Thanks for sharing the link. I bet the general public has developed a preference for artificial blueberry flavor over real. The same thing with America's Test Kitchen tests with vanilla. People preferred artificial - which is what most have always used and is in everything. And the recent test between homemade and box mix brownies - which actually surprised me. The public preferred brownies made out of a box mix, so ATK went into the kitchen and developed a recipe to match.
But alas.... All these beautiful kitchens and so many people who use them for storing their bottled water and leftover take-out, who don't have time for REAL food. Pretty sad business from my perspective.
There's a Dutch-style cookie/cakelet called Almond Fingers here which I'm quite fond of. It's like a thin pastry shell containing what purports to be a ground almond filling. One day I looked at the ingredients- the major component was "legumes", and the smallest was "almonds-1 %". I'm guessing that's the flake of almond decorating the top :-( The filling is ground "legumes" (what type who knows?) and artificial almond flavouring. I don't eat them now :-(
I found it insulting and patronizing to anyone with about a third grade education. I found nothing surprising or new in there. It's pretty common knowledge that processed foods use artificial flavors! I wonder if the next report is going to be about what's in cheap hot dogs. (Hint: It's not exactly prime cuts of Angus!) And Girl Scout Cookies don't contain real Girl Scouts either, at least last time I looked at the ingredients.
If people would just read a little. This really doesn't seem to be a big secret to me when it's on the package as plain as this was. Pretty straightforward. Not like when they use ingredient splitting and the like, which *is* a sneaky move and a far better topic. And the guy really didn't know why they don't use "real" blueberries? Wow.
Quite the paranoia over food coloring too. Boy he's going to be traumatized if he looks at labels in the grocery store. Wonder if he read the label on the can of ("Things go better with petro chemicals") Coke he had with his Chicken McNuggets he dined on at lunchtime. Wait, they're *not* breast filets? (And just what part of the chicken IS the McNugget?) Well parts is parts. And then there's the next report waiting to be launched, There's no "coke" in Coke! Fraudulent!
Frankly, I just don't see a Murrow or Emmy in this guy's future.
This is so funny because we recently started buying Arizona Blueberry Grean Tea. Everyone in the house loves it.
One day I was pouring a glass and was thinking what a pretty color pink it was ...... and it hit me, it's supposed to be Blueberry - shouldn't it be blue/purple? So I looked at the ingredients.
NO Blueberry what so ever. So why did they name it Blueberry Green Tea?
True, there ARE a lot of young Moms, (and some old ones, too) students, yuppies busy building careers, etc, out there who don't take the time to read labels.
But lets keep things in perspective.
Colleenoz, I can understand how disappointing it was to discover the lack of almonds in your Almond Fingers. Almond is one of my very favorite things. But "Legumes" are very good for you, too. Maybe even more so than almonds. (Okay, that stretches the truth a bit) But at least they substituted with something good for you! I would love to find something like your Almond Fingers here.
There are two sides to lose patience with, one being this one, people who don't know what's in what they eat. The other, though, is those with a knee-jerk outrage at the true ingredients and despair that people eat them. But do you really know anything about the ingredients you condemn them for eating? Chicken McNuggets is the favorite target. Let's walk through the CM ingredients and stop whenever we need to. We can pass over most of them, because we know exactly what they are and recognize that they're either harmless or that they're what we would use if we made them ourselves.
STOP. We need to know what that one is. It's a generic term for a very wide range of compounds, including that big jug of stuff you drink before a colonoscopy. But here, it's no doubt the meat preservative. No harm. At any rate, if you're so skittish of such things that you won't eat most prepared meats, you're unlikely to eat McNuggets. There is some speculative risk in the huge amounts used to flush the colon, and you'd be hard put to eat that many nuggets.
The chemical sounding terms above are in baking powder - sodium aluminum phosphate is leavening, sodium acid phosphate is the necessary acid for rise, and MP is for oven spring.
CONTAINS: WHEAT. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.
