Recipe
MAS
territory. When an oatmeal cookie recipe calls for 2 cups of oatmeal,
does it mean quick cooking oats or regular oats? If it calls for
chocolate chips, do I use unsweetened or sweetened? Muchos gracias.
Marsha
Jean B.
Usually regular oats; sometimes old-fashioned. Chips are
sweetened--usually semisweet chocolate.
--
Jean B.
Lou
"MAS" <m...@bbbb.net> wrote in message news:i4sfjh$q08$1...@news.datemas.de...
The oatmeal probably doesn't make much difference. The chips, I'd use
semi-sweet. But if you can't tell from the recipe, I'd use another recipe.
The Real Bev
BLASPHEMY! It just hit me that the discussion involves putting
chocolate chips in oatmeal cookies. WRONGWRONGWRONG! You put raisins
and walnuts in oatmeal cookies, and you follow the recipe on the Quaker
package. NEVER chocolate chips.
Chocolate chip cookies are completely different and should NOT be made
with oatmeal. I think I'd use semi-sweet chocolate AND toasted almonds
in CC cookies.
--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================
"Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion."
The Real Bev
>
> The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>BLASPHEMY! It just hit me that the discussion involves putting
>>chocolate chips in oatmeal cookies. WRONGWRONGWRONG! You put raisins
>>and walnuts in oatmeal cookies, and you follow the recipe on the Quaker
>>package. NEVER chocolate chips.
>>
>>Chocolate chip cookies are completely different and should NOT be made
>>with oatmeal. I think I'd use semi-sweet chocolate AND toasted almonds
>>in CC cookies.
> Thank you for that. I thought I was the only one mystified.
> Although, I do have some questions about the almonds....
Chocolate is good, right? And it's better with toasted almonds...
--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax that man behind the tree.
MAS
> BLASPHEMY! It just hit me that the discussion involves putting chocolate
> chips in oatmeal cookies. WRONGWRONGWRONG! You put raisins and walnuts
> in oatmeal cookies, and you follow the recipe on the Quaker package.
> NEVER chocolate chips.
>
> Chocolate chip cookies are completely different and should NOT be made
> with oatmeal. I think I'd use semi-sweet chocolate AND toasted almonds
> in CC cookies.
>
What better way to get the best of both cookies? DH doesn't like
walnuts and I don't like raisins, so we looked for a recipe with
chocolate chips. There are tons of them out there. Yummy!
Marsha
Michael Black
> On 08/23/10 05:16, Lou wrote:
>
>> "MAS"<m...@bbbb.net> wrote in message news:i4sfjh$q08$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>> I don't bake much. As a matter of fact, the kitchen is foreign territory.
>>> When an oatmeal cookie recipe calls for 2 cups of oatmeal, does it mean
>>> quick cooking oats or regular oats? If it calls for chocolate chips, do I
>>> use unsweetened or sweetened? Muchos gracias.
>>
>> The oatmeal probably doesn't make much difference. The chips, I'd use
>> semi-sweet. But if you can't tell from the recipe, I'd use another recipe.
>
> BLASPHEMY! It just hit me that the discussion involves putting chocolate
> chips in oatmeal cookies. WRONGWRONGWRONG! You put raisins and walnuts in
> oatmeal cookies, and you follow the recipe on the Quaker package. NEVER
> chocolate chips.
>
Well they aren't making chocolate chip cookies, they are making oatmeal
cookies, and making them more palatable by adding chocolate chips.
You're right about the recipe on the oats. Once you find a pack with
the recipe, you can be sure the oats in the container are suitable for
making oatmeal cookies, and who would know better about making such
cookies than a company that makes oatmeal?
Michael
The Real Bev
This may be a religious issue, in which case there is no REAL solution.
Perhaps you can make one big batch of cookie dough, divide it into
parts, and add raisins to one, chocolate chips to another, etc. Then
there would be no "YOU ATE THE LAST COOKIE!" issues.
I think the recipe on the package of Toll House morsels (or whatever the
hell they call them) is that gold standard for CCC.
