>  ML> >  ML> You're lucky if you pull out a plum.
>  ML> > I've pulled a good number of those, also probably an equal number of
>  ML> > lemons.
>  ML> Which makes me wonder about lemons, specifically their
>  ML> bad rep. I'd have thought that as they are tropical and
>  ML> strong in flavor they would have been a relatively
>  ML> prestigious item back in the day.
> But they are sour so, for example, a book that is a lemon, has you
> soured on reading it.

We are aware what it means now, but when that transition
of connotation happened, that would be kind of interesting
to know and the question I was asking.

>  ML> >  ML> There are issues worth pondering that one is not
>  ML> >  ML> directly involved with!
>  ML> > Which probably aren't worth discussing here.
>  ML> It doesn't matter, your criterion of "worth"; pretty
>  ML> much anything that is germane to any of us and that
>  ML> doesn't cause strife is okay by me. Worthless isn't
>  ML> necessarily worthless, if you know what I mean.
> True, but maybe we should discuss cook books?

We've discussed numerous things here, including cookbooks.
There is no particular mandate to stay all on topic all the
time. I was, for example, tempted to make some snide comment 
back when the balance threatened to turn this into a 
handicrafts echo, but I decided that lots of talk about 
quilting and stuff wouldn't do any harm, and if people 
didn't want to read about it, they didn't have to.

So ... what's your latest pet cookbook?

>  ML> >  ML> I wouldn't be reading a book that was too technical,
>  ML> >  ML> contrary to my reputation in some circles.
>  ML> > Don't want to buy "Violin Making For Dummies"?
>  ML> That's a reference too that I don't understand.
> For a time, seemed to have started in the 90s (IIRC, "Windows for
> Dummies" was one of the first ones out) there were a number of books on
> the market along the theme of "XYZ for Dummies". They covered quite a
> range of topics.I never bought any because none of the subjects covered
> were of interest to me but they did cover quite a wide spectrum of
> topics. As I remember, most of them had a yellow cover meant to look
> sort of like a legal pad.

I've seen the series prominently at times displayed in
bookstores, which struck me amusing as the customers 
of bookstores generally aren't dummies and don't
perceive themselves as dummies.

>  ML> > I'd rather have the squeak than green bean mush.
>  ML> For me the first choice is no green beans, second,
>  ML> grossly overcooked to eliminate the origin of the
>  ML> squeak, last, heavily greased with butter or other
>  ML> fat to lubricate it away (and not incidentally
>  ML> improve the taste).
> I usually steam them and add a bit of butter. Alternatly, I'll do them
> with the bacon, onion and vinegar--the way my grandmother did from time
> to time.

A lot of butter, and I'd agree.

>  ML> not putting > honey on the rest of the scar as I don't want to cover
>  ML> it or deal with a > sticky leg.
>  ML> That shows the power of the stuff ... but also gives
>  ML> you a clue about the diminishing returns, as it were,
>  ML> when you go farther down and use more goo.
> It served the purpose well. I'm now using vitamin E oil on the scar;
> it's faded some but not as much as where I used the honey.

I wonder if vitamin E works better than, say, something
like wheat germ oil that has vitamin E.

>  ML> >  ML> Or one can do what the French do with a clafoutis and
>  ML> >  ML> refrain from pitting the cherries.
>  ML> > Easier on the teeth if you pit the cherries. Anyway, the cherry pie
>  ML> is > gone, blueberry pie (fom local berries) is on the agenda for this
>  ML> week's > baking project.
>  ML> Better for the flavor as well as easier if you
>  ML> don't. The French have some characteristics that
> I'd rather pit them, but, that's my choice.

I've made cherry desserts and have always removed the
stones, but not doing so makes perfect sense in any
society that wants to maximize flavor and doesn't worry
so much about liability issues.

>  ML> stone; they are more frugal with ingredients, so
>  ML> the pits add depth of flavor in a way that we can't
>  ML> get so often compensate for by a splash of almond
>  ML> extract; and they seem more attuned to texture, so
>  ML> cherry pits and fish bones, though a universal
> Quite a range of differences from the average American.

The wealth of this land has its downside.

>  ML> annoyance, are not as much an obstacle with them as
>  ML> with us. In addition, they may have higher tolerance
>  ML> for pain or the loss of teeth. Our pace of life and
>  ML> consequent need for immediate gratification has'imposed
>  ML> some attitudes that are not exclusively beneficial.
> I can tolerate a certain level of pain but I don't want to crunch down
> on a cherry pit and break a tooth. Spending time at the dentist is not
> one of my favorite things.

Someone who properly savors a clafoutis isn't
likely to bite down on a cherry pit.

---------- Recipe via Meal-Master (tm) v8.05

      Title: Chocolate Almond Snowballs
 Categories: Desserts
      Yield: 1 Servings

  1 3/4 c  All-Purpose Flour
    2/3 c  Nestle Cocoa
      2 ts Baking Powder
    1/4 ts Salt
    1/4 c  Granulated Sugar
    1/2 c  Butter, Melted & Cooled
      2    Eggs
      1 ts Almond Extract
           Confectioner's Sugar

  Preheat oven to 350 F. In small bowl, combine flour, cocoa, baking powder
  and salt; set aside. In large mixer bowl, beat granulated sugar, butter,
  eggs and almond extract until creamy. Gradually beat in flour mixture.
Roll
  measuring tablespoonfuls of dough into balls. Place on ungreased cookie
  sheets. Bake 6 to 8 minutes. Let stand on cookie sheets 2 minutes. Remove
  from sheets, cool completely on wire racks. Sprinkle with confectioners'
  sugar. Makes about 2 1/2 dozen.

  Dan Klepach  [dan.klep@worldnet.att.net]

-----
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)