On 9/27/2016 1:33 AM, Je�us wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT), MisterDiddyWahDiddy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 8:32:09 PM UTC-5, Jill McQuown wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2016 8:41 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2016-09-24 8:09 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>> Dinner Tonight:
>>>>> A 1 1/3 pound USDA Choice Porterhouse steak fried in butter to medium
>>>>> rare,
>>>>> http://i63.tinypic.com/szyl8o.jpg
>>>>
>>>> That is way past medium rare... more like medium well.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.certifiedangusbeef.com/kitchen/doneness.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nice little chart. I'd call what he wound up with medium, rather than
>>> medium well.
>>>
>>> I've pan fried a few steaks in my day but never in nothing but butter.
>>> Things that make you go Hmmm.
>>>
>> One should only "fry" in "clarified" butter.
>
> ********.
>
LOL Bryan deems himself an expert in oils and butter. I'm not going to
ask how he uses them. Where's his photo of a steak pan fried in
clarified butter? Or any other pan fried steak for that matter?

Jill

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> I'll be heading into town soon for my teeth cleaning appt

All 7 of them?
==============

Nah you should say 'both of them'?

Not that I am saying you have only two Sheldon ... just a jokey figure of
speech <g>

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

On 2016-09-27 11:23 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, "Robert"

>> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his mistake and
>> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you 'should of' just
>> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>>
>> Robert
>
> Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.

You really should not try to correct the grammar of another with a
sentence that is rife with grammatical errors.


> Did you ever think you need a new monitor and video card? DUH
> It's not possible to discern color accurately on the net, especially
> from so small a sample as a tiny snip in meat, plus meat has different
> densities so different sections will cook more or less. Perhaps you
> also need to have your eyes examined along with your head. Were you
> able to see that steak in person you'd definitely know it was cooked
> medium rare.

My eyes are fine and my monitor is showing colours accurately. I found a
link with descriptions and images for the degrees of doneness for steak
and the picture you posted is much closer to medium well than medium
rare. It may have been cooked perfectly for you if what you really like
is medium well.





> The only reason some find something to bitch about the doneness of a
> steak is because they live on cheapo tube steak and are envious.

I thought it had much to do with you having pronounced it to be a
perfectly cooked medium rare when it was actually more like medium well.


> That steak was cooked perfectly and was delicious...

Sure. It was a perfectly cooked medium well, just the way you apparently
like them.

> I wasn't about to hack it up to expose all the interior for a picture, t

But you did.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert" wrote in message ...

> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his mistake
> and
> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you should of just
> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>
> Robert
>
> ===========
>
> *I* am making an issue of it??? LOL

Shame on you! ;-) The only people that are making an issue of it are those
that decided to comment on the picture using their own narrow perspective
and with the need to "correct Sheldon for his mistake" instead of just
saying the steak looks good, which it did.

Cheri

On 9/27/2016 9:55 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-09-27 11:23 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, "Robert"
>
>>> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his
>>> mistake and
>>> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you 'should of' just
>>> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>
>> Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.
>
> You really should not try to correct the grammar of another with a
> sentence that is rife with grammatical errors.
>
I think he was leg-pulling. At least I hope so!

"Cheri" wrote in message ...


"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert" wrote in message ...

> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his mistake
> and
> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you should of just
> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>
> Robert
>
> ===========
>
> *I* am making an issue of it??? LOL

Shame on you! ;-) The only people that are making an issue of it are those
that decided to comment on the picture using their own narrow perspective
and with the need to "correct Sheldon for his mistake" instead of just
saying the steak looks good, which it did.

Cheri

=============

True)



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

In article >,
says...
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "Bruce" wrote in message
> > T...
> >
> > In article >, racemaildrop-
> > says...
> > >
> > > Yes it is your own delusional little world to make however you
> > > wish.
> >
> > Here's a picture of MY dog in MY backyard:
> >
> > https://targetstudy.com/files/img/34/12/G_17059.jpg
> >
> > =============
> >
> > Do you call him Bonzo?
>
>
> How did you guess?
>
> =============
>
> I just 'know' these things ...*mysterious smile*

lol

In article >, gravesend10
@verizon.net says...
>
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, "Robert"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Ophelia" wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Robert" wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Cheri" wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >"Robert" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Gary" wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>>Robert wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You are wrong. So if you look at the chart I link to. You will see his
> >>>> steak
> >>>> was medium well not medium rare. Sheldon who has claimed to be a trained
> >>>> cook from his time in the military should know the difference.
> >>>
> >>>LOL This is what you get for posting a pic, Sheldon....nothing but
> >>>arguments and telling you that you did it wrong.
> >>>
> >>
> >> He cooked it medium well just the way he likes it. That I have no problem
> >> with that, What he did wrong was claim it was medium rare. As an
> >> allegedly trained cook he should know the difference.
> >>
> >>
> >> Robert
> >
> >Again, if it's medium rare at his house, it's medium rare, there is nothing
> >*wrong* about that! How about you start posting some pics of your food, so
> >some people here can criticize it as well?
> >
> >Cheri
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Cheri I only pointed out his misrepresentation of the steak's doneness. It
> >was a perfectly cooked medium well steak. Not everyone who read his post
> >knows the difference. Those are the ones that needed to know the truth. So
> >yes his post needed corrected and your defending of that error is wrong and
> >misleading as well.
> >
> >Robert
> >==============
> >
> >So, Robert! The truth is it don't matter a damn! We all have our own
> >tastes and opinions! If you don't like that ....
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his mistake and
> >got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you 'should of' just
> >ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
> >
> >Robert
>
> Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.

In that case: why do you write 'should have'?

On 2016-09-27 1:22 PM, graham wrote:
> On 9/27/2016 9:55 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-09-27 11:23 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, "Robert"
>>
>>>> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his
>>>> mistake and
>>>> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you 'should of' just
>>>> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>
>>> Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.
>>
>> You really should not try to correct the grammar of another with a
>> sentence that is rife with grammatical errors.
>>
> I think he was leg-pulling. At least I hope so!
>


Perhaps he was. A sad reality is that just about every grammar police
post I have seen online has contained grammatical errors that were just
as bad as the one about which they were complaining.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:01:15 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:50:52 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>Butter on steak afterwards is fine. But it's impossible to cook a
>steak in butter as the heat required to properly cook a steak is too
>hot and would burn the butter quickly.

Sorry, I take issue with that claim. Yes, butter burns easily but
adding a little oil to increase the smoke point helps. I've yet to
find a better way too cook a steak in a pan.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:43:02 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/27/2016 1:33 AM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT), MisterDiddyWahDiddy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> One should only "fry" in "clarified" butter.
>>
>> ********.
>>
>LOL Bryan deems himself an expert in oils and butter. I'm not going to
>ask how he uses them. Where's his photo of a steak pan fried in
>clarified butter? Or any other pan fried steak for that matter?

One day I'm going to have to cook a steak in butter (and a dash of
oil) and take a pic to post here.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:07:38 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:33:20 +1000, Jeßus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT), MisterDiddyWahDiddy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 8:32:09 PM UTC-5, Jill McQuown wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've pan fried a few steaks in my day but never in nothing but butter.
>>>> Things that make you go Hmmm.
>>>>
>>>One should only "fry" in "clarified" butter.
>>
>> ********.
>
>Butter will burn at the heat required to sear s steak.

I sear mine before it gets /that/ hot and can consistently produce a
nicely browned steak <shrug>. I'll post a pic one of these days to
prove my point.

>You can, of
>course, fry eggs and other things in butter, but not a thick steaks.

Yes, I agree up to a point now that you raise the issue of thickness.
I personally don't like overly thick steaks - say nothing over 3/4"
thick, which would explain why I don't have problems cooking in
butter. Plus I like medium-rare so the time in the pan is relatively
short.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:44:56 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, Robert wrote:
>
>> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his mistake and
>> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you should of just
>> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>
>Ofeelya can be pretty trollish sometimes. She'll back up any pathetic
>argument for one of her virtual buddies just to score desperately
>needed "suck up" points.

Yes. She's the master on RFC of double standards and inconsistencies.

On 2016-09-27 5:07 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:43:02 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/2016 1:33 AM, Je?us wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT), MisterDiddyWahDiddy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> One should only "fry" in "clarified" butter.
>>>
>>> ********.
>>>
>> LOL Bryan deems himself an expert in oils and butter. I'm not going to
>> ask how he uses them. Where's his photo of a steak pan fried in
>> clarified butter? Or any other pan fried steak for that matter?
>
> One day I'm going to have to cook a steak in butter (and a dash of
> oil) and take a pic to post here.
>

If you are going to cut into it and show a picture and claim that it is
perfectly cooked to a particular degree of doneness, please check with
an online source and make sure that yours matches the professional
standard. ;-)

On 9/27/2016 1:44 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-09-27 1:22 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 9/27/2016 9:55 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2016-09-27 11:23 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, "Robert"
>>>
>>>>> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his
>>>>> mistake and
>>>>> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you 'should of'
>>>>> just
>>>>> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.
>>>
>>> You really should not try to correct the grammar of another with a
>>> sentence that is rife with grammatical errors.
>>>
>> I think he was leg-pulling. At least I hope so!
>>
>
>
> Perhaps he was. A sad reality is that just about every grammar police
> post I have seen online has contained grammatical errors that were just
> as bad as the one about which they were complaining.

:-) I'll bet you typed the the last part of that sentence very
carefully, to avoid ending it with a preposition:-)

On 9/27/2016 2:31 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-09-27 5:07 PM, Je�us wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:43:02 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/27/2016 1:33 AM, Je?us wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT), MisterDiddyWahDiddy
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One should only "fry" in "clarified" butter.
>>>>
>>>> ********.
>>>>
>>> LOL Bryan deems himself an expert in oils and butter. I'm not going to
>>> ask how he uses them. Where's his photo of a steak pan fried in
>>> clarified butter? Or any other pan fried steak for that matter?
>>
>> One day I'm going to have to cook a steak in butter (and a dash of
>> oil) and take a pic to post here.
>>
>
> If you are going to cut into it and show a picture and claim that it is
> perfectly cooked to a particular degree of doneness, please check with
> an online source and make sure that yours matches the professional
> standard. ;-)
>
>


Just cut and paste the online source, and watch everybody tell you that
you are STILL wrong.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 4:30:44 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-09-27 5:07 PM, Je�us wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:43:02 -0400, jmcquown >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/27/2016 1:33 AM, Je?us wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT), MisterDiddyWahDiddy
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> One should only "fry" in "clarified" butter.
> >>>
> >>> ********.
> >>>
> >> LOL Bryan deems himself an expert in oils and butter. I'm not going to
> >> ask how he uses them. Where's his photo of a steak pan fried in
> >> clarified butter? Or any other pan fried steak for that matter?
> >
> > One day I'm going to have to cook a steak in butter (and a dash of
> > oil) and take a pic to post here.
> >
>
> If you are going to cut into it and show a picture and claim that it is
> perfectly cooked to a particular degree of doneness, please check with
> an online source and make sure that yours matches the professional
> standard. ;-)

That steak is cooked medium well.

On 9/27/2016 5:05 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:01:15 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:50:52 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Butter on steak afterwards is fine. But it's impossible to cook a
>> steak in butter as the heat required to properly cook a steak is too
>> hot and would burn the butter quickly.
>
> Sorry, I take issue with that claim. Yes, butter burns easily but
> adding a little oil to increase the smoke point helps. I've yet to
> find a better way too cook a steak in a pan.
>
>
>
A really hot well seasoned cast iron pan. Nothing needed, but a
sprinkle of salt is often used.

Ophelia wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> I'll be heading into town soon for my teeth cleaning appt
>
>All 7 of them?
>==============
>
>Nah you should say 'both of them'?
>
>Not that I am saying you have only two Sheldon ... just a jokey figure of
>speech <g>

I happen to still have all my own teeth except for two wisdoms.
I also have a full head of thick luxurious hair, that my stylist says
even young women would kill for.

Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
pounder into luscious pot roast:
http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:22:00 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 9/27/2016 9:55 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-09-27 11:23 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, "Robert"
>>
>>>> Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his
>>>> mistake and
>>>> got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you 'should of' just
>>>> ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>
>>> Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.
>>
>> You really should not try to correct the grammar of another with a
>> sentence that is rife with grammatical errors.
>>
>I think he was leg-pulling. At least I hope so!

My sentence contains no grammatical errors... 'should of' is
gramatically incorrect... actually a glaring indication that the
poster never made it past the 5th grade.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 05:40:00 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, gravesend10
says...
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:03:22 -0400, "Robert"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Ophelia" wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"Robert" wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"Cheri" wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Robert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>> >>
>> >>>Robert wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You are wrong. So if you look at the chart I link to. You will see his
>> >>>> steak
>> >>>> was medium well not medium rare. Sheldon who has claimed to be a trained
>> >>>> cook from his time in the military should know the difference.
>> >>>
>> >>>LOL This is what you get for posting a pic, Sheldon....nothing but
>> >>>arguments and telling you that you did it wrong.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> He cooked it medium well just the way he likes it. That I have no problem
>> >> with that, What he did wrong was claim it was medium rare. As an
>> >> allegedly trained cook he should know the difference.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Robert
>> >
>> >Again, if it's medium rare at his house, it's medium rare, there is nothing
>> >*wrong* about that! How about you start posting some pics of your food, so
>> >some people here can criticize it as well?
>> >
>> >Cheri
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Cheri I only pointed out his misrepresentation of the steak's doneness. It
>> >was a perfectly cooked medium well steak. Not everyone who read his post
>> >knows the difference. Those are the ones that needed to know the truth. So
>> >yes his post needed corrected and your defending of that error is wrong and
>> >misleading as well.
>> >
>> >Robert
>> >==============
>> >
>> >So, Robert! The truth is it don't matter a damn! We all have our own
>> >tastes and opinions! If you don't like that ....
>> >
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Why don't you take your own advice. I corrected Sheldon for his mistake and
>> >got attacked for it. If you think it didn't matter you 'should of' just
>> >ignored me. but yet you are making an issue of it.
>> >
>> >Robert
>>
>> Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.
>
>In that case: why do you write 'should have'?

Are you really so ignorant... yes you are.

On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
> pounder into luscious pot roast:
> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
>

Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the roast.

"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
...


Um, were you educated you'd have written 'should have'.

Did you ever think you need a new monitor and video card? DUH
It's not possible to discern color accurately on the net, especially
from so small a sample as a tiny snip in meat, plus meat has different
densities so different sections will cook more or less. Perhaps you
also need to have your eyes examined along with your head. Were you
able to see that steak in person you'd definitely know it was cooked
medium rare.
The only reason some find something to bitch about the doneness of a
steak is because they live on cheapo tube steak and are envious. That
steak was cooked perfectly and was delicious... I wasn't about to hack
it up to expose all the interior for a picture, typically I'd not cut
into it for a photo but this time my cat couldn't wait.
I'll be heading into town soon for my teeth cleaning appt and
afterwards will stop into the market, they have top round and eye
round roasts on sale at $3.49/lb, they also have Hillshire kielbasa
B2G3. I actually prefer beef round and kielbasa to porterhouse...
only problem with that steak was there was about 35% waste, a bone and
a lot of fat. The bone got tossed into a hedgerow, was gone the next
morning, some critter injoyed it, the fat got tossed out for the
crows, that was gone in less than five minutes. Since the steak was
cooked in butter the remaining pan drippings were added to the chopped
spinach, excellent flavoring.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets see the steak looked perfect in person. So the picture had poor color
representations. I can accept that as a reason. Until you blamed the color
problem on my monitor and video card. So that picture shows exactly what the
steak looked like in person. Otherwise you would have corrected it before
posting it. Oh and that crack about me living only on cheap meat. Then you
brag about Hillshire Kielbasa. IF you check it has more water then any other
ingredient. Yes it list "Meat Ingredients" being the most but that is only
by combining pork and beef. But the big question is why someone so critical
about pre-ground meat would buy such a product in the first place. OH! You
trust Tyson Foods but not your local butcher. What a joke.

Robert

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:51:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>
>> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
>> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
>> pounder into luscious pot roast:
>> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
>>
>
>Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the roast.

Fully cooked yet still can be sliced. That big round thing is a whole
onion, my wife can't tolerate onion so I leave a few whole for me. I
still can't fathom why she can eat a stew containing whole onions but
not if cut up in the stew... I don't get it but it's not worth an
argument so I contimue to leave my onions whole. She doesn't like
rare beef either, so pot roast is a perfect compromise, I like pot
roast but there's a lot more prep involved than plain old roast beef.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>
>> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
>> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
>> pounder into luscious pot roast:
>> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
>>
>
> Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the
> roast.

LOL and yes it does look good.

Cheri

"Sqwertz" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:32:59 -0400, Robert wrote:

> You don't have a clue what medium rare is. That steak is medium well.

Medium Rare Hangar Steak with no gray, just shades of brown and light
blackening with a pat of butter on top:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sqwertz...ream/lightbox/

Inside showing what proper Medium Rare is supposed to look like.
Sheldon take note:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sqwertz...ream/lightbox/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Steve, Your steak is properly cooked medium rare. It also proves my
monitor and video card are working correctly.

Robert

"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
...

Ophelia wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> I'll be heading into town soon for my teeth cleaning appt
>
>All 7 of them?
>==============
>
>Nah you should say 'both of them'?
>
>Not that I am saying you have only two Sheldon ... just a jokey figure of
>speech <g>

I happen to still have all my own teeth except for two wisdoms.
I also have a full head of thick luxurious hair, that my stylist says
even young women would kill for.

Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
pounder into luscious pot roast:
http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg

---------------

That look really good)



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

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
> pounder into luscious pot roast:
> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
>

Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the roast.

============

I am waiting ... <g>



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

"Brooklyn1" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:51:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>
>> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
>> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
>> pounder into luscious pot roast:
>> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
>>
>
>Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the roast.

Fully cooked yet still can be sliced. That big round thing is a whole
onion, my wife can't tolerate onion so I leave a few whole for me. I
still can't fathom why she can eat a stew containing whole onions but
not if cut up in the stew... I don't get it but it's not worth an
argument so I contimue to leave my onions whole. She doesn't like
rare beef either, so pot roast is a perfect compromise, I like pot
roast but there's a lot more prep involved than plain old roast beef.

===========

She's worth it)



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

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Brooklyn1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:51:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
> >> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
> >> pounder into luscious pot roast:
> >> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
> >>
> >
> >Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the roast.
>
> Fully cooked yet still can be sliced. That big round thing is a whole
> onion, my wife can't tolerate onion so I leave a few whole for me. I
> still can't fathom why she can eat a stew containing whole onions but
> not if cut up in the stew... I don't get it but it's not worth an
> argument so I contimue to leave my onions whole. She doesn't like
> rare beef either, so pot roast is a perfect compromise, I like pot
> roast but there's a lot more prep involved than plain old roast beef.
>
> ===========
>
> She's worth it)

She's worth it? For all we know she might be a total witch and Sheldon
just babies her to keep the peace. heheh

On 9/27/2016 10:15 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:42:49 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> My sentence contains no grammatical errors... 'should of' is
>> gramatically incorrect... actually a glaring indication that the
>> poster never made it past the 5th grade.
>
> Thank you for the two examples of improper usage of ellipses. You
> even managed to spell them wrong!
>
> -sw
>
Wrongly?

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Medium Rare Hangar Steak with no gray, just shades of brown and light
> blackening with a pat of butter on top:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sqwertz...ream/lightbox/

Butter not melting. Did you take too long to take a picture?
What's with the only 3 pea pods cooked. Don't like veggies?
LOL! 3 pea pods....why even bother?

>
> Inside showing what proper Medium Rare is supposed to look like.
> Sheldon take note:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sqwertz...ream/lightbox/

No. Sorry Steve but that looked the same gray as Sheldons steak looked.
His was just a thinner steak.
Medium rare should turn just from "blue" (raw) in the middle to deep
red.
Your steak was also overcooked and grayish, it's just thicker.

Also, I make mine in a cheap RevereWare stainless steel pan.
I use no oil or butter. I bring it up to very hot (where a water droplet
will dance), then I throw it onto the pan. It sure sticks but I leave it
there about a minute or so to sear nicely. Then a fork poked into the
edge will easily unstick it to flip over for 2nd searing. The second
side takes about 2 minutes.

Then I'll turn down the heat to low medium, flip the steak (which is no
longer sticking) and cook it for a few minutes, then flip one more
time. I get medium rare every time.

Next time I cook one, I'll send a finished pic. Red in the middle, not
gray.

On 9/28/2016 6:54 AM, graham wrote:
> On 9/27/2016 10:15 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:42:49 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> My sentence contains no grammatical errors... 'should of' is
>>> gramatically incorrect... actually a glaring indication that the
>>> poster never made it past the 5th grade.
>>
>> Thank you for the two examples of improper usage of ellipses. You
>> even managed to spell them wrong!
>>
>> -sw
>>
> Wrongly?

usage?

Cheri wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
>>> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
>>> pounder into luscious pot roast:
>>> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
>>
>> Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the
>> roast.
>
>LOL and yes it does look good.
>
>Cheri

The secret is to braise in a 29 oz can of crushed tomatoes with a can
of dark beer. Beer mellows the acid in tomatoes, wine enhances the
acid... I'll occasionally drink wine but I never cook with wine. I
don't drink much beer either but I keep it for cooking.
Most mac n' cheese recipes call for bacon but I much prefer kielbasa:
http://www.tablespoon.com/recipes/cr...f-f691959e34e7

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> turned a four
> pounder into luscious pot roast:
> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg

I've mentioned here recently that I've never had a good pot roast.
Waste of beef, imo.
That said, what you cooked there looks like it could
very well change my mind. That looks *SO* good.

Ophelia wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
>>> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
>>> pounder into luscious pot roast:
>>> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
>>
>>Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the roast.
>
>Fully cooked yet still can be sliced. That big round thing is a whole
>onion, my wife can't tolerate onion so I leave a few whole for me. I
>still can't fathom why she can eat a stew containing whole onions but
>not if cut up in the stew... I don't get it but it's not worth an
>argument so I contimue to leave my onions whole. She doesn't like
>rare beef either, so pot roast is a perfect compromise, I like pot
>roast but there's a lot more prep involved than plain old roast beef.
>
>===========
>
>She's worth it)

I aim to please. People who cook just to please themselves should
live alone. It's no biggie to omit onions, I'm not gonna cry over it.

graham wrote:
>
> On 9/27/2016 10:15 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:42:49 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >> My sentence contains no grammatical errors... 'should of' is
> >> gramatically incorrect... actually a glaring indication that the
> >> poster never made it past the 5th grade.
> >
> > Thank you for the two examples of improper usage of ellipses. You
> > even managed to spell them wrong!
> >
> > -sw
> >
> Wrongly?

I use elipses often in my posts. Probably not correctly often. In
addition to "cutting out a continuing sentence" I also use them as
pauses in the conversation. Wrong probably but I don't care. I'm not in
English class getting graded. heheh

"Gary" wrote in message ...

graham wrote:
>
> On 9/27/2016 10:15 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:42:49 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >> My sentence contains no grammatical errors... 'should of' is
> >> gramatically incorrect... actually a glaring indication that the
> >> poster never made it past the 5th grade.
> >
> > Thank you for the two examples of improper usage of ellipses. You
> > even managed to spell them wrong!
> >
> > -sw
> >
> Wrongly?

I use elipses often in my posts. Probably not correctly often. In
addition to "cutting out a continuing sentence" I also use them as
pauses in the conversation. Wrong probably but I don't care. I'm not in
English class getting graded. heheh

=========

Same here


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

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Medium Rare Hangar Steak with no gray, just shades of brown and light
> blackening with a pat of butter on top:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sqwertz...ream/lightbox/

Butter not melting. Did you take too long to take a picture?
What's with the only 3 pea pods cooked. Don't like veggies?
LOL! 3 pea pods....why even bother?

>
> Inside showing what proper Medium Rare is supposed to look like.
> Sheldon take note:
>
>

No. Sorry Steve but that looked the same gray as Sheldons steak looked.
His was just a thinner steak.
Medium rare should turn just from "blue" (raw) in the middle to deep
red.
Your steak was also overcooked and grayish, it's just thicker.

Also, I make mine in a cheap RevereWare stainless steel pan.
I use no oil or butter. I bring it up to very hot (where a water droplet
will dance), then I throw it onto the pan. It sure sticks but I leave it
there about a minute or so to sear nicely. Then a fork poked into the
edge will easily unstick it to flip over for 2nd searing. The second
side takes about 2 minutes.

Then I'll turn down the heat to low medium, flip the steak (which is no
longer sticking) and cook it for a few minutes, then flip one more
time. I get medium rare every time.

Next time I cook one, I'll send a finished pic. Red in the middle, not
gray.

=============

Don't you just love when the self proclaimed experts try to prove you wrong
.... note 'try' <g>

I'll stick with Sheldon's)


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

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Brooklyn1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:51:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 9/27/2016 9:33 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Today I went into town for my teeth cleaning and afterwards bought a
> >> couple of top round roasts on sale, froze one and turned a four
> >> pounder into luscious pot roast:
> >> http://i66.tinypic.com/erllk3.jpg
> >>
> >
> >Looks good. At least there will be no arguing about doneness of the
> >roast.
>
> Fully cooked yet still can be sliced. That big round thing is a whole
> onion, my wife can't tolerate onion so I leave a few whole for me. I
> still can't fathom why she can eat a stew containing whole onions but
> not if cut up in the stew... I don't get it but it's not worth an
> argument so I contimue to leave my onions whole. She doesn't like
> rare beef either, so pot roast is a perfect compromise, I like pot
> roast but there's a lot more prep involved than plain old roast beef.
>
> ===========
>
> She's worth it)

She's worth it? For all we know she might be a total witch and Sheldon
just babies her to keep the peace. heheh

============

Don't be daft! If she was a witch he would not be cooking her preferences)



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