Easy Escargots (snails) Prep time: 15 minutes
Cook time: 15 minutes
Serves: 4 as a starter
Escargots, a big red Burgundy, an electrical storm, and very loud Beethoven at 3:30 in the afternoon. That was the setting in which I first made this dish. Sometimes a new recipe must first be tried in private (I had the place to myself for two days). The inspiration, of course, came from France. It was so successful that I simply had to include it in this collection.
Don't get me wrong. I realize that escargots are not everyone’s cup of tea. Eating snails is simply a non-starter for most of the population of North America. So this recipe is for two groups of people: 1) those of you who have loved eating escargots in French restaurants and would like to prepare them in a simple successful method; and 2) those adventurous souls who recognize the example of the French and would like to advance their palates into scrumptious new territory.
You don’t need special serving equipment. Don’t bother with the shells. They're only for show anyway unless you are actually cooking live snails. Instead, this recipe calls for a small baking dish.
MUSIC: Beethoven changed symphonic music forever with his 3rd Symphony, that’s what I was told, so I was trying to learn about that when I put it on. Consider listening to the killer first movement. Or try the 9th symphony which also blew humanity out of the water. In a different vein, Coltrane changed jazz, James Brown changed R&B, Jaco Pastorius changed bass playing, the list goes on and on, so find a musical visionary and play that music. Play it loudly.*
HERE’S ALL YOU NEED:
1. Snails, one can of 24 to 36
2. Ceramic baking dish or Ramekin: medium size
3. Butter, unsalted, ½ stick (¼ Cup)
4. Garlic, 1 clove
5. Parsley (Italian), a handful, chopped (¼ Cup approximately)
6. Red wine, a small dollop or two (2 tablespoons maximum)
7. Kosher salt, one medium pinch (less than ¼ teaspoon)
HERE’S WHAT TO DO:
· Pre-heat oven to 450º to 500º.
· Melt butter in the ceramic dish (microwave or oven).
· Rinse, drain escargots and add to melted butter.
· Chop garlic and add to dish
· Finely chop parsley and add to dish
· Add salt and red wine
· Stir gently to mix
· Heat in oven until bubbling and sizzling nicely, about 10 minutes usually. Use extreme caution removing from oven.
CADENZA: Escargots are best served with French baguette. Any bread will suffice however. I prefer slices, partially toasted, crunchy on the outside, soft and warm in the middle.
WINE: This dish is based on the Burgundian recipe, so a Burgundy style pinot noir is best, and red goes very well with the big flavors of the garlic, butter, and parsley. A white Burgundy would always be fine as well (or Chablis, Chardonnay).
About escargots. Snails come in a can unless you buy fresh at an outdoor market. I prefer the smaller size snails, 36 to a can, but the larger (24 to a can) are fine too.
About parsley: Italian (flat leaf) is best. The crinkly parsley would work in a pinch but try for Italian.
*About loud music. Not everyone enjoys music so loud you must shout to have a conversation. In my ‘old days’, shouting over Miles or Coltrane was just fine during a meal. But on the subject of loud music, I can't help being reminded of the landlord I once had in Boston who lived on the top floor of an old house and rented out the flats on the first and second floors. He was large, had a tetra-syllabic Italian name, taught Italian 'litrature', and smoked big cigars. Evenings, he would blast Italian opera through the floor to our apartment. My girlfriend and I had little knowledge of opera at the time, but on more than one occasion, the music provided ample accompaniment for what we were doing on the sofa, and we learned to like it. Loud has its place.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Skim milk for cappuccino?
James Channing Shaw
So. I'm waiting in line at Starbucks and the young woman ahead of me asks for a grande-chai-latte-soy-non-sweetened-caramel-extra-hot-no-water-no-foam, and the order guy rattles it off to the espresso-maker guy as if he gets 50 similar orders every day! When it is ready, the espresso-maker guy (oh, excuse me…the barristo) calls it out again, every word, for the customer, with just as much ease. Only in America.
When it comes to coffee, North America has made great strides since the 1970s when the likes of Maxwell House and Folgers were the only games in town. Young people don't have a clue about how good they have it now. Back then, the entire East coast was awash in coffee that tasted like dirty dishwater. Back then, even in nice restaurants, coffee was percolated in huge vats, and for those who didn’t travel to the Mediterranean, espresso was an abstraction known only to a few Bohemian types in hidden subterranean clubs or the cognoscenti of high-class Italian restaurants. Fortunately, espresso is now a household term, along with French press, Turkish, cappuccino, caffé latté, etc. More and more, Americans appreciate and expect coffee with rich, robust flavor.