That last one is to manage the behavior of the frying oil. Harmless but frequently cited with outrage as "a chemical used in Silly Putty." Aside from Silly Putty being pretty benign, you might as well pretend shock that it contains salt, a chemical used to deice roads.
Now, I personally haven't eaten McNuggets or any other fast food joint stuff in years, but it's because it just doesn't taste that good. (They do what they do amazingly well. I just don't like the product.) But it's foolish to go in fear of it, especially if you'll then go to a restaurant instead, where you may well be served prepared food from Sysco with the same ingredients.
Most people simply don't see any reason to care. If you were to point out that their "blueberry" product has no blueberries, they might ask, "Well then, where are the ones with only real blueberries?" You couldn't help them, because real blueberries either don't work in a product requiring shelf life or can't make the price cut or can't be had that season. They will then shrug and pick up their usual fake blueberry product and happily eat it with no ill effects (other than the routine ill effects of eating other overly prepared foods, if that's even a problem if you don't pig out).
And that ground legume in the "almond" cookies. What's the problem. Legume pastes are common ingredients in many Asian foods and have a rightful place in cookies and are arguably the most beneficial ingredient in them.
As for flavors other than the real thing, makers must have consistency, both in taste and in cost. Real extracts are relatively expensive, and being a naturally growing product, is subject to variations in quality and availability. A substitute is the solution. You can demand the real thing and probably find the similar product with it, and pay the price, which means it won't sell much, and you may never even see that it exists, because it's not worth carrying in your local store. So you discovered artificial almond flavor and therefore gave up the cookies you were fond of. How silly.
Did the artificial part of the artificial almond flavor bother you? The difference is not between the real thing and a chemical concoction. The difference is between an other than real flavor concocted with naturally occurring substances and other than real flavor concocted from substances you order from the chemical plant. In many cases, the "artificial" flavor, the one made from carefully controlled and tested chemicals, is the safer and more consistently flavored, because there is no contamination route. No pesticides, because it's compounded from pure substances.
Tastes preferences and the lamentable situation in which people have never tasted the real thing is one issue, but it's nothing to do with safety and there's absolutely no bad consequence, other than the obvious, that they don't know what the real thing tastes like.
Remember, EVERY FLAVOR, REAL, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, IS A CHEMICAL COMPOUND. One difference is that real flavors can break down in processing and are typically weak compared to manufactured flavors that are designed to function through processing.
BUT, the real reason you generally have to choose between making foods yourself in season or accepting manufactured flavors is that the Earth simply doesn't produce enough of the real thing to satisfy demand. You want your flavor, all year, whenever the urge strikes, and so does everyone else. So you're strawberry flavor is, a lot of the time, coming from rosewood oil.
I, myself, do indeed prefer to eat in season, to use little processed food, and to make most things from scratch, including all bread, and I choose to put in the time and effort and study to cook well and occasionally spectacularly. But if I want to sneer at those who don't know what real fresh artisonal bread tastes like or who ruin every piece of meat that falls into their hands, or who eat everything out of a package, it will not be on account of imagined harm to their physical self or because some professional media inducer to outrage got to me.
I don't object to legumes per se, but I do object to calling a product "Almond Fingers" when there is little or no almond in them. If they were called "Almond Flavoured Fingers" it would be more truthful and more to the point.
Colleen, I wouldn't be bpthered about the "legumes" although that could mean anything from alfalfa to peanuts, but the fact that it's called "almond cookie", not bean cookie or whatever, would kind of tick me off.
Does anyone else remember a blueberry muffin mix where you actually got a little tin can of real blueberries to mix in? It was about a millions years ago, of course.
I think that it's up to us to read the labels. Know what's in the food we eat. It's like the Jiffy mix debate, when people were surprised there was lard. I wasn't surprised, it wasn't a hidden ingredients, it was right there on the box.
I do have a problem with deceptive advertising, though. I think if something is a "blueberry muffin" it ought to have a fraction of a blueberry in it or it shold be clearly labelled "artificial blueberry flavored muffin", or something similar, in the same size print as the banner that informs you that it's a box of blueberry muffin mix.
