Websnark

Comment from: Tice with a J posted at December 6, 2005 1:42 AM

Indeed, good on Jeph Jacques. And as usual, good on you for recognizing the value of civil disagreement.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 6, 2005 1:53 AM

"This is how debate should happen."

Nononono!
CLEARLY, this is how debate should happen:

You: Thing!

Me: As if!

You: OMG YOU ARE SO TOTALLY RIGHT ALSO HERE IS A COOKIE.

I mean, duh.

Comment from: lucastds posted at December 6, 2005 2:21 AM

^ Cookie?

Don't you mean... biscuit?

;)

Comment from: TasteMyHouse posted at December 6, 2005 2:33 AM

We'd better not let anyone know that we just successfully argued on the internet without things breaking down into a horrible mess of nazi-comparisons and racial slurs

We might ruin its repuation as a breeding ground of stupidity.

Comment from: Zaq posted at December 6, 2005 2:44 AM

"You: Thing!

Me: As if!"

Ok, that? That made me laugh. And in so doing, nearly woke up my roommate. Just saying.

Not even the "cookie" part. Just "Thing!" Such a lovely alternative to "Blah blah blah" or any other way of saying "Thing!".

Comment from: chalcara posted at December 6, 2005 4:15 AM

This is kinda the proof that they ARE people with selfrestraint and interest in intelligent discussions on the web, isn't it?

SCARY.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 9:29 AM

Does anyone else feel like this is a backhanded compliment?

I mean, it seems more than a little insulting to hear, "well, you actually listened to all the rules for once." Yeah, I'm no angel. I've been warned twice for my behavior and Eric has probably considered at least one on top of that. I accept te consequences of that.

But still, it doesn't matter how touchy the discussion could have been. Following the rules hardly merits a compliment.

Also, I think the cliche you cite about academia is incomplete. When the stakes are preceived to be small, people relax. They're not vigilant against something that could potentially hurt other people. Thus, when something is said that could hurt people, they aren't as vigilant about controlling it until it spreads a bit.

On the other hand, with that discussion, people knew there were alot of raw feelings. They understood immediately how likely a flame war could develop (which, ironically, is the same likelihood as it would be with any other snark, in my not-even-remotely humble opinion). So people choose their words more cautiously.

I certainly know I almost said at least 3 things more inflammatory than what I wrote. I could imagine one specific user thinking of flaming me (which did not happen, either here or in email). These are good things, admittedly.

But not something worthy of compliment.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 6, 2005 9:53 AM

Does anyone else feel like this is a backhanded compliment?

Nope. I'm familiar with moderated forums, and have admin roles at a couple of largish ones. Faith in the ability of people to play nice when given relative anonymity tends to be short-lived in those circumstances.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 6, 2005 10:11 AM

siwangmu: Thanks for the giggle. That was.. oh, it was perfect.

32_footsteps: I can't, of course, speak for Eric and what he meant. I can only say what I got out that post up yonder. Didn't feel so much like a compliment to me, exactly, more of a note that we can behave ourselves, when it matters to us. Lately, the acrimony has been running quite high in the comments on websnark... painfully so, tediously so, in some threads.

I have a 3-year-old son. He knows the rules; he knows what he's "responsible" for, and what will happen if he doesn't fulfill his responsibilities. He knows, for instance, that he's not supposed to pee on the toilet seat (he's learning to stand up, and is sometimes careless about aiming); he knows that the napkin I wrapped his eggo waffles in goes in the trash. He knows that there are negative consequences (albeit mild - he is only 3) for failure to comply.

He knows these things. But still I thank him for doing it right, for throwing away the wrapper or napkin, for not peeing on the toilet seat. It's not a compliment, or even a reward. It's an acknowledgement, a positive reinforcement, a "hey, you did it right! Good on you."

That's the sense I got from Eric's post up there. "Hey, you guys. You do remember how to behave yourselves, particularly when it was a touchy subject anyway. Good on you."

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 6, 2005 10:30 AM

32 -- actually, it was me being excited over what I thought was a great debate in an emotionally charged situation, where everyone was respectful to each other while maintaining the integrity of their own positions.

I can see how you might have been confused.

Comment from: Violet posted at December 6, 2005 10:34 AM

Divergence, inspired by lark's child:

At what age does it become appropriate to harangue men for poor aim? I have had a dilemma in my shared household for many years.

A wise person can extrapolate the dilemma.

I have, of course, considered emerging brightly from the restroom: "Thank you, my housemate! Thank you for not performing amaroli upon the toilet seat! Today, you are a man!" However, this may cause diplomatic issues.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 6, 2005 11:02 AM

I think, personally, if they're old enough to stand and go, they're old enough to learn how to direct it.

I'm not sure how I would handle an adult who goes on the seat, however. Well.. I'm fairly direct. I would probably go the direct-confrontation route. The "Today, you are a man!" approach could be fun, though. Or even just "Today, you have managed to conquer your inner savage!" heh.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 11:10 AM

Lark, it's kind of a moot point, since Eric did already say his reasons for the post. But if it was a "positive reinforcement" sort of post, it would be pretty condescending. It's one thing to do that to your toddler. It's another for a group of adults (or near-adults, as I imagine not everyone here is 18 yet).

I can understand that excitement, Eric. I get that way whenever something I write gets discussed heavily. Still, there are better ways to express it.

Finally, I grew up, due to my parents' separation, in a house where I was the only male. I learned how to deal with sharing a bathroom with women as a survival skill.

Comment from: Violet posted at December 6, 2005 11:14 AM

Thus, the late twenties are an appropriate age to begin negative reinforcement? I'm never certain.

"Today, you are a man" seemed to me the natural extension of the "good, big boy" rhetoric I have seen employed with many children. (I worry, however, that it might be read more as the tonal equivalent of position number seventy-three.)

Comment from: Elizabeth McCoy posted at December 6, 2005 11:40 AM

I say things to my spouse of, "Hey, thank you for X," or "Can you do X for me? Thanks."

It's just polite to thank someone when they do something nice, that's all.

As for the toilet seat thing, perhaps you could put a wire on it, plugged into the wall socket? You'd probably have to build a power adaptor to it, so it didn't totally fry him, though. And remember to turn it off when you needed to use the toilet.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 6, 2005 11:55 AM

32_footsteps: I fail to see how it's condescending. After all, if you've been struggling with something at work, and you make improvements, don't you wish for your employer to at least to note the progress? To say "I noticed that the reports this month were in on time. Good deal" or some such. Sure, sure, you're supposed to have them in on time every month. But stuff happens.. and when it gets better, people like to know someone noticed - rather than only the bad stuff getting noticed.

He didn't pat us on the head and say "ooooh, what a cute little guy you are for controlling your temper!" He said "hey, cool. Good show." The tone, and the intent, are a determining factor on whether a sentiment is intended to condescend or not. As Elizabeth said up there, it's just a matter of being polite, etc.

By the way, if it's a moot point, since he's already explained his reasons for the post.. why did you question the intent behind the post? Just wondering. Unless of course you're talking about when he responded to your comment... since I responded immediately prior to his response, it wasn't moot when I posted, right? I'm confused. Surely you're not saying that my comment was irrelevant altogether. That can't be it, for look at all the discourse it provoked!

Comment from: Dave Van Domelen posted at December 6, 2005 12:17 PM

What makes us human is saying, "I won't piss on the toilet seat TODAY," as Captain Kirk once said.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 12:18 PM

Actually, Lark, I hate when people do that to me at work. It's one thing if I go above and beyond my regular duties. Then yeah, it's nice to get recognized. But if I'm doing my job, then the compliment is double-edged. I shouldn't be thanked for doing what I should be doing anyway. Also, it's an inexact science to derive tone from the 'net, as we've all discovered countless times.

Of course, I'm very particular about compliments - it's why, as some may note, I'm very sparing with giving them out myself.

And sorry for the confusion, but my comment about it being moot was for my second comment, after Eric had clarified what he meant.

Comment from: Violet posted at December 6, 2005 12:26 PM

Surely you're not saying that my comment was irrelevant altogether. That can't be it, for look at all the discourse it provoked!