--
Cheers, Bev
It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping.
MAS
> This may be a religious issue, in which case there is no REAL solution.
> Perhaps you can make one big batch of cookie dough, divide it into
> parts, and add raisins to one, chocolate chips to another, etc. Then
> there would be no "YOU ATE THE LAST COOKIE!" issues.
Well, I just won't offer you any, since it's against your religion...
> I think the recipe on the package of Toll House morsels (or whatever the
> hell they call them) is that gold standard for CCC.
>
Agreed - the best CCC in the world.
Marsha
Susan Bugher
>> On 8/23/2010 1:31 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> BLASPHEMY! It just hit me that the discussion involves putting
>>> chocolate
>>> chips in oatmeal cookies. WRONGWRONGWRONG! You put raisins and walnuts
>>> in oatmeal cookies, and you follow the recipe on the Quaker package.
>>> NEVER chocolate chips.
> This may be a religious issue, in which case there is no REAL solution.
> Perhaps you can make one big batch of cookie dough, divide it into
> parts, and add raisins to one, chocolate chips to another, etc. Then
> there would be no "YOU ATE THE LAST COOKIE!" issues.
>
> I think the recipe on the package of Toll House morsels (or whatever the
> hell they call them) is that gold standard for CCC.
re "BLASPHEMY!", "religious issue" and "gold standard" ISTM there are
more appropriate newsgroups if you want to have a "best cookie" war. ;)
Wikipedia has a history and an alternate history of the chocolate chip
cookie.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_chip_cookie>
and this web page claims the recipe it's showing is for the "Original
Nestle® Toll House® Chocolate Chip Cookies".
<http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/original-nestle-toll-house-chocolate-chip-cookies/Detail.aspx>
re frugal-living: skip the nuts, use half the amount of chocolate chips
if you want to cut costs. You may or may not like the variation better
than the original recipe. . .
FWIW I like this fairly frugal recipe for "Chocolate Chip Oatmeal
Cookies" from Woman's Day.
yield: 4 trays of 20 (about 6 doz.) (amounts given are for double the
original recipe)
375 F for 12 minutes - greased cookie sheet
Cream together:
1 c. butter or margerine
1 1/2 c. packed brown sugar
Beat in:
2 eggs
Stir in:
2 1/2 c. quick cooking oatmeal
1 1/2 c. flour
1 1/2 tsp. baking soda
1 c. chocolate chips (1 c.=6 oz.)
Drop on greased cookie sheet and bake.
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
Dennis
<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think the recipe on the package of Toll House morsels (or whatever the
>hell they call them) is that gold standard for CCC.
Agreed, and no ingredient substitutions allowed! Follow the recipe to
the letter. And when they are done, enjoy your cookies with a nice
hoppy IPA to wash them down. mmm...
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
The Real Bev
> re frugal-living: skip the nuts, use half the amount of chocolate
> chips if you want to cut costs. You may or may not like the variation
> better than the original recipe. . .
Words fail me. One should NEVER economize by cheaping out on an
inexpensive luxury. Save the dollar where it won't affect your life --
DON'T make the stupid rice crispies squares, which end up costing more
than decent chocolate.
Take shorter showers.
Skip the ice cream cone.
Steal office supplies from work -- most are fungible and once in your
purse/pocket they're yours.
Buy REAL oatmeal instead of those instant packets; It only takes a
minute longer unless you like gooey oatmeal.
Use the 'dead' batteries from your mp3 player or camera in a flashlight,
whose requirements are less stringent.
Buy used whenever possible -- and it's generally more possible than most
people think.
But you already knew all this, right? :-)
--
Cheers, Bev
=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
you're a madman." --Futurama
Susan Bugher
> On 08/24/10 11:47, Susan Bugher wrote:
>> re frugal-living: skip the nuts, use half the amount of chocolate
>> chips if you want to cut costs. You may or may not like the variation
>> better than the original recipe. . .
> Words fail me. One should NEVER economize by cheaping out on an
> inexpensive luxury. Save the dollar where it won't affect your life --
> DON'T make the stupid rice crispies squares, which end up costing more
> than decent chocolate.
>
> Take shorter showers.
>
> Skip the ice cream cone.
>
> Steal office supplies from work -- most are fungible and once in your
> purse/pocket they're yours.
>
> Buy REAL oatmeal instead of those instant packets; It only takes a
> minute longer unless you like gooey oatmeal.
>
> Use the 'dead' batteries from your mp3 player or camera in a flashlight,
> whose requirements are less stringent.
>
> Buy used whenever possible -- and it's generally more possible than most
> people think.
>
> But you already knew all this, right? :-)
Nope, I didn't know some of the ways *YOU* prefer to economize as listed
above. You said: "Save the dollar where it won't affect your life". I
agree but. . .
*I* like long hot showers (luckily I'm currently living in a water rich
area). *YOU* said one should "NEVER" give up an "inexpensive luxury" yet
short showers are on *YOUR* list of ways to economize. Perhaps that's a
luxury *YOU* find it easy to forgo.
*I* prefer chocolate chip cookies with more dough, fewer chips. That
suggestion seemed to horrify *YOU* but that economy improves *MY*
quality of life. :)
IMNSHO frugal living is NOT a set of rules. One size does NOT fit all.
Frugal living is a mind set -> is there a more frugal way to do
something? Are the tradeoffs (if any) acceptable to me?
YMMV of course. ;)
Susan
h
"Susan Bugher" <sebu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8dksl3...@mid.individual.net...
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 08/24/10 11:47, Susan Bugher wrote:
>
>>> re frugal-living: skip the nuts, use half the amount of chocolate
>>> chips if you want to cut costs. You may or may not like the variation
>>> better than the original recipe. . .
>
>> Words fail me. One should NEVER economize by cheaping out on an
>> inexpensive luxury. Save the dollar where it won't affect your life --
>
> Frugal living is a mind set -> is there a more frugal way to do something?
> Are the tradeoffs (if any) acceptable to me?
>
my skin dries out quickly in hot water, so long showers are right out.
However, I refuse to drink low-quality alcohol. I have a friend who buys box
wine because it's cheap, and she says she doesn't like it! Huh? I just don't
get why she drinks it. Why not spend the same amount on the good stuff and
just drink less of it?
Susan Bugher
> "Susan Bugher" <sebu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8dksl3...@mid.individual.net...
>> IMNSHO frugal living is NOT a set of rules. One size does NOT fit all.
>> Frugal living is a mind set -> is there a more frugal way to do something?
>> Are the tradeoffs (if any) acceptable to me?
> Agreed. I couldn't care less about chocolate (don't eat wheat or sugar) and
> my skin dries out quickly in hot water, so long showers are right out.
Making it very easy for you to economize on those things. :)
> However, I refuse to drink low-quality alcohol. I have a friend who buys box
> wine because it's cheap, and she says she doesn't like it! Huh? I just don't
> get why she drinks it. Why not spend the same amount on the good stuff and
> just drink less of it?
Dunno, have you asked her? If she doesn't like the taste of the wine she
buys the only *guess* that occurs to me is that she does like the
effect. Less wine would produce less effect => advice on the least
expensive ways to get snockered might be helpful. <grin>
Susan
h
tastes. She clearly has some masochistic tendencies...Give me one or two
REALLY good glasses of something once a week, and I'm fine. I could drink
half a box of crap wine every day (well...no, I'm sure I couldn't) and still
be unsatisfied. I just don't get it. She says it's about money, but I can't
see how it really is.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>"Susan Bugher" <sebu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8dksl3...@mid.individual.net...
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 08/24/10 11:47, Susan Bugher wrote:
>>
>>>> re frugal-living: skip the nuts, use half the amount of chocolate
>>>> chips if you want to cut costs. You may or may not like the variation
>>>> better than the original recipe. . .
>>
>>> Words fail me. One should NEVER economize by cheaping out on an
>>> inexpensive luxury. Save the dollar where it won't affect your life --
>>
>> IMNSHO frugal living is NOT a set of rules. One size does NOT fit all.
