+chopped garlic and a few dashes of worcesterchire sauce to the meatballs and deglaze your frying pan with port wine before you add your beef stock (real beef stock not that boullione crap) and cream=better swedish meatballs than this.

oh..would you look at me being a little foodie cunt.
sorry =(

When you cook with garlic, if you don't like the smell, wash your hands with soap and cold water when you're done. The smell won't stick if your pores aren't open.

Another simple "life hack" (we used to call them "trucs de grande-mère" or "grandma tricks" in the old days):

To get smell of garlic/onion off fingers: rub your fingers on the inox sink/working counter.

Actually, this is made using the ingredients they use in Canada. This video is only linked on McD's Canadian website: http://yourquestions.mcdonalds.ca/questions/66

The stuff in the USA is different: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf (page 2)

Soybean oil, pickle relish [diced pickles, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, vinegar, corn syrup, salt, calcium chloride, xanthan gum, potassium sorbate (preservative),
spice extractives, polysorbate 80], distilled vinegar, water, egg yolks, high fructose corn syrup, onion powder, mustard seed, salt, spices, propylene glycol alginate,
sodium benzoate (preservative), mustard bran, sugar, garlic powder, vegetable protein (hydrolyzed corn, soy and wheat), caramel color, extractives of paprika, soy
lecithin, turmeric (color), calcium disodium EDTA (protect flavor).

I wonder at what temperature they start to stick to the pan?>> ^Reefie:

Some garlic, taragon and 10 minutes on a moderate to high temperature until gently seared for a wonderful treat.

Some garlic, taragon and 10 minutes on a moderate to high temperature until gently seared for a wonderful treat.

My inner cat lover was horrified by the cruelty; my inner chef was like, "I don't think that's how marinating works."
In reply to this comment by jonny:
would you have preferred lemon and garlic?
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
His cooking instincts are on par with his sense of humanity.

would you have preferred lemon and garlic?
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
His cooking instincts are on par with his sense of humanity.

You're a mean one, Mark Sidran
You really are a heel,
You're as cuddly as a cactus, you're as charming as an eel, Mr. Sidran,
You're a bad banana with a greasy black peel!

You're a monster, Mark Sidran,
Your heart's an empty hole,
Your brain is full of spiders, you have garlic in your soul, Mr. Sidran,
I wouldn't touch you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

You're a foul one, Mark Sidran,
You have termites in your smile,
You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile, Mr. Sidran,
Given a choice between the two of you I'd take the seasick crocodile!

You're a rotter, Mark Sidran,
You're the king of sinful sots,
Your heart's a dead tomato splotched with moldy purple spots, Mr. Sidran,
You're a three decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce!

You nauseate me, Mark Sidran,
With a nauseous super "naus"!,
You're a crooked dirty jockey and you drive a crooked hoss, Mr. Sidran,
Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful
Assortment of rubbish imaginable mangled up in tangled up knots!

You're a foul one, Mark Sidran,
You're a nasty wasty skunk,
Your heart is full of unwashed socks, your soul is full of gunk, Mr. Sidran,
The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote,
"Stink, stank, stunk"!

Oops. Thought I had been more clear than that in my previous explanation. In fact on rereading it I'm fairly convinced that I was. I'll restate my position in different terms to maybe clear up the confusion.

I suspect the kernel of our misunderstanding lies in your previous post. Thank you for helping me to crystallize my view.
"Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away. "

A-Obama uses religion for political reasons.
B-Santorum would implement policy for religious reasons.

I don't think I can make it much more clear than that. I would immensely prefer that religion be mishandled in the pursuit of politics, than the country be mishandled in the pursuit of religion. If that means I'm a hypocrite, than I proudly am.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.
Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.
Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.
Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.
And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.
Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.

Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.

Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.

Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.

And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.

Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think we should still go dark. An extra nail in a monster's coffin is never a bad thing. Unless you are talking about a monster that can somehow transform nail metal into life recovering energy. I've never heard of a monster that can do that, but it doesn't hurt to be cautious. That said, SOPA is in no way the type of monster that would benefit from extra coffin nails, so you can disregard my second point for the time being. Anyone have a hammer?


No, but I have silver.

and garlic.

and a cross that I dug up from an indian burial ground on friday the 13th... wait, now I'm confused....

I must go to this steak house where they serve bottles of win.

Great indeed.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).

There are many, many multiplayer only games, and I'm not even talking about MMOs. Console games have lagged behind PC in terms of online connectivity, but with the success of PSN and Xbox Live, multiplayer has become much more prominent in the console-space, and will be even more relevant with the next generation. When you are playing the sequel to one of the historically greatest PC multiplayer only franchises, yes complaining about the singleplayer is like complaining about the salad at the steak restaurant.

And when 95% of your "reviews" focuses on why a game sucks, you are a "hater". It's hard to take someone's "opinions" seriously when their idea of game of the year is Saints Row 2.


>> ^Deano:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).

If it's fair game then I don't think the steak house analogy really applies. If on the other hand it was heavily hyped as MP with far less emphasis on SP then I can see where one might have cause for concern.
The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about. They still have to sell a game to everyone which includes people like me who will play the SP, maybe flirt with the MP for a short while then stop playing.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).


If it's fair game then I don't think the steak house analogy really applies. If on the other hand it was heavily hyped as MP with far less emphasis on SP then I can see where one might have cause for concern.
The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about. They still have to sell a game to everyone which includes people like me who will play the SP, maybe flirt with the MP for a short while then stop playing.