My apologies: I am having a moment of logical disconnection. How does B follow A?

Comment from: Jeff Eaton posted at December 6, 2005 12:41 PM

I'll also weigh in as someone who's moderated an participated in forums where a variety of discussion topics are flung about.

When a hot button issue is discussed kindly and seriously, it is stop presses pull out the party hats big news.

Comment from: Megs posted at December 6, 2005 1:01 PM

Sometimes people are awesome to each other. Really, I think it's that people are more likely to be courteous when they realize that what they say is important or will affect other people. It's easy to go overboard on petty things, but serious things more likely inspire thoughtful language, all positions and point of views pretty much remaining the same.

It really is all in how you phrase it.

Comment from: TasteMyHouse posted at December 6, 2005 1:10 PM

Awwww man how hilarious is it gonna be when we have a heated argument over THIS snark?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 6, 2005 1:13 PM

"Surely you're not saying that my comment was irrelevant altogether. That can't be it, for look at all the discourse it provoked!
----
My apologies: I am having a moment of logical disconnection. How does B follow A?"

It does when we are being silly! I imagine that was a bit of a throwaway joke, plus the fact that if it were truly irrelevant, there'd have been nothing to respond to/disagree with, as 32 did.

Comment from: Tangent posted at December 6, 2005 1:16 PM

Why do I now have a mental image of young webcartoonists waddling around the internet and piddling in the corners, and then being thwapped with a rolled-up newspaper on the nose by Eric and Weds? *chuckle*

I think the reason for caution was threefold. First, we'd recently seen a flamewar erupt here on Websnark and been warned about it. Second, we were watching the after-effects of a flamewar related to it dying down over at another set of forums. And third, we're talking life and death here. This isn't time for trivialities or the like. Instead, it's time to pull together and work as a group. To be a community.

Now, if it had been a discussion about which was better, dark or milk chocolate, then there'd be chocolate splattered all over the walls and a massive wrestling match in the middle, and Eric would be wondering if he should intervene or film it for America's Funniest Home Videos. ;)

Rob H.

Comment from: gwalla posted at December 6, 2005 1:22 PM

If this snark results in drama, I will laugh until I cry.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 6, 2005 1:25 PM

For the record? I can't really have 'real' chocolate any more.

However, the other person in this relationship goes way beyond dark chocolate.

I had a taste of the 99% Chocolate Solids chocolate she prefers. (Lindt made the one I had -- it has 99% right on it. That means the bar is 99% cocoa and 1%... um... binding material, I guess. For the record, 70% cocoa solids is already far darker "dark" chocolate than normal.)

I can still taste it. Wow.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 1:41 PM

Heh, I have a body by Scharffen-Berger. They make an incredible 99% bar for baking (the other 1% there is vanillin and sugar). The oft-discussed Chocolate Homicide I make with that has won me multiple prizes.

It's not like I don't moderate my own set of forums. I know how any little thing can become a flame war. It's a relief when you see a potential one not develop, admittedly. But I generally approach it differently than, as it seems, everyone else here.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 6, 2005 2:10 PM

You bake with 99%? What a waste.

Part of Eric's problem was inappropriate consumption -- someone who isn't inured to real chocolate needs to start with a lower nonmilk and work upwards in small pieces. (Heck, even people who are inured should do this with new brands, just to get the nuances into focus.) Suitable dry red wines are also useful here as a counterpoint.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 6, 2005 2:12 PM

Also, 70% is just kinda... *normal* dark chocolate. There's a reason we just say "plain" for your bog-standard nonmilk 45% cacao solids stuff over here.

Comment from: Ardaniel posted at December 6, 2005 2:25 PM

Anything over 60% tastes like cheese to me. I have yet to figure out why. (Americans with access, and those elsewhere with friends in the States, ought to try anything by the Endangered Species Chocolate Company, though. A+++ WOULD EAT AGAIN HIGHEST RATING)

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 2:26 PM

Oh, man, you're throwing down the gauntlet, Ms. White. You're questioning my cooking, without even tasting it. As Eric once said, it is on.

Look, I'm not questioning how great pure chocolate can be straight. But to refuse to even consider baking with it? To call it a waste? Oh, you dared to go there.

