R.A.S.W. CHARITY MARATHON REACHES GOAL!!!
Dreamer
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
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|
> |$100.00| African elephants flash-frozen, Dr. Hyde goes to movie!
Cue "What cheap b------ gave you the fifty cents?" "What do you mean?
They *all* gave me 50 cents."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
SkyeFire
<dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
>YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!
>
Oh dear. We're gonna lose Hyde for good, aren't we?
Dreamer
"SkyeFire" <skye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040618033047...@mb-m02.aol.com...
You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's for
Science!
Hey, he *had* his chance - could've said "I was just kidding" at any time.
He signed the paper. Who are we to tell him his life and sanity aren't his
to risk?
D
[1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this phrasing
is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this is a grim
business.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>
>"SkyeFire" <skye...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040618033047...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> In article <H72Ac.2067$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
A man's gotta see what a man's gotta see.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
William December Starr
"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
> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> said:
>
>> You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's
>> for Science!
>
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
<wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>skye...@aol.com (SkyeFire) writes:
>
>> In article <H72Ac.2067$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Dreamer"
>> <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>>
>> >
>> >YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!
>> >
>>
>> Oh dear. We're gonna lose Hyde for good, aren't we?
>
> A man's gotta see what a man's gotta see.
>
>
This man is such a daredevil risk-taker, he puts movie theater butter
on his popcorn.
I salute your... what the heck *am* i saluting, anyway?
--
-john
February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
Lee DeRaud
Gamble) wrote:
>In article <yv7zekoc...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>>skye...@aol.com (SkyeFire) writes:
>>
>>> In article <H72Ac.2067$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
>>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
Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.
-David
William December Starr
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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
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
"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
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
>
> 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
<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
>>
> 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
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
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
>>> 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
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
Elvis, _Bubba Ho Tep_
Nancy Lebovitz
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
No worries; lots of birds bigger than chickens but smaller than ostrich.
An emu egg oughta be just about right ;-)
BillW
Miles Bader
> 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
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
>> 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
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
> 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
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
> In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>
>
>>There seems to be variance, or possibly degradation, of terminology.
>>Most of the people I know who occasionally find themselves moved to
>>make omelets seem to mean by that "scrambled eggs with stuff in them."
>>Certainly it's what I mean, although since I'm usually making them
>>for myself, I don't have much occasion to call them anything :)
>>
>>So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>>stuff in them?
>
> An omelet, you put the egg mixture in the pan and let cook without
> stirring, then fold over. Scrambled eggs you stir while cooking. Also,
> having stuff in it does not particularly distinguish one from the other,
> I put stuff in scrambled eggs all the time but that doesn't make it an
> omelet.
Another difference, at least in Australia, is that you generally add
milk to scrambled eggs, but never to an omelette.
And yes, that's the way we generally spell it here. <g>
Luke
Arednuk
>>In article <cdfdh8$csf$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>> There seems to be variance, or possibly degradation, of terminology.
>> Most of the people I know who occasionally find themselves moved to
>> make omelets seem to mean by that "scrambled eggs with stuff in them."
>> Certainly it's what I mean, although since I'm usually making them
>> for myself, I don't have much occasion to call them anything :)
>
>> So what, properly, distinguishes an omelet from scrambled eggs with
>> stuff in them?
> An omelet, you put the egg mixture in the pan and let cook without
> stirring, then fold over. Scrambled eggs you stir while cooking. Also,
> having stuff in it does not particularly distinguish one from the other,
> I put stuff in scrambled eggs all the time but that doesn't make it an
> omelet.
The restaurant I breakfast at nearly every weekend has a section headed
"Scrambles" on the menu. "Artichoke and feta scramble", "ham and cheese
scramble", and so on. Omelets are listed in a separate section, and some of
the offered omelets match the list of ingredients in some of the offered
scrambles. The difference is, of course, the preparation, as explained quite
well above, and the preparation is important enough to make a distinction
between scrambles and omelets.
--
Christina (who prefers scrambles)
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <cdfdh8$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
(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
>
>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
> 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
>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
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
>
> 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
> 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
You got the author and title wrong. ISFDB says:
The Ones Who Pickaback Away from Omelets Ruth Berman
Mark Reichert
> 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
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
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
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
>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
"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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> "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
"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.
[...]
David Dyer-Bennet
> "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.
Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
loki
> "loki" <nolo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "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.
>
> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
I still find it presumptuous to define things - especially cooking - as The
classic. But whatever.
--
'Well it's all right, everything'll work out fine
Well it's all right, we're going to the end of the line'
-travelling willburys
Andy Leighton
how...@brazee.net <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> It's funny how tastes vary. To me, when I see someone spreading on loads
> of jam on whatever Brits have with tea
Scones?
> makes me very, very glad to not be British.
You don't like jam? Don't worry it isn't mandatory nor are scones.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
how...@brazee.net
On 20-Jul-2004, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> > It's funny how tastes vary. To me, when I see someone spreading on
> > loads of jam on whatever Brits have with tea
>
> Scones?
Sometimes. I actually like scones.
> > makes me very, very glad to not be British.
>
> You don't like jam? Don't worry it isn't mandatory nor are scones.
Especially slathered on like that, an inch thick. But it seems that the
most unfair punishment you can do for someone was not let him have tea. It
may have more to say about the quality of the rest of the day's food than
anything else.
Robert Hutchinson
> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
The above seems to assume that serious cookbooks' first priority is to
"classic" recipes, and not to the avoidance of readers exclaiming: "Well,
of course I know how to cook THAT! That's just eggs on a grill! I'm
getting my money back."
--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>"loki" <nolo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "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.
>
>Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
>general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
>the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
The _Joy of Cooking_ (which is my "serious" cookbook) states in the
general intro to scrambled eggs: "The lower the heat, the longer it
takes the eggs to cook, and the creamier the result. The French
technique, explained below, takes the priniciple to the extreme by
cooking scrambled eggs in a double boiler." From that, and the fact
that the grill thing is the first version given in the section, I
infer that the grill version is the more common.
Rebecca
Ross TenEyck
>David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
>> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
>> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
>The above seems to assume that serious cookbooks' first priority is to
>"classic" recipes, and not to the avoidance of readers exclaiming: "Well,
>of course I know how to cook THAT! That's just eggs on a grill! I'm
>getting my money back."
BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
ambivalent on the issue:
SCRAMBLED EGGS
Melt in a skillet over slow heat or in a well-greased double
boiler over -- not in -- hot water:
1 tablespoon butter
Beat and pour in:
3 eggs
1/8 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon paprika
(3 tablespoons cream)
When the eggs begin to thicken, break them into shreds with
a fork or stir with a wooden spoon. When they have thickened,
serve them on:
Hot toast lightly buttered or spread with fish paste,
deviled ham or liver sausage; or in a hollowed-out hard
roll.
The cream is optional, and they seem to regard the skillet and
the double boiler as equally good.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Robert Hutchinson <ser...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>David Dyer-Bennet says...
>
>>> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
>>> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
>>> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
>
>>The above seems to assume that serious cookbooks' first priority is to
>>"classic" recipes, and not to the avoidance of readers exclaiming: "Well,
>>of course I know how to cook THAT! That's just eggs on a grill! I'm
>>getting my money back."
>
> BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
> about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
> ambivalent on the issue:
I gotta ask -- which edition? The most recent edition is practically
unrelated to the classic cookbook by that name.
Default User
>
> ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) writes:
> > BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
> > about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
> > ambivalent on the issue:
>
> I gotta ask -- which edition? The most recent edition is practically
> unrelated to the classic cookbook by that name.
That's from the 70's edition (still in print).
In one of the Nero Wolfe books, the great detective states that proper
scrambled eggs take at least 45 minutes. Here's a link to a purported
recipe, I'm not sure if it came from the Nero Wolfe cookbook or not:
http://www.cdkitchen.com/recipes/recs/40/Nero_Wolfes_Scrambled_eggs40529.shtml
Brian Rodenborn
Ross TenEyck
>> BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
>> about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
>> ambivalent on the issue:
>I gotta ask -- which edition? The most recent edition is practically
>unrelated to the classic cookbook by that name.
Dunno off-hand, and it's at home so I can't check it right now.
But I bought it... oh, something like twelve, fourteen years ago,
if that helps.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>> ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) writes:
>
>> > BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
>> > about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
>> > ambivalent on the issue:
>>
>> I gotta ask -- which edition? The most recent edition is practically
>> unrelated to the classic cookbook by that name.
>
> That's from the 70's edition (still in print).
Thanks. Not the current edition then.
