Chester forwarded:

> 1 package pork tenderloins (approx 2 lbs.) cut into 1/2" thick rounds
<snip>
> Using a meat mallet or rolling pin, flatten pork rounds slightly to
> scant 1/2" thickness.

Why? If you cut them half an inch thick, and flatten to a "scant" half-inch,
what thing of any significance is accomplished?

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Chester forwarded:
>
>> 1 package pork tenderloins (approx 2 lbs.) cut into 1/2" thick rounds

1/2" thick or 1/2" diameter?

> <snip>
>> Using a meat mallet or rolling pin, flatten pork rounds slightly to
>> scant 1/2" thickness.
>
> Why? If you cut them half an inch thick, and flatten to a "scant" half-inch,
> what thing of any significance is accomplished?
>
1) you get some exercise
2) the pork is now 3/8" +/- 1/8" instead of 1/2" +/- 1/8" thick
3) the pig has now been beaten into submission

Attaching the respective significance ratings to all of this is left as
an exercise for the reader.

-j

jerk > wrote:
>Baboon ass face wrote:
>> Chester forwarded:
>>
>>> 1 package pork tenderloins (approx 2 lbs.) cut into 1/2" thick rounds
>
>1/2" thick or 1/2" diameter?

Someone who actually cooked would have corrected rounds to medallions.

>>> Using a meat mallet or rolling pin, flatten pork rounds slightly to
>>> scant 1/2" thickness.
>>
>> Why? If you cut them half an inch thick, and flatten to a "scant" half-inch,
>> what thing of any significance is accomplished?
>>
>1) you get some exercise
>2) the pork is now 3/8" +/- 1/8" instead of 1/2" +/- 1/8" thick
>3) the pig has now been beaten into submission
>
>Attaching the respective significance ratings to all of this is left as
>an exercise for the reader.

It never occured to yoose low IQ small peepee types (especially those
who obviously don't cook) that the poster made a very common
redundancy typo... meant to type "scant 1/4" thickness", obviously.
However the correct culinary critique would be to instruct not to
pound meat to make it thinner (that will cause it to dry and toughen),
instead simply slice it thinner... the so-called "tenderizing mallet"
is a misnomer (toss those silly thingies in the trash). Now yoose
foodtv kitchen imbeciles can go back to hammering your meat.

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Chester forwarded:
>
> > 1 package pork tenderloins (approx 2 lbs.) cut into 1/2" thick rounds
> <snip>
> > Using a meat mallet or rolling pin, flatten pork rounds slightly to
> > scant 1/2" thickness.
>
> Why? If you cut them half an inch thick, and flatten to a "scant" half-inch,
> what thing of any significance is accomplished?

You obviously know nothing of cooking, Bob. Any good cook worth their
salt throws the word "scant" into their recipes liberally, to make them
appear more impressive.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:25:14 +0200, jack wrote:

> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Chester forwarded:
>>
>>> 1 package pork tenderloins (approx 2 lbs.) cut into 1/2" thick rounds
>
> 1/2" thick or 1/2" diameter?
>
>> <snip>
>>> Using a meat mallet or rolling pin, flatten pork rounds slightly to
>>> scant 1/2" thickness.
>>
>> Why? If you cut them half an inch thick, and flatten to a "scant" half-inch,
>> what thing of any significance is accomplished?
>>
> 1) you get some exercise
> 2) the pork is now 3/8" +/- 1/8" instead of 1/2" +/- 1/8" thick
> 3) the pig has now been beaten into submission
>
> Attaching the respective significance ratings to all of this is left as
> an exercise for the reader.
>
> -j

stu beats his meat!

your pal,
blake