Chocolate is an incredible baking ingredient. Sure, it can be greatly abused. It's often tamed and melded into forms most familiar to European sensibilities.

However, it's an incredible monster of an ingredient, somewhere between a lion and a wild stallion amongst foods. It has an incredible range of power and subtlety, from the fiercest tortes and wildest mole poblano to the mellowest confectionary.

I'm hardly a master with chocolate yet. There are some things I'm sadly deficient in (I'd love to have some help in perfecting mole poblano, for any Mexican cooks out there). But I'm awakening to the true skills in chocolate mastery. I brought a few hundred otaku to their knees with one dish, overwhelming with strength and yet almost piteously kind at its aftertaste. I know the balances of sweet required to make a solid chocolate chip cookie (and how to get them to stay moist, since I like mine chewy).

And most of all, I know the potential the greatest chocolate can have. The only waste would be to deny chocolate for anything but pure consumption.

Comment from: Megs posted at December 6, 2005 2:44 PM

BAKE WAR! I only use a flame for crÀme brulÀ, though!

Seriously, no chocolate is wasted with good baking. If you like dark chocolate, I have a recipe for a pretty amazing flourless chocolate cake. No sugar in it either, which make it perfect for my atkins-esque dieting husband. As much as I love chocolate bars, especially the 70% and over, there's nothing like a good confectionary to bring out the real merits of chocolate. You only have it "raw" as a sample before you bake. ;) Just like your glass of wine while cooking.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 6, 2005 2:59 PM

All I'm saying is that, if you're going to bake with 99% cacao solids, dude, just use the cocoa. Save the stuff that's meant for eating by itself to be used for eating by itself.

(um, I could swear that I said it was on.)

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 6, 2005 3:00 PM

And wait: glass of wine?

Glass?

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 3:08 PM

Ah, but you get a dramatically different flavor from using cocoa than from using a solid bar. And you cannot ignore that fundamental fact. I personally feel that while it's easier to use cocoa solids, you don't get as high of a quality flavor unless you make it into bar form yourself. And really, I'm not all that good at that.

Also, I double-checked. After you accused Eric of acting like Piro, he officially declared it "on".

http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/03/fourth_grade_pu.html

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 6, 2005 3:34 PM

Okay. "On" has its roots in IM conversation, so either of us could have said it at any given point.

I can ignore whatever I want; I'm scared of most confectionaries. :)

Comment from: TasteMyHouse posted at December 6, 2005 3:42 PM

I hereby volunteer to be the official taste tester of any future 32_footsteps vs. wednesday white chocolate-off.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 4:00 PM

Beyond the simple fact that there's an Atlantic Ocean between Wednesday and I, there's another huge roadblock to a white chocolate cook-off involving us.

Namely, I can't stand white chocolate. You're all welcome to it, but I won't touch it myself. And since I don't eat it, I have no idea how to cook with it to make it taste good.

Okay, so saying that you can't ignore something was bad word choice on my part. However, I think that's what I'm saying is more than just my opinion on chocolate, that there is some verifiable fact to it.

Comment from: HydrogenGuy posted at December 6, 2005 4:03 PM

I hear that there's this little shop in Brussels where you can by bars that are 150% chocolate. They are choclate bars that are so intense they violate time and space.

You can still taste them two days before you eat one.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 6, 2005 4:51 PM

Megs--

A flourless sugar free chocolate cake?

You have no idea how desperately I need that recipe.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 6, 2005 5:15 PM

[wednesday white] chocolate, surely, not [wednesday] white cookoff.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 6, 2005 5:17 PM

cookoff. chocolate.

Hi. I need Diet Coke and there isn't any.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 6, 2005 5:23 PM

My apologies: I am having a moment of logical disconnection. How does B follow A?

heh. Well, it doesn't really. I was trying to make a joke instead of being snippy.

Namely, I can't stand white chocolate

I'm confused. Who was talking about white chocolate? I was under the impression that we were talking about that divine substance, dark chocolate. Chocolate so dark it nearly warps time and space in its own personal little black hole.

