I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.

I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go
back and get one of the smaller butts too?

-Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
>I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
>before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go back
> and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> -Bob

Go back and get a smaller butt too.

Cheri

On Nov 16, 6:10*pm, zxcvbob > wrote:
> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. *I've cooked hams
> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> Aldi. *It was the largest half-ham in the case. *That ought to serve
> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? *Or should I go
> back and get one of the smaller butts too?

You're not going to get a lot of edible meat off the shank half,
according to UMinnesota extension. What will you do if everyone wants
ham? Here's the money quote:

"The number of servings per pound varies according to the ratio of
lean to fat and bone and what you consider an adequate serving. Fat,
noncanned hams with all of the bone present ***i.e, your shank half***
may yield only one serving per pound for a family with a hearty
appetite. On the other hand, a well-trimmed, boneless ham easily will
yield three servings per pound for a family with a not-so-hearty
appetite. "

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
>before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
>I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
>Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
>30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go
>back and get one of the smaller butts too?

You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
for pea soup. I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck...
you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
it. For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. I've served thousands
of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. Tell the truth,
you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. Even a spiral cut ham
would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. Tie the
ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). When cooked let it
cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. If you don't
have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
too.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
> wrote:
>
>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>>
>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
>> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go
>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
> figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
> because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
> heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
> for pea soup. I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck...
> you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
> whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
> it. For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
> to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. I've served thousands
> of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. Tell the truth,
> you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. Even a spiral cut ham
> would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
> remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. Tie the
> ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). When cooked let it
> cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
> forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. If you don't
> have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
> your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
> too.


Aldi didn't have any whole hams, so I got the biggest half I could find
which happened to be a shank. Alton Brown recommends using a shank but
I don't know why, maybe it tastes better because of the bone, or so you
have a nice bone for making soup afterwards...

And it was 20¢ cheaper ;-) (OK, you got me)

Maybe I ought to go back and get a large butt to go with it. I'll cut
it all up at home and take it mostly already sliced and a few hunks, and
reheat it there.

Won't the ham bone out a lot easier after it's cooked?

I'm going to stud it with cloves and glaze with brown sugar and yellow
hotdog mustard.

Thanks,
Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
>I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
>before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go back
> and get one of the smaller butts too?

I suppose it would depend on what else is being served with it and how well
they like ham. I'm not sure that would be enough for 30 people. I've found
the more variety there is, the more people will eat. I don't know why that
is.

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go
> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> -Bob

Considering there'll be other food, you oughtta be yust fine.
--
Barb,
http://web.me.com/barbschaller September 5, 2011

"Julie Bove" <> I suppose it would depend on what else is being served with
it and how well
> they like ham. I'm not sure that would be enough for 30 people. I've
> found the more variety there is, the more people will eat. I don't know
> why that is.
>
We ought to carve that in stone somewhere, Julie or at least hang a note on
the refrigerator door. Indeed. The more variety there is, the more people
will eat. An absolute fact. Maybe we should bring that up in group - except
I can't go anymore since I spent all my $s on pecans. Polly

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
>>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>>>
>>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
>>> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
>>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go
>>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>>
>> You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
>> figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
>> because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
>> heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
>> for pea soup. I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck...
>> you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
>> whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
>> it. For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
>> to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. I've served thousands
>> of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. Tell the truth,
>> you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. Even a spiral cut ham
>> would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
>> remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. Tie the
>> ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). When cooked let it
>> cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
>> forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. If you don't
>> have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
>> your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
>> too.
>
>
> Aldi didn't have any whole hams, so I got the biggest half I could find
> which happened to be a shank. Alton Brown recommends using a shank but I
> don't know why, maybe it tastes better because of the bone, or so you have
> a nice bone for making soup afterwards...
>
> And it was 20¢ cheaper ;-) (OK, you got me)
>
> Maybe I ought to go back and get a large butt to go with it. I'll cut it
> all up at home and take it mostly already sliced and a few hunks, and
> reheat it there.
>
> Won't the ham bone out a lot easier after it's cooked?
>
> I'm going to stud it with cloves and glaze with brown sugar and yellow
> hotdog mustard.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob


I'd go with dijon or brown mustard rather than yellow mustard. (And yes,
the bone will be easier to remove after it's cooked and will be a wonderful
addition to bean soup!) Never having served ham for 30 people I have no
idea what size you should have bought. But they aren't expecting you to
carry the entire meal, are they? Surely there *will* be someone bringing a
turkey and others bringing sides. I wouldn't rush out and buy more ham.
JMHO

Jill

go back and get another big chunck, if it tastes good the people who aren't
fond of turkey will demolish it, Lee
"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
>I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
>before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go back
> and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> -Bob

On Nov 17, 4:12*am, "Storrmmee" > wrote:
> go back and get another big chunck, if it tastes good the people who aren't
> fond of turkey will demolish it, Lee

This is my fear, that everybody will suddenly want ham instead of
turkey.

In article
>,
spamtrap1888 > wrote:

> On Nov 17, 4:12*am, "Storrmmee" > wrote:
> > go back and get another big chunck, if it tastes good the people who aren't
> > fond of turkey will demolish it, Lee
>
> This is my fear, that everybody will suddenly want ham instead of
> turkey.

You can fool people by slicing the ham extra thin. That's how they get
you with deli cuts. I'd buy an extra ham though and take a sharp knife.

leo

Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> In article
> >,
> spamtrap1888 > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 17, 4:12 am, "Storrmmee" > wrote:
>>> go back and get another big chunck, if it tastes good the people who aren't
>>> fond of turkey will demolish it, Lee
>> This is my fear, that everybody will suddenly want ham instead of
>> turkey.
>
> You can fool people by slicing the ham extra thin. That's how they get
> you with deli cuts. I'd buy an extra ham though and take a sharp knife.
>
> leo


I bought another smaller ham shank today. I'm pretty sure the one big
one was enough, but I'd rather have too much than too little.

-Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...

> I bought another smaller ham shank today. I'm pretty sure the one big one
> was enough, but I'd rather have too much than too little.
>
> -Bob

My thinking too.

Cheri

On Nov 17, 11:12*am, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 04:20:41 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
> > >>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. *I've cooked hams
> > >>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> > >>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> > >>> Aldi. *It was the largest half-ham in the case. *That ought to serve
> > >>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? *Or should I go
> > >>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> > >> You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
> > >> figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
> > >> because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
> > >> heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
> > >> for pea soup. *I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck...
> > >> you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
> > >> whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
> > >> it. *For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
> > >> to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. *I've served thousands
> > >> of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. *Tell the truth,
> > >> you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. *Even a spiral cut ham
> > >> would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
> > >> remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. *Tie the
> > >> ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). *When cooked let it
> > >> cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
> > >> forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. *If you don't
> > >> have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
> > >> your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
> > >> too.
>
> > > Aldi didn't have any whole hams, so I got the biggest half I could find
> > > which happened to be a shank. *Alton Brown recommends using a shank but I
> > > don't know why, maybe it tastes better because of the bone, or so you have
> > > a nice bone for making soup afterwards...
>
> > > And it was 20¢ cheaper ;-) *(OK, you got me)
>
> > > Maybe I ought to go back and get a large butt to go with it. *I'll cut it
> > > all up at home and take it mostly already sliced and a few hunks, and
> > > reheat it there.
>
> > > Won't the ham bone out a lot easier after it's cooked?
>
> > > I'm going to stud it with cloves and glaze with brown sugar and yellow
> > > hotdog mustard.
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bob
>
> > I'd go with dijon or brown mustard rather than yellow mustard. *(And yes,
> > the bone will be easier to remove after it's cooked and will be a wonderful
> > addition to bean soup!) *Never having served ham for 30 people I have no
> > idea what size you should have bought. *But they aren't expecting you to
> > carry the entire meal, are they? *Surely there *will* be someone bringing a
> > turkey and others bringing sides. *I wouldn't rush out and buy more ham.
> > JMHO
>
> Other than disagreeing with your advice to switch from yellow to brown
> mustard, you're right on. *There's no way a 10 lb ham will only yield
> 4 lbs of meat - the bone can't be any more than one pound and there
> will be little shrinkage unless it's over cooked.

I finally found this. The USDA says you may be able to eke out 30
servings from 10 lbs of bone-in ham. They don't talk about shank vs.
butt:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/ham/#9

Quantity to Buy
When buying a ham, estimate the size needed according to the number of
servings the type of ham should yield:

1/4 - 1/3 lb. per serving of boneless ham
1/3 - 1/2 lb. of meat per serving of bone-in ham

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:32:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

> I bought another smaller ham shank today. I'm pretty sure the one big
> one was enough, but I'd rather have too much than too little.

You can send the leftovers my way.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:37:08 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>On Nov 17, 11:12*am, sf > wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 04:20:41 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>> wrote:
>> > "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> > >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>> > >>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. *I've cooked hams
>> > >>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>>
>> > >>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
>> > >>> Aldi. *It was the largest half-ham in the case. *That ought to serve
>> > >>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? *Or should I go
>> > >>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>>
>> > >> You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
>> > >> figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
>> > >> because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
>> > >> heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
>> > >> for pea soup. *I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck...
>> > >> you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
>> > >> whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
>> > >> it. *For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
>> > >> to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. *I've served thousands
>> > >> of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. *Tell the truth,
>> > >> you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. *Even a spiral cut ham
>> > >> would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
>> > >> remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. *Tie the
>> > >> ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). *When cooked let it
>> > >> cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
>> > >> forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. *If you don't
>> > >> have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
>> > >> your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
>> > >> too.
>>
>> > > Aldi didn't have any whole hams, so I got the biggest half I could find
>> > > which happened to be a shank. *Alton Brown recommends using a shank but I
>> > > don't know why, maybe it tastes better because of the bone, or so you have
>> > > a nice bone for making soup afterwards...
>>
>> > > And it was 20¢ cheaper ;-) *(OK, you got me)
>>
>> > > Maybe I ought to go back and get a large butt to go with it. *I'll cut it
>> > > all up at home and take it mostly already sliced and a few hunks, and
>> > > reheat it there.
>>
>> > > Won't the ham bone out a lot easier after it's cooked?
>>
>> > > I'm going to stud it with cloves and glaze with brown sugar and yellow
>> > > hotdog mustard.
>>
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Bob
>>
>> > I'd go with dijon or brown mustard rather than yellow mustard. *(And yes,
>> > the bone will be easier to remove after it's cooked and will be a wonderful
>> > addition to bean soup!) *Never having served ham for 30 people I have no
>> > idea what size you should have bought. *But they aren't expecting you to
>> > carry the entire meal, are they? *Surely there *will* be someone bringing a
>> > turkey and others bringing sides. *I wouldn't rush out and buy more ham.
>> > JMHO
>>
>> Other than disagreeing with your advice to switch from yellow to brown
>> mustard, you're right on. *There's no way a 10 lb ham will only yield
>> 4 lbs of meat - the bone can't be any more than one pound and there
>> will be little shrinkage unless it's over cooked.
>
>I finally found this. The USDA says you may be able to eke out 30
>servings from 10 lbs of bone-in ham. They don't talk about shank vs.
>butt:
>
>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/ham/#9
>
>Quantity to Buy
>When buying a ham, estimate the size needed according to the number of
>servings the type of ham should yield:
>
> 1/4 - 1/3 lb. per serving of boneless ham
> 1/3 - 1/2 lb. of meat per serving of bone-in ham

No where does that site say how much edible meat on a 10 lb bone in
ham... and by those numbers no ten pound bone in ham will feed thirty
even if they eat the bone.

