Peter A wrote:
>>> Note where I said, "You can't rely on time alone". Yes, you do
>>> have to cook it slow for BBQ, but you can cook it at 350-375,
>>> and it will still be pullable when it reaches 190.. But in no way
>>> can you say "cook a pork butt [for pulled pork] for 7 hours and
>>> it'll be done.", which simply is not true.
>>
>
> Then why have I done it by time, not temperature, dozens of times and
> it is always great? And why do you never, and I mean NEVER, see a
> thermometer used in the various well-known BBQ joints around here? The
> pit bosses would laugh you into the next county if you suggested a
> thermometer.
>
> People have been cooking BBQ and other meats by the time/temperature
> method for centuries, I suppose they were all wrong too.
>
> Your method may work fine, but so does mine. For you to say it doesn't
> just reveals your ignorance.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Peter A wrote:
>>>> Note where I said, "You can't rely on time alone". Yes, you do
>>>> have to cook it slow for BBQ, but you can cook it at 350-375,
>>>> and it will still be pullable when it reaches 190.. But in no way
>>>> can you say "cook a pork butt [for pulled pork] for 7 hours and
>>>> it'll be done.", which simply is not true.
>>>
>>
>> Then why have I done it by time, not temperature, dozens of times and
>> it is always great? And why do you never, and I mean NEVER, see a
>> thermometer used in the various well-known BBQ joints around here? The
>> pit bosses would laugh you into the next county if you suggested a
>> thermometer.
>>
>> People have been cooking BBQ and other meats by the time/temperature
>> method for centuries, I suppose they were all wrong too.
>>
>> Your method may work fine, but so does mine. For you to say it doesn't
>> just reveals your ignorance.
>
> --
> "So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com
>

Haven't mastered our newsreader yet, have we?

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2007 19:55:22 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>
> > "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Peter A wrote:
> >>>>> Note where I said, "You can't rely on time alone". Yes, you do
> >>>>> have to cook it slow for BBQ, but you can cook it at 350-375,
> >>>>> and it will still be pullable when it reaches 190.. But in no way
> >>>>> can you say "cook a pork butt [for pulled pork] for 7 hours and
> >>>>> it'll be done.", which simply is not true.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Then why have I done it by time, not temperature, dozens of times and
> >>> it is always great? And why do you never, and I mean NEVER, see a
> >>> thermometer used in the various well-known BBQ joints around here? The
> >>> pit bosses would laugh you into the next county if you suggested a
> >>> thermometer.
> >>>
> >>> People have been cooking BBQ and other meats by the time/temperature
> >>> method for centuries, I suppose they were all wrong too.
> >>>
> >>> Your method may work fine, but so does mine. For you to say it doesn't
> >>> just reveals your ignorance.
> >>
> >> --
> >> "So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
> >> Dave
> >> www.davebbq.com
> >>
> >
> > Haven't mastered our newsreader yet, have we?
>
> I looks like Dave is throwing him the wolves at
> alt.food.barbecue: Where the *real* pros and people who actually
> want to learn the secrets to good BBQ hang out.
>
> -sw

I'm afraid I haven't seen much bbq content on a.f.b in a couple years...
Used to be good when I first looked at it mid '04, but not any more.

On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:25:50 GMT, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>I'm afraid I haven't seen much bbq content on a.f.b in a couple years...
>Used to be good when I first looked at it mid '04, but not any more.

Play to their strengths. Ask 'em how they feel about black people.

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 09:01:22 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:25:50 GMT, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm afraid I haven't seen much bbq content on a.f.b in a couple
>>> years... Used to be good when I first looked at it mid '04, but not
>>> any more.
>>
>> Play to their strengths. Ask 'em how they feel about black people.
>
> Oops. I must have smelled him creeping towards us.

Pungent, ain't he?

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:25:50 GMT, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I haven't seen much bbq content on a.f.b in a couple years...
> > Used to be good when I first looked at it mid '04, but not any more.
>
> That's funny. I see dozens of threads int he last couple months
> regarding BBQ.

Perhaps my SNET/SBC/ATT/Whoever-the-hell-they-are-this-month news server
has issues since I don't recall seeing that level of activity.

> Are you sure your reading alt.food.barbecue and
> not alt.food.barbeque?

Yep.

>
> There were a few bad months when we had KSW crying, whining, and
> trolling all the time, but things are getting better.

I hope things are getting better, they were good when I first looked at
the group. Getting back into 'Q season now, down to one foodsaver pack
of brisket in the freezer left from my last 'Q run. Going to have to do
another big batch soon, was very nice having the freezer stocked over
the winter.

Pete C.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pungent, ain't he?

AKA, "aue de kibology".

Funny aroma.

Graeme