And uhm. Is there any "verifiable fact" where taste buds are concerned? I thought that the sense of taste was relative. After all, my mate eats... (gag) cantaloupe, loves it in fact. And has the nerve to tell me I'm the aberration for despising the stuff. (shudder)

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 6, 2005 5:24 PM

and of course, in a further example of my amazingly bad timing today... she beat me to pointing out the white chocolate fallacy. ah, well.

Comment from: kirabug posted at December 6, 2005 5:28 PM

After all, my mate eats... (gag) cantaloupe, loves it in fact. And has the nerve to tell me I'm the aberration for despising the stuff.

Either you're not or we are the aberration. Told my husband before Thanksgiving that if my in-laws brought one more melon into this house and tried to call it "dessert" they were going to be eating on the porch this year. Thankfully (well, somewhat thankfully) they brought an assortment of other disasters instead.

Comment from: miyaa posted at December 6, 2005 6:42 PM

First of all, clearly a Wednesday vs. 32 chocolate bake-off would be worthy of a Food Network Iron Chef pay-per-view battle royale.

(In fact, I'd love to see a series of Iron Chef challenges where the cooks would have to cook when one of the panel members has a specific dietary requirement, for example: one of the judges is a diabetic.)

How can you have 150% Chocolate Bars? Doesn't that go against the laws of physics and statistics? I'm going to have to get a ruling from Alton Brown.

Man, Eric. I pity you. First you're restricted with what you can drink, and now you can't have chocolate. That's gotta suck.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 6:43 PM

Oh, right. The lowercase "w" in front of "white" threw me. Dark chocolate is much more fun to work with.

Obviously, I also needed tastiness. But I got some red bean ice cream, so that's all solved now.

Well, I never said whether cooking with cocoa or cooking with melted bar chocolate is better. But they do produce different tastes, and that is pretty easily verified, whether or a taste test or any advance biochemical test you'd like. And it most certainly changes the texture.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at December 6, 2005 10:34 PM

Glass?

Sometimes, that's all that's left of the bottle for drinking by the time I get done cooking with it...

Although I do drink from the bottle periodically through the cooking process, and for all I know that might work out to the equivalent of a glass along the way...

Comment from: sqbr posted at December 6, 2005 10:55 PM

I know it's not the same, but I got given a bar of 80% cocoa chocolate (the remainder of which is going to be at least partly cocoa butter, I assume) which I find too strong for eating so use for Very Nice hot chocolate, and the taste (and, obviously, texture) really is quite different to using cocoa. I'm actually considering using a mixture of cocoa and chocolate to get it more like what I'm used to.

As a moderately webcomic related aside: from a Penny arcade a while ago, do I correctly surmise that America doesn't get Cadbury? Becuase that would be sad indeed.

Also: How does one do blockquotes? Is there some sort of Typekey Comments faq somewhere, I know I'm not the only person who finds them a little confusing. Not that I am in any way trying to dictate what is and isn't put on this site :)

*waits for something I said to offend someone and start the Great Chocolate Flame*

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 6, 2005 11:25 PM

Cadbury has a very limited impact on American confectionary. They're most known for their fondant-filled chocolate eggs that are sold in humongous quantities around Easter. I think their caramel bar is sold in the US as Caramello, but I haven't seen one of those in a while.

Of course, I do know where they sell them in Boston. I'm sneaky like that.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at December 6, 2005 11:27 PM

Also: How does one do blockquotes?

Are you familiar with HTML coding at all? If not, you use the less-than bracket, write the name of the HTML tag you want to use, then use the greater-than bracket. I can't remember how to write it so that it doesn't get treated as a tag instead of text, so I'll use square brackets instead in my example below:

[blockquote]Quoted text here[/blockquote]

I also use the [i] [/i] tags to make the quoted text italicised, just so you know.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 6, 2005 11:28 PM

How does one do blockquotes?

I use standard HTML tags, <blockquote> and </blockquote>.

Comment from: Montykins posted at December 6, 2005 11:39 PM

I had some of the Lindt 70% and 85% cocoa bars the other day. Weirdly, the 70% tasted more like chocolate than the 85%. I think it's because the 85% was like a black hole of taste that rendered my tongue completely unable to distinguish flavor.

