Discussion in 'Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel' started by Fabienne, Jan 31, 2005.
?? This time he just named the ingredients. No eggplant velvet.
Crispy rouget. Why not just rouget? Frankly, if you cook a rouget long enough to get it crispy, you have way overcooked it.
Fuck you, all of you.
In conclusion, fuck us all?
though the rouget does look overcooked, i'd still eat the shit out of it.
The skin was the crispy part. I cooked those fillets for a total of not even a minute, each.
:/ Now you're confusing me. Fish skin cannot get crispy in less than a minute total.
Well, I have to be somewhat creative with the titles of my food. The menu I'm putting together can't just be a list of ingredients.
Nor can the bottom side get golden.
The skin was very, very dry, and the pan was well heated, so it did crisp up a bit.
So, maybe my heat was too high. Those things were in the pan for a minute, no longer. Though, they weren't overcooked, in my opinion; very moist.
You can't throw the word crispy on there because you want more than just the word rouget, and you definitely can't throw the word crispy on there unless it's actually crispy.
Why not? What's going to happen to him? The old lady will kick him out of the Carlyle?
It doesn't look like it was too hot, because the color is nice, not burned.
How about "crisped" rouget?
Are you trying to Gordon Gekko me by saying there's no law prohibiting him from doing so? I mean, why throw a word on there just to have a word in your "dish title"? And why use a word that isn't an apt description of the dish? It's dishonest. That's reason enough.
How about just rouget, or sauteed rouget? I am proud to say I've never named anything I've made.
Separate names with a comma.