From: "Ellen Rains Harris" To: anglican@list.stsams.org Subject: Re: Another Anglican Recipe Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 Sir, Your recipe isn't awful, since it initially does not include any real vegetables. However: There Are NO Beans In Chili. Ever. Beans are nice, and they may be served separately, with the end result ultimately determined by the end user, but Chili Has No Beans. I refer you to our Late Friend, Mutton L. Mer, who agreed with me (as well he shoulda). Authoritatively yours, Mrs Harris, Alexandroid, Okie in Exile ------------------- From: "Tony Hitsman" The lovely and eloquent Ellen Rains Harris dictateth thusly: >There Are NO Beans In Chili. Ever. That would take some getting used to, Ellen, as what passes for chili up here always, IIRC, includes red kidney beans. I've never had it any other way. However, with lots of Pepto-Bismol on hand, I'll try it your way, without the beans. Do you serrate the meat? Cook it in chunks? I just have enormous problems visualizing myself eating that much meat without at least a sprinkling of vegan matter. Boom Boom ------------------- From: "Ellen Rains Harris" Sir, If your chunks (or serrates) of cowflesh are not sufficiently seasoned to thunderously propel it along its way, it is not chili, but some sort of ragout or stew. Chili needs no vegan material. It generates its own momentum spicily. Yrs very humbly, Mrs H, chilihead in Alexandria ------------------- From: "Daniel R. Porter" So I finally found something that all Anglicans don't agree on. We should look to authority. No not Episcopal authority but to one who knows chili. This fella lived in Chigger, a small town in Southern Illinois which everyone knows is the world capital of Chili. He would make Chili, as he put it, the only right way. He would start with dried Habanero or Scotch Bonnet Chile Peppers, arrange them on a cutting board, discard one or two, add one or two, rearrange them, maybe put one back from the discards, then rearrange them again. He would say, There can be no recipe here. It's what they look like, color, wrinkles, shape, and character and all." Then with a knife in each hand he would whack them to bits, add them to a pot, throw in a lump of Baker's chocolate (it had to be Baker's), three pinches of cummin, three mashed tomatoes. Then he would pour in a can of Budwieser (it had to be Bud). Then he would throw in a slab or beef. This he would "cook proper" until the beef was so well done that he could pull it into shreds with fingers (it had to be fingers). Now he would pour in some water (it had to be pump water) and some salt (it had to be Mortons). Nothing more would go into it except for six handfulls of kidney beans. He would now cook it until the beans were "properly mushy." Now, everybody in Chigger, Ill. would come to his restaurant. All sixteen people in this town agree that his chili is the authentic stuff. A sign in his window proclaimed that his was the only real chili and that no one else could do it right. He also has a sign in the window of his restaurant claiming that he invented the hamburger, french fries, and BBQ sauce. I made that up except there really is a town of Chigger, Ill and I did eat the best chili I ever had in the town's 4 booth restaurant. It was probably Hormel in a can. *** Of course, chili has beans.*** Dan ------------------- From: mary_thorpe ...Illinois? Nope, don't think so! ------------------- From: "Ellen Rains Harris" Sir, Baker's Chocolate is not a vegetable. Therefore it is admissible. But beans are a garnish, an accoutrement. They are not an ingredient. Mrs Harris, who has cooked in Terlingua ------------------- From: "Ken Peck" At 10:38 AM 2/6/2002 -0500, Daniel R. Porter wrote: >So I finally found something that all Anglicans don't agree on. We should >look to authority. No not Episcopal authority but to one who knows chili. >This fella lived in Chigger, a small town in Southern Illinois which >everyone knows is the world capital of Chili. No, Terligua, Texas is the chili capital of the universe. No one in southern Illinois knows their elbow from a hole in the ground. >pot, throw in a lump of Baker's chocolate (it had to be Baker's), three Thus demonstrating his ignorance of true chili. >Nothing more would go into it except for six handfulls of kidney beans. >He would now cook it until the beans were "properly mushy." Confirming that he would not recognize chili if it bit him. ------------------- From: "Sean Kilpatrick" On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 06:15:44 -0600, Ken Peck wrote: >Thus demonstrating his ignorance of true chili. When I was but a young lad there was chili and chili con carne. chili was a bean dish seasoned with hot peppers. It became "con carne" with the addition of meat. Now I hear of beanless chili!? Has the definition of "chili" changed? Inquiring minds want to know. Sean ------------------- From: Ellen Rains Harrise Sir, I believe you have been misled by those close to you. Perhaps you may avenge this injustice by giving them a canteloupe and telling them that it is a grape. Chili has no beans. Mrs Harris, chilihead ------------------- From: Sibyl Smirl When my ex was a little boy, his fun-loving family would do things like giving him a spoonful of grated horseradish, telling him he'd like it, or, more mildly, an apricot under his impression that it was a peach. Families do some funny things to kids. Or maybe they don't know any better themselves, like some east coast cookbook writers. They might have liked straight grated horseradish by the spoonful themselves. Ob. Ang-- a little horseradish is sometimes served (with chopped raw onion, and a cruet of vinegar, and crackers, and other things) as a side optional condiment with chili. Ellen Rains Harris wrote: > I believe you have been misled by those close to you. ------------------- From: TexasTrish polycarpa@ckt.net writes: > Ob. Ang-- a little horseradish is sometimes served (with chopped raw onion, > and > a cruet of vinegar, and crackers, and other things) Never heard of that. Since I hate horseradish, I won't be trying it, either. Pooks ------------------- From: "Ken Peck" At 11:07 AM 2/7/2002 -0500, Sean Kilpatrick wrote: When I was but a young lad there was chili and chili con carne. chili was a bean dish seasoned with hot peppers. It became "con carne" with the addition of meat. You were apparently a young lad in a culturally disadvantaged society. "Chili" is short for "chili con carne," not "chili con frijoles." If you were raised in the Republic of Texas and went into a true ROT Tex-Mex cantina(not one of those places frequented by Australian touristas) in God's city, San Antonio, you would find that they would either put or offer to put "chili" on everything. Chili on the enchaladas, chili on the tamales, etc. And what you would get would be chili con carne, not chili con frijoles. In fact the one thing that likely would NOT have chili on it would be the frijoles. ------------------- From: Ellen Rains Harris Ken, The closest I ever came to that was at Denko's Cafe in downtown Normal, Joklahoma, during my matriculatory years. Denko's was on the railroad tracks, and the waitresses were all named "Pat," and wore curlers under their hairnets. Denko's had their own homegrown salsa that was called "hot dope" and served from recycled baby food jars. Denko's was open 24/7 and you could go there after a hard night of listening to Asleep at the Wheel and get Denko's Darlin', with two underneath and two lookin' atcha; which was two tamales covered with macaroni, covered with chili and cheese and onion with two eggs easy over on top of it looking into your bloodshot eyes. It did much for you at 3 am. I understand Denko's is now a sort of fern bar place. Very sad. Ken Peck wrote: > > If you were raised in the Republic of Texas and went into a true ROT > Tex-Mex cantina(not one of those places frequented by Australian touristas) > in God's city, San Antonio, you would find that they would either put or > offer to put "chili" on everything. Chili on the enchaladas, chili on the > tamales, etc. And what you would get would be chili con carne, not chili > con frijoles. In fact the one thing that likely would NOT have chili on it > would be the frijoles. ------------------- From: "Glenn E. Hammett" To: anglican@list.stsams.org Subject: Re: Another Anglican Recipe Amen. Amen. You are preaching the true gospel. At long last Ken and I agree on a religious issue. TBTG. +Glenn Ken Peck wrote: > > You were apparently a young lad in a culturally disadvantaged society. > "Chili" is short for "chili con carne," not "chili con frijoles."