>> Frugal living is a mind set -> is there a more frugal way to do something?
>> Are the tradeoffs (if any) acceptable to me?
>>
>Agreed. I couldn't care less about chocolate (don't eat wheat or sugar) and
>my skin dries out quickly in hot water, so long showers are right out.
Dry skin and other maladies are an indication of not enough wheat,
sugar or fat in the diet.
Eat a half dozen sweet rolls or jelly donuts every week.
If that doesn't work, add more pork roast to your diet.
That'll get your skin healthy and allow for normal hygiene.
>However, I refuse to drink low-quality alcohol. I have a friend who buys box
>wine because it's cheap, and she says she doesn't like it! Huh? I just don't
>get why she drinks it. Why not spend the same amount on the good stuff and
>just drink less of it?
>
I totally agree with you.
I drink a few bottles of Hacker-Pschorr Weis Brau (wheat beer) a week,
and it's not a cheap beer.
Don't want any part of Budweiser or Shlitz.
And you're right on the mark about the wine.
From a frugal standpoint, if your friend is drinking 8-10 gallons of
wine a week, the more expensive wine can plain break the bank.
Better to do as you say and drink just 4-5 gallons of a better wine at
twice the price but enjoy it more.
Keep in mind though, excessive alcohol consumption can cause dry skin.
And even good wine has tannins that get the skin all prune-like and
dried up.
A few good wheat beers a week is all-around better for your health
than drinking all that wine.
Most people who tend to whiskeys and wines are latent alcoholics, so
keep an eye on your consumption and don't let your appetite for
alcohol get the best of you.
From a quick glance at what I see above, it looks likes you're at the
4-5 gallon a week consumption point.
Might be time to take a sober look at that.
On the subject of Toll House chocolate chip cookies, I changed that
recipe early on.
I won't tell exactly how, except to say the chip and egg amounts,
white/brown sugar ratio and baking soda are all tweaked.
And I use a quality high-gluten flour. King Arthur.
Those cookies have gotten nothing but rave reviews from me.
It should go without saying that without walnuts Toll House cookies
are worthless.
Unfortunately for America, I had to say it.
--Vic
Vic Smith
wrote:
>>
>Nope. She only drinks a glass or two a week. And bitches about how crappy it
>tastes. She clearly has some masochistic tendencies...Give me one or two
>REALLY good glasses of something once a week, and I'm fine. I could drink
>half a box of crap wine every day (well...no, I'm sure I couldn't) and still
>be unsatisfied. I just don't get it. She says it's about money, but I can't
>see how it really is.
>
Just want to apologize for suggesting you might have a drinking
problem in a post I just made.
You're saying here you don't drink much.
That's not what I understood from the previous post.
Glad you've made the effort to clear that up.
--Vic
Susan Bugher
>> h wrote:
>>> However, I refuse to drink low-quality alcohol. I have a friend who buys
>>> box wine because it's cheap, and she says she doesn't like it! Huh? I
>>> just don't get why she drinks it. Why not spend the same amount on the
>>> good stuff and just drink less of it?
>> Dunno, have you asked her? If she doesn't like the taste of the wine she
>> buys the only *guess* that occurs to me is that she does like the effect.
>> Less wine would produce less effect => advice on the least expensive ways
>> to get snockered might be helpful. <grin>
> Nope. She only drinks a glass or two a week. And bitches about how crappy it
> tastes. She clearly has some masochistic tendencies...Give me one or two
> REALLY good glasses of something once a week, and I'm fine. I could drink
> half a box of crap wine every day (well...no, I'm sure I couldn't) and still
> be unsatisfied. I just don't get it. She says it's about money, but I can't
> see how it really is.
"It's about money" includes personal quirks about money. It sounds as if
your friend has a thing about apending much for wine. I think such
quirks are very common (I know I have some) - handreds for "this" is
okay, one dollar for "that" is highway robbery!!! If you think about it
the next time you're out shopping you may find you have a few quirks of
your own. ;)
Susan