I suspect I'm going to regret this, but...

I have a normal, 4 burner domestic gas hob.

I have a large-ish (say 14" x 8") elliptical unenamelled cast iron griddle pan.

I would look to a cook a 8oz-10oz rump steak as well as possible

My goal is:
slightly charred texture/flavour on the outside
just set (i.e. no liquid blood) at the centre

My butcher normally supplies steak at around 18mm thick.

so - how to proceed?

BugBear

bugbear > wrote:

> so - how to proceed?

Set your sights on something better than a damn rump steak.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> bugbear > wrote:
>
>> so - how to proceed?
>
> Set your sights on something better than a damn rump steak.

I happen to like rump steak. If you want to supply
cooking suggestions for your favourite steak,
feel free, and I'll try to adapt them.

Or, if it's drool-worthy enough, I might follow
them exactly.

BugBear

bugbear wrote:
> I suspect I'm going to regret this, but...
>
> I have a normal, 4 burner domestic gas hob.
>
> I have a large-ish (say 14" x 8") elliptical unenamelled cast iron griddle pan.
>
> I would look to a cook a 8oz-10oz rump steak as well as possible
>
> My goal is:
> slightly charred texture/flavour on the outside
> just set (i.e. no liquid blood) at the centre
>
> My butcher normally supplies steak at around 18mm thick.
>
> so - how to proceed?

That pan is on the large size for such a small steak... a 14" pan will
span two burners... you can also broil it. You do realize that well
done rump steak will be like chewing particle board. Have you
considered beef stew, vegetable beef spoup? Grind it for creamed
beef:

http://www.mrbreakfast.com/superdisp...p?recipeid=955

bugbear wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> bugbear > wrote:
>>
>>> so - how to proceed?
>>
>> Set your sights on something better than a damn rump steak.
>
> I happen to like rump steak.

You mean you like the price, cheapskate. Lemme guess - you're British?

-sw

bugbear wrote:
>
>I suspect I'm going to regret this, but...
>
>I have a normal, 4 burner domestic gas hob.
>
>I have a large-ish (say 14" x 8") elliptical unenamelled cast iron griddle pan.
>
>I would look to a cook a 8oz-10oz rump steak as well as possible
>
>My goal is:
>slightly charred texture/flavour on the outside
>just set (i.e. no liquid blood) at the centre
>
>My butcher normally supplies steak at around 18mm thick.
>
>so - how to proceed?

See <http://bbq.about.com/od/steaks/ss/aa071507a.htm> for some good,
clear instructions. This is how I pan-fry steaks, except I often
replace the oil (to paint the steak) with melted clarified butter.


--
Victor

Sqwertz wrote:
>
>bugbear > wrote:
>
>> so - how to proceed?
>
>Set your sights on something better than a damn rump steak.

The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.


--
Victor

Victor Sack wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> bugbear > wrote:
>>
>>> so - how to proceed?
>> Set your sights on something better than a damn rump steak.
>
> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.

Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.

-sw

Victor Sack wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> I suspect I'm going to regret this, but...
>>
>> I have a normal, 4 burner domestic gas hob.
>>
>> I have a large-ish (say 14" x 8") elliptical unenamelled cast iron griddle pan.
>>
>> I would look to a cook a 8oz-10oz rump steak as well as possible
>>
>> My goal is:
>> slightly charred texture/flavour on the outside
>> just set (i.e. no liquid blood) at the centre
>>
>> My butcher normally supplies steak at around 18mm thick.
>>
>> so - how to proceed?
>
> See <http://bbq.about.com/od/steaks/ss/aa071507a.htm> for some good,
> clear instructions. This is how I pan-fry steaks, except I often
> replace the oil (to paint the steak) with melted clarified butter.
>
>
That looks worth a try - I *do* have a plain skillet as well as a griddle.

Thanks for the help.

BugBear

Sqwertz wrote:
>
>Victor Sack wrote:
>>
>> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.
>
>Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.

Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.

<http://www.macmillandictionary.com/MED-magazine/February2004/16-Feature-Food.htm>

<http://www.effingpot.com/food.shtml>

<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mbishop/engfood.html>

<http://www.recipegoldmine.com/kitchart/kitchart58.html>

<http://www.blackraptor.net/m7fic/contents/american.htm>


--
Victor

Victor Sack wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.
>> Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.
>
> Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.

I stand by what I said. Asshole.