On Nov 18, 6:44*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:37:08 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 17, 11:12*am, sf > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 04:20:41 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> >> wrote:
> >> > "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >> > >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> > >>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
> >> > >>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. *I've cooked hams
> >> > >>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> >> > >>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> >> > >>> Aldi. *It was the largest half-ham in the case. *That ought to serve
> >> > >>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? *Or should I go
> >> > >>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> >> > >> You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
> >> > >> figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
> >> > >> because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
> >> > >> heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
> >> > >> for pea soup. *I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck....
> >> > >> you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
> >> > >> whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
> >> > >> it. *For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
> >> > >> to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. *I've served thousands
> >> > >> of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. *Tell the truth,
> >> > >> you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. *Even a spiral cut ham
> >> > >> would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
> >> > >> remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. *Tie the
> >> > >> ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). *When cooked let it
> >> > >> cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
> >> > >> forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. *If you don't
> >> > >> have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
> >> > >> your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
> >> > >> too.
>
> >> > > Aldi didn't have any whole hams, so I got the biggest half I could find
> >> > > which happened to be a shank. *Alton Brown recommends using a shank but I
> >> > > don't know why, maybe it tastes better because of the bone, or so you have
> >> > > a nice bone for making soup afterwards...
>
> >> > > And it was 20¢ cheaper ;-) *(OK, you got me)
>
> >> > > Maybe I ought to go back and get a large butt to go with it. *I'll cut it
> >> > > all up at home and take it mostly already sliced and a few hunks, and
> >> > > reheat it there.
>
> >> > > Won't the ham bone out a lot easier after it's cooked?
>
> >> > > I'm going to stud it with cloves and glaze with brown sugar and yellow
> >> > > hotdog mustard.
>
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Bob
>
> >> > I'd go with dijon or brown mustard rather than yellow mustard. *(And yes,
> >> > the bone will be easier to remove after it's cooked and will be a wonderful
> >> > addition to bean soup!) *Never having served ham for 30 people I have no
> >> > idea what size you should have bought. *But they aren't expecting you to
> >> > carry the entire meal, are they? *Surely there *will* be someone bringing a
> >> > turkey and others bringing sides. *I wouldn't rush out and buy more ham.
> >> > JMHO
>
> >> Other than disagreeing with your advice to switch from yellow to brown
> >> mustard, you're right on. *There's no way a 10 lb ham will only yield
> >> 4 lbs of meat - the bone can't be any more than one pound and there
> >> will be little shrinkage unless it's over cooked.
>
> >I finally found this. The USDA says you may be able to eke out 30
> >servings from 10 lbs of bone-in ham. They don't talk about shank vs.
> >butt:
>
> >http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/ham/#9
>
> >Quantity to Buy
> >When buying a ham, estimate the size needed according to the number of
> >servings the type of ham should yield:
>
> > * *1/4 - 1/3 lb. per serving of boneless ham
> > * *1/3 - 1/2 lb. of meat per serving of bone-in ham
>
> No where does that site say how much edible meat on a 10 lb bone in
> ham... and by those numbers no ten pound bone in ham will feed thirty
> even if they eat the bone.

Time to utilize those dusty, rusty, reasoning powers.

The USDA is providing advice on how big a ham to buy.

They quote two numbers, one for boneless ham, a larger one for bone-in
ham.

Why are these numbers different? Will seeing the bone make the diners
extra-hungry, so that they will want to eat more ham?

No, presumably each serving will be comparable. The obvious (to most)
interpretation is that one must buy a larger bone-in ham than a
boneless ham to yield the same amount of edible meat.

To provide 30 servings of ham from a boneless ham, you would buy a 7.5
to 10 lb ham.

To provide 30 servings of ham from a bone-in ham, you would buy a
10-15 lb ham.

Capice?