The American way, however, is to transform everything to its own liking. The Starbucksification of America has taken what for years has been a stable industry in Italy (we could probably include Spain, France, Turkey), and turned it completely upside down. Customers now ask for everything under the sun and they actually receive what they order. With no backtalk!
In Italy, it is unheard of to order a cappuccino after about 11:00 a.m. without receiving some form of snub (in Italian of course) by the waiter like "You dunce, cappuccino is a breakfast drink!" After mid-day, to any self-respecting Italian, espresso is the thing, or possibly macchiato. In America, though, the customer is always right, and you might as well close down your shop if you don't offer thousands of variations and flavors, any time, day or night.
I'm actually OK with that. Where America has gone seriously awry is with skim milk in cappuccinos and lattés. Cappuccinos made with non-fat milk are an American abomination of the worst kind. Steamed milk is supposed to be made from full-bodied, smooth, rich milk. The silky white froth should slip into your mouth blissfully, luxuriant and warm. It is not supposed to be stiff, standing at attention on top of a cup of coffee, or adhering like chunks of Styrofoam to the sides of the cup.
Simply put, excellence in foam can not be had with non-fat milk. Oh, you can make bubbles with non-fat milk, to be sure—the milk protein bubbles up nicely—and even the manuals for home espresso units in North America tell you that foam is easiest to make with non-fat milk. But easiest is the operative word, not best. They are not concerned about flavor. The bubbles are too big, and the foam too stiff, too dry. It requires some fat to keep the bubbles small, smooth and rich. Skim milk foam, like costume jewelry, is a cheap imitation of the real thing.
That being said, I fully realize it is politically incorrect to be disparaging about another person's taste. Apparently, any form of bad taste is acceptable these days. But are there no limits? Are we not allowed to ridicule those, for example, who actually eat food sold in convenience stores? Are we not allowed to criticize those who like their steaks well-done? Can you imagine the chef at a Michelin two-star acquiescing to a diner's request for a well-done steak, or for the Caesar dressing be put on the side, and hold the anchovies? The same goes for skim milk for cappuccino. People, stay home! Eat your frozen pizza and watch reality TV!
In the 50s and 60s, Americans were notorious for their bad taste when it came to food (Velveeta and overcooked zucchini come quickly to mind). That reputation has improved to an impressive degree with the help of visionaries like Alice Waters (Chez Panisse) and Thomas Keller (The French Laundry) who revolutionized American cuisine in the 1970s and 1980s, and T.V. chefs like Anthony Bourdain who have recently taken food nearly to cult status. I wonder what Bourdain thinks of decaf cappuccino, made with skim milk, served at nine o'clock at night.
But maybe there is hope in America: not too long ago I had lunch at a little Italian restaurant in New York City, and printed on the menu were these words: "No de-caffeinated coffee. No skim milk. We only use the best ingredients." It was so refreshing, and they were still in business!
What Starbucks needs to do now is send all its barristos to Rome for a week to learn how to make espressos and cappuccinos. Learn the culture. But that is merely my wishful thinking. Maybe the truth is that Italians are coming to Seattle to learn how to say 'grande-chai-latte-soy-non-sweetened-caramel-extra-hot-no-water-no-foam', in Italian.
So. I'm waiting in line at Starbucks and the young woman ahead of me asks for a grande-chai-latte-soy-non-sweetened-caramel-extra-hot-no-water-no-foam, and the order guy rattles it off to the espresso-maker guy as if he gets 50 similar orders every day! When it is ready, the espresso-maker guy (oh, excuse me…the barristo) calls it out again, every word, for the customer, with just as much ease. Only in America.
When it comes to coffee, North America has made great strides since the 1970s when the likes of Maxwell House and Folgers were the only games in town. Young people don't have a clue about how good they have it now. Back then, the entire East coast was awash in coffee that tasted like dirty dishwater. Back then, even in nice restaurants, coffee was percolated in huge vats, and for those who didn’t travel to the Mediterranean, espresso was an abstraction known only to a few Bohemian types in hidden subterranean clubs or the cognoscenti of high-class Italian restaurants. Fortunately, espresso is now a household term, along with French press, Turkish, cappuccino, caffé latté, etc. More and more, Americans appreciate and expect coffee with rich, robust flavor.
