Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for. Thanks
DG

"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
news:lqAqc.500546$Pk3.227515@pd7tw1no...
> Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
> smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for.

Baby back ("loin") pork ribs are tasty and forgiving of cooking errors, not
to mention popular.

It's hard to ruin chicken or pork butt. Marinate some chicken pieces as you
like and smoke them for about 2 hrs at 220-250°.

Or, cook a pork butt to an internal temp of 190-200°; about 1 1/2 hrs per
lb.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Louis Cohen
Living la vida loca at N37° 43' 7.9" W122° 8' 42.8"


"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
news:lqAqc.500546$Pk3.227515@pd7tw1no...
> Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
> smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for. Thanks
> DG
>
>

Ok I've got a pork loin marinating, how much smoke will this take? I live
in the city so i'm hoping there won't be a huge cloud comming out of my
yard. Also what kind of woodchips should I use? Thanks.



"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
news:lqAqc.500546$Pk3.227515@pd7tw1no...
> Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
> smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for. Thanks
> DG
>
>

Pork loin is more suited to roasting/grilling than smoking. I suggest you
sear it then finish at 200-225F (low indirect heat) until cooked to medium
inside. No, I cannot remember the internal meat temperature for pork cooked
medium. Go find a chart. Pull it off a good 5*F early and let it coast to
doneness under foil. The low temp roasting/grilling helps ensure it;s
cooked to your desired doneness throughout instead of overcooked most of the
way outside part and correct only ion the very center (tip from Alton
Brown).

Go easy on the chips and use milder woods such as apple if you have that
available, avoid the hardcore stuff like emsquite, pecan and hickory but if
that's all you have go really easy.


"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
news:NhKqc.505853$Pk3.479298@pd7tw1no...
> Ok I've got a pork loin marinating, how much smoke will this take? I live
> in the city so i'm hoping there won't be a huge cloud comming out of my
> yard. Also what kind of woodchips should I use? Thanks.
>
>
>
> "Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
> news:lqAqc.500546$Pk3.227515@pd7tw1no...
> > Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
> > smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for. Thanks
> > DG
> >
> >
>
>
>

Dirty Harry wrote:
> Ok I've got a pork loin marinating, how much smoke will this take? I
> live in the city so i'm hoping there won't be a huge cloud comming
> out of my yard. Also what kind of woodchips should I use? Thanks.

IMO pork loin is best grilled. They're big enough so you can turn it on 4
sides to distribute the grill marks and end up with a juicy light pink
interior. It's done at a rarer state than you'd probably expect.
You can still add the wood chips, they'll help mask that kingsford diesel
taste. If you can get wood lump charcoal you might want to give it a try.
Mesquite is generally considered best for grilling because of it's bitter
flavor, some like it for BBQ though.

Thank you for the peaches idea, gonna try it. You didnt say anything about
the cooking technique and what the intent is, would you mind adding some
info for a clueless clod such as myself?


--

"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message news:<lqAqc.500546$Pk3.227515@pd7tw1no>...
> Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
> smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for. Thanks
> DG

Pork chops. Just add salt & pepper, and smoke in hickory.

Can't go wrong with those...

/s

I usually just grill them with the pit side down first, then when you flip
it you have a nice cavity that you can fill up with the left over
marinade/basting(honey/b.sugar) liquid while you cook the other side. They
don't take that long to cook maybe 2-4 mins a side, I like to get the bottom
caramelized a bit and leave some nice grill marks. You can't really screw
these up trust me. Some cinnamon sugar also goes good at the end.



"Duwop" > wrote in message
...
> Dirty Harry wrote:
> > Ok I've got a pork loin marinating, how much smoke will this take? I
> > live in the city so i'm hoping there won't be a huge cloud comming
> > out of my yard. Also what kind of woodchips should I use? Thanks.
>
> IMO pork loin is best grilled. They're big enough so you can turn it on 4
> sides to distribute the grill marks and end up with a juicy light pink
> interior. It's done at a rarer state than you'd probably expect.
> You can still add the wood chips, they'll help mask that kingsford diesel
> taste. If you can get wood lump charcoal you might want to give it a try.
> Mesquite is generally considered best for grilling because of it's bitter
> flavor, some like it for BBQ though.
>
> Thank you for the peaches idea, gonna try it. You didnt say anything about
> the cooking technique and what the intent is, would you mind adding some
> info for a clueless clod such as myself?
>
>
> --
>
>
>

OK, I have an oak barrel I got for swish, its a jim beam burbon barrel that
had some good stuff in it for abut 8 years. I hear the wood might work good
for smoking? I opened it up the other day and it smells awesome.
Suggestions?




