Mjx

I'll have to try this; intuitively, it always seemed to me that the crack would be more localized/there would be les crushing if it created with a narrower surface was used, but next time, I'll try the counter (I don't have the shattering problem with US eggs, even now, just with Danish ones).

The problem may simply be in the lack of a general agreement on the meaning of terms, but in my opinion (and this aspect of the discussion is highly subjective) when you make a decision, you're actively engaged. When you consider a a variety of restaurants, look over their menus, talk to others about them, and choose a place to eat, you're actively engaged in selecting where you dine. When you order, in most places, there are decisions involved (if the place has a set menu, then that decision has been made previously). The same holds true of the wine(s) you select, whether or not you have coffee, dessert. You don't just go into a restaurant and say, 'feed me', tell the waiter to just bring you what he or she deems best. You become involved. I don't know about other people, but if there's something interesting going on behind the scenes, I'll read about that beforehand, since I find context interest; basically, when I eat out, I think. This doesn't mean I believe I have the right to tell the chef what to do, but I do ask questions about items on the the menu (e.g. 'Does this come with a creamy sauce?', or 'I'm planning on having a fairly substantial dessert, is one of the main dishes particularly light?'). The scenarios you describe are not parallel: On any given evening, a theatre shows a set selection of performances, they don't offer a menu, and, while I wouldn't argue with an expert, I certainly would ask questions, because I'm an adult, and since I am accountable for my decisions, I prefer to be familiar with the options, tho process, what lies under the surface. I do know what I enjoy eating, and choose restaurants accordingly. Dining room staff not only take my order, but provide helpful information. I simply do not see the desire to be informed as an expression of the need for control, or in the least likely to offend a chef (Seriously, who becomes disturbed by someone taking the trouble to be aware of how much effort they've put into something?). Submission is for infants, who, eyes and mouths agape, swallow whatever Mum and Dad choose to spoon in.

I'm a 'tap on edge of bowl, pry halves apart using both thumbs, shake shell-halves slightly to get most of white out' sort. It's always worked, but here, because the shells seem remarkably crumbly and fragile, there is the added step of fielding loose shell fragments and swearing (the fragility of the eggshells here bewilders me, since the water is so calcium-laden, I think it actually sounds louder hitting the bottom of the sink).

I found an excellent and reliable recipe (CI's, from Feb. 2002), and was planning on making it this weekend, for a dinner party, as a matter of fact. But it's crucial to use the shells when they're fresh (or freeze them for later use, as soon as they're cooled), assemble the profiteroles just before serving, and make certain the ice cream is properly softened before scooping. This last can be hard to enforce, when you have a bunch of people hanging about, urging you to get on with it, but a selection from the knife block (the sharpening steel is both relatively safe and quite convincing, particularly after you've jabbed someone in the ribs with it) is helpful in clearing the kitchen so you can give the ice cream the time it needs to warm from -16C. If you need to dig at the ice cream, the poor shell doesn't stand a chance. I'm not certain what the current attitude in restaurants is, towards profiteroles: is it regarded as a silly/dated dessert? It really does seem that even in places that do other desserts well, ice-cream profiteroles don't get much love, and even the quality of the ice cream leaves something to be desired.

I think that's an important question: A lot of people don't warm to the gadgetry, measuring, and chemistry of MC, and, like anything else, an interest in it is something you cannot fake--fake definitely has no soul--but I think that in the hands of anyone who is legitimately drawn to it (as opposed to those who are 'doing MS' because it's the thing of the moment), it has as much soul as the dishes that come from the hands of those who prefer to work intuitively, in pinches and handfuls, improvising as they go. If I become deeply absorbed in the math/chemistry of a recipe, prep. a leg of lamb with a scalpel (or decide that I'd prefer to present it as cubes of diced meat and thyme held together with transglutaminase, for that matter), or mix citric acid into my truffles along with the lime zest, I think that ultimately, what gives it soul is the fact that, to a large extent, the pleasure of those who eat the things matters as much as my own pleasure in creating it. Incidentally, wonderful as Nathan Myhrvold's work may be, don't let's forget that Harold McGee, among others, began bringing hard science into the kitchen several decades ago.