The American way, however, is to transform everything to its own liking. The Starbucksification of America has taken what for years has been a stable industry in Italy (we could probably include Spain, France, Turkey), and turned it completely upside down. Customers now ask for everything under the sun and they actually receive what they order. With no backtalk!
In Italy, it is unheard of to order a cappuccino after about 11:00 a.m. without receiving some form of snub (in Italian of course) by the waiter like "You dunce, cappuccino is a breakfast drink!" After mid-day, to any self-respecting Italian, espresso is the thing, or possibly macchiato. In America, though, the customer is always right, and you might as well close down your shop if you don't offer thousands of variations and flavors, any time, day or night.
I'm actually OK with that. Where America has gone seriously awry is with skim milk in cappuccinos and lattés. Cappuccinos made with non-fat milk are an American abomination of the worst kind. Steamed milk is supposed to be made from full-bodied, smooth, rich milk. The silky white froth should slip into your mouth blissfully, luxuriant and warm. It is not supposed to be stiff, standing at attention on top of a cup of coffee, or adhering like chunks of Styrofoam to the sides of the cup.
Simply put, excellence in foam can not be had with non-fat milk. Oh, you can make bubbles with non-fat milk, to be sure—the milk protein bubbles up nicely—and even the manuals for home espresso units in North America tell you that foam is easiest to make with non-fat milk. But easiest is the operative word, not best. They are not concerned about flavor. The bubbles are too big, and the foam too stiff, too dry. It requires some fat to keep the bubbles small, smooth and rich. Skim milk foam, like costume jewelry, is a cheap imitation of the real thing.
That being said, I fully realize it is politically incorrect to be disparaging about another person's taste. Apparently, any form of bad taste is acceptable these days. But are there no limits? Are we not allowed to ridicule those, for example, who actually eat food sold in convenience stores? Are we not allowed to criticize those who like their steaks well-done? Can you imagine the chef at a Michelin two-star acquiescing to a diner's request for a well-done steak, or for the Caesar dressing be put on the side, and hold the anchovies? The same goes for skim milk for cappuccino. People, stay home! Eat your frozen pizza and watch reality TV!
In the 50s and 60s, Americans were notorious for their bad taste when it came to food (Velveeta and overcooked zucchini come quickly to mind). That reputation has improved to an impressive degree with the help of visionaries like Alice Waters (Chez Panisse) and Thomas Keller (The French Laundry) who revolutionized American cuisine in the 1970s and 1980s, and T.V. chefs like Anthony Bourdain who have recently taken food nearly to cult status. I wonder what Bourdain thinks of decaf cappuccino, made with skim milk, served at nine o'clock at night.
But maybe there is hope in America: not too long ago I had lunch at a little Italian restaurant in New York City, and printed on the menu were these words: "No de-caffeinated coffee. No skim milk. We only use the best ingredients." It was so refreshing, and they were still in business!
What Starbucks needs to do now is send all its barristos to Rome for a week to learn how to make espressos and cappuccinos. Learn the culture. But that is merely my wishful thinking. Maybe the truth is that Italians are coming to Seattle to learn how to say 'grande-chai-latte-soy-non-sweetened-caramel-extra-hot-no-water-no-foam', in Italian.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Slamming toilet seats
Slamming toilet seats
by James Channing Shaw
My office is across the hallway from a public bathroom (washroom in Canada). The English term 'water closet' is more accurate for this particular washroom since it's a one person, close-the-door-and-lock-it bathroom. All day long I am constantly jarred by the 'whack!' of the heavy plastic seat falling onto the porcelain rim. Someone goes in, closes the door, throws the dead bolt, and bang! down goes the seat. I can forget about ever having a five minute power nap after lunch.
Do people slam toilet seats at home? I suspect not. What happens to them when they leave the house? Do they leave all respect for public property at their front doorstep every morning? It's as if toilet seat bangers have no perception of anyone other than themselves. I know people like that. I'm related to people like that. Is this Nature or Nurture? Were the parents of toilet seat bangers so permissive that they grew up thinking that anything they wanted to do was OK, regardless of consequences to others? I would love to know the answer to these questions.
