jaybee
-
Posts
2,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by jaybee
-
-
That is exactly what worries me - the little detail. I will try a "dry run" before company just because I would like to know how badly I can mess this one up.
If I send you my Fedex # will you send me an Arpege Egg?
-
What surprised me with the recipe is that there is no custard - just yolks simmered in the shells for 3 minutes and topped with lightly whipped cream with sherry vinegar. It tastes like a custard, but is this all it is?
See, that's just the kind of "little detail" that can make a huge difference that PW might have left out or not been told about.
-
I am wondering if the recipe is true to the classic dish and will turn out as good as the "real" Arpege eggs. What do you think?
Sometimes, Her Royal Wellness omits some little trick or thing that is in the orignal recipe. Or maybe the eggs won't be farm fresh. But only someone who ate the "real thing" will know.
Really fresh eggs (as in laid that day) are noticabley better. The yolks are, well, eggier, and the white is like a thin clear liquid, not mucousy. The taste is more pronounced too. Sadly, farm fresh eggs are hard to come by in the big city in winter.
-
The trend now continues with Murphys launching a fast flow as younger drinkers can't cope with the wait entailed in pouring a proper pint of stout.
Ain't it the truth? The idea that good things come to those who wait seems to have gone in the rubbish bin. Instanter the better.
Young 'uns drive the same way. They'll run you off the road for ten feet of tarmack.
I wonder if they're as fast on the trigger in other endeavors?
-
Have you made this, Lizziee? Is it difficult to do? (I mean cutting the egg shell without breaking it)
-
It is higher then gardening.
Gertrude Jeykle would disagree with you.
(Are you including landscape design and
execution in your definition of gardening)?
-
Now where is Macrosan explaining how this doesn't promote segregation?
My impression of Macrosan is that he is a kind and good man without malice for whom the benefits of faith are real. If it works for him, why should he not make it part of his life? I'm sure he is not personally cutting people out of his life because of their dietary restrictions. You (and I) are more willing to recognize the societal harm done and the hypocrisy behind what poses as righteousness. I discovered a book on a search of kashruth that exposes the extortionary aspect of selling the seal to food companies, and how it is a huge con game. I'll see if I can relocate it.
-
But now I'm at a loss to say anything other than Halle-fuckin-lujah.
I can't get a Handel on that.
-
This part is cool...
The Root Causes of Religious AtrocitiesWe have seen that simply claiming that Christians are good people and good people don't commit atrocities is logically flawed. However before going through the unpleasant task of chronicling the horrible consequences of Christianity, it is important to look at one more defense often heard from believers. The defense is normally stated as such:
While it may be true that some Christians committed horrible acts, they did this in spite of the teachings of Christianity. True Christianity would not have advocated such horrible actions and atrocities.
Note how the defense now has shifted from what constitute a real Christian to what constitute true Christianity. Here we will see how the acts of intolerance and atrocities are direct consequences of the Christian theological paradigm.[a]
* Monotheism, the belief in one exclusive god, is fundamentally intolerant.
* It is fundamental to Christian theology that God and his purpose are, in the final analysis, inscrutable to finite human minds. However his commandments must be followed.
* Finally, ethics and morality are ultimately rooted in God's commandments, not in a reasoned analysis.
* These three tenets, when applied singularly or as a cocktail, are largely responsible for the atrocities and horror we will be looking at.
The Particularism and Exclusivity of Monotheism
In his book One True God: The Historical Consequences of Monotheism,[1] the University of Washington sociologist Rodney Stark, postulated that the root causes of intolerance seen in monotheistic religions are the exclusiveness and particularism that are embedded within it's very definition.
Monotheism, however, is the belief that there exists only one god. All other gods are, by definition, either false or attempts by the devil to fool their adherents. Embedded within this belief is an automatic contempt for polytheistic gods. This tells us why monotheism will always be intolerant of polytheism.
Furthermore, in defining the attributes of their one God, include the concept of immutability, that God does not change. Thus the God of the monotheists comunicates only one consistent message. In this sense, monotheism is also particularistic. Not only is there only one god, there is only one true message and only one true religion. This leads to both internal and external conflicts.
In trying to find and understand the one true message,theologians read and interpret scriptures. Yet this is the very cause of heresy. For heresy, by definition, is an interpretation of the same message in a method different from the group which ultimately won the battle (and the right to call their interpretation "orthodoxy"). All monotheistic religions show this tendency to splinter.
In first century Judaism we find such factions as the Essenses, the Pharisees and the Sadducess. The Jewish Talmud noted that there were twenty four different factions altogether. In Islam we have the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Sufis. In Christianity we have from the earliest days various groups such as the Gnostics, the Patripassians, Sabellianism, Dynamic Monarchainism and Arians. Even today we find Christianity splintering into more than 20,000 denominations.
Obviously if monotheistic beliefs could not even reconcile themselves with factions who share the same scripture (but a different interpretation of it), their attitude towards other monotheistic religions with different scriptures are even worse. For if God is said to convey only one consistent message, competing sacred scriptures, with different and sometimes contradictory messages, cannot be reconciled within a particular monotheistic paradigm. Classic examples of these are the various crusades between Christendom and Islam.
-
Just say "bacon" and see how many people post in how short a time. Further proof of how much good the Bacon God bestows and how grateful his congregation is.