-sw

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:48:54 +0000, bugbear
> wrote:

>Victor Sack wrote:

>> See <http://bbq.about.com/od/steaks/ss/aa071507a.htm> for some good,
>> clear instructions. This is how I pan-fry steaks, except I often
>> replace the oil (to paint the steak) with melted clarified butter.
>>
>>
>That looks worth a try - I *do* have a plain skillet as well as a griddle.
>
For what it's worth, hubby never bothered to melt or clarify the
butter. He'd just put dots of it all over the steak, which turned out
nice and crusty every time. BTW: Our ventilation system is top notch
and yours should be also to handle all the generated smoke.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> bugbear > wrote:
>
> > so - how to proceed?
>
> Set your sights on something better than a damn rump steak.
>
> -sw

I have to concur.

At least go for a good chuck eye or strip steak.

Best imho is rib-eye followed by t-bone.
--
Peace! Om

"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." -- Dalai Lama

Sqwertz wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> bugbear > wrote:
>>>
>>>> so - how to proceed?
>>>
>>> Set your sights on something better than a damn rump steak.
>>
>> I happen to like rump steak.
>
> You mean you like the price, cheapskate. Lemme guess - you're
> British?

Oh Steve Err are you Steve? I can't work it out any more

Sqwertz > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >> Victor Sack wrote:
> >>> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.
> >> Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.
> >
> > Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.
>
> I stand by what I said. Asshole.

First you attack the original poster as cheapskate and spout
irrelevancies, not even being aware of the real context of his/her
query. Then, when the proper context and terminology is pointed out to
you, you go on spouting the same irrelevancies regardless and calling
people assholes. I guess it shows exactly who the orifice in question
really is.

Victor

Victor Sack > wrote:

> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>>>> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.
>>>> Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.
>>>
>>> Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.
>>
>> I stand by what I said. Asshole.
>
> First you attack the original poster as cheapskate and spout
> irrelevancies, not even being aware of the real context of his/her
> query. Then, when the proper context and terminology is pointed out to
> you, you go on spouting the same irrelevancies regardless and calling
> people assholes. I guess it shows exactly who the orifice in question
> really is.

Excuse me. Make that, "Stuck up asshole".

Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
They're not steaks.

-sw

-sw

On Nov 11, 8:33�pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> Victor Sack > wrote:
> > Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> >> Victor Sack wrote:
> >>> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>>> Victor Sack wrote:
> >>>>> The poster is from the UK. �British rump steak = American sirloin.
> >>>> Rump is Round in the U.S. �Not sirloin.
>
> >>> Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.
>
> >> I stand by what I said. �Asshole.
>
> > First you attack the original poster as cheapskate and spout
> > irrelevancies, not even being aware of the real context of his/her
> > query. �Then, when the proper context and terminology is pointed out to
> > you, you go on spouting the same irrelevancies regardless and calling
> > people assholes. �I guess it shows exactly who the orifice in question
> > really is.
>
> Excuse me. �Make that, "Stuck up asshole".
>
> Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
> They're not steaks.

Wait... those make great salisbury steak.

Sqwertz > wrote:

> Victor Sack > wrote:
>
> > Sqwertz > wrote:
> >
> >> Victor Sack wrote:
> >>> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>>> Victor Sack wrote:
> >>>>> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.
> >>>> Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.
> >>>
> >>> Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.
> >>
> >> I stand by what I said. Asshole.
> >
> > First you attack the original poster as cheapskate and spout
> > irrelevancies, not even being aware of the real context of his/her
> > query. Then, when the proper context and terminology is pointed out to
> > you, you go on spouting the same irrelevancies regardless and calling
> > people assholes. I guess it shows exactly who the orifice in question
> > really is.
>
> Excuse me. Make that, "Stuck up asshole".
>
> Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
> They're not steaks.

Oh, the irony!

Victor

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:33:34 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.

Or British.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >, wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:33:34 -0600, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
>
>Or British.

Or Aussie! (Rump steak is *the* steak. All else is imitation. :-)


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Personally, I would stand in a driving snow manning a charcoal grill
before I'd cook a good steak on the stove. The charcoal....adds SO
much.

In either case, tho, I find a rub of plain yellow mustard, coarse black
pepper, salt and garlic powder a good start. For a nice crusty outside
and rare-to pink center, you will want high heat, timed with a timer to
be the same on each side.

I dont have my mm-to-inches chart handy, but a steak thick as, say the
length of a woman's thumb (maybe I have short thumbs, but Im thinking
two inches), would take about four to five minutes per side.

