|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate
| Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251627] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 02:20 |
|
Hi Eric,
Sorry for the on-group request, but I've had no luck
contacting you. Would you like to have this recipe
archived in the afp archives? If so, is there anything
that you would like to change?
Let me know.
Thanks,
April.
"Eric Jarvis" <web [at] ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e9691365f097696989a66 [at] cenote.gkhs.net...
> Scrumptious.
>
> What I did was marinade some strips of beef in chili, soy sauce and five
> spice. Then I used some off cuts of beef fat to stir fry the beef in and
> to start off a gravy. While the beef was frying with some red and green
> chilies I cooked up some mushrooms in butter with cayenne pepper and
> cumin. The gravy started with some more of the fresh chilies softened by
> frying in some of the beef fat, then some stock (made with a cube I'm
> afraid), then I added some black pepper and a dash of Encona. I melted
> some Green and Blacks 70% chocolate (about a third of a bar) in a dish
> over the rice pan. Then I slowly stirred in some single cream. I poured
> the chocolate cream into the gravy stirring the while. It came out
> marvelously smooth much to my surprise.
>
> Finally it all got slapped onto a plate of basmati rice and smothered in
> the gravy. Perhaps surprisingly the gravy went even better with the
> mushrooms than with the beef.
>
> If I try it again, and I almost certainly will, there will be ginger in
> with either the beef or the gravy and nutmeg in with the mushrooms.
>
> Anyway. Mushrooms go really well with chocolate.
>
> --
> eric
> www.ericjarvis.co.uk
> "live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251647 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 09:35 |
|
April Goodwin-Smith agoodwinsmith [at] shaw.ca wrote in
<Bxh_f.10927$nf7.630 [at] pd7tw1no>:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Sorry for the on-group request, but I've had no luck
> contacting you. Would you like to have this recipe
> archived in the afp archives? If so, is there anything
> that you would like to change?
>
Sorry. I've been having some email problems and may well have lost some.
I guess the recipe may as well be archived as it is. Ar some point I'll
have a go at refining it, but that will have to wait until I next see some
REALLY cheap beef in the supermarket.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251656 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 14:02 |
|
April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Sorry for the on-group request, but I've had no luck
> contacting you. Would you like to have this recipe
> archived in the afp archives? If so, is there anything
> that you would like to change?
Speaking of the recipe archive, I notice that of the two pancake
recipes you got from me, only one of them is listed on the Updates
section (although both are on the site).
The site in general definitely needs an overhaul - particularly with
regard to making sure the recipes are all filed into the correct
categories. I'm CC-ing this post, but I think it's important to give
afpers the opportunity to argue about it and the satisfaction of
knowing that the issues have been raised.
Here are the four maintenence jobs which I think are necessary:
* Desserts are currently divided into nine subcategories, but a lot
of these are very short. I suggest the following mergers:
Merge "cheesecakes" with "cakes and biscuits"
Merge "fondues" and "mousse" with "miscellaneous"
Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
This would reduce the number of desert categories to five:
Cakes and Biscuits (including cheesecake)
Pies and Puddings
Ice Cream
Miscellaneous (including mousse and fondues)
Sauces
* Main Meals should be split into two subcategories depending on
whether or not they contain meat. Mostly because there are a *LOT*
of main meals listed, so they really need to be split somehow, and
meat vs non-meat is the most obvious way to do it.
* Some of the things listed under "Breakfasts" are not breakfasts at
all but main meals. Like pancakes, most notably.
* The Miscellaneous category contains Orjan's "Chicken and Broccoli
bake" (which sounds like a Main Meal to me) plus two humorous
recipes, whereas the Oddments category contains more humorous
recipes as well as other stuff. These two categories really need to
be sorted out - a clear dividing line needs to be drawn between
"oddments" and "miscellaneous". I'd say that everything which is
not actually intended to be eaten (i.e. the humorous recipes)
should go into Oddments and the ones that _are_ actually intended
to be eaten should go into Miscellaneous (or into other categories
if they've been misplaced).
There are other issues, but I think the above four should be given
priority.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251681 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 17:53 |
|
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
You'd want steak & kidney pie in the same category as chocolate pudding?
> * Some of the things listed under "Breakfasts" are not breakfasts at
> all but main meals. Like pancakes, most notably.
In large parts of the world, pancakes *are* eaten for breakfast.
All in all, I find your suggestions to be very ethnocentric, based on /your/
culture only. Keep in mind that most of us *don't* live in Australia.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251683 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 18:30 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:
>>
>> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
>
> You'd want steak & kidney pie in the same category as chocolate pudding?
Have you actually looked at the site? This question strongly suggests
you have not, or you would realise that the "pies" category only
includes dessert pies.
>> * Some of the things listed under "Breakfasts" are not breakfasts at
>> all but main meals. Like pancakes, most notably.
>
> In large parts of the world, pancakes *are* eaten for breakfast.
And in large parts of the world, they are not.
> All in all, I find your suggestions to be very ethnocentric, based on /your/
> culture only. Keep in mind that most of us *don't* live in Australia.
