|Comments on Thursday 9 March 2006:|
|A newly invented (or possibly reinvented) recipe - Vegan Wok Omelettes.|
I imagine it would work the same in a frying pan, but I like my wok, and don't have a frying pan that's as superbly non-stick, so for me it's a wok omelette.
Put a bit of oil in the wok and put stir-fry sort of heat under it.
Chop up six to eight mushrooms; I chop them into 4mm thick slices in two directions, resulting in 4*4*X cuboid 'chips' of mushroom. Put them in the wok.
Chop up a red onion. Put it in the wok. Stir.
Get a big lump (500g I think) of firm tofu. Crumble it into the wok. Stir.
Add a heaped teaspoon of turmeric, a bit less of paprika, and a pinch of chilli powder. Stir until the colour saturates everything.
Get four tablespoons of wheat gluten (gluten flour), and add water, stirring, until it's a medium-thin batter. Add some brewer's yeast flakes to this for a slightly cheesy flavour if you like. Once the stuff in the wok is a bit browned on at least a couple of sides, add the batter and stir it in. Maybe turn the temperature down a bit.
Turn it over at some point, and you've got rather splatty ill-bound omelettes. That's the recipe as I cooked it; if I were to do it again, I'd go with double the batter for a better chance at binding success - I went for a bit short because I wasn't sure if it would ruin the flavour, but it didn't have much effect, so doubling it should be okay. Serve on some toast. [16:42]
|Sounds edible. Not going to bother with it though vegetarian is as far as I go you can harvest eggs and cheese without serious harm to the animal and well I like cheese way to much to go all out vegan willing to live without eggs though. Anyways do you think maybe it'd bind better if you added some oil to the wheat batter and cooked/formed that before adding the cooked onions and mushrooms?|
|Tsk, 55 spam comments in one night on one entry, and another 250 scattered. What a waste of spammer effort.|
|All from the same IP or from seperate ones? Curious about who would bother to spam this portion of your blog its not exactly widely known or read to make a spammers efforts to get their propaganda across to the world.|
|Separate IPs - they don't do it for eyes, they do it for search engines. (And they don't use same-IP because that makes it far too easy to delete all at once, filter and block.)|
|Thought the search engines went by links to a page..... could be crazy but the number of links on your comment page is not going unless they were specifically inserting them into the comment they were writing. In which case it would be easier, cheaper, and more effective for them to spend $10 to rent hosting for their own board and simply fill there.|
|Yes, there were six links per comment, on each of several hundred separate pages, each full of the various keywords they want to be highly ranked on. It wouldn't be cheaper than 0 for them to spend $10, and certainly not $10 a month to keep a domain active with spam, and certainly not $10 *for each comment-supporting site they spam*. They didn't just spam me, they have automated crap spamming their links into blogs all over the place.|
|fun fun still seems like it;d be easier and more effective though to have a single board totally filled with just their links than have spam on a large number of sites that will probably delete it and resent the people doing the spamming though eventually the mre reputable search engines would probably start discounting the site of their nothing but links. Maybe this is just my loathing of conflict but you can find low bandwidth hosting thats exceedingly cheap posting a million links onto that that are always there would seem to be worth the $120 a year as it won't get deleted and will be a steady known number of links. It also seems as though if you could trace the ip and mac of the sender they could be identified and asked to cease, if that doesn't stop them you've got a reasonable case of harassment that has caused you damage.|
|The sender is almost certainly virus-bots which is why it comes from many IPs at the same time, so there's nobody there to catch. One site with many links is worth one link to search engines; many sites with a link each is worth a lot, and more the more highly ranked the site itself is. A site of just links has no rank; my blog has a middling rank.|
|As far as I was informed webcrawler and infoseek both go purely off the number of links. Though I believe some of the newer engines do things differently. Anyways it any more expements with the psuedo omelets to find a way to get them to bind better?|
|This comment section makes for very interesting reading,...I actually found your site via searching for "dream" Sandman pix on yahoo (since your talking about search engines), I would def. take an omelet hold the red onion; last time I made tufu came out kindof soft, what does search engines and omelets have to do w/ each other? lol<\/A>/; - Beth|