[Sca-cooks] RE: Sourdough

[Chris Stanifer]

--- Jadwiga Zajaczkowa / Jenne Heise <jenne at fiedlerfamily.net> 
wrote:

> > yeast is not, in and of itself, a sourdough starter, as you have 
been claiming this whole
> time....
> > your own authors affirm that it must contain souring agents.
> 
> No, you've been claiming that the wild yeasts don't make it a 
sourdough. 
> And you're wrong. The acid doughs made by imitative Brit 
bakerswith tame 
> yeasts and lactobacilli are NOT sourdoughs.


Wild yeasts do NOT make a sourdough.  Wild yeasts make a spontaneous 
fermentation.  Lactobacillic
bacteria, and lactic acid, as is pointed out quite clearly in your 
own references, make it a
sourdough.  Tame yeast or wild yeast...it doesn't matter.  Read your 
work before you flap your
gap.

>  
> > I think that what we have been seeing is a knee-jerk reaction to 
someone who 'dared to
> contradict'
> > someone whom you blindly follow as an authority. 
> 
> Nope. What you've been seeing is a reaction to someone who blindly 
> claims authority in a subject (American baking language) about 
which he 
> knows nothing,


In which I know nothing??  Lady, you don't have a clue as to what 
you are talking about.  My
initial comments regarding 'sourdough', and the evolution of the 
term, have been substantiated in
your own references, including the one cited above.



 and backs up his claim not with solid chemistry and 
> biology but inferences and grandstanding about his professional 
status.


Excuse me, but lactobacillic action on a sourdough starter IS solid 
chemistry, and microbiology. 
If bringing up solid references for the sourness of a sourdough, and 
pointing out the same
references in YOUR OWN excerpts is considered 'grandstanding about 
my professional status', then
so be it.  I prefer to call it illumination.  I don't see how that 
could be construed as
grandstanding, but to each his own, I suppose.  Which excerpt did 
you cite, by the way, which had
even a hint of 'solid chemistry' behind it???  I can't recall one.  
The Little House excerpt?? 
Nope.  The Laura Ingalls excerpt??  Nope.  The Ed Wood excerpt??  
Nope.

> 
> Quit copping the 'I know more than all of you on this list' 
attitude
> which has been evident from your first few posts, 


Really?  How has it been evident?  But, hey...if I'm right, I'm 
going to make it known. 
Misinformation, such as has been passed around on this list in 
recent days, is dangerous to this
profession, and is exactly the kind of problem which caused the term 
'sourdough' to mutate into an
unfortunate amalgam of terms.  The clear distinction between a 
starter, and a sourdough starter,
is the presence and action of lactobacillic bacteria on the sugars, 
proteins, etc in a flour and
water slurry.  If it's soured by these bacteria, it's a sourdough 
starter.  If it's not, it ain't.
 Pure and simple, and affirmed by your own authors!!  Look at the 
facts, lady.  Even your 'Ed
Wood', whom you claim to be the deity of sourdough science, points 
to this clear distinction. 
When will you stop ignoring the data, and admit that you are one of 
several people on this list
who have been mislead by lazy science and the lessez-faire attitude 
of armchair bakers??  Address
the points I have brought up, or move along.  You have yet to refute 
or explain ANY of the obvious
contradictions to your arguement, which I have pointed out in YOUR 
OWN references.  The fact of
the matter is simple:  You can't.  Your authors affirm that 
sourdough is caused by souring
bacteria in the starter, and NOT the wild yeasts themselves, but yet 
you will not cede the point. 
Instead, you resort to character assassination and lies.  


I won't go out of my
> way to smother you with references. 


In the future, if you're going to try to 'smother me with 
references', you might want to make sure
that they don't back up my own argument, as all of your references 
have so far.



Keep acting as if your claimed
> professional status allows you to tell everyone else you know 
better 
> than they, 

I've never implied this.  However, my 'claimed professional status' 
is backed up with almost 2
decades of continuous professional work, and practical applications 
of the theories you so
obviously fail to understand.  Don't try to cloud the debate with 
personal attacks, because you
can't find a reference to support your ill-advised theory.  Your 
pseudo-scholarly work on this
subject is flawed, and it cannot be repaired through personal 
attacks.  You should step back, look
at the evidence you have before you (which means 'read the whole 
sentence before you pull quotes
out'), and then start over.

I won't say 'I told you so', I promise.

William de Grandfort
Still waiting for the quotes which support your allegation "acting 
as if your claimed
> professional status allows you to tell everyone else you know 
better 
> than they"



=====
Through teeth of sharks, the Autumn barks.....and Winter squarely bites me.


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo