Text 4194, 105 rader
Skriven 2009-04-06 21:33:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
     Kommentar till en text av Chinacat
Ärende: RE: The lost book of Abra
=================================
C>-> The original question was "What is the main ingredient in the chili
C>-> ?".   Does not the recipe contain the ingredients ?  English is a
C>-> tough  language.

C>If the ingredient doesn't go into the chili, but into the cook, it is
C>a side issue.

C>The accepted standard by the USDA for listing ingredients on any
C>foodstuff is by weight, from the heaviest to the lightest. If you
C>insist that all ingredients are part of the chili (which they aren't),
C>then the meat is the main ingredient being the heaviest element.
C>Besides not looking at the full recipe, you seem also not to be able
C>to convert kg to lbs. and are looking at the weight of the meat in
C>lbs. You need to multiply that by 2.2. You do have a calculator, don't
C>you?

C>For you, thinking is the tough issue.

Where's your outrage now over you only quoting part of a message ?  I 
have no idea what you are prattling about with the metric to English 
conversion.  I already explained to the dullard how wrong he was and yet 
you persist to also show your own stupidity.  Here's what I wrote the 
dullard:

=====================================

GD> JB> You are the one who also claimed a main ingredient.  So how did
GD>you

GD>What's the volume of 3 kg beef?  You made the comparison, you show
GD> JB> You are the one who also claimed a main ingredient.  So how did
GD>you

GD>What's the volume of 3 kg beef?  You made the comparison, you show 
GD>your work.

You claimed I was wrong so you must show yours.


GD> JB> choose by weight and not by volume ?  You see, you dullard, you
GD> JB> have the  same challenge coming the other direction.  I claimed
GD> JB> a main ingredient  of a liquid.  You claimed one by mass.  So
GD> JB> how did you

GD>Wrong, Jeff.  I pointed out that it was you that made that
GD>comparison.

No, you said I was wrong.  Thus you made the same comparison and assumed
you were were right.  You can't have it both ways.

For your little petty mind, how about we do this.

Would you normally agree that a solid has a more dense mass than a
liquid ?  Your science says so.  In this case I am willing to agree that
the meat has the same mass density as water.  So, by definition, a liter
of water weighs 1kg.  So 3kg of meat would take 3 liters of volume or
less.

Are you keeping up with me, you big time scientist ?

If so, go back and compare the amount if liquids to the amount of meat,
assuming the meat has the same or higher mass density than water.

I hope this isn't too tough for you.

GD> JB> arrive at your  conclusion ?  Pick the solids and ignore the
GD> JB> liquids ?  You really  aren't very smart.

GD>Have you read the recipe?  If so, you would know you are wrong.

I posted it you dullard.


GD>And, iy's obvious you aren't a cook.  Alcohol dissipates in the
GD>cooking  process.  The various forms of alcohol are used as a
GD>marinade. The  recipe is not about oyster shooters.

Alcohol, water and everything else are still ingredients, regardless of
what it there at the end.  English is a tough language.  It is amazing
the depths you will sink to prove your own stupidity.

GD>And, iy's obvious you aren't a cook.  Alcohol dissipates in the
GD>cooking  process.  The various forms of alcohol are used as a
GD>marinade. The  recipe is not about oyster shooters.

Alcohol, water and everything else are still ingredients, regardless of
what it there at the end.  English is a tough language.  It is amazing
the depths you will sink to prove your own stupidity.

=========================================

No switching between metric and English here.  How long do you two 
clowns want to persist in this silly debate ?  




Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Danny Ceppa wrote - May the Pope be gang raped and become pregnant....


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)