>
> Once you have the stock, making the soup is a matter of cutting
> a carrot or two, a couple stalks of celery, some onion, fresh
> mushrooms and your choice of pasta, barley or rice. Add some of
> the leftover roast chicken, or the other half of that NY strip
> from the night before. A little arrowroot, corn starch or flour
> to thicken.
>
> Lightly salt with sea salt, or use your favorite salt
> substitutes.
>
> Include some fresh tarragon, sage or Thyme for flavor.
>
Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be
> Use as necessary for soup stock and gravy.
>
> Once you have the stock, making the soup is a matter of cutting
> a carrot or two, a couple stalks of celery, some onion, fresh
> mushrooms and your choice of pasta, barley or rice. Add some of
> the leftover roast chicken, or the other half of that NY strip
> from the night before. A little arrowroot, corn starch or flour
> to thicken.
>
> Lightly salt with sea salt, or use your favorite salt
> substitutes.
>
> Include some fresh tarragon, sage or Thyme for flavor.
>
done.
Wayne Throop
Oct 4, 2011, 1:43:04 PM10/4/11
to
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
: and be done.
Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can
in the microwave, but yeah, still not that hard.
You put the can in the microwave and nuke 'em both up
Put the can in the microwave, nuke 'em both together
Put the can in the microwave, then you feel better...
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 4, 2011, 1:48:11 PM10/4/11
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in news:1317750184
@sheol.org:
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>: and be done.
>
> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can
> in the microwave, but yeah, still not that hard.
Certainly a lot less work than making it from scratch.
regular oven. Without opening the can. The resulting explosion
embedded beans in the opposite wall.
He wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree (though his
feces was smarter than Rod.)
@sheol.org:
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>: and be done.
>
> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can
> in the microwave, but yeah, still not that hard.
>
> You put the can in the microwave and nuke 'em both up
> Put the can in the microwave, nuke 'em both together
> Put the can in the microwave, then you feel better...
>
I knew a guy in high school that tried to heat up pork & beans in a
> You put the can in the microwave and nuke 'em both up
> Put the can in the microwave, nuke 'em both together
> Put the can in the microwave, then you feel better...
>
regular oven. Without opening the can. The resulting explosion
embedded beans in the opposite wall.
He wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree (though his
feces was smarter than Rod.)
Rod Speed
Oct 4, 2011, 2:16:11 PM10/4/11
to
Scott Lurndal wrote
> Just take the carcass from that grocery store or CostCo (USD4.99)
> roasted chicken and simmer it with a stick of celery, a carrot
> and an onion for 3 or 4 hours. Strain and freeze 2 cups in Quart
> freezer bags. Makes 8 to 10 cups.
Lot easier to open a can.
> Use as necessary for soup stock and gravy.
> Once you have the stock, making the soup is a matter of cutting
> a carrot or two, a couple stalks of celery, some onion, fresh
> mushrooms and your choice of pasta, barley or rice. Add some of
> the leftover roast chicken, or the other half of that NY strip from the
> night before. A little arrowroot, corn starch or flour to thicken.
> Lightly salt with sea salt, or use your favorite salt substitutes.
> Include some fresh tarragon, sage or Thyme for flavor.
Lot easier to open a can.
Says he who now makes three things instead of buying the commercial stuff.
More work than opening what the commercial stuff comes in tho.
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Healthy Choice has several pretty decent soups at 480 mg per serving.
>>>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>>> Two, unfortunately.
>> I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were,
>> on average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding
>> soup with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular
>> ones), there wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
Coz its easier.
>>>> One serving per can? Or two, as is typical? Cuz that's nearly 1000 for an actual meal.
>>> Two, unfortunately.
>> I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were,
>> on average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding
>> soup with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular
>> ones), there wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
> Just take the carcass from that grocery store or CostCo (USD4.99)
> roasted chicken and simmer it with a stick of celery, a carrot
> and an onion for 3 or 4 hours. Strain and freeze 2 cups in Quart
> freezer bags. Makes 8 to 10 cups.
> Use as necessary for soup stock and gravy.
> Once you have the stock, making the soup is a matter of cutting
> a carrot or two, a couple stalks of celery, some onion, fresh
> mushrooms and your choice of pasta, barley or rice. Add some of
> the leftover roast chicken, or the other half of that NY strip from the
> night before. A little arrowroot, corn starch or flour to thicken.
> Lightly salt with sea salt, or use your favorite salt substitutes.
> Include some fresh tarragon, sage or Thyme for flavor.
Says he who now makes three things instead of buying the commercial stuff.
More work than opening what the commercial stuff comes in tho.
Brian M. Scott
Oct 4, 2011, 5:22:27 PM10/4/11
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:37:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com:
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>>>I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were,
>>>on average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding
>>>soup with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular
>>>ones), there wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
>> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
> Laziness, of course.
And sometimes plain, ordinary lack of time. I keep a few
cans of soup around specifically for such occasions. (I do
generally doctor them a bit, though; I might throw a can of
kidney beans into a can of vegetable soup and add some
vinegar, garlic powder, oregano, and hot pepper, for
instance.)
Canned soup is one of the few canned foods that can be quite
acceptable even to those of us who do most of our own
cooking from scratch.
Brian
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:Xns9F746C1CBF6...@69.16.186.7> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com:
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>I checked some "low sodium" soups last night. While they were,
>>>on average, lower than the regular kinds (except the "wedding
>>>soup with meatballs, which was higher than most of regular
>>>ones), there wasn't a single one with less than 900 mg per can.
>> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
> Laziness, of course.
cans of soup around specifically for such occasions. (I do
generally doctor them a bit, though; I might throw a can of
kidney beans into a can of vegetable soup and add some
vinegar, garlic powder, oregano, and hot pepper, for
instance.)
Canned soup is one of the few canned foods that can be quite
acceptable even to those of us who do most of our own
cooking from scratch.
Brian
Steve Hayes
Oct 4, 2011, 9:01:20 PM10/4/11
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:37:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be
>done.
How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be
>done.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Dave Hansen
Oct 4, 2011, 10:59:47 PM10/4/11
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:43:04 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
No need to use a separate container. Google "soup at hand".
I'd provide a link, but I'm not selling the stuff...
-=Dave
wrote:
I'd provide a link, but I'm not selling the stuff...
-=Dave
Howard Brazee
Oct 4, 2011, 11:13:03 PM10/4/11
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:22:27 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>Canned soup is one of the few canned foods that can be quite
>acceptable even to those of us who do most of our own
>cooking from scratch.
Frozen soup works fine for me - whenever we make soup, we fill a bunch
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>Canned soup is one of the few canned foods that can be quite
>acceptable even to those of us who do most of our own
>cooking from scratch.
of containers with leftovers. That way I don't need to eat canned
soup. Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, so I keep it.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Wayne Throop
Oct 4, 2011, 11:41:49 PM10/4/11
to
::: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be
: No need to use a separate container.
Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside another
container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour the soup out to
get it out of the way, so you can have a nice hot can like you wanted.
ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
(I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
heat source applied to something that happens to be in a microwave.
"He's a platypus. They don't do much." --- Phineas, re: Perry
::: done.
:: Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the
:: microwave,
: id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
:: Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the
:: microwave,
: No need to use a separate container.
Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside another
container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour the soup out to
get it out of the way, so you can have a nice hot can like you wanted.
ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
(I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
heat source applied to something that happens to be in a microwave.
"He's a platypus. They don't do much." --- Phineas, re: Perry
Rod Speed
Oct 5, 2011, 12:10:16 AM10/5/11
to
Wayne Throop wrote
> id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote
>>>> Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be done.
>>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the microwave,
> You don't have to put the can inside another container,
He said the soup, not the can, silly.
> you just put it in the microwave. You pour the soup out to get
> it out of the way, so you can have a nice hot can like you wanted.
It wont be hot, because the soup wont absorb much microwave energy.
> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
The forks would only have got hot by conduction, not from the microwave energy.
> Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
Nope, it doesnt absorb microwave energy.
> I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
> heat source applied to something that happens to be in a microwave.
Wont melt.
> "He's a platypus. They don't do much." --- Phineas, re: Perry
He's wrong. They do quite a bit.
> id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote
>>>> Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be done.
>>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the microwave,
>> No need to use a separate container.
> Separate from what?
The can, silly.
> Separate from what?
> You don't have to put the can inside another container,
> you just put it in the microwave. You pour the soup out to get
> it out of the way, so you can have a nice hot can like you wanted.
> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
> Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
> I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
> heat source applied to something that happens to be in a microwave.
> "He's a platypus. They don't do much." --- Phineas, re: Perry
Joy Beeson
Oct 5, 2011, 2:35:01 AM10/5/11
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:13:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
wrote:
> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 5, 2011, 3:14:10 AM10/5/11
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:8o0eecgc3qla
> $.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:8o0eecgc3qla
> $.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>
>> And I agree about the ridiculous notion of what constitutes a
>> serving.
