I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?

Thanks from a Newbie.

Pedro


--
To contact me directly by email, please remove the words "NO" and
"SPAM" from the reply address above.

Pedro wrote:
> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill
> that are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only
> once during the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate
> flipping every 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
>
> Thanks from a Newbie.
>
> Pedro

Lesson #1: Every expert is wrong
Lesson #2: Therefore, everyone responding is wrong
Lesson #3: Every cook and piece of meat is different, its hard to repeat
perfection. The fun is in trying. Like in horseshoes, coming close does
count.

I think that most people flip a couple of times, even those who seem to
swear otherwise. There was a little thing going on recently here where
different people boasted of liking steak done to greater and greater degress
of rawness to a point that blood warm pulled from fresh kill raw was ideal.
It got a little silly.

The point to be taken is let the heat do its thing and let the heat be high
enough to do it too. I'd say every 90 seconds is towards an extreme on the
other side of only flip once.

My basics: High heat, dont be afraid of the flames buring the meat its just
the fat, dont turn it if it sticks.

Theres better here than me thats for sure, I learned reading these guys. So
remember #1.


--

Pedro > wrote in
:

> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill
> that are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once
> during the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate
> flipping every 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
>
> Thanks from a Newbie.
>
> Pedro

I think everyone has a different method and few are wrong as long as
they produce what you like.

I generally follow something that I read long ago and it works well for
me.

With grill at very hot temp, lay on steaks and time for 2 minutes, then
rotate (same side) about 90 degrees to get cross-hatch grill marks.
Time for two minutes, then flip to other side and repeat the same
process...2 minutes, rotate, 2 minutes. Reduce heat to medium or even
medium low and continue cooking, flipping as desired until the point of
desired doneness is reached. The lower temperature allows the meat to
cook a bit further toward the middle and won't usually add additional
grill marks.

--
Wayne in Phoenix

If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.

In article >, Pedro
> wrote:

> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
> are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
> the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
> 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
>
A 3/4" steak is done to my liking after one flip and 90seconds per side
at 650F.(kamado dome temp)
I haven't found that crossed grill marks tasted any better than
parallel ones.

monroe(blue steak-one flip)

"Monroe, of course..." > wrote in
:

> In article >, Pedro
> > wrote:
>
>> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill
>> that are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only
>> once during the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate
>> flipping every 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
>>
> A 3/4" steak is done to my liking after one flip and 90seconds per
> side at 650F.(kamado dome temp)
> I haven't found that crossed grill marks tasted any better than
> parallel ones.
>
> monroe(blue steak-one flip)
>

Obviously a lot depends on both the grill and its temperature, the steak
and how you like it cooked. Blue is way too raw for me, and I prefer a
thicker steak cooked closer to medium. Crossed grill marks are nice for
presentation, but certainly not a requirement.

--
Wayne in Phoenix

If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.

Steve Wertz > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:49:15 GMT, "Monroe, of course..."
> > wrote:
>
>>I haven't found that crossed grill marks tasted any better than
>>parallel ones.
>
> I've been experimenting with circular grill marks and I think
> they're far superior to any other pattern.
>
> -sw
>


And I'm sure, Steve, that the round out the flavor! <G>

--
Wayne in Phoenix

If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.

"Pedro" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
> are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
> the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
> 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?

Sounds like to much work to me unless you have some think steaks. I do 3
flips and I like my meat rare to Med rare. It all depends on whay you like
and how pretty you want it to look. I get 60 seconds per side/flip on thin
ones to 2 min a side/flip for thick ones.

A cross hatch pattern is a 90 degree turn of the meat in a flip. #

__Stephen

[This followup was posted to alt.food.barbecue and a copy was sent to
the cited author.]
Wayne:

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I would like to follow up with two
more Newbie questions.

First, what temp do you start out with when you put the steaks on the
grill and what temp do you use once the initial "searing" (?) takes
place? Also, do you keep the hood of the grill up during the cooking?

Thanks.

Pedro

In article >,
says...
> Pedro > wrote in
> :
>
> > I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill
> > that are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once
> > during the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate
> > flipping every 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
> >
> > Thanks from a Newbie.
> >
> > Pedro
>
> I think everyone has a different method and few are wrong as long as
> they produce what you like.
>
> I generally follow something that I read long ago and it works well for
> me.
>
> With grill at very hot temp, lay on steaks and time for 2 minutes, then
> rotate (same side) about 90 degrees to get cross-hatch grill marks.
> Time for two minutes, then flip to other side and repeat the same
> process...2 minutes, rotate, 2 minutes. Reduce heat to medium or even
> medium low and continue cooking, flipping as desired until the point of
> desired doneness is reached. The lower temperature allows the meat to
> cook a bit further toward the middle and won't usually add additional
> grill marks.
>
>

--
To contact me directly by email, please remove the words "NO" and
"SPAM" from the reply address above.

For those who like to start them on a really hot grill, as several have
mentioned, there's no substitute for mesquite lump charcoal if you can
get it where you live. I remember someone here saying they don't like
the kettle grill design because you can't get the meat as close to the
coals as they'd like, for some grilling applications - same thing would
help overcome that objection, that mesquite lump burns hotter than
anything I've used except possibly the extruded stuff.

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:49:15 GMT, "Monroe, of course..."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't found that crossed grill marks tasted any better than
>>parallel ones.
>
>
> I've been experimenting with circular grill marks and I think
> they're far superior to any other pattern.
>
> -sw

Then there's the personalized branding iron with your initials....
http://www.orvis.com/store/product_c...subcat_id=6123

"Pedro" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
> are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
> the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
> 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?

The more you flip, the more it starts to be more like rotissire cooking than
grilling.

I cook mine half on 1 side and half on the other. I flip once and only once.
By flipping many times there is less searing, and I like my steak seared
outside and med-rare inside. If you like a more evenly cooked meat then lots
of flipping makes sense.

Jason "ain't no expert but did turn out a fantastic prime rib roast this
weekend" in Dallas

"Jason in Dallas" > wrote in message
m...
> "Pedro" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
> > are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
> > the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
> > 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
>
> The more you flip, the more it starts to be more like rotissire cooking
than
> grilling.

What? Rotisserie cooking? There's nothing wrong with rotisserie cooking at
all, but your analogy is bogus.

>
> I cook mine half on 1 side and half on the other. I flip once and only
once.
> By flipping many times there is less searing, and I like my steak seared
> outside and med-rare inside.

If you cook on a properly hot fire, as in 650 in a Kamado, or an inch or two
above red hot coals in a hole in the ground full of burned down oak logs,
you're gonna get a very nicely seared steak in a minute or two per side.
And if you're cooking a thick steak, flipping only once and leaving it on
until the inside is medium-rare, the outside will turn into charcoal before
the interior is done. That's why you flip a steak a few times, or even take
it off the fire for a minute or two, then put it back on. If you like
charred steaks, fine, but that's not what we ought to be telling newbies who
come here asking how to cook a steak.

If you like a more evenly cooked meat then lots
> of flipping makes sense.

Yes, it does.

Jack Curry

Douglas Barber wrote:
> For those who like to start them on a really hot grill, as several have
> mentioned, there's no substitute for mesquite lump charcoal if you can
> get it where you live. I remember someone here saying they don't like
> the kettle grill design because you can't get the meat as close to the
> coals as they'd like, for some grilling applications - same thing would
> help overcome that objection, that mesquite lump burns hotter than
> anything I've used except possibly the extruded stuff.

AND (In My Experience) mesquite at these higher temperatures doesn't give that
distinctive "mesquite" taste that many (me included) tend to object to. It sure
can spark a lot!
;-)

BOB

BOB wrote:

> Douglas Barber wrote:
>
>>For those who like to start them on a really hot grill, as several have
>>mentioned, there's no substitute for mesquite lump charcoal if you can
>>get it where you live. I remember someone here saying they don't like
>>the kettle grill design because you can't get the meat as close to the
>>coals as they'd like, for some grilling applications - same thing would
>>help overcome that objection, that mesquite lump burns hotter than
>>anything I've used except possibly the extruded stuff.
>
>
> AND (In My Experience) mesquite at these higher temperatures doesn't give that
> distinctive "mesquite" taste that many (me included) tend to object to. It sure
> can spark a lot!
> ;-)
>
> BOB
>

Yep, someone should get a partner to photograph them pouring a lit
chimney of that stuff in the dark.

Douglas Barber wrote:
> BOB wrote:
>
>> Douglas Barber wrote:
>>
>>> For those who like to start them on a really hot grill, as several have
>>> mentioned, there's no substitute for mesquite lump charcoal if you can
>>> get it where you live. I remember someone here saying they don't like
>>> the kettle grill design because you can't get the meat as close to the
>>> coals as they'd like, for some grilling applications - same thing would
>>> help overcome that objection, that mesquite lump burns hotter than
>>> anything I've used except possibly the extruded stuff.
>>
>>
>> AND (In My Experience) mesquite at these higher temperatures doesn't give
that
>> distinctive "mesquite" taste that many (me included) tend to object to. It
>> sure can spark a lot!
>> ;-)
>>
>> BOB
>>
>
> Yep, someone should get a partner to photograph them pouring a lit
> chimney of that stuff in the dark.

Where's Fosco when we need him?

BOB

"Jack Curry" <Jack-Curry deletethis @cfl.rr.com> wrote
> > The more you flip, the more it starts to be more like rotissire cooking
than grilling.
>
> What? Rotisserie cooking? There's nothing wrong with rotisserie cooking
at all, but your analogy is bogus.

I didn't say or imply anything was wrong with it. And until you point out an
error in my logic the analogy stands. Think about it.

The rest of your charred vs. seared explaination was nice, but I don't see
why you feel compelled to criticize me when I was neither misleading nor
erroneous in my points. I left a lot out since the thread is about searing,
not how to cook a steak. I also didn't explain about purchasing and storing
the meat, or whether to pay for it with cash or credit.

Pedro > wrote in
:

> [This followup was posted to alt.food.barbecue and a copy was sent to
> the cited author.]
> Wayne:
>
> Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I would like to follow up with
> two more Newbie questions.
>
> First, what temp do you start out with when you put the steaks on the
> grill and what temp do you use once the initial "searing" (?) takes
> place? Also, do you keep the hood of the grill up during the cooking?

My grill is gas. I preheat for about 15 minutes until the temp is
around 600°F. When I reduce the heat to medium-low or low, the
temperature gradually drifts down to about 400°F. by the time the steaks
are ready to pull off the grill. I'm sure it would drift lower given
more time. I never use my grill with the hood up.

>
> Thanks.
>
> Pedro
>
> In article >,
> says...
>> Pedro > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill
>> > that are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only
>> > once during the entire cooking process, while others seem to
>> > indicate flipping every 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you
>> > experts?
>> >
>> > Thanks from a Newbie.
>> >
>> > Pedro
>>
>> I think everyone has a different method and few are wrong as long as
>> they produce what you like.
>>
>> I generally follow something that I read long ago and it works well
>> for me.
>>
>> With grill at very hot temp, lay on steaks and time for 2 minutes,
>> then rotate (same side) about 90 degrees to get cross-hatch grill
>> marks. Time for two minutes, then flip to other side and repeat the
>> same process...2 minutes, rotate, 2 minutes. Reduce heat to medium
>> or even medium low and continue cooking, flipping as desired until
>> the point of desired doneness is reached. The lower temperature
>> allows the meat to cook a bit further toward the middle and won't
>> usually add additional grill marks.
>>
>>
>



--
Wayne in Phoenix

If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.

" BOB" > wrote in message
...
> AND (In My Experience) mesquite at these higher temperatures doesn't give
that
> distinctive "mesquite" taste that many (me included) tend to object to.
It sure
> can spark a lot!
> ;-)
>
> BOB


I agree though sometime I like a little mesquite flavor.

The hotter the fire, the less time to take on a little smoke.
Might as well pan sear or gg it if you decide to cook over a blast furnace.
But it is too easy to easy to worry about a hot fire and forget the
accolades of cooking over fire. That is why my best steaks are seared on a
white hot pan to maximize crust (turkey fryer/Cast Iron pan) and finished
over coals with a tiny bit of mesquite.

-CAL

Well, you can touch, or feel, the steak with you finger--with practice you
can feel the difference between well and rare. Rare feels squishy, well
firm, and, well, you get the picture. Of course, I was a cook in the navy
on a destroyer for four years and I cooked more than a couple of steaks, I
tell you what!
"Pedro" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
> are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
> the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
> 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
>
> Thanks from a Newbie.
>
> Pedro
>
>
> --
> To contact me directly by email, please remove the words "NO" and
> "SPAM" from the reply address above.