I do keep that in mind. I don't see anything ethnocentric about my
suggestions. It is far, _far_ more ethnocentric to label pancakes as
breakfast than to _not_ label pancakes as breakfast, IMO.
And half of my suggestions are about splitting categories that are too
long and merging those that are too short - surely you're not saying
that such concepts of shortness and longness are specific to my
culture?
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251687 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 19:06 |
|
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>>>
>>> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
>>
>> You'd want steak & kidney pie in the same category as chocolate
>> pudding?
>
> Have you actually looked at the site? This question strongly suggests
> you have not, or you would realise that the "pies" category only
> includes dessert pies.
It's not about which recipes are there now, but having a system that works
for the future.
>>> * Some of the things listed under "Breakfasts" are not breakfasts at
>>> all but main meals. Like pancakes, most notably.
>>
>> In large parts of the world, pancakes *are* eaten for breakfast.
>
> And in large parts of the world, they are not.
So? That doesn't mean they should NOT go under breakfast. Some places you
eat fried salted fish for breakfast, other places you eat sandwiches, and
the cereals /you/ eat for breakfast might be considered a dessert elsewhere.
I can't see anything wrong with having something many people consider a
breakfast food listed under breakfasts.
>> All in all, I find your suggestions to be very ethnocentric, based
>> on /your/ culture only. Keep in mind that most of us *don't* live
>> in Australia.
>
> I do keep that in mind. I don't see anything ethnocentric about my
> suggestions. It is far, _far_ more ethnocentric to label pancakes as
> breakfast than to _not_ label pancakes as breakfast, IMO.
Why? If I compare Europe and the US, I see that pancakes are, in Europe,
/occasionally/ eaten as dessert, and /occasionally/ eaten as a main course,
and /occasionally/ eaten as breakfast, while in US, pancakes are
/frequently/ eaten as breakfast and /rarely/ as dessert. Seeing how
infrequent Europeans eat pancakes, I would believe the number of pancakes
eaten for breakfast by far exceeds the number of pancakes eaten at other
times.
Your treating it as a main meal means you're dissing both those who eat
pancakes for breakfast and those who eat them for dessert. I can't see
anything wrong with having them under breakfast, but you have a good
argument for /also/ having them listed under other categories.
> And half of my suggestions are about splitting categories that are too
> long and merging those that are too short - surely you're not saying
> that such concepts of shortness and longness are specific to my
> culture?
How the split/merges happen, yes. Your wanting to split the main courses
based on meat or not, for example. For someone conscious about eating meat,
that might make sense, but there's already a vegetarian category for those
who want to avoid meat. Others might see a split on spoonfood/knifefood as
more natural, or hot/cold, fried/boiled, salty/sweet/sour, easy/elaborate or
(for the Scandiwegians) even fish/not. If I were to divide "main courses",
I'd split out those that are often used as apetizers or precourses, but keep
the meals that's there if they also belong there.
In other words, allow the recipes to belong to multiple categories.
Oh, and do some web usability design too, because that site is hard to both
navigate and read. The prominent display of the name of the submitters
looks to me much like what pterry talked about in "The Truth" -- people
aren't really interested in the contents, but seeing their own name and
those they know in print. I'd much rather see a title/description divide --
who submitted the recipe is rather irrelevant until you have tried it and
want to praise/complain/improve.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251692 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 19:58 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> 8'FED wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
>>>
>>> You'd want steak & kidney pie in the same category as chocolate
>>> pudding?
>>
>> Have you actually looked at the site? This question strongly suggests
>> you have not, or you would realise that the "pies" category only
>> includes dessert pies.
>
> It's not about which recipes are there now, but having a system that works for
> the future.
We are talking about the category entitled, "Desserts: Pies". Raising
the issue of steak & kidney pie is a non-sequitur.
>>> In large parts of the world, pancakes *are* eaten for breakfast.
>>
>> And in large parts of the world, they are not.
>
> So? That doesn't mean they should NOT go under breakfast. Some places you
> eat fried salted fish for breakfast, other places you eat sandwiches, and the
> cereals /you/ eat for breakfast might be considered a dessert elsewhere. I
> can't see anything wrong with having something many people consider a
> breakfast food listed under breakfasts.
It's unreasonable to _only_ list pancakes under breakfast - that is my
point. I don't have any problem with things being listed under
multiple categories, but if it has to be one or the other, main meals
is a more culturally neutral choice.
I think "main meal" is in principle a more neutral term than
"breakfast", because the former term avoids making any implication
about what time of day the item should be eaten, and _that_ makes it
more culturally neutral.
Your idea of listing things in multiple categories is a reasonable
one in principle. Though I do see issues in practice.
>> And half of my suggestions are about splitting categories that are too
>> long and merging those that are too short - surely you're not saying
>> that such concepts of shortness and longness are specific to my
>> culture?
>
> How the split/merges happen, yes. Your wanting to split the main courses
> based on meat or not, for example. For someone conscious about eating meat,
> that might make sense, but there's already a vegetarian category for those who
> want to avoid meat.
I would swear that the vegetarian category wasn't there when I posted
a few hours ago. (But there are still non-meat meals not in it, such
as "Whore's Pasta", which is on the non-vegetarian page yet includes
nothing but tomatoes, onion, garlic, anchovies, olive oil and pasta.)
And I assure you that the suggestion of splitting meat vs non-meat has
nothing to do with my culture. I'm not particularly concerned with
meat vs non-meat, but I'm aware that other people (both in my own
culture and others) are. The sole consideration when deciding on what
basis to make a split is how to make it as easy as possible for people
to find the sort of recipes they're looking for. That basis can be
arbitrary but it has to be rigorously defined. Hot vs cold is a bad
category because some recipes might be either/or. Fried vs boiled is
a bad category because some recipes might employ both, for different
ingredients (possible), and others neither. Meat vs non-meat is
completely unambiguous. Either a recipe includes meat or it does not.
It's hard to find a more logical and culturally-neutral split
criterion.
If there are too many items in a given category, it becomes daunting
for people browsing it, and recipes are likely to get buried in the
chaos. If the categories are kept reasonably short, people are more
likely to notice all the recipes, because when looking at a particular
category they won't be daunted by an enormously long list of choices.
So when a category gets too long, it should be split somehow. It
doesn't matter on what criteria it is split, provided that it is
logical and unambiguous - so that people can find stuff, and nothing
gets lost amidst sheer quantity. That is the goal of the exercise.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251693 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 19:46 |
|
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote
(on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:32:43 +0930):
> Speaking of the recipe archive, I notice that of the two pancake
> recipes you got from me, only one of them is listed on the Updates
> section (although both are on the site).
I'll get around to it. I must have done the update page when the people
who add recipes were mid-flow.
> The site in general definitely needs an overhaul - particularly with
> regard to making sure the recipes are all filed into the correct
> categories. I'm CC-ing this post, but I think it's important to give
> afpers the opportunity to argue about it and the satisfaction of
> knowing that the issues have been raised.
I did not receive a CC of this post to the address listed on the site, but
luckily April, who did receive it, told me it was here.
> Here are the four maintenence jobs which I think are necessary:
>
> * Desserts are currently divided into nine subcategories, but a lot
> of these are very short. I suggest the following mergers:
> Merge "cheesecakes" with "cakes and biscuits"
> Merge "fondues" and "mousse" with "miscellaneous"
> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
> This would reduce the number of desert categories to five:
> Cakes and Biscuits (including cheesecake)
> Pies and Puddings
> Ice Cream
> Miscellaneous (including mousse and fondues)
> Sauces
I like lots of dessert categories.
> * Main Meals should be split into two subcategories depending on
> whether or not they contain meat. Mostly because there are a *LOT*
> of main meals listed, so they really need to be split somehow, and
> meat vs non-meat is the most obvious way to do it.
I'd been meaning to do this (since Vegan is so small a category as to be
useless, so far) but it doesn't help much sizewise, since there are 44
non-vegetarian Main Meals and only 9 vege ones.
> * Some of the things listed under "Breakfasts" are not breakfasts at
> all but main meals. Like pancakes, most notably.
Where I come from, pancakes are a breakfast... and in other places in
Europe and in the Americas. So that stays, I think.
> * The Miscellaneous category contains Orjan's "Chicken and Broccoli
> bake" (which sounds like a Main Meal to me) plus two humorous
> recipes, whereas the Oddments category contains more humorous
> recipes as well as other stuff. These two categories really need to
> be sorted out - a clear dividing line needs to be drawn between
> "oddments" and "miscellaneous". I'd say that everything which is
> not actually intended to be eaten (i.e. the humorous recipes)
> should go into Oddments and the ones that _are_ actually intended
> to be eaten should go into Miscellaneous (or into other categories
> if they've been misplaced).
If you want to email the maintainer address (ailbhe [at] lspace.org as listed
on the site) with a list of what you think needs to be changed, preferably
with considerably more details than you give here, I will try to find time
to look into it this week.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251695 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 20:09 |
|
Also Sprach Arthur Hagen:
> 8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> 8'FED wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
>>>
>>> You'd want steak & kidney pie in the same category as
>>> chocolate pudding?
I want that every bit as much as I want it in the same
category as banoffee pie.
>> Have you actually looked at the site? This question
>> strongly suggests you have not, or you would realise that
>> the "pies" category only includes dessert pies.
>
> It's not about which recipes are there now, but having a
> system that works for the future.
The category is "Desserts: Pies". I would assume steak&kidney
goes under "main meals". And, indeed, three seconds of
checking reveals that two pies are already there.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251697 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 20:15 |
|
Also Sprach 8'FED:
> I would swear that the vegetarian category wasn't there
> when I posted a few hours ago. (But there are still
> non-meat meals not in it, such as "Whore's Pasta", which is
> on the non-vegetarian page yet includes nothing but
> tomatoes, onion, garlic, anchovies, olive oil and pasta.)
And an anchovy is...?
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251698 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 20:18 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> Also Sprach 8'FED:
>
>> I would swear that the vegetarian category wasn't there
>> when I posted a few hours ago. (But there are still
>> non-meat meals not in it, such as "Whore's Pasta", which is
>> on the non-vegetarian page yet includes nothing but
>> tomatoes, onion, garlic, anchovies, olive oil and pasta.)
