|
Food » rec.food.cooking » san francisco soul food
| san francisco soul food [message #289963] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 02:32 |
|
This is a soulful lunch. I'm sure it would be nice with some red or green
onion. (crossposting on theme)
1 portion buckwheat soba noodles (about 3 ounces, dry)
2 eggs, beaten
sesame oil
fresh cilantro
fresh basil
Guizhou black bean chili sauce (Lee Kum Kee)
boil and drain noodles, put back in pot or in nonstick pan. Toss with sesame
oil and then beaten egg, let sit until egg firms up - toss over medium-low
heat to hasten egg cooking. Sprinkle with lots of julienned basil and
cilantro. Top with a dollop of black bean chili sauce and enjoy.
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #289977 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 03:16 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:32:10 GMT, "rox formerly rmg"
<roxmarie_nofriedspam42 [at] pacbell.net> wrote:
>This is a soulful lunch. I'm sure it would be nice with some red or green
>onion. (crossposting on theme)
>
>1 portion buckwheat soba noodles (about 3 ounces, dry)
>2 eggs, beaten
>sesame oil
>fresh cilantro
>fresh basil
>Guizhou black bean chili sauce (Lee Kum Kee)
>
>boil and drain noodles, put back in pot or in nonstick pan. Toss with sesame
>oil and then beaten egg, let sit until egg firms up - toss over medium-low
>heat to hasten egg cooking. Sprinkle with lots of julienned basil and
>cilantro. Top with a dollop of black bean chili sauce and enjoy.
>
It sounds interesting. I was on a sesame noodle kick but I have a
control problem around pasta so I've backed off a bit :)
Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #289999 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 04:09 |
|
rox formerly rmg wrote:
> This is a soulful lunch. I'm sure it would be nice with some red or green
> onion. (crossposting on theme)
*drool* Thanks; this sounds LUSCIOUS.
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290045 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 08:21 |
|
"rox formerly rmg" <roxmarie_nofriedspam42 [at] pacbell.net> wrote in
news:eIWtg.48984$VE1.32439 [at] newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> This is a soulful lunch. I'm sure it would be nice with some red or
> green onion. (crossposting on theme)
>
> 1 portion buckwheat soba noodles (about 3 ounces, dry)
> 2 eggs, beaten
> sesame oil
> fresh cilantro
> fresh basil
> Guizhou black bean chili sauce (Lee Kum Kee)
>
> boil and drain noodles, put back in pot or in nonstick pan. Toss with
> sesame oil and then beaten egg, let sit until egg firms up - toss over
> medium-low heat to hasten egg cooking. Sprinkle with lots of julienned
> basil and cilantro. Top with a dollop of black bean chili sauce and
> enjoy.
San Francisco has no soul.
WHy should the food there have one?
IBM
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290053 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 08:46 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:21:45 -0500, Ian MacLure <ibm [at] svpal.org> wrote:
>"rox formerly rmg" <roxmarie_nofriedspam42 [at] pacbell.net> wrote in
>news:eIWtg.48984$VE1.32439 [at] newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> This is a soulful lunch. I'm sure it would be nice with some red or
>> green onion. (crossposting on theme)
>>
>> 1 portion buckwheat soba noodles (about 3 ounces, dry)
>> 2 eggs, beaten
>> sesame oil
>> fresh cilantro
>> fresh basil
>> Guizhou black bean chili sauce (Lee Kum Kee)
>>
>> boil and drain noodles, put back in pot or in nonstick pan. Toss with
>> sesame oil and then beaten egg, let sit until egg firms up - toss over
>> medium-low heat to hasten egg cooking. Sprinkle with lots of julienned
>> basil and cilantro. Top with a dollop of black bean chili sauce and
>> enjoy.
>
> San Francisco has no soul.
> WHy should the food there have one?
>
> IBM
It conceals itself from those who are not worthy.
jim
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290113 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 18:01 |
|
On 2006-07-15, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> It conceals itself from those who are not worthy.
If the above recipe is an example, I'm eternally grateful.
nb
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290120 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 18:40 |
|
"Ian MacLure" <ibm [at] svpal.org> wrote in message
> San Francisco has no soul.
> WHy should the food there have one?
As much as it pains me to see what my hometown has become, I can safely say
San Francisco has more soul on its worse day, than San Jose, or any other
city in the BA, has on its best day.
Noticeably absent, is Tim May's recommendation of his favorite soul food.
ObFoodSoul: "Soul is a ham hock in your cornflakes." --Funkadelic
Ciccio
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290130 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 19:22 |
|
In article <fU8ug.133914$mF2.82525 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ciccio <francescod [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> > San Francisco has no soul.
> > WHy should the food there have one?
>
> As much as it pains me to see what my hometown has become, I can safely say
> San Francisco has more soul on its worse day...
"Safely saying" anything involving comparisons of "soul" for an entire
urban area? Funny stuff.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290153 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 21:13 |
|
gtr wrote:
> "Safely saying" anything involving comparisons of "soul" for an entire
> urban area? Funny stuff.
No more funny than saying the current Detroit Tigers team is better at
baseball than the any California League Team. When it comes to soul,
next to SF, all other BA cities are minor league. Though, Oakland is
Triple-A.. Whereas SJ, like their baseball team, is Single-A.
Ciccio
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290155 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 21:20 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:01:21 -0500, notbob <notbob [at] nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2006-07-15, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It conceals itself from those who are not worthy.
>
>If the above recipe is an example, I'm eternally grateful.
>
>nb
Depends on how you define "recipe" nb.
jim
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290168 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 22:03 |
|
In article <1152990796.801557.28420 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Ciccio <francescod [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Safely saying" anything involving comparisons of "soul" for an
> > entire urban area? Funny stuff.
>
> No more funny than saying the current Detroit Tigers team is better
> at baseball than the any California League Team.
Curious; you selected the wrongest thing possible. Baseball teams are
considered better or worse specifically by quantifying. But "Soul" is
completely non-quantifiable. "Good" in food is not quantifiable. These
are matters of opinion and taste, and probably, as regards "soul",
semantics and imagination.
> When it comes to soul, next to SF, all other BA cities are minor
> league. Though, Oakland is Triple-A.. Whereas SJ, like their
> baseball team, is Single-A.
Ah sports metaphors. The great equalizer of non-communication...
--
Thank you and have a nice day.
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290227 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:06 |
|
gtr w rote:
> Curious; you selected the wrongest thing possible.
I'm sure you feel that, since it demonstrates a point you didn't want
demonstrated.
> Baseball teams are considered better or worse specifically by quantifying. But "Soul" > is completely non-quantifiable.
Just because you can't, doesn't mean it can't be done.
>"Good" in food is not quantifiable.
Again, you are projecting your deficiencies onto others. With some
effort, you too can achieve a discriminating palate.
>These are matters of opinion and taste, and probably, as regards "soul",
> semantics and imagination.
For me I have no problem comprehending the concepts. If you do, so be
it. At the very least, the oft quoted Potter Stewart saw applies...It
may be difficult to define, "but I know when I see it."
> Ah sports metaphors. The great equalizer of non-communication...
Heh. Especially when they communicate a point you don't want
communicated.
Ciccio
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290420 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 17:18 |
|
In article <1153008416.108126.184490 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Ciccio <francescod [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> > Baseball teams are considered better or worse specifically by quantifying.
> > But "Soul" is completely non-quantifiable.
>
> Just because you can't, doesn't mean it can't be done.
Since nobody can, does it mean it can't be done?
> >"Good" in food is not quantifiable.
>
> Again, you are projecting your deficiencies onto others. With some
> effort, you too can achieve a discriminating palate.
I have a palate. But I still don't dismiss cities and all their
restaurants in sweeping generalities involving "soul". I guess that's
for people who are far more "discriminating" than I.
Baseball isn't a matter of "discriminating palate", but stats. Food
and soul have nothing to do with stats. If they do, please provide
some tiny indication of it.
> > Ah sports metaphors. The great equalizer of non-communication...
>
> Heh. Especially when they communicate a point you don't want
> communicated.
What point was it I didn't want communicated?
--
Thank you and have a nice day.
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290439 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 18:17 |
|
gtr wrote:
> Since nobody can, does it mean it can't be done?
By asserting that nobody can, you are, again, projecting your inability
onto everybody else. If that's how you deal with your shortcomings, so
be it.
> Baseball isn't a matter of "discriminating palate", but stats. Food
> and soul have nothing to do with stats. If they do, please provide
> some tiny indication of it.
At first, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were
merely being obtuse. You are fast persuading me that you are, indeed,
deficient in reasoned thinking. The statement I made had nothing to do
with stats. It had to with execution of the art. A player can have
great stats in his Single-A , but be unable to execute the art, if at
all in a major league style.
Again, you are leaping to a conclusion that because some people may
place great importance on baseball stats, that all people do. Indeed,
many fans, including myself, base their appreciation on the execution
of the art, with stats being of ancillary, if any, significance.
No doubt many patrons judge a dining establishment on stats. E.g., The
number of sales made. The length of the line out the door. The length
of the time to obtain reservations. The number of celebrities who eat
at an establishment. The number of years the place has been in
business, etc.
Then there are those of us who appreciate the execution of the culinary
arts. Thus, we may find the stats interesting, but it is the execution
of the culinary art by which we judge a dining establishment.
> What point was it I didn't want communicated?
That when it comes to soul, among BA cities, SF is in a major league by
itself.
Ciccio
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290515 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 20:25 |
|
In article <1153066620.597558.144840 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Ciccio <francescod [at] comcast.net> wrote:
The problem with vague ham-handed sports metaphors is that one gets to
discuss sport, which may be easier than discussing the topic at hand.
In the end you get people claiming that scores are unimportant to
sports in an attempt to claim that cities have souls.
You said, "San Francisco has more soul on its worse day, than San
Jose". Can you explain what that "safely said" phrase means, without
discussing baseball or other topics? Here you can use stats if you
like, and you can make any comparisons of aesthetics, disingenous or
otherwise--which apply to the urban areas in question.
> > Baseball isn't a matter of "discriminating palate", but stats. Food
> > and soul have nothing to do with stats. If they do, please provide
> > some tiny indication of it.
>
> [Insult excised.] The statement I made had nothing to do with stats.
> It had to with execution of the art. A player can have great stats in
> his Single-A , but be unable to execute the art, if at all in a major
> league style.
Huh? A winning player who can't "execute the art"? Okay then, that's
the end of that hobbled metaphor.
Certainly there are irrelevant aspects of dining that could be
quantified: Exactly how many lima beans, how many julliened carrots
point north, the percent of the plate devoted to meat versus
vegetables. If your high-art sports aesthetics argument forces you into
this cul-de-sac I assume you'll endorse these as critical.
> Again, you are leaping to a conclusion that because some people may
> place great importance on baseball stats, that all people do. Indeed,
> many fans, including myself, base their appreciation on the execution
> of the art, with stats being of ancillary, if any, significance.
If you consider the score irrelevant in sport I would caution you in
using sports metaphors. They may not have quite the "universality" of
communication you might imagine.
> No doubt many patrons judge a dining establishment on stats. E.g.,
> The number of sales made. The length of the line out the door. The
> length of the time to obtain reservations. The number of celebrities
> who eat at an establishment. The number of years the place has been
> in business, etc.
These are not evaluations of food but of finance. Popularity may have
something or nothing to do with the food. Location, access and price
have considerable importance in popularity and none in culinary
quality.
> > What point was it I didn't want communicated?
>
> That when it comes to soul, among BA cities, SF is in a major league
> by itself.
The point I didn't want communicated was that you like San Francisco
for some kinda reason. Or maybe you don't like San Jose for some other
kind of reason. Well you managed to do it anyway. and with stunning
clarity of vision. You win! Good night and drive carefully!
Every town in the BA is in a town by itself. Now that's a viewpoint I
can't get behind.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290561 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 21:45 |
|
gtr wrote:
> The problem with vague ham-handed sports metaphors is that one gets to
> discuss sport, which may be easier than discussing the topic at hand.
> In the end you get people claiming that scores are unimportant to
> sports in an attempt to claim that cities have souls.
That's certainly your obtuse interpretation.
> You said, "San Francisco has more soul on its worse day, than San
> Jose". Can you explain what that "safely said" phrase means, without
> discussing baseball or other topics?
Why? Go read what I wrote. It's crystal clear. Now, if you disagree
with what I said, then so be it. Curious how you insist on being
obtuse. That's probably because you can't substantiate your
disagreement.
> Huh? A winning player who can't "execute the art"? Okay then, that's
> the end of that hobbled metaphor.
Huh? Can't you read? A player can be a winner in a minor league, but
not a major league. You know, the proverbial big frog in a small pond.
Oooops, that metaphor probably causes you mental distress too.
> If your high-art sports aesthetics argument forces you into
> this cul-de-sac I assume you'll endorse these as critical.
Yet, another false assumption by you.
> If you consider the score irrelevant in sport I would caution you in
> using sports metaphors. They may not have quite the "universality" of
> communication you might imagine.
First, as is your habit to overgeneralize, you are taking my one
metaphor, and applying it to all sports metaphors that have been or
will be ever stated. Quite simply, my metaphor is appropriate for the
point I made. Second, the vast majority of fans will remember the
great feats within a game, but not the score. It's not the scores that
separate major league from minor league teams...It's the execution. Did
you get it that time?
> These are not evaluations of food but of finance. Popularity may have
> something or nothing to do with the food. Location, access and price
> have considerable importance in popularity and none in culinary
> quality.
Thank you for proving one of my points. That said, many patrons do
judge a restaurant by those "stats."
> The point I didn't want communicated was that you like San Francisco
> for some kinda reason. Or maybe you don't like San Jose for some other
> kind of reason.
Actually, I rather dislike the current SF, and I rather like the
current SJ. And to go full circle, even with my personal feelings, I
have to admit that San Francisco has more soul on its worse day, than
San Jose, or any other city in the BA, has on its best day.
> Every town in the BA is in a town by itself. Now that's a viewpoint I
> can't get behind.
I know reality is a bitch for some people. Denying it, however, doesn't
modify it.
> Thank you and have a nice day.
I always do. ObSoul: I love the life I live, I live the life I love.
--Muddy Waters
Ciccio
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290656 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 01:13 |
|
"Ciccio" <francescod [at] comcast.net> wrote in
news:fU8ug.133914$mF2.82525 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
[snip]
> Noticeably absent, is Tim May's recommendation of his favorite soul
> food.
Jeeez, now you've gone and done it. Why doncha go ahead and say
that name two more times and summon the evil one.
IBM
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290657 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 01:15 |
|
ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
news:sp3hb2hnom33g7oncurnc8ck1abfhvhqs7 [at] 4ax.com:
[snip]
> It conceals itself from those who are not worthy.
Or perhaps it cowers in fear for it knows retribution
stalks the streets.
IBM
|
|
|
| Re: san francisco soul food [message #290778 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 07:40 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:15:21 -0500, Ian MacLure <ibm [at] svpal.org> wrote:
>ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:sp3hb2hnom33g7oncurnc8ck1abfhvhqs7 [at] 4ax.com:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It conceals itself from those who are not worthy.
>
> Or perhaps it cowers in fear for it knows retribution
> stalks the streets.
>
> IBM
>
>
True soul never cowers, quit hanging with the ersatz stuff, you appear
all too familiar with it.
jim
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Nov 20 12:58:05 CET 2008
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.21327 Sekunden |