I think it's our responsibility to know what we are consuming and if we don't read the labels or the ingredients, it's no one's fault but our own. However, when the information is "hidden" in small print or in some obscure area or terminology, that's deceptive. When information isn't even made available it's pretty much a red flag to me not to eat it, but it's even worse than deceptive when it's not available at all, as is common in many chain restaurants.
Now, in a perfect world the producers of our food should be honest and forthright and care more about their customers than they do their proficts. Ahem. We all know that's not so, so it's up to us to take the extra effort to know what's in it.
Will that keep us safe from the salmonella due to the leaky roof that the company knows about but doesn't bother to fix? or the ecoli in the burger from the packing plant that has gotten a fist full of warnings but no real enforcement? No, it won't. But it's at least one thing we can do to take a little control of what we consume.
Now, if you don't care about the chemicals, the pesticides, the hormones, and the percentage of "particulate matter", that's fine. Don't be surprised, though, if you've been eating something for years and just now decided to read the label. That's when you find out that canned chicken noodle soup has more than a days worth of salt in a can and very little chicken.
I don't really feel as harshly critical of the "reporter" as Cynic, but I do feel he was probably preaching to the choir. The people watching that video are most likely the people that read labels, anyway.
You'd be surprised at how many people actually don't have a clue, or don't care about what they're eating. It's sad.
Everybody (well, most everybody) is lazy & inattentive somewhere in their lives. Not reading the label on the blueberry muffins is no more or less serious than failure to read the prospectus before handing over one's 401(k). Some people can't be bothered learning to understand something new or different & others just don't care. I know many people who've never eaten anything except fast food and/or commercially prepared & are healthy. I've always been mostly careful of my diet & I'm sick. Homemade food is good but I wouldn't pass judgment on somebody for failue to read the muffin label.
I don't understand how this is all "new" information. I've noticed for years that everything blueberry really contained the infamous blueberry bits. The only place I see real blueberries in any baked product is when I make it myself or I buy it from a local artisan bakery. (Annie, I remember those little tins of blueberries in muffin mixes too. Was it really a million years ago?)
And if there were any real blueberries in a pie or tart filling, they were overpowered by an abundance of chopped apples (I'm guessing because apples are cheaper). I really dislike that practice, mainly because the presence of apples dilutes the blueberry flavor. Plus, I'm not that crazy about apples in the first place.
But, again, none of this is breaking news. I suppose the article provided a service to some, though.
I read labels....but would never think to read the label on blue berry cereal or or a muffin mix or blue berry pop tarts....mainly because I never buy those things....but very occasionally when a grand child asks for it. Yeah...I feel like they are scammin' us....and I am sure young mothers that would feed their family that stuff, think "well at least they are getting a little fruit" when in truth they aren't.
and GeraldC...it's not the "ingredients list" that bothers most people about chicken McNuggets....but the amount of salt and the ratio of breading and fat to the amount of actual meat. True all flavorings are chemicals....but some come wrapped in anti oxidants, bio flavinoids, fiber and other good stuff....others are just chemicals. You know what that means don't you?...don't eat the carp....eat real stuff! Real berries, real chicken broth made from real chicken with real onion and real garlic, not the granular broth in a jar. Make your own cream sauce of real butter and real milk with some of those real flavorings and a bit of real flour, skip the cream of whatever. and make real blueberry muffins and pancakes....but if you MUST use a mix...at least use a basic muffin mix and add your own real blue berries! All you need to do to know why our young people are over weight at 10 years old is to make a trip to the supermarket and see a whole aisle of frozen dinners of one sort or another and another aisle of frozen breakfast stuff.
I know I am preaching to the choir here....but buy and eat real food. Not only will you save money, but you will eat better....and only spend a little longer cooking....perhaps none at all when you factor in getting all that fake food out of the packaging and getting rid of the cardboard and plastic. Linda C
Just another reason to cook from scratch....if I say there are blueberries in the mix; there ARE blueberries in it! I have always cooked from scratch, that way I know what we are eating...maybe that's why my DH and I are healthier that most people our age.....
On a recent office visit with my ex to his new and young cardiologist (the old one retired) I finally heard a doctor say what we all know but want to ignore: "processed food is poison."
I also remember the small cans of blueberries in muffin mix and that is the last time I bought a blueberry(less) muffin mix. I am allergic to the dye used in the fake berry stuff, so I have to avoid it all.
I would not like to see a regulation that would force "Almond Cookies" to have no almond content but real almond that are no more than mechanically processed. And to force the product flavored mostly with manufactured flavor to prominently display "Almond Flavored Cookies." Not talking about the ingredients list. I mean the package would display something like this:
ALMOND GOODIES Almond Flavored Cookies
For the muffins, it might be:
GRANNY GOODE'S MUFFINS With Bits of Artificial Blueberry
The reason I would be leery of the rule is the reality that if the cookies and muffins could be made competitively using real almonds off the tree and real blueberries off the bush, they would indeed be made with them. That would be too big a boast to pass up, to plaster "REAL HAND-PICKED BLUEBERRIES" across the package. So, faced with such a regulation, what would a maker do? They could:
1 - Use real and raise the price. Now they're significantly more expensive than the maker that simply changes the name. But you could seek out a higher priced product with real today, if you really want real. The effect is merely to increase overall grocery bills for everyone else by making the other than real appear distasteful.
2 - Change the name. Now, they're not Almond Cookies. They're "Granny's Favorite Finger Cookies" and below that, "With the Great Flavor of Almonds." The muffins become, "Granny Goode's Favorite Muffins - Fresh From Blueberry Country." No real change.
3 - Turn on the Shrink Ray, and hope no one notices. The $3 package shrinks from 12 ounces to 9 ounces. This works real well and is done all the time. Everyone loses due to your nanny impulses to protect people from something that doesn't harm them.
4 - Use real featured ingredient but change to the cheapest alternatives for other ingredients, because a lot more people read the front than read the back. This would probably be a popular one, because they could trumpet the use of real almonds/blueberries and beat the competition that raises prices. Some of the cheap substitutions may have genuine consequences to the consumer, or at any rate may constitute more of the product than the small amount of almond or blueberry. Flour, for instance. Or shortening.
You may justify regulation by imagining that people are being defrauded, but here's what can really defraud people. That's when a regulation pretends that it prevents a harm, that somehow the artificial blueberries are bad for you or that a tiny portion of real blueberries are of some great benefit. If you induce people to believe that the regulation is actually protecting them from something, that's a consumer fraud. People who actually care are making a choice based on a gut feeling (which I share - it's legitimate but not a harm issue) read labels and chose accordingly, without the regulation.
Well eff me, Cynic (and anyone else who thinks I should have known this by the third grade) I guess I'm the village idiot. FWIW I don't keep an overly stocked pantry, but I just checked the ingredients list of everything whose packaging implied it contains natural fruits or vegetables, and in every case those fruits and vegetables held a non-trivial spot in the heirarchy. Yes, including the blueberry-filled cereal bars.
Sorry, but your post was more patronizing and insulting than anyone telling me something I already know.
Well, if we hadn't allowed this misrepresentation in the first place (yes, with regulation), it wouldn't take extra space/time to say 'REAL almond cookies'. We should have called it fraud. Not for health, for blueberries, period. I'm sorry to say that I didn't know those were fake blueberries in the costco bagels. I'll bet plenty of people thought many of those things had blueberries in them. Gerald thinks they are chumps for being sucked in. I think Gerald and friends are immoral for supporting or allowing fraud.
Anyway: I made muffins with the little cans (plural) of blueberries. General mills and Pillsbury still have them.