There is this to remember--you are grilling steaks, so the secret is hot and
fast, so as to seal in the juices, you know. I only flip once, but I may
peek under sometimes. Oh, and don't use a fork since you will render the
whole idea of sealing in the juices moot. Use tongs. Always.
Happing grilling.
"Pedro" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
> are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
> the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
> 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
>
> Thanks from a Newbie.
>
> Pedro
>
>
> --
> To contact me directly by email, please remove the words "NO" and
> "SPAM" from the reply address above.

L. Cook wrote:
> Well, you can touch, or feel, the steak with you finger--with

If you would, please bottom or interleve post, and leave some space between
the post and your reply. It makes the context much easier to read.

I'd like to take this opportunity to relate a recipe that I got out of an
issue of "Motorboat and Sailing" many years ago. It is a way of preparing a
steak that you will swear came from the local steak house.

You will need a cast iron skillet, 12" is best. Gas is best, but if you
have an electric range, it will have to do. Ok, so, sprinkle a light
coating of sea salt (saltier than regular salt, so go easy) or regular
iodized salt over the bottom of the dry skillet. Turn heat on high under
skillet and go do something for eight or nine minutes. When you return,
take the steak (which is unseasoned) and simply lay it in the skillet and
time it for four minutes. When the time is up, flip and go another four
minutes. After the last four minutes, remove steak to plate and enjoy. The
high heat sears the meat juices and when you take a cut, your plate just
fills up with au jou. Of course, you will have been holding your breath all
this time because this meathod smokes like crazy!! I love doing this with a
chuck, but, hey, that's just me.
"Monroe, of course..." > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Pedro
> > wrote:
>
> > I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill that
> > are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once during
> > the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping every
> > 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
> >
> A 3/4" steak is done to my liking after one flip and 90seconds per side
> at 650F.(kamado dome temp)
> I haven't found that crossed grill marks tasted any better than
> parallel ones.
>
> monroe(blue steak-one flip)

L. Cook wrote:
> Well, you can touch, or feel, the steak with you finger--with practice you
> can feel the difference between well and rare. Rare feels squishy, well
> firm, and, well, you get the picture. Of course, I was a cook in the navy
> on a destroyer for four years and I cooked more than a couple of steaks, I
> tell you what!

Dang, a Navy cook! We had some fine food in that branch back when I was
ensnared in it...mercy, if I ate breakfasts today like I ate then, I'd
need special doorframes for getting around the house. Bet you can fix
eggs to the absolute perfection of any taste preference in that matter,
even when expressed in grunts rather than eloquent English. They sure
did a reliably nice job on what they called (if I remember this right)
"steamship round" of beef...what cut was that?

L. Cook wrote:
> I'd like to take this opportunity to relate a recipe that I got out of an
> issue of "Motorboat and Sailing" many years ago. It is a way of preparing a
> steak that you will swear came from the local steak house.
>
> You will need a cast iron skillet, 12" is best. Gas is best, but if you
> have an electric range, it will have to do. Ok, so, sprinkle a light
> coating of sea salt (saltier than regular salt, so go easy) or regular
> iodized salt over the bottom of the dry skillet. Turn heat on high under
> skillet and go do something for eight or nine minutes. When you return,
> take the steak (which is unseasoned) and simply lay it in the skillet and
> time it for four minutes. When the time is up, flip and go another four
> minutes. After the last four minutes, remove steak to plate and enjoy. The
> high heat sears the meat juices and when you take a cut, your plate just
> fills up with au jou. Of course, you will have been holding your breath all
> this time because this meathod smokes like crazy!! I love doing this with a
> chuck, but, hey, that's just me.

Turn the fans to blow "out" and be prepared to disconnect the smoke
alarm Otherwise, works as advertised.

Top posting seems perfectly readable to me. I top post when I want the
whole previous discussion, unsnipped, to be available to someone with an
interest similar to the type of interest that leads people to read
footnotes in academic literature, while wanting to make a potentially
stand-alone comment which will be all that's of interest to most people,
right where it's easiest to find. People who waste bandwidth making
other people feel bad about these things strike me as Seinfeldian
soup-Nazis. I personally find interleaved posting to be the most
time-consuming and, perhaps, egomaniacially self-centered - usually
engaged in by people who prolong flame wars and go on at greater length
than normal hominids care to read - but, until tonight, I haven't wasted
bandwidth calling anyone to task for having done so. It's the internet,
not the Continental Congress, and its anarchic by nature. That upsets
some people on a regular basis, but some people, if they weren't vocally
upset, would be quietly content managing other peoples' business.

Dave Bugg wrote:
> L. Cook wrote:
>
>>Well, you can touch, or feel, the steak with you finger--with
>
>
> If you would, please bottom or interleve post, and leave some space between
> the post and your reply. It makes the context much easier to read.
>
>

Douglas Barber wrote:

> .... I personally find interleaved posting to be
> the most time-consuming and, perhaps, egomaniacially self-centered -
> usually engaged in by people who prolong flame wars and go on at
> greater length than normal hominids care to read - but, until
> tonight, I haven't wasted bandwidth calling anyone to task for having
> done so. It's the internet, not the Continental Congress, and its
> anarchic by nature. That upsets some people on a regular basis, but
> some people, if they weren't vocally upset, would be quietly content
> managing other peoples' business.

Sheesh, so much for asking nicely. Yeah, why waste time trying to figure
out the context of what someone is replying to. Apologetics for top posting
is such an energy drain to read, I simply killfile the defenders. So, Doug,
I won't be seeing yer posts anytime soon lest I be tempted into managing yer
business.

Bye Dave

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Douglas Barber wrote:
>
>
>>.... I personally find interleaved posting to be
>>the most time-consuming and, perhaps, egomaniacially self-centered -
>>usually engaged in by people who prolong flame wars and go on at
>>greater length than normal hominids care to read - but, until
>>tonight, I haven't wasted bandwidth calling anyone to task for having
>>done so. It's the internet, not the Continental Congress, and its
>>anarchic by nature. That upsets some people on a regular basis, but
>>some people, if they weren't vocally upset, would be quietly content
>>managing other peoples' business.
>
>
> Sheesh, so much for asking nicely. Yeah, why waste time trying to figure
> out the context of what someone is replying to. Apologetics for top posting
> is such an energy drain to read, I simply killfile the defenders. So, Doug,
> I won't be seeing yer posts anytime soon lest I be tempted into managing yer
> business.
>
>

Douglas Barber wrote in alt.food.barbecue

>
>
> L. Cook wrote:
>> I'd like to take this opportunity to relate a recipe that I got out
>> of an issue of "Motorboat and Sailing" many years ago. It is a way
>> of preparing a steak that you will swear came from the local steak
>> house.
>>
>> You will need a cast iron skillet, 12" is best. Gas is best, but if
>> you have an electric range, it will have to do. Ok, so, sprinkle a
>> light coating of sea salt (saltier than regular salt, so go easy) or
>> regular iodized salt over the bottom of the dry skillet. Turn heat
>> on high under skillet and go do something for eight or nine minutes.
>> When you return, take the steak (which is unseasoned) and simply lay
>> it in the skillet and time it for four minutes. When the time is up,
>> flip and go another four minutes. After the last four minutes,
>> remove steak to plate and enjoy. The high heat sears the meat juices
>> and when you take a cut, your plate just fills up with au jou. Of
>> course, you will have been holding your breath all this time because
>> this meathod smokes like crazy!! I love doing this with a chuck,
>> but, hey, that's just me.
>
> Turn the fans to blow "out" and be prepared to disconnect the smoke
> alarm Otherwise, works as advertised.
>
>

Except when all that au jou is all over your plate from not
letting it rest awhile first before cutting it, then your
meat is dry.


--
BigDog
Been there, done that. Eckkk.
To E-mail me, you know what to do.

Douglas Barber wrote:
> Top posting seems perfectly readable to me. I top post when I want
the
> whole previous discussion, unsnipped, to be available to someone
with
> an interest similar to the type of interest that leads people to
read
> footnotes in academic literature, while wanting to make a
potentially
> stand-alone comment which will be all that's of interest to most
> people, right where it's easiest to find.

Holy shit! Now this is a waste of bandwidth. If we wanna read the
whole thing, we can go back and read the prior posts. They don't call
em newsreaders & Google for nothin.

I personally find interleaved posting to be
> the most time-consuming and, perhaps, egomaniacially self-centered -

It's called communicating, Doug. No guess work on what's bein
commented on.

> It's the internet, not the Continental Congress, and its
> anarchic by nature.

Yep, that's what they call it but even anarchy has some form of
organization. Without it, it'd be chaos which is what your
full-quoting, top posting is. The NG has gone over this before and
the majority here prefer just the thing Dave asked for. Ya wanna be
part of the group then do what the group prefers.
--
-frohe
Life is too short to be in a hurry

"Douglas Barber" > wrote in message
...
> Top posting seems perfectly readable to me. I top post when I want the
> whole previous discussion, unsnipped, to be available to someone with an
> interest similar to the type of interest that leads people to read
> footnotes in academic literature, while wanting to make a potentially
> stand-alone comment which will be all that's of interest to most people,
> right where it's easiest to find. People who waste bandwidth making
> other people feel bad about these things strike me as Seinfeldian
> soup-Nazis.

Godwin's Law, Godwin's Law. You lose automatically lose, Doug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Tyler Hopper wrote:

> "Douglas Barber" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Top posting seems perfectly readable to me. I top post when I want the
>>whole previous discussion, unsnipped, to be available to someone with an
>>interest similar to the type of interest that leads people to read
>>footnotes in academic literature, while wanting to make a potentially
>>stand-alone comment which will be all that's of interest to most people,
>>right where it's easiest to find. People who waste bandwidth making
>>other people feel bad about these things strike me as Seinfeldian
>>soup-Nazis.
>
>
> Godwin's Law, Godwin's Law. You lose automatically lose, Doug.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>
>
lol...great link...hopefully I wriggle out of this deal with only
non-mortal wounds by blaming Seinfeld for the image of panzer tanks and
messerschmitt aircraft storming an establishment mainly concerned with
good food in order to prevent untimely eruptions of bad manners

Snippage aplenty -

Doug, you seem like a nice enough guy, so whydontcha take frohe's good
advice?

"The NG has gone over this before and
the majority here prefer just the thing Dave asked for. Ya wanna be
part of the group then do what the group prefers."

Your choice, but Dave asked politely, we've been through this about a
hundred times and the overwhelming concensus is either bottom post or
interleve.

Ignore the majority at your own risk.

Jack Curry
-smart guy would say, "OK"-

In article >, "Jack
Curry" <Jack-Curry deletethis @cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> Snippage aplenty -
>
> Doug, you seem like a nice enough guy, so whydontcha take frohe's good
> advice?
>
> "The NG has gone over this before and
> the majority here prefer just the thing Dave asked for. Ya wanna be
> part of the group then do what the group prefers."
>
> Your choice, but Dave asked politely, we've been through this about a
> hundred times and the overwhelming concensus is either bottom post or
> interleve.
>
> Ignore the majority at your own risk.
>
> Jack Curry
> -smart guy would say, "OK"-


Uhhh didja notice that Douggie boy usually bottom posts as the norm?
He seems to only top post when he's being a contentious asswipe and
fighting with Dave. That speaks volumes....

monroe("OK" he's nearly plonked)

I have to agree with Jason. The proper way to cook a steak is to flip only
once. If you have cooked enough steaks, you will know when to flip.
"Jack Curry" <Jack-Curry deletethis @cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> "Jason in Dallas" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Pedro" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > I have seen recommendations regarding flipping steaks on the grill
that
> > > are inconsistent. Some seem to say just flip the steak only once
during
> > > the entire cooking process, while others seem to indicate flipping
every
> > > 90 seconds or so. Any thoughts from you experts?
> >
> > The more you flip, the more it starts to be more like rotissire cooking
> than
> > grilling.
>
> What? Rotisserie cooking? There's nothing wrong with rotisserie cooking
at
> all, but your analogy is bogus.
>
> >
> > I cook mine half on 1 side and half on the other. I flip once and only
> once.
> > By flipping many times there is less searing, and I like my steak seared
> > outside and med-rare inside.
>
> If you cook on a properly hot fire, as in 650 in a Kamado, or an inch or
two
> above red hot coals in a hole in the ground full of burned down oak logs,
> you're gonna get a very nicely seared steak in a minute or two per side.
> And if you're cooking a thick steak, flipping only once and leaving it on
> until the inside is medium-rare, the outside will turn into charcoal
before
> the interior is done. That's why you flip a steak a few times, or even
take
> it off the fire for a minute or two, then put it back on. If you like
> charred steaks, fine, but that's not what we ought to be telling newbies
who
> come here asking how to cook a steak.
>
> If you like a more evenly cooked meat then lots
> > of flipping makes sense.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> Jack Curry
>
>
>

Ok, but I am not sure how to trim these posts. I know there is a way, but
danged if I can remember it. What would I do if I wanted to trim out
irrelevant parts of a message?

"Dave Bugg" <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
> L. Cook wrote:
> > Well, you can touch, or feel, the steak with you finger--with
>
> If you would, please bottom or interleve post, and leave some space
between
> the post and your reply. It makes the context much easier to read.
>
>

If you are talking about those who snip a section of a post, then reply to
it, then snip another out of context, and reply to it as well....I agree
with you. Replying to anything out of context just tends to make your
response idiotic. If I wanted my messages to be taken out of context, I
could write them that way, eh??
"Douglas Barber" > wrote in message
...
> Top posting seems perfectly readable to me. I top post when I want the
> whole previous discussion, unsnipped, to be available to someone with an
> interest similar to the type of interest that leads people to read
> footnotes in academic literature, while wanting to make a potentially
> stand-alone comment which will be all that's of interest to most people,
> right where it's easiest to find. People who waste bandwidth making
> other people feel bad about these things strike me as Seinfeldian
> soup-Nazis. I personally find interleaved posting to be the most
> time-consuming and, perhaps, egomaniacially self-centered - usually
> engaged in by people who prolong flame wars and go on at greater length
> than normal hominids care to read - but, until tonight, I haven't wasted
> bandwidth calling anyone to task for having done so. It's the internet,
> not the Continental Congress, and its anarchic by nature. That upsets
> some people on a regular basis, but some people, if they weren't vocally
> upset, would be quietly content managing other peoples' business.
>
> Dave Bugg wrote:
> > L. Cook wrote:
> >
> >>Well, you can touch, or feel, the steak with you finger--with
> >
> >
> > If you would, please bottom or interleve post, and leave some space
between
> > the post and your reply. It makes the context much easier to read.
> >
> >
>

Kill mine, too. I like D. Barbers writing.

"Dave Bugg" <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
> Douglas Barber wrote:
>
> > .... I personally find interleaved posting to be
> > the most time-consuming and, perhaps, egomaniacially self-centered -
> > usually engaged in by people who prolong flame wars and go on at
> > greater length than normal hominids care to read - but, until
> > tonight, I haven't wasted bandwidth calling anyone to task for having
> > done so. It's the internet, not the Continental Congress, and its
> > anarchic by nature. That upsets some people on a regular basis, but
> > some people, if they weren't vocally upset, would be quietly content
> > managing other peoples' business.
>
> Sheesh, so much for asking nicely. Yeah, why waste time trying to figure
> out the context of what someone is replying to. Apologetics for top
posting
> is such an energy drain to read, I simply killfile the defenders. So,
Doug,
> I won't be seeing yer posts anytime soon lest I be tempted into managing
yer
> business.
>
>

L. Cook wrote:

> Ok, but I am not sure how to trim these posts. I know there is a way, but
> danged if I can remember it. What would I do if I wanted to trim out
> irrelevant parts of a message?
>

High lite the text you want to trim out and hit your delete key.

Happy Q'en,
BBQ

Well, if you were part of the vietnam era, you may remember that the Navy
had awesome food. We had, no lie, lobster tails every eight or ten days,
duck, and more steaks than you could imagine. I detected a bit of sarcasm
in your note, but that's ok. I got more than mere sarcasm when I returned
to the world. Seriously, though, the services during that time did well
when it came to feeding the troops. Did you know that hot meals were (not
always, of course) helo'd in to troops while in hot zones? More political
than anything else, sure, but interesting.

Hey, I think I just learned how to erase some of this stuff. Now, I believe
I can bottom post, if that is what is preferred. I'll try that next time.

"Douglas Barber" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Dang, a Navy cook! We had some fine food in that branch back when I was
> ensnared in it...mercy, if I ate breakfasts today like I ate then, I'd
> need special doorframes for getting around the house. Bet you can fix
> eggs to the absolute perfection of any taste preference in that matter,
> even when expressed in grunts rather than eloquent English. They sure
> did a reliably nice job on what they called (if I remember this right)
> "steamship round" of beef...what cut was that?
>

Branding iron with your initials? Yep, I've seen something like that in
catalogs that come to the house now and again. Hmmmm.....