I hear this argument a lot, and without actually finding myself favouring either side of it, I do have to say that if I haven't seen any instances of government agencies doing specific jobs better than the private sector, I haven't noticed the reverse to hold true either, although, competiveness notwithstanding the cost generally goes up. I honestly have no idea how this would play out in this particular instance, but having spent time in a country in which part of the postal service has been privatized, I have to say that, if nothing else, the results of privatizing can be underwhelming in some unpleasantly surprising ways: Unless the entity in question enters a situation that is genuinely competitive, there's little incentive to deliver more than 'just what it was'.

If it's just a question of 'no harm', I'm fairly certain you're good: I've never come across anything indicating that cellulose is harmful (you ingest it in certain amounts in the tougher vegetables). The effect on quality/are they being cheap bastards... that's another story.

As far as I've noticed (among the cohort of academics and geeks that I run with), in the EU countries in which I've been, vodka is only drunk cold if it's cheap, or if people want to get drunk fast... I sort of associate frozen vodka with the likelihood that those consuming much of it will be doing 'body sild' by 1.00 am. Before anyone starts screaming, I'm not passing judgement, it's just observation; I prefer frozen vodka myself, because freezing mitigates the appalling burning vodka causes. Then again, I think 'sugary' is an attractive description of drink, so I'm aware of the, erm... limitations of my views on alcohol. But the idea that vodka should be tested at whatever temperature it will be drunk makes excellent sense.

How about swapping in a reduction of court bouillon for the vegetable broth in the potato leek soup base? Some of the seasonings used in bouillabaisse, such as saffron (possibly the smoked kind) or coriander could add something, too. Also, one of the Asian fish sauces could deepen the flavour, as could a tiny (nearly subliminal) amount of ground anchovy.

You're dead right, and that was horribly sloppy of me, my apologies (I meant 'disease of the immune system', and truly, I do actually know its more of transmission).

'Typo's'... clever touch!

??? Ooookay... I admit my first thought was 'WHAT?! Don't they have special clubs for that? I don't mean dinner, clubs, either...' I'm not seeing this statement in its original context, and have no way of knowing precisely how the word 'submission' was intended, but although I'm perfectly willing to do my homework on the restaurant beforehand, repect the efforts of the kitchen and dining-room staff, and be politepolitepolite if it kills me, submission seems out of place. If you aren't actively engaged in the dining experience, but instead submit to it, I think you lose out on part of what the chef has done, you miss the elements of dialogue, of exploration. Even if you go to a restaurant that offers a single, set menu on any given night, the decision to eat there is an active one. My mind boggles a bit at the idea that I might have to consider and consent to a tacit power dynamic between diner and food/chef, which, to be honest, goes a bit beyond my idea of 'dining experience', but I imagine everyone feels differently about this, and I suppose that's entering a whole philosophical area related to how one approaches food, which might be considered a bit off-topic.

Although I'm willing to take reasonable measures, and not eat like a fool, this doesn't attract me any more than Norman Walker's all raw veg. diet. Mind you, I tried that, and felt unbelievable, but all I could think about was the sort of food I wasn't eating... I could walk past a construction site at lunch time, and not really hear the pervy comments, because I was wondering whether any of them would part with one of their sandwiches (my experiment with raw foods lasted not quite a month, before I fell victim to a chocolate cake). I figure that my genetics make me likely to live well into my 80s or 90s anyway, which is pretty good innings.

Tortellini and beans. This can actually be produced for about $5/two good sized servings, and is amazingly good. I prefer borlotti, but kidney beans are pretty good, too. When I was at my most broke, I could still manage this about once a week, and for a couple of extra bucks I could get really good tortellini from places that made them fresh. Sometimes, I make it more of a soup, with a bit of reduced chicken broth, and other times I build a sauce around the beans, but regardless, it comes out well, and can even be made on a hot plate, with the tortellini being cooked last in the beans.

Dessert topping/sirup? I've never tried the one by Johan Bülow (towards the bottom of the page), but it looks rather good, and I imagine it would be fairly easy to make something of this sort. In Denmark, it's used over ice cream, among other things.

The thread discussing the accommodation of special requests led my to hunt up this thread. Children who are not inherently inclined to behave in restaurants, and cannot be bribed or threatened to do so, have no business being there, and I applaud restaurants that take a firm line with this. People go to restaurants to relax, and kids (and adults, for that matter) who cannot be reasonably restrained in restaurants ruin it for everybody (and are probably not having much fun themselves). And no, I don't hate kids. I was one of those kids who was generally in perpetual motion (my brother and I fought like particularly ill-tempered animals... at home). However, notwithstanding my fundamentally unpleasant disposition, fondness for combat, and urge for self expression (read: good luck shutting me up), at restaurants, I behaved. My grandparents loved taking me to restaurants when I was as young as three, because my particular form of public showing-off involved being almost nauseatingly well-mannered. I was quiet, stayed in my seat, did not eat as though raised by wolves, was able to hold up my end of a conversation if someone at table spoke to me without monopolizing the conversation (not at three: then I mostly ate), and my relatives did not annoy kitchen and waitstaff by requesting special foods for me; they ordered the simpler dishes they knew I could manage. I had a blast, too (in fact, everybody did), and the self-imposed discipline in no way crushed my budding personality, or stifled my self expression. If I could behave in a restarant setting, any normal child can. I also appluad parents who do manage to control (or otherwise deal with, I know how difficult it can be with babies) their kids at restaurants; among other things, they're giving their kids something important too.

I think the right attitude really helps negotiate this sort of situation. Both the customer and the chef have rights, but the question of whose rights should prevail can get ugly, fast. If everyone keeps in mind that every 'right' is implicitly and inescapably tied to a responsibility of some sort, and people manage to at least act like they respect one another, the level of accommodation is often higher than might be expected. I'm not comfortable requesting significant changes, but do sometimes ask questions about basic ingredients (in which case I order last, so the others don't have to wait, and I keep my questions few and simple), and the waiter has more often than not come back from the kitchen with not only an answer, but an offer from the chef to make an adjustment, if some ingredient is a problem. I'm profuse as hell in my thanks, regardless of whether or not I go with the offer; most people, including chefs, like to feel that what they're doing is appreciated, and others are trusting them to be in control of the situation.

This made me curious, so, although I don't have access to either product where I am, the websites for Fage and Stonyfield Farms (which mystifyingly list 6oz, rather than 8oz servings) give the following breakdowns of macronutrients: Fage (90 kcal. per 6 oz/170g): 15g protein, 7g carbs, 0g fat (contains only milk) S.F. (80 kcal. per 6 oz/170g): 8g protein, 11g carbs, 0g fat (contains pectin, as well as nonfat milk). If I remember correctly, both protein and carbohydrates have 4 kcal/gram (actualy giving them, respectively, 88 and 76 kcal/6 oz/170g); the difference seems to be due to the concentration of solids. My guess is that the consistency of Greek yogurt is due to milk solid concentration and less water, while other yogurts contain pectin, which can hold more water in suspension without making the product liquidy.

Wasn't the original point of this entire discussion the marketing aspect of gluten-free foods, rather than the validity of people's claims of gluten sensitivity? I'm not indifferent to this subject of food sensitivities, by the way: I handle many starches poorly--wheat is a real offender--and unless I actively choose to go on wheat/starch bender, I don't want pointless wheat in my food (I don't actually know what the offending element is, since getting tested is out of my price range, but if it is gluten, it is unlikely to be due to celiac disease, since the problems aren't of a digestive nature). Still, for the majority of people, gluten is not an issue, and for marketers to push the idea that gluten-free food is implicitly healthier, regardless of whether you are sensitive to it, is misleading and unethical (after all, something without gluten in it can still have plenty of other things in it that aren't that great, from insane amounts of sugar, to chemical contaminants and the random rat dropping).

But ma 'n pa establishments specialize in being accomodating, at least within given parameters; it's pretty much their 'thing', whether the food they make is terrififc, or frankly lousy. And if someone were to go in to such a place and harangue them if they couldn't or wouldn't rustle up a home-made mayonnaise, or Pommes Anna (even if they had the ingredients; I'm speaking of a place where the chef/cook isn't familiar with these things), any regulars present would probably strongly resent the rude interloper. And they'd be right. While I agree that an arrogant or smug refusal to accommodate certain requests is unacceptable, it's the attitude, in my opinion, not the refusal itself that is the problem. After all, who would go to Chanel and ask them to whip them up something Thierry Mugler-ish?

No idea of the status the shark species that are hunted for their fins, but if their numbers are declining alarmingly, it makes sense to take a break from hunting them, even if it's simply to ensure that future generations can avail themselves of what is clearly an important traditional dish; 'eat 'em all now' is short-sighted, no matter how you look at it. On the other hand, to characterize environmental consciousness and indifference as generational phenomena seems uninformed and needlessly insulting.

There are a number of things I tolerate poorly, and a few things that I find positively disgusting in food. So, if I eat out somewhere, I look at the menu first; if it doesn't work for me, I go elsewhere; if I'm in doubt, I ask (phone, ask waitstaff if it's looking quiet). True, restaurants are service industry, and I expect restaurants to be sanitary, deliver what they promise, and have courteous (which includes being polite about saying 'No, we aren't able to accommodate that request', as long as the customer is being polite, too) and hard-working staff. I don't expect them to jump through hoops as though they exist in my (or anyone else's) private Sims universe. Am I pleased if they offer me options? Certainly. But every business does try to perform within certain parameters, and if they end up trying to accomodate requests that stretch their time and other resources, it's going to affect what they're actually trying to do.

That's a real problem, maybe THE real problem. Most people in the Western world want to believe they have scientific, rather then superstitious (in the broader, scientific sense of the word) minds, when the reverse is actually true, which makes the line between empiricism and hypochondria very fine for some. This also makes life frustrating for those who are actually exploring some mystery condition that plagues them, in a way that is consistent with scientific method. Once you actually do look at things from a scientific perspective, and studying existing scientific research, you realize that medical science openly acknowledges that very little is certain, and most medical findings are being actively explored and revised on an ongoing basis. I have no doubt that in a hundred years people will smirk as much over our certainties, as people today do, when discussing humour-based illnesses, bleeding, and 'brain fever'. It comes back to 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing', which in this sort of situation means not that one shouldn't seek to know, but that instead of stopping with the article in the Enquirer, one should bite the bullet, and hunt up and read the original study on which it is allegedly based (and keep accurate track of any observations related to what may be an authentic problem).

What?! There are the dictionary.com, and Merriam Webster sites, all online. And many others, too, some hilariously inaccurate. And I nearly forgot: In bars, I sort of hate it when I get the curling lip and hairy eyeball if I request a sweet liqueur. I know, I know, it's considered sort of gauche/tacky, but it's not as though I'm asking the bartender to drink the Mozart liqueur or Creme de Violette. And it's sort of freaky to be watched by bar/waitstaff while drinking, it too, as though I were a particularly unwholesome-looking vagrant drinking cheap cologne straight from the bottle.

I'm not in any place long enough to really be a regular anywhere anymore, and most of the places in NYC where I was a regular have closed. I still go to City Bakery on Eighteenth often enough to be recognized by the owner, however (I believe he suspects me of keeping a male harem, as it's my go-to meeting place--sometimes two or three times in a single day--and he always looks faintly perplexed when he sees me with yet another guy). If you get there first thing in the morning, the baked goods can be terrific. Apart from that, the main benefit is that I know the place, and I adore predictability, plus anyone who's really looking for me knows that I'm sort of likely to be there (or at the nearby B&N).