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:25:28 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>On Nov 18, 6:44*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:37:08 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Nov 17, 11:12*am, sf > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 04:20:41 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > > Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> >> > >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
>> >> > >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>> >> > >>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. *I've cooked hams
>> >> > >>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>>
>> >> > >>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
>> >> > >>> Aldi. *It was the largest half-ham in the case. *That ought to serve
>> >> > >>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? *Or should I go
>> >> > >>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>>
>> >> > >> You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
>> >> > >> figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
>> >> > >> because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
>> >> > >> heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
>> >> > >> for pea soup. *I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck...
>> >> > >> you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
>> >> > >> whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
>> >> > >> it. *For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
>> >> > >> to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. *I've served thousands
>> >> > >> of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. *Tell the truth,
>> >> > >> you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. *Even a spiral cut ham
>> >> > >> would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
>> >> > >> remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. *Tie the
>> >> > >> ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). *When cooked let it
>> >> > >> cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
>> >> > >> forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. *If you don't
>> >> > >> have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
>> >> > >> your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
>> >> > >> too.
>>
>> >> > > Aldi didn't have any whole hams, so I got the biggest half I could find
>> >> > > which happened to be a shank. *Alton Brown recommends using a shank but I
>> >> > > don't know why, maybe it tastes better because of the bone, or so you have
>> >> > > a nice bone for making soup afterwards...
>>
>> >> > > And it was 20¢ cheaper ;-) *(OK, you got me)
>>
>> >> > > Maybe I ought to go back and get a large butt to go with it. *I'll cut it
>> >> > > all up at home and take it mostly already sliced and a few hunks, and
>> >> > > reheat it there.
>>
>> >> > > Won't the ham bone out a lot easier after it's cooked?
>>
>> >> > > I'm going to stud it with cloves and glaze with brown sugar and yellow
>> >> > > hotdog mustard.
>>
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Bob
>>
>> >> > I'd go with dijon or brown mustard rather than yellow mustard. *(And yes,
>> >> > the bone will be easier to remove after it's cooked and will be a wonderful
>> >> > addition to bean soup!) *Never having served ham for 30 people I have no
>> >> > idea what size you should have bought. *But they aren't expecting you to
>> >> > carry the entire meal, are they? *Surely there *will* be someone bringing a
>> >> > turkey and others bringing sides. *I wouldn't rush out and buy more ham.
>> >> > JMHO
>>
>> >> Other than disagreeing with your advice to switch from yellow to brown
>> >> mustard, you're right on. *There's no way a 10 lb ham will only yield
>> >> 4 lbs of meat - the bone can't be any more than one pound and there
>> >> will be little shrinkage unless it's over cooked.
>>
>> >I finally found this. The USDA says you may be able to eke out 30
>> >servings from 10 lbs of bone-in ham. They don't talk about shank vs.
>> >butt:
>>
>> >http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/ham/#9
>>
>> >Quantity to Buy
>> >When buying a ham, estimate the size needed according to the number of
>> >servings the type of ham should yield:
>>
>> > * *1/4 - 1/3 lb. per serving of boneless ham
>> > * *1/3 - 1/2 lb. of meat per serving of bone-in ham
>>
>> No where does that site say how much edible meat on a 10 lb bone in
>> ham... and by those numbers no ten pound bone in ham will feed thirty
>> even if they eat the bone.
>
>Time to utilize those dusty, rusty, reasoning powers.
>
>The USDA is providing advice on how big a ham to buy.
>
>They quote two numbers, one for boneless ham, a larger one for bone-in
>ham.
>
>Why are these numbers different? Will seeing the bone make the diners
>extra-hungry, so that they will want to eat more ham?
>
>No, presumably each serving will be comparable. The obvious (to most)
>interpretation is that one must buy a larger bone-in ham than a
>boneless ham to yield the same amount of edible meat.
>
>To provide 30 servings of ham from a boneless ham, you would buy a 7.5
>to 10 lb ham.
>
>To provide 30 servings of ham from a bone-in ham, you would buy a
>10-15 lb ham.
>
>Capice?

What I know now with certainty is that you never ever cooked anything.

On Nov 16, 9:10*pm, zxcvbob > wrote:
> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. *I've cooked hams
> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> Aldi. *It was the largest half-ham in the case. *That ought to serve
> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? *Or should I go
> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> -Bob

If it's not the only meat, it could probably serve 100. Haw haw. I
despise, loathe and abhor ham, as you can probably deduce.
I attended a shower where turkey and ham was provided. I didn't see
anyone take a smidgen of the ham.

I'd be on the phone and finding out about 'only meat'.

On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:

>
> If it's not the only meat, it could probably serve 100. Haw haw. I
> despise, loathe and abhor ham, as you can probably deduce.
> I attended a shower where turkey and ham was provided. I didn't see
> anyone take a smidgen of the ham.
>


I might try the ham.... just to see if it tastes any different. I never
was crazy about it. In the 38 years I have been married, my wife and I
have never cooked and served a ham, though I have bought ham steaks
maybe 4-5 times.