>
> And an anchovy is...?
Good call.
I don't think of anchovies as meat on account of never thinking of
anchovies at all.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251699 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 20:20 |
|
Also Sprach 8'FED:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> Also Sprach 8'FED:
>>
>>> I would swear that the vegetarian category wasn't there
>>> when I posted a few hours ago. (But there are still
>>> non-meat meals not in it, such as "Whore's Pasta", which
>>> is on the non-vegetarian page yet includes nothing but
>>> tomatoes, onion, garlic, anchovies, olive oil and pasta.)
>>
>> And an anchovy is...?
>
> Good call.
>
> I don't think of anchovies as meat on account of never
> thinking of anchovies at all.
Good call 8-).
--
Dave (who never liked them even before he went veggy)
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251700 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 20:21 |
|
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote
(on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:28:04 +0930):
> I would swear that the vegetarian category wasn't there when I posted
> a few hours ago. (But there are still non-meat meals not in it, such
> as "Whore's Pasta", which is on the non-vegetarian page yet includes
> nothing but tomatoes, onion, garlic, anchovies, olive oil and pasta.)
Anchovies are not vegetarian, they are fish.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251718 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 23:38 |
|
Ailbhe ailbhe [at] lspace.org wrote in
<slrne3l8h8.446.ailbhe [at] frivolous.ossifrage.net>:
> 8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote
> (on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:28:04 +0930):
>
> > I would swear that the vegetarian category wasn't there when I posted
> > a few hours ago. (But there are still non-meat meals not in it, such
> > as "Whore's Pasta", which is on the non-vegetarian page yet includes
> > nothing but tomatoes, onion, garlic, anchovies, olive oil and pasta.)
>
> Anchovies are not vegetarian, they are fish.
>
Since it's afp recipes, should we technically also be counting bannananas
as fish too?
Just trying to help.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"all characters portrayed in this post are entirely
fictitious and should not be confused"
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251770 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 02:04 |
|
in article e1dhjl$4op$1 [at] mud.stack.nl, 8'FED at dragon [at] netyp.com.au wrote on
10/04/2006 5:02 AM:
<snip>
> The [recipe archive] site in general definitely needs an overhaul -
particularly with
> regard to making sure the recipes are all filed into the correct
> categories. I'm CC-ing this post, but I think it's important to give
> afpers the opportunity to argue about it and the satisfaction of
> knowing that the issues have been raised.
I'm not going to pass up an opportunity to argue, so:
>
> Here are the four maintenence jobs which I think are necessary:
>
> * Desserts are currently divided into nine subcategories, but a lot
> of these are very short. I suggest the following mergers:
> Merge "cheesecakes" with "cakes and biscuits"
Cheesecakes are a distinct classification in their own right, not to be
confused with any other dessert.
> Merge "fondues" and "mousse" with "miscellaneous"
Why?
> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
Pies are very different from puddings in the US sense, and pudding in the UK
sense is synonymous with dessert.
Why shouldn't there be nine categories of puddings? There are probably a
great many more, in fact.
<snip>
>
> * Main Meals should be split into two subcategories depending on
> whether or not they contain meat. Mostly because there are a *LOT*
> of main meals listed, so they really need to be split somehow, and
> meat vs non-meat is the most obvious way to do it.
Good idea.
>
> * Some of the things listed under "Breakfasts" are not breakfasts at
> all but main meals. Like pancakes, most notably.
Pancakes are a breakfast dish, but many North American diners and cafes
serve "All Day Breakfasts", and we sometimes have them for lunch at home.
They are also served with Peking Duck as one of the many main courses in the
kind of Chinese restaurant that does banquets, and are very nice that way.
Crepes are part of a main dish or a pudding.
<snip>
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Request: [I] Trench and Green Tin Hat in the recipe archive wars [message #251777 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 06:49 |
|
Oooookay.
Please consider me to be waving a white flag. Or
wearing my underwear on my head, with pencils
hanging from my nose.
From now on, if I can't figure out how to reach you
from the e-mail that you post here with - you are just
gonna be SOL[1].
That said, if you think I have missed a recipe of yours,
please let me know. If it is more than about two weeks
in the past, you'll need to send me the post, as well as
notice that I missed it, because my server doesn't keep
much history.
My goodness me, and words like that.
April.
[1] Sadly out of luck.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251780 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 07:24 |
|
Ailbhe wrote:
> I did not receive a CC of this post to the address listed on the site, but
> luckily April, who did receive it, told me it was here.
I assumed the "page maintained by" address simply hadn't been updated
since April took over the recipe collection role.
> I like lots of dessert categories.
If I said that recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers
whims, this would be a feedline for you to say, "I like whims".
So, here goes:
Recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers whims.
>> * Some of the things listed under "Breakfasts" are not breakfasts at
>> all but main meals. Like pancakes, most notably.
>
> Where I come from, pancakes are a breakfast... and in other places in
> Europe and in the Americas. So that stays, I think.
Mmmm, since the recipe sourced from my family is titled "Australian
pancakes", shouldn't the fact that Australians don't eat pancakes for
breakfast [1] be taken into account?
> If you want to email the maintainer address (ailbhe [at] lspace.org as listed
> on the site) with a list of what you think needs to be changed, preferably
> with considerably more details than you give here, I will try to find time
> to look into it this week.
This is unlikely to happen before Easter.
Adrian.
[1] Sometimes we eat _leftover_ pancakes for breakfast, but sometimes
we eat leftover chocolate pudding for breakfast too. That doesn't
make it a breakfast.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251781 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 07:25 |
|
Lesley Weston wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:
>
>> categories. I'm CC-ing this post, but I think it's important to give
>> afpers the opportunity to argue about it and the satisfaction of
>> knowing that the issues have been raised.
>
> I'm not going to pass up an opportunity to argue, so:
[...]
>> * Desserts are currently divided into nine subcategories, but a lot
>> of these are very short. I suggest the following mergers:
>> Merge "cheesecakes" with "cakes and biscuits"
>
> Cheesecakes are a distinct classification in their own right, not to be
> confused with any other dessert.
They're hardly as different from other cakes as cakes are from
biscuits.
>> Merge "fondues" and "mousse" with "miscellaneous"
>
> Why?
'Cos there's hardly any of 'em.
>> Merge "pies" and "puddings" with each other
>
> Pies are very different from puddings in the US sense, and pudding in the UK
> sense is synonymous with dessert.
Pies no more different from puddings than cakes are from biscuits.
Less different, I'd argue, because both pies and puddings are commonly
served hot in a bowl with custard.
> Why shouldn't there be nine categories of puddings? There are probably a
> great many more, in fact.
Consistency. A recipe archive looks better- more professional I'd
say - if main course categories and dessert categories are split to
about the same extent. Having lots of desert categories and very few
main course categories gives the site a very unprofessional aura, in
my eyes.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251846 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 16:24 |
|
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote
(on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:54:55 +0930):
> Ailbhe wrote:
>
> > I did not receive a CC of this post to the address listed on the site, but
> > luckily April, who did receive it, told me it was here.
>
> I assumed the "page maintained by" address simply hadn't been updated
> since April took over the recipe collection role.
What an interestingly unfounded assumption.
> > I like lots of dessert categories.
>
> If I said that recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers
> whims, this would be a feedline for you to say, "I like whims".
>
> So, here goes:
>
> Recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers whims.
But why are your whims any better than my whims?
A.
Who is running out of time for this, since it's Tuesday already and she's
busy from Friday until Indefinitely.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251854 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 16:50 |
|
Ailbhe wrote:
> 8'FED wrote
>> I assumed the "page maintained by" address simply hadn't been updated
>> since April took over the recipe collection role.
>
> What an interestingly unfounded assumption.
I see it as pretty much an application of Occam. To suppose two
seperate individuals to collect and maintain the recipes would be
to multiply entities - which Occam warns us not to do. Since the site
looks so disorganised in many respects it is hardly a leap of faith to
suppose that the contact address might not be reliable.
>> > I like lots of dessert categories.
>>
>> If I said that recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers
>> whims, this would be a feedline for you to say, "I like whims".
>> So, here goes:
>> Recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers whims.
>
> But why are your whims any better than my whims?
As I see it, none of my suggestions have been based on any sort of
whims at all. If they were, I wouldn't have suggested them. I see
consistency as non-whim, deviation from consistency as whim. *shrug*
My only motivation is for what's in the best interest of the average
visitor to the site.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251879 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 17:14 |
|
On 11/04/2006 15:50, 8'FED wrote:
> Ailbhe wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote
>
>>> I assumed the "page maintained by" address simply hadn't been updated
>>> since April took over the recipe collection role.
>> What an interestingly unfounded assumption.
and to quote the page:
"To submit a recipe to the archive, and this is something that will be
appreciated by many, you simply send an email to recipe-submit [at] lspace.org
with any subject line you want."
seems blindingly obvious to me, but then I took the time to read it.
> I see it as pretty much an application of Occam. To suppose two
> seperate individuals to collect and maintain the recipes would be
> to multiply entities - which Occam warns us not to do.
There by speaks someone of little experience.
> Since the site looks so disorganised in many respects ...
oh please expand on that. Simply saying what you have is indeed a cop
out or an enticement. I really am not sure what.
Just remember what is aesthetic to one, is horrible to another.
> ... it is hardly a leap of faith to
> suppose that the contact address might not be reliable.
utter complete twaddle. Your assumptions really are taking the
biscuit. I assume that since I don't recognise your email address that
it doesn't exist and therefore the person that posted your comments
also doesn't exist, I am therefore talking to myself and wondering why
the beep I bother - perhaps to win an argument maybe.
>>> > I like lots of dessert categories.
>>>
>>> If I said that recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers
>>> whims, this would be a feedline for you to say, "I like whims".
>>> So, here goes:
>>> Recipe categories shouldn't be based on the maintainers whims.
