On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:04:38 -0500, Kswck wrote:
>
>
> Problem solved
>
> http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/meatcharts.html

if you enlarge the alton brown good eats beef map, i like the way the steer
is looking warily back towards the cut names.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:16:13 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:

>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.

Here the Porterhouse includes a bit of the tenderloin, a T-Bone does
not.


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

Mae West

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:16:13 GMT, (Phred)
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Here the Porterhouse includes a bit of the tenderloin, a T-Bone does
> not.

I know that meat terms aren't consistent across the Unites States, but
you live less than 50 miles from me! Perhaps you are thinking about a
porterhouse vs a New York strip?

This site, from this thread:

http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/me...ni_handout.pdf

clearly shows the strip, T-bone and porterhouse right next to each other

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> 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.

WebTVers are what replaced blacks as people to beat up on.

> > 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.

Better yet, create a web page somewhere that explains
in detail how everyone can do that.

sf > wrote:

> Here the Porterhouse includes a bit of the tenderloin, a T-Bone does
> not.

Bzzzt.

Both of them include a piece of the tenderloin.

-sw

sf > wrote:

> If webTV offers filtering (aka: kill file), use it. His purpose is to
> antagonize you.

Yeah - take it from the hypocrite <snork>.

-sw

LassChanc 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.

A quality steak should never be smoky, not unless you don't like the
flavor of quality beef and you're afflicted with TIAD... you're
obviously a tube steak kinda gal... I can tell from your walk. hehe

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
> >
> > Lass Chance_2 wrote:

> > > 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.
>
> Better yet, create a web page somewhere that explains
> in detail how everyone can do that.

Just look at his headers. BG = red text = red

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:04:41 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:16:13 GMT, (Phred)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Here the Porterhouse includes a bit of the tenderloin, a T-Bone does
>> not.
>
>I know that meat terms aren't consistent across the Unites States, but
>you live less than 50 miles from me! Perhaps you are thinking about a
>porterhouse vs a New York strip?
>
>This site, from this thread:
>
>http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/me...ni_handout.pdf
>
>clearly shows the strip, T-bone and porterhouse right next to each other

So, what is the difference between them according to your source? I
see none.

When have you ever bought a T-bone with a huge a filet on it? You're
lucky to get a hint of filet on t-bone. This is what I know as a
T-bone.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thum...bone_steak.jpg

Porterhouse, however, *does* have the filet.

Frankly I haven't bought those things in years. I don't like NY strip
which is on the "other side" of the bone from the filet - if you
wanted to detach them. That's what I did when I used to buy them.
I'd buy a porterhouse, cut off the NY strip (hubby's favorite steak
back in those days) and the filet, then bag the bones and freeze until
I had enough for stock.


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

Mae West

sf > wrote:

> When have you ever bought a T-bone with a huge a filet on it? You're
> lucky to get a hint of filet on t-bone. This is what I know as a
> T-bone.
> http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thum...bone_steak.jpg

Congratulations. You found a picture of a mis-labeled steak. I
mean, why not use a photography company as an authoritative source
for information about steaks?

That picture is a bone-in strip steak. Nobody dumb enough to
believe that's a t-bone.

Here's about 400,000 pictures of T-Bones.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

> Porterhouse, however, *does* have the filet.

They both do.

-sw

Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>> Lass Chance_2 wrote:
>
>>> > 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.
>>
>> Better yet, create a web page somewhere that explains
>> in detail how everyone can do that.
>
> Just look at his headers. BG = red text = red

It's not so much the red on red as it is the picture - which I just
changed.

-sw

X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=red; TextColor=red

Does that work? How can I verify it?

sf wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:27:48 -0500, (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.
>
> If webTV offers filtering (aka: kill file), use it. His purpose is to
> antagonize you.


Sorry, WebTeeVee has no kill file capability, hehe...

:-)


--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=red; TextColor=red
>
> Does that work? How can I verify it?

I suspect you'll have to actually put it in the headers, not the body.
But I don't know. I guess you'll have to subscribe to webtv!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=red; TextColor=red
>>
>> Does that work? How can I verify it?

Post a test message to a couple of the WebTV groups. That's what I
did at first. But it's apparent from the wonderful feedback I've
been getting that it does work.

-sw

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:04:41 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > sf > wrote:

> >> Here the Porterhouse includes a bit of the tenderloin, a T-Bone does
> >> not.
> >
> >I know that meat terms aren't consistent across the Unites States, but
> >you live less than 50 miles from me! Perhaps you are thinking about a
> >porterhouse vs a New York strip?
> >
> >This site, from this thread:
> >
> >http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/me...ni_handout.pdf
> >
> >clearly shows the strip, T-bone and porterhouse right next to each other
>
> So, what is the difference between them according to your source? I
> see none.

The tenderloin on the porterhouse is much larger than the one on the
T-bone.

> When have you ever bought a T-bone with a huge a filet on it?

Never.

> You're
> lucky to get a hint of filet on t-bone. This is what I know as a
> T-bone.

There'd better be some or it's just a bone-in New York strip.

> http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thum...ckphoto_381576
> 4_raw_t_bone_steak.jpg

CALL THE POLICE! THERE'S BEEN A ROBBERY! Somebody cut the tenderloin
clean off that steak. I noticed several others on the site. I also saw
a lot of pictures labeled T-bone that weren't.

> Porterhouse, however, *does* have the filet.
>
> Frankly I haven't bought those things in years. I don't like NY strip
> which is on the "other side" of the bone from the filet - if you
> wanted to detach them. That's what I did when I used to buy them.
> I'd buy a porterhouse, cut off the NY strip (hubby's favorite steak
> back in those days) and the filet, then bag the bones and freeze until
> I had enough for stock.

We don't buy them much ourselves. Mostly it's just sirloin steak.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> sf > wrote:
>
> > Porterhouse, however, *does* have the filet.
>
> They both do.

Correct. With the Porterhouse, the filet is to the
right of the bone. On a T-bone, the filet is on
the left. Hope this helps. :-)

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>> Porterhouse, however, *does* have the filet.
>> They both do.
>
> Correct. With the Porterhouse, the filet is to the
> right of the bone. On a T-bone, the filet is on
> the left. Hope this helps. :-)


So you sear a porterhouse on a grill, flip it over and it becomes a
T-bone. :-)

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=red; TextColor=red
>>
>> Does that work? How can I verify it?
>
> I suspect you'll have to actually put it in the headers, not the body.

Yes, that is a header.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=red; TextColor=red

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >> sf > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Porterhouse, however, *does* have the filet.
> >> They both do.
> >
> > Correct. With the Porterhouse, the filet is to the
> > right of the bone. On a T-bone, the filet is on
> > the left. Hope this helps. :-)
>
> So you sear a porterhouse on a grill, flip it over and
> it becomes a T-bone. :-)

No, like humans who are predominately right-handed,
cattle are predominately right-hooved. This gives the
right loin and shell muscle more exercise, making both
of them tougher.

Honest butchers _always_ display T-bone and Porterhouse
in their configuration as viewed from the back of the
animal, so the tender left loin Porterhouse steaks
will be displayed with the shell muscle (strip steak)
on the left and the filet on the right. The tougher
T-bone steaks come from the right side of the animal,
so they would be properly displayed with the shell
muscle on the right and the filet on the left.

There are, of course, unscrupulous butchers who sell
"flipped" T-bones as Porterhouse, a federal crime in
38 states of the United States, with severe penalties
(weakened under the Bush administration). Write to
the President-elect and ask him to cancel the Executive
Order on "flipped" steaks! :-)

Sqwertz > wrote:

> Victor Sack > wrote:
>
> > A very similar theory was posted some eight years ago in this very space
> > by the late Cuchulain (Hound). He postulated that cattle are
> > right-"handed" and stand up with their right side first, thereby
> > rendering the left side more tender. I replied as follows...
>
> And you believed him?

You might want to buy, borrow, or steal some rudimentary sense of
humour. Probably won't help, though...

> Like I said - this has been going around ever since Moosie first
> posted it about regarding chickens back in the 90's.

And, had you read what I posted, you'd have discovered that this kind of
thing was being published in mainstream press before the birth of
Moosemeat, let alone of Usenet.

Victor

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>>>>> Porterhouse, however, *does* have the filet.
>>>> They both do.
>>> Correct. With the Porterhouse, the filet is to the
>>> right of the bone. On a T-bone, the filet is on
>>> the left. Hope this helps. :-)
>> So you sear a porterhouse on a grill, flip it over and
>> it becomes a T-bone. :-)
>
> No, like humans who are predominately right-handed,
> cattle are predominately right-hooved. This gives the
> right loin and shell muscle more exercise, making both
> of them tougher.
>


My gawd. I assumed that you were kidding.
We are not stupid enough to believe that T-Bones come from one side of
the cow and Porterhouse from the other. Are you?

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:


> My gawd. I assumed that you were kidding.
> We are not stupid enough to believe that T-Bones come from one side of
> the cow and Porterhouse from the other. Are you?

Of course. Just ask the cow. I promise that they won't lie to you!

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel said...

> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>
>> My gawd. I assumed that you were kidding.
>> We are not stupid enough to believe that T-Bones come from one side of
>> the cow and Porterhouse from the other. Are you?
>
> Of course. Just ask the cow. I promise that they won't lie to you!


A smart cow would point to the chateaubriand!!!

Andy wrote:
> Dan Abel said...
>
>> In article >,
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My gawd. I assumed that you were kidding.
>>> We are not stupid enough to believe that T-Bones come from one side of
>>> the cow and Porterhouse from the other. Are you?
>> Of course. Just ask the cow. I promise that they won't lie to you!
>
>
> A smart cow would point to the chateaubriand!!!

If he right handed cow he might have to point, but if it is left handed
he will find a more artistic way to express the information.

Dave Smith > wrote:

> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> No, like humans who are predominately right-handed,
>> cattle are predominately right-hooved. This gives the
>> right loin and shell muscle more exercise, making both
>> of them tougher.
>
> My gawd. I assumed that you were kidding.
> We are not stupid enough to believe that T-Bones come from one side of
> the cow and Porterhouse from the other. Are you?

It's take off from the decades old Moosemeat (aka "Moosie") skit in
where he describes to some lady at the grocery store that the
left-side chicken quarters are bigger then right chicken quarters
because the birds walk around counter-clockwise.

-sw

Mark Thorson > wrote:

> No, like humans who are predominately right-handed,
> cattle are predominately right-hooved. This gives the
> right loin and shell muscle more exercise, making both
> of them tougher.

A very similar theory was posted some eight years ago in this very space
by the late Cuchulain (Hound). He postulated that cattle are
right-"handed" and stand up with their right side first, thereby
rendering the left side more tender. I replied as follows, drawing on a
memory of a very important old article:

This is a matter which definitely bears more investigation. Research
into the bovine physiology has been going nowhere since the last
breakthrough occurred in 1927, as reported in 'Nature' by P. Jordan and
R. Kronig in their article on the movement of the bovine lower jaw in
the process of ruminating. According to their research, the movement is
neither purely horizontal, not purely vertical, but turns out to be a
superposition of these periodical movements, with such phase transitions
as to result in a pure rotation. Now, rotation, according to the
article, can occur in either direction, so that there may exist left-
and right-rotating bovines. An inspection of a number of bovines in a
Denmark province yielded 55% of right-rotating and the rest
left-rotating. The authors speculate on the probabilty of the true
ratio being 1:1.

I wonder if the direction of jaw rotation may actually determine the
side with which the cattle stand up first. Or the other way around.

Victor

Victor Sack > wrote:

> A very similar theory was posted some eight years ago in this very space
> by the late Cuchulain (Hound). He postulated that cattle are
> right-"handed" and stand up with their right side first, thereby
> rendering the left side more tender. I replied as follows...

And you believed him?

Like I said - this has been going around ever since Moosie first
posted it about regarding chickens back in the 90's.

-sw

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:20:01 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>
>> My gawd. I assumed that you were kidding.
>> We are not stupid enough to believe that T-Bones come from one side of
>> the cow and Porterhouse from the other. Are you?
>
> Of course. Just ask the cow. I promise that they won't lie to you!
>
> :-)

nah, they lie all the time. i've had several tell me they were chickens.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:20:01 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> My gawd. I assumed that you were kidding.
> >> We are not stupid enough to believe that T-Bones come from one side of
> >> the cow and Porterhouse from the other. Are you?
> >
> > Of course. Just ask the cow. I promise that they won't lie to you!
> >
> > :-)
>
> nah, they lie all the time. i've had several tell me they were chickens.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Only on those billboard signs...
--
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

Victor Sack > wrote:

> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>>
>>> A very similar theory was posted some eight years ago in this very space
>>> by the late Cuchulain (Hound). He postulated that cattle are
>>> right-"handed" and stand up with their right side first, thereby
>>> rendering the left side more tender. I replied as follows...
>>
>> And you believed him?
>
> You might want to buy, borrow, or steal some rudimentary sense of
> humour. Probably won't help, though...
>
>> Like I said - this has been going around ever since Moosie first
>> posted it about regarding chickens back in the 90's.
>
> And, had you read what I posted, you'd have discovered that this kind of
> thing was being published in mainstream press before the birth of
> Moosemeat, let alone of Usenet.

Oh - that was humor?!? Frankly, I only skimmed it. I thought that
was your Mark Thorson imitation.

I guess nobody thought it was funny back then, nor now. I just
thought you were being stuffy again quoting some uncited anatomy
article by Dr Livingston, I presume.

But anyway - your boring response came well-after Moosie's posts
back in 1996 or 1997 or so. So you're saying it took you 3 years to
come up with that response? Or that it just took you 11 years to
fine tune it?


-sw

In article >, Sqwertz > wrote:
>Victor Sack > wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>>>
>>>> A very similar theory was posted some eight years ago in this very space
>>>> by the late Cuchulain (Hound). He postulated that cattle are
>>>> right-"handed" and stand up with their right side first, thereby
>>>> rendering the left side more tender. I replied as follows...
>>>
>>> And you believed him?
>>
>> You might want to buy, borrow, or steal some rudimentary sense of
>> humour. Probably won't help, though...
>>
>>> Like I said - this has been going around ever since Moosie first
>>> posted it about regarding chickens back in the 90's.
>>
>> And, had you read what I posted, you'd have discovered that this kind of
>> thing was being published in mainstream press before the birth of
>> Moosemeat, let alone of Usenet.
>
>Oh - that was humor?!? Frankly, I only skimmed it. I thought that
>was your Mark Thorson imitation.
>
>I guess nobody thought it was funny back then, nor now. I just
>thought you were being stuffy again quoting some uncited anatomy
>article by Dr Livingston, I presume.
>
>But anyway - your boring response came well-after Moosie's posts
>back in 1996 or 1997 or so. So you're saying it took you 3 years to
>come up with that response? Or that it just took you 11 years to
>fine tune it?

The usual advice to someone in your position is to stop digging.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Sqwertz > wrote:

> Victor Sack > wrote:
>
> > Sqwertz > wrote:
> >
> >> Victor Sack > wrote:
> >>
> >>> A very similar theory was posted some eight years ago in this very space
> >>> by the late Cuchulain (Hound). He postulated that cattle are
> >>> right-"handed" and stand up with their right side first, thereby
> >>> rendering the left side more tender. I replied as follows...
> >>
> >> And you believed him?
> >
> > You might want to buy, borrow, or steal some rudimentary sense of
> > humour. Probably won't help, though...
> >
> >> Like I said - this has been going around ever since Moosie first
> >> posted it about regarding chickens back in the 90's.
> >
> > And, had you read what I posted, you'd have discovered that this kind of
> > thing was being published in mainstream press before the birth of
> > Moosemeat, let alone of Usenet.
>
> Oh - that was humor?!? Frankly, I only skimmed it. I thought that
> was your Mark Thorson imitation.
>
> I guess nobody thought it was funny back then, nor now. I just
> thought you were being stuffy again quoting some uncited anatomy
> article by Dr Livingston, I presume.
>
> But anyway - your boring response came well-after Moosie's posts
> back in 1996 or 1997 or so. So you're saying it took you 3 years to
> come up with that response? Or that it just took you 11 years to
> fine tune it?

If I wanted to put you down, Steve, I couldn't do a better job than the
one you are doing all by yourself. Amazing.

Victor