>
> It's a marketing game. If they put accurate, useful information on
> in a clear format, everybody would know.
Actually, in the US, the serving size is determined by the FDA. (It
>> serving.
>
> It's a marketing game. If they put accurate, useful information on
> in a clear format, everybody would know.
used to be up to the manufacturer.) It's specified by 21 CFR 101.12.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr101.12.pdf
and the way it is to be presented is specified by 21 CFR 101.9.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr101.9.pdf
For soups, the "reference amount customarily consumed" (RACC) is 245
grams (by weight), prepared, whatever that works out to be be.
Unless the soup is packaged in a "single serving container" (such as
"cup-of-soup"), in which case the serving size is the entire package.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Never attempt to teach a pig to
SF Bay Area (1982-) |sing; it wastes your time and
Chicago (1964-1982) |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Howard Brazee
Oct 5, 2011, 10:02:15 AM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:35:01 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:13:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
>
>But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
Agreed. I also fry an egg on it. Same thing with my other fast
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:13:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
>
>But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
lunch, Top Ramen soup. I have zip locks with chopped meat, I have
hard boiled eggs, onions, etc that take virtually no effort to add to
the prepared food. My son uses an uncooked egg (and one of his
sons only eats the noodles - with the water removed ahead of time).
Greg Goss
Oct 5, 2011, 10:59:18 AM10/5/11
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside another
>container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour the soup out to
>get it out of the way, so you can have a nice hot can like you wanted.
>
>ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
>(I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>
>Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
>I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
>heat source applied to something that happens to be in a microwave.
I've owned several Panasonic brand microwave ovens, and their owner's
>Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside another
>container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour the soup out to
>get it out of the way, so you can have a nice hot can like you wanted.
>
>ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
>(I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>
>Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
>I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
>heat source applied to something that happens to be in a microwave.
manuals allowed metal plates etc within the bottom inch of the oven.
The manual even suggested peeling back old-style TV dinner foil
selectively to cook different parts of the dinner different amounts.
I've never seen this allowance in other brands, and my current one is
a Samsung.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 11:41:26 AM10/5/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:k48juc...@gmail.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>> news:8o0eecgc3qla $.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>>
>>> And I agree about the ridiculous notion of what constitutes a
>>> serving.
>>
>> It's a marketing game. If they put accurate, useful information
>> on in a clear format, everybody would know.
>
> Actually, in the US, the serving size is determined by the FDA.
> (It used to be up to the manufacturer.) It's specified by 21
> CFR 101.12.
>
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr101.12
> .pdf
>
> and the way it is to be presented is specified by 21 CFR 101.9.
>
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr101.9.
> pdf
>
> For soups, the "reference amount customarily consumed" (RACC) is
> 245 grams (by weight), prepared, whatever that works out to be
> be.
>
> Unless the soup is packaged in a "single serving container"
> (such as "cup-of-soup"), in which case the serving size is the
> entire package.
>
And what are the odds that those serving sizes were arrived at
without input from the industry?
news:k48juc...@gmail.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>> news:8o0eecgc3qla $.1aq53kby...@40tude.net:
>>
>>> And I agree about the ridiculous notion of what constitutes a
>>> serving.
>>
>> It's a marketing game. If they put accurate, useful information
>> on in a clear format, everybody would know.
>
> Actually, in the US, the serving size is determined by the FDA.
> (It used to be up to the manufacturer.) It's specified by 21
> CFR 101.12.
>
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr101.12
>
> and the way it is to be presented is specified by 21 CFR 101.9.
>
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr101.9.
>
> For soups, the "reference amount customarily consumed" (RACC) is
> 245 grams (by weight), prepared, whatever that works out to be
> be.
>
> Unless the soup is packaged in a "single serving container"
> (such as "cup-of-soup"), in which case the serving size is the
> entire package.
>
without input from the industry?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 11:44:19 AM10/5/11
to
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in
news:21bn8799pfbvq3s2e...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:37:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and
>>be done.
>
> How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
>
What mess? I may be a slob, but I'm far too fond of food to allow any
of it to escape.
news:21bn8799pfbvq3s2e...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:37:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and
>>be done.
>
> How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
>
of it to escape.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 11:45:52 AM10/5/11
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
news:13177...@sheol.org:
>::: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>::: and be done.
>
>:: Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in
>:: the microwave,
>
>: id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
>: No need to use a separate container.
>
> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
> hot can like you wanted.
>
> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular
> fashion.
metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
people just freak out (and are stupid).
>
> Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
> I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
> heat source applied to something that happens to be in a
> microwave.
>
Aren't there machines that do that?
> Hm, I wonder if you could melt aluminum in a microwave...
> I mean, you know, *with* microwaves, not just using some other
> heat source applied to something that happens to be in a
> microwave.
>
Derek Lyons
Oct 5, 2011, 1:21:36 PM10/5/11
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:35:01 -0400, Joy Beeson
><jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:13:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
>>
>>But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
>
>Agreed. I also fry an egg on it. Same thing with my other fast
>lunch, Top Ramen soup. I have zip locks with chopped meat, I have
>hard boiled eggs, onions, etc that take virtually no effort to add to
>the prepared food.
Taking no effort to add does not mean it took no effort to prepare.
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:35:01 -0400, Joy Beeson
><jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:13:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
>>
>>But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
>
>Agreed. I also fry an egg on it. Same thing with my other fast
>lunch, Top Ramen soup. I have zip locks with chopped meat, I have
>hard boiled eggs, onions, etc that take virtually no effort to add to
>the prepared food.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
William December Starr
Oct 5, 2011, 1:27:27 PM10/5/11
to
In article <9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
-- wds
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
> When making soup is so easy, why
Because it isn't.
> When making soup is so easy, why
-- wds
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 5, 2011, 1:31:24 PM10/5/11
to
without input from electricians or appliance manufacturers. Of course
there was input. But I remember when the mandated sizes were
instituted, and I recall push-back from the industry, as the reference
sizes were typically larger than what manufacturers had been
reporting. I find it hard to believe that manufacturers got together
as "a marketing game" to decide that they should report their food as
having more calories, salt, fat, etc., then they had been.
The 245-gram serving of soup on two cans I checked is given as 1
cup[1]. One cup pretty much fills the bowls I serve soup in, so that
seems pretty reasonable to me.
I think that part of the problem is that people don't make a
distinction between "serving size" and "how much people eat at a
meal". Yes, I can often see myself eating more than the recommended
serving size, but I would consider it as more than one serving. As in
"taking seconds".
Then you have the other end of the spectrum. All (non-hard) candies,
whether M&Ms or the richest chocolate truffles have the same reference
size: 40g (rounded to the nearest piece). I often find myself reading
the label on a box of chocolates and thinking that I could probably
eat the three or four they call a "serving", but there's no way I
would consider it a single serving.
[1] In the case of a condensed soup, it was 1/2 cup condensed, but the
directions say to dilute 1:1 with water.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |When correctly viewed,
SF Bay Area (1982-) | Everything is lewd.
Chicago (1964-1982) |I could tell you things
| about Peter Pan,
evan.kir...@gmail.com |and the Wizard of Oz--
| there's a dirty old man!
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tom Lehrer
Steve Hayes
Oct 5, 2011, 1:35:58 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:44:19 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
the place.
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in
>news:21bn8799pfbvq3s2e...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:37:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and
>>>be done.
>>
>> How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
>>
>What mess? I may be a slob, but I'm far too fond of food to allow any
>of it to escape.
Well if you toss soup into the microwave, I imagine it would splash all over
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in
>news:21bn8799pfbvq3s2e...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:37:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and
>>>be done.
>>
>> How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
>>
>What mess? I may be a slob, but I'm far too fond of food to allow any
>of it to escape.
the place.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 5, 2011, 1:45:40 PM10/5/11
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
> news:13177...@sheol.org:
>
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
> news:13177...@sheol.org:
>
>> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or (I
>> think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>
> It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
> metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
> people just freak out (and are stupid).
We recently replaced our 18-year-old microwave (which, literally fell
>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or (I
>> think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>
> It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
> metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
> people just freak out (and are stupid).
apart), and we were a bit taken aback at the fact that most models
(including the one we chose) now have metal shelves in them. The guy
who was helping us said that it surprises lots of people.
But I had thought that non-smooth foil was still considered to be a
bad thing, although probably not start-a-fire dangerous.
Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
Microwaves cannot pass through metal but are absorbed by food. No
food completely covered by aluminum foil or in a covered metal pan
should be put in a microwave oven because food wouldn't be
available to absorb the microwaves. Operating the oven empty or
when the food is completely wrapped in aluminum foil can cause
damage to the oven and the food won't heat.
