R.A.S.W. CHARITY MARATHON REACHES GOAL!!!

302 views
Skip to first unread message

Dreamer

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 4:32:39 PM6/16/04
to
*confetti falls, stock video of fireworks plays*

YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!

Progress Indicator (works best in monospaced font)

---> |$100.50|
|$100.00| African elephants flash-frozen, Dr. Hyde goes to movie!
|XXXXXXX|
| 90.00| Massive storm surges threaten major cities.
|XXXXXXX|
| 80.00| Unprecedented animal migrations with no apparent purpose.
|XXXXXXX|
| 70.00| (Classified.)
|XXXXXXX|
| 60.00| > 50% of netloon theories cite strange weather as "proof!"
|XXXXXXX|
| 50.00| Natural tans in England up 30%
|XXXXXXX|
| 40.00| Odd unseasonal cold snaps worldwide
|XXXXXXX|
| 30.00| Odd unseasonal heat waves worldwide.
|XXXXXXX|
| 20.00| Ice caps begin to shrink.
|XXXXXXX|
| 10.00| Ominous variations in ocean currents.
|XXXXXXX|

We are officially at 100.5% of our goal with the latest contribution! Dr.
Hyde, your destiny awaits. I have sent you under separate cover a formal
offer to accept US$100.00 to attend a full screening of "The Day After
Tomorrow." Please print it out and send it back to me as the cover letter
indicates. Everybody else, thank you! (If somebody wants, as I said, to
PayPal me a few bucks to cover costs, I would still appreciate it, but this
will be our last update.)

For those of you who'd like to participate, just PayPal your contribution to
dre...@dreamstrike.com . If you'd like to send a check, money order, or
cash, you are welcome to do so: just drop me an email and I will give you a
mailing address.

I'd like to remind everybody that *all* donations *will* be returned if we
don't get the payment to Dr. Hyde in time to see the movie in theaters. (A
poster has already identified a theater near him which is still showing it.)
However, if that happens, those who wish to leave their donations in the
fund may do so and we will buy him a Director's Cut Widescreen DVD of the
film.

D

-><-
Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema.

Bill Snyder

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 5:08:03 PM6/16/04
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:32:39 GMT, "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com>
wrote:

>*confetti falls, stock video of fireworks plays*
>
>YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!
>
>Progress Indicator (works best in monospaced font)
>
>---> |$100.50|
> |$100.00| African elephants flash-frozen, Dr. Hyde goes to movie!

Cue "What cheap b------ gave you the fifty cents?" "What do you mean?
They *all* gave me 50 cents."

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

SkyeFire

unread,
Jun 18, 2004, 3:30:47 AM6/18/04
to
In article <H72Ac.2067$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Dreamer"
<dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:

>
>YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!
>

Oh dear. We're gonna lose Hyde for good, aren't we?


Dreamer

unread,
Jun 18, 2004, 9:42:17 AM6/18/04
to

"SkyeFire" <skye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040618033047...@mb-m02.aol.com...

You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's for
Science!

Hey, he *had* his chance - could've said "I was just kidding" at any time.
He signed the paper. Who are we to tell him his life and sanity aren't his
to risk?

D

[1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this phrasing
is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this is a grim
business.


Bill Snyder

unread,
Jun 18, 2004, 10:13:05 AM6/18/04
to
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:42:17 GMT, "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com>
wrote:

>
>"SkyeFire" <skye...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040618033047...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> In article <H72Ac.2067$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>"Dreamer"
>> <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>>
>> >
>> >YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big
>Board!
>> >
>>
>> Oh dear. We're gonna lose Hyde for good, aren't we?
>
>You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's for
>Science!
>
>Hey, he *had* his chance - could've said "I was just kidding" at any time.
>He signed the paper. Who are we to tell him his life and sanity aren't his
>to risk?

ObSF: "It's neither your business, nor that of this damn'
paternalistic government, to tell a man not to risk his life doing
what he wants to do."

wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu

unread,
Jun 18, 2004, 2:09:20 PM6/18/04
to
skye...@aol.com (SkyeFire) writes:

A man's gotta see what a man's gotta see.


William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

William December Starr

unread,
Jun 19, 2004, 1:04:39 AM6/19/04
to
In article <ZiCAc.16229$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> said:

> You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's
> for Science!

> [1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this


> phrasing is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this
> is a grim business.

Was it was Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who once
cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an omelet without
killing a few people?"

--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

David Cowie

unread,
Jun 19, 2004, 12:16:18 PM6/19/04
to
> In article <ZiCAc.16229$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> said:
>
>> You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's
>> for Science!
>
Saying "It's for Science!" reminds me of the chap in _Illuminatus_ with a
sign saying "Science, pure science, and damn the first to cry 'Hold, too
much'" on the lab wall.

