Thread: Plus? Wassat?

Chemiker wrote:
> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?

A typo.

-sw

Chemiker wrote:
> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

Whatever you do, no matter what anybody says... never, EVER, post a link
the recipe you're referring to.

-sw

Chemiker wrote:
> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

Typo for pluches?
--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

Mr. wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:10:05 -0700:


> Chemiker wrote:
>> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something
>> called "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Alex

> Typo for pluches?

Sounds a bit like those herbal mixtures that are inaccurately alleged to
be a substitute for salt.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Sep 25, 11:24*am, Chemiker <prussianblu...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

I searched fooddownunder.com for "cauliflower". It got 635 hits.
Please let us know which recipe it was.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sep 25, 11:24*am, Chemiker <prussianblu...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
>> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Alex
>
>I searched fooddownunder.com for "cauliflower". It got 635 hits.
>Please let us know which recipe it was.
>
>
Probably "Cauliflower PLUS Grubs"

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:24 -0500, Chemiker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
>"Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>
>TIA
>
>Alex

To all the smartasses herein:

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=eggs+casino...i%3Fr%3D135049


here is the damned link.

Now! Who actually knows something?

Alex, tired of dumbasses.

Chemiker wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:24 -0500, Chemiker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
>> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Alex
>
> To all the smartasses herein:
>
> http://www.ask.com/bar?q=eggs+casino...i%3Fr%3D135049
>
>
> here is the damned link.
>
> Now! Who actually knows something?
>
> Alex, tired of dumbasses.

I got "hungarian casino eggs" from that link.

Serene

Chemiker wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:24 -0500, Chemiker
> <prussianblue2[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
>> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Alex
>
> To all the smartasses herein:
>
> http://www.ask.com/bar?q=eggs+casino...i%3Fr%3D135049
>
>
> here is the damned link.
>
> Now! Who actually knows something?
>
> Alex, tired of dumbasses.

Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050

It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".

Serene

Serene wrote:

> Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
>
> It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that is,
> AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".

That's my take on it also, especially considering that "Plus" is never used
in the cooking instructions.

Bob

Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Chemiker wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:24 -0500, Chemiker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
>>> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this
>
> Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
>
> It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
> is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".

Serene Vannoy wrote:


>
> Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
>
> It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
> is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".
>
> Serene

The recipe sounds really good. Worth a try.

gloria p

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:19:30 -0700, Serene Vannoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Chemiker wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:24 -0500, Chemiker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
>is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".
>
>Serene

Ah! A sensible explanation. I had not thought of that.

It makes sense. I thank you.

Alex

Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Chemiker wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:24 -0500, Chemiker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ran into a recipe for cauliflower that calls for something called
>>> "Plus". The site was FoodDownUnder. Anybody know what this is?
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>>
>> To all the smartasses herein:
>>
>> http://www.ask.com/bar?q=eggs+casino...i%3Fr%3D135049
>>
>>
>> here is the damned link.
>>
>> Now! Who actually knows something?
>>
>> Alex, tired of dumbasses.
>
>
> Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
>
> It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
> is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".
>
> Serene

Ok, but why? i mean, why write 1/4 cup plus 2 tbs. flour? when all the
flour is used on the waxed paper in one pile? Does an extra 2 tbs. of
flour really make any difference?

Unless? could the extra 2 tbs. to be spread on the oiled baking sheet?
--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Serene Vannoy wrote:


> > Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
> >
> > It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
> > is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".
> >
> > Serene
>
> Ok, but why? i mean, why write 1/4 cup plus 2 tbs. flour? when all the
> flour is used on the waxed paper in one pile? Does an extra 2 tbs. of
> flour really make any difference?

1/4 cup is 4 tbs, so 2 tbs is an extra 50%. For people who measure,
that's a big difference. People who are comfortable with measuring
might choose to do something different, like just do 6 tbs to start
with, or 3/8 cup, but for people who are a little shaky about the math
and measurement in general, most people are more comfortable with
dirtying two measuring devices for one pile of flour.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." wrote:
>
>
> >Serene Vannoy wrote:
>
>
>
> >>Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
> >>
> >>It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
> >>is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".
> >>
> >>Serene
> >
> >Ok, but why? i mean, why write 1/4 cup plus 2 tbs. flour? when all the
> >flour is used on the waxed paper in one pile? Does an extra 2 tbs. of
> >flour really make any difference?
>
>
> 1/4 cup is 4 tbs, so 2 tbs is an extra 50%. For people who measure,
> that's a big difference. People who are comfortable with measuring
> might choose to do something different, like just do 6 tbs to start
> with, or 3/8 cup, but for people who are a little shaky about the math
> and measurement in general, most people are more comfortable with
> dirtying two measuring devices for one pile of flour.
>
Ok! if you say so. but wouldnt have 6 tbs have been better to write?
course this gets back to Serenes original explination regarding the
limitations of the generating program?

A typo, even if not of Pluches?

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

In article <15557$4abdc42a$42f85c66$[email protected]>,
"Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > 1/4 cup is 4 tbs, so 2 tbs is an extra 50%. For people who measure,
> > that's a big difference. People who are comfortable with measuring
> > might choose to do something different, like just do 6 tbs to start
> > with, or 3/8 cup, but for people who are a little shaky about the math
> > and measurement in general, most people are more comfortable with
> > dirtying two measuring devices for one pile of flour.
> >
> Ok! if you say so. but wouldnt have 6 tbs have been better to write?
> course this gets back to Serenes original explination regarding the
> limitations of the generating program?

A good question, but beyond my ability to answer. I see this usage all
the time. People must have a reason for doing this. I made my
suggestion, but the idea is foreign to me, so I'm not a good person to
explain something that seems unnatural to me.

> A typo, even if not of Pluches?

I did a search on the site for "plus". I got 43 hits. None of them
made sense, other than as a bug in the database software.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]

"Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." wrote:
>
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
> > Chemiker wrote:

<snip>

> >
> > Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
> >
> > It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
> > is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".
> >
> > Serene
>
> Ok, but why? i mean, why write 1/4 cup plus 2 tbs. flour? when all the
> flour is used on the waxed paper in one pile? Does an extra 2 tbs. of
> flour really make any difference?
>
> Unless? could the extra 2 tbs. to be spread on the oiled baking sheet?
> --


Recipes that have odd amounts like that sometimes are cut/scaled down
from larger amounts, eg catering or restaurant quantities.

Mostly we don't bother with that little bit extra unless it's clear it's
for sprinkling on something or flouring a pan etc.

In article <[email protected]>, Arri London <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." wrote:
> >
> > Serene Vannoy wrote:
> > > Chemiker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Now I see it, at http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/recipe.cgi?r=135050
> > >
> > > It's a limitation of their database software. It's "1/4 cup plus (that
> > > is, AND) 2 Tbsp of flour".
> > >
> > > Serene
> >
> > Ok, but why? i mean, why write 1/4 cup plus 2 tbs. flour? when all the
> > flour is used on the waxed paper in one pile? Does an extra 2 tbs. of
> > flour really make any difference?
> >
> > Unless? could the extra 2 tbs. to be spread on the oiled baking sheet?
> > --
>
>
> Recipes that have odd amounts like that sometimes are cut/scaled down
> from larger amounts, eg catering or restaurant quantities.
>
> Mostly we don't bother with that little bit extra unless it's clear it's
> for sprinkling on something or flouring a pan etc.

Do you really consider 50% to be a little bit extra? Granted, it's just
for coating the cauliflower, but I'd hate to run out, plus the spices
will be much stronger even if you don't.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]