balex
-
Posts
641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by balex
-
-
Okay, a helpful friend pointed out this definition of water saute. Apparently this technique is fairly common among macrobiotic cooks. And apparently it is only for use with vegetables. I'm not real sure about the yin & yang of the "food engergy" presented here, but the technique seems pretty straightforward.
Chad
So this is a variant of a normal East Asian cooking technique, without the oil. So the pan is at a high temperature ( above 100C), you sprinkle with water which sizzles as the drops hit the bottom of the pan. You get some browning since the pan is hot, but what stops it sticking is there is no oil?
-
Pinot Grigio
in Wine
Grigio means grey in Italian
Gris means grey in French
(if this helps)
-
I did a bit of googling and found this amusingly incoherent entry which claims saute as a Chinese technique --
sauté (saw-TAY) – A cooking technique which means to cook a food quickly in oil and/or butter over high heat. You can use a skillet or sauté pan, but make sure it is big enough to comfortably contain what you are cooking.History: The Chinese community introduced us to the improved method of cooking, which we call “sautéing” and the Chinese call “chowing.” Their Chinese cooks influenced the meals and diets of hundreds of California families. Although the Chinese cooks were seldom permitted to prepare Oriental meals, they held to their art of cooking and serving vegetables, a contribution that eliminated English overcooking of vegetables and contributed to the cuisine of the West Coast.
from Culinary dictionary
This page Shallow frying is quite close to my use.
There are probably differences in English American and French usages of the term.
-
I am not sure I agree with this. The etymology you give is quite correct but it does not reflect current usage. What you describe is more commonly called stir-frying.
To me saute means more or less -- fry in a small amount of fat. Not even particularly fast either.
By the way, all I am describing is how the word is actually used, and what it actually means, not what it should mean.
Water saute is nonsense though. Unless it means something like that Chinese technique where you splash a bit of water on vegetables as you are stri-frying them.
-
I did this quite a lot in Italy with pork when I was into BBQ. Getting the right bit of shoulder was tricky until I worked out that it was called neck not shoulder and then it was easy. But yes, in general they like dealiing with something a bit unusual.
-
Thanks Moby -- I see a long and awkward session in the butchers looming.
-
Well ok, you (or someone who wants to claim that there is a lot of snobbery) now can provide some evidence for snobbery by mentioning a current thread that is full of snobbery.
Then I retort with another non snobbery thread etc. and then we just start hurling insults at each other. That's how we scientists resolve disputes.
-
I don't know if this has been said before on this thread but I have a two word rebuttal for anyone that claims that food snobbery is prevalent on eG: Burger Club.
one exception doesn't prove anything.
It's not proof, it's evidence
-
I don't know if this has been said before on this thread but I have a two word rebuttal for anyone that claims that food snobbery is prevalent on eG: Burger Club.
It is much less snobby now than it used to be when he who must not be named was on the site, thank God.
-
But does nobody go for that relationship stuff where there is an individual who knows your tastes and can say 'try this" ?
For me there are three sorts of wine buying.
a) after research I decide I want to buy a case of a particular wine and so I search around until I find it and buy it on price and convenience (and provenance if it is old).
b) when it comes to Burgundy where I am especially not an expert, I listen to the recommendations of someone I trust at a wine merchant. Anything I've heard of is probably overpriced.
c) I am in a supermarket and I grab something of the shelves almost at random.
But for me I definitely want to talk to knowledgable people for a substantial fraction of my wine buying.
-
What about auctions? Or the more wholesaley side of things like Farr vintners or John Armit?
I just orderd a few cases from Farr vintners who have a very good sale on at the moment:
-
Following Gus's suggestion, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about who we buy our wine from.
I use four channels:
supermarkets -- Waitrose (ocado) I haven't found this very good
high street off licenses -- Oddbins -- have some good stuff
wine merchants -- e.g. Corney and Barrow (overpriced), Morris & Verdin (v good for Burgundy )
internet ( everywine is quite fun but erratic pricing).
there is also Majestic who don't quite fit into these categories.
I definitely favour the old-fashioned wine merchants. Oddbins used to have clueful staff but not consistently anymore.
-
The contract will be legal and binding; but the particular term relating to the penalty (if such it is) will not be enforced. However in this case, it seems to be reasonable as an estimate of loss so it probably is valid. (IANAL)
The Court of Appeal doesn't agree with you: "[a penalty clause] will not be enforced... beyond the sum which represents [the] actual loss" (Jobson v Jobson (1989)).