--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net

Containment Failure + 5230:53

John M. Gamble

unread,
Jun 19, 2004, 1:57:52 PM6/19/04
to
In article <yv7zekoc...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,

<wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>skye...@aol.com (SkyeFire) writes:
>
>> In article <H72Ac.2067$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Dreamer"
>> <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>>
>> >
>> >YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!
>> >
>>
>> Oh dear. We're gonna lose Hyde for good, aren't we?
>
> A man's gotta see what a man's gotta see.
>
>

This man is such a daredevil risk-taker, he puts movie theater butter
on his popcorn.

I salute your... what the heck *am* i saluting, anyway?

--
-john

February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.

Lee DeRaud

unread,
Jun 19, 2004, 3:39:28 PM6/19/04
to
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:57:52 +0000 (UTC), jga...@ripco.com (John M.
Gamble) wrote:

>In article <yv7zekoc...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>>skye...@aol.com (SkyeFire) writes:
>>
>>> In article <H72Ac.2067$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Dreamer"
>>> <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!
>>> >
>>>
>>> Oh dear. We're gonna lose Hyde for good, aren't we?
>>
>> A man's gotta see what a man's gotta see.
>>
>>
>
>This man is such a daredevil risk-taker, he puts movie theater butter
>on his popcorn.
>
>I salute your... what the heck *am* i saluting, anyway?

His shameless lobbying for a Darwin Award?

Lee

Danny Sichel

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 4:54:04 PM6/22/04
to
William December Starr wrote:

>>You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's
>>for Science!

>>[1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this
>>phrasing is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this
>>is a grim business.

> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who once


> cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an omelet without
> killing a few people?"

(Y'know, sometimes you make it so EASY to treat you like a galaxy-class
criminal mastermind whose brainwipe is wearing off.)

Anyway, the corollary to that axiom is that you can ruin a fuckload of
eggs without getting anything even *close* to an omelet.

David Bilek

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 5:19:10 PM6/22/04
to

Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.

-David

William December Starr

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 11:52:28 PM6/24/04
to
In article <2f8hd0p0ckvj4r2kp...@4ax.com>,
David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> said:

>>> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who
>>> once cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an

>>> omelet without killing a few people?" [wdstarr]

> Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.

Thanks. Was it one of his characters, or Gaiman speaking in his own
voice?

David Eppstein

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 12:06:32 AM6/25/04
to
In article <cbg7hs$nps$1...@panix3.panix.com>,

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> In article <2f8hd0p0ckvj4r2kp...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> said:
>
> >>> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who
> >>> once cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an
> >>> omelet without killing a few people?" [wdstarr]
>
> > Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.
>
> Thanks. Was it one of his characters, or Gaiman speaking in his own
> voice?

A Google search reveals that it was Croup, a not very pleasant character
from Neverwhere.

--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science

Scott Beeler

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 8:50:15 AM6/25/04
to
David Eppstein <epps...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> In article <cbg7hs$nps$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> > In article <2f8hd0p0ckvj4r2kp...@4ax.com>,
> > David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> said:
> >
> > >>> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who
> > >>> once cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an
> > >>> omelet without killing a few people?" [wdstarr]
> >
> > > Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.
> >
> > Thanks. Was it one of his characters, or Gaiman speaking in his own
> > voice?
>
> A Google search reveals that it was Croup, a not very pleasant character
> from Neverwhere.

ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a
minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking
an egg.

--
Scott C. Beeler scott...@home.com

Kate Secor

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 5:16:54 PM6/25/04
to
Scott Beeler wrote:

> ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a
> minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking
> an egg.

Well, depending on what you mean by "break", *I* could do that, and so
could most other people with mothers who made cakes rather than egg
salad at Easter.

Aiglet

Bill Westfield

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 2:56:01 AM6/26/04
to
> ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a
> minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking
> an egg.

Piece of cake. Later, you can do assorted crafts, or tricks, with the
still (almost) whole eggshells.

BillW

Scott Beeler

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 1:41:26 PM6/26/04
to

Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all.
And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open
ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be
more complicated.)

Kate Secor

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 2:01:30 PM6/26/04
to
Scott Beeler wrote:

Ah, no, that is more complicated. (My way involves putting two holes in
the shell, although not cracking it otherwise.)

I wonder if you could do that by shaking the egg violently while boiling it?

Aiglet

TedJ...@mindspring.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 2:25:10 PM6/26/04
to

"Scott Beeler" <scott...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:40ddb375...@news.east.cox.net...

> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all.
> And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open
> ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be
> more complicated.)

Dr. McCoy provides the biochemical information on omelet cooking,
Spock creates the theory, and Scotty does the actual engineering, by
which they put an egg in the transporter and it comes out as an intact
egg shell and a cooked omelet.


Ross TenEyck

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 2:40:21 PM6/26/04
to

Reminds me of a product we used to refer to in college, the Amazing
Ronco In-The-Shell Egg Scrambler and Home Lobotomy Kit.

It's possible the in-the-shell egg scrambler was a real device,
although I don't know for sure... I know that we all envisioned it
as a small bent wire attached to a motor; you'd make a pinhole in
the egg shell (so I guess it wouldn't meet Scott's criteria) introduce
the wire, and turn on the motor. The home lobotomy application seemed
to be an obvious extension.

--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 5:10:22 PM6/26/04
to
Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.pdti.net> writes:
>
> I wonder if you could do that by shaking the egg violently while boiling it?

I've made "in-shell scramble" exactly that way. Take egg, snap shake
it a few dozen times to break and mix the yolk and white (it's all in
the wrist), then boil as usual.

It's... interesting. Sort of a cross between scrambled and boiled egg.

You still have to break the shell to eat it, of course.

If you chew well and have a LOT of roughage in your system, you can
eat boiled eggs *with* their shell.

--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus

Lee DeRaud

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 10:20:19 PM6/26/04
to
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:01:30 -0400, Kate Secor
<aig...@nospam.pdti.net> wrote:

>Scott Beeler wrote:
>
>> Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.pdti.net> wrote:
>>
[create an omelet without breaking an egg]


>>>
>>>Well, depending on what you mean by "break", *I* could do that, and so
>>>could most other people with mothers who made cakes rather than egg
>>>salad at Easter.
>>
>> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all.
>> And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open
>> ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be
>> more complicated.)
>>
>Ah, no, that is more complicated. (My way involves putting two holes in
>the shell, although not cracking it otherwise.)
>
>I wonder if you could do that by shaking the egg violently while boiling it?

You can certainly cook an egg that way. Whether you can call it an
"omelet" or not with a straight face is another question entirely.

Lee

Bill Westfield

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 2:21:18 AM6/27/04
to
>> create an omelet without breaking an egg.
>>
> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all.
> And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open
> ready-to-eat.

Um, that wouldn't fit my definition of "omlet" in several dimensions, though.

Omlets are flat, folded, and 'fluffy' to some extent. (or perhaps very
fluffy and not folder or flat, but our particular "fluffy omlet" is more
like a cheating souflet.) There's not enough air in an egg, nor room for
enough air, to get the texture necessary for an omlet. IMO, of course.

BillW

Lee DeRaud

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 11:35:53 AM6/27/04
to
On 26 Jun 2004 23:21:18 -0700, Bill Westfield <bi...@cypher.cisco.com>
wrote:

And IMHO, if you're not going to add the extra ingredients (onion,
ham, bell pepper, cheese, etc), you might as well just make scrambled
eggs: lot less hassle.

Lee

Scott Beeler

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 12:26:04 PM6/27/04
to
Bill Westfield <bi...@cypher.cisco.com> wrote:

I agree, personally; that's just the criteria mentioned by the
character in the book (who's doing this basically on a whim anyway).

Mad Bad Rabbit

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 1:09:00 PM6/27/04
to
Bill Westfield <bi...@cypher.cisco.com> wrote:

>>> create an omelet without breaking an egg.
>> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at
>> all. And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be
>> cracked open ready-to-eat.
>
> Um, that wouldn't fit my definition of "omlet" in several dimensions,
> though.

Aha: that's how to do it. Extract the insides by moving them
through a fourth spatial dimension, then prepare the omlette
normally.

Make sure not to /rotate/ the insides while translating them
through 4-d space, so they are not turned into wrong-handed
chemical forms.


--
>;K

James Nicoll

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 1:13:54 PM6/27/04
to
In article <fMKdnaH4xf2...@texas.net>,
Or into antimatter. Antimatter would be worse.
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
Elvis, _Bubba Ho Tep_

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 2:30:05 PM6/27/04
to
In article <541xk1h...@cypher.cisco.com>,

If you allow four dimensional solutions, then you can have an omelet
in an unbroken eggshell.

Take hen's egg. Extract innards four dimensionally. Make omelet.

Have a previously emptied whole ostrich eggshell. Put omelet into
it.

The ostrich egg may be larger than necessary, and if you have access
to four dimensions, you might also have access to dinosaurs, in which
case a dramatic presentation of omelets in shells of increasing size
is feasible. You complete the circle by making micro-omelets from your
largest egg and putting them into hummingbird eggshells.

Is that decadent or what?
--
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
"I went to Iraq and all I got was this lousy gas price"
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

Steve Coltrin

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 6:42:29 AM6/28/04
to
begin Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> writes:

> If you chew well and have a LOT of roughage in your system, you can
> eat boiled eggs *with* their shell.

And then there's balut.

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWJGD?
"I secretly wept on the stairs the night [Reagan] was elected President,
because I understood that the kind of shitheads I had to listen to in the
cafeteria grew up to become voters, and won." - Tim Kreider, _The Pain_

Scott Beeler

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 8:44:56 AM6/28/04
to
Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> begin Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > If you chew well and have a LOT of roughage in your system, you can
> > eat boiled eggs *with* their shell.
>
> And then there's balut.

Urgh. Don't *do* that, I'm eating breakfast here...

Ra Ra Rosy

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 11:32:25 AM6/28/04
to
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<m2u0wyk...@amsu.blackfedora.com>...

> Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.pdti.net> writes:
> >
> > I wonder if you could do that by shaking the egg violently while boiling it?
>
> I've made "in-shell scramble" exactly that way. Take egg, snap shake
> it a few dozen times to break and mix the yolk and white (it's all in
> the wrist), then boil as usual.
>
> It's... interesting. Sort of a cross between scrambled and boiled egg.
>
> You still have to break the shell to eat it, of course.
>
> If you chew well and have a LOT of roughage in your system, you can
> eat boiled eggs *with* their shell.

I eat Pistachios with their shell on. This tends to annoy people with working ears.

Bill Westfield

unread,
Jun 29, 2004, 3:52:47 AM6/29/04
to
>> The ostrich egg may be larger than necessary

No worries; lots of birds bigger than chickens but smaller than ostrich.
An emu egg oughta be just about right ;-)

BillW

Miles Bader

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 10:04:09 PM7/18/04
to
Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@adelphia.net> writes:
> And IMHO, if you're not going to add the extra ingredients (onion,
> ham, bell pepper, cheese, etc), you might as well just make scrambled
> eggs: lot less hassle.

Yeah, but even an unadorned omelet tastes different than scrambled eggs,
though I'm not sure I can exactly say why. Perhaps "taste" is the wrong
word; maybe better say "the sensations during eating" are quite
different.

-Miles
--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come. --Nietzsche

David Eppstein

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 10:42:33 PM7/18/04
to
In article <87hds4e...@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>,
Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:

> Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@adelphia.net> writes:
> > And IMHO, if you're not going to add the extra ingredients (onion,
> > ham, bell pepper, cheese, etc), you might as well just make scrambled
> > eggs: lot less hassle.
>
> Yeah, but even an unadorned omelet tastes different than scrambled eggs,
> though I'm not sure I can exactly say why. Perhaps "taste" is the wrong
> word; maybe better say "the sensations during eating" are quite
> different.

Maybe the word you're looking for is mouthfeel?

Ross TenEyck

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 11:00:56 PM7/18/04
to
Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> writes:
>Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@adelphia.net> writes:

>> And IMHO, if you're not going to add the extra ingredients (onion,
>> ham, bell pepper, cheese, etc), you might as well just make scrambled
>> eggs: lot less hassle.

>Yeah, but even an unadorned omelet tastes different than scrambled eggs,
>though I'm not sure I can exactly say why. Perhaps "taste" is the wrong
>word; maybe better say "the sensations during eating" are quite
>different.

There seems to be variance, or possibly degradation, of terminology.
Most of the people I know who occasionally find themselves moved to
make omelets seem to mean by that "scrambled eggs with stuff in them."
Certainly it's what I mean, although since I'm usually making them
for myself, I don't have much occasion to call them anything :)

So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
stuff in them?

David Eppstein

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 11:09:59 PM7/18/04
to
In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:

> There seems to be variance, or possibly degradation, of terminology.
> Most of the people I know who occasionally find themselves moved to
> make omelets seem to mean by that "scrambled eggs with stuff in them."
> Certainly it's what I mean, although since I'm usually making them
> for myself, I don't have much occasion to call them anything :)
>
> So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
> stuff in them?

An omelet, you put the egg mixture in the pan and let cook without
stirring, then fold over. Scrambled eggs you stir while cooking. Also,
having stuff in it does not particularly distinguish one from the other,
I put stuff in scrambled eggs all the time but that doesn't make it an
omelet.

Ben Allard

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 11:28:49 PM7/18/04
to
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:

> So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
> stuff in them?

Not that it's remotely on topic, but an omelet is more like a pancake made
out of scrambled eggs... uh, in space. The only difference in how I make
them (with robots) is that after I pour the whisked eggs into the pan I let
them fry a little instead of scrambling them. Most people wait until the
omelet starts to firm, and then pour the other ingredients in the middle and
fold the omelet in half THROUGH THE FOURTH DIMENSION!

--
Ben
Mittens hide my shame -- The Library Avenger, 6/1/04 ARK

Garrett Wollman

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 11:50:08 PM7/18/04
to
In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:

>So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>stuff in them?

Texture. Properly-made scrambled eggs have extra liquid (and fat) in
them (in the form of milk or cream, usually) and are just barely
cooked with constant stirring, so they have a soft, creamy mouth feel.
A properly-made omelette, by contrast, is cooked over high heat with
minimal agitation and only a little added water, to create a light and
slightly papery envelope for the flavoring ingredients. Scrambled
eggs are the dish; the eggs in an omelette are but tasty packaging.

Of course, the difference between a badly-made omelette and badly-made
scrambled eggs with or without stuff in them is that the the cook has
made a pretense at folding the "omelette". As a quick and cheap
breakfast dish there's nothing wrong with that -- just please call it
for what it is.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)

Luke Webber

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 12:19:02 AM7/19/04
to
David Eppstein wrote:
> In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>
>
>>There seems to be variance, or possibly degradation, of terminology.
>>Most of the people I know who occasionally find themselves moved to
>>make omelets seem to mean by that "scrambled eggs with stuff in them."
>>Certainly it's what I mean, although since I'm usually making them
>>for myself, I don't have much occasion to call them anything :)
>>
>>So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>>stuff in them?
>
> An omelet, you put the egg mixture in the pan and let cook without
> stirring, then fold over. Scrambled eggs you stir while cooking. Also,
> having stuff in it does not particularly distinguish one from the other,
> I put stuff in scrambled eggs all the time but that doesn't make it an
> omelet.

Another difference, at least in Australia, is that you generally add
milk to scrambled eggs, but never to an omelette.

And yes, that's the way we generally spell it here. <g>

Luke

Arednuk

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 12:40:21 AM7/19/04
to
David Eppstein epps...@ics.uci.edu wrote:
>>In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:

>> There seems to be variance, or possibly degradation, of terminology.
>> Most of the people I know who occasionally find themselves moved to
>> make omelets seem to mean by that "scrambled eggs with stuff in them."
>> Certainly it's what I mean, although since I'm usually making them
>> for myself, I don't have much occasion to call them anything :)
>
>> So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>> stuff in them?

> An omelet, you put the egg mixture in the pan and let cook without
> stirring, then fold over. Scrambled eggs you stir while cooking. Also,
> having stuff in it does not particularly distinguish one from the other,
> I put stuff in scrambled eggs all the time but that doesn't make it an
> omelet.

The restaurant I breakfast at nearly every weekend has a section headed
"Scrambles" on the menu. "Artichoke and feta scramble", "ham and cheese
scramble", and so on. Omelets are listed in a separate section, and some of
the offered omelets match the list of ingredients in some of the offered
scrambles. The difference is, of course, the preparation, as explained quite
well above, and the preparation is important enough to make a distinction
between scrambles and omelets.

--
Christina (who prefers scrambles)

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 12:44:45 AM7/19/04
to
wol...@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes:

> In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>>stuff in them?
>
> Texture. Properly-made scrambled eggs have extra liquid (and fat) in
> them (in the form of milk or cream, usually) and are just barely
> cooked with constant stirring, so they have a soft, creamy mouth feel.
> A properly-made omelette, by contrast, is cooked over high heat with
> minimal agitation and only a little added water, to create a light and
> slightly papery envelope for the flavoring ingredients. Scrambled
> eggs are the dish; the eggs in an omelette are but tasty packaging.
>
> Of course, the difference between a badly-made omelette and badly-made
> scrambled eggs with or without stuff in them is that the the cook has
> made a pretense at folding the "omelette". As a quick and cheap
> breakfast dish there's nothing wrong with that -- just please call it
> for what it is.

But it has no name. It's neither real scrambled eggs, nor a real
omelette. It *should* have a name, since it's a perfectly reasonable
dish, and very common.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

r.r...@thevine.net

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 1:31:57 AM7/19/04
to
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 03:00:56 +0000 (UTC), ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu
(Ross TenEyck) wrote:

>Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> writes:
>>Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@adelphia.net> writes:
>
>>> And IMHO, if you're not going to add the extra ingredients (onion,
>>> ham, bell pepper, cheese, etc), you might as well just make scrambled
>>> eggs: lot less hassle.
>
>>Yeah, but even an unadorned omelet tastes different than scrambled eggs,
>>though I'm not sure I can exactly say why. Perhaps "taste" is the wrong
>>word; maybe better say "the sensations during eating" are quite
>>different.
>
>There seems to be variance, or possibly degradation, of terminology.
>Most of the people I know who occasionally find themselves moved to
>make omelets seem to mean by that "scrambled eggs with stuff in them."
>Certainly it's what I mean, although since I'm usually making them
>for myself, I don't have much occasion to call them anything :)
>
>So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>stuff in them?

Quite a lot, actually. First, there are at least three varieties of
omelets, French (or folded), flat (frittata), and souffleed. Most
people in America mean the folded omelet when talking about omelets,
so we'll go with that. Then, the major difference between an omelet
and scrambled eggs is the temperature and timing. Scrambled eggs
should be cooked over low heat to develop small, even light curds.
Omelets are cooked quickly over high heat in order to cook the tops
without having the bottoms turn into dry, tough skins.

A souffleed omelet is actually quite tasty, but sweet. Serve with
jelly. The idea takes some getting used to, but the results are
great.

Rebecca

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 11:21:08 AM7/19/04
to
In article <40fd57c7...@news.thevine.net>, <r.r...@thevine.net> wrote:
>
>A souffleed omelet is actually quite tasty, but sweet. Serve with
>jelly. The idea takes some getting used to, but the results are
>great.

I've had spinach soufflee that wasn't sweetened. Imho, a soufflee is
is a baked egg dish with a *lot* of air in it. (There may be other
distinguishing characteristics, but sweetness isn't one of them.)

Eric Tolle

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 1:22:55 PM7/19/04
to
wol...@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote in message news:<cdfgdg$1kc3$1...@grapevine.lcs.mit.edu>...

> In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
> >stuff in them?
>
> Texture. Properly-made scrambled eggs have extra liquid (and fat) in
> them (in the form of milk or cream, usually) and are just barely
> cooked with constant stirring, so they have a soft, creamy mouth feel.
> A properly-made omelette, by contrast, is cooked over high heat with
> minimal agitation and only a little added water, to create a light and
> slightly papery envelope for the flavoring ingredients. Scrambled
> eggs are the dish; the eggs in an omelette are but tasty packaging.

The difference when I prepare an omlette is largelyin the
preparation. For scrambled eggs, I add ingredients (sour cream,
uncooked mushrooms and green onions, cooked sausage, etc.) in
with the uncooked eggs. For omlettes, I prepare the fillings
beforehand and only put herbs and seasonings in with the beaten
eggs.

In omlette preparation I run a fork around the edge of the
omlette to lift the edges and let yolk run below. Because I
dislike runny eggs, I cook the omlette for the miniumum time to
allow the eggs to set, then flip it. While the outside is
cooking, I can arrange the filling.

Scrambled eggs on the other hand, I basically just keep stirring
until they're cooked. Scrambleds are pretty much a quick way to
prepare eggs- omlettes I do when I want to impress somebody.

- Eric Tolle

Craig Richardson

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 2:08:31 PM7/19/04
to
On 19 Jul 2004 03:28:49 GMT, Ben Allard <ben.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

>ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>
>> So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>> stuff in them?
>
>Not that it's remotely on topic, but an omelet is more like a pancake made
>out of scrambled eggs... uh, in space.

There's actually something of a continuum[1] from "crepe" on the
"pancake" side to "omelet" on the "eggs" side, which are cooked
somewhat similarly and deployed somewhat less so (it's possible,
though not common, to roll an omelet, and similarly to fold a crepe),
varying primarily in the egg/flour ratio.

--Craig

[1] "Continuum" is a fairly SFnal word, especially in a
non-explicitly-SFnal context...


--
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
"At this point, waiting for a [Brett Tomko] turnaround is an act of
blind faith equivalent to eating McSushi."
--Steven Goldman in Baseball Prospectus (2004-06-09)

Craig Richardson

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 2:08:31 PM7/19/04
to
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:21:08 GMT, na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy
Lebovitz) wrote:

>In article <40fd57c7...@news.thevine.net>, <r.r...@thevine.net> wrote:
>>
>>A souffleed omelet is actually quite tasty, but sweet. Serve with
>>jelly. The idea takes some getting used to, but the results are
>>great.
>
>I've had spinach soufflee that wasn't sweetened. Imho, a soufflee is
>is a baked egg dish with a *lot* of air in it. (There may be other
>distinguishing characteristics, but sweetness isn't one of them.)

I don't know what I'd do without my google. Seems that a souffled
omelet is assembled like a souffle (additional egg whites), cooked
like a frittata (flat in a skillet, started on stovetop and finished
in oven), and finished like an omelet (the whole thing folded over the
other ingredients).

Apparently can be either sweet or savory, like a souffle.

--Craig

Konrad Gaertner

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 2:55:58 PM7/19/04
to
Craig Richardson wrote:
>
> On 19 Jul 2004 03:28:49 GMT, Ben Allard <ben.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
> >
> >> So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
> >> stuff in them?
> >
> >Not that it's remotely on topic, but an omelet is more like a pancake made
> >out of scrambled eggs... uh, in space.
>
> There's actually something of a continuum[1] from "crepe" on the
> "pancake" side to "omelet" on the "eggs" side, which are cooked
> somewhat similarly and deployed somewhat less so (it's possible,
> though not common, to roll an omelet, and similarly to fold a crepe),
> varying primarily in the egg/flour ratio.

My favorite dish is something called "omeleten"[1]. It's basically
a very thin and flexible dinner plate sized pancake that you spread
jelly on and roll up. It is thinner and more flexible than crepes
I've seen in restaurants.

[1] I've never seen it spelled, nor heard it used outside my
immediate family.


--KG

cambias

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 7:15:21 PM7/19/04
to
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40FC1A66...@worldnet.att.net>...

> My favorite dish is something called "omeleten"[1]. It's basically
> a very thin and flexible dinner plate sized pancake that you spread
> jelly on and roll up. It is thinner and more flexible than crepes
> I've seen in restaurants.
>
> [1] I've never seen it spelled, nor heard it used outside my
> immediate family.
>

ObSF: The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelets, by James Tiptree.

Cambias

David Silberstein

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 7:29:51 PM7/19/04
to
In article <f4be6c44.04071...@posting.google.com>,

You got the author and title wrong. ISFDB says:

The Ones Who Pickaback Away from Omelets Ruth Berman


Mark Reichert

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 8:34:22 PM7/19/04
to
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote in message news:<cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>...

> So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
> stuff in them?

http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season7/EA1G03.htm

Read the transcript available by the link on this page.

For the basic dishes and foods that are the foundation of our meals,
you can't go wrong watching Good Eats, or in this case reading.

how...@brazee.net

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 9:53:28 PM7/19/04
to

On 18-Jul-2004, Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:

> Another difference, at least in Australia, is that you generally add
> milk to scrambled eggs, but never to an omelette.