However, small pieces of aluminum foil can be used to "shield"
areas of foods, such as poultry drumsticks and wings, to prevent
overcooking.
Some food packaged in foil containers can be safe to
microwave. Read the package heating instructions to see if the
food manufacturer has specific recommendations for microwaving the
product. Because food in these containers will only heat from the
top, it's best to microwave foods only 1-2 inches in depth so food
near the bottom will be heated thoroughly before food on top dries
and overcooks.
General Rules for Safe Use of Aluminum Foil:
- Use new, smooth foil only. Wrinkled foil can cause arcing
(sparks).
- Cover no more than 1/4 of the food with foil.
- Shape the foil smoothly to the food so no edges stick out.
- It makes no difference which side of foil (shiny or dull) is
facing out.
- Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
walls.
- If the microwave oven has metal shelves OR a metal turntable,
don't microwave food in foil containers or metal pans, and
don't let foil used for shielding touch or be close to the
shelves or turntable.
- If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
microwave-safe utensil.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/microwave_ovens_and_food_safety/index.asp
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |"It makes you wonder if there is
SF Bay Area (1982-) |anything to astrology after all."
Chicago (1964-1982) |
|"Oh, there is," said Susan.
evan.kir...@gmail.com |"Delusion, wishful thinking and
|gullibility."
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Wayne Throop
Oct 5, 2011, 1:48:45 PM10/5/11
to
:::: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be
I thought he was tossing the *can* in. In which case
the soup could be disposed of neatly before doing so.
No muss, no fuss.
:::: done.
::: How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
:: What mess? I may be a slob, but I'm far too fond of food to allow
:: any of it to escape.
: Well if you toss soup into the microwave, I imagine it would splash
: all over the place.
Toss the *soup* in. Well, that's very different.
::: How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
:: What mess? I may be a slob, but I'm far too fond of food to allow
:: any of it to escape.
: Well if you toss soup into the microwave, I imagine it would splash
: all over the place.
I thought he was tossing the *can* in. In which case
the soup could be disposed of neatly before doing so.
No muss, no fuss.
Mike Barnes
Oct 5, 2011, 1:59:17 PM10/5/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com>:
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
>Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>
>[...]
>
> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
> walls.
Closer *from*?
> walls.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Howard Brazee
Oct 5, 2011, 2:22:44 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:21:36 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:
>>Agreed. I also fry an egg on it. Same thing with my other fast
>>lunch, Top Ramen soup. I have zip locks with chopped meat, I have
>>hard boiled eggs, onions, etc that take virtually no effort to add to
>>the prepared food.
>
>Taking no effort to add does not mean it took no effort to prepare.
No, but preparing food for a bunch of meals at once is petty
efficient.
wrote:
>>Agreed. I also fry an egg on it. Same thing with my other fast
>>lunch, Top Ramen soup. I have zip locks with chopped meat, I have
>>hard boiled eggs, onions, etc that take virtually no effort to add to
>>the prepared food.
>
>Taking no effort to add does not mean it took no effort to prepare.
efficient.
Howard Brazee
Oct 5, 2011, 2:23:44 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
> microwave-safe utensil.
I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
> microwave-safe utensil.
the microwave.
Scott Lurndal
Oct 5, 2011, 2:28:50 PM10/5/11
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
>news:13177...@sheol.org:
>
>>::: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>>::: and be done.
>>
>>:: Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in
>>:: the microwave,
>>
>>: id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
>>: No need to use a separate container.
>>
>> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
>> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
>> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
>> hot can like you wanted.
>>
>> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
>> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular
>> fashion.
>
>It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
>metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
>people just freak out (and are stupid).
I'm probably an outlier, but I still use the first microwave I
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
>news:13177...@sheol.org:
>
>>::: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>>::: and be done.
>>
>>:: Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in
>>:: the microwave,
>>
>>: id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
>>: No need to use a separate container.
>>
>> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
>> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
>> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
>> hot can like you wanted.
>>
>> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
>> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular
>> fashion.
>
>It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
>metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
>people just freak out (and are stupid).
ever bought from Fedco in Pasadena in 1983 (a Sharp). It's only
600W, but still reheats and thaws just fine. Doesn't burn popcorn
as easily as the 1kw models either.
scott
Scott Lurndal
Oct 5, 2011, 2:31:00 PM10/5/11
to
fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:35:01 -0400, Joy Beeson
>><jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:13:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
>>>
>>>But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
>>
>>Agreed. I also fry an egg on it. Same thing with my other fast
>>lunch, Top Ramen soup. I have zip locks with chopped meat, I have
>>hard boiled eggs, onions, etc that take virtually no effort to add to
>>the prepared food.
>
>Taking no effort to add does not mean it took no effort to prepare.
>
>D.
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:35:01 -0400, Joy Beeson
>><jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:13:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, I can eat canned corned beef hash, . . .
>>>
>>>But it's much nicer if you stir in a little fresh onion.
>>
>>Agreed. I also fry an egg on it. Same thing with my other fast
>>lunch, Top Ramen soup. I have zip locks with chopped meat, I have
>>hard boiled eggs, onions, etc that take virtually no effort to add to
>>the prepared food.
>
>Taking no effort to add does not mean it took no effort to prepare.
>
>D.
His (and my original) point was that you can amortize that effort over
many meals, thus reducing the per-meal overhead - prepare once for four
or five meals.
scott
Rod Speed
Oct 5, 2011, 3:05:39 PM10/5/11
to
Scott Lurndal wrote
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote
>>>>>> Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be done.
>>>>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the microwave,
>>>> id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
>>>> No need to use a separate container.
>>> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
>>> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
>>> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
>>> hot can like you wanted.
>>> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
>>> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>> It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
>> metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
>> people just freak out (and are stupid).
> I'm probably an outlier, but I still use the first microwave
> I ever bought from Fedco in Pasadena in 1983 (a Sharp).
I bought mine rather earlier than that, likely 75 or so and am still using it, also a Sharp.
> It's only 600W, but still reheats and thaws just fine.
Mine still cooks fine too.
> Doesn't burn popcorn as easily as the 1kw models either.
Dont do popcorn myself.
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote
>>>>>> Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be done.
>>>>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the microwave,
>>>> id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
>>>> No need to use a separate container.
>>> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
>>> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
>>> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
>>> hot can like you wanted.
>>> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
>>> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>> It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
>> metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
>> people just freak out (and are stupid).
> I'm probably an outlier, but I still use the first microwave
> I ever bought from Fedco in Pasadena in 1983 (a Sharp).
> It's only 600W, but still reheats and thaws just fine.
> Doesn't burn popcorn as easily as the 1kw models either.
Skitt
Oct 5, 2011, 3:38:57 PM10/5/11
to
Mike Barnes wrote:
> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>
>> [...]
>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>> walls.
>
> Closer *from*?
>
No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>
>> [...]
>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>> walls.
>
> Closer *from*?
>
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 4:02:41 PM10/5/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pqibs5...@gmail.com: But not as high as the medical types wanted, eh?
> I find it hard to
> believe that manufacturers got together as "a marketing game" to
> decide that they should report their food as having more
> calories, salt, fat, etc., then they had been.
I don't. They are in business to make money, after all.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 4:05:26 PM10/5/11
to
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in
news:5a5p87h06bqmb9gsn...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:44:19 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in
>>news:21bn8799pfbvq3s2e...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:37:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>>>>and be done.
>>>
>>> How long does it take you to clean up the mess?
>>>
>>What mess? I may be a slob, but I'm far too fond of food to
>>allow any of it to escape.
>
> Well if you toss soup into the microwave, I imagine it would
> splash all over the place.
>
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 4:05:54 PM10/5/11
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
news:13178...@sheol.org:
> I thought
There's little evidence of that.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 4:09:34 PM10/5/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:liszs5...@gmail.com:
> - It makes no difference which side of foil (shiny or
> dull) is
> facing out.
>
that subject (though it was in a regular oven, not a microwave, not
that would have made a difference with these people), where baked
potatoes are concerned. Massive flame war, up to and including death
threats, over whether potatoes should be baked shiny side in, or out.
I suspect some of them had experimented by wrapping their own heads
in tin foil, and sticking them in the oven. Without lighting the gas.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 4:10:15 PM10/5/11
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:m48p87dq8cpr768j7...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>> microwave-safe utensil.
>
>
> I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
> the microwave.
>
Stick an old CD in sometime. (Make certain it's one you never, ever,
ever want to use again.)
news:m48p87dq8cpr768j7...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>> microwave-safe utensil.
>
>
> I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
> the microwave.
>
ever want to use again.)
Leslie Danks
Oct 5, 2011, 4:43:13 PM10/5/11
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:liszs5...@gmail.com:
>
>> - It makes no difference which side of foil (shiny or
>> dull) is
>> facing out.