If the restaurant was (as is likely to be the case) full on the night in question, then the only actual loss resulting from the cancellation will be the administrative costs of making/cancelling the reservation. I find it hard to believe these amount to £20 per cover, where the average per person bill is around is £50.
Jobson v Johnson, not Jobson v Jobson. But what do those saps know about anything. I'll take this to the House of Lords
.I'll take your word for it. I really am not a lawyer.
So in summary even if it is a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss,
if it exceeds the actual loss, then it willl not be enforceable in full? You learn something every day.
-
The contract stuff also seems to miss the point, offer and acceptance is not what this is about. the point is that it is not legal to enter into such a contract, thus rendering acceptance and offer entirely meaningless.
Also note, that if a contract had been entered into, (it hadn't) the quantum of any penalty cannot be implied into the contract. The cancellation fee is not the consideration, it's the punitive action. The consideration is payment for the meal.
Your point of view seems to favour punishing a bad customer, which is neither legal nor good business sense.
It is legal -- the particular term relating to the penalty -- if it is a penalty -- is not binding.
The cancellation fee is clearly not the consideration -- you are right there.
If it is punitive then it is not binding -- but £20 or whatever seems reasonable not punitive and therefore binding.
Legal but not binding...?
Sorry that was very unclear.
The contract will be legal and binding; but the particular term relating to the penalty (if such it is) will not be enforced. However in this case, it seems to be reasonable as an estimate of loss so it probably is valid. (IANAL)
-
The contract stuff also seems to miss the point, offer and acceptance is not what this is about. the point is that it is not legal to enter into such a contract, thus rendering acceptance and offer entirely meaningless.
Also note, that if a contract had been entered into, (it hadn't) the quantum of any penalty cannot be implied into the contract. The cancellation fee is not the consideration, it's the punitive action. The consideration is payment for the meal.
Your point of view seems to favour punishing a bad customer, which is neither legal nor good business sense.
It is legal -- the particular term relating to the penalty -- if it is a penalty -- is not binding.
The cancellation fee is clearly not the consideration -- you are right there.
If it is punitive then it is not binding -- but £20 or whatever seems reasonable not punitive and therefore binding.
-
On a little side issue, does anyone else find the increasing need to have a credit card to do anything annoying?
No.
I think that credit card bookings are entirely reasonable. You don't go on holiday without booking and paying for it - you take out insurance for last minute cancellations. By taking a credit card, the restaurant is taking out insurance.
I can't help but think back to one of the initial points that Clerkenwellian came up with. HE/SHE HAD TO CANCEL BY 2.00PM - HE/SHE PHONED AT 3.00PM. Please help me here. What part of 2.00pm was not undserstood?
To me, the initial phone call comes into the realms of contract law in England. An offer and acceptance took place. Consideration (legal def.) on both parts would have taken place if C had eaten there. However, C broke the contract, and therefore had to pay consideration as per the original contract to the restaurant.
The legal situation isn't that simple. This counts as a liqiudated damage claim which must be reasonable. If it is £30 then it is reasonable related to the gross profit, or some fraction of the gross profit that corresponds to the chance of the table remaining unfilled.
And taking the credit card isn't really 'insurance' -- they are just taking care of the credit risk of the cancellation charge being unpaid.
-
I think it's important never to forget the importance of simplicity and honesty. Never forget that some of the best meals have come out of the least well-equipped kitchens. Never forget (I read that you should say things three times for rhetorical effect), brothers and sisters (now I've gone too far), that what people talk about in the media is just what is new and trendy, not what is good.
Don't try to find the perfect dish -- try to find the perfection in everything you eat.
(I am serious, but I am English so we have to cloak our sincerity in irony)
-
I have a couple of times got fish and chips wrapped in paper printed to look like newspaper (but presumably in line with health and safety regulations). A nice touch.
-
I just had some of the regular cuvee of the Clos Roilette. It's great! For UK readers, Lea and Sandeman have it at just under £10 a bottle (just next to the Black & Blue where the burger club had a meeting). The cuvee tardive is not available here but the chap at L & S I spoke to said they might have it next year, because the regular one has sold well.
Thanks for the pointer Jim.
-
I don't know if this will be of interest, but Heston Blumenthal just published this recipe for oxtails, and it's amazing. I expanded it and cooked the oxtails and short ribs simultaneously in a deep roasting tray, and it was kind of extraordinary. He goes for very low heat - @200F/90C - for 7 or 8 ours. And check out the different liquids and aromatics he uses.
I have been meaning to ask about this for some time -- what are short ribs called in England?
-
I agree with you that the key is to find a critic who likes the same things you do -- just like with movies.
Coates' antagonism to Parker is not primarily motivated by jealousy -- he has a good wall of awards as well-- he is motivated by the fact that he completely disagrees with Parker's taste. Coates dislikes Pomerol, southern Rhone etc. and loves classic claret and Burgundy. They are poles apart.
Coates is in the process of moving to France
which is a shame because he had a good series of tastings at his house in Chiswick. -
Independently of the source of 15% (or 25%) of the grapes, yes.
Then a wine from Napa is essentially a wine from Napa. Even in the USA, Im tempted to add.
Thats what I wanted to hear: the framework for protection for designators of origin does already exist in the USA. All the French (and the rest of the western world) want is indiscrimating application of such a legal framework, whether the producer is a foreigner or not. In the very sense of fair trade.
Boris, I think cdh's point is that Champagne is now a generic term (like Cheddar) that is used in the US just to mean a dry sparkling white wine. Cheddar of course is not used to mean a sort of white wine. So maybe it's not like that at all. Now I'm confused
. -
So your argument is that people will say -- Boy, those Champagne guys are harshing my mellow by harrassing that poor Californian wine maker; that's no fun -- I'll buy some beer instead.
Now confess -- you aren't 100% serious, are you?
I was more thinking of running into somebody in a wine shop while shopping for champagne and being on the receiving end of a rant about how evil Korbel or other such are. If shrill browbeaters are called into service in the cause, then the cause is already lost.
Re your beer crack... maybe I would rather a case of Rochefort 10 or Westvleteren 12 rather than a bottle of Cristal sometimes. If Champagne gets shrill and annoying, then I might just act on that impulse.
You see, I'm something of a contrarian by nature-- I'm inclined to question and pick apart any command given to me, and if it is unfounded, then to ignore it. If the Champegnoise are going to step out from behind their mystique and start issuing commands, then my questioning analytical nature will be engaged.
Champagne: You must only celebrate with real Champagne from Champagne! (preferably LVMH or Domecq owned products, since they're probably paying for this)
Me: Oh yeah? why? Maybe I'd like to celebrate with a Burgundy or maybe a Riesling... or that lovely Gewurz that smells like roses...
Champagne: No! You have always celebrated with fizzy wine, and it must be our fizzy wine.
Me: Now why did I always gravitate toward fizzy wines in celebratory situations? Hmmm... thoughtless reflex, I guess... and it goes so well with the caviar. No caviar today, so I don't need to limit myself to champagne. Now what will go well with those lamb chops...
1. Shrill browbeaters often are involved in worthwhile and ultimately successful endeavours -- women's suffrage for instance.
2. Questioning is good -- and I agree when someone tells me I have to do it, I often have the knee-jerk reaction to say "Why the hell should I?". That is a good thing. Sometimes there is a reason, in which case you should do it.
3. There is no reason at all why you can't celebrate with something else -- nor is Champagne a special occasion wine -- I drink it regularly (once a week maybe).
4. Beyond trademark protection, which you accept, surely you also accept basic principles of truthful labelling -- you can only call something beef if it comes from a cow. There is a genuine argument about whether and to what extent legal rpotection should e extended to particular geographical designators, and to what extent they have just become generic terms.
Can 'Cheddar' only be made in a certain region of England?
Extending protection clearly will have some consequences -- we could have a rational argument about this, if it's not too late. A good start would be
to admit that Champagne producers stand to benefit from extending these protections to the American market, just as they have benefitted from their protection in Europe. Conversely, they will lose financially if they fail to extend these rights. Please don't think that because I use the word 'right' I think it is necessarily a beneficial thing, nor that I think they should have these rights.
Whether consumers will benefit is a different issue, and though the Champagne producers may put this forward as championing consumer rights that is, as English lawyers say, complete bollocks.
-
I'd vote for the best producers of Chasselas around the lake of Geneva and Pinot Noir (!) from top producers in northeastern Switzerland ($12-15).
Never heard before? Think of Buxbaums law.
It's so much of a secret I can't even convince my compatriots. But they are completely missing the quality changes having occurred in the last several years.
Balex, are you here? Get some bottles of Pierre Leyvraz (Chexbres) St.Saphorin Les Blassinges 2001. Awesome apéritif wine at $11. I was successful in convincing some hard core Chasselas refusers.
I'll try this one. I have had a lot of nice surprises in Swiss wine.
Story of Varmint's Kitchen Renovation
in Kitchen Consumer
Posted
Avoid tiled counter tops like the plague. I have one at the moment and it is useless for any purpose other than resting stuff on. Oh jackal10 said that already. Well he's right.