And what the fuck is wrong with chicken tenders as a recipe? Is it fancy? No. Is it hard to make? No. But it probably tastes a million times better than whatever fancy bullshit you cook up with your unpronounceable ingredients and silly cooking techniques. Every god damned time I get dragged to some fancy restaurant in D.C I end up wishing I could just eat some chicken tenders and fries, because they'd taste a hell of a lot better and fill me up. Why the fuck is watching Rachel Ray or Guy Fieri detrimental to learning cooking? Not everyone wants to learn how to perfectly sautee buffalo brains and pig testicles in a white-wine sauce with a hint of warm urine.
You're an emotionless food-hipster robot who can't appreciate good, simple food. You're basically the food equivalent of those stupid bitches who go chomp at the bit to spend $500 on purses from Michael Kors.
*Edit* I bet my cooking show would be popular as fuck, by the way.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with chicken tenders as a recipe. It's a fine recipe. It's also an easy as fuck and brain dead simple recipe. There's a million and one variations on it. To use it as an example of someone's creativity is the bad part. And it was different for the sake of being different. Bran flakes as breading? We all know you don't have to try that to know it's bad.
Rachel Ray and Guy Fieri are detrimental to learning cooking because...they are. I'm not sure how much more you can simplify it. If you aren't learning anything about cooking, it's detrimental. I swear, some of you on my nuts are the same people that (rightfully)loathe core competencies. Same shit, different subject. You aren't learning how to do the cooking, you're just doing the cooking. If that's all you want, fine. I, however, dislike them(and most cooking shows) for it.
Your assumptions are incorrect. I've mentioned my diet from time to time in the weight loss thread, it should give you an idea of what my cooking tendencies are, but here's another taste. Breakfast was pancakes with apple sauce substituted for oil and microwaved bacon. Lunch was greek yogurt, peanut butter powder, dried cherries, and mini chocolate chips. Dinner was grilled pork tenderloin, salad, and sliced potatoes baked with garlic salt. Dessert was smores. No organic or free range bullshit. I pack my lunch with leftovers or sandwiches every day. I really don't know where you get the idea that because I value learning in things important to me, I must be some pretentious food snob. You can know a lot about cooking and still cook pretty basic meals most of the time.
Am I a hipster for knowing that the microwave can make pretty good (crunchy)bacon if you time it right? Am I a hipster for knowing applesauce can substitute for oil pretty well in my mom's pancake recipe? Am I hipster for just cooking what's in my fridge because the pork was going bad soon? Am I a hipster for knowing yogurt, if given a few hours, can reconstitute dried fruits? I consulted no recipes for these changes, they all came off the top of my head because I know how the ingredients work. Obviously I can't prove it, but I feel most shows make you want to cook something, while I would advocate most shows should make you want to cook. Huge difference.
And yes, your cooking show would likely be very popular. That was the point of the comment. Though, sometimes I read your comments and I feel like I'm reading Man v. Food, so, maybe they already did your show.
chaos, of course she doesn't offer what I want, that's the problem. You're faulting me for holding cooking shows to Good Eats' standard? That I saw 14 seasons of entertaining learning and cooking and wonder why there isn't more? I wouldn't call her concept pretty unique, that's like a basic slow cooker recipe book. Flip to any page at random, cook a batch of that, there's your dinners for the week.