No dietary restrictions here, eh?
Glory be to the BG. -
Four members of the Egullet cabal lunched at Shopsin's today. After consuming Sloppy Joe, Malasian shrimp soup (I forgot its real name), a soup of sweet potato, and another dish the name of which escapes me, a dish of freshly baked cinnamon jelly donuts and a bowl of bread pudding were placed on front of us. A milkshake made with white chocolate was also slurped down by one of our number.
The jelly donuts and bread pudding are worth the trip to Carmine Street.
Please note that the former was a "special" so may not be available on any given day. The pudding is a standard. It is covered in a perfect caramel,with just the right level of sweetness, and has the consistency of noodle pudding. The cream melts from the warmth of the bread making a wonderfully rich soup.
I will leave it to others in the cabal to describe the meal.
This is a fun and tasty place to lunch. It is a wonderful place to bring out of town guests.
-
Oh, I also ate woodcock about 3 times in a week around Xmas
I suspicioned that too much woodcock was a bad thing. That's why I restrain myself.
-
Quaffs, Jon?
-
There was a time when I was totally bonkers over sushi and sashimi. I ate it several times a week. Then curiously, a couple of years ago, I fell out of love with it. Oh, I still enjoy a good sushi meal now and then. But I no longer crave it. I don't know the reason for the change. It just happened. Are there any foods that have worn out their welcome with you?
-
Enjoyed lxt's post. One immediately comes up with the question for Macrosan 'If there's only pork sausages to eat should you starve to death or break God's laws?'.
Ditto LXT. I'm glad you've weighed in here.
Regarding sausages or starvation, did you read the earlier link about food distribution in Florida during a hurricane and the refusal of kosher folk to eat what was available?
-
He was always demanding tests of people, shouting and railing at them, trapping them then blaming them for falling into the trap (Adam&Eve), demanding they kill their children ("only testing, Isaac old boy") making them wander around for years on end and generally threatening dire consequences to all who question or disobey.
Damn right. There was all that slewing and smoting, blinding and stuff. Didn't Abe kill his brother because he didn't pony up a good enough gift to Him?
Some of the lyrics to The Messiah are about smashing non-believers with rods of steel, breaking them like potters vessles. That's very inspirational, i'nit?
I'm for pork, camel burgers, catfish pie and apple pan dowdy and enough of this hypocritcal baloney from whatever pulpits you like.
-
Regarding Semitic eating habits, I remember reading that a lot of what is forbidden is not prohibited on health grounds, but on an ancient system of taxonomy of the animal kingdom. For the same reasons Jews are supposed to avoid Pork they are also forbidden camel-meat. This has something to do with hooves I think.
I believe catfish are verboten too. There's no prohiition of eating gill-netted dolphins. But there is against swordfish. It's all very rational, you see.
Camel meat is a no no because they were the primary means of transportation. Now there are automobiles, they should be put back on the eat list.
-
Macrosan, your acceptance of God's law as it applies to dietary constraints is certainly one explanation of why some people behave that way. However, there is an underlying truth to much religious "law" that is not as idealisitc or altruistic as you make it out to be.
If G. Johnson's post about the origins of the Hindu proscription of beef eating is accurate, it is typical, I'm sorry to say, of much religious "law." That is, it is designed to serve a particular person or people's needs for power and control. It is fundamentally political.
I think the fundamental argument here is between those who seek some sort of nobility or devine-ness in religiously based dietary rules, and those who see them as perverse and hypocritical devices.
It is particularly repugnant when people who claim to be "holy" in their designs and desires turn out to be merely exploiting others who are prone to believe. And by creating artificial barriers between people, harm is done.
Humans are, by nature, tribal animals. We seek out those closest to ourselves, since they present the least risk and the most comfortable familiarity.
For organized religion to create rituals and behaviors that further separate people and mark some as the "other" is, it seems to me, destructive to the whole, however beneficial it may be to individuals.
-
The comparison of dietary prohibitions across religions or cutures is interesting. I wonder what the commonalities and differences are, for example between the Hindu prohibition of eating beef and the Muslim and Jewish prohibitions of eating pork; or for that matter between the Jewish and Muslim pork prohibitions?
-
I would be able to agree that observant Jews are encouraged to view Jews who eat unkosher food as being in violation of Jewish law. Whether they are supposed to "look down" on those who do it is another question, though.
Schneering at those who violate Jewish law is common practice in Brooklyn.
Schnorring, on the other had, is encouraged.
Schmoozing while schnorring is necessary.
Schneering at a schmoozing schnoorer eating traif is de rigeur.
-
What they said.
Is there somewhere in Ivan's review where he says what he thinks of the food?
-
Spit (my own).
-
As a kid, I used to favor non-pareilles while watching the strippers at the Empire Burlesque in Newark. As I got more sophisticated, I switched to chocolate trufffles with liquid centers. I liked bursting them with my molars at just the right moment in the perfomance. Erthereal experience.
....(That was the name of my favorite bump and grinder).
-
After watching the large fellow in History of the World Part 2 finish his "lot" I too have a craving for a small thin "waffer."
The Rice Cake of Death
in Food Traditions & Culture
Posted
Didn't a Kyoto Doctor Heimlosan invent a technique for expelling mochi balls stuck in old Japanese men?