"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
news:lqAqc.500546$Pk3.227515@pd7tw1no...
> Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
> smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for. Thanks
> DG
>
>

Dirty Harry wrote:
> OK, I have an oak barrel I got for swish, its a jim beam burbon
> barrel that had some good stuff in it for abut 8 years. I hear the
> wood might work good for smoking? I opened it up the other day and
> it smells awesome. Suggestions?
>

Can I get you into the local lingo we use here so we're on the same page?

Fast
Grilling, high direct heat, steaks, hamburgers.......

Slow
BBQ, pork butts, brisket, ribs, 250F or so. Wood fire's best, need wood
flavor at minimum.

Slowest
Smoking, using wood at about 120F, sausages, fish steaks, oysters, pheasant,
bacon. Originally a done to preserve food, makes tasty snackin. Most
commercial smokers are electric and use wood chips for flavor and look like
little refrigerators. We don't really discuss smoking much. Mostly BBQ and
grilling.


--

"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
newsZNqc.535544$oR5.175059@pd7tw3no...
> OK, I have an oak barrel I got for swish, its a jim beam burbon barrel
that
> had some good stuff in it for abut 8 years. I hear the wood might work
good
> for smoking? I opened it up the other day and it smells awesome.
> Suggestions?

Well, when I was much younger my father brought home six Jack Daniels (one
of his customers at the time) barrels. I put about three or four quarts of
water in them and they laid in the sun for a summer (rolled about every once
in a while). What came out wasn't JD whiskey but it sure worked.

Duwop wrote:

> Can I get you into the local lingo we use here so we're on the same
> page?

Snip of a good tutorial.

I would also suggest 1: please stop top posting, it make textual context
difficult ot follow. Just snip the text you don't need from the post you are
replying to and post your response at the bottom :-) ; 2. the FAQ is an
excellent information source for beginners and experienced alike.
http://www.eaglequest.com/~bbq/faq2/toc.html

Glad to have you aboard :-)
Dave

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> You guys (and gals) can call it anything you want, though :-)
> It's bad enough trying to convince people that they *grill*
> steaks, hamburgers and hot dogs, and *barbecue* brisket, butts and
> ribs. I don't think we need to add another level of confusion.
>
> -sw

Agree that the smoking one's tricky, and it does cause problems.
Remember how twisted Kunt's panties got over the word "smoking"? I know he
don't count as he's twisted to begin with, but it's fun to remember seeing
his mind warp.



--

Dave Bugg wrote:
> I would also suggest 1: please stop top posting, it make textual
> context difficult ot follow. Just snip the text you don't need from
> the post you are replying to and post your response at the bottom :-)

Or, if you use Outlook Express, there's a handy dandy utility that will do
the work for you, it's called "OE Quotefix"

It's free and you can d/l it he
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/


--

Well how about this, I'm going to be smoking it on my barbeque! So wouldn't
that qualify as BBQing :-p And its going to happen in about 10 mins. I'll
let you all know how it turns out...I'm also going to try and smoke some
corn wraped in baccon with the husk over the skin...wood is oak that was
used to age burbon. I took the barrel appart and got the chips with my axe
just a short time ago. Has a sweetish cinnimon smell almost, the wood smell
makes u want to drool! I hope it works good cause I've got a ton of this
oak.

Dirty Harry wrote:
> Well how about this, I'm going to be smoking it on my barbeque! So
> wouldn't that qualify as BBQing :-p

That would mean that you are smoking on some meat, since the term
'barbecue' -- as used by those who cook barbecue -- refers to meat that has
been barbecued. :-)

Or something like that.
Dave

Ok, it worked pretty good! But I didn't get as much smoke as I wanted. I
wapped up a package of half dry and half wet chips...I guess I need to use
more chips for more smoke. Smoked/cooked it for only an hour with one side
on med-hi and the other burner off.





"Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
news:0oTqc.537899$oR5.499291@pd7tw3no...
> Well how about this, I'm going to be smoking it on my barbeque! So
wouldn't
> that qualify as BBQing :-p And its going to happen in about 10 mins.
I'll
> let you all know how it turns out...I'm also going to try and smoke some
> corn wraped in baccon with the husk over the skin...wood is oak that was
> used to age burbon. I took the barrel appart and got the chips with my
axe
> just a short time ago. Has a sweetish cinnimon smell almost, the wood
smell
> makes u want to drool! I hope it works good cause I've got a ton of this
> oak.
>
>
>

On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:45:05 GMT, "Dirty Harry" > wrote:

|I usually just grill them with the pit side down first, then when you flip
|it you have a nice cavity that you can fill up with the left over
|marinade/basting(honey/b.sugar) liquid while you cook the other side. They
|don't take that long to cook maybe 2-4 mins a side, I like to get the bottom
|caramelized a bit and leave some nice grill marks. You can't really screw
|these up trust me. Some cinnamon sugar also goes good at the end.
|
Might want to try adding some good bleu cheese as well. Haven't done it with peaches but
it is absolutely insane with nectarines

KenR

To respond by email you must
Delete remove...
or is it remove delete??

Jason wrote:

> "Dirty Harry" > wrote in message
> news:lqAqc.500546$Pk3.227515@pd7tw1no...
>
>>Hi all, I've got a pretty basic grill but what would you sugest I try
>>smoking. Something easy to smoke is what I'm looking for.
>
> Baby back ("loin") pork ribs are tasty and forgiving of cooking errors, not
> to mention popular.

Sure. Spare ribs are substantially less expensive and
better for training, though. Many folks would say they're
no less tasty.

Dana

Dave Bugg wrote:

> I would also suggest 1: please stop top posting

Heavens. Top-posting is often more readable
and often less readable. Judge posts on the
content and not the format.

If all ya got to say is "stop top posting",
I say "save the time and bandwidth and don't
anything at all". Ignore top-posters if
you're so sensitive it bothers you. Really.
It's bottom-feeding for nit-pickers.

Cheers,
Dana

ObSmokin': Smoked a baker's dozen store-bought
habs and ground 'em into *ethereal* powder. Used
mesquite lump with a handful of apple pellets to
add a little richness.

Duwop wrote:

> Or, if you use Outlook Express

Geez, top-posting is the *last* thing I'd
worry when talking about OE, the conduit
to constant virus innundation even if you
stay on top of Windows Update.

Dana

Dirty Harry wrote:

> Ok, it worked pretty good! But I didn't get as much smoke as I wanted. I
> wapped up a package of half dry and half wet chips...I guess I need to use
> more chips for more smoke. Smoked/cooked it for only an hour with one side
> on med-hi and the other burner off.

Forget about wet chips. Thems just trying to
make up for too high a cooking temperature, but
there's no free lunch; an hour of smoking at
high temp cooks too fast.

Lower the cooking heat and let the wood
naturally smolder/smoke, go for at least
two or three hours of smoke exposure without
overcooking.

However, don't oversmoke either. You'll know it
when you taste it.

Dana

Duwop wrote:

> Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>>OK, I have an oak barrel I got for swish
>
> Can I get you into the local lingo we use here so we're on the same page?

You didn't even mention swish. Is that cause you
know what it is or cause you had to straighten out a
newbie at all costs? Would you care to add "swish"
to your list of terms ?

Dana

Dana Myers wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
>
>> Or, if you use Outlook Express
>
> Geez, top-posting is the *last* thing I'd
> worry when talking about OE, the conduit
> to constant virus innundation even if you
> stay on top of Windows Update.
>
> Dana

Hey thanks for your opinion there Dana, hope you're not gonna charge us for
all this received wisdom.

So far this morning we got from you:
Only buy wine in restaraunts, it sucks to pour it yourself (for reason(s)
not given)
Windoz is virus heaven, even though I've not received one virus in 4 years
thanks to my router.
Your complaining about other people complaining about other people wastes
bandwidth
Told someone they were wrong to suggest baby backs
Told Harry he did it all wrong without suggesting a better solution.
And finally, it's somehow wrong, hell it's Fascistic to familiarize someone
with this group.

Medications run out?