I didn't much like either of them.

Comment from: gwalla posted at December 7, 2005 12:36 AM

I can...um...make a really simple chocolate cake. It's a really good chocolate cake, but that's the extent of my baking abilities.

Megs: Damonk is on Atkins? When'd this happen?

Scharffen Berger is based in my hometown, which means it's really easy to get ahold of around here. And yes, most of their product is meant for cooking. In fact, they were founded for the express purpose of providing premium chocolate to professional cooksÛentering the consumer market was a response to very vocal demands.

Comment from: sqbr posted at December 7, 2005 12:52 AM

I use standard HTML tags, [blockquote] and [/blockquote].

*embarrassed cough*

Those are standard? Oh well, hopefully that's filled my "making a fool of myself in front of lots of people" quota for the day.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 7, 2005 1:06 AM

I see Cadbury in Houston around major holidays, and then have long, sad spells between, with none to be found. I particularly like their Fruit & Nut (I think it's called) bar, although it would be even better if the chocolate were a bit darker.

The eggs are quite tasty too, but they only show up in the Spring, around Easter.

Comment from: oball posted at December 7, 2005 1:36 AM

Just as I started reading this particular post, "Suicide Is Painless" came up on shuffle. Spooky enough, given the subject matter. But then Eric actually mentioned it, causing my brain to implode.

Comment from: gwalla posted at December 7, 2005 2:48 AM

Also, Cadbury Flake is the greatest great thing to ever be great.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 7, 2005 6:07 AM

Man, I'm surrounded by total chocolate pussies. :) 85% Lindt too strong. Cadbury teh awesome. I dunno, people. I dunno.

Comment from: SFaulken posted at December 7, 2005 6:11 AM

Then Ms. White, please, allow me to completely blow your mind.

I don't like chocolate.

Not at all, not chocolate cake, not chocolate biccies, nor chocolate bars. I don't care for mocha coffees, or hot chocolate.

I do not like it in a box, I do not like it with a fox.

Nope.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 7, 2005 10:07 AM

If it's chocolate, I love it all. I've never had a dark chocolate that's too dark. I generally only use white chocolate as a color accent in cookies or to coat pretzels when I'm baking for holiday gifts.

But dark is my favorite. I can't say I've ever had the super-dark version Ms. White loves so, but I'm intrigued. Now I'll have to go down and find it. I do know that:

Ghirardelli is too sweet (sacrilege, according to some)
Cadbury is yummy, but I wish they made dark chocolate.
Hershey's Special Dark is tasty, and readily available everywhere in the states, thankfully.

Dark chocolate oranges from, er.. Tobler, I think... they are the yum. I have a recipe to make them, maybe I'll try it out this year. mmMMMmm

Comment from: kirabug posted at December 7, 2005 11:40 AM

As a moderately webcomic related aside: from a Penny arcade a while ago, do I correctly surmise that America doesn't get Cadbury? Becuase that would be sad indeed.

We get Cadbury at Easter (as someone mentioned) but - well, we've got Hershey. And say what you want about their consumer nature, their high end stuff is damn good chocolate. Plus, being relatively local, I've got access to Wilbur Buds too.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 7, 2005 2:12 PM

When I finally took the plunge and bought some "bitter" (I swear it said that on the label) chocolate in Japan...

I found out you can buy a really fucking good dark chocolate bar at the 24-hour convenience store across the street from our dorm.

It's a wonder I didn't come back 30 pounds heavier. (I am guessing that some of what I tried was conventional "dark" amount of "bitterness" and some was a little more, so that's probably the method I could use to become hardcore like Weds, because man did I love that stuff)

Comment from: Megs posted at December 7, 2005 2:18 PM

Eric- emailing it to you when I get home! It is very delicious with a raspberry sauce and powdered sugar on top for me, for for those avoiding sugar, that sort of defeats the purpose. I take my husband's word for it that he loved it as it was.