>>
> I recall running across an archive once, of a cooking email list, on
> that subject (though it was in a regular oven, not a microwave, not
> that would have made a difference with these people), where baked
> potatoes are concerned. Massive flame war, up to and including death
> threats, over whether potatoes should be baked shiny side in, or out.
>
> I suspect some of them had experimented by wrapping their own heads
> in tin foil, and sticking them in the oven. Without lighting the gas.
>
WIWAL no-one had heard of baking potatoes in a foil wrapping, and I still
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:liszs5...@gmail.com:
>
>> - It makes no difference which side of foil (shiny or
>> dull) is
>> facing out.
>>
> I recall running across an archive once, of a cooking email list, on
> that subject (though it was in a regular oven, not a microwave, not
> that would have made a difference with these people), where baked
> potatoes are concerned. Massive flame war, up to and including death
> threats, over whether potatoes should be baked shiny side in, or out.
>
> I suspect some of them had experimented by wrapping their own heads
> in tin foil, and sticking them in the oven. Without lighting the gas.
>
don't use it. Presumably the idea is to keep the moisture in, but I prefer a
floury texture which readily soaks up butter or whatever else you like to
put on your spuds. This aluminium foil nonsense is probably a world-wide
conspiracy instigated by the aluminium mafia.
At least one person agrees with me:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/jan/13/foodanddrink.recipes2>
--
Les
(BrE)
Wayne Throop
Oct 5, 2011, 5:07:10 PM10/5/11
to
:: I thought
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: There's little evidence of that.
What, you believe creative misinterpretations come up with themselves?
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: There's little evidence of that.
What, you believe creative misinterpretations come up with themselves?
Skitt
Oct 5, 2011, 5:10:25 PM10/5/11
to
Leslie Danks wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> - It makes no difference which side of foil (shiny or
>>> dull) is
>>> facing out.
>>>
>> I recall running across an archive once, of a cooking email list, on
>> that subject (though it was in a regular oven, not a microwave, not
>> that would have made a difference with these people), where baked
>> potatoes are concerned. Massive flame war, up to and including death
>> threats, over whether potatoes should be baked shiny side in, or out.
>>
>> I suspect some of them had experimented by wrapping their own heads
>> in tin foil, and sticking them in the oven. Without lighting the gas.
>>
> WIWAL no-one had heard of baking potatoes in a foil wrapping, and I still
> don't use it. Presumably the idea is to keep the moisture in, but I prefer a
> floury texture which readily soaks up butter or whatever else you like to
> put on your spuds. This aluminium foil nonsense is probably a world-wide
> conspiracy instigated by the aluminium mafia.
>
> At least one person agrees with me:
>
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/jan/13/foodanddrink.recipes2>
>
Oh, me too, me too.
>>> - It makes no difference which side of foil (shiny or
>>> dull) is
>>> facing out.
>>>
>> I recall running across an archive once, of a cooking email list, on
>> that subject (though it was in a regular oven, not a microwave, not
>> that would have made a difference with these people), where baked
>> potatoes are concerned. Massive flame war, up to and including death
>> threats, over whether potatoes should be baked shiny side in, or out.
>>
>> I suspect some of them had experimented by wrapping their own heads
>> in tin foil, and sticking them in the oven. Without lighting the gas.
>>
> WIWAL no-one had heard of baking potatoes in a foil wrapping, and I still
> don't use it. Presumably the idea is to keep the moisture in, but I prefer a
> floury texture which readily soaks up butter or whatever else you like to
> put on your spuds. This aluminium foil nonsense is probably a world-wide
> conspiracy instigated by the aluminium mafia.
>
> At least one person agrees with me:
>
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/jan/13/foodanddrink.recipes2>
>
Andrew Swallow
Oct 5, 2011, 5:14:10 PM10/5/11
to
potatoes. Not a problem in gas and electric ovens.
Andrew Swallow
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 5:28:13 PM10/5/11
to
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:WPKdnQjXUvczVRHT...@bt.com:
Two excellent examples of the sort of retardness I was talking
about, yes.
news:WPKdnQjXUvczVRHT...@bt.com:
about, yes.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 5:28:45 PM10/5/11
to
Mike Lyle
Oct 5, 2011, 6:01:08 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:23:44 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>> microwave-safe utensil.
>
>
>I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
>the microwave.
Me too. I don't do it now, assuming the sparks are the gold eroding.
--
Mike.
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>> microwave-safe utensil.
>
>
>I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
>the microwave.
--
Mike.
Mike Barnes
Oct 5, 2011, 6:04:23 PM10/5/11
to
Skitt <ski...@comcast.net>:
unreasonably called upon to take two different roles. "Less than one
inch..." would be fine, though.
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>
>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>> walls.
>>
>> Closer *from*?
>>
>
>No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
But closer to what? ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is
>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>
>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>> walls.
>>
>> Closer *from*?
>>
>
>No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
unreasonably called upon to take two different roles. "Less than one
inch..." would be fine, though.
Howard Brazee
Oct 5, 2011, 6:16:09 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 18:59:17 +0100, Mike Barnes
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>> walls.
>
>Closer *from*?
I haven't heard the expression "Closer from". Where are you from?
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>> walls.
>
>Closer *from*?
Rod Speed
Oct 5, 2011, 6:28:16 PM10/5/11
to
Mike Barnes wrote
> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Mike Barnes wrote
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
> ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is unreasonably called upon to take two different roles.
Mindlessly silly.
> "Less than one inch..." would be fine, though.
The original is fine.
> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Mike Barnes wrote
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven walls.
>>> Closer *from*?
>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
> But closer to what?
The oven walls, stupid.
>>> Closer *from*?
>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
> But closer to what?
> ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is unreasonably called upon to take two different roles.
> "Less than one inch..." would be fine, though.
Skitt
Oct 5, 2011, 6:29:42 PM10/5/11
to
Mike Barnes wrote:
> Skitt:
I don't know -- it sounds reasonable in casual speech. I would not use
it in formal writing.
> Skitt:
>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>>> walls.
>>>
>>> Closer *from*?
>>>
>>
>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
>
> But closer to what? ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is
> unreasonably called upon to take two different roles. "Less than one
> inch..." would be fine, though.
>
It's closer *than* (one inch from the oven walls).
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>>> walls.
>>>
>>> Closer *from*?
>>>
>>
>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
>
> But closer to what? ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is
> unreasonably called upon to take two different roles. "Less than one
> inch..." would be fine, though.
>
I don't know -- it sounds reasonable in casual speech. I would not use
it in formal writing.
Rod Speed
Oct 5, 2011, 6:29:58 PM10/5/11
to
Howard Brazee wrote
> Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote
> Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven walls.
>> Closer *from*?
> I haven't heard the expression "Closer from". Where are you from?
His sig tells you that.
Maybe he is the cat.
Skitt
Oct 5, 2011, 6:31:31 PM10/5/11
to
Howard Brazee wrote:
oven walls.
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>> walls.
>>
>> Closer *from*?
>
> I haven't heard the expression "Closer from". Where are you from?
>
It's not closer *from* -- it's closer *than* [a place] one inch from the
>>> [...]
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>> walls.
>>
>> Closer *from*?
>
> I haven't heard the expression "Closer from". Where are you from?
>
oven walls.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 5, 2011, 6:51:36 PM10/5/11
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:3nlp8750asrfl1l33...@4ax.com: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 18:59:17 +0100, Mike Barnes
> <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>>[...]
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the
>>> oven
>>> walls.
>>
>>Closer *from*?
>
> I haven't heard the expression "Closer from". Where are you
> from?
>
The expression isn't "close from," it's "from the oven walls." The
expression "closer" is part of is "do not place the foil closer."
Clear now?
Wayne Throop
Oct 5, 2011, 6:35:56 PM10/5/11
to
:::: - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven walls.
: Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com>
: But closer to what? ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is
and the place you can't be closer to than what you measured?
I mean sure, it's a bit of an odd construction; "less than one inch from"
would read better. But it doesn't seem actually unreasonable to me,
or at least not from overuse of or implicit reference to the wall.
"Life is going nowhere, somebody help me
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone"
--- Wax Audio, "Staying Alive in the Wall"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U13xOvDa19U
: Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com>
: But closer to what? ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is
: unreasonably called upon to take two different roles. "Less than one
: inch..." would be fine, though.
Why is it unreasonable to be both the place you are measuing from,
: inch..." would be fine, though.
and the place you can't be closer to than what you measured?
I mean sure, it's a bit of an odd construction; "less than one inch from"
would read better. But it doesn't seem actually unreasonable to me,
or at least not from overuse of or implicit reference to the wall.
"Life is going nowhere, somebody help me
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone"
--- Wax Audio, "Staying Alive in the Wall"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U13xOvDa19U
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Oct 5, 2011, 7:03:40 PM10/5/11
to
intervening phrases do not affect this.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Rod Speed
Oct 5, 2011, 7:10:48 PM10/5/11
to
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote
> Something will be "closer to" not "closer from" .