>> But why are your whims any better than my whims?
>
> As I see it, none of my suggestions have been based on any sort of
> whims at all. If they were, I wouldn't have suggested them. I see
> consistency as non-whim, deviation from consistency as whim. *shrug*
>
> My only motivation is for what's in the best interest of the average
> visitor to the site.
How many cookery books have you actually read? A lot of the ones I
have seen have one encompassing category 'desserts' split down into a
myriad of smaller ones. Ahh wait a minute, that is how the site does
it now - sorry your point was?
elfin
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251885 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 18:52 |
|
Eric Jarvis <web [at] ericjarvis.co.uk> writes:
> Ailbhe ailbhe [at] lspace.org wrote in
> <slrne3l8h8.446.ailbhe [at] frivolous.ossifrage.net>:
> > 8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote
> > (on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:28:04 +0930):
> >
> > > I would swear that the vegetarian category wasn't there when I posted
> > > a few hours ago. (But there are still non-meat meals not in it, such
> > > as "Whore's Pasta", which is on the non-vegetarian page yet includes
> > > nothing but tomatoes, onion, garlic, anchovies, olive oil and pasta.)
> >
> > Anchovies are not vegetarian, they are fish.
> >
>
> Since it's afp recipes, should we technically also be counting bannananas
> as fish too?
>
> Just trying to help.
Yabbut about the only thing nastier that pasta with bananas that I can
think of is pasta with bananas *and* anchovies.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251887 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 18:59 |
|
Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Pies are very different from puddings in the US sense, and pudding in the UK
> sense is synonymous with dessert.
Oy! Steak and Kidney pudding is not some horrible foreign muck you
know. It's true blue British
horrible-muck-unless-it's-made-properly-and-then-it's-divine . Like so
many British recipes.
Pudding is was originally synonymous with boiled or steamed; possibly
microwaved in this more technological age.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251898 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 19:44 |
|
elfin wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:
> > ... it is hardly a leap of faith to
>> suppose that the contact address might not be reliable.
>
> utter complete twaddle. Your assumptions really are taking the biscuit.
I have not said anything in this thread that a reasonable person could
be offended by.
If you find anything that I have said in this thread to be offensive,
that proves that you are an unreasonable person, who seriously needs
to lighten up.
If you wish to behave like an unreasonable person you will not find me
willing to engage in discourse with you.
I hope that is clear.
Sincerely,
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251902 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 20:02 |
|
8'FED said:
> elfin wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>
>> > ... it is hardly a leap of faith to
>>> suppose that the contact address might not be reliable.
>>
>> utter complete twaddle. Your assumptions really are taking the biscuit.
>
> I have not said anything in this thread that a reasonable person could
> be offended by.
Wrong.
Early on in the thread you said, in reply to Peter Davies's complaint about
water cress, that a meal would be "Both healthier and tastier _with_ the
watercress" - a tasteless remark which I find deeply offensive, not to
mention grossly inaccurate. Water cress not only has no taste whatsoever,
but is an anathema and an abomination unto the palate. It is a moribund
food, if "food" is the right word - it belongs neither on any decent,
civilised plate nor in any decent, civilised conversation.
If you do not publish a retraction for your inflammatory remark, I shall be
forced to cancel my subscription and demand a refund.
Yours
D of TW
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251904 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 20:13 |
|
Also Sprach Richard Heathfield:
<kersnip>
> If you do not publish a retraction for your inflammatory
> remark, I shall be forced to cancel my subscription and
> demand a refund.
>
> Yours
>
> D of TW
And you don't want to argue with a Doctor of Terminal
Wizardry.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251910 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 20:33 |
|
On 11/04/2006 18:44, 8'FED wrote:
> elfin wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>
>>> ... it is hardly a leap of faith to
>>> suppose that the contact address might not be reliable.
>> utter complete twaddle. Your assumptions really are taking the biscuit.
>
> I have not said anything in this thread that a reasonable person could
> be offended by.
taking a quote out of context to try and get brownie points doesn't
work with me.
Though no doubt you said that in complete innocence over what Usenet
is *sigh*.
> If you find anything that I have said in this thread to be offensive,
> that proves that you are an unreasonable person, who seriously needs
> to lighten up.
Not really, it just says that I find things you have said to be
offensive.
> If you wish to behave like an unreasonable person you will not find me
> willing to engage in discourse with you.
You spout nonsense on numerous occasions but rarely do anything to
back it up. You started off well by *suggesting* changes, but don't
like the criticism of your *suggestions*. Not everyone thinks the same
as you, and maybe, hopefully, one day you will realise this. When you
do, then perhaps discourse with you will again be worthwhile until
then no doubt you will still be bouncing in and out of my killfile
like a yoyo on acid.
elfin
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251917 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 20:48 |
|
elfin wrote:
> On 11/04/2006 18:44, 8'FED wrote:
>> elfin wrote:
>>> 8'FED wrote:
>>
....and then he said, an' *he* said, an' *he* said....
And lots of other people in about half a dozen threads...
