Dave the Cook

And vice-versa.

Thanks for the heads-up, GG. I find this a sad and disturbing twist to an inspiring story. I have to say that I'm on Peacock's side. It's clear that dear Edna's faculties are in decline, but she seems to have anticipated this and made preparations for it. Her wishes need to be respected. If Lewis' family wants to help out, they should be offering financial support to ensure that her last bit of time is happy, peaceful and secure. Where were they before this?

. . . adding gin to the shopping list . . . Baby 'choke instead of olive or twist? Or a slice from the center of the bottom speared with a pick, like a 2-D umbrella? (IMO, "gin martini" is redundant.)

Is this barigoule? I've always wanted to make barigoule. OK, not so much make it as say it. It's as much fun to say as "spatchcock."

At the local market this week, artichokes are 67 cents each. I love them just steamed and served with butter, or hollowed out and stuffed with crab. But this price demands experimentation. Any suggestions?

Mayo really gets a bad rap. As long as the ingredients are wholesome, most recipes contain enough acid and salt to prevent bacterial growth -- and in fact, fresh mayo is safer if it's left on the counter for a little while after assembly (the acid doesn't work as well at reduced temperature). If you've gotten sick from homemade mayonnaise, it's almost certainly because the eggs were contaminated before you started. I would very surprised if anyone gets sick from commercial mayo anymore. Even Hellman's/Best does not suggest refrigeration for safety issues, but for flavor and texture preservation.

I might be making an unwarranted inference, but that's what this says to me: From Rhode Island Sea Grant web page. But dude, if you want to go diving in the frigid Atlantic, lookin' under rocks fer nekkid lobsters, be my guest. I'll be back on shore with a pile of breadcrumbs and a pot of hot oil.

It probably hasn't been investigated because molting lobsters are almost impossible to find. They hide in caves and under rocks from the time the process begins, until the shell hardens, a few hours later.

I think guajolote's donation of Knob Creek had something to do with it, too . . . For the record, here's how to deep-fry a hot dog: cut a series of crosswise slits along the length of it, almost all the way through the dog. Toss it in the fryer. The dog will curl up in a ring, with a nicely crispy skin, in about 45 seconds. Do not overcook. Serve on a hamburger bun.

Good idea.

My sympathies are with hathor and fifi, but that doesn't answer your question. Most likely what you've got there is polymerized fat (I think there's an explanation upthread somewhere), and it's going to be tough. I'd start with a stiff wire brush to break up the surface, move on to a stainless steel scrubber, then finish up with steel wool. Or you could just have it bead blasted. Or put it in your oven and turn on the self-cleaning cycle, but then you'd have to reseason the whole pan. This wouldn't bother me, but, as hathor said, there are always other opinions. I think the value of heirloom-aged seasoning is more emotional than practical.

All of this sounded awfully familiar. So I rummaged around on my desk, until I found this link under the coffee-stained copy of a UNIX glossary: Maggie gets grits. Some great tips in there.

Interpretations can very, of course, but I don't see any glee here, anyway. And it's not that we hold the New York Times to a higher standard -- we don't have to. We're simply asking that they hold themselves to the standard they claim for themselves. You won't find Times material on eGullet without its source being cited. (If you do find it -- or material from any outlet -- please report it immediately.) If you dig a little deeper, you'll realize that are two related problems here, and they're not specific to the Times. The first problem is that the authors apparently didn't think of eGullet as a source, even though without it, it's possible that the article wouldn't even have been written. Had traditional media published the picture the authors described, you can bet that the source would have been named, or the passage would have been rewritten to eliminate the reference. The second problem is that the newspaper didn't apply its own ethical guidelines when the piece was edited. Again, it's hard to imagine that had the authors cited a cookbook as the source of the photograph, that the paper's fact-checking machinery wouldn't have sprung into motion as a matter of reflex. But apparently, saying you saw it on a website has the same effect on editors as mentioning that you heard a bird singing, or an idea sprang to mind while you were showering. It's unverifiable, it happens often -- it's not worth checking. This is wrong. Even though it's just the web, people go to great lengths to write posts, to take pictures and format them. They write emotional, factual and thought-provoking articles for on-line magazines and blogs. And when another publication uses them, credit should be given. Do New York Times writers lurk on eGullet? Of course they do. There's nothing wrong with that, though I find it disappointing. I'd like to see them posting instead.

http://www.nytco.com/pdf/nyt-coe-3.pdf Was this meant to sound tongue-in-cheek? I won't presume to speak for Steven, but I'm having trouble finding the humor you seem to think is in his post. That is, unless you find the Times' duplicitous attitude towards eGullet, or Steven's deft explication of it, amusing.

At the risk of being thought a self-serving cretin, I direct you to this thread (and, erm, the linked TDG story) for more microwave tips.

