slkinsey

I second what others are saying about good deals to be had at Ikea. The best for me are the large cutting boards they sell that are actual end grain, which is getting harder and harder to find these days. 25 bucks a pop. Not only is this cheap, but I am not sure I have seen end grain cutting boards anywhere else. I have three of them.

My feelings on merlot are neatly summed up by Willie Gluckstern in his book The Wine Avenger, so I might as well make a small quote:

Snowangel, I linked to two recipes in my post of 09:52 AM above.

Foam Pants: IMO yeast raised waffles are significantly crisper and significantly lighter than the regular kind. The batter is much thinner than regular waffle batter and so once the liquids have cooked off there is more air in a yeast waffle. One of the great things about this is that you can eat more of them! However, on the downside, due to their more etherial nature I am not sure they would freeze very well. As for making waffles with friut... I don't think fresh fruit would work very well, but small pieces of dried friuit might. Maybe dried blueberry or dried cranberry waffles? Driet currant waffles? I make pecan waffles all the time.

Aren't there can openers that cut the seal between the can and the lid? Something like this?

Per my post in the waffle thread... I find that the Sunbeam has the best depth of waffle pockets (if that makes any sense) and thickness of waffle. Most modern waffle irons make what I see as "waffle crackers." The other nice thing about the Sunbeam is that it has separate waffle and griddle plates. This is good for two reasons: 1. you are not burning the griddle plate with the heating element every time you make waffles (or vice-versa); and 2. the griddle plates are wonderful for making pancakes, grilled cheese/cubano/"panino-style" sandwiches. (edited to add below) Oops! just noticed you wanted one for Belgian waffles. Hmmm. That is a different story, although I have used my Sunbeam to make pretty good Belgian-esque waffles (the pockets are smaller, of course) four at a time that I serve with the usual Belgian waffle accoutrements.

I second what others have said about separating the eggs and whipping the whites. My experience has also been that yeast raised waffles are significaltly lighter and crisper than baking powder raised waffles. I use a modification of Shirley Corriher's recipe in CookWise, where the sponge is actually fermented overnight. My modification is that I still separate the eggs and beat the whites (the eggs are added to the sponge in the morning). Recipes for Marion Cunningham's yeast waffle batter and Shirley Corriher's overnight yeast waffle batter may be found here. Of course, the waffle iron makes a very big difference as well. Most wafflophiles I know -- and this includes myself -- think that the 1960s era Sunbeam Waffle Baker and Sandwich Grill is the best of all time. As it so happens, there are a few up for auction on eBay right now (click and click and click some more).

For me, it's always #3: a towel. Not that I haven't tried #4 a time or two when I wasn't paying attention. "Mmmmmm... smells like bacon... AAAAAUGH! MY HAAAAAAAAAAAAND!"

This is, I think, one of the arguments of the fat and protein diets. Look at it this way: one glass of Metamucil contains three grams of dietary fiber (primarily from Psyllium husk). One tablespoon of olive oil contains 14 grams of fat. Which do you think would be more filling: four and a half glasses of Metamucil or one tablespoon of olive oil? I think it is more of an issue that fat is more satiating than fiber, which is different from filling.

Thanks for the reply. I guess my questions comes down to this: 1. If you have excess calories in the diet, we agree that they are stored as fat, yes? 2. Protein, carbohydrates and fat differ as to their efficiency in being converted to stored fat, yes? 3. Given a situation in which there are excess calories in the diet, the body will selectively store the fat first and then go looking for calories to store in the other two forms, yes? This last one would seem to be the logical conclusion of the quote in my last post which seems to suggest that almost any time the body says, "I have 50 more calories floating around in the blood than I really need," the fat cells will tend to grab 50 calories worth of fat (fat fractions, I gather... but I am simplifying) from the bloodstream rather than 50 of protein, 50 of carbohydrates or some mixture of the three. By extension, this suggests that the fat cells will only try to grab some carbohydrate or protein and convert them to fat storage when there is no fat to be had floating around in the blood or when there are unusual circumstances that dictate otherwise. Since allmost any lifestyle except for those impossible zero fat diets would seem to provide enough fat in the blood to be stored in the fat cells when such a situation arose, wouldn't this tend to suggest that the general real world efficiency by which excess calories are stored as fat is fairly close to the efficiency for fat? Say 95% efficiency or so? Does this seem like a reasonable assumption? Of course, I imagine that there are all kinds of hypothetical special case situations where this might not be true (absolutely zero carbohydrates, for example)... but I am thinking more of real world situations. On the other hand, your comments about protein being converted to energy only as a last resort in starvation conditions tends to suggest that this might not always be the case -- that the body might normally prefer to burn fat and store protein. Then again, maybe this works differently in hypercaloric as opposed to hypocaloric diets? Really, I guess the whole thing hinges a bit on the "protein into fat or energy" question.