On Nov 18, 2:52*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:25:28 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 6:44*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:37:08 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Nov 17, 11:12*am, sf > wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 04:20:41 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > > Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >> >> > >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:34 -0600, zxcvbob >
> >> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
> >> >> > >>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. *I've cooked hams
> >> >> > >>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> >> >> > >>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> >> >> > >>> Aldi. *It was the largest half-ham in the case. *That ought to serve
> >> >> > >>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? *Or should I go
> >> >> > >>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> >> >> > >> You'll be shocked to know that a shank half yields little actual meat,
> >> >> > >> figure on no more than four pounds of edible meat, probably less
> >> >> > >> because there'll be a lot of shrinkage with a water added ham when
> >> >> > >> heated, and a lot will be difficult to carve so will be more suitable
> >> >> > >> for pea soup. *I would never serve a bone-in ham at a pot luck...
> >> >> > >> you'll need someone that knows how to carve that ham on station the
> >> >> > >> whole time... you can't have thirty filthy handed imbeciles hacking at
> >> >> > >> it. *For thirty I would have purchased a whole ham and boned it prior
> >> >> > >> to cooking it... then slice it onto a platter. *I've served thousands
> >> >> > >> of those hams, I can bone a ham in under a minute. *Tell the truth,
> >> >> > >> you bought the shank half to save 15¢ a pound. *Even a spiral cut ham
> >> >> > >> would need someone on station to serve... next time buy a whole ham;
> >> >> > >> remove the aitch bone, slit along the femur and bone it out. *Tie the
> >> >> > >> ham and cook it (you can stuff it if you like). *When cooked let it
> >> >> > >> cool for 15 minutes and slice it onto a platter for service... don't
> >> >> > >> forget to garnish, and serve a big tub of honey mustard. *If you don't
> >> >> > >> have cooking facilities on site you can prepare it earlier, chill in
> >> >> > >> your fridge and slice it just prior to service... cold ham is good
> >> >> > >> too.
>
> >> >> > > Aldi didn't have any whole hams, so I got the biggest half I could find
> >> >> > > which happened to be a shank. *Alton Brown recommends using a shank but I
> >> >> > > don't know why, maybe it tastes better because of the bone, or so you have
> >> >> > > a nice bone for making soup afterwards...
>
> >> >> > > And it was 20¢ cheaper ;-) *(OK, you got me)
>
> >> >> > > Maybe I ought to go back and get a large butt to go with it. *I'll cut it
> >> >> > > all up at home and take it mostly already sliced and a few hunks, and
> >> >> > > reheat it there.
>
> >> >> > > Won't the ham bone out a lot easier after it's cooked?
>
> >> >> > > I'm going to stud it with cloves and glaze with brown sugar and yellow
> >> >> > > hotdog mustard.
>
> >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > Bob
>
> >> >> > I'd go with dijon or brown mustard rather than yellow mustard. *(And yes,
> >> >> > the bone will be easier to remove after it's cooked and will be a wonderful
> >> >> > addition to bean soup!) *Never having served ham for 30 people I have no
> >> >> > idea what size you should have bought. *But they aren't expecting you to
> >> >> > carry the entire meal, are they? *Surely there *will* be someone bringing a
> >> >> > turkey and others bringing sides. *I wouldn't rush out and buy more ham.
> >> >> > JMHO
>
> >> >> Other than disagreeing with your advice to switch from yellow to brown
> >> >> mustard, you're right on. *There's no way a 10 lb ham will only yield
> >> >> 4 lbs of meat - the bone can't be any more than one pound and there
> >> >> will be little shrinkage unless it's over cooked.
>
> >> >I finally found this. The USDA says you may be able to eke out 30
> >> >servings from 10 lbs of bone-in ham. They don't talk about shank vs.
> >> >butt:
>
> >> >http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/ham/#9
>
> >> >Quantity to Buy
> >> >When buying a ham, estimate the size needed according to the number of
> >> >servings the type of ham should yield:
>
> >> > * *1/4 - 1/3 lb. per serving of boneless ham
> >> > * *1/3 - 1/2 lb. of meat per serving of bone-in ham
>
> >> No where does that site say how much edible meat on a 10 lb bone in
> >> ham... and by those numbers no ten pound bone in ham will feed thirty
> >> even if they eat the bone.
>
> >Time to utilize those dusty, rusty, reasoning powers.
>
> >The USDA is providing advice on how big a ham to buy.
>
> >They quote two numbers, one for boneless ham, a larger one for bone-in
> >ham.
>
> >Why are these numbers different? Will seeing the bone make the diners
> >extra-hungry, so that they will want to eat more ham?
>
> >No, presumably each serving will be comparable. The obvious (to most)
> >interpretation is that one must buy a larger bone-in ham than a
> >boneless ham to yield the same amount of edible meat.
>
> >To provide 30 servings of ham from a boneless ham, you would buy a 7.5
> >to 10 lb ham.
>
> >To provide 30 servings of ham from a bone-in ham, you would buy a
> >10-15 lb ham.
>
> >Capice?
>
> What I know now with certainty is that you never ever cooked anything.

I confess, never a meat course for 30 people.

That's why I hate pot lucks. Everyone brings something that can
provide 30 servings, so you end up with 900 servings and thus a lot of
leftovers. But the really tasty stuff goes fast (e.g. egg rolls).

On 11/18/2011 6:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
> If it's not the only meat, it could probably serve 100. Haw haw. I
> despise, loathe and abhor ham, as you can probably deduce.


Really? Ham is one of my favorites. Mostly in sandwiches of various
kinds... and with breakfast.

Had a ham and cheese sandwich for supper last night.

George L

sf wrote:
>>
> Other than disagreeing with your advice to switch from yellow to brown
> mustard, you're right on. There's no way a 10 lb ham will only yield
> 4 lbs of meat - the bone can't be any more than one pound and there
> will be little shrinkage unless it's over cooked. It's precooked, so
> all he needs to do is warm it up enough to set the glaze. It'll be
> served at room temperature anyway so he shouldn't knock himself out
> fussing over it. If he's concerned about it not being enough, then he
> should call to ask how many other people are bringing what and if they
> have any flakes in the crowd. There are always some who are known not
> to follow through on promises, but maybe they've figured that in. So
> after he talks to the organizers, he can decide if he wants to buy
> more ham or not. As far as that suggestion to buy a whole ham and
> carve it on the spot, I say ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREEKING MIND? Do the
> opposite and buy a spiral cut ham, so all you need to do is slit it
> lengthwise and pile serving sized slices on a serving platter. Go for
> as little fussing as humanly possible.
>

The ham is in the roaster @ 300°F, and it's obvious I bought *way* too
much. Hopefully we'll have 50 turkey-haters show up instead of the
usual 30 omnivores, so most of it gets eaten. :-)

I was going to put them face-down on a rack, but they were too tall to
put the lid on, so I tied them face-to-face with butchers twine and made
one big 18.5# roast out of it. That's bigger than it sounds; it pretty
much fills the roaster. In about 6 or 8 hours I'll take it out,
transfer to a couple of pyrex pans, coat with mustard, brown sugar, and
gingersnap crumbs, and put them uncovered in a hot oven for a while to
brown.

Tomorrow I'll wrap one of the bones up for the freezer and pressure cook
the other one to make broth for a pot of Great Northern beans (small
white) soup.

-Bob

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:04:14 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>

Is everyone getting all the posts they think they should be getting?
For instance, I don't have the message Dave replied to above.

I know APN has problems currently, but they're talking about a header
synchronization issue that causes message *bodies* to be temporarily
unavailable. Instead I'm losing or not getting the entire thing -
including the subject title in my TOC. Whatever it is even causes
messages that I've read but have not deleted manually to disappear.

APN thinks it's an issue that is only affecting a small number of
groups at this time, so let your ISP know if you're having problems
too... especially if your ISP is APN.