See,, I don't think they're chumps. I just don't think whether or not the blue bits in their muffins are blueberries or something that tastes sort of like blueberries (probably unnaturally like blueberries, being more intense) is something they care about. The point is that no one has any standing to criticize their disinterest in the nature of those bit or in warnings unless they can demonstrate some tangible harm they or their children suffer from the ersatz "blueberries." The packaging has all ingredients in detail. Why on Earth would someone say they care about what's in the product but can't be bothered to turn the package over and look?
Now, I happen to think it's nice to know and use the real thing, and I do, but I understand it's an affectation, not a health issue. I know it feels like that to accept manufactured ingredients is somehow wrong. But those naturally grown ingredients, particularly fruits, would be far from natural in the view of someone from the past to whom they appear to be as artificial a creation as a factory product.
Perhaps products should also carry an advisory along the lines of, "This product contains a variety of fruit that requires artificial intervention to produce, because it cannot propagate itself."
And Kraft grated Parmesan cheese doesn't have to bear a special label warning that, "This product tastes nothing like Parmigiano-Reggiano, Grana Padano, or any other actual cheese that wouldn't gag a goat." I care about that. It's a foul deception for Kraft to call it Parmesan cheese. (I suspect Parmesan cheese like that was the reason the famous food crook was able to pass off ground umbrella handles for Parmesan.) But I know the difference and avoid the fake. Simple.
If this disturbs whatever satisfaction you get from papering the world over with warnings and imagining that that's what makes you safe and your enjoyment at being outraged by those in media who are happy to oblige by frightening you several times a week about things that won't happen to you, that's okay. Critical thinking is not the most common skill to find among people, and it's pretty obvious when the thinking equipment is not all it should be when anyone who presents a view you don't approve must be immoral or being paid to hold an opinion. It is no doubt less strain to exchange ideas only with those who agree with yours. Foolish and sterile, but comfortable.
I leave you with a few words from George Orwell.
“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
The prerequisite to be one of those men is high morality and a natural incorruptability. You're welcome.
Gerald - Having re-read the thread I believe you're the one who brought up regulation per se. I don't think the issue is whether or not this stuff will kill you. I think the more overwhelming sentiment here is that it's simply dishonest and deceptive. Is it really too much to ask that a product with blueberry in its name or pictures of blueberries all over the packaging actually contain more than trace amounts of blueberries at best? Or for almond cookies to be made with more than 1% almonds?
I glance at nutrition labels on nearly everything I buy and there are a few ingredients that I scan for and avoid, but should I really have to read the fine print and ingredients lists in detail to get a reasonable idea of what it is I'm buying? I guess the answer is yes, because people like you have become accepting of this?
Yes, FOS, it is deceptive and dishonest. I don't buy these products because I go to a farmer's market weekly. I did look to buy a couple of bottles of fruit juice--the labels also described their deceptive practices so I kept on shopping.
I was appalled by the video! Being that I'm not an ostrich, this reaction had to come from lack of knowledge. If you don't use, you don't know. It's people like the new "Gerald" that makes me question their intent. It's ok to advertise fresh fruit on the front label, but that doesn't necessarily have to agree with the product information. But it's the consumer's fault if they don't read the product information???? I don't think so! It's false advertising!
Wondering why chocolate chips must be labeled "Chocolate flavored chips"...and things that are not real cheese must be labeled "cheese food product"? Still wondering who pays Gerald's salary....looks like a plant to me. Yep, deceptive packaging. Perhaps pop tarts with real blue berries might cost more....but they still cost a whole lot less than a loaf of bread and a jar of blue berry jam made with real blue berries! And if there were no intent to deceive....they why not honestly label the package? It's the intended deception that bothers me.
Wondering why chocolate chips must be labeled "Chocolate flavored chips"...and things that are not real cheese must be labeled "cheese food product"? Still wondering who pays Gerald's salary....looks like a plant to me. Yep, deceptive packaging. Perhaps pop tarts with real blue berries might cost more....but they still cost a whole lot less than a loaf of bread and a jar of blue berry jam made with real blue berries! And if there were no intent to deceive....they why not honestly label the package? It's the intended deception that bothers me.