Well, naturally. I assumed you were speaking of the heirloom limes you buy that come individually protected in spider silk wrappings woven by blind virgins. I know that's the only kind I use. I was only using those quotidian limes to make an example.

They are?! Man... I think limes were something like 8 for a buck the last time I was at Fairway... and the Korean owned/Mexican staffed market on 104th and Amsterdam has them for something like 12 for a buck. $5.31 would get me almost my weight in limes!

But, FG... it can be so much fun to make fun of these people when they do that... Jason, I know exactly what you're saying. Since I find myself in North Carolina and Texas on a fairly regular basis, this is the precise reason I never eat barbeque in NYC.

I find it hard to grasp how anything could possibly be better than Katz's. Maybe in heaven?

Is that the same as those flying over-easy fried eggs where one of them landed on Spock's back and took over his mind? http://www.startrek.cz/startrek/dily/obrazky/29-3.jpg

Hey, they're right about coo-coo clocks and berets and... oh, never mind... :detestable smiley:

There is a very good explanation of the variables involved in thin/crispy versus thick/chewey cookies in CookWise by Shirley Corriher. When I get home, I'll take a look and see what she says.

How about the recipe that appeared in the NY Times recently for Roasted-Lemonade With Vanilla Bean? To paraphrase for posterity: you take 5 halved lemons, a split vanilla bean, one cup of sugar and one cup of water; roast in oven 1.5 hours at 400F, turning and basting several times; let cool in syrup; scrape pulp from roasted lemons and puree together with syrup and one hollowed-out lemon half in a food processor untill smooth; pass through fine strainer and discard solids; add juice of two non-roasted lemons to puree. Assemble drink by placing 2-3 Tbsp of puree in tall glass and adding cold water and sugar to taste. Serve over ice. (Mods, please delete paraphrasing above if it violates copyright.)

I am quoting what I think is the pertinent info here from the site to which you linked: Based on the above, it would seem that they are using "crema coffee" to mean, "pressure brewed coffee that is not espresso." So, carswell's explanation seems correct to me. That said, I find that the coffee is overextracted and not to my taste if I go much beyond 1 ounce (maybe 1/25 ounce for a caffe lungo) in an espreso machine. In fact, running too much water through the coffee is, in my opinion, the single biggest contributing to the shitty espresso served in America. Personally, I'd rather have a caffe Americano or just use a press pot when I want a big cup of coffee. Carswell, there is one comment I'd like to make about your post: I'd say that a regular espresso is 1 to 1.5 ounces (based on approximately 7 grams of coffee per shot). A 5 ounce "crema coffee" would be 5 times overextracted to my taste.

