>: 1959 usage of words suits me. >: That is when I was actively learning words and as new words came along I >: added them to my usage, but use the 59 usage of older words. >: I still like to distinguish between imply and infer. I note with regret >: that many professional "wordsmiths" these days do not see a difference >: between the words. (some here as well {;-)})
>: Lindsay in OZ (Which only *partly* explains the date + spelling styles)
> I implied that you that you did not have correct usage, from which you, > incorrectly, inferred that I thought you were stupd, :-)
> Wendy
Ah, Yeah, G'day Wendy, air gun? (How are you going?) {;-)}
Despite any and all evidence to the contrary I made no such inference, imputed or otherwise. P'raps I'm just as thick as two short planks. {;-)} Perhaps I need to re-sensitise my sensibilities. I am sensitive enough to see that some of the group can infer that something has been implied when I have only inferred that such imputation may have occurred, sometimes only because of the responses.
One of the problems of being people separated by a common language I guess.
Correct usage, to my mind, is what best gets the point across to those involved, considering that language exists to allow free communication of ideas etc. The correctness of the language used depends on the times and location of the participants in the conversation. Context is all.
During the 60's my grand-father, now long dead, used to give us an impersonation of his uncle Wilf and he would usually finish up with "I wonder if he is alive yet." Where "yet" means "still".
Uncle Wilf, who used to go to the dentist to get his teeth sorted (as in being out of sorts), came from a part of England where one would say "Why do her look at we? Us don't know she." using perfectly good English. I liked uncle Wilf although I never met him except thru' my grandfather.
Composed Ozdate Sun 1/11 7:10 pm and posted while still online. All the above with the usual proviso - IANAL IMHO YMMV ... .... and Wes' Guidelines re judging others:
Regards Lindsay in OZ (Which only *partly* explains the date + language styles)
M, 57, Non diabetic but familiarly involved {;-)} So I lurk, don't post often - usually in non medical threads.
"It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb
Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > Boron Elgar wrote: >> None of this has anything at all to do with your misquoting the >> article.
>> No breading was mentioned in the article. > You're right, and I misquoted it. > So who fries shellfish without batter?
Pretty much every Edinburgh restaurant I've ever been in, with the exception of those old fashioned specialist places that batter and deep fry everything conceivable and sell the results in take away packages to fat people :-)
W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote: > Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: > : Donna wrote: > : > I read something similar recently and was thinking that it was annoying as > : > hades to consider seafood as a "problem" food. On one hand, we're told to > : > eat plenty of seafood on the other hand, we're now told it might not be > : > such a good idea. Cracks me up. Bottom line seems to be everything in > : > moderation. > : > > : NO. > : Shellfish was not found to be a cause, it stated it was correlated. > : It went on to say that it's probably the fried breading causing the problem. > : Susan > So how about fish and chips, the predominant way British peole eat their > fish?
Probably that used to be the case. I'd be surprised if it still was. Thirty years ago I and most people I knew often ate fish and chips. Today I don't know anyone who does.
Of course at my age quite a few of the folk I knew thirty years ago are dead :-)
Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > Chris Malcolm wrote: >> Pretty much every Edinburgh restaurant I've ever been in, with the >> exception of those old fashioned specialist places that batter and >> deep fry everything conceivable and sell the results in take >> away packages to fat people :-) > If you continue to read the thread, you'll find that there's variation > in the definitions for "frying" here.
I had already noticed that. My remark above (about the rarity of frying fish in Edinburgh restaurants) holds even if all you mean by frying is using a tiny spritz of oil on the surface of the pan. Variations of poaching and baking seem to be the most popular ways of cooking fish here. Apart of course from the take away deep fried battered fish and chip shops. There's been quite a distinct movement, for health reasons, away from both frying and any method that involves some charring.
<bluebro...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:31:37 -0500, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> > I had already noticed that. My remark above (about the rarity of >> > frying fish in Edinburgh restaurants) holds even if all you mean by >> > frying is using a tiny spritz of oil on the surface of the >> > pan.
>> In culinary terms, that's not frying, though in the less precise lexicon >> it may be. :-)
>> Susan
>I shall continue to consider my burger patties as "fried." :-)
>fry v. To cook food in hot fat over moderate to high heat. DEEP-FRIED >food is submerged in hot, liquid fat. Frying (also called pan frying ) >or SAUTÉING refers to cooking food in a lesser amount of fat, which >doesn't cover the food. There is little difference in these two terms, >though sautéing is often thought of as using less fat and being the >faster of the two methods.
>fry >–verb (used with object) >1. to cook in a pan or on a griddle over direct heat, usually in >fat or oil. >–verb (used without object) >3. to undergo cooking in fat or oil.
BlueBrooke wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:32:22 -0500, Sleepyman <d...@bother.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:48:19 -0600, BlueBrooke >> <bluebro...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> I shall continue to consider my burger patties as "fried." :-)
>> As long as you put thim in a pan, they are.
> I usually hit the pan. :-D
>>> fry v. To cook food in hot fat over moderate to high heat. >>> DEEP-FRIED food is submerged in hot, liquid fat. Frying (also >>> called pan frying ) or SAUTÉING refers to cooking food in a lesser >>> amount of fat, which doesn't cover the food. There is little >>> difference in these two terms, though sautéing is often thought of >>> as using less fat and being the faster of the two methods.
>>> fry >>> -verb (used with object) >>> 1. to cook in a pan or on a griddle over direct heat, usually in >>> fat or oil. >>> -verb (used without object) >>> 3. to undergo cooking in fat or oil.
>> I spent most of my adult life in the restaurant business. That is the >> correct definition.
> Thanks, Sleepy. My hubby, who use-ta work in a restaurant, pretty > much said the same thing. But, mostly, he didn't understand -- or > care -- what all the fuss was about. :-D
BlueBrooke wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:09:46 +1000, "Ozgirl" > <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote:
>> BlueBrooke wrote:
>>> Thanks, Sleepy. My hubby, who use-ta work in a restaurant, pretty >>> much said the same thing. But, mostly, he didn't understand -- or >>> care -- what all the fuss was about. :-D
>> Twas an attention diverter...
> But he wouldn't have understood -- or cared -- about that, either. :-)
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:48:19 -0600, BlueBrooke >> <bluebro...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >I shall continue to consider my burger patties as "fried." :-)
>> As long as you put thim in a pan, they are.
>I usually hit the pan. :-D
>> >fry v. To cook food in hot fat over moderate to high heat. DEEP-FRIED >> >food is submerged in hot, liquid fat. Frying (also called pan frying ) >> >or SAUTÉING refers to cooking food in a lesser amount of fat, which >> >doesn't cover the food. There is little difference in these two terms, >> >though sautéing is often thought of as using less fat and being the >> >faster of the two methods.
>> >fry >> >–verb (used with object) >> >1. to cook in a pan or on a griddle over direct heat, usually in >> >fat or oil. >> >–verb (used without object) >> >3. to undergo cooking in fat or oil.
>> I spent most of my adult life in the restaurant business. That is the >> correct definition.
>Thanks, Sleepy. My hubby, who use-ta work in a restaurant, pretty >much said the same thing. But, mostly, he didn't understand -- or >care -- what all the fuss was about. :-D
He's right, there should be no fuss. A pretty straight forward definition.
_________________________________ Sleepy
Since Light travels faster than Sound, people appear brighter before you hear them speak.
<bluebro...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >I shall continue to consider my burger patties as "fried." :-)
>fry v. To cook food in hot fat over moderate to high heat. DEEP-FRIED >food is submerged in hot, liquid fat. Frying (also called pan frying ) >or SAUTÉING refers to cooking food in a lesser amount of fat, which >doesn't cover the food. There is little difference in these two terms, >though sautéing is often thought of as using less fat and being the >faster of the two methods.
>fry >–verb (used with object) >1. to cook in a pan or on a griddle over direct heat, usually in >fat or oil. >–verb (used without object) >3. to undergo cooking in fat or oil.
One problem with deep frying is the accumulation of transfats in the reheated oil. -- Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:37:59 -0500, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: >x-no-archive: yes
>Quentin Grady wrote:
>> One problem with deep frying is the accumulation of transfats in the >> reheated oil.
>I never bother filtering and saving the peanut oil from our fried turkey >at Thanksgiving, we just put it back in the container when cool and toss >it out.
Good to see you are not reusing it.
>The one year Tom saved some in a windshield washer fluid bottle ended >badly for me and my car...
LOL. I bet it did.
>Susan
-- Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:20:13 -0500, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: >x-no-archive: yes
>Quentin Grady wrote:
>>> The one year Tom saved some in a windshield washer fluid bottle ended >>> badly for me and my car...
>> LOL. I bet it did.
>It smelled like turkey dinner every time I spritzed my windshield. >Then, when it was really empty, it was so greasy I couldn't see after >doing it. :-)
LOL how awful.
>I had the bright idea to put the surfactant solution they sell for >washing veggies into the washer solution reservoir several times when >refilling til the grease was gone. Wah lah!
Clever. Neat solution.
>Susan
-- Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."
|