Don't forget to let the steak REST for five minutes at last, before
cutting it.

Lass

Victor Sack > wrote:

> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>>>>>> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.
>>>>>> Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.
>>>>
>>>> I stand by what I said. Asshole.
>>>
>>> First you attack the original poster as cheapskate and spout
>>> irrelevancies, not even being aware of the real context of his/her
>>> query. Then, when the proper context and terminology is pointed out to
>>> you, you go on spouting the same irrelevancies regardless and calling
>>> people assholes. I guess it shows exactly who the orifice in question
>>> really is.
>>
>> Excuse me. Make that, "Stuck up asshole".
>>
>> Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
>> They're not steaks.
>
> Oh, the irony!

I fail to see any irony, you piece of hamburger.

-sw

Phred > wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:33:34 -0600, Sqwertz >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
>>
>>Or British.
>
> Or Aussie! (Rump steak is *the* steak. All else is imitation. :-)

So what is a strip, ribeye, or porterhouse - fed to the dogs?
I don't think you Aussies are all there.

-sw

Lass Chance_2 > wrote:

> Personally, I would stand in a driving snow manning a charcoal grill
> before I'd cook a good steak on the stove. The charcoal....adds SO
> much.

Lemme guess.... Kingsford?

-sw

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:42:57 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>Lass Chance_2 > wrote:
>
>> Personally, I would stand in a driving snow manning a charcoal grill
>> before I'd cook a good steak on the stove. The charcoal....adds SO
>> much.
>
>Lemme guess.... Kingsford?

And probably lighter fluid. YUMMY!!

Lou

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:42:57 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>Lass Chance_2 > wrote:
>
>> Personally, I would stand in a driving snow manning a charcoal grill
>> before I'd cook a good steak on the stove. The charcoal....adds SO
>> much.
>
>Lemme guess.... Kingsford?
>
If it is, what are you going to do about it?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

(Lass Chance_2) wrote in news:27861-491C4FEB-310
@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net:


>
> I dont have my mm-to-inches chart handy, but a steak thick as, say the
> length of a woman's thumb (maybe I have short thumbs, but Im thinking
> two inches), would take about four to five minutes per side.
>



18mm is just about 3/4".


I'd heat the griddle till it is smoking hot, have the steak on a board
at room temp, rubbed with a bit of EVOO, throw it on and cook for
30secs, then lift and *turn* the steak (leaving the same side down) on
to the un-used really hot part of the griddle (so that it's at right
angles to it's previous position, and you get the nice square char
marks) leave for another 30secs and turn the steak over this time, and
repeat on the other side. By the time the steak has done 30secs on one
part of the griddle, the other part should have heated up again.

1min either side for a 3/4" cut should see it a nice med-rare.

Place on a warmed platter and cover loosely with foil and let it rest in
a warm place for 5 mins.

The juices that come out in resting are really nice poured over the
steak as a 'sauce'....especially if you used some dry seasonings on the
steak prior to cooking.


We're having Eye Fillet steak cooked on the griddle tonight :-)


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

Mi b'aill docha basaich air m' ris, sin mair air m'glun.

(I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.)

In article >, Sqwertz > wrote:
>Phred > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:33:34 -0600, Sqwertz >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
>>>
>>>Or British.
>>
>> Or Aussie! (Rump steak is *the* steak. All else is imitation. :-)
>
>So what is a strip, ribeye, or porterhouse - fed to the dogs?

Don't ask me "what is a strip", we have very conservative laws here in
Queensland.

If ribeye is what I know as rib fillet, it's okay, but not as tasty as
good rump should be.

Porterhouse is a bit of a mystery to me -- it seems to have changed
its stripes over the decades. When I was at the Qld Agric College
nearly 50 years ago, we were led to believe porterhouse was the prime
cut of the T-bone (i.e. the bit at one end with the most fillet
included). These days, if I can interpret the supermarket cuts, it
seems to have become the non-fillet section of the T-bone, and has
thus lost its claim to be one of the best.

In similar vein, when I was a kid our sirloin roasts came rolled from
the butcher with the fillet included in the middle. Thirty years ago
I asked a local butcher if you could still buy a decent sirloin roast
like that and he said no one could afford it!

As for the dogs -- I used to feed mine on shin and "butcher's
bones" years ago when two bob's [about 20c] worth of shin was a pound
or more and two bob's worth of bones was several pounds. (And,
strangely, four shillings worth of bones was usually the same as two
bob's worth. These days shin is often about $8.00/kg and is fed to
humans; dogs get fed wet crap out of cans and dry crap out of paper
bags.