Closer than is fine.
> The intervening phrases do not affect this.
Wrong, as always.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Mike Barnes wrote
>>> Skitt<ski...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Mike Barnes wrote
>>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
>>>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven walls.
>>>>> Closer *from*?
>>>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
>>> But closer to what?
>> The oven walls, stupid.
>>> ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is unreasonably called upon to take two different roles.
>> Mindlessly silly.
>>> "Less than one inch..." would be fine, though.
>> The original is fine.
> No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
>> Mike Barnes wrote
>>> Skitt<ski...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Mike Barnes wrote
>>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
>>>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven walls.
>>>>> Closer *from*?
>>>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
>>> But closer to what?
>> The oven walls, stupid.
>>> ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is unreasonably called upon to take two different roles.
>> Mindlessly silly.
>>> "Less than one inch..." would be fine, though.
>> The original is fine.
> No, it's not.
> Something will be "closer to" not "closer from" .
> The intervening phrases do not affect this.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 5, 2011, 7:22:30 PM10/5/11
to
Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> writes:
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>
>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>> walls.
>>
>> Closer *from*?
>>
>
> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
I would have said it was "closer than (one inch from the oven walls)"
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>
>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>> walls.
>>
>> Closer *from*?
>>
>
> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
and elliptical for "closer [to the oven walls] than (one inch from the
oven walls)". I agree that it sounds strange when I stop to think
about it, but it didn't make me bat an eye when I read it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The mystery of government is not how
SF Bay Area (1982-) |Washington works, but how to make it
Chicago (1964-1982) |stop.
| P.J. O'Rourke
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 5, 2011, 8:07:21 PM10/5/11
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:m48p87dq8cpr768j7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>>> microwave-safe utensil.
>>
>>
>> I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
>> the microwave.
>>
> Stick an old CD in sometime. (Make certain it's one you never, ever,
> ever want to use again.)
I've seen it. It's fun. But while I've never seen it actually do
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:m48p87dq8cpr768j7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>>> microwave-safe utensil.
>>
>>
>> I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
>> the microwave.
>>
> Stick an old CD in sometime. (Make certain it's one you never, ever,
> ever want to use again.)
damage, I have to wonder whether there isn't some risk of winding up
with a microwave that you'll never, ever, ever be able to use again.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The misinformation that passes for
SF Bay Area (1982-) |gospel wisdom about English usage
Chicago (1964-1982) |is sometimes astounding.
| Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
evan.kir...@gmail.com | of English Usage
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Carnegie
Oct 5, 2011, 8:36:39 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 7:28 pm, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
> >news:13177...@sheol.org:
>
> >>::: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
> >>::: and be done.
>
> >>:: Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in
> >>:: the microwave,
>
> >>: i...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
> >>: No need to use a separate container.
>
> >> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
> >> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
> >> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
> >> hot can like you wanted.
>
> >> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
> >> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
> >> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
> >> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular
> >> fashion.
>
> >It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
> >metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
> >people just freak out (and are stupid).
>
> I'm probably an outlier, but I still use the first microwave I
> ever bought from Fedco in Pasadena in 1983 (a Sharp). It's only
> 600W, but still reheats and thaws just fine. Doesn't burn popcorn
> as easily as the 1kw models either.
I think I read somewhere that microwaves' self-damage due to their own
radiation coming back, or otherwise, is expressed in a loss of heating
power. I suppose you could t ime boiling a set amount of water...
that has its own hazard, though.
The rating reflects the energy delivered in microwaves, presumably and
reasonably; the energy consumed by the appliance is liable to be much
more - as I verified once by using too small a fuse, which did what it
was supposed to, and busted.
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
> >news:13177...@sheol.org:
>
> >>::: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
> >>::: and be done.
>
> >>:: Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in
> >>:: the microwave,
>
> >>: i...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
> >>: No need to use a separate container.
>
> >> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
> >> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
> >> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
> >> hot can like you wanted.
>
> >> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
> >> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
> >> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or
> >> (I think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular
> >> fashion.
>
> >It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage from
> >metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly because
> >people just freak out (and are stupid).
>
> I'm probably an outlier, but I still use the first microwave I
> ever bought from Fedco in Pasadena in 1983 (a Sharp). It's only
> 600W, but still reheats and thaws just fine. Doesn't burn popcorn
> as easily as the 1kw models either.
I think I read somewhere that microwaves' self-damage due to their own
radiation coming back, or otherwise, is expressed in a loss of heating
power. I suppose you could t ime boiling a set amount of water...
that has its own hazard, though.
The rating reflects the energy delivered in microwaves, presumably and
reasonably; the energy consumed by the appliance is liable to be much
more - as I verified once by using too small a fuse, which did what it
was supposed to, and busted.
Rod Speed
Oct 5, 2011, 9:42:42 PM10/5/11
to
Robert Carnegie wrote
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote
>>>> i...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote
>>>>>>> Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be done.
>>>>>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the microwave,
> I suppose you could time boiling a set amount of water...
Corse you can...
> that has its own hazard, though.
Nope.
> The rating reflects the energy delivered in microwaves, presumably and
> reasonably; the energy consumed by the appliance is liable to be much more
Its not actually all that much more, they are pretty
efficient compared with other ways of heating.
> - as I verified once by using too small a fuse,
> which did what it was supposed to, and busted.
You didnt actually verify that that way.
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote
>>>> i...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote
>>>>>>> Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and be done.
>>>>>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can in the microwave,
>>>>> No need to use a separate container.
>>>> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
>>>> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
>>>> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
>>>> hot can like you wanted.
>>>> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>>>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>>>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or (I
>>>> think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>>> It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage
>>> from metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly
>>> because people just freak out (and are stupid).
>> I'm probably an outlier, but I still use the first microwave
>> I ever bought from Fedco in Pasadena in 1983 (a Sharp).
>> It's only 600W, but still reheats and thaws just fine.
>> Doesn't burn popcorn as easily as the 1kw models either.
> I think I read somewhere that microwaves' self-damage due to their own
> radiation coming back, or otherwise, is expressed in a loss of heating power.
Fraid not, because they lose heating power as they age anyway.
>>>> Separate from what? You don't have to put the can inside
>>>> another container, you just put it in the microwave. You pour
>>>> the soup out to get it out of the way, so you can have a nice
>>>> hot can like you wanted.
>>>> ObMythbusters: they tried various metal objects in microwaves.
>>>> most didn't do much. The only one I noticed that did was partly
>>>> crumpled aluminum foil. Ooooooh sparky. Things like forks or (I
>>>> think they did) cans just became hot in an unspectacular fashion.
>>> It's been a long time since microwaves were prone to damage
>>> from metal inside. But the recommendation you avoid it is mostly
>>> because people just freak out (and are stupid).
>> I'm probably an outlier, but I still use the first microwave
>> I ever bought from Fedco in Pasadena in 1983 (a Sharp).
>> It's only 600W, but still reheats and thaws just fine.
>> Doesn't burn popcorn as easily as the 1kw models either.
> I think I read somewhere that microwaves' self-damage due to their own
> radiation coming back, or otherwise, is expressed in a loss of heating power.
> I suppose you could time boiling a set amount of water...
Corse you can...
> that has its own hazard, though.
> The rating reflects the energy delivered in microwaves, presumably and
> reasonably; the energy consumed by the appliance is liable to be much more
efficient compared with other ways of heating.
> - as I verified once by using too small a fuse,
> which did what it was supposed to, and busted.
Joy Beeson
Oct 5, 2011, 11:49:20 PM10/5/11
to
On 04 Oct 2011 17:30:45 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
It all depends on what sort of soup you want -- and how many servings
are needed.
Potato soup is the classic ten-minute lunch: put cold water in a
saucepan over high heat, chop some celery small, throw it in, cut up a
potato -- how small depends on how soon you want to eat -- throw it in
the now-boiling water with the celery, turn down the heat after it
resumes boiling, chop some onion, hold it until the potato is soft,
throw it in, stir until the onion is translucent, cool to eating
temperature by pouring in some whole milk.
Bean soup, on the other hand, takes twenty-four hours and isn't good
unless you make enough for a small army. (I used to freeze it in
wide-mouth jars.) But it takes very little cook's time; this was the
supper to prepare when you had more work than you could handle, or
when you didn't know when the guests would arrive.
When I get home from shopping so late that I haven't quite finished my
nap when it's time to put supper on the table, it's very nice to find
a few cans of soup in the cupboard.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
wrote:
> When making soup is so easy, why would one get canned soup?
It all depends on what sort of soup you want -- and how many servings
are needed.