--

Dana Myers > wrote in message news:<40ac667e@wobble>...
> Dave Bugg wrote:
> > I would also suggest 1: please stop top posting
>
> Heavens. Top-posting is often more readable
> and often less readable. Judge posts on the
> content and not the format.
> If all ya got to say is "stop top posting",
> I say "save the time and bandwidth and don't
> anything at all". Ignore top-posters if
> you're so sensitive it bothers you. Really.
> It's bottom-feeding for nit-pickers.
>
> Cheers,
> Dana

Ignore top-posters? Shouldn't someone tell them why they're being
ignored? Top-posting is rude.

Cam

Duwop wrote:

> Dana Myers wrote:
>
>>Duwop wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Or, if you use Outlook Express
>>
>>Geez, top-posting is the *last* thing I'd
>>worry when talking about OE, the conduit
>>to constant virus innundation even if you
>>stay on top of Windows Update.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> Hey thanks for your opinion there Dana, hope you're not gonna charge us for
> all this received wisdom.
>
> So far this morning we got from you:
> Only buy wine in restaraunts, it sucks to pour it yourself (for reason(s)
> not given)

Well, the poster was asking about drinking wine in a public place,
writing:

"And how do you get away with drinking wine in a public place :-)"

I wrote "pouring out" meaning, if busted for drinking in
public, one of the things that often happens IMHO is you're
asked to pour out the beverage onto the ground. That sucks.

Do you disagree with this?

> Windoz is virus heaven, even though I've not received one virus in 4 years
> thanks to my router.

Your router won't save from many of the current generation of
Windows viruses, which exploit behaviors in Outlook and IE that
have nothing to with your router.

> Your complaining about other people complaining about other people wastes
> bandwidth

Actually, I'm complaining about people complaining about top-posting.
It's just so below the threshold of anything that matters.

> Told someone they were wrong to suggest baby backs

No, I suggested that spareribs might be a better *first time*
thing to smoke. This is consistent with the BBQ FAQ 2.0,
quoting from section 10.1.1:

> Spare ribs are inexpensive and full of flavor and are probably
> the best choice for novice barbecuers. You won't feel near as
> bad if you mess up a rack of spare ribs as you will if you
> mess an expensive rack of baby backs.

So it's not like I'm alone in giving that advice.

> Told Harry he did it all wrong without suggesting a better solution.
> And finally, it's somehow wrong, hell it's Fascistic to familiarize someone
> with this group.
>
> Medications run out?

Oh, I must have said something you disagree with but
are not able to discuss objectively, so you turn to an
ad hominem attack. You really showed me.

Geez.

Dana

Dana Myers wrote:

> Heavens. Top-posting is often more readable
> and often less readable. Judge posts on the
> content and not the format.

Nope. The post needs to be readable. The norm in communication is to
reply --- whether talking or writing -- AFTER a statement or question is
made, not before the person has spoken.

> If all ya got to say is "stop top posting",
> I say "save the time and bandwidth and don't
> anything at all". Ignore top-posters if
> you're so sensitive it bothers you. Really.
> It's bottom-feeding for nit-pickers.

Ah, the standard "accept my rude behavior" reply. Sorry, but there are norms
in communication and bottom-posting, accompanied by proper snippage, is what
has been accepted as the norm in communication on this NG for years. Every
so often, someone new -- like yourself -- will post the kind of response
you've posted, and then we have to address this all over again.

Dana Myers wrote:

> Actually, I'm complaining about people complaining about top-posting.
> It's just so below the threshold of anything that matters.

So, difficult to follow communication is most certainly worth addressing.
What IS 'below the threshold of anything that matters' is wasting bandwidth
defending rude behavior.

> No, I suggested that spareribs might be a better *first time*
> thing to smoke. This is consistent with the BBQ FAQ 2.0,
> quoting from section 10.1.1:
>
>> Spare ribs are inexpensive and full of flavor and are probably
>> the best choice for novice barbecuers. You won't feel near as
>> bad if you mess up a rack of spare ribs as you will if you
>> mess an expensive rack of baby backs.
>
> So it's not like I'm alone in giving that advice.

Sure, the FAQ gives some wonderful advice. But this group, including Harry,
have as much -- and as valid -- a long-term history and a proven track
record giving good advice as the FAQ. Ya gotta know the players before ya
go off on a contrarian tangent. Spare ribs are more difficult to bbq than
babybacks, hence Harry's advice.