>I don't think you Aussies are all there.

You're right. At any moment in time a hell of a lot of us are in
Kiwiland, Yankeeland, Pomerania, and other foreign places. :-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

(Phred) wrote in
:

> In article >, Sqwertz
> > wrote:
>>Phred > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>>
>> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:33:34 -0600, Sqwertz
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a
>>>>>cheapskate.



Spurtz is an 'x-purt'

X is an unknown quantity, and spurt is a drip under pressure.


>>>>
>>>>Or British.
>>>
>>> Or Aussie! (Rump steak is *the* steak. All else is imitation. :-)
>>
>>So what is a strip, ribeye, or porterhouse - fed to the dogs?
>
> Don't ask me "what is a strip", we have very conservative laws here in
> Queensland.
>
> If ribeye is what I know as rib fillet, it's okay, but not as tasty as
> good rump should be.


Had some Eye Fillet for dinner tonight.

There was one small piece leftover, and the SO got dibs on it for lunch
tomorrow. Sliced thinly, with a rocket salad.



> bob's worth. These days shin is often about $8.00/kg and is fed to
> humans; dogs get fed wet crap out of cans and dry crap out of paper
> bags.


Mine gets dry food 1-2 times a weeks...... any other time it's fresh
chicken pieces/carcasses, or lamb flaps, or lamb/beef hearts, or lamb
shanks, or kangaroo tails, red meat offcuts from the kitchen..... any
sort of fresh uncooked meat.

On special occasions (about every second month) she gets a medium rare
char grilled 'dinasour' steak.

When you can get whole rumps for $4.99 a kg, why shouldn't the 'kids'
get some too??!!


>
>>I don't think you Aussies are all there.


ROFLMFAO!!!!

So says a 'stable" American!!!


>
> You're right. At any moment in time a hell of a lot of us are in
> Kiwiland, Yankeeland, Pomerania, and other foreign places. :-)
>


Yeah!! Boosting *their* economy...... because ours is rock solid.

What is it about these so-called "super powers" with their ever
decreasing economies??


And *no*..... I don't really want an answer to that.




--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

Mi b'aill docha basaich air m' ris, sin mair air m'glun.

(I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.)

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:42:57 -0600, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>> Lass Chance_2 > wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I would stand in a driving snow manning a charcoal grill
>>> before I'd cook a good steak on the stove. The charcoal....adds SO
>>> much.
>>
>> Lemme guess.... Kingsford?
>>
> If it is, what are you going to do about it?

Smash your head like a watermelon dropped from 50 feet?

Grow up, Barbara. Sta\rt acting your age instead of like a 5-year old.

-sw

Actually, not Kingsford, and no, not lighter fluid, either.
There's a local guy who makes charcoal in big chunks from hardwood. It
burns clean and long. It beats hell out of any commercial product. I
use a charcoal chimney to light my 'coal.

In other words, I know what Im doing with a charcoal grill. Ever cooked
a whole forty pound pig with charcoal? If not, it would appear that
your assumptions have done what assumptions do---


LassChance


perfect (or best) steak

Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2008, 7:55pm (EST-1) From:
(Lou*Decruss)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:42:57 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:
Lass Chance_2 > wrote:
Personally, I would stand in a driving snow manning a charcoal grill
before I'd cook a good steak on the stove. The charcoal....adds SO much.

Lemme guess.... Kingsford?
And probably lighter fluid. YUMMY!!
Lou

Sl--
Well, judging from the garish and damn-near-impossible-to-read-over WEB
TV background, it appears this swertz person has some kind of a personal
hard on for Web tv's and evidently, web tv users.

A good many computer users indulge the fantasy that web tv users are
less endowed with IQ points than they.

Since this notion has no logical foundation, it's pretty clear to us
webbers that it's just a case of that old familiar human foible---People
who don't like themselves need to have somebody upon whom to look down.
We also find it endlessly amusing that the very people who assume
webbers are IQ challenged... prove themselves to be the bottom feeders
of the intellectia of the computer world with each snide remark aimed at
us! --Sort of like the eager-to-impress guy who orders escargot, then
shrieks, " You can't fool me! Them ain't no escargot! Them are
SNAILS!"

If this swertz person might want a piece of actual art to replace this
painful-to-the eye bg, I could happily supply many---all made on my
webby.

Or, he/she could just go merrily f--k him/herself, take that ugly thing
off the bg and grow the hell up. Unlikely, tho.

