Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
****Official PU pasta Thread**** ****Official PU pasta Thread****

05-24-2013 , 04:07 AM
Hai guys,

I think there are only 3 types of pasta: the one with red sauce, the one with white sauce and the one with green sauce.

I think the one with white and green sauce are kind of boring but the one with red sauce can be very aggressive sometimes.

Then there is also pasta with seafood that can be really good with white or green sauce with garlic mmmmmmmmmmm

Discuss
05-24-2013 , 04:08 AM
05-25-2013 , 07:01 PM
05-25-2013 , 07:10 PM
Been a while since I had some pasta. Might have to pick up some tagliatelle and make a bolognese or some conchiglie for tuna and anchovy next week. Hmmm, anchovy.
05-26-2013 , 04:37 AM
08-21-2014 , 10:22 AM
You forgot the one with yellow sauce:

08-21-2014 , 10:33 AM
I like my red sauce a little bit spicy and a little bit sweet.
08-21-2014 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.mmmKay
Hai guys,

.....

I think the one with white and green sauce are kind of boring but the one with red sauce can be very aggressive sometimes.

.....

Discuss
I believe the green sauce (or that type of sauce) is under rated. I've recently had some pestos that were very different and much spicier then I thought of Pesto in the past.
08-21-2014 , 10:50 AM
Just checked, I currently have wacky mac veggie spirals, whole wheat elbows, and half a box of angel hair.

08-21-2014 , 12:48 PM
I make a white sauce shrimp salad with shells and feta cheese that's to die for.
08-21-2014 , 12:58 PM
Now Deuces is going to be sitting at home with a box of spaghetti, a jar of mayo, a bottle of ketchup and a can of relish trying to understand how people food.
08-21-2014 , 11:45 PM
This thread is relevant to my interests.

Amazing Pasta:

3 cups elbow macaroni
1 jar spicy Italian sausage spaghetti sauce
1 12 oz. can hot enchilada sauce
1 large onion
2 bell peppers
2 lbs ground beef

Boil the macaroni and brown the ground beef. While they are cooking, dice the onions and bell peppers and set them aside. Drain the ground beef and and then add everything but the macaroni. At this point I like to add salt, pepper, some chili powder (spicy!), and some Italian seasonings. Depending on how spicy you want it, you might want to leave out the chili powder. (If you want very little spiciness, go with medium or mild enchalada sauce) Simmer while the macaroni finishes boiling, then drain the macaroni and add the sauce.

Feeds 2-3 with plenty leftover for microwaving the next day.

Should end up looking something like this:

08-21-2014 , 11:53 PM
Make those sauces fresh yo!
08-21-2014 , 11:57 PM
Even I have my limits.

