Hmmm. I can see how something "huge" might qualify as a "burro" but not
a "burrito". The things I used to get called "burritos" were about 6-8"
long and perhaps 1" in diameter. They didn't contain rice either or I
wouldn't have eaten them. Guess the definition has "evolved" in the
past 45 years.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>
>>I used to buy burritos at a drive-in restaurant in West Covina,
>>California when I was in high school circa 1960. It seems to me they
>>were served with an avocado sauce. I don't think I've ever encountered
>>a similar tasting burrito anywhere else. I don't know how it is
>>"supposed to" be made to qualify as a burrito.
>>
>>
>
> If it's in a huge, flour tortilla/wrap and the named filling is lost is
> a vast sea of rice so it hardly matters what it was, it's a burrito. It
> helps if the wrapping is slightly underdone so it's all chewy/doughy and
> tastes slightly of raw flour, but it's not strictly required for the name.
>
> I'm not prejudiced or anything. :-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|