Thank you.

LassChance



perfect (or best) steak

Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2008, 7:41pm (EST-3) From:
(sf)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:42:57 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:
Lass Chance_2 > wrote:
Personally, I would stand in a driving snow manning a charcoal grill
before I'd cook a good steak on the stove. The charcoal....adds SO much.

Lemme guess.... Kingsford?

If it is, what are you going to do about it?
--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the
number of carats in a diamond.
Mae West

Sqwertz > wrote:

> Victor Sack > wrote:
>
> > Sqwertz > wrote:
> >
> >> Victor Sack > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sqwertz > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Victor Sack wrote:
> >>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>>>>> Victor Sack wrote:
> >>>>>>> The poster is from the UK. British rump steak = American sirloin.
> >>>>>> Rump is Round in the U.S. Not sirloin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Learn to read: British rump steak = American sirloin.
> >>>>
> >>>> I stand by what I said. Asshole.
> >>>
> >>> First you attack the original poster as cheapskate and spout
> >>> irrelevancies, not even being aware of the real context of his/her
> >>> query. Then, when the proper context and terminology is pointed out to
> >>> you, you go on spouting the same irrelevancies regardless and calling
> >>> people assholes. I guess it shows exactly who the orifice in question
> >>> really is.
> >>
> >> Excuse me. Make that, "Stuck up asshole".
> >>
> >> Anybody who call a piece of sirloin or rump "steak" is a cheapskate.
> >> They're not steaks.
> >
> > Oh, the irony!
>
> I fail to see any irony, you piece of hamburger.

You fail to see a lot, this thread providing an example.

Victor

In article >,
(Phred) wrote:


[snipped attribution]

> >So what is a strip, ribeye, or porterhouse - fed to the dogs?

I can only tell you what I know about my part of the US. I don't think
the names are consistent throughout the US.

> Don't ask me "what is a strip", we have very conservative laws here in
> Queensland.

That's the less tender part of the T-bone, served with bone, or usually,
without.

> If ribeye is what I know as rib fillet, it's okay, but not as tasty as
> good rump should be.

A ribeye steak is a steak cut off a rib roast. And that's all I know.

> Porterhouse is a bit of a mystery to me -- it seems to have changed
> its stripes over the decades. When I was at the Qld Agric College
> nearly 50 years ago, we were led to believe porterhouse was the prime
> cut of the T-bone (i.e. the bit at one end with the most fillet
> included). These days, if I can interpret the supermarket cuts, it
> seems to have become the non-fillet section of the T-bone, and has
> thus lost its claim to be one of the best.

A T-bone and porterhouse are identical, just cut from a different place.
The porterhouse has a larger portion of tenderloin that the T-bone.
Both have a larger portion of loin and a smaller portion of tenderloin.

There have been a lot of changes in my life in beef cuts.

> >I don't think you Aussies are all there.

I think that's another way of saying, "It's different, I don't
understand it, so it must be wrong".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
(Lass Chance_2) wrote:



> Well, judging from the garish and damn-near-impossible-to-read-over WEB
> TV background, it appears this swertz person has some kind of a personal
> hard on for Web tv's and evidently, web tv users.

That's an understatement. Most people who don't like webtv just
killfile it, but Steve has made a special background. I don't know if
you are aware of it, but that background only shows up for webtv users.

> A good many computer users indulge the fantasy that web tv users are
> less endowed with IQ points than they.

Not a lower IQ, just less experience, in general. The webtv interface
hides some things. On the other hand, some webtv users do just as well
as others. It depends on the individual.

> Since this notion has no logical foundation, it's pretty clear to us
> webbers that it's just a case of that old familiar human foible---People
> who don't like themselves need to have somebody upon whom to look down.
> We also find it endlessly amusing that the very people who assume
> webbers are IQ challenged... prove themselves to be the bottom feeders
> of the intellectia of the computer world with each snide remark aimed at
> us! --Sort of like the eager-to-impress guy who orders escargot, then
> shrieks, " You can't fool me! Them ain't no escargot! Them are
> SNAILS!"

I think that there is a lot of truth to what you post. Still, just as
many webtv folks do just fine here, most non-webtv folks on this group
don't automatically dismiss the webtv users, but actually take the time
to relate to every other poster as a human being.

> If this swertz person might want a piece of actual art to replace this
> painful-to-the eye bg, I could happily supply many---all made on my
> webby.

