|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: Uranus
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
First, caramelization can be used to refer to melting that does not actually involve caramel.
|
No, you are wrong and this interpretation intentionally obfuscates. I'm certain there a term from accepted pathology practices that would be much more descriptive. Caramelization means turning something into yummy gooey candy. You just did a really bad job at providing evidence.
Dorland's is the most trusted and established medical dictionary. According to them, caramelization = No results found!
http://www.dorlands.com/wsearch.jsp
Caramelization isn't a recognized pathological term so the description means nothing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
dulouz wrote: |
Quote: |
First, caramelization can be used to refer to melting that does not actually involve caramel.
|
No, you are wrong and this interpretation intentionally obfuscates. I'm certain there a term from accepted pathology practices that would be much more descriptive. Caramelization means turning something into yummy gooey candy. You just did a really bad job at providing evidence.
Dorland's is the most trusted and established medical dictionary. According to them, caramelization = No results found!
http://www.dorlands.com/wsearch.jsp
Caramelization isn't a recognized pathological term so the description means nothing. |
You're apparently fairly unable to think outside definitions provided to you, but you do make me laugh.
Now look, caramelization occurs with the burning of sugars, yes? There are sugars in the body, yes? What happens when they are burned at high temps? Also, I imagine the use of caramelized could have been descriptive as opposed to the absolute and literal use you are trying to stick to. I don't remember the phrasing.
Ah! And here's a use of caramelization with regard to cooking untreated meat. IOW, no more sugars than would naturally occur. Now, don't you feel silly?
Quote: |
I continue to cook the beef on the flat sides, salting first, about 10 minutes on each side. I do not use very high heat, because you get good caramelization in that amount of time. I'm not interested in carbonizing the surface of the meat. To me that ruins the flavor. You must also take care not to pierce the meat, or it will be less juicy. Turn it with tongs or two spoons. |
http://k4a4.com//02.htm#05 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: Uranus
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't help you.
Good bye. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well and good. Thanks for the info. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Thats wholly BS. Caramelization means turning something into gooey caramel candy. |
Quote: |
First, caramelization can be used to refer to melting that does not actually involve caramel.
|
This is correct, as any chef or cook can tell you.
It's a process, not a description of a candy.
To heat or burn until browned or (partially) liquified.
For example you can caramelize onions. Garlic too, and ginger.
The idea of caramelizing living human flesh is particularly repugnant but it's probably an accurate description of the effects of weapons like napalm, FAEs, and WP.
But yes, it may very well not be an accepted medical term to describe the process by which such burns/wounds are created. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we have an answer to the "burning question" of whether WP is a chemical weapon or not ... (sorry for the bad pun)
US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon'
Quote: |
[b]Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders." |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|