Actually I think I understand two reasons why people slam toilet seats. First, we think we can be disrespectful of property when it’s not our own. We don’t care if the thing breaks as long as we didn’t have to buy it in the first place, and don’t have to pay for the new one. Sadly, it's human nature. Second, there must be some phobia about germs that makes people afraid to touch the toilet seat and let it down gently. They must be using their foot or a stick or something to hit the toilet seat down, into submission, as it were, before they completely wrap it with toilet paper so they can finally sit on it.
What degree of separation from kin is necessary to view toilet seats as prime vectors for disease? Spouses and children?—they're cool. Slobbering Labrador Retrievers?—generally not a problem. Aunts and Uncles?—they're usually OK if not too old and don't smell bad. Neighbors?—could get a little sketchy. The cleaning lady?—now we're getting warm. Colleagues from the office?—you get the picture. So it is about strangers, and those in a socioeconomic class lower than the one you currently occupy. It's the thought of the buttocks of the riff-raff having just sat where you are about to put your buttocks, that makes people squeamish so they approach the toilet seat as if it were radioactive. The broken toilet seats I've seen in my life!
But I do have some suggestions. Concerning respect for the next guy or public property, I can't do much about that other than to say: Parents, teach your kids to do the right thing. It just might stick. Concerning germ phobia there are some points to make. First, bacteria don't bore holes into normal skin; nor do they typically fly around the room. If you happen to get bacteria or viruses on your hands now and then, like every time you bite your nails, scratch your head, rub your eyes, or touch the spout on the office water cooler, you can always wash your hands. It washes off!
Second, if you just can't handle the thought of putting the toilet seat down gently with bare hands, use a paper towel or piece of tissue for protection. Germs don't jump through paper in a nano-second.
Finally, men, guys, this is really about you: after you pee and wash your hands, use the paper towel with which you dried your hands to lower the seat for the next customer. She could be your future wife, if that's not too old-fashioned. Alternatively, try sitting down to pee; you'll likely have to do that eventually anyway, when your prostate gland gets too big. Just a thought.
by James Channing Shaw
My office is across the hallway from a public bathroom (washroom in Canada). The English term 'water closet' is more accurate for this particular washroom since it's a one person, close-the-door-and-lock-it bathroom. All day long I am constantly jarred by the 'whack!' of the heavy plastic seat falling onto the porcelain rim. Someone goes in, closes the door, throws the dead bolt, and bang! down goes the seat. I can forget about ever having a five minute power nap after lunch.
Do people slam toilet seats at home? I suspect not. What happens to them when they leave the house? Do they leave all respect for public property at their front doorstep every morning? It's as if toilet seat bangers have no perception of anyone other than themselves. I know people like that. I'm related to people like that. Is this Nature or Nurture? Were the parents of toilet seat bangers so permissive that they grew up thinking that anything they wanted to do was OK, regardless of consequences to others? I would love to know the answer to these questions.
Actually I think I understand two reasons why people slam toilet seats. First, we think we can be disrespectful of property when it’s not our own. We don’t care if the thing breaks as long as we didn’t have to buy it in the first place, and don’t have to pay for the new one. Sadly, it's human nature. Second, there must be some phobia about germs that makes people afraid to touch the toilet seat and let it down gently. They must be using their foot or a stick or something to hit the toilet seat down, into submission, as it were, before they completely wrap it with toilet paper so they can finally sit on it.
What degree of separation from kin is necessary to view toilet seats as prime vectors for disease? Spouses and children?—they're cool. Slobbering Labrador Retrievers?—generally not a problem. Aunts and Uncles?—they're usually OK if not too old and don't smell bad. Neighbors?—could get a little sketchy. The cleaning lady?—now we're getting warm. Colleagues from the office?—you get the picture. So it is about strangers, and those in a socioeconomic class lower than the one you currently occupy. It's the thought of the buttocks of the riff-raff having just sat where you are about to put your buttocks, that makes people squeamish so they approach the toilet seat as if it were radioactive. The broken toilet seats I've seen in my life!
But I do have some suggestions. Concerning respect for the next guy or public property, I can't do much about that other than to say: Parents, teach your kids to do the right thing. It just might stick. Concerning germ phobia there are some points to make. First, bacteria don't bore holes into normal skin; nor do they typically fly around the room. If you happen to get bacteria or viruses on your hands now and then, like every time you bite your nails, scratch your head, rub your eyes, or touch the spout on the office water cooler, you can always wash your hands. It washes off!
Second, if you just can't handle the thought of putting the toilet seat down gently with bare hands, use a paper towel or piece of tissue for protection. Germs don't jump through paper in a nano-second.
Finally, men, guys, this is really about you: after you pee and wash your hands, use the paper towel with which you dried your hands to lower the seat for the next customer. She could be your future wife, if that's not too old-fashioned. Alternatively, try sitting down to pee; you'll likely have to do that eventually anyway, when your prostate gland gets too big. Just a thought.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Layering for warmth. Or not!
I am surprised every autumn when, as soon as it starts getting cold, the media start to preach about 'layers' and the importance of 'layering for warmth', as if the ruling came from stone tablets. They make no distinctions among fabrics.
In fairness, I suppose that anybody who wears enough layers of any material can probably stay reasonably warm, but the truth is, in severe cold, IT’S NOT THE LAYERS that determine warmth and functionality in clothing, IT’S THE GARMENT ITSELF. The irony is that layering is most valuable when you're too warm and need to shed clothes. Sound crazy? It's actually simple.
Two main principles are essential for staying warm in cold weather: 1) create pockets of warmed trapped air close to the skin, and 2) prevent the wind from blowing them away. Ask any mountaineer or polar expeditioneur: the crucial items for warmth are goose down parkas and pants, plus wind resistant outer fabrics (Gore-tex being the prototypical best 'outer' fabric). And for nights, the bulkiest down sleeping bag is the warmest way to a good night’s sleep.
'Loft' is the important concept here. Loft is the property of a garment that allows trapping of little pockets of air. Usually the thicker the fabric, the greater the loft, but the downy feathers of geese or Eider ducks (eiderdown) are by far the loftiest materials known to humankind. Down feathers trap air, maintain their shape indefinitely, bounce back after being crushed, and so far, in the history of keeping warm against the elements, down is irrefutably the warmest insulator for its weight. Eiderdown has been used in bedding and garments since the Stone Age, and goose down clothing, popularized in the 1930s by Eddie Bauer, continues as the gold standard. There is one 'downside': if down clothing gets wet, it becomes worthless for warmth and takes a long time to dry. Also, down is expensive.
What about loft in other materials?
Fur: highly effective in a Neanderthal sort of way, but very heavy, and politically sketchy these days.
Synthetics: great invention of the 1980s. Fleece and polypropylene are light in weight and relatively inexpensive, perfect alternatives to down in all but the severest cold, where down is still best.
Wool, that time-honored gift to humanity: wool has considerable loft, from sheepskin coats to cashmere sweaters, to felt liners, and unlike down, wool keeps some loft even when wet.
Cotton: worthless for warmth. Very little loft
Woven silk: strong, but no loft, no warmth.
Bulk silk: this is the long-fiber silk used in duvets. Time-honored and reasonably good in moderate cold.
Linen: take a wild guess. Strictly a summer fabric.
Another misperception is the concept of tight versus loose clothing. Not too long ago, I came across the Cornell University website on how to survive cold winters as a student in upstate New York. It emphasized loose clothing because tight clothes 'don't help to keep you warm' (the website also emphasized layering). This was surprisingly bad information from an institution of higher learning. It is true, tight cotton pants provide little protection against cold, but loose cotton pants are no better! It's the material, not the fit that is important. Wool or fleece will always be warmer than cotton or nylon. And for those of you who think loose is warmer than tight, I suggest you compare a tight cotton t-shirt with a blousy cotton shirt on a hot summer day in Atlanta. Against-the-skin is always warmer than loose and flowing. Have you ever heard of loosely fitting long underwear?
For those frigid walks to class in upstate New York, layers are fine if you don't have anything better. If you can afford it, buy a down coat and forget about the layers. If you don't have the money for down, wear long underwear, wool pants, a wool or fleece sweater and wool coat and you should be able to keep hypothermia at bay for at least an hour or two.
So when is layering important? It's about cooling off, not staying warm. Let's say you are cross-country skiing in minus 5º Celsius (23º Fahrenheit), and working up a sweat. You need to take some clothes off. Going directly from down-filled parka to sweaty t-shirt is not the smartest solution. Layering allows you to remove what you need and not risk hypothermia. The best fabrics for layering are medium loft with wicking properties: Merino wool, polypropylene, or fleece. Even better for cooling off are zipper vents, found in most high-end outerwear, but removing a layer or two works splendidly.
Voila. Layering definitely has its place. Understand the concept; reject the slogan. You'll be more comfortable for it.
In fairness, I suppose that anybody who wears enough layers of any material can probably stay reasonably warm, but the truth is, in severe cold, IT’S NOT THE LAYERS that determine warmth and functionality in clothing, IT’S THE GARMENT ITSELF. The irony is that layering is most valuable when you're too warm and need to shed clothes. Sound crazy? It's actually simple.
Two main principles are essential for staying warm in cold weather: 1) create pockets of warmed trapped air close to the skin, and 2) prevent the wind from blowing them away. Ask any mountaineer or polar expeditioneur: the crucial items for warmth are goose down parkas and pants, plus wind resistant outer fabrics (Gore-tex being the prototypical best 'outer' fabric). And for nights, the bulkiest down sleeping bag is the warmest way to a good night’s sleep.
'Loft' is the important concept here. Loft is the property of a garment that allows trapping of little pockets of air. Usually the thicker the fabric, the greater the loft, but the downy feathers of geese or Eider ducks (eiderdown) are by far the loftiest materials known to humankind. Down feathers trap air, maintain their shape indefinitely, bounce back after being crushed, and so far, in the history of keeping warm against the elements, down is irrefutably the warmest insulator for its weight. Eiderdown has been used in bedding and garments since the Stone Age, and goose down clothing, popularized in the 1930s by Eddie Bauer, continues as the gold standard. There is one 'downside': if down clothing gets wet, it becomes worthless for warmth and takes a long time to dry. Also, down is expensive.
What about loft in other materials?
Fur: highly effective in a Neanderthal sort of way, but very heavy, and politically sketchy these days.
Synthetics: great invention of the 1980s. Fleece and polypropylene are light in weight and relatively inexpensive, perfect alternatives to down in all but the severest cold, where down is still best.
Wool, that time-honored gift to humanity: wool has considerable loft, from sheepskin coats to cashmere sweaters, to felt liners, and unlike down, wool keeps some loft even when wet.
Cotton: worthless for warmth. Very little loft
Woven silk: strong, but no loft, no warmth.
Bulk silk: this is the long-fiber silk used in duvets. Time-honored and reasonably good in moderate cold.
Linen: take a wild guess. Strictly a summer fabric.
Another misperception is the concept of tight versus loose clothing. Not too long ago, I came across the Cornell University website on how to survive cold winters as a student in upstate New York. It emphasized loose clothing because tight clothes 'don't help to keep you warm' (the website also emphasized layering). This was surprisingly bad information from an institution of higher learning. It is true, tight cotton pants provide little protection against cold, but loose cotton pants are no better! It's the material, not the fit that is important. Wool or fleece will always be warmer than cotton or nylon. And for those of you who think loose is warmer than tight, I suggest you compare a tight cotton t-shirt with a blousy cotton shirt on a hot summer day in Atlanta. Against-the-skin is always warmer than loose and flowing. Have you ever heard of loosely fitting long underwear?
For those frigid walks to class in upstate New York, layers are fine if you don't have anything better. If you can afford it, buy a down coat and forget about the layers. If you don't have the money for down, wear long underwear, wool pants, a wool or fleece sweater and wool coat and you should be able to keep hypothermia at bay for at least an hour or two.
So when is layering important? It's about cooling off, not staying warm. Let's say you are cross-country skiing in minus 5º Celsius (23º Fahrenheit), and working up a sweat. You need to take some clothes off. Going directly from down-filled parka to sweaty t-shirt is not the smartest solution. Layering allows you to remove what you need and not risk hypothermia. The best fabrics for layering are medium loft with wicking properties: Merino wool, polypropylene, or fleece. Even better for cooling off are zipper vents, found in most high-end outerwear, but removing a layer or two works splendidly.
Voila. Layering definitely has its place. Understand the concept; reject the slogan. You'll be more comfortable for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)