I've never added milk to scrambled eggs. Omelets are mixed before
cooking, scrambled eggs are mixed while cooking. Omelets are closer to
souffles.

how...@brazee.net

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 9:56:44 PM7/19/04
to
It's funny how tastes vary. To me, when I see someone spreading on loads
of jam on whatever Brits have with tea makes me very, very glad to not be
British. It works in movies to remind me how alien the characters are -
even if it is a BBC production designed for a British audience.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,
Jul 19, 2004, 10:28:24 PM7/19/04
to
how...@brazee.net writes:

The classic scrambled egg recipe involves adding milk or cream, and
sometimes even butter, to the egg mixture, and then cooking very
slowly in a double-boiler while stirring constantly.

The results of this are very little like what you get cooking some
mixed egg innards quickly on the grill, which is what nearly any
restaurant will produce these days. There needs to be some other name
for this; it's a perfectly fine way to cook eggs, but it's so
different from "scrambled" that it really shouldn't have the same
name. (I imagine it developed as a quick-and-dirty expedient for
cheap restaurants.)

Ross TenEyck

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 12:04:08 AM7/20/04
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>how...@brazee.net writes:
>> On 18-Jul-2004, Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:

>>> Another difference, at least in Australia, is that you generally add
>>> milk to scrambled eggs, but never to an omelette.

>> I've never added milk to scrambled eggs. Omelets are mixed before
>> cooking, scrambled eggs are mixed while cooking. Omelets are closer to
>> souffles.

>The classic scrambled egg recipe involves adding milk or cream, and
>sometimes even butter, to the egg mixture, and then cooking very
>slowly in a double-boiler while stirring constantly.

Really? Wow. I knew about the concept of adding milk, not that
I ever do myself; but I'd never heard of cooking them in a double
boiler. That seems like way too much work, personally :)

What I do is crack a couple of eggs into a bowl, maybe grate in
a bit of cheese or chop up a bit of ham if I'm feeling fancy, beat
the eggs, and then cook them in a skillet with a dab of butter over
medium heat until just before they're as done as I want them (they
keep cooking for a short while after you take them off the heat;
oddly enough, I owe that observation to one of the Saint stories.)

>The results of this are very little like what you get cooking some
>mixed egg innards quickly on the grill, which is what nearly any
>restaurant will produce these days. There needs to be some other name
>for this; it's a perfectly fine way to cook eggs, but it's so
>different from "scrambled" that it really shouldn't have the same
>name. (I imagine it developed as a quick-and-dirty expedient for
>cheap restaurants.)

At this point, I think "scrambled" in the minds of most people means
the mixed-egg-innards-cooked-onna-grill, and if we're going to invent
a word, it should apply to the eggs-'n'-milk-cooked-very-slowly thing.

loki

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 7:11:26 AM7/20/04
to

"Ross TenEyck" <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:cdi5jo$7aa$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
[...]

> >The classic scrambled egg recipe

Who gets to determine this?

> > involves adding milk or cream, and
> >sometimes even butter, to the egg mixture, and then cooking very
> >slowly in a double-boiler while stirring constantly.
>
> Really? Wow. I knew about the concept of adding milk, not that
> I ever do myself; but I'd never heard of cooking them in a double
> boiler. That seems like way too much work, personally :)
>
> What I do is crack a couple of eggs into a bowl, maybe grate in
> a bit of cheese or chop up a bit of ham if I'm feeling fancy, beat
> the eggs, and then cook them in a skillet with a dab of butter over
> medium heat until just before they're as done as I want them (they
> keep cooking for a short while after you take them off the heat;
> oddly enough, I owe that observation to one of the Saint stories.)

My classic [read familial] method for [1] scrambled eggs is milk and a
little salt & pepper mixed in a bowl and continuously mixed in the frying
pan.

For [2] omelettes: milk, salt & pepper and any other ingredients [
mushroom, ham, onion, green pepper, whatever you're preference] and any
other spices mixed in a bowl then _not_ mixed in the pan. Cheese, if
included, is added only after the omelette has solidified and is allowed to
melt in the fold.

Spanish omelettes followed a somewhat different paradigm.

--
'People think I am insane because I am frowning all the time.'
'All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy.'
-black sabbath


David Tate

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 8:51:33 AM7/20/04
to
r.r...@thevine.net wrote in message news:<40fd57c7...@news.thevine.net>...

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 03:00:56 +0000 (UTC), ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu
> (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>
> >So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
> >stuff in them?
>
> Quite a lot, actually. First, there are at least three varieties of
> omelets, French (or folded), flat (frittata), and souffleed.

Oddly, what most people in this thread have described so far is none
of the above.

> Most
> people in America mean the folded omelet when talking about omelets,
> so we'll go with that. Then, the major difference between an omelet
> and scrambled eggs is the temperature and timing. Scrambled eggs
> should be cooked over low heat to develop small, even light curds.
> Omelets are cooked quickly over high heat in order to cook the tops
> without having the bottoms turn into dry, tough skins.

No.

The essential feature of an omelet is not that it is folded; the
essential feature is that it is *layered*. A very thin layer of egg
is allowed to cook, then it is lifted[1] to allow more runny egg
underneath, which then cooks, and is in turn lifted, etc. If you do
not do this, you are not making an omelet.

The thing that cooks in place until the bottom is not-quite-rubbery is
a frittata. You may fold your frittata around stuff, if you so
choose, but that doesn't make it an omelet.

[1]The lifting is traditionally done by cooking in quite a bit of
butter and/or oil, while oscillating the pan violently forward and
back, parallel to the heating surface. It takes quite a bit of arm
strength and endurance, especially if you're using cast iron
(enamelled or otherwise). It can also make a lot of noise, depending
on what kind of cooktop you have. A nonstick pan, if you can find one
heavy enough, helps a lot.

As at least one person here has noted, you can also lift the edges of
the cooking omelet with a fork or spatula, to let the egg mixture run
underneath. This is less even, requires you to make thicker (and
tougher) individual layers, and generally fails to reach the center of
the omelet -- but it takes a lot less strength and endurance.

David Tate

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 9:38:16 AM7/20/04
to

And for an actual sf mention of an omelet:

"By the way, what did you think of the object lesson?"
"I don't know what else you could have done," Hamilton declared. "You
can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
"'You can't make an--' Say, that's a good one!" McFee laughed and dug
him in the ribs. "Did you make it up, or hear it somewhere?"
Hamilton shrugged. He promised himself that he would cut off McFee's
ears for that dig in the ribs--after all this was over.

_Beyond This Horizon_, Heinlein

IIRC, Heinlein also has characters in _I Will Fear No Evil_ putting together
some scrambled eggs from odds and ends in the kitchen.

Jo'Asia

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 10:33:42 AM7/20/04
to
loki wrote:

> My classic [read familial] method for [1] scrambled eggs is milk and a
> little salt & pepper mixed in a bowl and continuously mixed in the frying
> pan.

Add a different one to the list:

Melt some butter on the frying pan, add whole (non-mixed) eggs, some milk,
salt and pepper, mix without breaking the yolks until the whites are set,
then break the yolks and mix for a short time. Enjoy. :)

Jo'Asia

--
__.-=-. Joanna Slupek http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ .-=-.__
--<()> (Add one 'l' to 'hel' when replying by e-mail) <()>--
.__.'| ..................................................... |'.__.
Aah, arrogance and stupidity, both in one package. How very efficient of you.

raymond larsson

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 11:50:46 AM7/20/04
to
In article <cdi5jo$7aa$1...@naig.caltech.edu>, Ross TenEyck says...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:

> >The classic scrambled egg recipe involves adding milk or cream, and
> >sometimes even butter, to the egg mixture, and then cooking very
> >slowly in a double-boiler while stirring constantly.

This is how a soft or stirred custard is cooked; scrambled eggs are
scrambled (made confused) in a pan or on a griddle. Generally at home the
eggs were broken into the hot pan.

Brian McGuinness

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 1:18:22 PM7/20/04
to
Ben Allard <ben.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns952AEE9FFD...@130.133.1.4>...

> ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>
> > So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
> > stuff in them?
>
> Not that it's remotely on topic, but an omelet is more like a pancake made
> out of scrambled eggs... uh, in space. The only difference in how I make
> them (with robots) is that after I pour the whisked eggs into the pan I let
> them fry a little instead of scrambling them. Most people wait until the
> omelet starts to firm, and then pour the other ingredients in the middle and
> fold the omelet in half THROUGH THE FOURTH DIMENSION!

I prefer my omelets (and my scrambled eggs) without robots in them.
That way, they're not so hard on the teeth.

Bacon and peppers add a nice flavor, however.

Also, if you rotate the omelet through the fourth dimension so that the
molecules have the opposite handedness, then you won't gain as much
weight from eating them. But you have to wait until the egg is relatively
firm before you can manipulate it this way.

--- Brian

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 1:39:37 PM7/20/04
to
"loki" <nolo...@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Ross TenEyck" <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:cdi5jo$7aa$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
> [...]
>> >The classic scrambled egg recipe
>
> Who gets to determine this?

History. It was in use far before the grill thing, so far as I can
tell.

loki

unread,
Jul 20, 2004, 2:03:40 PM7/20/04
to

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2vfgiv...@gw.dd-b.net...

> "loki" <nolo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Ross TenEyck" <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cdi5jo$7aa$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> >> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
> > [...]
> >> >The classic scrambled egg recipe
> >
> > Who gets to determine this?

> History. It was in use far before the grill thing, so far as I can
> tell.

A double boiler existed before a frying pan?

But I also wondered about how you could claim the inclusion of milk or
cream and sometimes even butter is _The_ classic recipe. I admit my
historical eggstract denotes the inclusion of milk but I would not presme
to call it _The_ classic recipe.

[...]