It ain't just Poetry/Guitar/Anxiety/Humor/Garden/Math Awareness/Welding Month! Oh, the Food Holidays in April . . . Check here for results Monday, Wednesday and Friday of this week. Congratulations to this round's winners!

When last we heard from Daily Gullet contributor Ruth Dondanville, she was south of the Mason-Dixon line. For her new piece, she returns to her roots, and wonders: where is the heart of Heartland cooking? Reminisce with Ruth . . . --------------------------------------------------------------------- Be sure to check The Daily Gullet home page daily for new articles (most every weekday), hot topics, site announcements, and more.

I've been a Spice House fan for almost three years, ever since Patty helped me out with a complicated order for three different spice mix recipes (I was bottling them for Christmas presents). She helped me convert volumes to weights, then adjust for drastic upscaling of the recipe (I needed about four pounds of each mix, and the standard recipes each made about a half-cup). Then they ground and shipped the same day. All of this was via e-mail during the week after Thanksgiving, one of their busiest seasons. Despite that, if I were in DC and the best shot I had was for Penzey's, I'd go for it. At the worst, it's the second-best supplier in the country, and a heck of a lot better than what you've got now.

Place the bowl so the steam is hitting it and the bowl itself isn't in the boiling water. It'll keep you from scalding your delicate chocolate. But isn't the steam hotter than the water itself? Or am I imagining that? Sorry, bleu. You're imagining it.

Well, here's the thing: tonight, I was making Shrimp and Grits with Red-Eye Gravy. The recipe I favor uses Madeira. Decent Marsala is cheaper than decent Madeira -- not to mention that I almost always have some sort of Marsala on hand, and almost never have Madeira. I subbed half sweet Marsala (which was close to hand) and half dry sherry. It was pretty good -- maybe better than when I use Madeira, if the truth be told. But in another situation, do you have any advice? Is the preference always dry for savory dishes?

Recipes almost never say, so I put a generic "Marsala" on my shopping list. Then I get to the wine shop, and I can choose between sweet or dry. (Or dry, very dry, Amontillado, etc., if it's sherry). I rarely drink this stuff, so it's just for cooking. I get sweet Marsala for Zabaglione, but that's the only thing I'm pretty sure of. Is there a Fortified Wine Rule?

One of the posts above reminded me of one of the questions I've always had about roasting garlic. Why do you have to slice the top part of the garlic head off when roasting garlic? I've always been too chicken to risk ruining good garlic, so I've never tried roasting it with the top ON. It's easier to squeeze the good stuff out after roasting if the top has already been removed. Note that recipes that call for individual roasted cloves rarely tell you to snip the tops/ends off.

White long or short grain: twice as much water as rice. Bring to boil, reduce heat to lowest setting, cook, covered, 18-20 minutes. Brown rice: roughly 2.25 cups of water to one cup of rice. Bring to boil, reduce heat to lowest setting, cook, covered, 45 minutes. Take off heat and let sit, covered, for 10 minutes. Good guidelines. If I have an oven available, I heat it to 300 F and put the covered pot in it once the water has come back to the boil, for 18 minutes. This eliminates any error due to "lowest setting" variations.

Same way you'd thicken gravy itself. Use a roux. Mix equal parts flour and butter (oil or crisco if you prefer) and brown in a little pan. Lighter colored rouxs give you thicker gravies and sauces. A roux is equal parts butter and flour? Who knew? Apparently everyone but me To be utterly technical, a roux is the cooked version. The uncooked version of equal parts butter and flour, uncooked, is a beurre manie. another way to thicken the sauce in stews that doesn't resort to rouxs or slurries (or reduction, if reducing too much will make the sauce bitter), is to take out some of the vegetables (you may wish to add a few more to begin with), puree them in a blender, then add the puree back into the stew. ok, then here's another stupid question. Do you melt the butter first and add the flour to it and mix together, or do you add each part to the sauce separately? Make the roux in a separate pan, then add enough liquid to it, a half-cup or so at a time, to make a decent liaison (usually a couple of cups is enough). Then stir the liaison back into the main pot. If you just toss fat and flour into the liquid without binding them in some way first (either through a beurre manie or a roux), you'll most likely end up with a nasty mess. The hot liquid will encapsulate the flour by cooking the outer layer and making it impervious to liquid, and therefore useless. (Technically, these are called "lumps.") To be clear, the fat has little or no thickening power, which is why a slurry will also work. The purpose of the fat is to coat the flour particles (and add flavor, but that's another story). This keeps them from sticking together and turning into "lumps."

Thank you for letting me introduce one of my favorite tricks: use an upside-down collapsible steamer basket to keep everything submerged. This also helps with scum-skimming (mentioned up-thread), and is also useful when brining. (I admit that I used to think it was a kludge, but changed my mind when I saw Alton Brown do the same thing.)