No. Graphics are strongly discouraged on newsgroups. About the only
people who use them are webtv posters, which is partly why they are
sometimes held in disdain, since most interface software for newsgroups
won't handle HTML or graphics.

> Or, he/she could just go merrily f--k him/herself, take that ugly thing
> off the bg and grow the hell up. Unlikely, tho.

Unlikely. As I posted above, only folks on webtv see that bg. Nobody
else does.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Lass Chance_2 wrote:

> A good many computer users indulge the fantasy that web tv users are
> less endowed with IQ points than they.
>
> Since this notion has no logical foundation, it's pretty clear to us
> webbers that it's just a case of that old familiar human foible---People
> who don't like themselves need to have somebody upon whom to look down.

<yawn> A Typical comeback from the down-trodden, poor, and stupid that
has no psychological basis whatsoever.

> Or, he/she could just go merrily f--k him/herself, take that ugly thing
> off the bg and grow the hell up. Unlikely, tho.

Actually, I'm going to change it to a picture of chicks with dicks.
That oughta really brighten up those WebTV sets.

-sw

Dan Abel wrote:

> That's an understatement. Most people who don't like webtv just
> killfile it, but Steve has made a special background.

Even if I killfiled WebTV, they'd still see my background. (But you
already know that).

I guess the reason I don't have them killfiled is that it brightens up
my day to read their posts and realize that I could be a lot worse off,
mentally.

-sw

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > That's an understatement. Most people who don't like webtv just
> > killfile it, but Steve has made a special background.
>
> Even if I killfiled WebTV, they'd still see my background. (But you
> already know that).

Yeah. I just viewed it as a two step process, but of course, now I
understand that you don't do it that way.

> I guess the reason I don't have them killfiled is that it brightens up
> my day to read their posts and realize that I could be a lot worse off,
> mentally.

And I've seen a lot of worthwhile webtv posters.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Phred) wrote:
>
>
> [snipped attribution]
>
>> >So what is a strip, ribeye, or porterhouse - fed to the dogs?
>
> I can only tell you what I know about my part of the US. I don't think
> the names are consistent throughout the US.
>
>> Don't ask me "what is a strip", we have very conservative laws here in
>> Queensland.
>
> That's the less tender part of the T-bone, served with bone, or usually,
> without.
>
>> If ribeye is what I know as rib fillet, it's okay, but not as tasty as
>> good rump should be.
>
> A ribeye steak is a steak cut off a rib roast. And that's all I know.
>
>> Porterhouse is a bit of a mystery to me -- it seems to have changed
>> its stripes over the decades. When I was at the Qld Agric College
>> nearly 50 years ago, we were led to believe porterhouse was the prime
>> cut of the T-bone (i.e. the bit at one end with the most fillet
>> included). These days, if I can interpret the supermarket cuts, it
>> seems to have become the non-fillet section of the T-bone, and has
>> thus lost its claim to be one of the best.
>
> A T-bone and porterhouse are identical, just cut from a different place.
> The porterhouse has a larger portion of tenderloin that the T-bone.
> Both have a larger portion of loin and a smaller portion of tenderloin.
>
> There have been a lot of changes in my life in beef cuts.
>
>> >I don't think you Aussies are all there.
>
> I think that's another way of saying, "It's different, I don't
> understand it, so it must be wrong".
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>


Problem solved

http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/meatcharts.html

In article >, Dan Abel > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Phred) wrote:
[snip]
>> Porterhouse is a bit of a mystery to me -- it seems to have changed
>> its stripes over the decades. When I was at the Qld Agric College
>> nearly 50 years ago, we were led to believe porterhouse was the prime
>> cut of the T-bone (i.e. the bit at one end with the most fillet
>> included). These days, if I can interpret the supermarket cuts, it
>> seems to have become the non-fillet section of the T-bone, and has
>> thus lost its claim to be one of the best.
>
>A T-bone and porterhouse are identical, just cut from a different place.
>The porterhouse has a larger portion of tenderloin that the T-bone.
>Both have a larger portion of loin and a smaller portion of tenderloin.

Hah! That's probably similar to what I recall from years ago. Our
terminology is different (and mine may have been misleading) but the
concept of a porterhouse being better than "common" T-bone seems to be
consistent across cultures. ;-)

These days the Oz "porterhouse" is the inferior part of the T-bone --
your "loin" -- if I have correctly interpreted anatomical features.

>There have been a lot of changes in my life in beef cuts.

Not the only changes I have seen. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID