In b4 Joe gets a cheese wheel on m.net
03-20-2012, 01:12 PM
#82
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,023
Total Cats: 6,591
There's just something that rubs me the wrong way about putting, well, anything on top of a good fillet. Would you pour A1 sauce all over that same piece of meat? Same idea. Kind of like slathering BBQ sauce onto smoked ribs.
A well-aged filet, served rare, should require that nothing be added nor taken away.
Reply
0
0
03-20-2012, 01:19 PM
#83
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I like bleu on a burger, but not a filet.
and i might dip my prime rib in some horseradish but... that's about it.
On the subject of cheeeeses, my wife was excited to find out that there is such a thing as pasteurized Feta cheese.
and i might dip my prime rib in some horseradish but... that's about it.
On the subject of cheeeeses, my wife was excited to find out that there is such a thing as pasteurized Feta cheese.
Reply
0
0
03-20-2012, 05:52 PM
#89
Reply
0
0
03-20-2012, 09:36 PM
#91
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bel Air, MD
Posts: 119
Total Cats: 17
I believe if you catch somebody having intercourse with an animal, you are to stone him/her to death, slaughter the beast and pour the blood of the beast on the offender. The only exception is if the beast is a tempter/temptress of Satan in which case you just slaughter the beast.
http://www.mississippilink.com/news/...cc4c002e0.html
Reply
0
0
03-20-2012, 11:26 PM
#92
Better go get your slaughter kit and add the optional VD module
http://www.mississippilink.com/news/...cc4c002e0.html
http://www.mississippilink.com/news/...cc4c002e0.html
*I see your new here so just so you know I'm not some religious fanatic, actually I'm a pretty hardcore atheist. Not trying to impose my views or anything (at this moment) but since the mods changed my user name from Gearhead_318 to Shearhead_3:16 (oh the ironing) I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea. Maybe I'll change my avatar back to the Flying Spaghetti monster for more irony and confusion.
Reply
0
0
03-21-2012, 10:21 AM
#93
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Start with Parmigiano-Reggiano. It's the standard stuff you find in blocks at places like Whole Foods. Or ask the person at their cheese counter for advice on something hard and with salt crystals.
Reply
0
0
03-21-2012, 01:22 PM
#94
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bel Air, MD
Posts: 119
Total Cats: 17
Apply this when necessary to understand someone elses point of view in order to get what you want out of them. One can also do this to be a good citizen and resolve differences but that gets boring.
Reply
0
0
04-01-2012, 09:13 PM
#95
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
(sigh)
Ok, I'm going to break form here for just a moment to defend myself. I didn't say that they were, as I honestly have no basis to judge whether they are or not. What I said was that eating more calories than you expend makes you fat, and I'm pretty sure that's a truism.
I'm not a nutritionist. The closest thing I have to any kind of formal education on the subject is a survey-level course I took my senior year of college when I needed a couple more gen-ed hours to graduate. It was an easy GPA booster, too.
Assuming that the absorption rate of the sugar and the chicken into the body are equal, then they should contribute the same number of calories into the aforementioned equation. I'm sure that there are other factors at work as well (eg, the immediate physiological effects of eating 4.6 ounces of pure sugar in a single sitting vs. 10.7 ounces of lean, skinless chicken breast) however I don't believe that, insofar as long-term body weight is concerned, the two would be significantly different.
I may make a video. It will have nothing at all to do with my answer, however.
Ok, I'm going to break form here for just a moment to defend myself. I didn't say that they were, as I honestly have no basis to judge whether they are or not. What I said was that eating more calories than you expend makes you fat, and I'm pretty sure that's a truism.
I'm not a nutritionist. The closest thing I have to any kind of formal education on the subject is a survey-level course I took my senior year of college when I needed a couple more gen-ed hours to graduate. It was an easy GPA booster, too.
Assuming that the absorption rate of the sugar and the chicken into the body are equal, then they should contribute the same number of calories into the aforementioned equation. I'm sure that there are other factors at work as well (eg, the immediate physiological effects of eating 4.6 ounces of pure sugar in a single sitting vs. 10.7 ounces of lean, skinless chicken breast) however I don't believe that, insofar as long-term body weight is concerned, the two would be significantly different.
I may make a video. It will have nothing at all to do with my answer, however.
Joe: watch tonight's 60 minutes. There's a story on sugar. There is a study being done where people are on a normal diet as a control and then 25% of their calories are replaced with sweetened drinks. preliminary findings show much higher levels of LDL in the blood after only two weeks.
emphasis mine.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
StratoBlue1109
Miata parts for sale/trade
21
09-30-2018 01:09 PM
