slkinsey

This is a bogus argument. People aren't taking away smokers' right to smoke. They are just taking away their right to smoke in certain environments where that smoking necessarily impacts nonsmokers -- in particular, where that smoking necessarily impacts employees in the workplace. Here is a fairly similar construct: the government has not outlawed breast fondling, but it has outlawed unwanted breast fondling in the workplace. In so doing, the government has acted to protect employees from sexual harassment. Is this a case of the "sanctimonious" taking away the "right to the pursuit of happiness" from breast fondlers?

Tryska, you should probably go back and read through this thread, as we have already been over this ground in some detail... The smoking bans in NYC and NYC are not intended to protect customers from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants. Customers can always decide to patronize nonsmoking establishments. Rather, they are intended to protect employees from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke at their place of employment. One can make the argument that employees can choose to work for a different employer or in a different industry, but it is quite clear that the government has the right to enact legislation to protect employees in the workplace.

Now that is just a silly thing to say. Where's the data supporting these assertions? Sugar is not even remotely comparable to tobacco smoke when it comes to health effects. Even though smoking has decreased markedly over the last ten years, "tobacco is by far the leading cause of death" in New York City. Sugar... if you were to make a list of all the bad things that contribute to preventable mortality, is would be pretty low on the list.

I think it's already against the law to run around a restaurant or bar with a funnel and force feed sugar to everyone in the room.

That's great, Ling. Thank you-- I didn't find it because it isn't a pie, it's a "Derby Style" Bourbon Pecan Tart! That is the one you meant, right? Yes...I swear, everytime I look at that picture, I drool.... Glad you like it. A big part of the trick is to roast the pecan halves for the topping beforehand. As for Thanksgiving sides... I don't do any. Rather than the traditional family-style free-for-all Thanksgiving dinner with turkey and 1,000 sides, I started serving multiple courses plated. One course I plan to do this year -- and which could easily be made into two separate side dishes -- is a roasted corn flan with sauteed Brussels sprouts and guanciale. The sprouts, in paticular, have been a real hit in the past. I blanch and shock them, then cut them in half and saute them just before plating in the rendered guancale fat just to the point where I get some nice browning on the edges.

What points are those, exactly? What I have seen MatthewB saying for the last few days is that calling Bayless a hypocrite for lending his image in promotional support of a company with business practices and a product which run counter to the principles he and the organization he helped found have espoused is "fundamentalism." I'm not sure exactly how MatthewB thinks this definition and argument supports his postion, which seems to be one of vaguely defending Bayless' BK endorsement. He suggests that, "if one takes, for example, the Chef's Collaborative Mission & Principles and then extrapolates those norms into specific applications in order to judge Rick Bayless, well . . . that's a form of food fundamentalism." I think that's a fatuous argument that doesn't really support any point. First, whether or not it is "food fundamentalism" to judge Bayless by his own stated principles is not relevant to whether or not Bayless' contravention of those principles is hypocritical. Second, it is the normal way of "fundamentalism" that the people belonging to a "movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" apply those principles to other people. I am not sure that applying someone's own stated principles to their behavior is "fundamentalism." Really, it is the philosophy of the fundamentalists (in this case, the Chef's Collective) that embody fundamentalism -- if one espouses certain principles, then it is appropriate to judge them by those principles. Third, all we can judge Bayless by are his stated beliefs and philosophies. These are quite clearly stated by the Chef's Collective. Now, if Bayless wants to come out and say, "those principles are not my principles -- I don't agree with points 4 through 7" or if he can demonstrate that his BK endorsement is somehow in line with the other things he has been saying since he came to wide public attention... then that is a different story. Until such time, we have things like this to go on: There is not a lot of wiggle room here. If you can come up with reasoning why this endorsement is in accordance with points 4 through 7, I'd be interested in hearing them. You make a good point about the CC's dogmatic and absolute approach. However, we didn't choose that approack -- Chef's Collective and Rick Bayless chose it. And, like it or not, if you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Or, as in this case, you end up being a hypocrite and a sell out (sell out, in this case meaning "commiting an instance of gross hypocricy for financial gain").