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dana Myers wrote:
>
>
>>Heavens. Top-posting is often more readable
>>and often less readable. Judge posts on the
>>content and not the format.
>
>
> Nope. The post needs to be readable. The norm in communication is to
> reply --- whether talking or writing -- AFTER a statement or question is
> made, not before the person has spoken.

Are you disagreeing that we ought to judge posts
on the content? I don't think so, 'cause you say "the
post needs to be readable".

There are certainly cases where a person may make a statement
or comment and *then* include some text as a kind of footnote.
If it's readable, then it's OK with me.


>>If all ya got to say is "stop top posting",
>>I say "save the time and bandwidth and don't
>>anything at all". Ignore top-posters if
>>you're so sensitive it bothers you. Really.
>>It's bottom-feeding for nit-pickers.
>
>
> Ah, the standard "accept my rude behavior" reply.

No, actually, not. I don't top-post myself in
general. I'm saying, let's just accept people
on the basis of the quality of their communication
and not on the specific format.

> Sorry, but there are norms
> in communication and bottom-posting, accompanied by proper snippage, is what
> has been accepted as the norm in communication on this NG for years. Every
> so often, someone new -- like yourself -- will post the kind of response
> you've posted, and then we have to address this all over again.

I'm no newbie to Usenet, and you don't need to address
the topic all over again. It's just normally such a
zero value topic when it turns into semantic twaddling
and it's just bottom-feeding for nit-picking. It's
like watching the fire too closely :-)

Enough from me on the topic, 'cause I've spent
enough time developing this point of view that
I'm not apt to casually change it. Let's
agree to disagree, I'll keep my comments on the
topic to myself and stipulate that you've won
the debate (because it's below the threshold
of worrying about).

Let's talk Q.

Dana

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dana Myers wrote:
> Ah, the standard "accept my rude behavior" reply. Sorry, but there

And don't forget the whole irony angle. I'm often shaking my head at these.

"I'm complaining and wasting bandwidth about you complaining and wasting
bandwidth"

"I'm telling you not to coach someone because it's bossy"

He's another for the k/f.


--

Duwop wrote:

> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>>Dana Myers wrote:
>>Ah, the standard "accept my rude behavior" reply. Sorry, but there
>
>
> And don't forget the whole irony angle. I'm often shaking my head at these.
>
> "I'm complaining and wasting bandwidth about you complaining and wasting
> bandwidth"
>
> "I'm telling you not to coach someone because it's bossy"

Let's just agree to disagree on this one, eh?

> He's another for the k/f.

Suit yourself, though I think you're being a little over-sensitive
if you k/f me this easily.

Dana

Dana Myers wrote:

> Let's talk Q.

Fair enough :-)

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Dana Myers wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, I'm complaining about people complaining about top-posting.
>>It's just so below the threshold of anything that matters.
>
>
> So, difficult to follow communication is most certainly worth addressing.
> What IS 'below the threshold of anything that matters' is wasting bandwidth
> defending rude behavior.

OK. Like I've posted elsewhere, I've spoken my bit on the
topic and don't want to drag it out any further.

>>No, I suggested that spareribs might be a better *first time*
>>thing to smoke. This is consistent with the BBQ FAQ 2.0,
>>quoting from section 10.1.1:
>>
>>
>>>Spare ribs are inexpensive and full of flavor and are probably
>>>the best choice for novice barbecuers. You won't feel near as
>>>bad if you mess up a rack of spare ribs as you will if you
>>>mess an expensive rack of baby backs.
>>
>>So it's not like I'm alone in giving that advice.
>
>
> Sure, the FAQ gives some wonderful advice. But this group, including Harry,
> have as much -- and as valid -- a long-term history and a proven track
> record giving good advice as the FAQ. Ya gotta know the players before ya
> go off on a contrarian tangent. Spare ribs are more difficult to bbq than
> babybacks, hence Harry's advice.

Well, OK, I wasn't saying that anyone was *wrong*.
All I wrote, on the topic of first-time Q, was:

> Sure. Spare ribs are substantially less expensive and
> better for training, though. Many folks would say they're
> no less tasty.

That's just me stating my opinion based on my experience.
I only mentioned the FAQ when challenged. I don't have to
know any players to know what I believe, and it's exactly
what I wrote.

What's wrong with that?

Dana

"Dana Myers" > wrote ...

> Suit yourself, though I think you're being a little over-sensitive
> if you k/f me this easily.
>
> Dana

The whole group of them are a bunch of wusses I tell you!

-CAL

"Dave Bugg" <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote ...
> Dana Myers wrote:
>
> > Let's talk Q.
>
> Fair enough :-)
>

He will only talk 'Q if it is done the way he likes it.

-CAL

Dana Myers wrote:
> Actually, I'm complaining about people complaining about
top-posting.
> It's just so below the threshold of anything that matters.

There's the old sayin that when in Rome, do as the Romans do. The
Romans round here bottom-post. If ya decide to stick around and be
buddies with the folks here, I suggest ya give up your complainin and
bottom post like the rest. If not, expect fewer and fewer replies as
folks add ya to their twit-file.
--
-frohe
Life is too short to be in a hurry

> > I would also suggest 1: please stop top posting
>
> Heavens. Top-posting is often more readable
> and often less readable. Judge posts on the
> content and not the format.

I am one who prefers top-posting, both when I'm reading a thread and also
when I'm replying to one. Saves me from scrolling on each post just to find
some silly meaningless comment at the bottom of all the quoted text. I've
been this way since 1993 when I started reading USENET in college (in UNIX
using the RN program, on a Macintosh LC with a 2400 baud modem).

"Dana Myers" > wrote in message news:40ace6ac$1@wobble
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Dana Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Heavens. Top-posting is often more readable
>>> and often less readable. Judge posts on the
>>> content and not the format.
>>
>>
>> Nope. The post needs to be readable. The norm in communication is to
>> reply --- whether talking or writing -- AFTER a statement or
>> question is made, not before the person has spoken.
>
> Are you disagreeing that we ought to judge posts
> on the content? I don't think so, 'cause you say "the
> post needs to be readable".
>
> There are certainly cases where a person may make a statement
> or comment and *then* include some text as a kind of footnote.
> If it's readable, then it's OK with me.
>
>
>>> If all ya got to say is "stop top posting",
>>> I say "save the time and bandwidth and don't
>>> anything at all". Ignore top-posters if
>>> you're so sensitive it bothers you. Really.
>>> It's bottom-feeding for nit-pickers.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the standard "accept my rude behavior" reply.
>
> No, actually, not. I don't top-post myself in
> general. I'm saying, let's just accept people
> on the basis of the quality of their communication
> and not on the specific format.
>
>> Sorry, but there are norms
>> in communication and bottom-posting, accompanied by proper snippage,
>> is what has been accepted as the norm in communication on this NG
>> for years. Every so often, someone new -- like yourself -- will post
>> the kind of response you've posted, and then we have to address this
>> all over again.
>
> I'm no newbie to Usenet, and you don't need to address
> the topic all over again. It's just normally such a
> zero value topic when it turns into semantic twaddling
> and it's just bottom-feeding for nit-picking. It's
> like watching the fire too closely :-)
>
> Enough from me on the topic, 'cause I've spent
> enough time developing this point of view that
> I'm not apt to casually change it. Let's
> agree to disagree, I'll keep my comments on the
> topic to myself and stipulate that you've won
> the debate (because it's below the threshold
> of worrying about).
>
> Let's talk Q.
>
> Dana

Damn if that wasn't one of the most coherent statements on the subject I've
heard in a while. "Bottom-feeding for nitpickers", hmmmm, has a ring to it.
Personally I find it easier to track a thread thats top posted but I comply
to keep the whiners from going off on a tangent.

JD

>...one of the things that often happens IMHO is you're asked to pour out the
beverage onto the ground. That sucks.

Do you disagree with this?

Unless you're drinking a very expensive something or other, pouring out your
drink is a hell of a lot cheaper than getting busted, posting bail, missing
work to go to court and paying for a lawyer!

Tranch749 wrote:
>>...one of the things that often happens IMHO is you're asked to pour out the
>
> beverage onto the ground. That sucks.
>
> Do you disagree with this?
>
> Unless you're drinking a very expensive something or other, pouring out your
> drink is a hell of a lot cheaper than getting busted, posting bail, missing
> work to go to court and paying for a lawyer!

True - those things suck, too. Another reason to go to a
location where alcoholic beverages are permitted. ;-)

Dana