Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

My Scallops were Awesome but the Steak was rare...Follow

#102 Sep 28 2012 at 10:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
100 pages of arguing with Alma that humans aren't animals?

I hate you guys so much sometimes.
#103 Sep 29 2012 at 5:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,015 posts
Especially when I never said that humans aren't animals.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#104 Sep 29 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
Guenny wrote:
100 pages of arguing with Alma that humans aren't animals?

I hate you guys so much sometimes.
I guess at least it adds a third option of what to argue with Alma for 100 pages about.
____________________________
Banh
#105 Sep 29 2012 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
.

Edit: **** you, Youtube!

Edited, Sep 29th 2012 9:51am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Sep 29 2012 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Quote:
referring medium or well as a matter of taste is up to the individual, but there really are specific cuts and preparations that work well with medium/well (typically involving tenderizing and/or marinating and having other stuff than just the meat involved), but if you're ordering a ribeye or strip steak well done, you are basically wasting your money.

Yeah, no. Doneness standards have dropped over the last few decades. Julia child calls a leg of lamb rare at 140 in 1961, and in 1979 it's rare at 125. The joy of cooking had a leg of lamb rare at 160 in 1920 and today it's 135. What I get when I order a well done steak today would be a medium any time before 1970. What you're calling medium rare would be rare or considered unpalatable by your dad.
#107 Sep 29 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
And when I was 5 I could buy a bag of chips, a chocolate bar and a pop for less than $1. Not really relevant to what I can actually buy all of that for today.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#108 Sep 29 2012 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
And when I was 5 I could buy a bag of chips, a chocolate bar and a pop for less than $1. Not really relevant to what I can actually buy all of that for today.

Not really relevant to changes in meat temperature vs "doneness" standards either. I believe Allegory is saying that a particular cut served "medium" decades ago would be more cooked than the same cut served "medium" now but it's not as though they just invented the general terminology. I.e., people have been cooking and eating those cuts more thoroughly cooked than today for years and years, even advocated as such by well known chefs. And they weren't considered ruined then.

I'm really more of a "very rare, cool center" guy myself though.

Edited, Sep 29th 2012 12:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Sep 29 2012 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,697 posts
Raw fish is yummy. Absolutely love sushi and maki. I've had raw meat before, usually due to mishaps with hot spots on the grill and varying thickness of steak on the grill at the same time. I don't really like the chewy/gummy texture. I wouldn't mind trying some properly prepared raw steak though. A nice rare or medium-rare steak that oozes out blood as I move it and cut it is what I prefer. The softness and tenderness of the meat is to die for. If we have bread I'll drag it through the blood, whether I've buttered the bread or used it for a steak sandvich. There's a reason au jus is a thing.

If someone likes their steak well done I'll usually just look at them and be like why would you do this? The ones who annoy me though are the ones who want it well done and use a-1 or ketchup because their steak is too dry and doesn't have enough taste. Smiley: banghead

Quote:
Yeah, no. Doneness standards have dropped over the last few decades.

***** your silly standards. Just cut the **** thing open and see what color it has. Science didn't spontaneously go full ****** and start producing different colors at different temperature ranges.

Edited, Sep 29th 2012 11:00pm by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#110 Sep 29 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Deadgye wrote:
***** your silly standards. Just cut the **** thing open and see what color it has. Science didn't spontaneously go full ****** and start producing different colors at different temperature ranges.

That's all well and good, but I'd really like to be able to order a steak cooked a certain way.
#111 Sep 29 2012 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Now I really want some steak.
#112 Sep 29 2012 at 11:48 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,697 posts
Allegory wrote:
Deadgye wrote:
***** your silly standards. Just cut the **** thing open and see what color it has. Science didn't spontaneously go full ****** and start producing different colors at different temperature ranges.

That's all well and good, but I'd really like to be able to order a steak cooked a certain way.

Well then I guess it's a good thing you're not a time traveler who has to deal with remembering which decade you're in.

Also, unless a restaurant specializes in steak I personally think it's a waste of money to order one.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#113 Sep 30 2012 at 12:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,579 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Well then I guess it's a good thing you're not a time traveler who has to deal with remembering which decade you're in.
How sure of that are you? Smiley: tongue

Also, many restaurants seem to have different standards on what constitutes a particular doneness. I usually just hedge my bets and order my steak medium because I like my steak medium rare but can't tolerate rare and am fine with medium well but don't like it well done.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#114 Sep 30 2012 at 2:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,582 posts
I had a steak on Friday night at a restaurant, and when my friend and I ordered our meat, the waitress made a point to describe the result we would receive...Medium rare was "warm and red in the middle" and medium was "pink in the middle".

Made me think of this thread Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#115 Sep 30 2012 at 5:11 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,015 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Deadgye wrote:
Well then I guess it's a good thing you're not a time traveler who has to deal with remembering which decade you're in.
How sure of that are you? Smiley: tongue

Also, many restaurants seem to have different standards on what constitutes a particular doneness. I usually just hedge my bets and order my steak medium because I like my steak medium rare but can't tolerate rare and am fine with medium well but don't like it well done.


That's why I started ordering "medium well". I found out that "well done" for some places mean "leather". At good restaurants, I can order well done and still have the meat fall apart as I cut it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#116 Sep 30 2012 at 5:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,990 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Deadgye wrote:
***** your silly standards. Just cut the **** thing open and see what color it has. Science didn't spontaneously go full ****** and start producing different colors at different temperature ranges.

That's all well and good, but I'd really like to be able to order a steak cooked a certain way.

Well then I guess it's a good thing you're not a time traveler who has to deal with remembering which decade you're in.

Also, unless a restaurant specializes in steak I personally think it's a waste of money to order one.


Deadgye doesn't care about time traveling people.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#117 Sep 30 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Mostly because of this thread, I ordered a steak at the restaurant we ate at last night. I ordered it medium without thinking about it, and ended up with a medium-rare piece. Which worked out for me, at least, because I prefer medium-rare anyway. Just thought it was funny, thinking about this thread.
#118 Sep 30 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
***
2,608 posts
Belkira wrote:
Mostly because of this thread, I ordered a steak at the restaurant we ate at last night. I ordered it medium without thinking about it, and ended up with a medium-rare piece. Which worked out for me, at least, because I prefer medium-rare anyway. Just thought it was funny, thinking about this thread.


mmm steak. Wish now I had picked some up for dinner. Will make do with the brats and crispy potatoes that seemed like a good idea.
#119 Sep 30 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,697 posts
I'm considering making steak now. Perhaps I'll ask the coin.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#120 Sep 30 2012 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,950 posts
I have two porterhouses and two ribeyes sitting in the freezer from the cow we purchased last year. I think next weekend I have to invite the parents over and have a dinner on either Saturday or Sunday and grill up the steaks.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#121 Sep 30 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,697 posts
All hail the coin. Guess I'll go defrost some of the many steaks in the freezer and then toss on a dry rub while the grill heats up. And I guess put some initial d on the 55inch for good measure. 640x480 on a 55inch is silly.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#122 Sep 30 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Honestly, most restaurants more often than not undercook meat than over cook it to order, because it's cheaper to bring a piece of meat up a temperature than it is to start over with a whole new one.
#123 Oct 01 2012 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Allegory wrote:
Quote:
referring medium or well as a matter of taste is up to the individual, but there really are specific cuts and preparations that work well with medium/well (typically involving tenderizing and/or marinating and having other stuff than just the meat involved), but if you're ordering a ribeye or strip steak well done, you are basically wasting your money.

Yeah, no. Doneness standards have dropped over the last few decades. Julia child calls a leg of lamb rare at 140 in 1961, and in 1979 it's rare at 125. The joy of cooking had a leg of lamb rare at 160 in 1920 and today it's 135. What I get when I order a well done steak today would be a medium any time before 1970. What you're calling medium rare would be rare or considered unpalatable by your dad.


The variation isn't as great as you're implying though. There's a range of temperatures for a given doneness and you appear to be picking the top of a range at some point in the past and comparing to the bottom of a range today. You're also making hay out of what is essentially less consistent standards in the past compared with today. The variation is between different older sources. There isn't much disagreement today, so it's not like you don't know today what you're getting if you order a given level of doneness. Now, if you happen to hop in a time machine and travel back 80 years or so, then you might need to worry.


The change isn't in the meat doneness itself, but what some cooks (or those writing cook books) called them. It's not like the temperature to get a given cut of meat to a given cooked doneness has physically changed. Also, it's not surprising that older sources would call for higher temperatures. We have vastly better meat handling processes in place today (and antibiotics!). People didn't cook the meat more back then because it tasted better (and it's not hard to find sources commenting on this fact), but because if you didn't cook meat to 140 or higher (preferably 160 even) people could get sick.

I'm also unsure how your comment refutes my point that ordering a strip or ribeye well done is effectively a waste of your money. It is. The entire point of paying top dollar for a cut of meat from the more tender parts of the cow is for that tenderness. The less you cook it, the more tender and flavorful the result. Within the range of meat from the loin/shortribs portion of the cow you get variation in flavor (from marbling) versus tenderness. This is why a ribeye is more flavorful but less tender than a tenderloin (and why filet mignon is almost always served with sauce or a strip of bacon wrapped around it). Once you get outside that range, the effects of grade matter less and preparation matters more (to both tenderize and flavor the result).


Again, the *only* reason to pay more money for those more tender cuts of beef is so you can cook them with less additional preparations (ie: naked, or with just some minor seasoning, right on a grill then to the plate). You're paying so you can maximize the natural flavor and texture of the beef itself. And the more you cook it, the less of those things you get. Yes. You *can* marinate a ribeye or strip for 6 hours, then cook it to an internal temperature of 170 degrees, cross slice it, slather sauce on, and have a delicious result. But you could get the exact same result using flank or skirt steak for 1/2 to 1/3rd the cost. So you're wasting money. Which was kind of my point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Oct 01 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Belkira wrote:
Mostly because of this thread, I ordered a steak at the restaurant we ate at last night. I ordered it medium without thinking about it, and ended up with a medium-rare piece. Which worked out for me, at least, because I prefer medium-rare anyway. Just thought it was funny, thinking about this thread.


Guenny wrote:
Honestly, most restaurants more often than not undercook meat than over cook it to order, because it's cheaper to bring a piece of meat up a temperature than it is to start over with a whole new one.


Yup. Because they know that most people who like their steak more cooked more than likely learned to cook it that way from their parents (likely using cheaper cuts of meat and preparations to add flavor and tenderness back in), who in turn learned it from their parents, etc. And they think that cooking it that way and adding steak sauce is "normal". Since the restaurant likely doesn't prepare their steaks intending to cook it that much, the result will not be that good and people will wonder why they're paying so much for the meal. They know that if they cook it to a lower temperature most people will think it tastes much much better than they can cook at home and will be satisfied with the result. And for the occasional nutter who actually does just like a slab of meat well done, they can always cook it more. And they'll even grudgingly put some A1 on the table for them if they ask.

Order a rare and you'll get rare. Order medium rare and you'll get medium rare. Order medium and you'll get medium rare. Order medium well, and you'll probably get something between medium and medium rare. Order well and you'll likely get medium. They know what will taste best with the preparation they use for their steaks and will nudge people in that direction. As you said, they can always cook it more if a customer really really insists on it. But most people who might normally think they should cook their meat medium or medium well, upon receiving a steak from a high grade and cut cooked medium rare will love it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Oct 01 2012 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Oh. For a story going in the other direction. I was talking about stew recipes with a friend of mine, and mentioned that I used chuck meat sliced into cubes. He got all uppity or something about how he cuts his stew meat from good cuts of steak. I was like "why the **** would you do that?". I just find it interesting that many people don't seem to grasp that different cuts of meat are for different purposes. Just paying more for something doesn't mean a better result. But he seemed absolutely positive that he was somehow adding something amazing to his stew by paying 5 times more for the meat.

Personally, I find it an affront to a good steak to cut it up and toss it in a stew, but that's just me. Just another example of wasting the qualities of something by using it in a way that doesn't take advantage of them. I suspect he was kinda missing the whole reason for stew existing as a meal in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Oct 01 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,608 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Mostly because of this thread, I ordered a steak at the restaurant we ate at last night. I ordered it medium without thinking about it, and ended up with a medium-rare piece. Which worked out for me, at least, because I prefer medium-rare anyway. Just thought it was funny, thinking about this thread.


Guenny wrote:
Honestly, most restaurants more often than not undercook meat than over cook it to order, because it's cheaper to bring a piece of meat up a temperature than it is to start over with a whole new one.


Yup. Because they know that most people who like their steak more cooked more than likely learned to cook it that way from their parents (likely using cheaper cuts of meat and preparations to add flavor and tenderness back in), who in turn learned it from their parents, etc. And they think that cooking it that way and adding steak sauce is "normal". Since the restaurant likely doesn't prepare their steaks intending to cook it that much, the result will not be that good and people will wonder why they're paying so much for the meal. They know that if they cook it to a lower temperature most people will think it tastes much much better than they can cook at home and will be satisfied with the result. And for the occasional nutter who actually does just like a slab of meat well done, they can always cook it more. And they'll even grudgingly put some A1 on the table for them if they ask.

Order a rare and you'll get rare. Order medium rare and you'll get medium rare. Order medium and you'll get medium rare. Order medium well, and you'll probably get something between medium and medium rare. Order well and you'll likely get medium. They know what will taste best with the preparation they use for their steaks and will nudge people in that direction. As you said, they can always cook it more if a customer really really insists on it. But most people who might normally think they should cook their meat medium or medium well, upon receiving a steak from a high grade and cut cooked medium rare will love it.


Ok he will blow me away but I I have issues with this. First off, my parents didn't eat red meat and I was a vegetarian until I was 25... So my love for steak is my own. More importantly, how do you know what "most people" will think? I always thought that people paid for a meal because it was convenience, luxury and not preparing a meal themselves but that doesn't make me an expert and ready to explain why people like stuff.
#127 Oct 01 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a range of temperatures for a given doneness and you appear to be picking the top of a range at some point in the past and comparing to the bottom of a range today.

Funny how I know you didn't even check my sources to say that.
gbaji wrote:
The change isn't in the meat doneness itself, but what some cooks (or those writing cook books) called them. It's not like the temperature to get a given cut of meat to a given cooked doneness has physically changed.

gbaji wrote:
I'm also unsure how your comment refutes my point that ordering a strip or ribeye well done is effectively a waste of your money. It is. The entire point of paying top dollar for a cut of meat from the more tender parts of the cow is for that tenderness. The less you cook it, the more tender and flavorful the result.

That's the point. The meat hasn't changed. A tender medium cooked ribeye is just as flavorful today as it was 50 years ago, only now we call it well done.

Face it, everything you believe about meat doneness is the result of wasps in the 1980s trying to impress their dinner guests.

Edited, Oct 1st 2012 7:39pm by Allegory
#128 Oct 01 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a range of temperatures for a given doneness and you appear to be picking the top of a range at some point in the past and comparing to the bottom of a range today.

Funny how I know you didn't even check my sources to say that.


Funny how I originally wrote my post with links to sites containing historical references to doneness terminology, complete with quotes from sources speaking about temperatures for different levels at different dates in history *and* to sites with charts with temperatures used currently for doneness levels. The one thing that became abundantly clear while reading this stuff was that the older references were all over the map in terms of the relation between temperature and doneness. Given that my statement didn't actually disagree with your own on this (you also included multiple historical references that varied wildly) and I was going in the direction of "who cares, since those terms are used very consistently today, I decided there was no value to adding the links.


Unless you're arguing that there is significant disagreement and variation among chefs *today* regarding temperature and corresponding doneness? If not, then what's your point? I'm not disagreeing with your stated facts. I'm disagreeing that this is relevant in terms of determining what is meant by "medium rare" today.


Quote:
That's the point. The meat hasn't changed. A tender medium cooked ribeye is just as flavorful today as it was 50 years ago, only now we call it well done.


Actually, on that one I have to disagree though. You even made a more correct point earlier. The top end of the scale hasn't changed, but the bottom has (depending on which source you're using). Love of cooking (1936 version) puts the range between rare and well in the 140 to 170 temperature range. Modern doneness charts put that range between 130 and 170 (actually, that one only goes to medium well, which should speak volumes about not cooking meat that hot). What's happened is that as meat production has become safer and eating grilled steak directly (as opposed to putting meats into other dishes, roasting, braising, etc) has become more common, a greater appreciation for the range of lower temperature cooked meat has risen. So 80 years ago, the range was 140=rare, 160=medium, 170=well, now it's 130=rare, 135=medium rare, 145=medium, 160=medium well (and 170 is presumably still "well" if you can even find someone to cook it that way anymore).

The total range of the temperatures has widened by 10 degrees at the bottom end, but we've compressed the well end and stretched the rare end. This is a reflection of the modern reality that only a small number of people eat steaks cooked anywhere near 160 degrees, but a whole lot of people eat them between 130 and 145. So it makes more sense to place more labels in between the ranges most people want their steak cooked to. Point being that if you ordered a steak cooked to 170 degrees back then, it was well done back then and it's well done today (medium isn't in the picture). If you'd ordered a medium steak back then, you'd get something we'd call medium well today (but we're still talking about 160 degrees). The biggest difference is that the bottom range has changed. Rare was the lowest temperature you'd likely get a steak cooked at the time. Back then, it was 140 (what we'd call on the medium side of medium rare), while today it's 10 degrees cooler.

You'd have a point if you'd said that ordering a rare back then would result in something quite different from a rare today.

This, btw, is the stuff I decided wasn't really relevant to the point I was making. I'll ask again. Why does this matter? Are you planning on traveling back in time in order to get confused about what exactly a medium cooked steak is? Or are you somehow stuck on the label? I guess I don't get it. None of what you're saying in any way refutes the original statement I made and you quoted. You are still wasting your money asking for a ribeye or strip steak cooked medium well or well. You're cooking it to 160 degrees or hotter, which is going to make the steak lose most of its tenderness and flavor. It would have done so just as much back in the 1930s too. Difference is (as I already pointed out), meat cooking was more about cooking completely to kill bacteria, and they rarely just served the meat without additional preparations, sauces, etc.

Quote:
Face it, everything you believe about meat doneness is the result of wasps in the 1980s trying to impress their dinner guests.


Keep telling yourself that. Not sure who you think you're going to convince here. Frankly, I'm not even sure what your point is. Regardless of what you call it, you like your steaks cooked at a temperature way beyond what most people enjoy. That's fine, I guess, but it's like you're trying to blame label changes on this or something. What does one have to do with the other? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Edited, Oct 1st 2012 7:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Oct 01 2012 at 8:47 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
Funny how I originally wrote my post with links to sites containing historical references to doneness terminology, complete with quotes from sources speaking about temperatures for different levels at different dates in history *and* to sites with charts with temperatures used currently for doneness levels.
Funny how those sources disappeared. You'd think it'd be important to cite your sources if you want people to think you're not just talking out of your *** again.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#130 Oct 01 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
eiran wrote:
Ok he will blow me away but I I have issues with this. First off, my parents didn't eat red meat and I was a vegetarian until I was 25... So my love for steak is my own.


Great! How do you like your steak? And what/who influenced you to eat steak?

Quote:
More importantly, how do you know what "most people" will think?


The massive discrepancy represented by sales of steak sauce (mostly marketed to home eaters) and to how steaks are actually prepared in restaurants. Think about it. Most meat prepared in the home is not grilled. It's cooked in a sauce, or a stew, or roasted, or braised. And most of it's made using less tender cuts of meat *and* is cooked using these other methods specifically to add flavor and tenderness to the result. While home grills are much more common than they were when I was a kid, most people's experience eating meat is eating meat that is cooked uniformly and all the way through. The tendency when cooking steak is to do the same. This is why people buy A1 steak sauce. It's pretty much the only reason to do so. Most parents aren't buying their kids ribeye steak and grilling it (although I know some awesome parents who do). Most are buying a cheaper cut and cooking it in a skillet, just like mom did. And it's coming out somewhere near medium well most of the time.

So most people's experience with steak growing up is with a tough hunk of meat sitting next to a pile of peas and some mashed potatoes. They slather A1 on them, saw through them with a knife, and chew them until they can finally swallow them. And they convince themselves that this is what steak is supposed to taste like because it's a treat to even get that and it's all they know. Most of those people, at some point will go to an actual restaurant and order a steak. And when the steak comes, it's this glorious thing that tastes and feels like something they never knew that steak could taste like. And that is why restaurants undercook the steak relative to what people order. And most people will appreciate this. They may not know why the steak in the restaurant tastes so much better than mom used to make, but they know that it does. Many of them will endeavor to find out and will discover that there are ways to make their steak tasted that good as well. And most of them do this. Because it's delicious.


Some, unfortunately, continue to cling to their childhood memories of what steak is supposed to be. They insist that that is "better". And the more people try to convince them otherwise, the more steadfastly they cling to their delusion. Maybe they just don't want to accept that mom didn't cook steak very well. Maybe they've been claiming they love well done steak so long that their pride prevents them from changing for fear of it being perceived as an admission that they were wrong. Perhaps they just can't bear the thought that they'd have to acknowledge that they've wasted so many years of their lives eating terrible tasting steak, so they grimly continue with the charade. I don't know. But what I do know is that we should pity those poor souls.


Quote:
I always thought that people paid for a meal because it was convenience, luxury and not preparing a meal themselves but that doesn't make me an expert and ready to explain why people like stuff.


Sure. But people will tend to continue to pay to go to a restaurant if the experience is positive. The restaurant knows that for the overwhelming majority of customers who order a steak, they will enjoy it most if it's cooked medium rare, regardless of what they actually call it when they order. As a couple people have pointed out, it's a calculation. If they're right, the person will enjoy the medium rare steak. If they're wrong, the can always cook it more.


The people who cook steak professionally *are* experts. That they do this pretty much universally should tell you all you need to know about the issue. Clearly, more people appreciate the medium rare steak they are served than get upset at having to send their undercooked steak back to be cooked as they requested it. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at that an conclude that they really do kinda know better what their customers will enjoy when it comes to steak than the customers themselves. If it wasn't true, they wouldn't do this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Oct 01 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Funny how I originally wrote my post with links to sites containing historical references to doneness terminology, complete with quotes from sources speaking about temperatures for different levels at different dates in history *and* to sites with charts with temperatures used currently for doneness levels.
Funny how those sources disappeared. You'd think it'd be important to cite your sources if you want people to think you're not just talking out of your *** again.


Excuse me? I didn't bring up Julia Childs, or the 1920 issue of Joy of Cooking and create a whole argument around that (without providing a single cite). Why don't you go bug that person instead?

WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Oct 02 2012 at 2:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The take away here is that Gbaji is pathologically insecure about his steak and wants everyone to validate how he eats it in the best possible way and anyone deviating from it must suffer childhood trauma or be using steak sauce as a substitute for their mothers love.

I don't want to say "projection" but I'm not sure if that mindset just comes up out from under the rocks on its own.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Oct 02 2012 at 4:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,015 posts
I don't see the problem.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#134 Oct 02 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,893 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The take away here is that Gbaji is pathologically insecure about his steak and wants everyone to validate how he eats it in the best possible way and anyone deviating from it must suffer childhood trauma or be using steak sauce as a substitute for their mothers love.
A steak ønce bit his sister.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#135 Oct 02 2012 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The take away here is that Gbaji is pathologically insecure about his steak and wants everyone to validate how he eats it in the best possible way and anyone deviating from it must suffer childhood trauma or be using steak sauce as a substitute for their mothers love.
A steak ønce bit his sister.

Once bitten, twice shy.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#136 Oct 02 2012 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The take away here is that Gbaji is pathologically insecure about his steak and wants everyone to validate how he eats it in the best possible way and anyone deviating from it must suffer childhood trauma or be using steak sauce as a substitute for their mothers love.
A steak ønce bit his sister.
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the steak with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".


Edited, Oct 2nd 2012 2:38pm by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#137 Oct 02 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,119 posts
I find your abuse of our vowels very offensive. Smiley: glare
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#138 Oct 02 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Mazra wrote:
I find your abuse of our vowels very offensive. Smiley: glare
They're just jealous of your big, fat alphabet.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#139 Oct 02 2012 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Mazra wrote:
I find your abuse of our vowels very offensive. Smiley: glare
They're just jealous of your big, fat alphabet.
____________________________
Banh
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT
Iamadam, Sandinmygum, Anonymous Guests (78)