> In one of the Nero Wolfe books, the great detective states that proper
> scrambled eggs take at least 45 minutes. Here's a link to a purported
> recipe, I'm not sure if it came from the Nero Wolfe cookbook or not:
>
>
> http://www.cdkitchen.com/recipes/recs/40/Nero_Wolfes_Scrambled_eggs40529.shtml
Yes, I'm aware of his opinions on scrambled eggs. They're pretty
mainstream, but of course at the high end.
John Schilling
>ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) writes:
>> Robert Hutchinson <ser...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>David Dyer-Bennet says...
>>>> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
>>>> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
>>>> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
[...]
>> BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
>> about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
>> ambivalent on the issue:
>I gotta ask -- which edition? The most recent edition is practically
>unrelated to the classic cookbook by that name.
Mine is a 1973 hardcover, direct evolutionary path from the classics and
predating the revisionist versions. And yes, it does give both recipes
for scrambled eggs, with the grill recipe first and the double-boiler
version in second place.
I'm thinking the whole "any serious cookbook will give [the double boiler
recipe] and not the restaurant grill thing", is a full order of Golden
Age Syndrome with a side of Youth Today Ain't Got No Respect for the
Classics. And I'm betting the grill recipe came first and was always
more common.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Chuk Goodin
>>I gotta ask -- which edition? The most recent edition is practically
>>unrelated to the classic cookbook by that name.
>
>Mine is a 1973 hardcover, direct evolutionary path from the classics and
>predating the revisionist versions. And yes, it does give both recipes
>for scrambled eggs, with the grill recipe first and the double-boiler
>version in second place.
>
>I'm thinking the whole "any serious cookbook will give [the double boiler
>recipe] and not the restaurant grill thing", is a full order of Golden
>Age Syndrome with a side of Youth Today Ain't Got No Respect for the
>Classics. And I'm betting the grill recipe came first and was always
>more common.
I'd go for that. Besides, if you're going to go to the time and trouble of
the double boiler thing, why not just make a souffle? Way better and
doesn't take that much longer.
ObSF: _Scrambled Eggs Super!_ by Dr. Seuss, with all manner of strange
creatures and multiple hundreds of eggs scrambled.
--
chuk
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>>ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) writes:
>
>>> Robert Hutchinson <ser...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>David Dyer-Bennet says...
>
>>>>> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
>>>>> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
>>>>> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
>
>[...]
>
>>> BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
>>> about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
>>> ambivalent on the issue:
>I'm thinking the whole "any serious cookbook will give [the double boiler
>recipe] and not the restaurant grill thing", is a full order of Golden
>Age Syndrome with a side of Youth Today Ain't Got No Respect for the
>Classics. And I'm betting the grill recipe came first and was always
>more common.
But it's not French! As everyone knows, the French dictate what is
classic in cooking - so the double-boiler recipe must be the classic,
regardless of chronology or actual use patterns.
--Craig
--
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)
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>>ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) writes:
>
>>> Robert Hutchinson <ser...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>David Dyer-Bennet says...
>
>>>>> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
>>>>> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
>>>>> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
>
> [...]
>
>>> BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
>>> about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
>>> ambivalent on the issue:
>
>>I gotta ask -- which edition? The most recent edition is practically
>>unrelated to the classic cookbook by that name.
>
>
> Mine is a 1973 hardcover, direct evolutionary path from the classics and
> predating the revisionist versions. And yes, it does give both recipes
> for scrambled eggs, with the grill recipe first and the double-boiler
> version in second place.
>
> I'm thinking the whole "any serious cookbook will give [the double boiler
> recipe] and not the restaurant grill thing", is a full order of Golden
> Age Syndrome with a side of Youth Today Ain't Got No Respect for the
> Classics. And I'm betting the grill recipe came first and was always
> more common.
I suppose it's possible. I'd never heard of the grill version until I
was 10 or some such years old. Came as a really nasty shock.
I've always objected to changing the definition on things. Better to
come up with a new word, at least if the new usage can cause
confusion. (This applies whichever came first; either way, using a
new word for the new version would avoid confusion).
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 22 Jul 2004 12:42:03 -0700, schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling)
> wrote:
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>>
>>>ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) writes:
>>
>>>> Robert Hutchinson <ser...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>David Dyer-Bennet says...
>>
>>>>>> Any serious cookbook giving a recipe for scrambled eggs will give that
>>>>>> general recipe, not the restaurant grill thing. It's the recipe that
>>>>>> the name "scrambled eggs" was invented to describe.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>> BTW, I looked up "scrambled eggs" in my Joy of Cooking, which is
>>>> about as fundamental a cookbook as you're going to find. It's
>>>> ambivalent on the issue:
>
>>I'm thinking the whole "any serious cookbook will give [the double boiler
>>recipe] and not the restaurant grill thing", is a full order of Golden
>>Age Syndrome with a side of Youth Today Ain't Got No Respect for the
>>Classics. And I'm betting the grill recipe came first and was always
>>more common.
>
> But it's not French! As everyone knows, the French dictate what is
> classic in cooking - so the double-boiler recipe must be the classic,
> regardless of chronology or actual use patterns.
Just curious; how old are you? I think the double-boiler version is
the classic recipe because I never encountered any other version until
I was about 10 years old (I'll be 50 this fall). I suspect it changed
relatively recently.
Ross TenEyck
>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> On 22 Jul 2004 12:42:03 -0700, schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>> wrote:
>>>I'm thinking the whole "any serious cookbook will give [the double boiler
>>>recipe] and not the restaurant grill thing", is a full order of Golden
>>>Age Syndrome with a side of Youth Today Ain't Got No Respect for the
>>>Classics. And I'm betting the grill recipe came first and was always
>>>more common.
>> But it's not French! As everyone knows, the French dictate what is
>> classic in cooking - so the double-boiler recipe must be the classic,
>> regardless of chronology or actual use patterns.
>Just curious; how old are you? I think the double-boiler version is
>the classic recipe because I never encountered any other version until
>I was about 10 years old (I'll be 50 this fall). I suspect it changed
>relatively recently.
With all due respect -- it's possible that this is what C.S. Lewis
described in _The Screwtape Letters_ as the feeling that "the fish
knives in her parents' house were 'real' fish knives, and the fish
knives that anyone else had were 'not proper fish knives at all.'"
(Quote from memory.)
I personally have never encountered the double-boiler version of
scrambled eggs until this very thread; naturally I assume that this
is some kind of bizarre variant, and the scrambled eggs I grew up
with were the "proper" kind. You seem to have the opposite experience.
If I were going to guess which came first, it would seem likely to
be the "cooked on a grill or in a skillet" version, just because it's
so much simpler and easier; normally I'd expect the more involved
procedure to come after the simpler one.
Ross TenEyck
>>Just curious; how old are you? I think the double-boiler version is
>>the classic recipe because I never encountered any other version until
>>I was about 10 years old (I'll be 50 this fall). I suspect it changed
>>relatively recently.
>With all due respect -- it's possible that this is what C.S. Lewis
>described in _The Screwtape Letters_ as the feeling that "the fish
>knives in her parents' house were 'real' fish knives, and the fish
>knives that anyone else had were 'not proper fish knives at all.'"
>(Quote from memory.)
>I personally have never encountered the double-boiler version of
>scrambled eggs until this very thread; naturally I assume that this
>is some kind of bizarre variant, and the scrambled eggs I grew up
>with were the "proper" kind. You seem to have the opposite experience.
>If I were going to guess which came first, it would seem likely to
>be the "cooked on a grill or in a skillet" version, just because it's
>so much simpler and easier; normally I'd expect the more involved
>procedure to come after the simpler one.
And following up to myself, it occurred to me that there is literary
evidence, of a sort. In _Three Men in a Boat_ (1889) there is this
passage:
Harris proposed that we should have scrambled eggs for breakfast. He
said he would cook them. It seemed, from his account, that he was very
good at doing scrambled eggs. He often did them at picnics and when out
on yachts. He was quite famous for them. People who had once tasted his
scrambled eggs, so we gathered from his conversation, never cared for any
other food afterwards, but pined away and died when they could not get
them.
It made our mouths water to hear him talk about the things, and we handed
him out the stove and the frying-pan and all the eggs that had not
smashed and gone over everything in the hamper, and begged him to begin.
He had some trouble in breaking the eggs - or rather not so much trouble
in breaking them exactly as in getting them into the frying-pan when
broken, and keeping them off his trousers, and preventing them from
running up his sleeve; but he fixed some half-a-dozen into the pan at
last, and then squatted down by the side of the stove and chivied them
about with a fork.