Hint: It's the fact it's only $4 for the sauce
08-22-2014 , 12:32 AM
I've been exiled by/from work to Europe for the summer, and the pasta in Italy really is better than what we eat in America. From nice resteraunts, to fast food to going over to a friends for dinner it's pretty much always better than what we eat in the USA. Even my daughter noticed and she's 6 and usually loves all sorts of terrible food just because its familiar. Not sure what we americans are doing wrong at all levels of pasta prep.
08-22-2014 , 12:43 AM
I have over 300 published papers in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. I am trained in economic calculation and I’m the top Austrian price theorist in the entire Mises Institute. Your arguments present nothing to me other than the usual New Keynesian claims regarding idle resources and the profit-and-loss mechanism. I will refute your assertions with precision the likes of which academia has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with arguing in a peer-reviewed journal that Say's Law is invalid and the "accelerator" and "multiplier" of the consumption function determine levels of employment? On the contrary, my friend, you are committing a very deep economic fallacy. As we speak I am contacting Peter Klein, Mario Rizzo, and Robert Murphy and your citation is being copied into my abstract, so you would do well to prepare for a comment. The comment that wipes out most of the claims asserted in your paper as though they are a priori principles, despite your other statements to the effect that they must be confirmed inductively somehow. You are going to be hard-pressed to respond in the next volume. I can publish in any journal, in any volume, and I can respond via a great variety of methodological approaches, and that's just with my own arguments. Not only am I extensively trained in the deconstruction of fallacious arguments, but I have access to the entire set of academic databases with economic sciences included as subjects and I will use them to their full extents to respond to your unfounded presuppositions. If only you could have known what response your otherwise non-controversial paper was about to bring down upon you, perhaps you would have reconsidered publishing it. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you are facing the consequences of intellectual laziness. I will bombard you with corrections and expositions, and you will be overwhelmed by them. You may have to reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of your methodology, professor.
08-22-2014 , 12:52 AM
That escalated quickly.
08-22-2014 , 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponies
I have over 300 published papers in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. I am trained in economic calculation and I’m the top Austrian price theorist in the entire Mises Institute. Your arguments present nothing to me other than the usual New Keynesian claims regarding idle resources and the profit-and-loss mechanism. I will refute your assertions with precision the likes of which academia has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with arguing in a peer-reviewed journal that Say's Law is invalid and the "accelerator" and "multiplier" of the consumption function determine levels of employment? On the contrary, my friend, you are committing a very deep economic fallacy. As we speak I am contacting Peter Klein, Mario Rizzo, and Robert Murphy and your citation is being copied into my abstract, so you would do well to prepare for a comment. The comment that wipes out most of the claims asserted in your paper as though they are a priori principles, despite your other statements to the effect that they must be confirmed inductively somehow. You are going to be hard-pressed to respond in the next volume. I can publish in any journal, in any volume, and I can respond via a great variety of methodological approaches, and that's just with my own arguments. Not only am I extensively trained in the deconstruction of fallacious arguments, but I have access to the entire set of academic databases with economic sciences included as subjects and I will use them to their full extents to respond to your unfounded presuppositions. If only you could have known what response your otherwise non-controversial paper was about to bring down upon you, perhaps you would have reconsidered publishing it. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you are facing the consequences of intellectual laziness. I will bombard you with corrections and expositions, and you will be overwhelmed by them. You may have to reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of your methodology, professor.
08-22-2014 , 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponies
I have over 300 published papers in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. I am trained in economic calculation and I’m the top Austrian price theorist in the entire Mises Institute. Your arguments present nothing to me other than the usual New Keynesian claims regarding idle resources and the profit-and-loss mechanism. I will refute your assertions with precision the likes of which academia has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with arguing in a peer-reviewed journal that Say's Law is invalid and the "accelerator" and "multiplier" of the consumption function determine levels of employment? On the contrary, my friend, you are committing a very deep economic fallacy. As we speak I am contacting Peter Klein, Mario Rizzo, and Robert Murphy and your citation is being copied into my abstract, so you would do well to prepare for a comment. The comment that wipes out most of the claims asserted in your paper as though they are a priori principles, despite your other statements to the effect that they must be confirmed inductively somehow. You are going to be hard-pressed to respond in the next volume. I can publish in any journal, in any volume, and I can respond via a great variety of methodological approaches, and that's just with my own arguments. Not only am I extensively trained in the deconstruction of fallacious arguments, but I have access to the entire set of academic databases with economic sciences included as subjects and I will use them to their full extents to respond to your unfounded presuppositions. If only you could have known what response your otherwise non-controversial paper was about to bring down upon you, perhaps you would have reconsidered publishing it. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you are facing the consequences of intellectual laziness. I will bombard you with corrections and expositions, and you will be overwhelmed by them. You may have to reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of your methodology, professor.
08-22-2014 , 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponies
I have over 300 published papers in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. I am trained in economic calculation and I’m the top Austrian price theorist in the entire Mises Institute. Your arguments present nothing to me other than the usual New Keynesian claims regarding idle resources and the profit-and-loss mechanism. I will refute your assertions with precision the likes of which academia has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with arguing in a peer-reviewed journal that Say's Law is invalid and the "accelerator" and "multiplier" of the consumption function determine levels of employment? On the contrary, my friend, you are committing a very deep economic fallacy. As we speak I am contacting Peter Klein, Mario Rizzo, and Robert Murphy and your citation is being copied into my abstract, so you would do well to prepare for a comment. The comment that wipes out most of the claims asserted in your paper as though they are a priori principles, despite your other statements to the effect that they must be confirmed inductively somehow. You are going to be hard-pressed to respond in the next volume. I can publish in any journal, in any volume, and I can respond via a great variety of methodological approaches, and that's just with my own arguments. Not only am I extensively trained in the deconstruction of fallacious arguments, but I have access to the entire set of academic databases with economic sciences included as subjects and I will use them to their full extents to respond to your unfounded presuppositions. If only you could have known what response your otherwise non-controversial paper was about to bring down upon you, perhaps you would have reconsidered publishing it. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you are facing the consequences of intellectual laziness. I will bombard you with corrections and expositions, and you will be overwhelmed by them. You may have to reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of your methodology, professor.
08-22-2014 , 08:48 AM
This ponies fellow sounds highly koalafied. He should be mod imo.
08-22-2014 , 10:57 AM
08-22-2014 , 05:21 PM
Wait wait wait, back up a bit.

Happy_Fish, please tell me that you have a jar of ground chipotle or cayenne or something and that you are not describing generic USA#1 chili powder as "spicy".
08-22-2014 , 06:43 PM
Honestly I dunno what kind of chili powder it is, it's just whatever is in the rack.

      
m