Is it just me, or is February 2007 coming early this year? :-p
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251919 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:03 |
|
on 11/04/2006 06:25 8'FED said the following:
> Pies no more different from puddings than cakes are from biscuits.
> Less different, I'd argue, because both pies and puddings are commonly
> served hot in a bowl with custard.
Yeuch! Some puddings are savoury. Don;t know about you but I'd prefer to
eat them sans custard.
> A recipe archive looks better- more professional I'd
> say - if main course categories and dessert categories are split to
> about the same extent. Having lots of desert categories and very few
> main course categories gives the site a very unprofessional aura, in
> my eyes.
Actually, if you look in pretty much any printed cookbook, you'll find
the reverse is true. General cookbooks tend to classify main course
dishes to a greater extent than dessert recipes. However, at the end of
the day, it all really depends upon the material (ie range of recipes)
you're archiving/editing.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251920 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:04 |
|
elfin wrote:
> You spout nonsense on numerous occasions but rarely do anything to
> back it up. You started off well by *suggesting* changes, but don't like the
> criticism of your *suggestions*.
The only person whose criticism I have responded to in remotely
unfriendly tones was Arthur. And that was because he clearly hadn't
actually looked _at the site_ before replying to my post.
To Ailbhe (and others), I have consistently responded with precisely
the same level of civility and respect that I do when replying to the
average afper, in the average thread. I respect people who consider
that reasonable.
> Not everyone thinks the same as you, and maybe, hopefully, one day you will
> realise this.
You need to reset your time machine. I realised this, well, since a
long time before I was ever online, and I have behaved accordingly in
this thread. Please don't insinuate otherwise.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251922 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:23 |
|
on 11/04/2006 19:02 Richard Heathfield said the following:
> Early on in the thread you said, in reply to Peter Davies's complaint about
> water cress, that a meal would be "Both healthier and tastier _with_ the
> watercress" - a tasteless remark which I find deeply offensive, not to
> mention grossly inaccurate. Water cress not only has no taste whatsoever,
> but is an anathema and an abomination unto the palate. It is a moribund
> food, if "food" is the right word - it belongs neither on any decent,
> civilised plate nor in any decent, civilised conversation.
How dare you utter such appalling lies about one of the great pillars of
the salad world! I find your comments to be both grossly inaccurate and
highly insulting. I demand an immediate apology!
A of MK [1]
[1] Appalled of Milton Keynes
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251924 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:07 |
|
on 11/04/2006 06:24 8'FED said the following:
<snip>
> Mmmm, since the recipe sourced from my family is titled "Australian
> pancakes", shouldn't the fact that Australians don't eat pancakes for
> breakfast [1] be taken into account?
But that wouldn't, necessarily, help a potential pancake recipe seeker,
would it? Especially if they are fom a culture where pancakes are
considered to be a breakfast food. Generally speaking, an archive should
be organised to facilitate searching as much as possible. As such, the
preference/cultural background of the contributors isn't a significant
factor.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251925 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:18 |
|
on 11/04/2006 15:50 8'FED said the following:
> Ailbhe wrote:
>>8'FED wrote
>>> I assumed the "page maintained by" address simply hadn't been updated
>>> since April took over the recipe collection role.
>>What an interestingly unfounded assumption.
> I see it as pretty much an application of Occam. To suppose two
> seperate individuals to collect and maintain the recipes would be
> to multiply entities - which Occam warns us not to do.
It's also a tenet of logic that you do not pre-suppose that 'hypothesis
= theory' until you have first tested said hypothesis.
> Since the site
> looks so disorganised in many respects it is hardly a leap of faith to
> suppose that the contact address might not be reliable.
Adrian, are you aware that you are now entering into the realms of
'insulting'? You also seem to be making assumptions based upon your own
definition of 'organised' which may, or may not, be shared by others -
especially the archive's current maintainer.
Ailbhe has done a great deal of work organising the archive since its
pre-web days. I, personally, wouldn't like to assume that she's finished.
>>But why are your whims any better than my whims?
> As I see it, none of my suggestions have been based on any sort of
> whims at all. If they were, I wouldn't have suggested them. I see
> consistency as non-whim, deviation from consistency as whim. *shrug*
Your suggestions are based upon your opinions and, as such, have to be,
by definition, subjective. Others may have completely contrary, and yet
equally valid, opinions. The fact that they differ from yours does not
make them less applicable and/or logical. They're simply different.
> My only motivation is for what's in the best interest of the average
> visitor to the site.
Given that some of your arguments have centered in the fact that
Australians, as far you are aware, do not eat pancakes for breakfast, I
find your apparent perception of the 'average site visitor' somewhat
geographically biased.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251926 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:39 |
|
esmi said:
> How dare you utter such appalling lies about one of the great pillars of
> the salad world! I find your comments to be both grossly inaccurate and
> highly insulting. I demand an immediate apology!
>
> A of MK [1]
>
> [1] Appalled of Milton Keynes
Pillars? What would you know about pillars? There's no call for them in MK,
since you don't have any buildings tall enough to admit a dwarf, let alone
a human.
ObNice: ...but I have, believe it or not, fond memories of MK!
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251928 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:40 |
|
On 11/04/2006 19:48, Torak wrote:
....
> ...and then he said, an' *he* said, an' *he* said....
>
> And lots of other people in about half a dozen threads...
>
> Is it just me, or is February 2007 coming early this year? :-p
you say that as if you have been about for a long long time.
Oh No!
you have
'eck time to get me zimmer frame out.
elfin
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251929 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:52 |
|
Also Sprach Torak:
> elfin wrote:
>> On 11/04/2006 18:44, 8'FED wrote:
>>> elfin wrote:
>>>> 8'FED wrote:
>>>
> ...and then he said, an' *he* said, an' *he* said....
>
> And lots of other people in about half a dozen threads...
>
> Is it just me, or is February 2007 coming early this year?
> :-p
Certainly did; it was *last* month. The current month is Feb
'08.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251930 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 21:55 |
|
Also Sprach esmi:
> on 11/04/2006 06:24 8'FED said the following:
> <snip>
>> Mmmm, since the recipe sourced from my family is titled
>> "Australian pancakes", shouldn't the fact that Australians
>> don't eat pancakes for breakfast [1] be taken into
>> account?
>
> But that wouldn't, necessarily, help a potential pancake
> recipe seeker, would it? Especially if they are fom a
> culture where pancakes are considered to be a breakfast
> food. Generally speaking, an archive should be organised to
> facilitate searching as much as possible. As such, the
> preference/cultural background of the contributors isn't a
> significant factor.
That of the searchers possibly should be. As an irrelevent
datapoint, it *might* occur to me to look for pancakes under
breakfasts, if I'd failed to find them under desserts. (If, on
the other hand, they were *savoury* pancakes, then if they
weren't under "main meals" I'd be lost).
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251938 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 22:27 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote
(on 11 Apr 2006 19:55:28 GMT):
> Also Sprach esmi:
>
> > on 11/04/2006 06:24 8'FED said the following:
> >> Mmmm, since the recipe sourced from my family is titled
> >> "Australian pancakes", shouldn't the fact that Australians
> >> don't eat pancakes for breakfast [1] be taken into
> >> account?
> >
> > But that wouldn't, necessarily, help a potential pancake
> > recipe seeker, would it? Especially if they are fom a
> > culture where pancakes are considered to be a breakfast
> > food. Generally speaking, an archive should be organised to
> > facilitate searching as much as possible. As such, the
> > preference/cultural background of the contributors isn't a
> > significant factor.
>
> That of the searchers possibly should be. As an irrelevent
> datapoint, it *might* occur to me to look for pancakes under
> breakfasts, if I'd failed to find them under desserts. (If, on
> the other hand, they were *savoury* pancakes, then if they
> weren't under "main meals" I'd be lost).
You could do an ingredients search for eggs, flour, or similar, though.
If you wanted to, and had any odea of what usually goes into pancakes.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251939 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 22:22 |
|
on 11/04/2006 20:55 Daibhid Ceanaideach said the following:
> Also Sprach esmi:
>>But that wouldn't, necessarily, help a potential pancake
>>recipe seeker, would it? Especially if they are fom a
>>culture where pancakes are considered to be a breakfast
>>food. Generally speaking, an archive should be organised to
>>facilitate searching as much as possible. As such, the
>>preference/cultural background of the contributors isn't a
>>significant factor.
> That of the searchers possibly should be.
Couldn't agree more. The Catch 22 being that we can't even guess at a
given searcher's preferences, so you're left with trying to make a
judgement call that may well be based on a stereptypical majority.
> As an irrelevent
> datapoint, it *might* occur to me to look for pancakes under
> breakfasts, if I'd failed to find them under desserts. (If, on
> the other hand, they were *savoury* pancakes, then if they
> weren't under "main meals" I'd be lost).
I'm in a similar position in that, at home, we tend to have pancakes as
a dessert but I'm familiar with enough recipe books to try other
sections if the Dessert one fails. This is where cross-links would be
useful - ie "Can't find what you're looking for? Try Main
Meals/Pancakes". However, in all fairness, that's the kind of
nice-to-have-but-not-essential facility that people start considering
when all of the work on the infrastructure and maintenance processes
have been completed. Especially if there is a search facility already
available.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: Request: [I] Mushrroms and chocolate [message #251943 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 22:42 |
|
Also Sprach esmi:
> on 11/04/2006 20:55 Daibhid Ceanaideach said the following:
>> Also Sprach esmi:
>
>>>But that wouldn't, necessarily, help a potential pancake
>>>recipe seeker, would it? Especially if they are fom a
>>>culture where pancakes are considered to be a breakfast
>>>food. Generally speaking, an archive should be organised
>>>to facilitate searching as much as possible. As such, the
>>>preference/cultural background of the contributors isn't a
>>>significant factor.
>
>> That of the searchers possibly should be.
>
> Couldn't agree more. The Catch 22 being that we can't even
> guess at a given searcher's preferences, so you're left
> with trying to make a judgement call that may well be based
> on a stereptypical majority.
Agreed.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 02:43:46 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,12058 Sekunden |