It seemed harassing work, so far as George and I could judge. Whenever
he went near the pan he burned himself, and then he would drop everything
and dance round the stove, flicking his fingers about and cursing the
things. Indeed, every time George and I looked round at him he was sure
to be performing this feat. We thought at first that it was a necessary
part of the culinary arrangements.
We did not know what scrambled eggs were, and we fancied that it must be
some Red Indian or Sandwich Islands sort of dish that required dances and
incantations for its proper cooking. Montmorency went and put his nose
over it once, and the fat spluttered up and scalded him, and then he
began dancing and cursing. Altogether it was one of the most interesting
and exciting operations I have ever witnessed. George and I were both
quite sorry when it was over.
The result was not altogether the success that Harris had anticipated.
There seemed so little to show for the business. Six eggs had gone into
the frying-pan, and all that came out was a teaspoonful of burnt and
unappetizing looking mess.
Harris said it was the fault of the frying-pan, and thought it would have
gone better if we had had a fish-kettle and a gas-stove; and we decided
not to attempt the dish again until we had those aids to housekeeping by
us.
Googling on "fish-kettle" suggests that it might be a double-boiler-like
gadget, but I can't quite tell from the pictures. In any case, this
would seem to indicate that the "grill" version of scrambled eggs was
known at least as far back as 1889.
Craig Richardson
(Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>I personally have never encountered the double-boiler version of
>scrambled eggs until this very thread; naturally I assume that this
>is some kind of bizarre variant, and the scrambled eggs I grew up
>with were the "proper" kind. You seem to have the opposite experience.
>
>If I were going to guess which came first, it would seem likely to
>be the "cooked on a grill or in a skillet" version, just because it's
>so much simpler and easier; normally I'd expect the more involved
>procedure to come after the simpler one.
Actually, I suspect parallel evolution. The double boiler version is
so close to a custard that Ockham suggests it's an offshoot. The
grill/skillet version is closer to an omelet gone bad, and the cook
realizes he's on to something when he salvages it for his own dinner.
They're linked because the product is similar (note that a double
boiler isn't necessary, it can also be steamed a la the Japanese
chawanmushi - I've done this myself, and far prefer it to the
abomination known as microwaved scrambled eggs).
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> But it's not French! As everyone knows, the French dictate what is
>> classic in cooking - so the double-boiler recipe must be the classic,
>> regardless of chronology or actual use patterns.
>
>Just curious; how old are you? I think the double-boiler version is
>the classic recipe because I never encountered any other version until
>I was about 10 years old (I'll be 50 this fall). I suspect it changed
>relatively recently.
I'm 37 ("that's not /old/..."). Doesn't mean very much because I was
not only extremely uninterested in cooking when I was young, I was
extremely egg-phobic from about the age of 5 to the age of 20
(apparently I had an aversion reaction before I was making permanent
memories). Not to mention that me mum wouldn't use a double-boiler if
you pointed a loaded piping bag at her head. She doesn't much hold
for complicated processes...
I actually went back and checked my "Good Eats" video on scrambled
eggs, because I had a distinct memory of Alton firing up a gas burner
with a skillet on and the mad French chef bursting in, exclaiming
"Non! The scrambled aggs, they must be cooked on the double
boilerrrr!" Unfortunately, I seem to have invented that scene.
David Tate
>
> If I were going to guess which came first, it would seem likely to
> be the "cooked on a grill or in a skillet" version, just because it's
> so much simpler and easier; normally I'd expect the more involved
> procedure to come after the simpler one.
Agreed, but remember -- it's not "which came first" that is at issue.
The question at hand is the original referent of the phrase "scrambled
eggs". I don't think anyone is trying to argue that people haven't
been slapping beaten eggs (with or without a bit of liquid[1] to
stretch them) onto hot surfaces since time immemorial. But they may
not have called that "scrambled eggs" until recently; I don't have any
data one way or the other.
David Tate
[1]Milk or cream is most common, but I've also seen sour cream, creme
fraiche, yogurt, beer, tomato juice, orange juice, etc. Whipped cream
makes for delightfully fluffy eggs.
Ethan Merritt
>On 22 Jul 2004 12:42, schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote:
>>
>>Mine is a 1973 hardcover, direct evolutionary path from the classics and
>>predating the revisionist versions. And yes, it does give both recipes
>>for scrambled eggs, with the grill recipe first and the double-boiler
>>version in second place.
>>I'm thinking the whole "any serious cookbook will give [the double boiler
>>recipe] and not the restaurant grill thing", is a full order of Golden
>>Age Syndrome with a side of Youth Today Ain't Got No Respect for the
>>Classics. And I'm betting the grill recipe came first and was always
>>more common.
The oldest cookbook I have on the shelf is "Jewish Cookery", 1949:
Scrambled Eggs: Preheat frying pan, add butter or other shortening,
then beaten whole or separated eggs, salt added. With a fork, scramble
the eggs as soon as they begin to set or cook through. Cook slowly
to preserve softness and fluffiness.
Sounds right to me. That's the way I've always cooked 'em, though I
don't remember ever looking it up in a cookbook. The only thing I
use a double-boiler for is custard, although in pre-microwave
times it was also useful for melting chocolate.
>I'd go for that. Besides, if you're going to go to the time and trouble of
>the double boiler thing, why not just make a souffle? Way better and
>doesn't take that much longer.
A soufflé requires an oven, for one thing. On a hot day you may
not want to heat up the house even more by turning on the oven.
--
Ethan A Merritt
joy beeson
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Just curious; how old are you? I think the double-boiler version is
> the classic recipe because I never encountered any other version until
> I was about 10 years old (I'll be 50 this fall). I suspect it changed
> relatively recently.
I'm sixty-three, and I never *heard* of scrambling eggs in a
double boiler until this thread. To me, it sounds like
something you'd do when serving a crowd, like making bread
pudding with whole slices of bread and calling it "french
toast".
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~beeson_n3f/ -- Writers' Exchange
joy beeson at earthlink dot net
Default User
> I personally have never encountered the double-boiler version of
> scrambled eggs until this very thread; naturally I assume that this
> is some kind of bizarre variant, and the scrambled eggs I grew up
> with were the "proper" kind. You seem to have the opposite experience.
It's certainly not unusual for the skillet version to be more familiar.
We had eight kids in my family growing up. When my mom made scrambled
eggs (or later when we older ones could be delegated) it was using the
largest black iron skillet we had, a couple dozen eggs at a time.
In fact, I don't remember much of any use for a double boiler growing
up. I learned to use one later in life.
Brian Rodenborn
Michael Stemper
[on srambled eggs - topics do drift around here!]
>Just curious; how old are you? I think the double-boiler version is
>the classic recipe because I never encountered any other version until
>I was about 10 years old (I'll be 50 this fall). I suspect it changed
>relatively recently.
I'm several months older than you are. I remember my father making
scrambled eggs when Ike was POTUS. I've never heard of them being
made any other way than in a frying pan before this thread. And,
according to what my father told me, *his* grandmother had made them
in a frying pan as well, although she mixed them in the pan rather
than beforehand.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Reunite Gondwanaland!
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
I am 46, and never heard of the double-boiler technique before this
thread came along.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQQF0NzMYPge5L34aEQJf9gCfb6LzV7oUlaqdRwt319XSF8qKXbsAoL0Z
W4bl+4PEYmDqVq9G4ajN44o9
=GoLJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Luke Webber
> I'm several months older than you are. I remember my father making
> scrambled eggs when Ike was POTUS. I've never heard of them being
> made any other way than in a frying pan before this thread. And,
> according to what my father told me, *his* grandmother had made them
> in a frying pan as well, although she mixed them in the pan rather
> than beforehand.
I strongly suspect that this is largely a US thing. Certainly I've never
known scrambled eggs to be made in anything but a saucepan here in
Australia. Not a double boiler, but never a frying pan or skillet either.
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
While I can imagine making them in a saucepan, don't the sides make
scrambling them harder? Or do you use something besides a fork to do
so? The way I was taught to make scrambled eggs involved holding the
tines of the fork almost parallel to the surface of the skillet, which
would be hard to do with the higher sides of a saucepan.
Rebecca
David Dyer-Bennet
No, the sides make it *possible*; without the sides they run out all
flat, and you can't keep an area that big stirred well enough.
I've always just used a wooden spoon. Works fine; it's done at much
lower heat than the grill method.
Margaret Young
Canadian here.