One of the big differences between Bayless and people like Mizrahi and Halston, is that I don't think Mizrahi went around spouting off philosophies about clothing and the clothing business that are completely inimical to the kinds of clothing one finds at Target and Target's business practices. A better example might be someone who strongly promotes American-made automobiles and efficient, safe automobile design signing up to endorse a Japanese SUV that is slightly less prone to rollovers and gets marginally better mileage because it is a "step in the right direction."

Not to mention that we may get special attention if it becomes known that we are an "informal critics collective" from the famous internet food site, eGullet.

Here is a nice definition of hypocrisy: Has not the Chef's Collective been sharply critical of the business practices and culinary philosphies of fast food chains such as Burger King? Bayless' act of putting his name, image and imprimatur behind the marketing efforts of a company whose business practices run entirely counter to the principles and philosophies that are espoused and promoted by an organization of which he is a founding member, and which principles and philosophies he himself has taken a leading position in publicising, would seem to fit the highlighted section above fairly closely. Nothing that we have read or seen thus far on this subject would seem to support any other conclusion.

Oh, I'm sure you're right. It would be interesting to get some data from the restaurants we visit as to whether or not they grind their own meat, and see what impact that practice has on the quality of the burger. I'd be willing to bet that most of the steak houses, for example, grind their own. Especially as many of them supposedly supplement their base meat (usually chuck, I imagine) with ground up trimmings from their steaks.

JosephB and I were just talking last night about what a huge difference grinding your own meat can make. Really, I think this is one element that can't be over estimated -- especially if the meat is ground a relatively short time before it is cooked. I imagine it has something to do with the fact that freshly ground meat is significantly less oxidized than ground meat that has sat around for a while.

Was this store by any chance Bridge Kitchenware in NYC? If you were in the US and it wasn't Bridge, then you weren't seeing Paderno Grand Gourmet. Bridge Kitchenware the exclusive US distributor of Paderno, and the only line they carry is Grand Gourmet. Paderno Grand Gourmet has the same thickness of aluminum as Sitram Profisserie. That said... and to complicate matters somewhat, there are two manufacturers making "Paderno" cookware. There is a Canadian company that makes cookware called "Paderno" in Canada. Here is an excerpt from an email discussion I had with their marketing and development director a few years ago: The Canadian company, Padinox, Inc., makes several lines of cookware. Their lower level line, called "Paderno" in Canada and "Chaudier 1000" elsewhere, has 0.8 mm thick stainless steel and a 3/16" (~4.5 mm) aluminum base. Their high level line, called "Chaudier" in Canada and "Chaudier 5000" elsewhere, has 2 mm thick stainless steel and a 1/4" (~6.25 mm) aluminum base. Chaudier 5000 is awesome stuff. Used on Air Force One. If you have seen cookware named "Paderno" with an aluminum base of less than 7 mm thickness, you were either looking at Canadian-branded cookware or one of the lower lines from the Italian manufacturer (Paderno Serie 1000, Gourmet Serie 1100, Gourmet Serie 2000). The primary benefits of having a disk bottom are 1) heat capacity, 2) evenness of heat, and 3) responsiveness. When you are boiling a big pot of water, all these things go out the window. There is no need to have good heat capacity because the heat capacity of the water is so great it negates any effect provided by the disk bottom. The heat doesn't need to be even because you can't burn water. There is no need for a responsive pan because the thermal load carried by the water is so great that it is impossible to raise of lower the temperature of the water quickly. So... since none of the advantages of a disk bottom do you any good for boiling water, why pay for them? However, as I said before, having a disk bottom greatly enhances the pan's flexibility. A cheapo stainless pot is really only good for boiling water. A pot with a nice thick disk bottom allows you to make stock and stew and chili and whatever else without worrying about burning a ring of food on the bottom of the pot. I don't see how it could make any difference, as long as you have plenty of water. As mentioned in my cookware class, the smaller curved sauteuses evasée are great reduction pans and are great for sauce making. They are also functional as simple small pans for blanching vegetables, etc. The larger sauteuses evasée function more or less like curved saute pans with slightly higher sides. I use my 11" curved sauteuse evasée more often than any other pan in my kitchen. It works for sautéing, for browning off meats, for quick braises... and I almost always use this pan when making pasta sauces because the high sides make it very easy to throw in the pasta for a few minutes of cooking together with the sauce. It's nice to have stainless lined heavy copper for a large diameter sauteuse evasée, because it is so versatile that it will be used frequently -- which means you're really getting your money's worth out of it.

The main advantage of having a straight gauge fry pan is that the thermal layer covers every surface of the pan. Since frying food doesn't move around an awful lot (as opposed to sauteing where the food is in constant motion), the lack of a thermal layer near the edges of the pan could actually create situations where food items that overlap the margins of the disk will cook unevenly. This is not an issue for foods which sit squarely in the middle of the fry pan, but can be an issue for large items that use up most of the diameter of the pan (a whole fish, for example, or a fritatta). In such cases, it is also nice to have a pan where the thermal layer extends up the short sloped sides, because part of the large food item will actually be cooking on this surface. If all you're doing is boiling water, a disk bottom is overkill. The addition of a good aluminum disk, however, greatly increases the range of things you can do with the pan.

That's an interesting question. I usually make rice in a straight gauge Le Creuset "Windsor" because it's just the right size for two people and because I like the way the cast iron retains heat. That said, most people seem to agree that the best vessels for cooking rice are electric rice cookers. I have no idea whether these heat from the bottom only or from all sides. So, really I have no idea whether or not there is any value when making rice in conducting heat from all sides as opposed to mostly from the bottom. Perhaps we can get one of our resident experts on rice cookery to chime in on this. I'd say yes. I can certainly tell the difference between a 2.5 mm straight gauge copper saucepan and a 2.5 mm copper disk bottom saucepan. I have no reason to assume this would be any different for aluminum. One problem you would probably encounter doing the aluminum comparison you describe is the fact that a 2 mm straight gauge clad aluminum saucepan (e.g., All-Clad Stainless) will be a very high quality pan, whereas a disk bottom design with only 2 mm of aluminum would not be near the top of the heap for that design. Most aluminum disk bottom pans of quality use a lot more than 2 mm of aluminum. Yes, it is silly. And there is no reason you shouldn't use the highest temperature setting. Besides, so what if it discolors the base? You're not using the stuff for looks (I hope). And if looks are important to you, Bar Keeper's Friend is your new best friend. I have yet to encounter any dioscoloration on cookware that BKF couldn't handle.

That's just my point. It is the nature of cooking over an open flame that it is not particularly efficient. Of course a lot of heat doesn't go into the pan. All you have to do is put yor hand at the side of a pan on a hot burner to verify that this is true. Due to this fact, there are finite limits as to how efficient the transfer of heat from the flame to the pan can possibly be. Anyone will tell you that -- other things being equal -- water boils faster on an electric burner than on a gas burner. This is because the transfer of heat is more efficient. So what? Most of us would still rather cook over gas. kwillets, you're making your comparisons against a completely theoretical construct assuming 100% efficiency of heat transfer that you came up with by adding some numbers. I doubt very much that an 18000 btu heat source could boil one quart of water in 60 seconds even in laboratory conditions. In the real world, your comparisons are completely meaningless. I doubt very much any design elements that did not interfere with the usefulness of the cookware would significantly impact the efficiency of heat transfer and heat retention. The idea that a "a few blackened, raised ridges" would make a significant contribution just doesn't make sense. It's just not that simple. I think it has been mentioned. Certain materials -- i.e., those with better thermal conductivity -- are more efficient at conducting heat. Sometimes you want efficient conduction, sometimes you don't. For most cooking tasks, it is either impractical or ineffective to make radical design changes in order to pick up an additional 2% of thermal efficiency. Not really... all the things we've been saying about thermal conduction, etc. are still true in the real world environment of the kitchen. You can put all the blackened fins you want on a cast iron pan and it still won't heat up as fast as a copper pan.

well...i wasn't exactly giving credence to that idea. but you see, those were the guys at the place where i bought the rondeau! Just teasing, of course.

Perhaps the .001 is love. (barf)

i should add this to my list of things i don't get. "i'll have some starch in my starch please." Shades of "Big Night" when the lady customer demands a side of spaghetti to go with her risotto. Uno: "I suppose next she's gonna want a baked potato?" Risotto, you see, is a starch... it... doesn't really go with spaghetti. Sometimes spaghetti likes to be by itself.

Not quite clear on what point you're trying to make here. There are, of course, certain cookware designs that are better for certain cooking tasks than others. It's not clear to me, however, that cookware can be made significantly more efficient when it comes to cooking over an open flame. Cooking on an electrical element is significantly more efficient, but it also has its limitations: the heat source is significantly less responsive and the cookware must be absolutely flat because all thermal transfer is via conduction (as opposed to convection from a flame). One supposes that induction is a cooking method that solves many of these problems, but it still doesn't offer the same visceral connection one has when cooking with flame. Heating a cooking vessel over an open flame is, by its very nature, a somewhat inefficient process. Furthermore, there are certain compromises one must make in order to make cookware that is easy and efficient to cook with. This does not necessarily equate with absolute maximum thermal efficiency. Pans with fins to increase surface area, for example, would be horrible to work with. And, of course, a great deal of thermal energy is lost when one cooks without a lid, which leaves out frying, sauteing, etc. Really, if you have been able to boil water over an open 18000 BTU burner in only three times longer than you predicted in your hypothetical 100% thermal transfer/0% thermal loss model, I'd say that's pretty darn good.

"Dude, there is no such thing as good xxxx." I have to confess that my first thought was, "did Emeril take triple-x hardcore porn and 'kick it up an x?'"

It's in the Palm Pilot. I'm in.

From this page:

I don't think the suggestion that copper lids are more trouble to maintain when compared to stainless lids is subject to dispute. Clearly they are more trouble. It is also the case, of course, that stainless lids may be used on a number of pots of the same diameter, and I invariably find myself reaching for a stainless lid whenever possible. I'm only interested in the maintenance hassle if I'm going to get performance out of it. My point about the price is also fairly solid, I think. Let's say you were buying an 11" curved sauteuse evasee (they call it a sauciere) and a 5.2 quart saucepan from Falk. If you buy the copper lids, you end up spending 75 dollars for the 11" lid and 60 for the 9.5 inch lid. If you buy heavy stainless Paderno lids instead, you only spend 24 dollars on the big lid and 20 on the smaller lid. That's a 90 dollar difference, which is almost enough money to buy a 1 quart sauteuse evasee (they call it a chef's pan). Personally, I'd much rather have another heavy copper pan for my money instead of two pretty lids that require more maintenance. The only reason I can think of someone would want the copper lids is for the looks. It used to be the case that Falk sold all their cookware with the copper lid included. I voiced my opinion that the lids were driving up the price of Falk's cookware with practically no added functionality to Michael a few times over in rec.food.equipment not long after they set up e-shop, and I like to think that my feedback helped influence them to lower their prices and offer the copper lids as an add-on. Anyway, I am glad you like Falk. I have always been a strong advocate of stainless lined heavy copper and Falk has often offered the best value. That said, as I point out in my cookware class, I don't think it is the best solution for absolutely every cooking task, and I don't see how it offers much benefit when it comes to stock pots.

Never fear, Kristin. I am willing to make a supreme sacrifice and eat all your sausages. Especially if they're blood sausages. :yum:

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (ugg, Friday too before 2:00) are out for me until the Bloomfield Farmer's Market closes October 30th. They are my baking/selling days. I was hopeful for a day or so that I could sneak out for a coup[le of hours,but then reality settled in. Plus, we want pnapoli, and she can't do weekdays. Nights? So... basically we're talking about Monday lunches or weekends, yes? I'd like to do a mix of both, myself. We don't want to leave out pnapoli, but we don't want to miss Tommy either. No doubt, they both have much hamburger wisdom to impart.