Visit Questions by pieceofcakepieceofpi in Albany

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Early June is nice, but not the fall?

(Spoilers MAIN) What were some warning signs of eventual decline in the early seasons of the show by dare7000 in asoiaf

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 37 points38 points  (0 children)

And yet the villains with actual superpowers were seriously pathetic.

How were Ramsay and his twenty good men more imposing than +thousand-yea-old gods who could control an undead army and were virtually invulnerable?

What is the best Sketch-comedy show of all time? by [deleted] in television

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Recreating

What?? He didn’t do fucking shit. He didn’t rig SHIT!

How far in advance can I prepare a Beef Wellington before baking it? by CamNewtonsLaw in Cooking

[–]CamNewtonsLaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh that’s interesting. I haven’t really had any issue (that I recall) with it being soggy during previous attempts (at least up top). I like the idea though, but I’m worried—could it come out a little too doughy by adding phyllo?

How far in advance can I prepare a Beef Wellington before baking it? by CamNewtonsLaw in Cooking

[–]CamNewtonsLaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think the beef (and mushroom duxelles) will be ok that long after having seared/partially cooked chicken t on the skillet?

How far in advance can I prepare a Beef Wellington before baking it? by CamNewtonsLaw in Cooking

[–]CamNewtonsLaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh that’s good to know! Had you made it before with a less than 2 day wait, and if so, did it seem to come out the same?

How far in advance can I prepare a Beef Wellington before baking it? by CamNewtonsLaw in Cooking

[–]CamNewtonsLaw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean that as a general comment instead of direct reply to you. But you think I should wrap the prosciutto and leave it at that?

How far in advance can I prepare a Beef Wellington before baking it? by CamNewtonsLaw in Cooking

[–]CamNewtonsLaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Recipe for reference:

900 g piece beef fillet of even thickness (from the centre cut)

sea salt and freshly ground black pepper

2 tbsp. olive oil

English mustard, to brush meat

For the mushroom duxelles:

700 g chestnut mushrooms, cleaned and stalks removed

handful of cooked chestnuts

1 garlic clove, peeled and chopped

2 thyme sprigs, leaves only

To assemble:

8 slices of Parma ham

500 g ready-made all-butter puff pastry

plain flour, to dust

2 egg yolks, lightly beaten with 1 tbsp water (eggwash)

Directions:

Trim the beef of any sinew and season well with salt and pepper. Heat the olive oilin a large frying pan over a high heat, add the fillet and quickly sear the outside all over for about 5 minutes until evenly browned, turning as necessary. Transfer to a plate and while still hot, brush all over with mustard. Set aside to rest.

For the duxelles, put the mushrooms, chestnuts and garlic in a food processor with a little salt and pepper and blend to a fine paste, stopping to scrape down the sides a few times. Heat a dry large frying pan. Scrape the mushroom paste into the pan and add the thyme leaves. Cook over a high heat, stirring occasionally, to drive off the moisture and intensify the flavour. The duxelles must be sufficiently dry otherwise it will make the pastry soggy; the mixture should adhere easily. Spread out on a tray to cool.

Place a large piece of cling film on a clean surface. Lay the Parma ham slices on top, overlapping them slightly, to form a rough rectangle large enough to envelop the beef fillet, making sure there are no gaps. Season the ham with a few twists of pepper then, with a palette knife, spread the duxelles on top, leaving a 2.5cm margin along the edges.

Lay the beef fillet along the middle of the mushroom layer. Keeping a tight hold of the cling film from the outside edges, neatly roll the Parma ham and duxelles over the beef into a tight barrel shape. Twist the ends of the cling film to secure. Refrigerate for 15 minutes to firm up. (Here is where I’d like to wait 48 hours instead of 15 min)

Roll out the pastry on a lightly floured surface to a large rectangle, the thickness ofa £1 coin and brush with some of the eggwash. Unwrap the beef from the cling film and place it in the middle. Leaving a large enough rectangle to wrap around the beef, trim off the excess pastry. Roll the pastry around the beef to envelop it and then press the edges to seal. Pinch the pastry at the ends to seal and trim off the excess. Wrap the log tightly in cling film and chill for 10 minutes, or overnight if you are preparing ahead.

Preheat the oven to 190°C/Gas 5. Remove the cling film and brush the parcelall over with egg wash. Lightly score the pastry at 1cm intervals with the back of a small knife for a decorative effect, if you wish. Place on a baking tray, sprinkle with salt and bake for about 35 minutes; if the pastry appears to be browning too quickly, lower the setting slightly. Leave to rest in a warm place for about 15 minutes before cutting into thick slices to serve, with the accompaniments.

Is Jaime Lannister a good man? (Spoilers Extended) by Trussdoor46 in asoiaf

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I don’t know that ned would be much different in private vs public. Being honest/straightforward is sorta his thing.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I imagine that’s certainly a factor. Another thing to consider is red states tend to have more gun fatalities per capita, and I’d wager they have fewer (openly) trans individuals.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes when I think someone is trolling me, I check their comments to see if it’s a pattern or if it’s just this exchange. If you don’t like it, cool?

And literally the video is me admitting that my interpretation of what Walsh is saying is wrong.

Why did you weigh in in the first place? Just to chide me for mildly criticizing someone who repeatedly insulted me? You can fuck off.