Never even heard of scrambled eggs being made any way but on a grill or in a
frying pan until I started reading this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Young
Assistant Professor
Department of Speech Communication
Albion College
mmy...@umich.edu or myo...@albion.edu
(517)629-0329
David Tate
> I actually went back and checked my "Good Eats" video on scrambled
> eggs, because I had a distinct memory of Alton firing up a gas burner
> with a skillet on and the mad French chef bursting in, exclaiming
> "Non! The scrambled aggs, they must be cooked on the double
> boilerrrr!" Unfortunately, I seem to have invented that scene.
Possibly not.
On page 222 of Brown's book (_I'm Just Here for the Food_), we find
the following:
===============================================
Scrambled Eggs.
Ask a French chef to scramble you a few eggs and you're likely to see
him whisk a few eggs together with a bit of heavy cream, then cook
them in a double boiler over simmering, not boiling, water. I'm often
annoyed by the persnickety extra steps that French cuisine demands,
but this time I must agree. It's not that it's impossible to make
good scrambled eggs straight in a pan, it's just that the double
boiler guarantees that the cooking will be done at a steady
temperature and at a relatively low rate of conduction.
Don't forget to garnish. A sprinkling of fresh herbs, especially
chives, do wonders for scrambled eggs. The best plate of scrambled
eggs I ever had (far better than the best omelet I ever had) was
finished with truffle oil and sprinkled with finely minced red onion
and a dollop of caviar.
================================================
He then presents the recipe, using the mixing-bowl-and-saucepan
arrangement he far prefers to any specialized double boiler. The
ingredients are butter, eggs, cream, and kosher salt.
It wouldn't surprise me if this had been dramatized on the show at
some point. Or, perhaps you have read the book, and were remembering
this.
Back to omelets for a moment: On page 10 of the same book, Brown says
"One of the best omelets I ever had started out as a busted
hollandaise. You could collect egg recipes all your life and still
miss the relationship between these two dishes." Since hollandaise is
generally made in a double boiler, this brings us full circle...
David Tate
Maureen O'Brien
>r.r...@thevine.net writes:
>>Luke Webber wrote:
>>>Michael Stemper wrote:
>>>>I'm several months older than you are. I remember my father making
>>>>scrambled eggs when Ike was POTUS. I've never heard of them being
>>>>made any other way than in a frying pan before this thread. And,
>>>>according to what my father told me, *his* grandmother had made them
>>>>in a frying pan as well, although she mixed them in the pan rather
>>>>than beforehand.
>>>
>>>I strongly suspect that this is largely a US thing. Certainly I've never
>>>known scrambled eggs to be made in anything but a saucepan here in
>>>Australia. Not a double boiler, but never a frying pan or skillet either.
>>
>>While I can imagine making them in a saucepan, don't the sides make
>>scrambling them harder? Or do you use something besides a fork to do
>>so? The way I was taught to make scrambled eggs involved holding the
>>tines of the fork almost parallel to the surface of the skillet, which
>>would be hard to do with the higher sides of a saucepan.
>
> No, the sides make it *possible*; without the sides they run out all
> flat, and you can't keep an area that big stirred well enough.
Er...how well do you think it's necessary to stir them? If you want
everything to be _uniform_, that's a bit too much like an omelet.
Omelets are the lovely smooth things; scrambled eggs are scrambledy,
with a lovely variation of textures and flavors and absolutely no
formality. It's supposed to be all rumplety-bumplety. That's the _point_.
On the same topic, this very afternoon I ate at the Dublin Pub, which
has a very good cook. Too good. Because, you see, when I ordered
corned beef and cabbage, I expected some chewy, flaky, briny, corned
beef with cabbage that fell apart in my mouth and smelled like cabbage.
But no. This was a concoction of salt-less shavings of corned beef, tiny
little al dente strips of cabbage, and tomato chunks, all emerging from
some kind of bean broth on a bed of redskin potatoes. All of which was
very nice, but not at all what I'd been in the mood for. (Especially
since I really needed the salt.) The cook seemed to have missed the
point, which is a mixture of strong flavors and smells. (I could
hardly smell the cabbage, much less the corned beef. Boring. It was
practically chipped beef, really.)
Maureen
David Dyer-Bennet
It's necessary to stir them constantly for 10-30 minutes, depending on
heat. The texture resulting is *much* softer than griddle scrambled
eggs.
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>Maureen O'Brien <mob...@nospamdnaco.net> writes:
>
>
>> Er...how well do you think it's necessary to stir them? If you want
>> everything to be _uniform_, that's a bit too much like an omelet.
>> Omelets are the lovely smooth things; scrambled eggs are scrambledy,
>> with a lovely variation of textures and flavors and absolutely no
>> formality. It's supposed to be all rumplety-bumplety. That's the _point_.
>
>It's necessary to stir them constantly for 10-30 minutes, depending on
>heat. The texture resulting is *much* softer than griddle scrambled
>eggs.
I guess this is when the oatmeal comment comes in. I can comprehend
what you are saying, I can almost picture the dish, but it's not what
I would ever think of when hearing the phrase "scrambled eggs".
Scrambled eggs are a simple, quickly prepared dish made in a skillet,
no muss no fuss no bother. This is undoubtedly influenced by my
family's elevation of them to sickroom food, because they don't take a
lot of effort to make, cook fast, and are easily digested (at least
when you don't add a lot of fancy stuff to them). Even now, when I am
feeling ill and don't want to cook, but know that I need to eat
something, it's scrambled eggs to the rescue.
Rebecca
Ross TenEyck
>> Er...how well do you think it's necessary to stir them? If you want
>> everything to be _uniform_, that's a bit too much like an omelet.
>> Omelets are the lovely smooth things; scrambled eggs are scrambledy,
>> with a lovely variation of textures and flavors and absolutely no
>> formality. It's supposed to be all rumplety-bumplety. That's the _point_.
>It's necessary to stir them constantly for 10-30 minutes, depending on
>heat. The texture resulting is *much* softer than griddle scrambled
>eggs.
Thirty minutes? That's *way* longer than I'm prepared to wait for
breakfast most mornings.
Maureen O'Brien
>>heat. The texture resulting is *much* softer than griddle scrambled
>>eggs.
>
> Thirty minutes? That's *way* longer than I'm prepared to wait for
> breakfast most mornings.
I have to say I find it difficult to picture scrambled eggs taking
longer than five to seven minutes, even if one includes heating the
pan, chunking in the margarine, and hunting up the frying pan and
smallest mixing bowl. You don't even have to wait for the pan to get
really hot, like you do with an omelet.
You're not doing that "the eggs aren't really cooked all the way" thing
that some restaurants do, are you? I've gotten sick from that before.
(Not food poisoning. It just made me queasy. I have no objection to
semi-solid yolk and whites, but...not in my scrambled eggs, please.)
Maureen
Luke Webber
> Ross TenEyck wrote:
>> Thirty minutes? That's *way* longer than I'm prepared to wait for
>> breakfast most mornings.
>
>
> I have to say I find it difficult to picture scrambled eggs taking
> longer than five to seven minutes, even if one includes heating the
> pan, chunking in the margarine, and hunting up the frying pan and
> smallest mixing bowl. You don't even have to wait for the pan to get
> really hot, like you do with an omelet.
Ugh. Margarine. Why even bother? <g>
> You're not doing that "the eggs aren't really cooked all the way" thing
> that some restaurants do, are you? I've gotten sick from that before.
> (Not food poisoning. It just made me queasy. I have no objection to
> semi-solid yolk and whites, but...not in my scrambled eggs, please.)
Some of us like our eggs a bit snotty. Overcooked scrambled eggs are
tough, and the whey from the milk tends to cook out (yes, they *must*
have milk).
Boiled, fried, poached or scrambled, I want my eggs only *just* cooked.
If the yolks are fully congealed, you've missed the boat. Like well-done
steak, overcooked eggs are an abomination.
Luke
David Dyer-Bennet
> Ross TenEyck wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>>>It's necessary to stir them constantly for 10-30 minutes, depending on
>>>heat. The texture resulting is *much* softer than griddle scrambled
>>> eggs.
>> Thirty minutes? That's *way* longer than I'm prepared to wait for
>> breakfast most mornings.
>
> I have to say I find it difficult to picture scrambled eggs taking
> longer than five to seven minutes, even if one includes heating the
> pan, chunking in the margarine, and hunting up the frying pan and
> smallest mixing bowl. You don't even have to wait for the pan to get
> really hot, like you do with an omelet.
>
> You're not doing that "the eggs aren't really cooked all the way" thing
> that some restaurants do, are you? I've gotten sick from that before.
> (Not food poisoning. It just made me queasy. I have no objection to
> semi-solid yolk and whites, but...not in my scrambled eggs, please.)
Absolutely. If they're hard, that's not scrambled eggs, it's some new
dish that doesn't have a name. (It's trying to steal the name
"scrambled eggs", but it has no claim on it.)
--
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/>
Kai Henningsen
> [1] "Continuum" is a fairly SFnal word, especially in a
> non-explicitly-SFnal context...
... or a math word.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
> 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. :)
I really, really hate it when the eggs aren't consistently mixed through,
and you get white lines in the yellow stuff. That looks spoilt to me.
(Also doesn't taste particularly good.)
Michael S. Schiffer
news:m2hdrwh...@gw.dd-b.net:
>...
> Absolutely. If they're hard, that's not scrambled eggs, it's
> some new dish that doesn't have a name. (It's trying to steal
> the name "scrambled eggs", but it has no claim on it.)
For certain values of "new". :-)
"PLAIN SCRAMBLED EGGS
"Put two tablespoonfuls of butter in a shallow frying pan. Add a
tablespoonful of water to each egg. Six eggs are quite enough for
four people. Add a half teaspoonful of salt, and a saltspoonful of
pepper. Give two or three beats--enough to break the eggs; turn
them into the frying pan, on the hot butter. Constantly scrape
from the bottom of the pan with a fork, while they are cooking.
Serve with a garnish of broiled bacon and toast."
Mrs. S.T. Rorer, _Many Ways for Cooking Eggs_ (1907)
<http://www.gutenberg.net/etext04/ckggs10.txt>
"SCRAMBLED EGGS.
Beat two eggs until thoroughly mixed, add two tablespoonfuls of
milk, salt and pepper. Pour into a very hot frying pan, buttered,
and stir constantly for about two minutes. Pour over buttered
toast."
Harriet Camp Lounsberry, _Making good on private duty: practical
hints to graduate nurses_(1912)
<http://www.gutenberg.net/etext04/gdpvd10.txt>
Granted, neither of these specify how hard the eggs are to be
cooked, but they resemble what other posters know as scrambled eggs
more than the slow-cooked double-boiler version you've described.
(Project Gutenberg does have an 1893 recipe that calls for the eggs
to be "firm, but soft", but it still uses a "hot, oiled saucepan"
in which one is to "cook quickly", so it doesn't appear to be a
low-heat recipe either.
<http://www.gutenberg.net/1/2/2/3/12238/12238.txt>)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Robert Hutchinson
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >...
> > Absolutely. If they're hard, that's not scrambled eggs, it's
> > some new dish that doesn't have a name. (It's trying to steal
> > the name "scrambled eggs", but it has no claim on it.)
>
> For certain values of "new". :-)
>
> "PLAIN SCRAMBLED EGGS
>
> "Put two tablespoonfuls of butter in a shallow frying pan. Add a
> tablespoonful of water to each egg. Six eggs are quite enough for
> four people. Add a half teaspoonful of salt, and a saltspoonful of
> pepper.
And two pepperspoonfuls of tea?
> Give two or three beats--enough to break the eggs; turn
> them into the frying pan, on the hot butter. Constantly scrape
> from the bottom of the pan with a fork, while they are cooking.
> Serve with a garnish of broiled bacon and toast."
>
> Mrs. S.T. Rorer, _Many Ways for Cooking Eggs_ (1907)
> <http://www.gutenberg.net/etext04/ckggs10.txt>
(1.5 eggs per person, my eye ...)
--
(Or maybe my heart)
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com
David Bilek
>Michael S. Schiffer says...
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> >...
>> > Absolutely. If they're hard, that's not scrambled eggs, it's
>> > some new dish that doesn't have a name. (It's trying to steal
>> > the name "scrambled eggs", but it has no claim on it.)
>>
>> For certain values of "new". :-)
>>
>> "PLAIN SCRAMBLED EGGS
>>
>> "Put two tablespoonfuls of butter in a shallow frying pan. Add a
>> tablespoonful of water to each egg. Six eggs are quite enough for
>> four people. Add a half teaspoonful of salt, and a saltspoonful of
>> pepper.
>
>And two pepperspoonfuls of tea?
>
>> Give two or three beats--enough to break the eggs; turn
>> them into the frying pan, on the hot butter. Constantly scrape
>> from the bottom of the pan with a fork, while they are cooking.
>> Serve with a garnish of broiled bacon and toast."
>>
>> Mrs. S.T. Rorer, _Many Ways for Cooking Eggs_ (1907)
>> <http://www.gutenberg.net/etext04/ckggs10.txt>
>
>(1.5 eggs per person, my eye ...)
Yeah. Three eggs is better. But oh my the cholesterol. My
gallbladder winces just thinking about it.
-David
aRJay
<kaih=9DYCX...@khms.westfalen.de> writes
>joa...@hel.pl (Jo'Asia) wrote on 20.07.04 in
><1lk5daw3...@dustpuppy.sloth.hell.pl>:
>
>> 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. :)
>
>I really, really hate it when the eggs aren't consistently mixed through,
>and you get white lines in the yellow stuff. That looks spoilt to me.
>(Also doesn't taste particularly good.)
>
preferably with a thick base, place on stove, pour in a splash of milk
sufficient to just cover the base of the pan. Then add a small knob of
butter (or substitute of choice), when butter just starts to melt break
2 or 3 eggs Depending on size) into pan and immediately beat into a
mostly homogenous liquid. Leave stirring occasionally until the eggs
start to cook and attach to the sides and base of pan, start stirring
(and scraping) more vigorously, this is the time when any additions
should be added. The eggs should rapidly become liquid with lumps and
then a few seconds later runny scrambled eggs. How dry you let them
become after this point depends on personal taste and how much you are
concerned about the origin of the eggs.
Nearly forgot if you don't have a solid fuel cooker this should be
performed over a low heat otherwise some of the egg will over cook and
the taste will be altered to much more like that of an omelette.
--
aRJay
"In this great and creatorless universe, where so much beautiful has
come to be out of the chance interactions of the basic properties of
matter, it seems so important that we love one another."
- Lucy Kemnitzer
Luke Webber
> The way I was shown (quantities for one), get smallish (5 inch) saucepan
> preferably with a thick base, place on stove, pour in a splash of milk
> sufficient to just cover the base of the pan. Then add a small knob of
> butter (or substitute of choice), when butter just starts to melt break
> 2 or 3 eggs Depending on size) into pan and immediately beat into a
> mostly homogenous liquid. Leave stirring occasionally until the eggs
> start to cook and attach to the sides and base of pan, start stirring
> (and scraping) more vigorously, this is the time when any additions
> should be added. The eggs should rapidly become liquid with lumps and
> then a few seconds later runny scrambled eggs. How dry you let them
> become after this point depends on personal taste and how much you are
> concerned about the origin of the eggs.
> Nearly forgot if you don't have a solid fuel cooker this should be
> performed over a low heat otherwise some of the egg will over cook and
> the taste will be altered to much more like that of an omelette.
That's very close to what I would do. My wife likes chopped, fresh
parsley added, but for me, just salt and freshly ground black pepper.
Luke
loki
> >I really, really hate it when the eggs aren't consistently mixed through,
> >and you get white lines in the yellow stuff. That looks spoilt to me.
> >(Also doesn't taste particularly good.)
I dislike an overly uniform mixture. A completely homogenous batter for
both omelettes and scramble eggs is less than ideal for me. It a very fine
line to get the consistency just right - much like the egg-zact level of
moistness.
--
Fiona: 'What kind of knight are you?!?!'
Shrek: 'One of a kind.'
Pete McCutchen
Lebovitz) wrote:
>IIRC, Heinlein also has characters in _I Will Fear No Evil_ putting together
>some scrambled eggs from odds and ends in the kitchen.
That recipe -- or cooking procedure, I should say -- actually works.
I once did it, when waiting for a paycheck during my poor student
days.
--
Pete McCutchen
Nancy Lebovitz
joy beeson <xbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>I'm sixty-three, and I never *heard* of scrambling eggs in a
>double boiler until this thread. To me, it sounds like
>something you'd do when serving a crowd, like making bread
>pudding with whole slices of bread and calling it "french
>toast".
I don't think of bread pudding and French toast as especially the
same sort of thing. Ok, they're related, but French toast is hot
and served with maple syrup. Bread pudding is cold and has raisins.
French toast is slices of bread. Bread pudding is a rectangular
block wiht the occasional section of crust to show that it once
had a relationship to a loaf, now all but disintigrated.
--
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
"We've tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages."
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
joy beeson
(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> I don't think of bread pudding and French toast as especially the
> same sort of thing. Ok, they're related, but French toast is hot
> and served with maple syrup. Bread pudding is cold and has raisins.
> French toast is slices of bread. Bread pudding is a rectangular
> block wiht the occasional section of crust to show that it once
> had a relationship to a loaf, now all but disintigrated.
Bread pudding IS nothing like french toast. Which was the
point of my post.
And yes, I was once served hot bread pudding under the name
of "french toast". It being a cyclist's convention, I ate
it.
[Cyclists can burn 600 calories per hour. They will eat
anything sweet or starchy.]
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~beeson_n3f/ -- Writers' Exchange
joy beeson at earthlink dot net
Wayne Throop
:: and served with maple syrup. Bread pudding is cold and has raisins.
: joy beeson <xbe...@invalid.net.invalid>
: I was once served hot bread pudding under the name
: of "french toast". It being a cyclist's convention, I ate it.
I'm occasioally served hot bread pudding under the name of bread pudding.
It's more like a custard. Quite good, actually.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
David Friedman
wrote:
I think of hot as the default for serving bread pudding, actually. With
a sweet sauce over it.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
how...@brazee.net
On 5-Nov-2004, na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> Bread pudding is cold and has raisins.
> French toast is slices of bread. Bread pudding is a rectangular
> block with the occasional section of crust to show that it once
> had a relationship to a loaf, now all but disintigrated.
I rarely want dessert at restaurants. One time we were at a very high-end
restaurant and expressed an interest in the dessert menu. My wife was
surprised - and even more so about what quirked my interest. Bread
Pudding.
To her, bread pudding was a milky bread thing her mom made out of stale
bread.
But a top chef at a high-end restaurant makes something very, very
different. Now whenever she sees bread pudding at a good restaurant, she
wants to try it. We have found some delights - but haven't quite matched
that first one.
BPRAL22169
It's been a while since this thread showed up.
First, Joy Beeson -- many old cookbooks recommend scrambling eggs ina double
boiler; it seems to be something that comes from English kitchens.
The main difference between French Toast and Bread Pudding is that, even though
they have the same ingredients and are substantially the same -- bread soaked
with egg custard -- is that French Toast is fried, whereas bread pudding is
baked.
There are also versions of the bread pudding made for savory fillings -- a
really good one called Ramequin Vaudois arranges slices of bread, ham, and
cheese in a pinwheel in the center of a pan, then pour the (savory) custard
over the sandwich and bake it.
Bill
BPRAL22169
Bread Pudding came into fashion in the 1980's -- I suspect it was the Cajun fad
that brought it in, but it stays on menus, whereas apple charlotte did not,
because it is regarded as "comfort food"
Bill
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person BPRAL22169 <bpral...@aol.com> said
>David Tate/Nancy Lebovitz
>
>It's been a while since this thread showed up.
>
>First, Joy Beeson -- many old cookbooks recommend scrambling eggs ina double
>boiler; it seems to be something that comes from English kitchens.
>
>The main difference between French Toast and Bread Pudding is that, even though
>they have the same ingredients and are substantially the same -- bread soaked
>with egg custard -- is that French Toast is fried, whereas bread pudding is
>baked.
I think various folks on this thread are confusing what I'd call 'Bread
and Butter pudding' (lots of egg, served hot, typically looks
pale/yellowish) with what I'd call 'bread pudding' (brown, served cold,
gelatinous .. no sign of it's breadly origins, eat like cake).
Both worth eating, but very different animals.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Dorothy J Heydt
BPRAL22169 <bpral...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>The main difference between French Toast and Bread Pudding is that, even though
>they have the same ingredients and are substantially the same -- bread soaked
>with egg custard -- is that French Toast is fried, whereas bread pudding is
>baked.
And, at least in my experience, that the French toast uses whole
slices of bread and the bread pudding use little torn-up shreds.
But I've come to realize that isn't universal.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Peter H. Granzeau
I don't know what apple charlotte is.
However, I remember my mother making bread pudding. It was good, and
full of raisins.
Now, Mon's Apple Brown Betty was to die for...
BPRAL22169
>I don't know what apple charlotte is.
A charlotte is a kind of buttered-bread container for a filling of some kind --
in this case cooked apples. Charlottes made a brief comeback in the 80's.
Other dessert fads of the 80's -- crumbles, slumps, and cobblers. Only the
cobblers seem to have hung around.
Bill
BPRAL22169
>And, at least in my experience, that the French toast uses whole
>slices of bread and the bread pudding use little torn-up shreds.
>But I've come to realize that isn't universal.
There is a technical reason for that prevalence, and it has to do with the
purposes and methods for which the dishes are made. The bread for French toast
is typically allowed to soak in a pool of the custard, so it need not be
divided to get more absorbing surface area. OTOH, custard is typically poured
over the bread in a bread pudding -- along with dried fruits and/or fruit juce
(which I've never understood) -- and so the bread needs more surface area to
absorb the custard before it sets.
One thing I've discovered: all is technique.
Bill
BPRAL22169
Oh, and I think both recipes are descended from the French "Pain Perdue," My
larousse is packed away in Santa Rosa, but I believe the original recipe was
the French toast-like version, but it underwent a sea change in New Orleans.
Bill
r.r...@thevine.net
_Joy of Cooking_ has a french toast recipe that involves taking bread
slices, brushing them with maple syrup, stacking them together and
letting them sit for a while so that the syrup soaks in, and then
frying them like you do normal french toast. I'm curious what it
tastes like, but not enough to actually make it.
Rebecca
Craig Richardson
>There are also versions of the bread pudding made for savory fillings -- a
>really good one called Ramequin Vaudois arranges slices of bread, ham, and
>cheese in a pinwheel in the center of a pan, then pour the (savory) custard
>over the sandwich and bake it.
Thus being the "bread pudding" version of the "french toast" Monte
Cristo sandwich?
--Craig
--
But what I'm saying about the extreme age of the outdated nonsense in
Strunk & White can perhaps best be put like this ... [it] was so long
ago that _the Red Sox had just won the World Series the year before_
-- Geoffrey K. Pullum in "Language Log", 2004/10/28
David Tate
>
> Other dessert fads of the 80's -- crumbles, slumps, and cobblers.
And trifles, which had been very hard to find in the US prior to that.
> Only the cobblers seem to have hung around.
In my family, there were always there, and always will be.
(Then again, in my family, pie is a religion. And a breakfast food,
but we won't start that one again...)
David Tate
BPRAL22169
>[The Ramequin Vaudois] Thus being the "bread pudding" version of the "french
toast" Monte
>Cristo sandwich?
Very nice. I hadn't thought of it that way, but that's a very plausible
classification. I've been thinking of it as a quiche with the crust on the
inside.
Bill
Dorothy J Heydt
David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>
>(Then again, in my family, pie is a religion. And a breakfast food,
>but we won't start that one again...)
Really? Where does your family come from?
(I'm thinking of the old joke that says, To foreigners, a Yankee
is an American. To Southerners, a Yankee is a Northerner. To
Northerners, a Yankee is a New Englander. To New Englanders, a
Yankee is a Vermonter. And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who
eats pie for breakfast.)
David Eppstein
dt...@ida.org (David Tate) wrote:
> Then again, in my family, pie is a religion.
Pies as religion:
<http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004_10_24_fafblog_archive.html#109896698911
062567>
--
David Eppstein
Computer Science Dept., Univ. of California, Irvine
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
David Tate
> In article <9d67e55e.04110...@posting.google.com>,
> David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
> >
> >(Then again, in my family, pie is a religion. And a breakfast food,
> >but we won't start that one again...)
>
> Really? Where does your family come from?
Ah, well. You did ask.
> (I'm thinking of the old joke that says, To foreigners, a Yankee
> is an American. To Southerners, a Yankee is a Northerner. To
> Northerners, a Yankee is a New Englander. To New Englanders, a
> Yankee is a Vermonter. And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who
> eats pie for breakfast.)
I first heard that one around 1992, and I interpreted as saying that
ALL Vermonters are Yankees, because of course *everyone* eats pie for
breakfast.
I'm told this is not the canonical interpretation.
I am originally from Effingham, Illinois -- Truck Stop of the Nation,
the only thing near the intersection of Interstate 70 and Interstate
57. Pie was a staple in my grandparents' house, especially during the
holiday seasons when I was most likely to be there, but at other times
as well. Pumpkin, apple, peach, and cherry were the most common, but
lemon meringue, banana cream, pecan, and rhubarb were also regular
features. Also cobblers (blackberry, black raspberry, peach) of the
pie-crust sort (as opposed to the biscuit-dough sort), and apple
dumplings with caramel sauce. Very rarely, a chocolate chiffon or
coconut cream pie. Mincemeat perhaps twice in my memory.
All of these were considered perfectly appropriate breakfast food, and
indeed the default breakfast food when they were around. I have no
idea how normal or abnormal this was for that part of the country.
David Tate
Dorothy J Heydt
*sigh*
The only time I ever got to eat like that was when there was a
Worldcon in Denver in the early 1980s... someone will remember the
exact year. We were in a hotel near a little enterprise called
Mercy Farms Pie Shop. Pies of all kinds and other stuff too...
we ate every meal we could there, and carried multiple pies back
to the hotel room and ate them for breakfast. I understand
they've since gone out of business, darn it.
And now I have diabetes and stuff and can't eat things like that
at all.
Nancy Lebovitz
joy beeson
wrote:
> In my family, there were always there, and always will be.
Mother once told us the story of how relieved she was, after
her wedding in the 1930s, to learn that Dad was perfectly
happy with cobbler and she didn't have to make pies.
In case this is another "divided by a common language"
thing: in our family, a cobbler is a pie made in a 9"x12"
cake pan, by laying the crust out in the pan, putting in the
filling, then folding the extra pie crust over the top of
the filling, leaving a naked rectangle in the middle. Much
easier than shaping a pie, and feeds more people. And the
crust tastes better than dough that's been handled a lot.
Crumb pie was even easier: just sprinkle the dry
ingredients of a biscuit-like crust over the top of filling
in a cobbler pan:
-------------------------
Crumb pie:
1 cup flour
1 cup sugar
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 egg
Crumb together like peas. Spread thin.
-------------------------
Oops, I forgot about the egg. That's all there is to the
recipe; old card files are like that.
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~dbeeson594/ROUGHSEW/ROUGH.HTM
joy beeson
Throop) wrote:
> I'm occasioally served hot bread pudding under the name of bread pudding.
> It's more like a custard. Quite good, actually.
Bread pudding *is* baked custard. And the bread pudding on
the steam table at Teal's buffet night in Mentone is
*delicious* -- if your islets are in good condition. It is
cut into cake-like chunks, then soaked in good syrup. I
don't recall whether it's hot -- I believe it was on the rim
of the table -- but isn't chilled.
Now I want desperately to go there -- bread pudding is far
from the only yummy olde-tyme dish on the table. But it's
farmer food, and I haven't exercised that much since the
eighties.
Ordinary bread pudding has a lower percentage of bread, and
is served with a spoon -- but the spoonfuls hold their
shape. It's served either fresh from the oven or chilled.
Baked custard is much easier to make if you float a thin
layer of bread pudding on top.
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~dbeeson594/ROUGHSEW/ROUGH.HTM
BPRAL22169
You can, of course, call it what you like -- and I note that the cobbles in the
frozen section of the grocery store are made much the way you note -- but, also
as you note, it's just a pie. You have made it in a rectangular pan instead of
a circular pan, but it's a two-crust pie.
In order for it to be a cobbler, it would have to have "cobbles." That is,
it's dough is dropped by spoonfuls into a hot liquid and then baked, so that
the liquid bubbles up around the edges and the crust looks like cobbles in a
cobbled street. That's why cobblers are easier to make than pies -- no rolling
of the crust.
Bill
r.r...@thevine.net
Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <20041107151602...@mb-m12.aol.com>,
>BPRAL22169 <bpral...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Peter H. Granzeau
>>
>>>I don't know what apple charlotte is.
>>
>>A charlotte is a kind of buttered-bread container for a filling of some kind --
>>in this case cooked apples. Charlottes made a brief comeback in the 80's.
>>
>>Other dessert fads of the 80's -- crumbles, slumps, and cobblers. Only the
>>cobblers seem to have hung around.
>
>http://www.ochef.com/372.htm has some definitions.
>
Crumbles/crisps may have gone off restaurant menus, but I doubt that
they are gone for good. They are the easiest fruit-based desert to
make, so that will keep them around.
Rebecca
joy beeson
wrote:
> In order for it to be a cobbler, it would have to have "cobbles." That is,
> it's dough is dropped by spoonfuls into a hot liquid and then baked, so that
> the liquid bubbles up around the edges and the crust looks like cobbles in a
> cobbled street. That's why cobblers are easier to make than pies -- no rolling
> of the crust.
That's crumb pie.
--
Joy Beeson
Thomas Womack
joy beeson <xbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On 09 Nov 2004 16:10:08 GMT, bpral...@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
>wrote:
>
>> In order for it to be a cobbler, it would have to have "cobbles." That is,
>> it's dough is dropped by spoonfuls into a hot liquid and then baked, so that
>> the liquid bubbles up around the edges and the crust looks like cobbles in a
>> cobbled street. That's why cobblers are easier to make than pies -- no rolling
>> of the crust.
>
>That's crumb pie.
Crumb pie sounds rather like what I'd call crumble, but I'd never use an
egg for that: mix flour, brown sugar, a bit of butter, oatmeal to a
consistency when it's just starting to go together in lumps, and then
put over fruit and bake.
Cobblers seem a good deal more complicated.
Ah, it's winter now, I have cooking apples and the normal elements of the
kitchen, and desire -- but I will doubtless sit reading Usenet instead.
Tom
BPRAL22169
>That's crumb pie.
Nope. A "crumb pie" has a crumbly mixture of some starch, sugar, and usually
butter (in some variations called "streusel") sprinkled or heaped on top of the
pie before baking. It goes on, in other words, as "crumbs." The thing I was
describing had a wet dough, like a sweet dumpling mix, dropped into a hot
liquid so it is partly cooked by immersion, partly cooked by steam, and partly
by oven heat.
Bill
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>In article <9d67e55e.04110...@posting.google.com>,
>David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
[ pie for breakfast ]
>>All of these were considered perfectly appropriate breakfast food, and
>>indeed the default breakfast food when they were around. I have no
>>idea how normal or abnormal this was for that part of the country.
>
>*sigh*
>
>The only time I ever got to eat like that was when there was a
>Worldcon in Denver in the early 1980s... someone will remember the
>exact year. We were in a hotel near a little enterprise called
>Mercy Farms Pie Shop. Pies of all kinds and other stuff too...
>we ate every meal we could there, and carried multiple pies back
>to the hotel room and ate them for breakfast. I understand
>they've since gone out of business, darn it.
>
>And now I have diabetes and stuff and can't eat things like that
>at all.
When I was pushing thirteen, leftover pie was a natural target for my
breakfast. On the other hand, when I was pushing thirteen, I weighed
forty pounds more than I do now, twenty-six years later...
Bill Westfield
Anyone done the relevant reseach on how to make brownies? What makes a
brownie chewy, or fudgy, vs cake-like? Ideally, I want to make brownies
in 4 to 8oz batches, so I won't HAVE to eat a whole batch in three days
each time THE CRAVING hits...
BillW
Daniel Silevitch
I believe that the texture is determined by the proportion of flour to
other stuff and the baking time/temperature. As for smaller batches, get
a smaller pan, and you should be able to divide the recipe.
-dms
David Tate
> >In article <9d67e55e.04110...@posting.google.com>,
> >David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>
> [ pie for breakfast ]
> >>All of these were considered perfectly appropriate breakfast food, and
> >>indeed the default breakfast food when they were around. I have no
> >>idea how normal or abnormal this was for that part of the country.
> When I was pushing thirteen, leftover pie was a natural target for my
> breakfast. On the other hand, when I was pushing thirteen, I weighed
> forty pounds more than I do now, twenty-six years later...
When I was pushing thirteen, I was doing intramural wrestling in the
86-lb (40 kg) weight class, without any dehydration. Then again, at
that age I was eating ramen for breakfast pretty much every day, so
pie wasn't a factor one way or the other.
David Tate
artyw
Carol Hague
>
> I think various folks on this thread are confusing what I'd call 'Bread
> and Butter pudding' (lots of egg, served hot, typically looks
> pale/yellowish) with what I'd call 'bread pudding' (brown, served cold,
> gelatinous .. no sign of it's breadly origins, eat like cake).
Yes, that was confusing me too.
My mother always served bread and butter pudding with a little cold milk
poured over the top. My husband thinks this most odd. I understand some
people serve it with custard.
--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).
Carol Hague
> Other dessert fads of the 80's -- crumbles, slumps, and cobblers. Only the
> cobblers seem to have hung around.
Crumble, a fad? It was a standard dessert during my childhood (late
60s/70s) and I still make them sometimes. Mmm, time to raid the rhubarb
patch again, methinks....
Walter Bushell
Ah, lets start a "You May Be a Yankee" thread.
If you eat pie for breakfast, you may be a Yankee.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
joy beeson
<bi...@cypher.cisco.com> wrote:
> Anyone done the relevant reseach on how to make brownies? What makes a
> brownie chewy, or fudgy, vs cake-like?
Rombauer and Becker have. Get a 1964 edition of _The Joy of
Cooking_ and look up "Brownies Cockayne".
> Ideally, I want to make brownies
> in 4 to 8oz batches, so I won't HAVE to eat a whole batch in three days
> each time THE CRAVING hits...
But small batches are all edge, and the middle is the best
part. Cut into serving-size pieces, wrap in plastic, then
wrap each day's ration in aluminum foil, store in deep
freeze.
And if you get impatient, they are quite nice still frozen.
Rather like fudgsicles.
Which is spelled wrong, but somehow I doubt the spelling
checker's suggestion of "fungicides"
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~dbeeson594/ROUGHSEW/ROUGH.HTM
http://home.earthlink.net/~beeson_n3f/ -- Writers' Exchange
joy beeson at earthlink dot net.
Peter Meilinger
>On 10 Nov 2004 00:31:34 -0800, Bill Westfield
><bi...@cypher.cisco.com> wrote:
>> Anyone done the relevant reseach on how to make brownies? What makes a
>> brownie chewy, or fudgy, vs cake-like?
>Rombauer and Becker have. Get a 1964 edition of _The Joy of
>Cooking_ and look up "Brownies Cockayne".
Five bucks says Alton Brown has done the math, too. I'm sure he's
had at least one episode about brownies, and I'd be surprised
if he doesn't deal with them in one of his books.
His show is "Good Eats" on the Food Network. Very cool, very fun.
Here's the URL of the one brownie recipe I could find from Alton:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_17907,00.html
>> Ideally, I want to make brownies
>> in 4 to 8oz batches, so I won't HAVE to eat a whole batch in three days
>> each time THE CRAVING hits...
>But small batches are all edge, and the middle is the best
>part.
No, no, no, the edge is the best part. And corners? Heaven!
> Cut into serving-size pieces, wrap in plastic, then
>wrap each day's ration in aluminum foil, store in deep
>freeze.
That'd work. Can you freeze the batter, too, or would that
mess it up somehow?
>And if you get impatient, they are quite nice still frozen.
>Rather like fudgsicles.
>Which is spelled wrong, but somehow I doubt the spelling
>checker's suggestion of "fungicides"
I'm fairly certain fudgsicles is correct. What kind of
spellchecker doesn't know about fudgsicles?
Pete
Daniel Silevitch
> joy beeson <xbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>And if you get impatient, they are quite nice still frozen.
>>Rather like fudgsicles.
>
>>Which is spelled wrong, but somehow I doubt the spelling
>>checker's suggestion of "fungicides"
>
> I'm fairly certain fudgsicles is correct. What kind of
> spellchecker doesn't know about fudgsicles?
One that's on a diet, perhaps. Spellcheckers can have funny biases; I
discovered a few days ago that mine favors the Light Side of the Force:
Obi-Wan is OK, but Vader is flagged as a mistake. I'm convinced that if I
switch from a Mac to a PC, the spellchecker will go over to the Dark Side.
-dms
Dorothy J Heydt
Don't be too sure. I once worked for a guy named Cozzarelli, and
in his office everybody had to use Macs. Took me a long time
(such is my Mac-ineptitude) to figure out how to make the
computer stop spelling him Mozzarella.
David Eppstein
> >>Which is spelled wrong, but somehow I doubt the spelling
> >>checker's suggestion of "fungicides"
> >
> > I'm fairly certain fudgsicles is correct. What kind of
> > spellchecker doesn't know about fudgsicles?
>
> One that's on a diet, perhaps. Spellcheckers can have funny biases; I
> discovered a few days ago that mine favors the Light Side of the Force:
> Obi-Wan is OK, but Vader is flagged as a mistake. I'm convinced that if I
> switch from a Mac to a PC, the spellchecker will go over to the Dark Side.
Google has more than three times as many references to fudgesicles as to
fudgsicles.
Craig Richardson
>joy beeson <xbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Rombauer and Becker have. Get a 1964 edition of _The Joy of
>>Cooking_ and look up "Brownies Cockayne".
>
>Five bucks says Alton Brown has done the math, too. I'm sure he's
>had at least one episode about brownies, and I'd be surprised
>if he doesn't deal with them in one of his books.
Presumably his newest, which is about baking...
Robert Hutchinson
> Daniel Silevitch wrote:
> > >>Which is spelled wrong, but somehow I doubt the spelling
> > >>checker's suggestion of "fungicides"
> > >
> > > I'm fairly certain fudgsicles is correct. What kind of
> > > spellchecker doesn't know about fudgsicles?
> >
> > One that's on a diet, perhaps. Spellcheckers can have funny biases; I
> > discovered a few days ago that mine favors the Light Side of the Force:
> > Obi-Wan is OK, but Vader is flagged as a mistake. I'm convinced that if I
> > switch from a Mac to a PC, the spellchecker will go over to the Dark Side.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with "obi" and "wan" both being perfectly
good words on their own ...
> Google has more than three times as many references to fudgesicles as to
> fudgsicles.
I only see about twice as many. And note the content of the results: a
fudgy popsicle is a fudgesicle. A fudgy popsicle with TMs and circle-Rs
after it is a Fudgsicle[TM][R].
--
Robert Hutchinson | "Audiences won't soon forget when the
| thing-we-didn't-know-what-it-was was put into
| the helicopter by the guy we didn't know."
| -- Servo, MST3K, 810, Giant Spider Invasion
Daniel Silevitch
> David Eppstein says...
>> Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>> > >>Which is spelled wrong, but somehow I doubt the spelling
>> > >>checker's suggestion of "fungicides"
>> > >
>> > > I'm fairly certain fudgsicles is correct. What kind of
>> > > spellchecker doesn't know about fudgsicles?
>> >
>> > One that's on a diet, perhaps. Spellcheckers can have funny biases; I
>> > discovered a few days ago that mine favors the Light Side of the Force:
>> > Obi-Wan is OK, but Vader is flagged as a mistake. I'm convinced that if I
>> > switch from a Mac to a PC, the spellchecker will go over to the Dark Side.
>
> I'm sure it has nothing to do with "obi" and "wan" both being perfectly
> good words on their own ...
Details, details. I was vaguely startled to note that 'obi' was a known
word. My main familiarity with the word comes from doing crossword
puzzles; that gives you an intimate knowledge of just about any three
letter word that is even vaguely English.
-dms
David M. Palmer
It's perfectly cromulent to have "obi-wan" in non-Star Wars contexts.
She untied her obi-wan with too many washings-and parted her tattered
kimono.
But switching from Mac to PC is in itself a turn to the darkside, so
what your spelling checker does is irrelevant.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
David Eppstein
Robert Hutchinson <ser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Google has more than three times as many references to fudgesicles as to
> > fudgsicles.
>
> I only see about twice as many. And note the content of the results: a
> fudgy popsicle is a fudgesicle. A fudgy popsicle with TMs and circle-Rs
> after it is a Fudgsicle[TM][R].
Well, it's twice as many for the singular, three times as many for the
plural. Anyway, you seem to be correct about the distinction in
meanings between the two spellings.
Mike Schilling
"David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
news:9d67e55e.04111...@posting.google.com...
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:<proto-1C2594....@reader1.panix.com>...
>> In article <9d67e55e.04110...@posting.google.com>,
>> dt...@ida.org (David Tate) wrote:
>>
>> > (Then again, in my family, pie is a religion. And a breakfast food,
>> > but we won't start that one again...)
>>
>>
>> If you eat pie for breakfast, you may be a Yankee.
>
As opposed to "I don't hold with furniture that talks."
Bill Snyder
Pish tush. At most it's a change from the Very Grimy Side to the
Slightly Smudgy Side.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Peter H. Granzeau
<dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Details, details. I was vaguely startled to note that 'obi' was a known
>word. My main familiarity with the word comes from doing crossword
>puzzles; that gives you an intimate knowledge of just about any three
>letter word that is even vaguely English.
Obi has evidently entered the English language (it's in my 1976
American Heritage, anyway).
pamurphy70
Or, you could make a big batch, cut them up, wrap in plastic and
freeze in small batches to be taken out of the freezer and eaten when
you want them.