Sincerely,
notjohn

On 19/11/2011 1:07 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:04:14 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>
>
> Is everyone getting all the posts they think they should be getting?
> For instance, I don't have the message Dave replied to above.
>
> I know APN has problems currently, but they're talking about a header
> synchronization issue that causes message *bodies* to be temporarily
> unavailable. Instead I'm losing or not getting the entire thing -
> including the subject title in my TOC. Whatever it is even causes
> messages that I've read but have not deleted manually to disappear.
>
> APN thinks it's an issue that is only affecting a small number of
> groups at this time, so let your ISP know if you're having problems
> too... especially if your ISP is APN.
>

I obviously got Kalmia's post ;-) but I have been getting headers with
messages that aren't available at the moment. If I bounce back and forth
between messages they open up for me. I thought maybe it was my
computer or that I need to compress my folders.

On Nov 19, 10:17*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 19/11/2011 1:07 PM, sf wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:04:14 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > *wrote:
>
> >> On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>
> > Is everyone getting all the posts they think they should be getting?
> > For instance, I don't have the message Dave replied to above.
>
> > I know APN has problems currently, but they're talking about a header
> > synchronization issue that causes message *bodies* to be temporarily
> > unavailable. *Instead I'm losing or not getting the entire thing -
> > including the subject title in my TOC. *Whatever it is even causes
> > messages that I've read but have not deleted manually to disappear.
>
> > APN thinks it's an issue that is only affecting a small number of
> > groups at this time, so let your ISP know if you're having problems
> > too... especially if your ISP is APN.
>
> I obviously got Kalmia's post ;-) * but I have been getting headers with
> messages that aren't available at the moment. If I bounce back and forth
> between messages they open up for me. *I thought maybe it was my
> computer or that I need to compress my folders.

I know you guys laugh at Google Groups...and they do suck to a
degree....but at least I can read everyone's messages and I rarely
have any problems at all.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:06:23 -0600, George Leppla
> wrote:

>On 11/18/2011 6:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>> If it's not the only meat, it could probably serve 100. Haw haw. I
>> despise, loathe and abhor ham, as you can probably deduce.
>
>
>Really? Ham is one of my favorites. Mostly in sandwiches of various
>kinds... and with breakfast.
>
>Had a ham and cheese sandwich for supper last night.

Ham n' cheese is the most popular deli sandwich. In several regions
ham is the most popular breakfast meat.

When feeding a help oneself crowd ham goes faster than all other meats
combined. Most people like ham a lot and it's one of the least messy
meats to handle making it even more popular. Most folks don't prepare
a ham at home so when available at a party they take advantage. Some
people don't like ham so they will take none, however those who do
like ham, and a most do, they will load up with as much as they dare
without appearing too piggish, and some won't care what other's think.
A ten pound bone in shank half will barely be enough at a pot luck for
ten adults. Of course one needs to know their crowd, if many are on
diets or if many are gluttons... but the average adult at a help
oneself party will consume at least 1/2 pound of ham, many will take
double and even triple portions. Ham is unique among party meats in
that it contains a lot of fat but its fat is very easy for guests to
trim away and that's what they do, so what at first looks like a large
serving is not, folks trim away about 1/4 of what they take, even the
gluttons don't eat the fat, in fact the big eaters are very adept at
trimming away fat, permits them to eat more. Truth is that there is
no scientific study with data for how much one actually consumes at a
help oneself situation... if asked most folks lie, and many really
don't know because they are very poor at judging quantities. If you
check the various major ham producer sites they are vary vague as to
what constitutes a serving, they talk portions, a very different
thing, a portion is about nutritional content, not what people
actually consume. And they are very vague about what size ham to buy
to feed so many people, and none offer actual edible yield... they
only allude, with a lot of smoke and mirrors. Typically they tend to
be PC about how much to feed. But I happen to know from personal
experience how much ham to serve so many people... a 10 pound bone-in
shank half will yield no more than 4 pounds of edible meat (we're not
talking gnawing the bone and around the gristle here), and a good
amount of the meat is passed by because of its appearance. I'll let
you do the math, but I know from vast personal experience that a
person who is a ham lover will serve themselves two, even three
"portions", many will easily consume a pound or more. The only way
they will consume less is if there are other foods present that they
also like to pig out on, but the meat eaters will zero in on the ham.
People who like ham will choose it over roast beef every time...
naturally we're assuming it's a good ham and properly prepared same as
it's a good roast beef and properly prepared... roast beef can
certainly be lousy. In the US most folks serve a roast turkey for
Thanksgiving because it's traditional but many also serve a ham. When
available most people prefer the ham over the turkey. And people who
are into pot lucks are also into eating... a Pot Luck is just another
name for a Buffet/All You Can Eat. People also tend to eat/drink more
at larger parties, they take more because the crowd affords them
anonymity, they get lost in a crowd, guests will eat/drink more freely
when in a group of 30 than in a group of 10... the larger the crowd
the more likely there'll be a feeding frenzy.

On 11/19/2011 8:30 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
>
> I know you guys laugh at Google Groups...and they do suck to a
> degree....but at least I can read everyone's messages and I rarely
> have any problems at all.
>
>

I've been getting lags with most posts and occasionally, time-out errors
accompanied with a notice saying that the message has not been sent
which, oddly enough, may or may not be true. With a GG post I get a
confirmation that my post was successful which has always been reliable.

I've upgraded my iPad to iOS 5 which has a split keyboard which makes
entry easier - I like it a lot. My apps are backed up on the iCloud
server so I guess you could say that this new OS upgrade pretty much
introduces the brave new world of remote storage to the masses.
Actually, it's nothing short of a revolution for the computer. A quiet
one at that.

My friend got his Kindle Fire yesterday. It looks like an attractive and
well built device. I was impressed at what you can get for $200. The
question that remains to be seen is if this can be more than a portable
retail outlet for Amazon products.

On 19/11/2011 1:30 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
.. especially if your ISP is APN.
>>
>> I obviously got Kalmia's post ;-) but I have been getting headers with
>> messages that aren't available at the moment. If I bounce back and forth
>> between messages they open up for me. I thought maybe it was my
>> computer or that I need to compress my folders.
>
> I know you guys laugh at Google Groups...and they do suck to a
> degree....but at least I can read everyone's messages and I rarely
> have any problems at all.

I don't laugh at Google Groups. My only problem is the plethora of
idiots with gmail.com addresses who pop in here to spam or make idiotic
comments. I have, on occasion, been sufficiently fed up with the
nonsense that I filtered out .gmail, relenting because there are a
couple of interesting people using them. I don't run into a lot of
troubles, and certainly not as many as I read about here from google
group users.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:07:24 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

> The ham is in the roaster @ 300°F, and it's obvious I bought *way* too
> much.

The good news it *I* love ham, so you can always invite me over for
leftovers. hahaha

--

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:17:48 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 19/11/2011 1:07 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:04:14 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Is everyone getting all the posts they think they should be getting?
>> For instance, I don't have the message Dave replied to above.
>>
>> I know APN has problems currently, but they're talking about a header
>> synchronization issue that causes message *bodies* to be temporarily
>> unavailable. Instead I'm losing or not getting the entire thing -
>> including the subject title in my TOC. Whatever it is even causes
>> messages that I've read but have not deleted manually to disappear.
>>
>> APN thinks it's an issue that is only affecting a small number of
>> groups at this time, so let your ISP know if you're having problems
>> too... especially if your ISP is APN.
>>
>
>I obviously got Kalmia's post ;-) but I have been getting headers with
>messages that aren't available at the moment. If I bounce back and forth
>between messages they open up for me. I thought maybe it was my
>computer or that I need to compress my folders.

Llorent doesn't know the difference between and isp and a news
provider.

I use APN also and is was goofy for me yesterday too. To add to the
problem AT&T was acting up and finally went down. I called and the
robot told me they knew there was a problem and they were working on
it. We went shopping and it was back on when we got back.

APN is fine now but they've had a glitch or two over the last few
months. I'm thinking of trying usenet monster for a month and see how
that works. I was always happy with them but switched to APN for the
free trial period and just stayed with it.

Lou

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:30:22 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>On Nov 19, 10:17*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
>> On 19/11/2011 1:07 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:04:14 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > > *wrote:
>>
>> >> On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>
>> > Is everyone getting all the posts they think they should be getting?
>> > For instance, I don't have the message Dave replied to above.
>>
>> > I know APN has problems currently, but they're talking about a header
>> > synchronization issue that causes message *bodies* to be temporarily
>> > unavailable. *Instead I'm losing or not getting the entire thing -
>> > including the subject title in my TOC. *Whatever it is even causes
>> > messages that I've read but have not deleted manually to disappear.
>>
>> > APN thinks it's an issue that is only affecting a small number of
>> > groups at this time, so let your ISP know if you're having problems
>> > too... especially if your ISP is APN.
>>
>> I obviously got Kalmia's post ;-) * but I have been getting headers with
>> messages that aren't available at the moment. If I bounce back and forth
>> between messages they open up for me. *I thought maybe it was my
>> computer or that I need to compress my folders.
>
>I know you guys laugh at Google Groups..

More like users like kuthe.

>and they do suck to a degree....

They suck to a BIG degree.

>but at least I can read everyone's messages and I rarely
>have any problems at all.

All we have to do is change servers which takes like 15 seconds. If
google was my only choice I'd stop posting.

Lou

On Nov 20, 10:23*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:30:22 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 10:17*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> >> On 19/11/2011 1:07 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:04:14 -0500, Dave Smith
> >> > > *wrote:
>
> >> >> On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>
> >> > Is everyone getting all the posts they think they should be getting?
> >> > For instance, I don't have the message Dave replied to above.
>
> >> > I know APN has problems currently, but they're talking about a header
> >> > synchronization issue that causes message *bodies* to be temporarily
> >> > unavailable. *Instead I'm losing or not getting the entire thing -
> >> > including the subject title in my TOC. *Whatever it is even causes
> >> > messages that I've read but have not deleted manually to disappear.
>
> >> > APN thinks it's an issue that is only affecting a small number of
> >> > groups at this time, so let your ISP know if you're having problems
> >> > too... especially if your ISP is APN.
>
> >> I obviously got Kalmia's post ;-) * but I have been getting headers with
> >> messages that aren't available at the moment. If I bounce back and forth
> >> between messages they open up for me. *I thought maybe it was my
> >> computer or that I need to compress my folders.
>
> >I know you guys laugh at Google Groups..
>
> More like users like kuthe.
>
> >and they do suck to a degree....
>
> They suck to a BIG degree.
>
> >but at least I can read everyone's messages and I rarely
> >have any problems at all.
>
> All we have to do is change servers which takes like 15 seconds. *If
> google was my only choice I'd stop posting.
>
> Lou

Well, to each his own. I've never used a newsreader. Never
started when Usenet or others first came on the scene. I never even
participated in any kind of message board until about 10 years ago.
So I guess I'm one of those who just started out with message boards
off websites and went from there.

In article
>,
ImStillMags > wrote:

> On Nov 20, 10:23*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:

> > They suck to a BIG degree.
> >
> > >but at least I can read everyone's messages and I rarely
> > >have any problems at all.

> Well, to each his own. I've never used a newsreader. Never
> started when Usenet or others first came on the scene.

That was in 1980:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet


> I never even
> participated in any kind of message board until about 10 years ago.
> So I guess I'm one of those who just started out with message boards
> off websites and went from there.

If GoogleGroups works for you, that's great. Most folks who have tried
something else, and then GG, don't like it. But that doesn't really
matter if you can do what you want, and you are happy.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:45:22 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:15:31 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> APN is fine now but they've had a glitch or two over the last few
>> months. I'm thinking of trying usenet monster for a month and see how
>> that works. I was always happy with them but switched to APN for the
>> free trial period and just stayed with it.
>
>There are actually only 2 major usenet providers. readnews, and
>highwinds. But between them they have 100+ resellers that go by
>different names.
>
>When you consider buying another account for usenet access, I highly
>suggest a block account unless you do a lot of binary downloading.
>You will save tons of money. But more importantly chose one that does
>not use the same "back end servers" as the one you are dissatisfied
>with. I buy two, one from highwinds and oen from readnews.com. That
>way when one goes down, then I can switch over to the other one (or to
>motzarella/E-S, or whatever).
>
>There are two other Usenet bigwigs, Giganews ans Astraweb. They do
>not employ the reseller-matrix and are considered their own separate
>entities. Of thsoe two only Astraweb offers a block account.
>
>To find out who is who, consult this chart:
>http://www.usenet-providers.net/newsgroup-resellers.php
>
>IOW: Pick two companies from different sections of that chart, buy two
>cheap block accounts for under $3 each and all will be well. The
>readnews.com block accounts will last years, while a highwinds.com
>reseller block accounts (typically $2) are limited to one year.
>
>That is how you do it. You will get an average of 5 years of service
>from two different companies for less than you would one company's
>*monthly* fee for a subscription-based account. IOW you get 60 months
>for the price of one month.
>
>I have no idea why casual non-binary Usenet users pay monthly or even
>yearly fees for Usenet. Go ahead and waste your money.

I saved the post and I'll check it out when I have time if apn acts up
again. Thanks!

Lou

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:35:53 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>On Nov 20, 10:23*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:30:22 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Nov 19, 10:17*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
>> >> On 19/11/2011 1:07 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:04:14 -0500, Dave Smith
>> >> > > *wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On 18/11/2011 7:27 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>
>> >> > Is everyone getting all the posts they think they should be getting?
>> >> > For instance, I don't have the message Dave replied to above.
>>
>> >> > I know APN has problems currently, but they're talking about a header
>> >> > synchronization issue that causes message *bodies* to be temporarily
>> >> > unavailable. *Instead I'm losing or not getting the entire thing -
>> >> > including the subject title in my TOC. *Whatever it is even causes
>> >> > messages that I've read but have not deleted manually to disappear.
>>
>> >> > APN thinks it's an issue that is only affecting a small number of
>> >> > groups at this time, so let your ISP know if you're having problems
>> >> > too... especially if your ISP is APN.
>>
>> >> I obviously got Kalmia's post ;-) * but I have been getting headers with
>> >> messages that aren't available at the moment. If I bounce back and forth
>> >> between messages they open up for me. *I thought maybe it was my
>> >> computer or that I need to compress my folders.
>>
>> >I know you guys laugh at Google Groups..
>>
>> More like users like kuthe.
>>
>> >and they do suck to a degree....
>>
>> They suck to a BIG degree.
>>
>> >but at least I can read everyone's messages and I rarely
>> >have any problems at all.
>>
>> All we have to do is change servers which takes like 15 seconds. *If
>> google was my only choice I'd stop posting.
>>
>> Lou
>
>Well, to each his own. I've never used a newsreader. Never
>started when Usenet or others first came on the scene. I never even
>participated in any kind of message board until about 10 years ago.
>So I guess I'm one of those who just started out with message boards
>off websites and went from there.

If GG works for you that's fine as long as you're not like kuthe who
bitches all the time.

Lou

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>
> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go
> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>
> -Bob

How'd you make out with your ham?
--
Barb,
http://web.me.com/barbschaller September 5, 2011

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> I thought I was supposed to bring the turkey to the church potluck this
>> weekend, but I've been asked to bring a ham instead. I've cooked hams
>> before, but never paid any attention to how much they serve.
>>
>> I bought an 10.6 pound "ham with water added" bone-in ham shank today at
>> Aldi. It was the largest half-ham in the case. That ought to serve
>> 30-something people if it's not the only meat, right? Or should I go
>> back and get one of the smaller butts too?
>>
>> -Bob
>
> How'd you make out with your ham?


The 10.6 would have probably been enough by itself. I bought another 8#
shank to go with it, then realized how much I had when I started cooking
it all. I took a 9x13" lasagna pan full of thick-sliced ham to the
potluck, and had a pound or two left at home. Probably 2/3 of it got
eaten even tho' we only had 20 people show up that week. (a lot of the
regulars were traveling out of town) I put most of the leftovers in the
church freezer for the next men's breakfast, and we've almost finished
eating the remainder.

That was a lot of meat for $22!

I boiled the bones and trimmings with a few bay leaves and peppercorns
and made some nice stock. I made a pot of navybean soup with some of it
last night, and I pressure canned the remaining 3 pints for making bean
soup in January. I threw out most of the juice that cooked out of the
ham when I roasted it; that tasted more like salt than ham. I did add
just a little of it to the previously-mentioned stock; just enough to
give it some color and make it taste kind of salty.

-Bob

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > How'd you make out with your ham?
>
>
> The 10.6 would have probably been enough by itself.

What'd I tell you? Sheldon's full of beans. "-)


> I bought another 8#
> shank to go with it, then realized how much I had when I started cooking
> it all. I took a 9x13" lasagna pan full of thick-sliced ham to the
> potluck, and had a pound or two left at home. Probably 2/3 of it got
> eaten even tho' we only had 20 people show up that week. (a lot of the
> regulars were traveling out of town) I put most of the leftovers in the
> church freezer for the next men's breakfast, and we've almost finished
> eating the remainder.
>
> That was a lot of meat for $22!

Next year you can buy decent candy for Halloween with what you didn't
spend. '-)
> -Bob

--
Barb,
http://web.me.com/barbschaller September 5, 2011