Just reread through the thread and saw that I had skipped over the above. This answers a few of my questions and makes some of your positions understandable. I would suggest that your definition of vodka, however correct it may be in a purely technical sense, is not a very useful one, and not particularly one that is shared by most people in the non-Slavic world. Your definition, in effect, says that all unaged distilled alcoholic beverages that choose to call themselves "vodka" are vodka. Your definition may be a "purist definition" based in the Slavic language meanings of the word, but I think it is very clear that people have something more specific in their minds when they think "vodka." I think it is reasonable to assert that vodka is not every kind of unaged distilled beverage, but a specific kind of unaged distilled beverage. Clearly, there is something in the general conception of this category of distilled beverage other than the name that makes vodka different from other unaged distillates such as grappa, eau de vie, marc, silver rums, silver tequillas, gin, aquavit, etc. There is something that makes people taste an unaged silver tequilla and say, "this doesn't seem like vodka to me... this seems like tequilla." Similarly, there is something about things like gin and aquavit that makes them fudamentally distinct from vodka, even though they might technically be termed "flavored vodkas" (this makes me question the utility of "flavored vodka" as a distinct category more than it does gin or aquavit as distinct categories). Under your definition, a bottle of Patron Silver or Beefeater that said "vodka" on the bottle would, in fact, be vodka. I don't think this is a particularly useful way to think about vodka, I don't think it is the way most of the world thinks about vodka, and I surely don't think anyone in this thread besides you was thinking that way about vodka. If one looks around at the distilled beverages called "vodka" one can reasonably conclude that there are certain characteristics which make these beverages coherent as a group and distinctly different from other unaged distilled beverages. It also seems reasonable to observe that the characteristics that make these unaged distilled beverages called "vodka" hang together as a group distinctly different from other unaged distilled beverages, regardless of country of origin, is that they are refined and otherwise treated in such a way so as to markedly reduce the presence and strength of flavor, color and odor in comparison with other unaged distilled beverages that might otherwise be similar.

Mick, a few things here: 1. First and foremost, let us keep the personal comments to ourselves. Please feel free to make whatever characterizations you like about my arguments, but not about me personally. I apologize to you if the incredulity of some remarks has made them seem directed towards you personally, and hope we can aspire to an exchange of ideas. 2. After reading your remarks, it is quite clear that we are operating under completely different definitions of "vodka." You seem to be operating under the definition that "vodka" includes any and all distilled beverages. That is clearly not the definition that most people outside of the Slavic countries use. It might be helpful in this discussion if you would answer the following questions: 2a. What criteria would you say are those that define vodka? What is your definition of "vodka"? 2b. What would you say is the difference between bourbon or grappa or scotch or rum straight from the still and vodka? 2c. Is there such a thing as aged vodka? 2d. If the answer to 2c is "yes" -- then what is the difference between, say, bourbon and aged vodka? Or are you saying that bourbon is an aged vodka? I would suggest that we confine this discussion to the alcoholic beverage sold as and understood to be "vodka" in the US and Western Europe. This does not mean distilled here or produced according to US law, but it does mean sold here under the name "vodka." I assume that the non-US premium vodkas which you keep mentioning are at least available for sale in the US. Does that sound reasonable? Because, if we go from the Slavic definition of vodka, we have no way that I can see to differentiate vodka from any other distilled product and there is no basis for this discussion. 3. All I can say about the European countries you bring up is that I have spent not inconsiderable time in every single country in Western Europe. In my times there I have spent a fair amount of time drinking socially and in places where people gather to drink socially. It was never my observation that people were drinking a lot of what we in the US would call "vodka" and, in my observation, that goes for non-Slavic Europeans as well (note that I am specifically not making reference to vodka produced under US law). Furthermore, the few times I have noticed (mostly young) people drinking vodka, it was almost always in something like a "vodka and orange." In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen anyone drinking straight vodka in Western Europe. (Keep in mind, that I am using the US understanding of vodka, which would not include things like aquavit, eau de vie, grappa, gin, whisky, etc. Given your seemingly wider definition of vodka, which I hope you will define in a way that we can all understand, these numbers may be higher and may include the aforementioned spirits.) All this is to say that your assertion that most people outside the US drink most of their vodka straight is strongly contradicted by my own personal and somewhat extensive experience. Perhaps someone in the bar or restaurant business in Europe might be able to offer a different view. 4. A "straw man argument" is when someone attacks an argument of his choosing which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's actual best argument. This is what you did by suggesting that my position was "we should all drink bourbon with coke in it to ascertain its true flavor" -- which is an argument I never made, and one much weaker than my actual argument. In fact, my argument was that tasting vodka at room temperature is not a meaningful way to evaluate vodka for people who will be drinking the vodka at freezer temperature. It is not "incorrect" to take the effects of temperature into account when evaluating a liquor. If you want to suggest that room temperature tastings are valid for tasters who drink vodka at room temperature, you won't find any argument from me. Furthermore, I might not argue if you suggested that "true vodka connoisseurs like to drink vodka at room temperature." However, you have still not answered my questions as to how room temperature tastings would be in any way useful or meaningful to someone who drinks vodka at freezer temperature. 5. You keep on coming back to an argument based on US laws for vodka produced in the US. Let us leave aside US-produced vodkas and the laws regulating their production. I think we all agree that the best vodkas are not manufactured in the USA, and indeed most premium vodkas that are available in the US are not manufactured here. Perhaps you could give an example of a highly flavorful premium non-US vodka that is available for sale in the US? I notice that you use Stolichnaya as an example... I have tried plenty of Stoli in my day, including American-bought, European-bought and Russian-bought examples, and I would still not say that it is particularly flavorful. Compared to Skyy, sure... but not compared to gin or grappa or eau de vie or rum or bourbon or scotch, etc. Maybe you have another example? If you can point me to a representative brand of flavorful vodka I can buy in NYC, I'd be more than happy to give it a try. 6. You say, "...compare Stoli to Glacier and you will get the vast difference you are looking for." Are you suggesting that the flavor difference between Stoli and Glacier is as wide as the difference between Bacardi Silver rum and Ron Zacapa? Or any of the other examples that I made? Even if Glacier has absolutely no flavor whatsoever, I hardly see how this could be possible. As I have pointed out earlier, I have a bottle of practically tasteless Brilliant at home right now. I'd be perfectly willing to get some Stoli and compare side-by-side tastings of Stoli versus Brilliant and Barardi Silver versus Ron Zacapa using whatever temperatures and methods you would suggest. But I don't think you're going to want to hear what I'd have to say. Who knows... maybe I'd be really shocked at how the difference between the vodkas was so much more than between the rums and how the vodkas had so much more flavor than the rums -- but somehow I really, really doubt it. 7. You say, "Vodkas produced everywhere else in the world contain as much as 2500 milligrams per liter of congeners." I would be interested to hear what vodkas there are out there (that we would define as "vodka") with 2500 mg/l of congeners. 8. Perhaps you will address this with your definition of what constitutes "vodka" -- but I am interested to hear you explain what, exactly, would make something distilled from grape must (i.e., grappa) not a vodka. Also, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that raw scotch from the still is, in effect, vodka. What happens to it to make it scotch and different from vodka? Is it the aging in wood? Wouldn't this tend to suggest that aging vodka transforms it into something that is not vodka (i.e. that there is no such thing as "aged vodka")? Or would you suggest that aged scotch is vodka?

