backflung.

I don't know how to tweak 1/2 a cup of grated carrot, 1 cup of pineapple, and 1/2 a cop of raisins. What I'm tweaking is the cinnamon/ginger/nutmeg spices, but the bulk of the muffins' flavour is coming from ingredients whose volume and composition are a significant factor of the texture. I have no idea how I'd have gotten from your recipe to mine without reworking the whole thing so much I wouldn't know if I'd got fluffiness left. Or am I looking at it wrong? I've grabbed little bits of other recipes and put them in mine, and so far, I think it's okay.

Well, first I'd make a batch of someone's recipe to see if I even liked that texture.

If I did I'd make those muffins in a double batch, eliminate the 2 cups of bluberries, and put in 1/2 a cup of grated carrot, 1 cup of pineapple, and 1/2 a cup of raisins. The spices can probably just go in.

If the oatmeal or OJ was affecting the flavor negatively (I don't really taste them in the blueberry, they seem to be pretty much textural) I'd try and reduce them a bit. If the flavors I wanted weren't coming through, I'd up them a bit.

As a non-chemist baker I find it easier to swap out flavors than the more chemicaly-active components in baking. Fruit is easy, crumb is hard.

I'd rather have a bad batch of raisin/pineapple/carrot than a good batch of blueberry muffins, so the fact that it worked isn't the only reason I chose my set of constants and variables. 2 main considerations for changing the crumb--keep the dry/liquid ratio as consistent as possible while blending less, and back off the baking powder leavening a smidge while compensating with acid/baking soda (though I cheated by also starting with a hotter oven to punch up the baking powder action and cooling it to 375).

As far as fashion goes, is this an acceptable amount of "you can see clear through", or is it edgy? I mean, I know there's a certain amount of "let's not talk about the fact I can see your white bra under your sheer white shirt" if you're matching politely. But this just makes me feel I can see through her clothes and it's distracting.

There is a disgusting current trend of wearing lace outfits with just substantial underwear under it. Don't get me started.

As far as I'm concerned that's a somewhat bulky negligee.

There's a woman in the other building who wears almost-flesh-tone ballet slippers. At least I'm not trying to find her vagina while we're in the muffin line together, but if her motives involved repeated fake outs she's totally winning here.

I try and look and see shoes, but all I can see is optical illusion of work clothes and bare feet, and...yeah. At least it's not a vagina.

Has this been posted here yet? [link] I now realize it's 10 days old, so probably. But still!

HOLY WHITE PEOPLE, BATMAN!!! Wow, you’re thinking – this is not some Mexirican in the Sun Belt we need to attract via harsh anti-Castro policies or appeals to “valores de familia” - this is the BREAD AND BUTTER OF THE GRAND OLD PARTY, a Mayflower-descended small business owner, burdened by taxation, looking out for his beautiful White family in the suburbs of a city (St Louis) surrounded by racial tension and urban blight!

How can I put this gently? My wife and I are not sensitive to your messaging, nor did we vote for the candidates you proposed for us this past Tuesday.

I try and look and see shoes, but all I can see is optical illusion of work clothes and bare feet, and...yeah. At least it's not a vagina.

The co-worker who is in my line of sight (not Chatty) has a too-small knit beige dress she wears A LOT. And when it's first thing in the morning, and I'm insufficiently caffeinated, well, it looks like she came to work wearing a belt and Uggs, and that's just freaky. (Let us not even speak of her choice to wear Uggs with a dress.)

And there's always this look [link]

Those leggings will never not be funny.