"GeraldC, thank you for taking the time to post your views from another perspective. It is a good thing to have different views expressed intelligently in a forum."
Right on, Dcarch!
Now that everyone has expressed their opinions, couldn't we just agree to disagree?
Why do some have to get so hostile and durned near offensive just because Not everyone agrees with them? (Or is this a case of wearing the shoe Because it fits.)
Can't we just each accept everyone else For what (who) they are?
Can't we welcome those with a different point of view from our own, As well as those who follow along like little puppies?
Can't we express differences of opinion without undue allegations And/or references to foul language?
And I still have to agree with Cynic. No real Girl Scouts in Girl Scout cookies. Nor have I found any hunky atheletes In my box of Wheaties!
Posted by GeraldC "-------Now, I happen to think it's nice to know and use the real thing, and I do, but I understand it's an affectation, not a health issue. I know it feels like that to accept manufactured ingredients is somehow wrong. -------"
GeraldC, recently I had purchased a very nice looking piece of fish steak, and another time a piece of meat. Only afterwards I realized that those were small pieces of meat glued together with meat glue to look better.
I wish that they had labeled them better in the packaging, however, I understand that if they did, they would have sold a lot fewer because meat glue just does not sound very good even it is a harmless product.
This thread reminds me why people on other forums post cooking questions on those forums instead of coming here. The general thought is that we will attack them for their lack of knowledge and use of processed foods. Sad.
I get emails sometimes that start with: I read your post on the cooking forum....
OK, I've read this twice and can't find a post from Ann T....
I also disagree with Gerald on the harm done by ingredients and chemicals. I don't think that harm is probably greater than the harm done by the all the "cides" we use to kill things on our produce, or all the antibiotics we pump into our commercial meat supply just to keep the animals standing upright. I think it's not healthy, it's junk.
That said, it is certainly the prerogative of any person to fill their own and their children's stomachs full of vast amounts of saturated fat, sodium, various insecticides and herbicides, some high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavors and colorings. Don't forget their multi-vitamin.
If we don't read the labels and the ingredient lists then I think we lose the right to complain. However, I still believe that the practice is deliberately deceptive. As Gerald pointed out, their reason for the deception is to make a bigger profit, which is, after all, why companies are in business. I disagree with the contention that making it easy for us to discover what's in the box would cost more money because a lot of people just don't care and would buy it anyway. And frankly, if I'm holding a box of "blueberry muffin mix" I probably don't even have to read the label to know that it's full of things I don't want to eat but some people might actually be surprised to know that an ingredient listed right in the name isn't really a part of the product at all.
As for those people who won't post a question about how to make Hamburger Helper, well, this IS a cooking forum. I first came here because I believed people would be cooking and that I would find recipes. I don't remember anyone being attacked for their lack of knowledge, only some being attacked because they, ostensibly, already know everything and want to tell the world how everyone else is wrong and explain how the forum should change and do it THEIR way.
I distinctly remember several threads where people were given suggestions for easy meals and at least one where everyone agreed that there are some situations where a pre-made frozen dinner really is the only possible choice.
FOAS, I definitely got that "eff you" feeling too, along with the undertone of "you are all such morons, of course you are wrong". Of course, I may be wrong, it's happened before. At least once.
Maybe Gerald really is a spy, here to sabotage the blueberry industry by convincing home cooks that artificial is healthy and a valid substitute for the real thing. Dang, I love a good conspiracy theory.
Actually, though, it would be really nice for Gerald to introduce himself before he explains how I'm wrong, sort of like how it's nice to know a guy's name before you get groped in a cab on the way home.
OK, I've read this twice and can't find a post from Ann T....
LOL I think bumblebeez is living in an alternate universe today. Check out the "stuffed peppers" thread, too. "Someone there made it so find out who it was and talk to them." Who, what, where? It's ok BB, we'll all be here awaiting your return! ;-)
My bad, Annie, this post and the solution enhanced meat are running together in my mind... From that thread:
"I don't buy meat that has been "enhanced". It didn't use to be all that common in Canada. I've have noticed recently that it is becoming more common. Especially in grocery stores that do not have a meat counter. It is still easy to avoid though."