Potato soup is the classic ten-minute lunch: put cold water in a
saucepan over high heat, chop some celery small, throw it in, cut up a
potato -- how small depends on how soon you want to eat -- throw it in
the now-boiling water with the celery, turn down the heat after it
resumes boiling, chop some onion, hold it until the potato is soft,
throw it in, stir until the onion is translucent, cool to eating
temperature by pouring in some whole milk.
Bean soup, on the other hand, takes twenty-four hours and isn't good
unless you make enough for a small army. (I used to freeze it in
wide-mouth jars.) But it takes very little cook's time; this was the
supper to prepare when you had more work than you could handle, or
when you didn't know when the guests would arrive.
When I get home from shopping so late that I haven't quite finished my
nap when it's time to put supper on the table, it's very nice to find
a few cans of soup in the cupboard.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Dave Garland
Oct 6, 2011, 1:34:13 AM10/6/11
to
On 10/5/2011 7:07 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Stick an old CD in sometime. (Make certain it's one you never, ever,
>> ever want to use again.)
>
> I've seen it. It's fun. But while I've never seen it actually do
> damage, I have to wonder whether there isn't some risk of winding up
> with a microwave that you'll never, ever, ever be able to use again.
>
Depends on whether you'd want to use a microwave that stinks of burnt
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Stick an old CD in sometime. (Make certain it's one you never, ever,
>> ever want to use again.)
>
> I've seen it. It's fun. But while I've never seen it actually do
> damage, I have to wonder whether there isn't some risk of winding up
> with a microwave that you'll never, ever, ever be able to use again.
>
plastic.
A few seconds of light show seems to be ok. Then the stink begins.
I use my microwave to destroy CDs that need to remain confidential
after disposal.
Dave
Brian M. Scott
Oct 6, 2011, 3:23:44 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:22:30 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:d3ebrp...@gmail.com> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> writes:
>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>> [...]
>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>>> walls.
>>> Closer *from*?
>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
> I would have said it was "closer than (one inch from the
> oven walls)" and elliptical for "closer [to the oven
> walls] than (one inch from the oven walls)". [...]
That's the only possible justification, but I for me the
construction is so bad as to be unusable.
Brian
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:d3ebrp...@gmail.com> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> writes:
>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>>> Here's what the USDA has to say about foil:
>>>> [...]
>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>>> walls.
>>> Closer *from*?
>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
> I would have said it was "closer than (one inch from the
> oven walls)" and elliptical for "closer [to the oven
That's the only possible justification, but I for me the
construction is so bad as to be unusable.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
Oct 6, 2011, 3:26:09 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:43:13 +0200, Leslie Danks
<leslie...@aon.at> wrote in
<news:4e8cc161$0$1570$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>
in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> WIWAL no-one had heard of baking potatoes in a foil
> wrapping, and I still don't use it. Presumably the idea
> is to keep the moisture in, but I prefer a floury
> texture which readily soaks up butter or whatever else
> you like to put on your spuds. [...]
This is not, however, a consideration when one doctors them
only with pepper and a little salt.
Brian
<leslie...@aon.at> wrote in
<news:4e8cc161$0$1570$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>
in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> WIWAL no-one had heard of baking potatoes in a foil
> wrapping, and I still don't use it. Presumably the idea
> is to keep the moisture in, but I prefer a floury
> texture which readily soaks up butter or whatever else
This is not, however, a consideration when one doctors them
only with pepper and a little salt.
Brian
Message has been deleted
Leslie Danks
Oct 6, 2011, 6:09:58 AM10/6/11
to
--
Les
(BrE
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Oct 6, 2011, 7:59:20 AM10/6/11
to
obviously can't get if you wrap it in aluminum foil.
Howard Brazee
Oct 6, 2011, 9:36:40 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:49:20 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>Bean soup, on the other hand, takes twenty-four hours and isn't good
>unless you make enough for a small army. (I used to freeze it in
>wide-mouth jars.) But it takes very little cook's time; this was the
>supper to prepare when you had more work than you could handle, or
>when you didn't know when the guests would arrive.
Yep. I don't care if it takes 24 hours of cooking time, as long as
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>Bean soup, on the other hand, takes twenty-four hours and isn't good
>unless you make enough for a small army. (I used to freeze it in
>wide-mouth jars.) But it takes very little cook's time; this was the
>supper to prepare when you had more work than you could handle, or
>when you didn't know when the guests would arrive.
it doesn't take much of *my* time.
And as you indicate - it freezes well. So that 24 hours of cooking
time makes for a bunch of meals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 6, 2011, 11:44:46 AM10/6/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8vozrn...@gmail.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>> news:m48p87dq8cpr768j7...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the
>>>> foil
>>>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to
>>>> a microwave-safe utensil.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty
>>> sparks in the microwave.
>>>
>> Stick an old CD in sometime. (Make certain it's one you never,
>> ever, ever want to use again.)
>
> I've seen it. It's fun. But while I've never seen it actually
> do damage, I have to wonder whether there isn't some risk of
> winding up with a microwave that you'll never, ever, ever be
> able to use again.
>
The microwave will be fine.
Patrick Scheible
Oct 6, 2011, 12:16:24 PM10/6/11
to
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>
> Except it is.
It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
-- Patrick
> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>>
>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>
>> Because it isn't.
>>
>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>
>
> Except it is.
It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
-- Patrick
Charlie Gibbs
Oct 6, 2011, 1:26:17 PM10/6/11
to
In article <9f58oj...@mid.individual.net>, Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
(Huge) writes:
> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>>
>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>
>> Because it isn't.
>
> Except it is.
Look, I came here for an argument.
> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>>
>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>
>> Because it isn't.
>
> Except it is.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Howard Brazee
Oct 6, 2011, 12:30:38 PM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:16:24 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
wrote:
>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>
>>> Because it isn't.
>>
>> Except it is.
>
>It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
>aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
Pick a nice rainy day with a couple of good books and relax in an easy
chair with the smell in the back ground.
There are worse ways to spend a day.
wrote:
>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>
>>> Because it isn't.
>>
>> Except it is.
>
>It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
>aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
chair with the smell in the back ground.
There are worse ways to spend a day.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 6, 2011, 12:38:53 PM10/6/11
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:arlr87hhrs0lobrl1...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:16:24 -0700, Patrick Scheible
> <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>
>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>
>>> Except it is.
>>
>>It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be
>>home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>
> Pick a nice rainy day with a couple of good books and relax in
> an easy chair with the smell in the back ground.
>
> There are worse ways to spend a day.
>
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Oct 6, 2011, 1:30:36 PM10/6/11
to
to work, it's done when I come back.
Derek Lyons
Oct 6, 2011, 2:20:28 PM10/6/11
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/6/11 12:16 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In article<9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>>>>
>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>
>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>
>>> Except it is.
>>
>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
>> aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>
>I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go
>to work, it's done when I come back.
Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes difficulty) of
>On 10/6/11 12:16 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In article<9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>>>>
>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>
>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>
>>> Except it is.
>>
>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
>> aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>
>I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go
>to work, it's done when I come back.
preparing the necessary ingredients. The quality of the soup is
directly proportional to the time and effort invested that
preparation. Proper soups *are* demanding of time and attention,
despite the fact that something (barely) better than canned can be
produced without much time or attention.
Not to mention I loathe crockpot soups, they're often horrid because
the long cooking muddies the flavors.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Greg Goss
Oct 6, 2011, 2:40:51 PM10/6/11
to
Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>>> walls.
>>>
>>> Closer *from*?
>>>
>>
>>No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
>
>But closer to what? ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is
>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>>> walls.
>>>
>>> Closer *from*?
>>>
>>
>>No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
>
>unreasonably called upon to take two different roles. "Less than one
>inch..." would be fine, though.
English grammer is a bugger to diagram. Sometimes logic just doesn't
work.
In my opinion, the quoted sentence is OK, even though attempts to
diagram it break down.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Greg Goss
Oct 6, 2011, 2:42:19 PM10/6/11
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>In my opinion, the quoted sentence is OK, even though attempts to
>diagram it break down.
>The original is fine.
>In my opinion, the quoted sentence is OK, even though attempts to
>diagram it break down.
OK, if Rod's for it, I might have to amend my opinion. Can't be seen
agreeing with the wrong people. (grin)
Greg Goss
Oct 6, 2011, 2:46:28 PM10/6/11
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>> microwave-safe utensil.
>
>
>I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
>the microwave.
We had gold-patterned plates when we first bought a nuker in 1972. In
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> - If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil
>> shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to a
>> microwave-safe utensil.
>
>
>I have a mug with gold on its lip. It makes some pretty sparks in
>the microwave.
short order, two of our gold-patterned plates were uniformly white.
In subsequent years, the now-unglazed portions picked up a brown
discolouration that set off the intended pattern almost as nicely as
the original gold colour.
Greg Goss
Oct 6, 2011, 2:47:27 PM10/6/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've seen it. It's fun. But while I've never seen it actually do
>damage, I have to wonder whether there isn't some risk of winding up
>with a microwave that you'll never, ever, ever be able to use again.
A small countertop microwave is worth $65 or so these days. If your
>I've seen it. It's fun. But while I've never seen it actually do
>damage, I have to wonder whether there isn't some risk of winding up
>with a microwave that you'll never, ever, ever be able to use again.
available microwave isn't built into other furniture, it's almost
worth the risk.
Brian M. Scott
Oct 6, 2011, 2:51:04 PM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:59:20 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:j6k56o$gg$1...@dont-email.me> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 10/6/11 3:26 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:43:13 +0200, Leslie Danks
>> <leslie...@aon.at> wrote in
>> <news:4e8cc161$0$1570$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>
>> in
>> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> WIWAL no-one had heard of baking potatoes in a foil
>>> wrapping, and I still don't use it. Presumably the idea
>>> is to keep the moisture in, but I prefer a floury
>>> texture which readily soaks up butter or whatever else
>>> you like to put on your spuds. [...]
>> This is not, however, a consideration when one doctors them
>> only with pepper and a little salt.
> My favorite part of the potato is the crunchy baked skin,
> which you obviously can't get if you wrap it in aluminum
> foil.
Oh, I agree. And I've never used aluminum foil.
Brian
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:j6k56o$gg$1...@dont-email.me> in
alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 10/6/11 3:26 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:43:13 +0200, Leslie Danks
>> <leslie...@aon.at> wrote in
>> <news:4e8cc161$0$1570$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>
>> in
>> alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.computers,rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> WIWAL no-one had heard of baking potatoes in a foil
>>> wrapping, and I still don't use it. Presumably the idea
>>> is to keep the moisture in, but I prefer a floury
>>> texture which readily soaks up butter or whatever else
>>> you like to put on your spuds. [...]
>> This is not, however, a consideration when one doctors them
>> only with pepper and a little salt.
> My favorite part of the potato is the crunchy baked skin,
> which you obviously can't get if you wrap it in aluminum
> foil.
Brian
Charles Bishop
Oct 6, 2011, 4:13:06 PM10/6/11
to
In article <Xns9F746DE56B7...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in news:1317750184
>@sheol.org:
>>: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>
>Certainly a lot less work than making it from scratch.
>>
>> You put the can in the microwave and nuke 'em both up
>> Put the can in the microwave, nuke 'em both together
>> Put the can in the microwave, then you feel better...
>>
>I knew a guy in high school that tried to heat up pork & beans in a
>regular oven. Without opening the can. The resulting explosion
>embedded beans in the opposite wall.
In the lab we had a small furnace for, well removing stuff, and leaving
other stuff. A new lab worker put a can of something in the furnace, with
similar oven. Odd, that, since we had a convection oven as well.
--
charles
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in news:1317750184
>@sheol.org:
>>: Or I can open a can, toss it in the microwave for 3 minutes,
>>: and be done.
>>
>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can
>> in the microwave, but yeah, still not that hard.
>>
>> Well, you have to pour the soup out before putting the can
>
>Certainly a lot less work than making it from scratch.
>>
>> You put the can in the microwave and nuke 'em both up
>> Put the can in the microwave, nuke 'em both together
>> Put the can in the microwave, then you feel better...
>>
>I knew a guy in high school that tried to heat up pork & beans in a
>regular oven. Without opening the can. The resulting explosion
>embedded beans in the opposite wall.
In the lab we had a small furnace for, well removing stuff, and leaving
other stuff. A new lab worker put a can of something in the furnace, with
similar oven. Odd, that, since we had a convection oven as well.
--
charles
Skitt
Oct 6, 2011, 4:11:27 PM10/6/11
to
Greg Goss wrote:
> Mike Barnes wrote:
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>>>> - Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven
>>>>> walls.
>>>>
>>>> Closer *from*?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No -- closer than one inch (from the oven walls).
>>
>> But closer to what? ISTM that in your analysis, "oven walls" is
>> unreasonably called upon to take two different roles. "Less than one
>> inch..." would be fine, though.
>
> English grammer is a bugger to diagram.
English grammar is no easier, and English spelling is a bitch.
> Sometimes logic just doesn't work.
>
> In my opinion, the quoted sentence is OK, even though attempts to
> diagram it break down.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
not a NESsie, but very close to it
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Oct 6, 2011, 4:23:34 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/11 2:20 PM, Derek Lyons wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/11 12:16 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Except it is.
>>>
>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
>>> aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>>
>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go
>> to work, it's done when I come back.
>
> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes difficulty) of
> preparing the necessary ingredients. The quality of the soup is
> directly proportional to the time and effort invested that
> preparation.
My chicken soup has been counted as one of the best ever by everyone
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/11 12:16 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-10-05, William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<9pHiq.109351$Fx5.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Except it is.
>>>
>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and
>>> aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>>
>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go
>> to work, it's done when I come back.
>
> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes difficulty) of
> preparing the necessary ingredients. The quality of the soup is
> directly proportional to the time and effort invested that
> preparation.
who has tried it -- I prefer to turn it into a stew, actually, by
thickening it, but there are those who prefer that it remain unthickened
and more a soup. I really have to make another batch soon, my wife keeps
mentioning it. But then, she's a soup diva and she keeps cooking HER
soups (which since she's a stay-at-home mom means that she can do it
more traditionally).
Prep time for mine is about half an hour, not counting buying the
ingredients. Used to be an hour but I discovered much faster ways of
doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves, etc.
than I had ever believed possible before.
Rod Speed
Oct 6, 2011, 4:34:20 PM10/6/11
to
Derek Lyons wrote
>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>> Except it is.
>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be
>>> home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
You doint have to do either.
>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it
>> overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes
> difficulty) of preparing the necessary ingredients.
No time required with the right ingredients.
> The quality of the soup is directly proportional
> to the time and effort invested that preparation.
No it isnt. Real quality comes from the design, the ingredients used.
Particularly with soup where not a shred of rocket science whatever
is required for the actual cooking process, just the right appliance.
> Proper soups *are* demanding of time and attention,
Wrong.
> despite the fact that something (barely) better than
> canned can be produced without much time or attention.
And even better than what you can produce can be too.
> Not to mention I loathe crockpot soups, they're often
> horrid because the long cooking muddies the flavors.
Its just one way of doing soup without hovering over it for 24 hours continuously.
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>> William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>> Except it is.
>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be
>>> home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it
>> overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes
> difficulty) of preparing the necessary ingredients.
> The quality of the soup is directly proportional
> to the time and effort invested that preparation.
Particularly with soup where not a shred of rocket science whatever
is required for the actual cooking process, just the right appliance.
> Proper soups *are* demanding of time and attention,
> despite the fact that something (barely) better than
> canned can be produced without much time or attention.
> Not to mention I loathe crockpot soups, they're often
> horrid because the long cooking muddies the flavors.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Oct 6, 2011, 4:43:03 PM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:11:27 -0700
Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Greg Goss wrote:
> > English grammer is a bugger to diagram.
>
> English grammar is no easier, and English spelling is a bitch.
As for English pronunciation, there's "The Chaos".
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Greg Goss wrote:
> > English grammer is a bugger to diagram.
>
> English grammar is no easier, and English spelling is a bitch.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Rod Speed
Oct 6, 2011, 5:06:05 PM10/6/11
to
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote
>>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>>> Except it is.
>>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir
>>>> it.
>>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
>> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes difficulty) of
>> preparing the necessary ingredients. The quality of the soup is
>> directly proportional to the time and effort invested that preparation.
> My chicken soup has been counted as one of the best ever by everyone who has tried it
We dont know how good a judge they are of the quality of the soup tho.
They may just be comparing it with canned soup on the flavor mixing point he made.
> -- I prefer to turn it into a stew, actually, by thickening it, but there are those who prefer that it remain
> unthickened and more a soup. I really have to make another batch soon, my wife keeps mentioning it. But then, she's a
> soup diva and
> she keeps cooking HER soups (which since she's a stay-at-home mom means that she can do it more traditionally).
If she prefers yours, why doesnt she just copy your approach ?
> Prep time for mine is about half an hour, not counting buying the ingredients. Used to be an hour but I discovered
> much faster ways of doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves, etc. than I had ever believed
> possible before.
So how do you do that last ? I've been buying the minced garlic in
small jars to get rid of that time consuming step but its unlikely to be
as good as with fresh garlic, particularly if I grow the garlic myself.
>>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>>> William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>>>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>>> Except it is.
>>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir
>>>> it.
>>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
>> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes difficulty) of
>> preparing the necessary ingredients. The quality of the soup is
>> directly proportional to the time and effort invested that preparation.