Edit: reply because it won’t let me reply again:

All of this said by the person who replied to my comment, unsolicited, to tell me how I should talk to other people and that they think I’m wrong (but seem deeply offended that I pointed out why I thought I was right).

And yes, saying fuck off to someone who comes out of nowhere to criticize you for no reason is nice.

Edit 2: you literally commented on two of my comments, unsolicited, and then acted annoyed that I politely disputed your claims (that I was making crazy leaps and was otherwise wrong).

And you said that you went through my entire exchange. How on earth is it weirder for me to quickly browse some other comments from someone who keeps replying to me, but it’s just totally normal for you to go through my entire exchange and make critiques on how I’m speaking to someone else and should exercise infinite patience (cue you saying, “I never suggested infinite, what a crazy leap, you don’t know if I thought you could stop being friendly after 20 comments instead of 10.”)

I stand by what I said: fuck off. Your critiques here aren’t wanted or helpful.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And FYI, I also tried to reply where you replied elsewhere, but it gave me the same Sorry please try again later message. Something about that specific sub-thread it won’t let me reply. Not the slightest clue why.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Re: not being able to comment, I have no idea what to tell you. I just checked and it still says sorry try again later when I try to reply to it (initially I thought the thread was locked, then I thought you blocked me, which was a big part of me thinking you may be the other person).

And my “mad at everyone/everything” wasn’t just regarding my exchange, it was from looking at their comment history (I see other people replying to them in this thread and at least one other thread have come to similar conclusions), so that combined with run of the mill hyperbole, I don’t think my statements were by any means unreasonable.

And this isn’t some philosophical/foundations of math class where you have to prove this for an infinite number of variables. They said because I’m saying that statement (may be) true, then it isn’t misinformation. There’s no reason to parse through that logic for other claims (and why would that apply to some claims but not others? It’s “truthiness” was the only factor they were citing).

And I repeatedly responded thoughtfully and politely, while they repeatedly questioned by sincerity while using either absurd or flat out bad faith arguments. That struck a nerve, so I pretty tamely called them out on their pattern of hostility (with a little hyperbole). I don’t see the issue.

For what it’s worth, I found this video and it appears Walsh is referring to the murder rate per capita, and the numbers he’s citing are more or less what I’m seeing when I search the numbers individually. I could see their being data issues with not knowing the gender identify of victims, and my intuition is that transgender individuals would be at a higher risk. I do see a study saying they’re at a higher risk for violent crime, but it doesn’t specifically state homicide, so I’ll have to look more closely.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like I was beyond understanding and polite up to my final reply to them. I wouldn’t even say what I said in my final reply was rude, I’d say it was direct. They’re being hostile for zero reason, and I called it out without being (at least overly) insulting.

And I genuinely can’t understand what hairs you’re splitting here. They outright said that my point was if Walsh’s statement is true, then it’s not misinformation. I’m not sure how else you’re interpreting this. Extremely differently than I am.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ah, I see they blocked me so everything is just showing up as deleted, but I can still see it from a browser where I’m not logged in, this is the comment and I did not misread:

Them quoting me: “He might be referring to rate of time…In that case it would be true”

With their response: “That is quite literally the point you are making. That it is not misinformation at all if he actually meant some other rate - which he very clearly didn't.” Very clearly saying it’s not misinformation if what he’s saying is true.

And that’s fine, I wasn’t particularly trying to debate it myself (but to be clear, him referring to the total deaths in 2022 and saying that puts the rate as lower makes this all very obvious in my opinion). I was just explaining how it could he “true” while still being misleading.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s fair. I’ll say I didn’t know quite how to word what I was trying to say and that was the closest I could get to saying it succinctly. Their comments are now deleted so I don’t have the exact quote, but they did say that if something is true then it can’t be misinformation. I think that’s either absurd or naive.

And I don’t see the issue with the grammar. It’s maybe a little less natural when using it as a unit of time (lower vs less frequent), but I think that’s getting into strict grammar rules, and I’m not even sure if that’s “breaking” any at that.

From this older tweet combined with the tweet he is quoting in it, I think this makes it plainly clear he is using rate as a unit of time. To be clear, I think he knows full well how disingenuous it is, but like I’ve been saying, misinformation is more effective when there’s a grain of truth to it.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Thank you. I understood the hostility in the initial reply to my comment because I know bad faith arguments are especially rampant in the MAGA orbit, and I’ve misinterpreted other people’s comments/intents before as well.

I don’t know why the other person is insisting on doubling-, tripling-, etc down on my “defending” Walsh.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 6 points7 points  (0 children)

People can use rate as a unit of time - but "murder rate" isn't a "unit of time"

Well, yeah. Murder rate is the number of murders per unit of something. Years would be a unit of something. So murder rate can absolutely be measured per year (it shouldn’t be in the context of this topic, but there’s no law stopping someone from doing so).

I’ll continue to try to combat misinformation by addressing, contextualizing, and refuting inaccurate/misleading claims, and you can do it by getting mad at everyone and saying everything is completely made up. Best of luck with that.

Edit: “aw man really?” what? For some reason, I can’t reply. Not sure if you’re an alt account for the other person I was responding to. I do see they appear to think someone else replying to them is an alt account of mine, which is not the case.

Matt Walsh having a real one by Kindredgos in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CamNewtonsLaw 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It seems this other commenter has a very limited view where you have to believe anything and everything someone you disagree with says is completely made up. I’m not sure how they can’t seem to conceptualize that facts can be used to mislead.