Ann
It is easy to avoid is my feelings about fake blueberries and their ilk.
I remember the muffin mix with the canned wild blueberries too. My mother used it for years and it was good, or so I recall.
I thought Gerald was a woman and that her real name is Geraldine. She posted a really good recipe for cauliflower salad that is similar to what I buy at an Italian market. I think she is naive when it comes to regulations, however, but that could be because she is also very young. Anyway, that is how I read the situation. It is very difficult to know who someone is on a forum, especially when they are fairly new. I see no reason to assume that Gerald is male.
Ok, I am royally ashamed today. The stuffed peppers thread and this one? The peppers comment was supposed to be on the Moroccan chicken thread, which, incidentally, it is next to. I really don't know what happened. Too many fake blueberries for breakfast scrambling my brain.
Posted by bumblebeez (My Page) on Fri, Aug 12, 11 at 15:48
This thread reminds me why people on other forums post cooking questions on those forums instead of coming here. The general thought is that we will attack them for their lack of knowledge and use of processed foods. Sad.
I don't know how you can make the statement that people are posting questions on other cooking forums and are doing so because they don't want to come here. How would you know?
But my experience is the exact opposite. I get lots of emails from lurkers as well as members that think this is the best cooking forum. The members here are very happy to offer help where needed in the way of recipes, methods, etc.. Members here are happy to answer the same questions over and over and over again. No one responds by saying the question has been asked a 100 times so go do a search. Do you know how many times How to Roast a Turkey has come up over the last 10 years. LOL!!!
......I get emails sometimes that start with: I read your post on the cooking forum....
I'm not surprised. I bet I could name the person that sent you that email. Sends out lots of behind the scene emails to cause trouble.
Ah, I'm glad there's a perfectly good explanation, bumblebeez!
I wouldn't read too much into people posting questions/comments about food on other threads. We post where we're comfortable, that's all. Think of the countless threads here in CF about computer problems, gardening issues, family matters, pets, appliances, home decorating, etc. etc. etc. which I suppose could be "more appropriately" placed in other forums within GW. Would it ever cross your mind that this misplacement is some sort of intentional statement against the regulars on those forums? Up until now I'd have never thought to give it a second thought. As Annie would say.... (shrug)
Oh I agree with you Ann. But it comes up sometimes in other forums that people feel intimidated here- they do specifically say that, personally, I don't think that has to do with the people here at all just that in general people feel awkward about asking newbie questions.
I asked an uninformed question once on the Moss forum and got slammed for not having "read the books". I never went back!
I find this to be a very friendly and helpful forum and extremely welcoming to new posters with simple repeat questions.
I know I have to ask the same things over and over because I forget how I did it before- which would appear- to be getting worse! Some of the emails I get are from those who don't come here ever- not all are disgruntled ones who have left.
grainlady_ks
colleenoz
Related Discussions
Blueberries
Q
Willis Orchard Co.
Q
TyTy Nursery in GA
Q
Eggo shortage, I don't get it!
Q
cynic
doucanoe
shaun
shaun
Rusty
GeraldC
colleenoz
annie1992
sally2_gw
triciae
shambo
lindac
lyndaluu2
centralcacyclist
soonergrandmom
GeraldC
foodonastump
chas045
lindac
dcarch7 d c f l a s h 7 @ y a h o o . c o m
GeraldC
foodonastump
beachlily z9a
lindac
lindac
Rusty
GeraldC
jessyf
dcarch7 d c f l a s h 7 @ y a h o o . c o m
triciae
dcarch7 d c f l a s h 7 @ y a h o o . c o m
Bumblebeez SC Zone 7
triciae
annie1992
foodonastump
Bumblebeez SC Zone 7
Lars
dcarch7 d c f l a s h 7 @ y a h o o . c o m
Bumblebeez SC Zone 7
User
foodonastump
Bumblebeez SC Zone 7