You would have to give me an example of the marketing copy before I could really answer your question on that. Once companys figure out that a certain term has become a buzzword, they'll use it in all kinds of inappropriate ways ("chicken bruschetta spaghetti," anyone?). Fundamentally, the words "crema coffee" put together in that order make no sense to me. I suppose they mean "espresso with crema." AFAIK, a lot of lower-end espresso machines employ various devices and whatnot that are supposed to be "crema enhancing" or somehow produce better/more crema. The fact of the matter is, though, that the only real way to get consistently good crema is to have a machine that maintains just the right temperature and applies just the right pressure, and combine that with fresh high-quality beans that have been ground such that you extract one double shot (2 ounces) in 20-25 seconds. No special crema devices required.

Sigh... one of the few things I hate anout living in Manhattan is that we are not allowed to have hoods that vent to the outside, so we're stuck with those wussy things that just blow the smoke and vapors around the apartment. Matthew, don't overlook Dynasty. They make excellent professional-style ranges for the home, and they have a wide variety of cooktop configurations available. I know several Dynasty owners, and all have been very happy with their choices -- so much so that I will probably try to get a Dynasty some day.

"Crema" is the term for the the dense froth that rises to the top of a properly extracted shot of espresso like the foam on a properly poured pint of Guinness. This page has pretty good illustrations.

FG, I must have skipped over your comments of Jul 6 2003, 06:24 PM about not going OT more into health care before responding at 7:54. My apologies. It is difficult to keep a topic such as this on-topic, which I agree it should be if it is to havea meaning and focus appropriate to these boards.