> My chicken soup has been counted as one of the best ever by everyone who has tried it
They may just be comparing it with canned soup on the flavor mixing point he made.
> -- I prefer to turn it into a stew, actually, by thickening it, but there are those who prefer that it remain
> unthickened and more a soup. I really have to make another batch soon, my wife keeps mentioning it. But then, she's a
> soup diva and
> she keeps cooking HER soups (which since she's a stay-at-home mom means that she can do it more traditionally).
> Prep time for mine is about half an hour, not counting buying the ingredients. Used to be an hour but I discovered
> much faster ways of doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves, etc. than I had ever believed
> possible before.
small jars to get rid of that time consuming step but its unlikely to be
as good as with fresh garlic, particularly if I grow the garlic myself.
Message has been deleted
Scott Lurndal
Oct 6, 2011, 5:33:54 PM10/6/11
to
>> Prep time for mine is about half an hour, not counting buying the ingredients. Used to be an hour but I discovered
>> much faster ways of doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves, etc. than I had ever believed
>> possible before.
>
>So how do you do that last ? I've been buying the minced garlic in
>small jars to get rid of that time consuming step but its unlikely to be
>as good as with fresh garlic, particularly if I grow the garlic myself.
Smash 'em good with the flat of a meat cleaver. The skins fall right off.
>> much faster ways of doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves, etc. than I had ever believed
>> possible before.
>
>So how do you do that last ? I've been buying the minced garlic in
>small jars to get rid of that time consuming step but its unlikely to be
>as good as with fresh garlic, particularly if I grow the garlic myself.
Then use the cleaver to mince.
scott
Rod Speed
Oct 6, 2011, 5:57:56 PM10/6/11
to
Scott Lurndal wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> Then use the cleaver to mince.
I use most of them in the relish I make because I can
no longer buy the commercial one I like, tomato and chilli.
That has onions in it as well as the garlic and tomato and chilli so it all
goes in the food processor, not point in chopping the garlic seperately.
I dont chop onions by hand anymore either for stuff like a burger
where I dont chop enough to warrant using the food processor,
I use one of those tupperware onion choppers instead because they
take up less room in the dishwasher than the food processor bowel.
I've been kicking myself for not doing the relish even when the commercial stuff
was still available, what I make myself leaves the commercial stuff for dead.
And isnt that much work if you start with tinned diced tomatoes, only takes an
hour and a half per batch which lasts for months even tho I use it every 4 days
on the dome I cut off the freshly baked loaf of bread from the bread machine
with salami and lettuce as an open sandwitch that makes one meal.
Havent started making salami yet tho, quite a bit of work.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote
>>> Prep time for mine is about half an hour, not counting buying the
>>> ingredients. Used to be an hour but I discovered much faster ways
>>> of doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves,
>>> etc. than I had ever believed possible before.
>> So how do you do that last ? I've been buying the minced garlic in
>> small jars to get rid of that time consuming step but its unlikely to be
>> as good as with fresh garlic, particularly if I grow the garlic myself.
> Smash 'em good with the flat of a meat cleaver. The skins fall right off.
Thanks, I'll try that, sounds plausible.
>>> Prep time for mine is about half an hour, not counting buying the
>>> ingredients. Used to be an hour but I discovered much faster ways
>>> of doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves,
>>> etc. than I had ever believed possible before.
>> So how do you do that last ? I've been buying the minced garlic in
>> small jars to get rid of that time consuming step but its unlikely to be
>> as good as with fresh garlic, particularly if I grow the garlic myself.
> Smash 'em good with the flat of a meat cleaver. The skins fall right off.
> Then use the cleaver to mince.
no longer buy the commercial one I like, tomato and chilli.
That has onions in it as well as the garlic and tomato and chilli so it all
goes in the food processor, not point in chopping the garlic seperately.
I dont chop onions by hand anymore either for stuff like a burger
where I dont chop enough to warrant using the food processor,
I use one of those tupperware onion choppers instead because they
take up less room in the dishwasher than the food processor bowel.
I've been kicking myself for not doing the relish even when the commercial stuff
was still available, what I make myself leaves the commercial stuff for dead.
And isnt that much work if you start with tinned diced tomatoes, only takes an
hour and a half per batch which lasts for months even tho I use it every 4 days
on the dome I cut off the freshly baked loaf of bread from the bread machine
with salami and lettuce as an open sandwitch that makes one meal.
Havent started making salami yet tho, quite a bit of work.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Oct 6, 2011, 6:48:41 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/11 5:06 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote
>> Derek Lyons wrote
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>
>>>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>
>>>>>>> Because it isn't.
>
>>>>>> Except it is.
>
>>>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir
>>>>> it.
>
>>>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
>
>>> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes difficulty) of
>>> preparing the necessary ingredients. The quality of the soup is
>>> directly proportional to the time and effort invested that preparation.
>
>> My chicken soup has been counted as one of the best ever by everyone who has tried it
>
> We dont know how good a judge they are of the quality of the soup tho.
>
> They may just be comparing it with canned soup on the flavor mixing point he made.
True enough. Though those who have tried it have been a fairly wide
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote
>> Derek Lyons wrote
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>
>>>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>
>>>>>>> Because it isn't.
>
>>>>>> Except it is.
>
>>>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir
>>>>> it.
>
>>>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
>
>>> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes difficulty) of
>>> preparing the necessary ingredients. The quality of the soup is
>>> directly proportional to the time and effort invested that preparation.
>
>> My chicken soup has been counted as one of the best ever by everyone who has tried it
>
> We dont know how good a judge they are of the quality of the soup tho.
>
> They may just be comparing it with canned soup on the flavor mixing point he made.
variety of people with different tastes and cooking experiences.
>
>> -- I prefer to turn it into a stew, actually, by thickening it, but there are those who prefer that it remain
>> unthickened and more a soup. I really have to make another batch soon, my wife keeps mentioning it. But then, she's a
>> soup diva and
>> she keeps cooking HER soups (which since she's a stay-at-home mom means that she can do it more traditionally).
>
> If she prefers yours, why doesnt she just copy your approach ?
purely by eye and instinct; there's no measures.
The same applies to her best soups, too; I couldn't do her pasta
fagioli without her standing at my elbow telling me what to do.
>
>> Prep time for mine is about half an hour, not counting buying the ingredients. Used to be an hour but I discovered
>> much faster ways of doing things like, e.g., removing the skins from garlic cloves, etc. than I had ever believed
>> possible before.
>
> So how do you do that last ? I've been buying the minced garlic in
> small jars to get rid of that time consuming step but its unlikely to be
> as good as with fresh garlic, particularly if I grow the garlic myself.
>
hand (or a convenient board, etc) enough to split them but not
pulp/squash. This splits the jackets they're in, too.
Dump the split ones into a large pan with a lid, or you could use two
large bowls, one inverted over the other, as long as those fit WELL
together. Shake violently up and down for a few seconds. Reach in and
pick out the now-clean garlic segments and throw away the papery skins.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Oct 6, 2011, 6:49:58 PM10/6/11
to
the supermarket.
Derek Lyons
Oct 6, 2011, 7:45:05 PM10/6/11
to
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Derek Lyons wrote
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>>> William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>
>>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>
>>>>>> Because it isn't.
>
>>>>> Except it is.
>
>>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be
>>>> home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>
>You doint have to do either.
>
>>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it
>>> overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
>
>> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes
>> difficulty) of preparing the necessary ingredients.
>
>No time required with the right ingredients.
If you're just opening cans, bottles, bags, and envelopes, you might
>Derek Lyons wrote
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>>> Huge<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
>>>>> William December Starr<wds...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
>
>>>>>>> When making soup is so easy, why
>
>>>>>> Because it isn't.
>
>>>>> Except it is.
>
>>>> It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming. You have to be
>>>> home and aware of the soup cooking so you can stir it.
>
>You doint have to do either.
>
>>> I dump the stuff in the crockpot, turn it on, leave it
>>> overnight or go to work, it's done when I come back.
>
>> Which doesn't account for the time (and sometimes
>> difficulty) of preparing the necessary ingredients.
>
>No time required with the right ingredients.
as well open a can of Campbell's finest.
>> The quality of the soup is directly proportional
>> to the time and effort invested that preparation.
>
>No it isnt. Real quality comes from the design, the ingredients used.
>Particularly with soup where not a shred of rocket science whatever
>is required for the actual cooking process, just the right appliance.
>
>> Proper soups *are* demanding of time and attention,
>
>Wrong.
>> despite the fact that something (barely) better than
>> canned can be produced without much time or attention.
>
>And even better than what you can produce can be too.
>
>> Not to mention I loathe crockpot soups, they're often
>> horrid because the long cooking muddies the flavors.
>
>Its just one way of doing soup without hovering over it for 24 hours continuously.
best take less than two hours of actual cooking time.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages