Microwave-emitting Food
Richard Alexander
about microwave ovens. I'd like to document that I met another person
with a strange idea a few weeks ago. One of the food sample presenters
in Sam's Club was absolutely certain that microwaved food will emit
microwaves for a few minutes after the oven shuts off. She said that
microwaved food should be allowed to set for a few minutes, because if
it is eaten too soon, it will microwave the insides of a person.
I did my best to disabuse her of her fear of microwaves.
Dirk Bruere
"Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com...
I hope you informed her that if food is hot it will saturate her mouth and
stomach with even shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation. And that
such radiation can often lead to burns.
Dirk
Boris Mohar
Microwaved food can produce dangerously high levels of high frequency
radiation. Generally the longer the exposure inside the microwave,
higher will be the latent radiation. It is possible to suffer actual
burns by trying to ingest food thus prepared without letting it sit for a
while.
Regards,
Boris Mohar
Uncle Al
It does emit microwaves big time as major fraction of its blackbody
radiation. Of course, this nothing compared to kitchen burner
elements or a woman's humid breasts.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Andre
> Richard Alexander wrote:
> >
> > I've mentioned before on Usenet that some people have strange ideas
> > about microwave ovens. I'd like to document that I met another person
> > with a strange idea a few weeks ago. One of the food sample presenters
> > in Sam's Club was absolutely certain that microwaved food will emit
> > microwaves for a few minutes after the oven shuts off. She said that
> > microwaved food should be allowed to set for a few minutes, because if
> > it is eaten too soon, it will microwave the insides of a person.
LOL! Maybe they should put this one in the manual ! . (like the "Do
not dry off animate or inanimate objects in this microwave" warning) .
That is, microwaved food is entirely safe, but may remain hot for some
time so please be careful when consuming it ! This effect may not
happen with a conventional oven .
Richard Alexander
> "Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> I hope you informed her that if food is hot it will saturate her mouth and
> stomach with even shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation. And that
> such radiation can often lead to burns.
I might have done that, except that she was having enough trouble
grasping the concept without my making a point to confuse her. I did,
however, describe the electromagnetic spectrum, and various points of
interest on it.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> Microwaved food can produce dangerously high levels of high frequency
> radiation. Generally the longer the exposure inside the microwave,
> higher will be the latent radiation. It is possible to suffer actual
> burns by trying to ingest food thus prepared without letting it sit for a
> while.
Cute. Not terribly helpful, but cute.
Richard Alexander
> Richard Alexander wrote:
[snip]
> It does emit microwaves big time as major fraction of its blackbody
> radiation. Of course, this nothing compared to kitchen burner
> elements or a woman's humid breasts.
Nothing like a little Uncle Al to put things into perspective...
So, how would I go about confirming your statements, Al? I mean, experimentally.
Richard Henry
This morning I was reminded of my recurring problem with a
microwave-emitting cup. When I make a cup of coffee in the microwave, I put
the water and instant crystals in for a couple of minutes, then haul it out
and add the sugar. I have one set of cups (Italian china) whose handles get
insanely HOT, much more so than the other cups I use (Corning ware and the
like).
Dirk Bruere
"Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > I hope you informed her that if food is hot it will saturate her mouth
and
> > stomach with even shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation. And that
> > such radiation can often lead to burns.
>
> I might have done that, except that she was having enough trouble
> grasping the concept without my making a point to confuse her. I did,
> however, describe the electromagnetic spectrum, and various points of
> interest on it.
You mean the good bits, and the evil bits.
Dirk
bob
>I hope you informed her that if food is hot it will saturate her mouth and
>stomach with even shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation. And that
>such radiation can often lead to burns.
>
>Dirk
>
microwaved food emmits electromagnetic RADIATION ?!?!??!?!
dont say that too loud or next thing you know greenpeace will propose
legislation to ban all food!
Mike Simons
"bob" <nom...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:waLO8.20455$ks6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
too late: http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/greenpeace.shtml
leeppp
All seriousness aside; will microwave ovens kill food bacteria? I
often put salads in to warm them up as well as some older fridge food
with the possibly mistaken belief that the microwaves will kill any
bad stuff present. I`ve noticed that TV dinners that are way outa data
are still ok but tend to dry out if the "use by date" has well passed
by a year or so....not very tasty!
I did notice that when microwave oven is going, the AM radio about 5`
away makes stranges static noises as oven magnatron turns on and off
during cook cycle. So, they #DO# transmit low level harmonic stuff
like TV`s. No leakage detected with meter however as meter is simply
not sensitive enough like the $600 ones. LEE
Physics Seeker
> I've mentioned before on Usenet that some people have strange ideas
> about microwave ovens. I'd like to document that I met another person
> with a strange idea a few weeks ago. One of the food sample presenters
> in Sam's Club was absolutely certain that microwaved food will emit
> microwaves for a few minutes after the oven shuts off. She said that
> microwaved food should be allowed to set for a few minutes, because if
> it is eaten too soon, it will microwave the insides of a person.
I had a roommate (actually two--they were twins) who claimed the same
thing. When I said it wasn't true they claimed to have "read it in the
paper".
PC
test...@yahoo.com says...
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3D0AAD56...@hate.spam.net>...
> > Richard Alexander wrote:
> > >
> > > I've mentioned before on Usenet that some people have strange ideas
> > > about microwave ovens. I'd like to document that I met another person
> > > with a strange idea a few weeks ago. One of the food sample presenters
> > > in Sam's Club was absolutely certain that microwaved food will emit
> > > microwaves for a few minutes after the oven shuts off. She said that
> > > microwaved food should be allowed to set for a few minutes, because if
> > > it is eaten too soon, it will microwave the insides of a person.
>
> LOL! Maybe they should put this one in the manual ! . (like the "Do
> not dry off animate or inanimate objects in this microwave" warning) .
>
> That is, microwaved food is entirely safe, but may remain hot for some
> time so please be careful when consuming it ! This effect may not
> happen with a conventional oven .
Unfortunatly, it seems that all cooked food is poison to the body.
The body has developed over millions of years to utilise the things that
were available at that time. CLEAN AIR, lots of SUNLIGHT (including UV
rays, that's important so make sure you expose yourself to sunlight
without sunglasses for about 20 minutes a day), plenty of EXERCISE, PURE
WATER and of course RAW FOOD.
When you eat raw food, the body accepts it and uses it efficiently. When
you cook food, not only does it eradicate most of the enzymes and
vitamins, but the body treats it as toxic, and out come the white cells
to fight it and it knocks down your immune system.
We have only being cooking food a few thousand years, and this is not
very long on the evolutionary time scale, so the body has not had enough
time to adapt to this change. That includes the sudden change of our
lifestyles. As a consequence to this rapid change in diet and lifestyle,
we get sick. Our immune system is what keeps us healthy, so by knocking
it down with poisons such as sugar and cooked food, amongst many other
poisons in our diet as well as the deadly sweetners such as aspartame, we
are likely to get ill.
Cancer occurs if the immune system has been compromised. The body
produces millions of cells all the time, and it makes errors every so
often. One of the tasks for our immune system is to clean up those
errors, and normally it does so effectively. If, however, the immune
system has been knocked down, it can't do this effectively, and the
errors grow and grow and that is how the cancer develops. Similar with
AIDS. Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The clue to the cure is in the
name. Fix your immune system by not taking in poisons, and instead change
your diet to raw food, rich in minerals, and of course take plenty of
exercise and plenty of pure water and you should be able to recover from
almost any illness. Make sense?
It has been found when experiments where conducted that animals which
were fed cooked food got human ailments, and when fed raw food they
didn't. Strange eh?
Look, it makes perfect sense that if you give your body what it has been
designed to use, it will function properly. We are not doing this and as
a result our hospitals are full.
If you would like more information, you can visit www.waynegreen.com
which has a lot of information about health. Very carefully researched,
and Mr Green has read hundreds of books about health and the immune
system, and has talked to many experts. He has books explaining all this
and more.
Parisi & Watson
news:MPG.1775ce74b...@news.ntlworld.com...
You have a point with vegetables, but there are also serious dangers
involved in eating raw meat.
Robert.
PC
It can be eaten I believe *if* the meat is from animals that haven't been
fed garbage and fed good food and the meat is exposed to silver colloid
to kill any dangerous bacteria.
Mike Poulton
> All seriousness aside; will microwave ovens kill food bacteria? I
> often put salads in to warm them up as well as some older fridge food
> with the possibly mistaken belief that the microwaves will kill any
> bad stuff present. I`ve noticed that TV dinners that are way outa data
> are still ok but tend to dry out if the "use by date" has well passed
> by a year or so....not very tasty!
Why would a microwave kill bacteria? ALL IT DOES is produce heat.
Microwaves have NO OTHER EFFECTS on the food besides heating. No
molecular rearrangements, no disruption of reactions, nothing. It just
adds kinetic energy. Microwaves will not kill anything unless they do
so by heating it to a temperature at which the organism cannot survive,
just like your stove or oven.
--
Mike Poulton
MTP Technologies
Not only do I speak for my company, I AM my company!
Live free or die!
http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> All seriousness aside; will microwave ovens kill food bacteria?
Well, that depends a bit on what the meaning of "kill" is...
If you are asking, "Will an ordinary microwave oven render any object
placed inside completely sterile in 5 minutes or less," the answer is,
"No." A microwave oven can kill some bacteria, but not all.
It is important when cooking food in any type of oven that the core
temperature stay outside the "bloom zone" for hazardous bacteria. You
see, bacteria don't wear any clothes, so the little bugs like it kind
of warm. When food gets around 120° or so, the bugs set up a love
fest, and start reproducing like crazy. They may increase in number a
million-fold in just a few minutes (exactly how many minutes I don't
recall). That would be toxic and could be lethal for most humans. So,
food that is prone to harbor these types of bacteria need to remain
either under 40° or over 195°, not so much to kill bacteria, but to
discourage bacteria from reproducing.
> I often put salads in to warm them up as well as some older fridge food
> with the possibly mistaken belief that the microwaves will kill any
> bad stuff present.
Only if your food disappears...
> I`ve noticed that TV dinners that are way outa data
> are still ok but tend to dry out if the "use by date" has well passed
> by a year or so....not very tasty!
Sounds like my cooking. I'm debating what to do with all that yogurt
that I brought with me when I moved, 3 years ago.
> I did notice that when microwave oven is going, the AM radio about 5`
> away makes stranges static noises as oven magnatron turns on and off
> during cook cycle. So, they #DO# transmit low level harmonic stuff
> like TV`s.
Probably through the electric wiring, not through the air.
> No leakage detected with meter however as meter is simply
> not sensitive enough like the $600 ones. LEE
If the meter doesn't detect it, why would the radio? That would make
your radio a better detector than your detector.
Andy Resnick
Uncle Al wrote:
> Richard Alexander wrote:
> >
> > I've mentioned before on Usenet that some people have strange ideas
> > about microwave ovens. I'd like to document that I met another person
> > with a strange idea a few weeks ago. One of the food sample presenters
> > in Sam's Club was absolutely certain that microwaved food will emit
> > microwaves for a few minutes after the oven shuts off. She said that
> > microwaved food should be allowed to set for a few minutes, because if
> > it is eaten too soon, it will microwave the insides of a person.
> >
> > I did my best to disabuse her of her fear of microwaves.
>
> It does emit microwaves big time as major fraction of its blackbody
> radiation. Of course, this nothing compared to kitchen burner
> elements or a woman's humid breasts.
I'm not sure of that, Al (the 'major fraction' part). At 310 K (humid
breasts), blackbody emission drops off after about 1200 microns. Kitchen
burners (electric), at say 573 K, are only emitting 10^-11 W/micron out in
the MMW.
Compare this with the cold sky (3 K space) at 10^-14 W/mic out in the MMW.
And that's the peak.
--
Andy Resnick, Ph.D.
Optical Physicist
Northrop Grumman
Alejandro Rivero
goes not only to the agitation (temperature) but also to
rotationary modes of the water particles; you need a relaxation
time for the rotationary energy to be released, via interaction,
to agitation and then account for the temperature. Ie, the
food as it comes from the fourn is not at equilibrium. You can
get a piece of food and temperature can keep high in your stomach as
the energy is released from the rotational mode.
Of course, this is difficoultous to explain, so for sure someone
out there preferred the explanation your friend has.
Alejandro
"Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com
> I've mentioned before on Usenet that some people have strange ideas
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>I can imagine the source of the misinformation. Microwave energy
>goes not only to the agitation (temperature) but also to
>rotationary modes of the water particles; you need a relaxation
>time for the rotationary energy to be released, via interaction,
>to agitation and then account for the temperature.
The relaxation times are in the nanosecond range and below. Can you
open your microwave door that fast?:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> > That is, microwaved food is entirely safe, but may remain hot for some
> > time so please be careful when consuming it ! This effect may not
> > happen with a conventional oven .
>
> Unfortunatly, it seems that all cooked food is poison to the body.
It would be as accurate to state that *UNcooked* food is poison to the
body.
> The body has developed over millions of years to utilise the things that
> were available at that time. CLEAN AIR, lots of SUNLIGHT (including UV
> rays, that's important so make sure you expose yourself to sunlight
> without sunglasses for about 20 minutes a day), plenty of EXERCISE, PURE
> WATER and of course RAW FOOD.
It is unlikely that someone would find pure water out in the open, no
matter how long ago you look. There would almost always be some
impurity in the water, whether chemical or biological.
> When you eat raw food, the body accepts it and uses it efficiently.
The same is true of cooked food.
> When you cook food, not only does it eradicate most of the enzymes and
> vitamins,
Properly cooked food still has most of its nutritional value.
Overcooking will reduce the nutritional value.
> but the body treats it as toxic,
Did you know that if you inject a cup of raw beef protein directly
into your vein, you would die?
> and out come the white cells to fight it and it knocks down your immune
> system.
The same is true of raw food; any food that has impurities can trigger
an immune response.
> We have only being cooking food a few thousand years, and this is not
> very long on the evolutionary time scale,
You are giving an imprecise measure; how long is "very long"? How long
is "long enough"?
> so the body has not had enough time to adapt to this change.
How can you possibly know how long is long enough? How do you know
that 1000 years, or 10k years, or 100k years is not long enough? Maybe
100 years is sufficient.
> That includes the sudden change of our lifestyles. As a consequence to
> this rapid change in diet and lifestyle, we get sick.
People have been getting sick for as long as people have existed in
this world. Indeed, people used to get sicker and die sooner long ago
than today.
> Our immune system is what keeps us healthy, so by knocking
> it down with poisons such as sugar and cooked food, amongst many other
> poisons in our diet as well as the deadly sweetners such as aspartame, we
> are likely to get ill.
This is just a laundry list of boogeymen; if it has any validity, it
is only accidental.
> Cancer occurs if the immune system has been compromised. The body
> produces millions of cells all the time, and it makes errors every so
> often. One of the tasks for our immune system is to clean up those
> errors, and normally it does so effectively. If, however, the immune
> system has been knocked down, it can't do this effectively, and the
> errors grow and grow and that is how the cancer develops. Similar with
> AIDS. Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The clue to the cure is in the
> name. Fix your immune system by not taking in poisons, and instead change
> your diet to raw food, rich in minerals, and of course take plenty of
> exercise and plenty of pure water and you should be able to recover from
> almost any illness. Make sense?
It's wrong. You are wrong. You cannot guarantee health by eating raw
food, nor can you prevent AIDS by diet and exercise.
> It has been found when experiments where conducted that animals which
> were fed cooked food got human ailments,
What is a human ailment? Cancer? Diabetes? Kidney failure? Animals in
the wild suffer from all these ailments, and always have.
> and when fed raw food they didn't. Strange eh?
Strange? More like hallucinatory! Animals get sick and die all the
time, and it isn't because they are eating cooked food.
I'd like you to cite the actual research that made the findings you
suggest.
> Look, it makes perfect sense that if you give your body what it has been
> designed to use, it will function properly. We are not doing this and as
> a result our hospitals are full.
People live longer, healthier lives today than at any point in the
last several thousand years.
> If you would like more information, you can visit www.waynegreen.com
> which has a lot of information about health. Very carefully researched,
> and Mr Green has read hundreds of books about health and the immune
> system, and has talked to many experts. He has books explaining all this
> and more.
The dietary myth crowd never stops.
Richard Alexander
> I can imagine the source of the misinformation. Microwave energy
> goes not only to the agitation (temperature) but also to
> rotationary modes of the water particles; you need a relaxation
> time for the rotationary energy to be released, via interaction,
> to agitation and then account for the temperature. Ie, the
> food as it comes from the fourn is not at equilibrium. You can
> get a piece of food and temperature can keep high in your stomach as
> the energy is released from the rotational mode.
I think the reason I got into this conversation with the woman was
that she had made a comment about being cautious to leave food in a
microwave for a minute after the oven stops. She believed that if she
took the food out of the microwave too soon, the food would be
emitting enough microwaves to harm her. That was when she made the
comment about microwaving one's insides upon eating food fresh from
the microwave.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> Unfortunatly, it seems that all cooked food is poison to the body.
Here is a timely news article for you:
"Wrong thoughts about right food"
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/06/17/healthfood.obsession.ap/index.html
"DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Dr. Steven Bratman has seen the quest for
healthy eating take a sour turn from dietary vigilance to dangerous
obsession.
"Bratman's own extremes in dietary purity peaked in the 1970s when he
was living on an organic farm in New York. He disdained to eat any
vegetable that had been plucked from the ground more than 15 minutes
earlier, and chewed each mouthful at least 50 times. He lectured
friends on the evils of processed food and once feared a piece of
pasteurized cheese would give him pneumonia.
"'To be that obsessed with eating healthy food is to be really out of
balance,' he said in an interview from his home in Fort Collins.
"Bratman coined a new term to define his illness, orthorexia nervosa.
He described it as an eating disorder whose sufferers fixate on eating
proper food. The term uses 'ortho,' which means straight, correct and
true, and 'nervosa' to indicate obsession."
Rich Grise
I've heard that if you're in a hurry that you can dry freshly-
washed pantyhose in just a few seconds in the microwave oven,
but you can't put them on right away because they continue
to cook in the center.
;-)
Rich
Rich Grise
I would presume that if an animal on the hoof isn't sick,
that its meat right when freshly killed would be OK, but
EEeeeewwwww! And I mean freshly killed like in the last
few minutes, still out in the bush, so to speak, before
the airborne bugs have a chance to colonize. After all,
that's how wild animals do it.
A lot of people eat raw meat and raw fish (ever been to
a sushi bar?), but it's really really fresh.
I wonder, if we've been eating cooked food for only the
last few thousand years and haven't evolved to digest
it properly, howcome life expectancy has been increasing
steadily over that period of time. (by a significant
amount, I might add.)
And how do you know we _haven't_ evolved? It doesn't
take _that_ long - look at plant and animal breeders,
hybrids, and so on. I find it perfectly plausible that
a couple that eats toxic stuff could produce offspring
that are more tolerant, by natural selection. That is,
the blastocysts and embryos and yes, even feti, who
are by accident of inheritance more tolerant of the
"toxic" stuff, will have a greater tendency to
survive, just like penicillin(sp?)-resistant bacteria.
There are always variations in the genetic product
of a sperm and egg - why not evolve in only a generation
or two?
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
The real reason for "stand time" is so that the food gets cooked
all the way through. Ever bake a potato in the microwave? If
you take it out after the cooking time and try to cut into it
right away, it's still almost raw in the middle. That's why
you cover it with foil and let it sit for a few more minutes -
the thermal energy in the exterior of the potato finishes
cooking the middle by ordinary conduction.
Another interesting experiment I've never succeeded at is
superheating water. Supposedly, if the water in your cup
is really still, and the cup is clean, that the water can
be heated above 212F, as long as there's nothing to trigger
it into boiling. Then you put your teaspoon of instant
beverage into it and Foom! The whole cup breaks into a boil
at once, spraying anyone nearby with scalding hot water.
Another thing I wish I'd tried back in Minnesota when it was
about -40 degrees (C or F; they're the same) out was go
outside with a pan of boiling water and toss the water up
into the air - I had a chance but I chickened out because
I didn't know what would happen and have an aversion to
stuff blowing up in my face.
Cheers!
Rich
Dirk Bruere
"Rich Grise" <richar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df9fd6c.02061...@posting.google.com...
>
> I wonder, if we've been eating cooked food for only the
> last few thousand years and haven't evolved to digest
> it properly, howcome life expectancy has been increasing
> steadily over that period of time. (by a significant
> amount, I might add.)
We've probably been cooking food for a million years or so.
Ever since we learned to make fire.
Dirk
Steve Harris
> PC <sp...@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1775ce74b...@news.ntlworld.com>...
> > In article <2c2cf14c.02061...@posting.google.com>,
> > test...@yahoo.com says...
> > very long on the evolutionary time scale,
>
> You are giving an imprecise measure; how long is "very long"? How long
> is "long enough"?
>
> > so the body has not had enough time to adapt to this change.
>
> How can you possibly know how long is long enough? How do you know
> that 1000 years, or 10k years, or 100k years is not long enough? Maybe
> 100 years is sufficient.
Nevermind, it's not a problem. There is a pretty good candidate for campfire
between 200,000 and 400,000 years old (chared animal bones arranged
radially), and one suggestive site in China that dates at 500,000 years.
That's lots of time to evolve a silly thing like a taste for cooked food,
which we seem to have (and our dogs, too). Cooking doesn't really do all
that much to food but de-bug it a bit, and doesn't wipe out enough vitamins
to offset the increased sanitation.
So why do people (and dogs) glaze hynotically into campfires? Because we're
all descended from folks who did that, and not the ones that wandered off
into the dark without it.
And our taste for char, smoke, brazing, browning, toasting, caramelizing?
Well known. Do you know how many backyard grills there are in the US?
Even coffee only gets the flavor we crave from Maillard reactions during
roasting of the beans. EO Wilson says if there was a 1 cent tax on every
cup drunk in the world we could save the rain forests and species
depredation and have bucks left over.
> The dietary myth crowd never stops
Yep. People who think they can eat their way into immortality.
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
.
Maleki
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>"Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com...
>> PC <sp...@sucks.com> wrote in message
>news:<MPG.1775ce74b...@news.ntlworld.com>...
>> > In article <2c2cf14c.02061...@posting.google.com>,
>> > test...@yahoo.com says...
>> > We have only being cooking food a few thousand years, and this is not
>> > very long on the evolutionary time scale,
>>
>> You are giving an imprecise measure; how long is "very long"? How long
>> is "long enough"?
>>
>> > so the body has not had enough time to adapt to this change.
>>
>> How can you possibly know how long is long enough? How do you know
>> that 1000 years, or 10k years, or 100k years is not long enough? Maybe
>> 100 years is sufficient.
>
>Nevermind, it's not a problem. There is a pretty good candidate for campfire
>between 200,000 and 400,000 years old (chared animal bones arranged
>radially), and one suggestive site in China that dates at 500,000 years.
>
A site in France dates it around 750,000 years back.
Dirk Bruere
"TutAmongUs@theholeintheground" <TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol>
wrote in message news:dn1ugu0nb3hlm8gjc...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:10:03 +0100, "Dirk Bruere"
> <art...@kbnet.co.uk> Gave us:
> so. We have, though, for as long as we have been around practically.
Depends.
'We' did not appear from nothing - 'we' have a history stretching back a
billion years or more.
Dirk
jmfb...@aol.com
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <876646f8f577a302656...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Alejandro Rivero" <riv...@sol.unizar.es> writes:
>
>>I can imagine the source of the misinformation. Microwave energy
>>goes not only to the agitation (temperature) but also to
>>rotationary modes of the water particles; you need a relaxation
>>time for the rotationary energy to be released, via interaction,
>>to agitation and then account for the temperature.
>
>The relaxation times are in the nanosecond range and below. Can you
>open your microwave door that fast?:-)
If he can, he'ld make a mint. A story I heard was about some
mechanical engineers watching the old TV Star Trek and marveling
how fast the doors opened. They went to the set and asked how
the crew managed to devise a mechanism to do it. The answer was
they had humans opening the doors.
/BAH
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Alejandro Rivero
news:KunP8.23$V4....@news.uchicago.edu
> In article <876646f8f577a302656...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Alejandro Rivero" <riv...@sol.unizar.es> writes:
> >I can imagine the source of the misinformation. Microwave energy
> >goes not only to the agitation (temperature) but also to
> >rotationary modes of the water particles; you need a relaxation
> >time for the rotationary energy to be released, via interaction,
> >to agitation and then account for the temperature.
> The relaxation times are in the nanosecond range and below. Can you
> open your microwave door that fast?:-)
nanosecond times for thermodinamical effects... It does not seem
the usual time scale. True that jumps from metastability to
stability are fast, almost that order, but even in such case one
must account the time of the metastable phase.
On second thought, I like Rich Grise explanation, just usual
termal conduction from high temperature to low, until it reachs
equilibrium (and gets cooked).
Alejandro Rivero
> po...@aol.com (Richard Alexander) wrote in message news:<d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Alejandro Rivero" <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote in message news:<876646f8f577a302656...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> The real reason for "stand time" is so that the food gets cooked
> all the way through. Ever bake a potato in the microwave? If
> you take it out after the cooking time and try to cut into it
> right away, it's still almost raw in the middle. That's why
> you cover it with foil and let it sit for a few more minutes -
> the thermal energy in the exterior of the potato finishes
> cooking the middle by ordinary conduction.
Probably you have got the right explanation.
> Another interesting experiment I've never succeeded at is
> superheating water. Supposedly, if the water in your cup
> is really still, and the cup is clean, that the water can
> be heated above 212F, as long as there's nothing to trigger
> it into boiling. Then you put your teaspoon of instant
> beverage into it and Foom! The whole cup breaks into a boil
> at once, spraying anyone nearby with scalding hot water.
A related effect is typical in my microwave: I get the hot
water, then I add some chocolat or some other thing I want
to dissolve et voila, instant foam! Also with the tea bag. Note
that dissolution should of course change thermodinamic properties
of clear water, so it is an easier effect.
My thermodinamics teacher told once of a "superfreeze" effect
he suffered in Holland. There was water in the road, and it
seems the external temperature had gone under zero (celsius)
smooth enough, so the perturbation of the car touching the water
made the equivalent of the "spoon" in your example: a shock
wave propagating along the road and turning it to ice.
Yours,
Alejandro
Gregory L. Hansen
Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:17:11 -0600, "Steve Harris"
><sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
>>"Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com...
>>> PC <sp...@sucks.com> wrote in message
>>news:<MPG.1775ce74b...@news.ntlworld.com>...
>>> > In article <2c2cf14c.02061...@posting.google.com>,
>>> > test...@yahoo.com says...
>>> > We have only being cooking food a few thousand years, and this is not
>>> > very long on the evolutionary time scale,
>>>
>>> You are giving an imprecise measure; how long is "very long"? How long
>>> is "long enough"?
>>>
>>> > so the body has not had enough time to adapt to this change.
>>>
>>> How can you possibly know how long is long enough? How do you know
>>> that 1000 years, or 10k years, or 100k years is not long enough? Maybe
>>> 100 years is sufficient.
>>
>>Nevermind, it's not a problem. There is a pretty good candidate for campfire
>>between 200,000 and 400,000 years old (chared animal bones arranged
>>radially), and one suggestive site in China that dates at 500,000 years.
>>
>
>A site in France dates it around 750,000 years back.
And it was a fine art at least as far back as 5000 years ago in Babylon.
And wide-spread. I don't know of any culture that didn't cook food, which
means it's not just a fad of bourgeois Europeans.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Randy Poe
> I would presume that if an animal on the hoof isn't sick,
> that its meat right when freshly killed would be OK, but
> EEeeeewwwww! And I mean freshly killed like in the last
> few minutes, still out in the bush, so to speak, before
> the airborne bugs have a chance to colonize. After all,
> that's how wild animals do it.
That's how predators do it. Other animals are evolved
to eat the meat at every stage on its way to, er, achieving
Oneness with the earth.
>
> A lot of people eat raw meat and raw fish (ever been to
> a sushi bar?), but it's really really fresh.
Yes, I've noticed many Chinese restaurants have large
aquariums from which you frequently see waiters with nets
retrieving fish.
Also, I've heard that a typical Chinese open-air market
features meat, or at least poultry, that is live when you're
shopping for it.
I've heard rumors of Japanese seafood delicacies that
are still live when they get to the table.
- Randy
Dirk Bruere
"TutAmongUs@theholeintheground" <TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol>
wrote in message news:k08ugug13i591q8pl...@4ax.com...
> >> >> I wonder, if we've been eating cooked food for only the
> >> >> last few thousand years and haven't evolved to digest
> >> >> it properly, howcome life expectancy has been increasing
> >> >> steadily over that period of time. (by a significant
> >> >> amount, I might add.)
> >> >
> >> >We've probably been cooking food for a million years or so.
> >> >Ever since we learned to make fire.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Considering that we haven't even been here that long, I hardly think
> >> so. We have, though, for as long as we have been around practically.
> >
> >Depends.
> >'We' did not appear from nothing - 'we' have a history stretching back a
> >billion years or more.
> >
>
> sapiens that cooked.
However, to return to the point, since our ancesters have been cooking food
for about a million years there is reason to believe we have adapted to it.
Dirk
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"meron" <me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:KunP8.23$V4....@news.uchicago.edu
>
>> In article <876646f8f577a302656...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Alejandro Rivero" <riv...@sol.unizar.es> writes:
>
>> >I can imagine the source of the misinformation. Microwave energy
>> >goes not only to the agitation (temperature) but also to
>> >rotationary modes of the water particles; you need a relaxation
>> >time for the rotationary energy to be released, via interaction,
>> >to agitation and then account for the temperature.
>
>> The relaxation times are in the nanosecond range and below. Can you
>> open your microwave door that fast?:-)
>
>nanosecond times for thermodinamical effects... It does not seem
>the usual time scale.
On molecular level it is a very long time scale.
> True that jumps from metastability to
>stability are fast, almost that order, but even in such case one
>must account the time of the metastable phase.
>
Sure, that's why it is nanoseconds, not femtoseconds.
Maleki
What about canned tuna fish? I was planning to ask
Harris about it but now that we're talking about raw
food, is the tuna in the can raw or cooked?
Dirk Bruere
"TutAmongUs@theholeintheground" <TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol>
wrote in message news:d3iugucanefd1rk73...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:29:24 +0100, "Dirk Bruere"
> <art...@kbnet.co.uk> Gave us:
>
>
> >> Yeah, Dirky beef jerky, we did. As sharks, not as homo-erectus or
> >> sapiens that cooked.
> >
> >However, to return to the point, since our ancesters have been cooking
food
> >for about a million years there is reason to believe we have adapted to
it.
> >
>
Depends on how you want to classify things, but from a genetic POV that is
how long our systems have had to get used to cooked food. The <1% that
seperates us from the first fire users is probably insignificant from the
tolerance-to-cooking POV.
Dirk
jmfb...@aol.com
Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:49:56 -0400, Randy Poe
><rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
<snip>
>What about canned tuna fish? I was planning to ask
>Harris about it but now that we're talking about raw
>food, is the tuna in the can raw or cooked?
>
"Canned" implies cooked under pressure. But I don't know how it's
done in tuna canning factories.
Randy Poe
> What about canned tuna fish? I was planning to ask
> Harris about it but now that we're talking about raw
> food, is the tuna in the can raw or cooked?
Well, it's got the opaque look of cooked fish rather than the
translucent red look of raw tuna (mmmm, tekka-maki), so I
presume it's cooked.
On the other hand, it doesn't taste anything like either
tuna sushi or cooked tuna steak, so perhaps canned tuna
is just processed with toxic chemicals.
- Randy
Steve Harris
news:3D0F57FA...@atl.lmco.com...
> Maleki wrote:
> > What about canned tuna fish? I was planning to ask
> > Harris about it but now that we're talking about raw
> > food, is the tuna in the can raw or cooked?
>
> Well, it's got the opaque look of cooked fish rather than the
> translucent red look of raw tuna (mmmm, tekka-maki), so I
> presume it's cooked.
** Canned tuna is fully cooked.
Steve Harris
news:aenj2j$7rgv1$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
COMMENT
What makes you think so? Only a million years of evolution separates polar
bears from brown bears, and they certainly have quite different diets. They
are still genetically close enough that they can interbreed in zoos, and the
offspring are fertile.
Don't underestimate the power of a million years of evolutionary pressure,
even on a slow breeding thing the size of a large mammal.
SBH
Dirk Bruere
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:aensph$uj5$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > >> Yeah, Dirky beef jerky, we did. As sharks, not as homo-erectus
or
> > > >> sapiens that cooked.
> > > >
> > > >However, to return to the point, since our ancesters have been
cooking
> > food
> > > >for about a million years there is reason to believe we have adapted
to
> > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, you think that we have been around that long, as humans, eh?
> >
> > Depends on how you want to classify things, but from a genetic POV that
is
> > how long our systems have had to get used to cooked food. The <1% that
> > seperates us from the first fire users is probably insignificant from
the
> > tolerance-to-cooking POV.
>
>
> What makes you think so? Only a million years of evolution separates
polar
> bears from brown bears, and they certainly have quite different diets.
They
> are still genetically close enough that they can interbreed in zoos, and
the
> offspring are fertile.
>
> Don't underestimate the power of a million years of evolutionary pressure,
> even on a slow breeding thing the size of a large mammal.
From the POV of cooking I would assume that we adapted quite quickly.
Even so, Humanity is a very new species and one that has evolved incredibly
rapidly.
Dirk
Rich Grise
> When you eat raw food, the body accepts it and uses it efficiently.
Really? Ever had a raw soybean? Admittedly, when I was a kid, and
we had a veggie garden in the front yard, we used to love to go
out and eat raw sweet peas right out of the pod - raw carrots are
pretty good too, once you wash the dirt off (with chlorinated and
leaded water, of course ;-) ); even raw asparagus and rhubarb.
Now what was my point? Oh, yeah - raw soybeans. Raw rice. Raw
grains of almost any kind - anyway, my cousin is a farmer in
the Valley of the Jolly Ho Ho Ho Green Giant - Southern
Minnesota - and he raises premium soybeans. One visit, I went
and picked a soybean pod and went to munch on them like we
used to do with the sweet peas in the garden. I almost broke
a tooth. I even read once that most grains, uncooked, are
virtually indigestible. Cows can eat grass because they have
four stomachs. Cow cud might be edible, but yech! And termites
have specialized organisms in their gut to digest the cellulose,
which to humans, would be like eating, well, sawdust, which
has about the nutritional value of styrofoam. Probably makes
a very effective laxative, however. ;-) (bran fiber and all
that.)
Anyway, to be really tiresome, my point is that humans have
somehow evolved to the point where cooked food is at least
as digestible as raw food is to the animals in the wild;
I had a teacher once who speculated that some caveman
accidentally dropped his hunt in the fire and found that
meat tasted better when it was burned! :-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
...
> My thermodinamics teacher told once of a "superfreeze" effect
> he suffered in Holland. There was water in the road, and it
> seems the external temperature had gone under zero (celsius)
> smooth enough, so the perturbation of the car touching the water
> made the equivalent of the "spoon" in your example: a shock
> wave propagating along the road and turning it to ice.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro
I was going to apologize for going off-topic, as I picked
up this thread on one of the electronics groups; but since
we're now in sci.physics, it's entirely on-topic. I've
heard the effect Alejandro mentions called "undercooling,"
and it doesn't surprise me at all. (I have no personal
preference as to how we refer to it - superfreeze is
OK by me as well. :) )
But somewhat unrelated or possibly superrelated, I once
saw, on the TV show "Mr. Wizard," water freeze and
boil simultaneously. Of course, it was done by pumping
it down in a vacuum bell jar. It was cool, pun not
necessarily intended, don't let me dislocate my shoulder
patting myself on the back. Not too long ago, a company
I was consulting for got the idea of using "vacuum
cooling." One of their clients was a breadmaker who
baked hundreds and hundreds of loaves of bread every
day, and part of their selling point was that they
used no preservatives. They were getting serious
complaints from their (the breadmakers') customers
about the bread spoiling on the shelves. (no preservatives -
duh!) At the time, my client company was into environmentally-
safe disinfectants. The bread company would take these
hundreds of loaves of bread out of the huge ovens, and
put them in racks, and blow big industrial fans on them
to get them down to cutting temperature. This took several
hours to virtually all day. Our idea was to put them in
a chamber and pump down a vacuum, and the heat of
vaporization would cool the loaves of bread. The prototype
worked virtually perfectly - from about 300F to about 75F
in about 7 minutes, and it didn't dry the bread out.
One problem was that the guy that designed the bell jar
didn't include a drain valve for the condensation or any
facility for cleaning out the crumbs, so after a couple
of days of testing on various varities of health bread,
we had an interesting crop of various fungi on the
bottom of the bell jar. And the capital costs turned out
to be prohibitive. And my client's other biocidal products
and UV treatment seemed to have taken care of the
spoilage problem, so that was another contract invention
that died on the wire.
Oh, well.
Cheers!
Rich
Maleki
It doesn't taste cooked to me. There was a variety of
canned tuna fish made in south Iran that did taste
cooked and very delicious, but it was so expensive that
they were producing them mainly for sale in foreign
countries. They're about $4 a can now. When they
originally started making them in mid-1960s it was
cheap enough for many Iranians to buy (if I remember it
right it was 5 Tomans, about 75 cents in mid 60s), and
people loved it and it would often become a black
market item, but later the price hiked beyond the
average Iranian's budget.
Dirk Bruere
>
> Anyway, to be really tiresome, my point is that humans have
> somehow evolved to the point where cooked food is at least
> as digestible as raw food is to the animals in the wild;
> I had a teacher once who speculated that some caveman
> accidentally dropped his hunt in the fire and found that
> meat tasted better when it was burned! :-)
Obviously cooking food provides an evolutionary advantage in terms of both
killing parasites and microbes, and to a lesser extent in preservation.
Dirk
Mike Poulton
<TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol> said:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:26:12 +0100, "Dirk Bruere"
> <art...@kbnet.co.uk> Gave us:
>
>
>>Depends on how you want to classify things, but from a genetic POV
>>that is how long our systems have had to get used to cooked food. The
>><1% that seperates us from the first fire users is probably
>>insignificant from the tolerance-to-cooking POV.
>>
>>Dirk
>>
>
>
> You missed it. What I am saying is that walking, talking, cooking
> humans have not been here that long.
>
That is true, but cooking hominids are what really counts -- and they
have been here a long, long time.
--
Mike Poulton
MTP Technologies
Not only do I speak for my company, I AM my company!
Live free or die!
http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Maleki
Eating habits for human has always been a matter of
practicality, not choice. Taste probably never mattered
cause one develops it want it or not. I think fire was
used in relation to food only to make a hunted animal
easier to cut, carry, and chew. Cooked meat is much
more compact and lighter to carry.
Nigerians still use fire to make sheep or goat easier
to cut down to pieces. They do it in probably one tenth
of the time it takes for others. They build a large
fire and simply throw the dead sheep on top of it and
wait until the outer layers of skin and meat swells up.
Then they extinguish the fire and cut the animal's
stomach open and get rid of the innards, then with
large machetes cut the animal down to about 5 kg pieces
without respect to where meat or bones are. They don't
care if the bones get splitered because the meat and
bones later get fully cooked in boiled water and they
use their hands to eat it and can feel and remove the
splitered bones before placing food in their mouths. I
don't know if they eat the skin (after having been
fully cooked with other parts attached) or they
separate it while eating and throw it away like bones.
We don't do it that way because we use the hair and
skin of the sheep and cows for other purposes. Even the
innards. Anyway, I think this was the first use of
fire. Not cold weather, etc. The hunters needed a quick
way of bringing back home what they had killed.
Eating grains can be done without the use of fire,
because water itself makes them soft (starts the
process of growth). I once tried eating various beans
without cooking them to see what happens. I would wash
and soak them in water overnight, then would keep them
in the fridge and with each meals at home (two times a
day) I would eat some as "appetizer". I knew this could
be done because northern Iranians just do that but with
fava beans only, and I did get a taste for uncooked
soaked large raw fava beans as an appetizer in my
childhood by trying it each time we visited our
relatives on the mother side. As a matter of fact if
you get used to it you won't be able to eat rice
without having soaked fava beans on the side (and a
pinch of pink caviar).
But I tried it on a number of other beans as well and
found out this could be done with all of them. The
worst to get a habit of was pinto beans which is sad
because this is the cheapest bean around. There is a
bitter taste to it that one always wishes it wasn't
there. The easiest to get a taste (after fava beans of
course) was the Black Eyed Peas. With black-eyed peas I
got to a point that I would eat them as snack while
watching TV or punching out my life away in usenet.
In Iran, in the villages and rural areas, beans are
also used as snacks. This hasn't spread to cities (and
probably will not). I don't exactly know how they
prepare them but the prepared bean is cooked (most
probably fried, or perhaps broiled in furnaces they use
to bake bread) and chewy soft, like beef jerky meat
texture, is salty and delicious and has a few lightly
burnt spots and sides to it. It can easily be carried
in one's pocket in a small paper bag. It is very tasty.
I think it is pinto beans but I'm not sure. There was
this distant relative of ours that each time he showed
up at our house (about once a year) he brought us a
sackful of them. We had fun snacking on them for a
number of days.
They do this more often of course with garbanzo beans
and this one _has_ spread to cities in Iran and is
every kid's favorite snack (because it is very cheap).
You can find them in every Iranian store in USA. But
the garbanzo beans in this preparation are not moist
and upon chewing they turn into powder and swallowing
them sometimes requires drinking a bit of water. Also
they're not as tasty as the beans I talked about. An
adult would probably not like to eat that at work, it's
really for children. However the former preparation
with the other kind of beans gives it a moist chewy
delicious feeling, just like beef jerky.
I wished Harris, instead of freezing the dogs and
microwaving the ants, would find a way to prepare pinto
beans in that way and start a wonderful snack
enterprise in USA and become a billionaire :) A very
nutritious, tasty, cheap, healthy, and handy to carry
snack for all ages and tastes.
If any of you readers had the time, please do
experiment on preparation of pinto beans into such
snacks. I'm asking you this because the procedure might
not be easy at all, and not easy to find, and requires
many careful tries by many individuals. But the
solution exists, inside some obscure godforsaken
villages in Iran.
Dirk Bruere
"Mike Poulton" <mpou...@mtptech.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9231ED0E0C374m...@68.12.19.6...
> On 18 Jun 2002, "TutAmongUs@theholeintheground"
> <TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol> said:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:26:12 +0100, "Dirk Bruere"
> > <art...@kbnet.co.uk> Gave us:
> >
> >
> >>Depends on how you want to classify things, but from a genetic POV
> >>that is how long our systems have had to get used to cooked food. The
> >><1% that seperates us from the first fire users is probably
> >>insignificant from the tolerance-to-cooking POV.
> >>
> >>Dirk
> >>
> >
> >
> > You missed it. What I am saying is that walking, talking, cooking
> > humans have not been here that long.
> >
>
> That is true, but cooking hominids are what really counts -- and they
> have been here a long, long time.
And we are in direct line of descent, inheriting their genetics including
tolerance/preference for cooked food.
Dirk
bob
>>And we are in direct line of descent, inheriting their genetics including
>>tolerance/preference for cooked food.
>>
given the eating habits of the MAJORITY of the human race I would say there
is definatly a preference for eating cooked food.... just because a few
kooks dont like cooked food does not mean as a whole the homo sapiens do not
have a preference for it...
Steve Harris
wrote in message news:ug41hukemsgsir4o8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:59:57 +0100, "Dirk Bruere"
> <art...@kbnet.co.uk> Gave us:
>
> >And we are in direct line of descent, inheriting their genetics including
> >tolerance/preference for cooked food.
> >
I beg to differ. And it never became more clear than when microwave cooking
became available, and people simply rejected the idea of never again eating
anything that hadn't been brazed, broiled, charred, smoked, browned,
caramelized, and whatnot. Forget the number of backyard barbecue grills that
there are (1 for every 3 families last I looked)-- do you know how many
TOASTERS there are in this country? Now: WHY? What does a bread toaster
DO?
In Germany toast is called Zweiback-- literally "twice baked." Can you name
me ANY country where people use fire but don't traditionally like to put at
least some already cooked things into the fire to improve their flavor by
toasting the outsides?
Characteristics of humans: tool-using and making, complex language, body
adornment, incest taboo, etc.
And I'll add one more: we like to toast and grill stuff. Not just boil and
cook in water where you get no browning products. Toast and grill and
broil. If it's in every culture, you have to suspect the proclivity (like
our species' sweet-tooth) is in our genes.
Gym Bob
parasitic and bacterial infections. The ones that survived had the instinct.
the ones that didn't have the instinct....bye bye
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:aeqjrj$sul$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Gregory L. Hansen
Is cooked food easier to digest? Certainly processing some foods makes
nutrients available that otherwise wouldn't be, like mashing a malt
breaks down starches and complex sugars that we wouldn't otherwise have
been able to digest.
At any rate, you should probably, in general, stay away from gimmicks like
"all raw". Sure, raw fruits and veggies are good for you, no doubt about
it. You should eat some every day. But that doesn't mean everything
should always be raw, even if they do have some extra enzymes. I don't
know about anyone else, but I have some enzymes of my own.
Maybe next we'll be told about the Neandertal diet: eat as much as you
want for supper, that's the only food you get. The theory is that our
primitive ancestors evolved to spend all day hunting some big animal, and
then they feast. Besides the piss-poor anthropology, we're not our
primitive ancestors.
bob
> You have a bent perception then.
>
> If a child is raised without meat, the child has NO preference for
>it. It does NOT carry through generations by any other mechanism
>other then exposure. Period.
what about personal preferance for food that is more flavorful and easier on
the pallette?
Edward Green
> "TutAmongUs@theholeintheground" <TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol>
> wrote in message news:ug41hukemsgsir4o8...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:59:57 +0100, "Dirk Bruere"
> > <art...@kbnet.co.uk> Gave us:
> >
> > >And we are in direct line of descent, inheriting their genetics including
> > >tolerance/preference for cooked food.
> > >
> > Tolerance, yes. Preference, no.
>
>
> I beg to differ. And it never became more clear than when microwave cooking
> became available, and people simply rejected the idea of never again eating
> anything that hadn't been brazed, broiled, charred, smoked, browned,
> caramelized, and whatnot. Forget the number of backyard barbecue grills that
> there are (1 for every 3 families last I looked)-- do you know how many
> TOASTERS there are in this country? Now: WHY? What does a bread toaster
> DO?
>
> In Germany toast is called Zweiback-- literally "twice baked." Can you name
> me ANY country where people use fire but don't traditionally like to put at
> least some already cooked things into the fire to improve their flavor by
> toasting the outsides?
>
> Characteristics of humans: tool-using and making, complex language, body
> adornment, incest taboo, etc.
>
> And I'll add one more: we like to toast and grill stuff. Not just boil and
> cook in water where you get no browning products. Toast and grill and
> broil. If it's in every culture, you have to suspect the proclivity (like
> our species' sweet-tooth) is in our genes.
Talk about ancestral tastes.
Like many guys, I like my meat rare. Naturally it then becomes a
point of contention who can eat the rarest meat. Then, I met beef
tartare.
Only then did I realize I had actually been eating completely _raw_
meat for some time ... chared around the edges ... and that delicious
"rare meat" flavor I like was simply the flavor of warm, uncooked
flesh. I'm now known to trim some choice looking bits of the London
broil for pre-grill consumption, but what I really like is stil the
taste of essentially fresh killed animal, which may have died in the
fire.
Now, if ancient tastes have found their way into our genome, could we
be the anthropoid apes who like to char their meat and ferment their
beverages? What did we domesticate first? Fire or yeast?
A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
good enough now.
Edward Green
> Another thing I wish I'd tried back in Minnesota when it was
> about -40 degrees (C or F; they're the same) out was go
> outside with a pan of boiling water and toss the water up
> into the air - I had a chance but I chickened out because
> I didn't know what would happen and have an aversion to
> stuff blowing up in my face.
At that temperature you should probably be wearing ski goggles outside
anyway. But what did you expect to happen?
Edward Green
> "Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:d8fbbe2d.02061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I hope you informed her that if food is hot it will saturate her mouth
> and
> > > stomach with even shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation. And that
> > > such radiation can often lead to burns.
> >
> > I might have done that, except that she was having enough trouble
> > grasping the concept without my making a point to confuse her. I did,
> > however, describe the electromagnetic spectrum, and various points of
> > interest on it.
>
> You mean the good bits, and the evil bits.
Which means pretty much the visible and the invisible. The anti-EM
person has never met a part of the invisible spectrum he liked.
Edward Green
> Rich Grise wrote:
> > I would presume that if an animal on the hoof isn't sick,
> > that its meat right when freshly killed would be OK, but
> > EEeeeewwwww! And I mean freshly killed like in the last
> > few minutes, still out in the bush, so to speak, before
> > the airborne bugs have a chance to colonize. After all,
> > that's how wild animals do it.
>
> That's how predators do it. Other animals are evolved
> to eat the meat at every stage on its way to, er, achieving
> Oneness with the earth.
True. Even ravens prefer fresh meat, though, when they can get it.
> > A lot of people eat raw meat and raw fish (ever been to
> > a sushi bar?), but it's really really fresh.
>
> Yes, I've noticed many Chinese restaurants have large
> aquariums from which you frequently see waiters with nets
> retrieving fish.
>
> Also, I've heard that a typical Chinese open-air market
> features meat, or at least poultry, that is live when you're
> shopping for it.
>
> I've heard rumors of Japanese seafood delicacies that
> are still live when they get to the table.
Me too. Exotic stuff like "clams" and "oysters". :-)
AFAIK, after the shucker has popped the top, that is a living organism
you are garnishing with horseradish and scrapping down your gullet.
In fact, now that I think of it, one thing to look for in your
unshucked bivalve is that the thing is _closed_. When they open a
bit, they've given up the ghost.
Every once and a while I get a momentary feeling of weirdness from
considering the fresh vegatables I may be eating are still alive.
Enough people are worried about animals ... what about that carrot!
It's alive! If you put it in the backyard (I've tried this) you will
get a big bushy carrot plant! But _no_, you are going to stop all
that -- heartless herbivore!
I'm not _sure_, but I think we might be able to morally live on
blue-green algae, if we pray frequently enough and beg forgiveness of
the living algal mat.
bob
>
> You are not following the thread.
>
> It stated that the preference was inherited, not learned.
i did follow the thread....
let me rephrase my statement... there is an inherent disposition in humans
that cooked food is the way to go....
that sounds like an inherited trait to me...
Edward Green
Tuna 1: What are you doing, Charlie?
Charlie Tuna: I'm sucking down from these leaking 55# drums so I can
be a _Starkist_ Tuna!
Tuna 1: Silly tuna. Only tuna which have dined off the _best_ toxic
chemicals can be made into _Starkist_ tuna!
Narrator: That's right, Charlie. We only take the cleanest living
tuna (back shot of thrashing netted tuna with drowning dolphins) so we
can cook them in our special toxic broth, with vitamen B-encephalitus
and complex mercurochrome!
Then we bring them fresh to your kitchen, mom! (Cut to kitchen...)
Kids: What's for dinner, mom!!??
Mom: (opening oven door) Why, your favorite! Toxic tuna surprise!
Since the only kind of chemcals known are "toxic chemicals", we should
shorten the name to save time. We could call them "toxicals".
dolores
> I've mentioned before on Usenet that some people have strange ideas
> about microwave ovens. I'd like to document that I met another person
> with a strange idea a few weeks ago. One of the food sample presenters
> in Sam's Club was absolutely certain that microwaved food will emit
> microwaves for a few minutes after the oven shuts off. She said that
> microwaved food should be allowed to set for a few minutes, because if
> it is eaten too soon, it will microwave the insides of a person.
>
> I did my best to disabuse her of her fear of microwaves.
My microwave rusted around the material that encircles the glass
window on the inside. I called the manufacturer, the consumer safety
division of the consumer protection agency of my state and the FDA
which has a special department for radiation emitting stuff.
All three told me that the newer models (mine) will not operate if
there is a leak ( I was worried about the seal because of the rust).
I took this with a grain of salt because they are not supposed to
operate with the door open and on occasion mine did indeed start with
the door open. They said that the rust did not make it unsafe to use.
The FDA told me that these things do not use microwave radiation, but
radio waves. Sure enough there is an FCC number on the microwave
oven.
After weighing the advice of all three groups assuring me of the
safety of my microwave, I decided to throw it out and get a new one.
Actually, the manufacturer would have replaced it with a reconditioned
oven, but I had to mail it back to them at my expense. A new one was
cheaper.
The radiation emmiting food reminds me of a short story by James
Thurber in which he tells of a relative of his who was sure that empty
light sockets were emitting dangerous electrical radiation and would
screw light bulbs into any empty socket she came upon to prevent the
radiation from leaking out.
Dolores
bob
TutAmongUs@theholeintheground wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:14:50 GMT, "bob" <nom...@nospam.com> Gave us:
>
>>i did follow the thread....
>>let me rephrase my statement... there is an inherent disposition in humans
>>that cooked food is the way to go....
>
>
> There is a learned "trait" or "habitual behavior" in humans that
>have been raised as carnivores to cook food. There are cultures where
>uncooked vegetable diets are the norm. Live in a town in such a place
>that starts to cook a lot, and before long, you have a town that
>cooks, and even passes it down to subsequent generations. Nothing
>"inherited" about that.
please cite documentation regarding a culture who eats exclusivly raw foods.
I buy your reasoning that if a culture were to exist who exclusivly ate raw
foods, and then were exposed to cooking such would be a learned trait.
HOWEVER i do not buy your claim that cooking is a learned trait, simply due
to exposure. just because an individual is exposed to a certain
environmental condition does not mean they would like it. to use that logic
it could be said that to take a breath of air is a learned trait, as a
newborn gets it's feet slaped to ensure it takes that first breath, then
says 'hmmm... thers something good about this whole breathing thing.. i
think i'll continue' just because the newborn did not have the opertunity to
breath prior to birth does not mean that taking breath is not an instinctual
mechanism for the child.
your argument about a town that all of a sudden discovers cooking also does
not mean that eating cooked food is a learned trait.... they may all of a
sudden learn what cooking is, by my point is that there is a predisposition
in humnas that cooked food is preferable to raw. if this were not the case
it would satnd to reason that there would be whole cultures of people who
did not eat cooked food....
>>that sounds like an inherited trait to me...
>
> Then I say there is something about *your* personal preferences that
>you impart incorrectly on everyone else, and even claim it to be
>instinctual, or inherited. An extreme fallacy, at best.
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Microwave-emitting Food."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
>good enough now.
No! It is not. :-)
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people
trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <2a0cceff.02061...@posting.google.com>,
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:<aeqjrj$sul$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
<snip>
>Talk about ancestral tastes.
>
>Like many guys, I like my meat rare. Naturally it then becomes a
>point of contention who can eat the rarest meat. Then, I met beef
>tartare.
>
>Only then did I realize I had actually been eating completely _raw_
>meat for some time ... chared around the edges ... and that delicious
>"rare meat" flavor I like was simply the flavor of warm, uncooked
>flesh. I'm now known to trim some choice looking bits of the London
>broil for pre-grill consumption, but what I really like is stil the
>taste of essentially fresh killed animal,
Guys, guys. If you're eating very good beef, it has been _aged_
for a while. It is not freshly killed.
> .. which may have died in the
>fire.
>
>Now, if ancient tastes have found their way into our genome, could we
>be the anthropoid apes who like to char their meat and ferment their
>beverages? What did we domesticate first? Fire or yeast?
Women.
>
>A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
>good enough now.
Not since those burgers have to emulate road kill. One my way
to Michigan last month, I could not stomach Quarterpounders anymore
(and I used to thrive on them). They'ld been cooked to death.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Randy Poe
> Not since those burgers have to emulate road kill. One my way
> to Michigan last month, I could not stomach Quarterpounders anymore
> (and I used to thrive on them). They'ld been cooked to death.
I can't give a cite for this other than saying that I heard it
on NPR from an author who had written a book about the fast
food industry, released within the last few months:
The "meat" in McDonald's has been so thoroughly processed that
there is literally no flavor anymore. The taste you associate
with that product is entirely artificial, created by a chemical
industry which has grown up solely to service the fast food
market, making things like "hamburger flavor" to add into
the patty mix.
I still like Whoppers, but having read some critical number
of obituaries of men within a few years of my age (mid-40s) who
died of heart attacks, I'm now taking the fat content seriously.
I haven't had one in over a month.
(BTW, I have a theory that men and women read obits differently.)
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message news:<3D0F3A84...@atl.lmco.com>...
>
> considering the fresh vegatables I may be eating are still alive.
> Enough people are worried about animals ... what about that carrot!
Naah, it's dead. Consider the brutal process of ripping it
from its habitat, where it was cozy and thriving, though.
> It's alive! If you put it in the backyard (I've tried this) you will
> get a big bushy carrot plant!
That doesn't make it alive, that just means it was potentially
alive. You're not a murderer if you eat that potential carrot,
just an abortionist.
> But _no_, you are going to stop all that -- heartless herbivore!
>
> I'm not _sure_, but I think we might be able to morally live on
> blue-green algae, if we pray frequently enough and beg forgiveness of
> the living algal mat.
Hmm, perhaps. But we probably also have to promise to
feed ourselves back to the algae to make it come out even.
- Randy
jmfb...@aol.com
Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> Not since those burgers have to emulate road kill. One my way
>> to Michigan last month, I could not stomach Quarterpounders anymore
>> (and I used to thrive on them). They'ld been cooked to death.
>
>I can't give a cite for this other than saying that I heard it
>on NPR from an author who had written a book about the fast
>food industry, released within the last few months:
>
>The "meat" in McDonald's has been so thoroughly processed that
>there is literally no flavor anymore. The taste you associate
>with that product is entirely artificial, created by a chemical
>industry which has grown up solely to service the fast food
>market, making things like "hamburger flavor" to add into
>the patty mix.
Maybe that's it--there's no meat. I bought a Subway yesterday
so I wouldn't have to cook lunch. They've halved the meat they
put in those sandwiches. That'll be the last one I buy. When
I want all veggie I'll pay for it. When I buy meat, I want meat.
>
>I still like Whoppers,
I used to until they changed the mayo <spit><yuck><barf> about
20 years ago.
> ... but having read some critical number
>of obituaries of men within a few years of my age (mid-40s) who
>died of heart attacks, I'm now taking the fat content seriously.
>I haven't had one in over a month.
Order it with all the veggies you can get.
>
>(BTW, I have a theory that men and women read obits differently.)
Oh, man. You sure do like lay down those irresistable lines.
I suppose that, since I didn't open one Pandora's box two days'
ago, I can open this one [emoticon checks for repercussion
probabilities].
OK. What is your theory?
Gregory L. Hansen
Edward Green <null...@aol.com> wrote:
>Now, if ancient tastes have found their way into our genome, could we
>be the anthropoid apes who like to char their meat and ferment their
>beverages? What did we domesticate first? Fire or yeast?
>
>A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
>good enough now.
You need fire to make the wort. But wines can be made cold, and grapes
have yeast growing on the skins.
Randy Poe
Heh, heh. It was a trap laid just for you, my dear. Worked
like a charm.
>
> OK. What is your theory?
I call it "external" vs. "internal". In my gross generalization,
women have a tendency to think about the person who died,
the circumstances of the death, perhaps the survivors, etc.
Men have a tendency to immediately start pondering their
own mortality and forget almost entirely about the person
whose death triggered the thought process.
"Hey, did you hear about Joe dropping dead at his
desk last night?"
"No kidding. What was he, 47, 48?" (Geeze, I'm 46. But
of course Joe was a smoker. Still, maybe it would be
a good idea to clean out the porno collection hidden
in the shed, just in case...).
You can see the room go silent as everybody's thoughts
start turning inward and doing these calculations.
- Randy
Maleki
<rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>The "meat" in McDonald's has been so thoroughly processed that
>there is literally no flavor anymore. The taste you associate
>with that product is entirely artificial, created by a chemical
>industry which has grown up solely to service the fast food
>market, making things like "hamburger flavor" to add into
>the patty mix.
>
But that's also the norm with the beef and chicken you
buy from grocery stores. I read a book in early 1980s
that described how food industry "creates" beef and
chicken flavor in their meats by feeding certain
chemicals into them shortly before their slaughter, and
the chemicals enter the blood and tissues and create
the taste of chicken or beef in the otherwise tasteless
meat. This was 20 years ago and applied to ordinary
beef and chicken you bought from stores, not fast
foods.
But my question is, why is this silly rumor still
around that McDonalds adds some thick worms to the beef
as extra meat. I have heard this for decades. Is this
true or is it bullshit. Twenty some years is long
enough not to know the answer.
Ken Muldrew
>broil for pre-grill consumption, but what I really like is stil the
>taste of essentially fresh killed animal, which may have died in the
>fire.
There's a lot of autolysis of the tissue that goes into preparing meat
for commercial sale (aging). A fresh killed animal that is old or has
just been exercising (e.g. running away from a hunter) can be
unedible.
>beverages? What did we domesticate first? Fire or yeast?
Fire by a long shot. The people who first emigrated to North America
had no knowledge of fermentation (to their later detriment).
>A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
>good enough now.
The height of civilization! That's what we should enter into Dirk's
knowledgebase for the post-apocolypse.
BTW, unless you're grinding your own hamburger, it's probably wise to
leave it in the fire longer than a steak.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@ucalgary.ca
Maleki
(Rich Grise) wrote:
>so after a couple
>of days of testing on various varities of health bread,
>we had an interesting crop of various fungi on the
>bottom of the bell jar.
Were those fungi penicillium? If so, you could run an
antibiotics plant alongside bread business.
Randy Poe
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:36:37 -0400, Randy Poe
> <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
> >The "meat" in McDonald's has been so thoroughly processed that
> >there is literally no flavor anymore. The taste you associate
> >with that product is entirely artificial, created by a chemical
> >industry which has grown up solely to service the fast food
> >market, making things like "hamburger flavor" to add into
> >the patty mix.
> >
>
> But that's also the norm with the beef and chicken you
> buy from grocery stores. I read a book in early 1980s
> that described how food industry "creates" beef and
> chicken flavor in their meats by feeding certain
> chemicals into them shortly before their slaughter, and
> the chemicals enter the blood and tissues and create
> the taste of chicken or beef in the otherwise tasteless
> meat. This was 20 years ago and applied to ordinary
> beef and chicken you bought from stores, not fast
> foods.
My father told me that he had seen a demonstration of
hot dog making at the 1936 World's Fair and never
ate another hot dog after that.
> But my question is, why is this silly rumor still
> around that McDonalds adds some thick worms to the beef
> as extra meat. I have heard this for decades. Is this
> true or is it bullshit. Twenty some years is long
> enough not to know the answer.
Urban Legend. There are many such legends that have
been thoroughly "debunked" as we would say. Nevertheless
they persist, particularly in the internet. There are two
great sites for tracking of urban legends: www.snopes.com
and www.urbanlegends.com. This and other fast food
legends (like the one that Kentucky Fried Chicken changed
there name to KFC because they no longer serve chicken
but some mutant multi-legged organism) appear at both sites.
People who try to set their friends straight by pointing
them to Snopes generally find their friends are (a) not
appreciative and (b) often still would rather believe
the rumor.
FYI, one classic indicator of an Urban Legend in e-mail
is a closing note to "tell as many people as you can".
- Randy
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> All three told me that the newer models (mine) will not operate if
> there is a leak ( I was worried about the seal because of the rust).
I wonder how the microwave is supposed to detect every possible leak?
> I took this with a grain of salt because they are not supposed to
> operate with the door open and on occasion mine did indeed start with
> the door open.
I've had a similar experience. I don't remember exactly how, but the
door of my microwave oven flew open as I stood in front of it, just as
I pushed the "Start" button. I stood directly in front of the open
microwave oven as it operated at full power for about a second, before
I shut the door. It was strange looking at the open space, with the
light on and the unit humming, and realizing that there was nothing
between me and the microwaves beaming out to cook something. However,
I didn't notice any physical sensations, nor does that particularly
surprise me. Antennae technicians on sci.physics have told me about
working on the side of operating microwave communication towers, and
feeling the induced fever; they still put in a full day's work up
there.
> They said that the rust did not make it unsafe to use.
That's probably correct.
> The FDA told me that these things do not use microwave radiation, but
> radio waves.
You are aware that microwaves *are* radio waves? The wavelength of the
electromagnetic radiation from an AM station is about a mile, the
wavelength of electromagnetic radiation from an FM station is about a
foot and the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation from a microwave
from a microwave oven is about 5 inches.
> Sure enough there is an FCC number on the microwave oven.
Yeah, well, computers and radar have FCC numbers, too, because they
are all emitting electromagnetic radiation that could interfere with
communication bands. Microwave ovens operate on the same band as some
wireless telephones and 802.11b communication devices, about 2.4 GHz.
802.11a devices operate at 5 GHz, which is much less used by consumer
devices than the 2.4 GHz band.
Keep in mind that all these numbers are from my memory, and my memory
for numbers is not so good.
[snip]
Edward Green
> [spit]
>
> In article <2a0cceff.02061...@posting.google.com>,
> null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> >"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<aeqjrj$sul$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> <snip>
>
> >Talk about ancestral tastes.
> >
> >Like many guys, I like my meat rare. Naturally it then becomes a
> >point of contention who can eat the rarest meat. Then, I met beef
> >tartare.
> >
> >Only then did I realize I had actually been eating completely _raw_
> >meat for some time ... chared around the edges ... and that delicious
> >"rare meat" flavor I like was simply the flavor of warm, uncooked
> >flesh. I'm now known to trim some choice looking bits of the London
> >broil for pre-grill consumption, but what I really like is stil the
> >taste of essentially fresh killed animal,
>
> Guys, guys. If you're eating very good beef, it has been _aged_
> for a while. It is not freshly killed.
Oh? Good point. You mean I _haven't_ had the experience of eating
steer the way it tastes off the hoof? Aside from being less bloody,
what's the difference?
> > .. which may have died in the
> >fire.
> >
> >Now, if ancient tastes have found their way into our genome, could we
> >be the anthropoid apes who like to char their meat and ferment their
> >beverages? What did we domesticate first? Fire or yeast?
>
> Women.
ObRejoinder: Who says women have been domesticated?
I think this "treat as equals" stuff is a losing proposition, where
women hold all the cards: Would you guys kindly step off planet or
something and leave some compliant simulacra?
> >A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
> >good enough now.
>
> Not since those burgers have to emulate road kill. One my way
> to Michigan last month, I could not stomach Quarterpounders anymore
> (and I used to thrive on them). They'ld been cooked to death.
You are right... quarter pounders do not count. But many places can
do a decent charred lump of almost raw pre-chewed beef, and a
not-unpleasant malt beverage to wash it down. It's almost like
communion... with the hoofed host.
Edward Green
> Once upon a time, our fellow Edward Green
> rambled on about "Re: Microwave-emitting Food."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
> >good enough now.
>
> No! It is not. :-)
Ok. Add bar nuts.
Steve Harris
news:2a0cceff.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > Guys, guys. If you're eating very good beef, it has been _aged_
> > for a while. It is not freshly killed.
>
> Oh? Good point. You mean I _haven't_ had the experience of eating
> steer the way it tastes off the hoof? Aside from being less bloody,
> what's the difference?
If you let it age a bit it's more tender and tastes better. It's cellular
decomposition (lysozymes) plus some fatty acid oxidation, I suspect. I've
been told that one of the untold advantages of grain-fed (feedlot) beef is
that with all that saturated fat it doesn't need much aging-- about as much
as it gets between slaughter and freezing is enough. Grass fed/range cows,
and game, need a day of hanging up ("curing") to be as edible.
Steve Harris
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> I call it "external" vs. "internal". In my gross generalization,
> women have a tendency to think about the person who died,
> the circumstances of the death, perhaps the survivors, etc.
>
> Men have a tendency to immediately start pondering their
> own mortality and forget almost entirely about the person
> whose death triggered the thought process.
>
> "Hey, did you hear about Joe dropping dead at his
> desk last night?"
> "No kidding. What was he, 47, 48?" (Geeze, I'm 46. But
> of course Joe was a smoker. Still, maybe it would be
> a good idea to clean out the porno collection hidden
> in the shed, just in case...).
>
> You can see the room go silent as everybody's thoughts
> start turning inward and doing these calculations.
>
> - Randy
Comment:
Sure. Women seek emotional/social solutions, men seek mechanical solutions.
Women want to fix relationships, men want to fix the plumbing. It's social
engineering vs engineering engineering.
This is not much of a problem when men go to women with a problem, because
when that happens it's usually an emotional problem, and women understand
immediately what needs social adjustment fixing and why. Men simply don't go
to women with problems about fixing the mechanics of the world, because it's
a waste of time <g>, and even when it isn't, it shows weakness.
What causes endless problems is when women go to men with what seems to be a
problem with fixing the mechanics of the world, and it's really a disguised
request to talk and adjust and fix feelings about the world. She actually
doesn't care about the plumbing (the coronaries, whatever). She doesn't want
adjustment in the coronaries, but adjustment in how to *feel* about the
coronaries....
Maleki
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>Sure. Women seek emotional/social solutions, men seek mechanical solutions.
>Women want to fix relationships, men want to fix the plumbing. It's social
>engineering vs engineering engineering.
>
Poor observation of women. Often the opposite is true.
Women are god-given conservatives. 99 percent of the
time it is some sort of "plumbing" they're really
aiming at, but cover it all with emotional fake fronts.
A woman doesn't even fall in love if there's not enough
plumbing (retirement plan, kids, money, estate, etc...)
behind the scene. Absolute conservatism and absolutely
needed for a coming successful life together.
>This is not much of a problem when men go to women with a problem, because
>when that happens it's usually an emotional problem, and women understand
>immediately what needs social adjustment fixing and why.
The immediate understanding on the part of woman is
that this man really _has_ plumbing problems he cannot
handle so he's not good enough for her time, therefore
a readjustment of her relationship with him is due. A
man loses big time as a result of that.
>Men simply don't go
>to women with problems about fixing the mechanics of the world, because it's
>a waste of time <g>, and even when it isn't, it shows weakness.
>
You got this one right. It ruins their status as
individuals capable of handling life's vicissitudes.
>What causes endless problems is when women go to men with what seems to be a
>problem with fixing the mechanics of the world, and it's really a disguised
>request to talk and adjust and fix feelings about the world. She actually
>doesn't care about the plumbing (the coronaries, whatever). She doesn't want
>adjustment in the coronaries, but adjustment in how to *feel* about the
>coronaries....
>
Women talk with men about nothing but material
possessions. It doesn't matter what the subject of the
talk is, because what's meant is one form or another of
material possessions regardless. A man should never
discuss material possessions with women, cause as was
said above it would be a sign of weakness on his part.
He should only indirectly imply his superiority or at
least his confidence in owning such possessions. When a
woman says, "Honey, I love you, do you love me?" she
means, "Are you busy putting your 110 percent into
piling up money for our future or are you still
half-assed like you've always been, you little
creep??" And when a man says, "Honey I love you." He
_must_ mean it like, "I have enough material
possessions that I don't give a shit for one second if
you approve of me or not, cause I've got better options
than you waiting for me anytime I want", and the woman
fully understands that and responds affirmatively and
everything stays dandy for a few more days.
When jmfbahciv replies to any of us here she means "I
am materially confident enough of myself that I let my
flatus handle the job of speaking to you creeps, rather
than my mind, yet show me superior material possession
and my present little creep will be history by next day
if you want", and she would mean it from the bottom of
her heart. And when we respond to her, we _must_ mean
"good going jmfbahciv, but for whatever reasons of
material possessions that secretly apply to us we're
presently fine and need not bother with you, yet keep
probing into it, you'll never know", and we must mean
it even if this is an outright lie, cause it would at
least preserve our manhood in her eyes so she will keep
checking us one by one in the future to cover all
grounds, and we'll feel pleased by it that miserable as
we might feel about ourselves women are still checking
into us.
It's the same old thing.
Randy Poe
> Women talk with men about nothing but material
> possessions. It doesn't matter what the subject of the
> talk is, because what's meant is one form or another of
> material possessions regardless. A man should never
> discuss material possessions with women, cause as was
> said above it would be a sign of weakness on his part.
> He should only indirectly imply his superiority or at
> least his confidence in owning such possessions. When a
> woman says, "Honey, I love you, do you love me?" she
> means, "Are you busy putting your 110 percent into
> piling up money for our future or are you still
> half-assed like you've always been, you little
> creep??" And when a man says, "Honey I love you." He
> _must_ mean it like, "I have enough material
> possessions that I don't give a shit for one second if
> you approve of me or not, cause I've got better options
> than you waiting for me anytime I want", and the woman
> fully understands that and responds affirmatively and
> everything stays dandy for a few more days.
Had an unpleasant divorce, did we? This human trait of
drawing universal conclusions about relationships from
single data points never ceases to amaze me.
> When jmfbahciv replies to any of us here she means "I
> am materially confident enough of myself that I let my
> flatus handle the job of speaking to you creeps, rather
> than my mind, yet show me superior material possession
> and my present little creep will be history by next day
> if you want"
The hypothesis is that every woman will dump a guy in
favor of one who has more money or better job prospects?
Would you really care to subject that one to experimental
validation? (Trying to inject some element of sci.*
here).
The fact that the only relationship you and I have with
jmfbahciv is discussion on a topic of mutual interest
is even more amusing. It takes a remarkable feat of illogic
to conclude that TALKING is based on an assessment of
material wealth, or that she has any data on which to draw
a conclusion.
- Randy
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> But my question is, why is this silly rumor still
> around that McDonalds adds some thick worms to the beef
> as extra meat. I have heard this for decades. Is this
> true or is it bullshit. Twenty some years is long
> enough not to know the answer.
Hamburger costs $0.50 a pound. Worms cost $50 a pound. It would not be
cost-effective to add worms to commercial hamburger.
Maleki
<rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
>Had an unpleasant divorce, did we? This human trait of
>drawing universal conclusions about relationships from
>single data points never ceases to amaze me.
>
I used every data point that there is between men and
women. My rough looking understanding of it shouldn't
give the impression it is baseless.
>
>The hypothesis is that every woman will dump a guy in
>favor of one who has more money or better job prospects?
>Would you really care to subject that one to experimental
>validation? (Trying to inject some element of sci.*
>here).
>
The whole history of course. Probably every conscious
natural and healthy minute of it.
>The fact that the only relationship you and I have with
>jmfbahciv is discussion on a topic of mutual interest
>is even more amusing. It takes a remarkable feat of illogic
>to conclude that TALKING is based on an assessment of
>material wealth, or that she has any data on which to draw
>a conclusion.
>
There _is_ nothing else to discuss. Every move she's
ever made to her muscles, fingers, tongue, eyes and
mind, since her inception, has been towards that goal.
If I was rich enough I would prove it.
dolores
No. I wasn't aware that microwaves were from that part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Darn. I could have saved a lot of money by
just using my clock radio to heat up leftovers.
Dolores
Mike Poulton
Pretzels? Hello?
--
Mike Poulton
MTP Technologies
Not only do I speak for my company, I AM my company!
Live free or die!
http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
jmfb...@aol.com
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<aesc92$ag7$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>> [spit]
>>
>> In article <2a0cceff.02061...@posting.google.com>,
>> null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>> >"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:<aeqjrj$sul$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Talk about ancestral tastes.
>> >
>> >Like many guys, I like my meat rare. Naturally it then becomes a
>> >point of contention who can eat the rarest meat. Then, I met beef
>> >tartare.
>> >
>> >Only then did I realize I had actually been eating completely _raw_
>> >meat for some time ... chared around the edges ... and that delicious
>> >"rare meat" flavor I like was simply the flavor of warm, uncooked
>> >flesh. I'm now known to trim some choice looking bits of the London
>> >broil for pre-grill consumption, but what I really like is stil the
>> >taste of essentially fresh killed animal,
>>
>> Guys, guys. If you're eating very good beef, it has been _aged_
>> for a while. It is not freshly killed.
>
>Oh? Good point. You mean I _haven't_ had the experience of eating
>steer the way it tastes off the hoof? Aside from being less bloody,
>what's the difference?
Mold. A haunch is hung in the locker and allowed to "age", sorta
like cheese. I don't understand what the mold does but the result
is tenderness (Caveat: this is lore handed down from my Dad to me;
I haven't met a real live butcher in a very long time).
> > > .. which may have died in the
>> >fire.
>> >
>> >Now, if ancient tastes have found their way into our genome, could we
>> >be the anthropoid apes who like to char their meat and ferment their
>> >beverages? What did we domesticate first? Fire or yeast?
>>
>> Women.
>
>ObRejoinder: Who says women have been domesticated?
[very amused emoticon]
>
>I think this "treat as equals" stuff is a losing proposition,
Definitely. At the work place it was a ploy used for work
prevention.
> .. where
>women hold all the cards: Would you guys kindly step off planet or
>something and leave some compliant simulacra?
There was a reason that I preferred to work men rather than women.
Once in a while, I'd be pleasantly surprised. I guess I should
mention that the pro women in my area (as opposed to the new
young things) tended to stick with getting something done...until
they got into the politics.
>
>> >A burger and a Bud. If it was good enough at the dawn of time, it's
>> >good enough now.
>>
>> Not since those burgers have to emulate road kill. One my way
>> to Michigan last month, I could not stomach Quarterpounders anymore
>> (and I used to thrive on them). They'ld been cooked to death.
>
>You are right... quarter pounders do not count. But many places can
>do a decent charred lump of almost raw pre-chewed beef, and a
>not-unpleasant malt beverage to wash it down. It's almost like
>communion... with the hoofed host.
Oh, I do that when I drink my milk.
jmfb...@aol.com
Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3D11DA65...@atl.lmco.com>,
>> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>> >(BTW, I have a theory that men and women read obits differently.)
>>
>> Oh, man. You sure do like lay down those irresistable lines.
>> I suppose that, since I didn't open one Pandora's box two days'
>> ago, I can open this one [emoticon checks for repercussion
>> probabilities].
>
>Heh, heh. It was a trap laid just for you, my dear. Worked
>like a charm.
<grin> And only one undesirable side effect. Not bad.
>
>>
>> OK. What is your theory?
>
>I call it "external" vs. "internal". In my gross generalization,
>women have a tendency to think about the person who died,
>the circumstances of the death, perhaps the survivors, etc.
It's hard to be maudilin if you get busy and do something. I have
little experience with this, but they were lulus. I do remember
wondering how the world continued to function with dying and
death being so commonplace.
>
>Men have a tendency to immediately start pondering their
>own mortality and forget almost entirely about the person
>whose death triggered the thought process.
I hadn't noticed this. You really do that? It's sorta
like a priority interrupt system; you only deal with
a something when it nudges you.
>
>"Hey, did you hear about Joe dropping dead at his
>desk last night?"
>"No kidding. What was he, 47, 48?" (Geeze, I'm 46. But
>of course Joe was a smoker. Still, maybe it would be
>a good idea to clean out the porno collection hidden
>in the shed, just in case...).
>
>You can see the room go silent as everybody's thoughts
>start turning inward and doing these calculations.
Could this be a cultural thing?
jmfb...@aol.com
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>news:3D11F9CB...@atl.lmco.com...
>> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I call it "external" vs. "internal". In my gross generalization,
>> women have a tendency to think about the person who died,
>> the circumstances of the death, perhaps the survivors, etc.
>>
>> Men have a tendency to immediately start pondering their
>> own mortality and forget almost entirely about the person
>> whose death triggered the thought process.
>>
>> "Hey, did you hear about Joe dropping dead at his
>> desk last night?"
>> "No kidding. What was he, 47, 48?" (Geeze, I'm 46. But
>> of course Joe was a smoker. Still, maybe it would be
>> a good idea to clean out the porno collection hidden
>> in the shed, just in case...).
>>
>> You can see the room go silent as everybody's thoughts
>> start turning inward and doing these calculations.
>>
>> - Randy
>
>
>
>Comment:
>
>Sure. Women seek emotional/social solutions, men
>seek mechanical solutions.
>Women want to fix relationships, men want to fix the plumbing.
Unless it's the faucet that's dripping. ;-)
> .. It's social
>engineering vs engineering engineering.
>
>This is not much of a problem when men go to women with a problem, because
>when that happens it's usually an emotional problem, and women understand
>immediately what needs social adjustment fixing and why.
>Men simply don't go
>to women with problems about fixing the mechanics of
>the world, because it's
>a waste of time <g>, and even when it isn't, it shows weakness.
This hasn't been my experience at all. Males came to me all
the time to fix the mechanics...especially in the situations
where asking a stupid question was the first step.
>
>What causes endless problems is when women go to
>men with what seems to be a
>problem with fixing the mechanics of the world,
>and it's really a disguised
>request to talk and adjust and fix feelings about the world. She actually
>doesn't care about the plumbing (the coronaries, whatever).
>She doesn't want
>adjustment in the coronaries, but adjustment in how to *feel* about the
>coronaries....
I'm going to keep this in mind. It may be at root of problem
I'm having in another thread.
Randy Poe
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:21:59 -0400, Randy Poe
> <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Had an unpleasant divorce, did we? This human trait of
> >drawing universal conclusions about relationships from
> >single data points never ceases to amaze me.
> >
>
> I used every data point that there is between men and
> women.
Interesting. You have knowledge of every human relationship
that exists or ever has existed. Astonishing database. I don't
even remember you collecting the data in my neighborhood,
but maybe you were that guy who said he was looking for
lawns to mow last fall. I'm impressed that that was enough
for you to learn everything about every relationship there
is.
> My rough looking understanding of it shouldn't
> give the impression it is baseless.
Perhaps it shouldn't. But it does. I read a marriage newsgroup,
and yours is a textbook example of the kind of poster who
posts from alt.support.divorce. There's a very characteristic
voice and you had all the hallmarks. Within the marriage
newsgroup, these characteristics are found in something less
than 2% of the regulars.
There are many stories in our culture with the lesson that
you will find in human nature confirmation of your preconceptions,
good or bad. I suspect there are those stories in yours as
well.
Here's the 5-second version of one of my favorites.
"What are the people in that town like?"
"What are people like where you come from?"
"Terrible."
"That's what you'll find in the town."
(Prediction confirmed).
"What are the people in that town like?"
"What are people like where you come from?"
"Wonderful."
"That's what you'll find in the town."
(Prediction confirmed).
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> In article <3D11F9CB...@atl.lmco.com>,
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >Heh, heh. It was a trap laid just for you, my dear. Worked
> >like a charm.
>
> <grin> And only one undesirable side effect. Not bad.
I noticed. Interesting what baggage can come out unexpectedly
isn't it?
> >Men have a tendency to immediately start pondering their
> >own mortality and forget almost entirely about the person
> >whose death triggered the thought process.
>
> I hadn't noticed this. You really do that? It's sorta
> like a priority interrupt system; you only deal with
> a something when it nudges you.
Oh yes. Everybody immediately wants to know age, heart condition,
and health habits. Then everyone starts making "huh" noises
and, as I said, gets all introspective. Especially if the guy
died while working out and doing all the right things, as
happened to a co-worker of my wife.
Only time I ever saw the conversation really discussing
the guy who died was when it was a guy who I knew only vaguely,
but others around me had worked closely with for years. They
were literally talking about wanting to urinate on his grave.
> >You can see the room go silent as everybody's thoughts
> >start turning inward and doing these calculations.
>
> Could this be a cultural thing?
Meaning male/female culture? Certainly. Ever read the work of
Deborah Tannen? Fascinating stuff. I heard her speak at American
U. once.
- Randy
jmfb...@aol.com
Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3D11F9CB...@atl.lmco.com>,
>> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>> >Heh, heh. It was a trap laid just for you, my dear. Worked
>> >like a charm.
>>
>> <grin> And only one undesirable side effect. Not bad.
>
>I noticed. Interesting what baggage can come out unexpectedly
>isn't it?
Yea, now I have to decide if I need to figure out what triggered
it.
>> >Men have a tendency to immediately start pondering their
>> >own mortality and forget almost entirely about the person
>> >whose death triggered the thought process.
>>
>> I hadn't noticed this. You really do that? It's sorta
>> like a priority interrupt system; you only deal with
>> a something when it nudges you.
>
>Oh yes. Everybody immediately wants to know age, heart condition,
>and health habits. Then everyone starts making "huh" noises
>and, as I said, gets all introspective. Especially if the guy
>died while working out and doing all the right things, as
>happened to a co-worker of my wife.
I can understand that. I'd begin to think if "doing the right"
thing is worth not having pleasure :-).
>
>Only time I ever saw the conversation really discussing
>the guy who died was when it was a guy who I knew only vaguely,
>but others around me had worked closely with for years. They
>were literally talking about wanting to urinate on his grave.
[really puzzled emoticon] What does urinating on grave signify?
errrmmmm...He was an SOB?
>
>> >You can see the room go silent as everybody's thoughts
>> >start turning inward and doing these calculations.
>>
>> Could this be a cultural thing?
>
>Meaning male/female culture?
No. (That's what we were discussing.) I meant Western culture.
> ..Certainly. Ever read the work of
>Deborah Tannen? Fascinating stuff. I heard her speak at American
>U. once.
Nope. Never heard her name. I seem to have a list of books
I have to read that is longer than my leg. I need to reschedule
my life. She hasn't turned into viewing everything in "those
mean men" glasses?
Randy Poe
> [really puzzled emoticon] What does urinating on grave signify?
> errrmmmm...He was an SOB?
Yes.
That would be another sign of ultimate disrespect. Think about
how we generally don't carry grudges beyond the grave -- what
would be the point? It's a little easier to find something
charitable to think about someone who has died.
To have these kinds of feelings about someone who had died,
and under what were very sad and lonely circumstances, is a
level of hate that I've never been able to comprehend.
Is this another male/female cultural thing, that you don't
see the link between urination and power & respect? Think
about dogs marking territory. Now imagine the same dog
marking another dog as his "territory".
> >> >You can see the room go silent as everybody's thoughts
> >> >start turning inward and doing these calculations.
> >>
> >> Could this be a cultural thing?
> >
> >Meaning male/female culture?
>
> No. (That's what we were discussing.) I meant Western culture.
Oh. Yes, I suppose it could be. How we react to death probably
varies widely among cultures.
[Deborah Tannen]
> Nope. Never heard her name. I seem to have a list of books
> I have to read that is longer than my leg. I need to reschedule
> my life. She hasn't turned into viewing everything in "those
> mean men" glasses?
No, not "those mean men". She's a linguist who has focused on
the communication differences between men and women (in American
culture). Her first popular-level book on her research was called
"You Just Don't Understand".
This isn't "Men are from Mars" pop-psychology either. It's a
scholarly approach to the question and she's found some very interesting
things.
- Randy
Maleki
<rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>Maleki wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:21:59 -0400, Randy Poe
>> <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I used every data point that there is between men and
>> women.
>
>Interesting. You have knowledge of every human relationship
>that exists or ever has existed. Astonishing database. I don't
>even remember you collecting the data in my neighborhood,
>but maybe you were that guy who said he was looking for
>lawns to mow last fall. I'm impressed that that was enough
>for you to learn everything about every relationship there
>is.
>
If this is above your head don't bother with it.
>> My rough looking understanding of it shouldn't
>> give the impression it is baseless.
>
>Perhaps it shouldn't. But it does. I read a marriage newsgroup,
>and yours is a textbook example of the kind of poster who
>posts from alt.support.divorce. There's a very characteristic
>voice and you had all the hallmarks. Within the marriage
>newsgroup, these characteristics are found in something less
>than 2% of the regulars.
>
>There are many stories in our culture with the lesson that
>you will find in human nature confirmation of your preconceptions,
>good or bad. I suspect there are those stories in yours as
>well.
>
>Here's the 5-second version of one of my favorites.
>
>"What are the people in that town like?"
>"What are people like where you come from?"
>"Terrible."
>"That's what you'll find in the town."
>(Prediction confirmed).
>
>"What are the people in that town like?"
>"What are people like where you come from?"
>"Wonderful."
>"That's what you'll find in the town."
>(Prediction confirmed).
>
> - Randy
I think you're confused. Man-woman affair is based on
very simple formulas. At the bottom of it nothing else
matters but those formulas. Because the rest would be
just confusion. A woman who's not confused would
function exactly as I described.
Rich Grise
...
> Also, I've heard that a typical Chinese open-air market
> features meat, or at least poultry, that is live when you're
> shopping for it.
Haven't seen live game in an actual market, but I haven't
actually been to China, unless Taiwan counts as China.
Saw gutted dogs in Korea, and you always see the dead,
plucked chickens that look exactly like those gag
rubber chickens. =:O
> I've heard rumors of Japanese seafood delicacies that
> are still live when they get to the table.
>
> - Randy
"Goch is always best when served live."
- some Klingon on Cdr. Ryker's "field trip."
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
...
> Every once and a while I get a momentary feeling of weirdness from
> considering the fresh vegatables I may be eating are still alive.
> Enough people are worried about animals ... what about that carrot!
> It's alive! If you put it in the backyard (I've tried this) you will
> get a big bushy carrot plant! But _no_, you are going to stop all
> that -- heartless herbivore!
>
I wonder about this sometimes; I wonder if the carrot feels
pain when you rip it up by the roots and eat it alive? But then,
as you've said, poke it back in the dirt and you'll grow a
carrot tree. So leave 10% of your plants to go to seed, so
you'll automatically get another crop next season. That sort
of thing. Does this also apply to animals? Sell 90% of your
stock to the market, and keep 10% to breed. Well, it might
be on a longer cycle - a few percent a year added to the
breeding stock, that sort of thing. But, everybody's got to
eat something; humans seem to be the only ones angsting over
it!
Cheers!
Rich
> I'm not _sure_, but I think we might be able to morally live on
> blue-green algae, if we pray frequently enough and beg forgiveness of
> the living algal mat.
Rich Grise
> Edward Green wrote:
...
> > It's alive! If you put it in the backyard (I've tried this) you will
> > get a big bushy carrot plant!
>
> alive. You're not a murderer if you eat that potential carrot,
> just an abortionist.
I believe Edward Green was talking about a live carrot freshly
plucked from the ground, and gives the example of replanting it.
Is this the equivalent of carrot CPR? Does it see the gates of
Heaven? And mentioning aborionists makes absolutely no sense.
Bean sprouts, maybe, or mushrooms - but not an adult carrot.
>
> > But _no_, you are going to stop all that -- heartless herbivore!
> >
> > I'm not _sure_, but I think we might be able to morally live on
> > blue-green algae, if we pray frequently enough and beg forgiveness of
> > the living algal mat.
>
> Hmm, perhaps. But we probably also have to promise to
> feed ourselves back to the algae to make it come out even.
>
> - Randy
Where in the hell do you think Soylent Green came from? Bypass
the algae entirely!
Although, it might, if I may be allowed to expound on something
remotely plausible - a large greenhouse out in the desert
somewhere, with hydroponic troughs of a genetically-engineered
blue-green algae that produces some useful hydrocarbon or
carbohydrate, or something, that you could just skim up at
the end of the trough?
Anybody want to invest a couple mil in my idea?
(I posted this from groups.google.com, so my email should
be in the clear: if not, it's richar...@yahoo.com )
Cheers!
Rich
Edward Green
> In article <2a0cceff.02062...@posting.google.com>,
> null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> >jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<aesc92$ag7$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >> Guys, guys. If you're eating very good beef, it has been _aged_
> >> for a while. It is not freshly killed.
> >
> >Oh? Good point. You mean I _haven't_ had the experience of eating
> >steer the way it tastes off the hoof? Aside from being less bloody,
> >what's the difference?
>
> Mold. A haunch is hung in the locker and allowed to "age", sorta
> like cheese. I don't understand what the mold does but the result
> is tenderness (Caveat: this is lore handed down from my Dad to me;
> I haven't met a real live butcher in a very long time).
Well, from what Steve says, this sounds like a case of correlation vs.
causation. Also, I've never understood the fascination with extremely
tender meat. It was once remarked that a piece of meat from the neck
of a cougar can, with careful chewing, be made to last all day.
Somewheres down the line between cougar neck and fillet mignon I would
stop caring. I don't really mind chewing my meat a little.
OTOH, since I tend to eat beef very rare I probably have a different
idea of the toughness of, say, shoulder, than somebody who likes it
well done; I think first there is a toughening reaction when you cook
it and then you have to cook it a _long_ time to break it down again.
For a really amazing experience in toughness, try microwaving a fresh
bagel. Some polymerization sets in that makes them laughably tough
... you can barely rip a piece off with your teeth.