Gwalla - It's more like south beach, except cheating is allowed. I'm not sure, but it works for him. He did Atkin's and lost a lot of weight, but he'd yo-yo, so now he's doing a modified version with no sugar, less carbs and more exercise. Which is why a cake made with no sugar and lots of chocolate was exactly what he wanted. Neither of us likes substitute sugars.

Comment from: Megs posted at December 7, 2005 2:23 PM

Oh and Weds-
I constantly top off my wine glass when drinking (to the halfway mark, or whatever is appopriate for the type of glass and type of wine because I'm a wine nerd) while drinking, especially with cool whites in a hot kitchen, so "glass" isn't really a measurement, per se, but a mode of transportation.

Comment from: gwalla posted at December 7, 2005 2:36 PM

Say what you will, Wednesday, but Cadbury Flake has a great texture. Cadbury is just OK as a solid block, but I love the Flake.

When I'm in the mood for classy chocolate, though, it's Scharffen Berger all the way.

Also, See's > Godiva

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 7, 2005 4:43 PM

Megs: Ah. We think along the same lines. We must bake.

And drink.

SFaulken: Opting out of chocolate is totally valid, and certainly not unheard of. My objection is to indiscriminate chocolate consumption. ;)

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at December 7, 2005 6:44 PM

"Tastes sweet!"

"Less bitter!"

(I prefer my chocolate in less direct form, anyway. Chocolate chips, chocolate cookies, etc.)

Comment from: sqbr posted at December 7, 2005 8:38 PM

Cadbury is yummy, but I wish they made dark chocolate.

They don't? :)

On the other hand I didn't know Hershey made decent chocolate, all we get here are the kisses and they're pretty rare. As are peanut Butter m&ms, my fiance's idea of the perfect chocolate.

Wednesday: yeah, I know, though in my defense I do prefer ordinary Lindt dark to Cadbury most of the time. But lindt don't make icecreams etc :)

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 7, 2005 10:19 PM

I feel robbed. I have never seen a dark chocolate Cadbury bar. oh, the pain.

It's funny, around here, Lindt is a rare find, so definitely not ordinary. But Hershey is everywhere. Heck, I've even been to Hershey park - the only amusement park I've ever been to where the air hangs heavy with the smell of chocolatey goodness. I swear I gained 5 pounds just walking around that day, but it was a fun fun day, yep.

Comment from: kirabug posted at December 7, 2005 11:32 PM

Okay, Larksilver, now you have me curious. Just where do you reside?

(I'm in Royersford, somewhere between Philadelphia and Reading, about 2 1/2 hours east of Hershey, PA.)

Comment from: gwalla posted at December 7, 2005 11:51 PM

You can find Lindt in the supermarkets here. Living in California is awesome.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 8, 2005 12:21 AM

If I'm remembering previous comments correctly, Lark lives in the middle of Texas. Which, given the average temperature, isn't exactly a haven for chocolate makers.

Lindt actually operates a store in downtown Boston, so they're pretty easy to come by for me. I recommend melting one milk chocolate truffle into a warm mug of hot cocoa - it smoothes it out extremely well.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 8, 2005 1:12 AM

I'm in Texas, kirabug. But when I was a girl (the summer before I turned 15 I think) I attended a week-long retreat/convention there in Elizabethtown, PA. Beautiful little spot, btw. Elizabethtown College was quite nice, too.

The one day of that week when there weren't any real activities planned, one of the local kids suggested a trip to Hershey Park. Was fun. The idea of taking a sweater to an outdoor in event in July, mind, was an alien concept, but it was a grand time.

Of course, as always, it was funny to me that, whereas I'm generally not considered by my fellow Texans to have a strong accent, that group of more New England-ish kids thought my "y'all" was hilarious, and that my drawl was quite pronounced.

On a completely side note, this thread has reminded me that I should hasten to the Cost Plus World Market over yonder, in yuppyville, and buy my son some of those imported candies which are shaped like bumblebees, aliens, and other fun things. He's three, just the perfect age for this, and a complete chocoholic, so it would not be a wasted gesture (at a year old, my sweet, loving, mostly gentle little guy would just about take your arm off for a bite of chocolate. about the only difference now is that he is articulate enough to ask first). What a great idea, thanks guys. hehe

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: