They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.

http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4

Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
glaze.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom glaze.
>

Studded with gold chips?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 4/22/2014 10:58 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>
>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>> glaze.
>
> Studded with gold chips?
>
Apparently! :-D

I don't go to the Formal Dining Room for obvious reasons. It's a tad
too fru-fru for me.

They recently issued an update to the Dress Code. No tank tops. Good
lord, people! Are you Puritans?

It's a golf resort. It sometimes gets up to 100°F in the summer. You
expect people to wear sleeves? You're not allowed to wear hats, visors
or caps in the Club, either. Excuse me?

We're not talking about a population of wannabe gangsta's wearing
backwards baseball caps, wreaking havoc. We're talking about people who
play golf and wear visors to shade their eyes from the sun. Men aren't
allowed to wear them inside the Club at all. Women are only allowed to
wear caps/visors between certain hours. HUH?!

Some of these rules are absolutely ridiculous. When the latest dress
code missive was published I replied suggesting they could solve the
problem by issuing everyone a *uniform*. (not kidding)

Jill

On 2014-04-22 12:30 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>
> I don't go to the Formal Dining Room for obvious reasons. It's a tad
> too fru-fru for me
>
> They recently issued an update to the Dress Code. No tank tops. Good
> lord, people! Are you Puritans?

>
> It's a golf resort. It sometimes gets up to 100°F in the summer. You
> expect people to wear sleeves? You're not allowed to wear hats, visors
> or caps in the Club, either. Excuse me?


Perhaps the prices are to enforce their apparent desire to keep out the
riffraff. It should not have to have a rule about wearing hats. I have
a bit of an issue about the ban on tank tops since there are a lot of
fashionable tank tops for women. OTOH.... there are a lot of trashy tank
tops, and tank tops on men are IMO unsuitable for a nice restaurant. I
don't know when it ever became acceptable for men to wear a hat in a
restaurant.




> We're not talking about a population of wannabe gangsta's wearing
> backwards baseball caps, wreaking havoc. We're talking about people who
> play golf and wear visors to shade their eyes from the sun. Men aren't
> allowed to wear them inside the Club at all. Women are only allowed to
> wear caps/visors between certain hours. HUH?!

Sure. They shade their eyes when they are playing golf outside. If they
are in the dining hall they should take them off.

>
> Some of these rules are absolutely ridiculous. When the latest dress
> code missive was published I replied suggesting they could solve the
> problem by issuing everyone a *uniform*. (not kidding)
>

I imagine the prices scare a lot of people off. I hope the few that are
willing to pay so much for relatively plain fare enjoy their
exclusivity. Veal prices must be much higher down there. Veal chops sold
around here are cheaper than beef steaks. It's bad enough that they
charge $36 for a veal chop, but then they hit you up for $4 for green
beans?????? $5 for potato puree?? A veal chop with potato and two
vegetables jumps it up to roughly $60.

Count me out.

On 4/22/2014 12:53 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-04-22 12:30 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>
>> They recently issued an update to the Dress Code. No tank tops. Good
>> lord, people! Are you Puritans?
>
> Perhaps the prices are to enforce their apparent desire to keep out the
> riffraff.

That'll teach 'em to sell property to riffraff. LOL

> It should not have to have a rule about wearing hats. I have
> a bit of an issue about the ban on tank tops since there are a lot of
> fashionable tank tops for women. OTOH.... there are a lot of trashy tank
> tops, and tank tops on men are IMO unsuitable for a nice restaurant. I
> don't know when it ever became acceptable for men to wear a hat in a
> restaurant.
>
(snippage)

That's the thing. People here aren't walking around looking trashy.
Men in tank tops does conjur up the image of grandpa in his dirty white
undershirt working in the yard. But as you say, I own many perfectly
nice tank tops.

The last time I went there for dinner (The Pub, which is casual) I wore
a matching skirt and top. The top just happened to be "tank" design so
I threw a light jacket on over it. Heaven forbid I show my shoulders!
I have no doubt they might have tried to throw me out if I'd taken off
my jacket. I dare you!

That happened to me a couple of years ago. I didn't know you weren't
allowed to wear nice denim into the *casual* Pub room. A server saw me
and started yelling, "No no no! No denim!" the minute I walked in the door.

Most people don't leave their caps on, but to make a rule about it...
how about just ask people to remove them? No need to get in a tizzy or
issue rules. These people are control freaks.

Jill

On 2014-04-22 3:48 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 12:53 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2014-04-22 12:30 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> They recently issued an update to the Dress Code. No tank tops. Good
>>> lord, people! Are you Puritans?
>>
>> Perhaps the prices are to enforce their apparent desire to keep out the
>> riffraff.
>
> That'll teach 'em to sell property to riffraff. LOL
>
>> It should not have to have a rule about wearing hats. I have
>> a bit of an issue about the ban on tank tops since there are a lot of
>> fashionable tank tops for women. OTOH.... there are a lot of trashy tank
>> tops, and tank tops on men are IMO unsuitable for a nice restaurant. I
>> don't know when it ever became acceptable for men to wear a hat in a
>> restaurant.
>>
> (snippage)
>
> That's the thing. People here aren't walking around looking trashy. Men
> in tank tops does conjur up the image of grandpa in his dirty white
> undershirt working in the yard. But as you say, I own many perfectly
> nice tank tops.
>
> The last time I went there for dinner (The Pub, which is casual) I wore
> a matching skirt and top. The top just happened to be "tank" design so
> I threw a light jacket on over it. Heaven forbid I show my shoulders! I
> have no doubt they might have tried to throw me out if I'd taken off my
> jacket. I dare you!


I would not object to a woman in a sleeveless stop with straps...
thinking camisole..... but when I googled it to make sure of the
spelling I was surprised to see it defined as underwear.



>
> That happened to me a couple of years ago. I didn't know you weren't
> allowed to wear nice denim into the *casual* Pub room. A server saw me
> and started yelling, "No no no! No denim!" the minute I walked in the
> door.

I was once barred from a place for inappropriate attire. I had been
playing baseball with friends and we were meeting in a bar after the
game. The bar had a reputation for being a bit of a dive. I looked
upstairs in the recently renovated part and was headed off by a bouncer
who suggested I try the bar downstairs. I went down and didn't see them,
so I went back up. That was when greaseball Gino stopped me and told me
"You don't understand. This is a class place." You gotta know that
someone uses the words "class place" to describe his bar it isn't.





> Most people don't leave their caps on, but to make a rule about it...
> how about just ask people to remove them? No need to get in a tizzy or
> issue rules. These people are control freaks.

Unfortunately, there are ever increasing numbers of people who seem to
have few manners. In a place like that you should not have to have
rules about cell phones either, but it seems that a rule is needed for
some people.

jmcquown > wrote in
:


>
> That'll teach 'em to sell property to riffraff. LOL
>
I thought that the riffraff inherited the property.
>
> These people are control freaks.
>
It gives the riffraff something to bitch about, and the riffraff does like
to bitch.
>
> Jill



--
--Bryan
"The 1960's called. They want their recipe back."
--Steve Wertz in rec.food.cooking 4-20-2009

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:30:53 AM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 10:58 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>
> >>
>
> >> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> >>
>
> >> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>
> >> glaze.
>
> >
>
> > Studded with gold chips?
>
> >
>
> Apparently! :-D
>
>
>
> I don't go to the Formal Dining Room for obvious reasons. It's a tad
>
> too fru-fru for me.
>
>
>
> They recently issued an update to the Dress Code. No tank tops. Good
>
> lord, people! Are you Puritans?
>
>
>
> It's a golf resort. It sometimes gets up to 100°F in the summer. You
>
> expect people to wear sleeves? You're not allowed to wear hats, visors
>
> or caps in the Club, either. Excuse me?
>
>
>
> We're not talking about a population of wannabe gangsta's wearing
>
> backwards baseball caps, wreaking havoc. We're talking about people who
>
> play golf and wear visors to shade their eyes from the sun. Men aren't
>
> allowed to wear them inside the Club at all. Women are only allowed to
>
> wear caps/visors between certain hours. HUH?!
>
>
>
Good manners dictates that you don't wear a hat indoors...at least for men. Maybe you mum never taught you that.

On 4/22/2014 7:49 AM, Chemo wrote:
> Good manners dictates that you don't wear a hat indoors...at least for men. Maybe you mum never taught you that.
>

After I picked up my brother in laws from the airport, we went to eat
Italian. Their hats stayed firmly planted on their head. As a culture,
we're not really big into hats but this filled me with wonderment. In
the end, I chalked it up to them being ashamed of their bare naked
heads. I hardly ever saw them without.

On 4/22/2014 2:00 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 7:49 AM, Chemo wrote:
>> Good manners dictates that you don't wear a hat indoors...at least for
>> men. Maybe you mum never taught you that.
>>
>
> After I picked up my brother in laws from the airport, we went to eat
> Italian. Their hats stayed firmly planted on their head. As a culture,
> we're not really big into hats but this filled me with wonderment. In
> the end, I chalked it up to them being ashamed of their bare naked
> heads. I hardly ever saw them without.

At an early age I was taught that a gentleman removes his hat when going
indoors. I still do. Back then, the typical beaseball cap style was
little used and adults wore a Fedora, driving cap and a fut winter hat.

Not sure when, but in the past mayhbe 20 years or so, the baseball style
cap has become the cover of choice and many men just never take it off.
Sure, it offers protection outdoors, or even indoors for certain work,
but I don't see them as fashion. In addition, the wool pullover caps
have become fashionable. We wore them in snowstorms, not to a fine
dining restaurant. I even see some of the "celebrities" wearing them
when on TV.

I wear a cap in winter to keep warm, in summer for sun protection, but
never indoors. I don't care if I'm bouncing light beams like a beacon
off my shiny skull. Frankly, had I know how easy it is to be bald, I'd
have done it by choice years ago.

jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 10:58 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>>
>>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>>
>>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>>> glaze.
>>
>> Studded with gold chips?
>>
> Apparently! :-D
>
> I don't go to the Formal Dining Room for obvious reasons. It's a tad
> too fru-fru for me.
>
> They recently issued an update to the Dress Code. No tank tops. Good
> lord, people! Are you Puritans?
>
> It's a golf resort. It sometimes gets up to 100°F in the summer. You
> expect people to wear sleeves? You're not allowed to wear hats,
> visors or caps in the Club, either. Excuse me?
>
> We're not talking about a population of wannabe gangsta's wearing
> backwards baseball caps, wreaking havoc. We're talking about people
> who play golf and wear visors to shade their eyes from the sun. Men
> aren't allowed to wear them inside the Club at all. Women are only
> allowed to wear caps/visors between certain hours. HUH?!
>
> Some of these rules are absolutely ridiculous. When the latest dress
> code missive was published I replied suggesting they could solve the
> problem by issuing everyone a *uniform*. (not kidding)
>
> Jill
Your thinning hair is a mess. Deal with it.

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:30:53 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 10:58 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>
> >>
>
> >> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> >>
>
> >> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>
> >> glaze.
>
> >
>
> > Studded with gold chips?
>
> >
>
> Apparently! :-D
>
>
>
> I don't go to the Formal Dining Room for obvious reasons. It's a tad
>
> too fru-fru for me.
>
>
>
> They recently issued an update to the Dress Code. No tank tops. Good
>
> lord, people! Are you Puritans?
>
>
>
> It's a golf resort. It sometimes gets up to 100°F in the summer. You
>
> expect people to wear sleeves? You're not allowed to wear hats, visors
>
> or caps in the Club, either. Excuse me?
>
>
>
> We're not talking about a population of wannabe gangsta's wearing
>
> backwards baseball caps, wreaking havoc. We're talking about people who
>
> play golf and wear visors to shade their eyes from the sun. Men aren't
>
> allowed to wear them inside the Club at all. Women are only allowed to
>
> wear caps/visors between certain hours. HUH?!
>
>
>
> Some of these rules are absolutely ridiculous. When the latest dress
>
> code missive was published I replied suggesting they could solve the
>
> problem by issuing everyone a *uniform*. (not kidding)
>
>
>
> Jill

Let me just say this. I ate in a gourmet joint once for a very special occasion, took another couple along, and was quite appalled that they allowed men in the dining room in wife-beaters. Who wants to glimpse a mass of black armpit hair at the next table?

As to head gear, I guess they decided visors, hats et al - verboten - period.
Yeah, I know, here comes the old 'I'm a chemo patient' etc....sorry, I don't buy it. Take the @$#% hat off.

jmcquown > wrote in news:brncgrFjqc4U1
@mid.individual.net:

> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4

You'd think for those prices they could spell properly:

Rockefeller - not Rockafeller

Chateaubriand - not Chateaubriande

Béarnaise - not Bernaise (it`s not from Bern, it's from the Béarn
old province of France)

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On 4/22/2014 12:59 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> jmcquown > wrote in news:brncgrFjqc4U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> You'd think for those prices they could spell properly:
>
> Rockefeller - not Rockafeller
>
> Chateaubriand - not Chateaubriande
>
> Béarnaise - not Bernaise (it`s not from Bern, it's from the Béarn
> old province of France)
>
Spelling has never been their strong point.

Jill

jmcquown > wrote in
:

>> You'd think for those prices they could spell properly:
>>
>> Rockefeller - not Rockafeller
>>
>> Chateaubriand - not Chateaubriande
>>
>> B‚arnaise - not Bernaise (it`s not from Bern, it's from the
>> B‚arn old province of France)
>>
> Spelling has never been their strong point.

That is no excuse for sheer sloppiness. You wonder how they are
with other parts of their business if they pay so little attention
to writing out their product.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On 4/22/2014 10:26 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
> glaze.
>
> Jill


Cheaper than the 111 Chop House
http://www.111chophouse.com/dinner-menu/
$39.95 here.

I've been there (we had steak) and while good, it is not worth what we
paid, IMO.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
> glaze.
>
Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?


--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On 4/22/2014 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>
>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>> glaze.
>>
> Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
> Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?
>
>
LOL! It does conjur images of pretty bad food served on long flights.

The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
boneless chicken breast half. I can't say I've ever seen it on a menu.

Jill

On 4/22/2014 9:29 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>>
>>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>>
>>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>>> glaze.
>>>
>> Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
>> Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?
>>
>>
> LOL! It does conjur images of pretty bad food served on long flights.
>
> The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
> boneless chicken breast half. I can't say I've ever seen it on a menu.
>
> Jill

Sounds great! I'd just eat the wing part. Breasts have got to be the
most boring piece of meat there ever was. (-:

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:35:01 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 9:29 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > On 4/22/2014 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>
> >>> glaze.
>
> >>>
>
> >> Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
>
> >> Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > LOL! It does conjur images of pretty bad food served on long flights.
>
> >
>
> > The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
>
> > boneless chicken breast half. I can't say I've ever seen it on a menu.
>
> >
>
> > Jill
>
>
>
> Sounds great! I'd just eat the wing part. Breasts have got to be the
>
> most boring piece of meat there ever was. (-:

It's obvious you've never seen my girlfriend's breast....lovely!

On 4/22/2014 10:13 AM, Chemo wrote:
>
> It's obvious you've never seen my girlfriend's breast....lovely!
>
It's good that you appreciate your woman's lady-parts but it's not
surprising that I've never seen her breasts - that is, unless your
girlfriend is Jamie Lee Curtis. If this is the case, please post some
recent photos to verify their present condition. Thank you very much.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:35:01 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 4/22/2014 9:29 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 4/22/2014 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>>>
>>>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>>>
>>>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>>>> glaze.
>>>>
>>> Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
>>> Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?
>>>
>>>
>> LOL! It does conjur images of pretty bad food served on long flights.
>>
>> The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
>> boneless chicken breast half. I can't say I've ever seen it on a menu.
>>
>> Jill
>
>Breasts have got to be the most boring piece of meat there ever was. (-:

Not to me.

On 4/22/2014 10:22 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:35:01 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/2014 9:29 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2014 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>>>>> glaze.
>>>>>
>>>> Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
>>>> Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> LOL! It does conjur images of pretty bad food served on long flights.
>>>
>>> The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
>>> boneless chicken breast half. I can't say I've ever seen it on a menu.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Breasts have got to be the most boring piece of meat there ever was. (-:
>
> Not to me.
>

I'm a wing man myself.

dsi1 > wrote in news:lj6g93$kf9$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 4/22/2014 9:29 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 4/22/2014 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>>>
>>>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>>>
>>>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>>>> glaze.
>>>>
>>> Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
>>> Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?
>>>
>>>
>> LOL! It does conjur images of pretty bad food served on long flights.
>>
>> The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
>> boneless chicken breast half. I can't say I've ever seen it on a menu.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Sounds great! I'd just eat the wing part. Breasts have got to be the
> most boring piece of meat there ever was. (-:
>
That's the most undesirable of the three wing sections. It belongs with
the breast. I would happily pay more per pound for wings that didn't
include the drumette.


--
--Bryan
"The 1960's called. They want their recipe back."
--Steve Wertz in rec.food.cooking 4-20-2009

On 4/23/2014 2:13 AM, Winters_Lackey wrote:
> That's the most undesirable of the three wing sections. It belongs with
> the breast. I would happily pay more per pound for wings that didn't
> include the drumette.
>
>

Everybody's gots to do their own thing. You like the tips - I discard
them. I have to agree that the drum part ain't that much fun but they
come as a set and their presence intensifies the goodness of the wingy
thingie.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:29:16 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
> boneless chicken breast half.

It's a boobie with a boner!!! The best of both worlds!!!

http://www.cravelocal.com/industry/w...hicken-breast/

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhh!

On 4/22/2014 3:54 PM, Sheldon Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:29:16 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
>> boneless chicken breast half.
>
> It's a boobie with a boner!!! The best of both worlds!!!
>
> http://www.cravelocal.com/industry/w...hicken-breast/
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhh!
>
Nice try. Heheh

Jill

On 2014-04-22 3:29 PM, jmcquown wrote:

> LOL! It does conjur images of pretty bad food served on long flights.
>
> The term means part of the wing (drumette) is left on the otherwise
> boneless chicken breast half. I can't say I've ever seen it on a menu.

I don't remember ever seeing it described that way on a menu but I do
remember having chicken served that way. It was the latest thing at that
time.... about 15 years ago.

On 4/22/2014 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>>
>> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom
>> glaze.
>>
> Ouch! What's worse is the "Airline Chicken Breast"... Airline???
> Does that mean it will be tough, dry and tasteless?
>
>

Boneless breast with the drumette attached. Looks like a real breast
but is easier to eat. I don'[t know of anyh real connection to airlines
u nless they served them back when airline travel was fancy stuff years
ago.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>
> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> Hey, sf! $36 for a veal chop! Choice of sauce includes a mushroom glaze.
>
>
> Jill

I thought "DATAW" would appear in the subject line of all of these asinine
posts.

On 4/22/2014 10:45 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:34 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> They call it the Chop House 100 menu. Reservations required.
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/m/i5td1l/4
>
> Cool - they have the elusive airline chicken breast!
>
> -sw
>
I thought you might notice that.

Jill