It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
about 2.5 hours to achieve the desired 180 degree doneness. The
indirect cooking method produced a turkey that was golden brown in color
and very moist. I place a small amount of poultry seasoning mixed with
a small amount of water in the drip pan.

That weber rotisserie is heavy duty and very well made. I've had mine
for 6 yrs, never taken the motor assembly off the grill. It survives
well here in the DFW area with our variable weather.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:10:20 -0800, JimBob > wrote:

>It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
>(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
>attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
>about 2.5 hours to achieve the desired 180 degree doneness.

Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
breast, with the probe touching the breast.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:10:20 -0800, JimBob > wrote:
>
>>It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
>>(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
>>attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
>>about 2.5 hours to achieve the desired 180 degree doneness.
>
>Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
>breast, with the probe touching the breast.

Breast bone, that is.

All the literature suggest 180 degrees to achieve a thoroughly cooked
thigh area. I agree that 165-170 degree works fine in the traditional
enclosed electric over, however.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:10:20 -0800, JimBob > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
>>>(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
>>>attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
>>>about 2.5 hours to achieve the desired 180 degree doneness.
>>
>>Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
>>breast, with the probe touching the breast.
>
>
> Breast bone, that is.
>

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:10:20 -0800, JimBob > wrote:
>
>>It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
>>(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
>>attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
>>about 2.5 hours to achieve the desired 180 degree doneness.
>
>Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
>breast, with the probe touching the breast.

Breast: 165 or so. Thigh: 180 or so.
<shrug>

(and isn't it December most everywhere?)

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
> wrote:

>>Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
>>breast, with the probe touching the breast.
>
> Breast bone, that is.

Why have the probe touching the breast bone, as opposed to just making
sure the probe is in the thickest part of the breast?


Brian

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:59:42 GMT, "Brian D." >
wrote:

>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>> wrote:
>
>>>Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
>>>breast, with the probe touching the breast.
>>
>> Breast bone, that is.
>
> Why have the probe touching the breast bone, as opposed to just making
>sure the probe is in the thickest part of the breast?
>
Suggested by Bruce Aidells and Denis Kelly in "The Complete Meat
Cookbook," and it works for me.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:20:03 -0600, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:35:56 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:59:42 GMT, "Brian D." >
>>wrote:
>
>>> Why have the probe touching the breast bone, as opposed to just making
>>>sure the probe is in the thickest part of the breast?
>>>
>>Suggested by Bruce Aidells and Denis Kelly in "The Complete Meat
>>Cookbook," and it works for me.
>
>Liar. I happen to have that book within reach here and it says
>nothing about turkey except for a recipe using ground turkey in a
>beef andouille meatloaf. The book only discusses beef, veal,
>lamb, and pork - not poultry.

I wonder what other meaningless homework I can get you to do. Dance,
puppet.

>As for what it says about using thermometers to measure
>temperatu "You poke them deep into the center, avoiding the
>bone".
>
One line out of hundreds, huh? You'd think maybe they'd have more than
that to say.

PS: What was the food like in jail?

Steve Wertz wrote:


> As for what it says about using thermometers to measure
> temperatu "You poke them deep into the center, avoiding the
> bone".


That's what I've always heard for meat temps, avoid the bone because
you can get false readings. I use the probe in the center of one side
of the breast, looking for around 162F. That's not rotisserie though, I
don't have one.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:35:56 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:59:42 GMT, "Brian D." >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
>>>>breast, with the probe touching the breast.
>>>
>>> Breast bone, that is.
>>
>> Why have the probe touching the breast bone, as opposed to just making
>>sure the probe is in the thickest part of the breast?
>>
>Suggested by Bruce Aidells and Denis Kelly in "The Complete Meat
>Cookbook," and it works for me.

I should point out that this is one of the few times in the book where
the authors endorse using a remote-probe thermometer. For the most
part they treat thermometers with contempt, favoring other
tried-and-true methods for determining doneness, such as "shaking
hands" with the bird, palpating a brisket, the fork test on pork
shoulder, etc.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> I should point out that this is one of the few times in the book where
> the authors endorse using a remote-probe thermometer. For the most
> part they treat thermometers with contempt, favoring other
> tried-and-true methods for determining doneness, such as "shaking
> hands" with the bird, palpating a brisket, the fork test on pork
> shoulder, etc.

After openly referring to the group as a bunch of
losers with nothing to say, crossposting a bunch of
trollbait, then intentionally posting disinformation,
why do you even bother posting something like this?
You were BSing this subject just a few minutes ago.

On the one hand, you complain about what a wasteland
the group has become. You then revert to the very
tactics that helped create the situation in the
first place.

It wasn't always this way. Even with all the
sniping and other noise you used to make some
valuable contributions. It's too bad.

http://www.webpak.net/~rescyou/turkey/turkey.htm

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Steve Wertz wrote:


> Grow up and act like a man, you pathetic little pussy.


Steve, would it be possible to get you to stop replying to Kevin? I
have him killfiled to avoid his crap, but that only works if he doesn't
have a partner in crime to churn his stuff up.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>
> > Grow up and act like a man, you pathetic little pussy.
>
>
> Steve, would it be possible to get you to stop replying to Kevin? I
> have him killfiled to avoid his crap, but that only works if he doesn't
> have a partner in crime to churn his stuff up.
>

C'mon, Brian, that simply ain't fair for us punters who have paid top dollar
for the best ringside seats, waiting on the next round of a truly great bare
knuckle scrap.

In true Don King razzmatazz.

"Laaaadies and Geentlemaaaan. In the shady corner, fighting out of Austin,
TX, weighing in at more than he probably should, we welcome Steeeeeve
Weeeertz".

"Aaaand in the blue corner, fighting out of the unemployment office,
somewhere in Idaho, weighing in at twice the weight of his kamado,
iiiiiiiits, Kevin S. Wilson"

Let the battle commence.

Graeme

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:39:30 GMT, Reg > wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> I should point out that this is one of the few times in the book where
>> the authors endorse using a remote-probe thermometer. For the most
>> part they treat thermometers with contempt, favoring other
>> tried-and-true methods for determining doneness, such as "shaking
>> hands" with the bird, palpating a brisket, the fork test on pork
>> shoulder, etc.
>
>After openly referring to the group as a bunch of
>losers with nothing to say,

Don't put words in my mouth unless you're able to produce the post in
which I used the term "losers."

>crossposting a bunch of
>trollbait, then intentionally posting disinformation,
>why do you even bother posting something like this?

Oh, gee. I dunno. Why would someone purposely post obvious nonsense to
the Usernet (tm)? I wouldn't, of course, because I always check my
facts before posting nonsense. But other people do, regularly enough
that I'm surprised there isn't a name for such activity.

>You were BSing this subject just a few minutes ago.

Oh? Please to be pointing me to the BS.

>On the one hand, you complain about what a wasteland
>the group has become.

You are mistaking an assertion for a complaint. I said that AFB is
irrelevant; I didn't complain that it was irrelevant. To complain I
would first have to care about its relevancy, and I stopped caring
right around the time that one of the AFB regulars, Dan Krueger,
started e-mailing my boss to complain about me posting to Usenet.

>You then revert to the very
>tactics that helped create the situation in the
>first place.

You mean I started posting about the weather? And posting "God Bless
the Troops and Our President"? Are those the tactics you mean?

>It wasn't always this way. Even with all the
>sniping and other noise you used to make some
>valuable contributions. It's too bad.

No, in the grand scheme of things it's really not. It's just Usenet,
after all.

More confirmed reports of Wilson being FOS? Never doubted he was.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:35:40 -0600, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:58:52 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:
>
>>I should point out that this is one of the few times in the book where
>>the authors endorse using a remote-probe thermometer. For the most
>>part they treat thermometers with contempt, favoring other
>>tried-and-true methods for determining doneness, such as "shaking
>>hands" with the bird, palpating a brisket, the fork test on pork
>>shoulder, etc.
>
>The book says the exact opposite of this. Now you're just making
>up this stuff and presenting it so you can come back and say "made
>you look - Neener neener neener!!".

<snicker>

I always get a special kick out of the pompous Know-It-Alls who loudly
announce "You're just trying to troll me by posting obvious nonsense
to the Usernet (tm), but I'm too schmart to fall for something like
that" and who then proceed to pompously "correct" the obvious
nonsense. Talk about lack of self-control.

Tell me, Wertz, on what page does the book say the exact opposite?
Take the hook out of your mouth before answering.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:39:30 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>
>>You were BSing this subject just a few minutes ago.
>
>
> Oh? Please to be pointing me to the BS.
>

Well, in the writeup you did awhile back before completely
losing your mind you correctly said:

Take care not to touch the probe against a bone
or a pocket of gristle, as it will read higher
than it should.

http://www.webpak.net/~rescyou/turkey/roast.htm

That's a bit different from your latest bit of advice
to position the probe against the bone.

Hey, let's try and ruin some noob's Holiday dinner. What
a hoot.

>>It wasn't always this way. Even with all the
>>sniping and other noise you used to make some
>>valuable contributions. It's too bad.
>
>
> No, in the grand scheme of things it's really not. It's just Usenet,
> after all.

Destruction for destruction's sake, eh? Sure.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

On 22-Dec-2005, "robrjt" > wrote:

> More confirmed reports of Wilson being FOS? Never doubted he was.

Pretty lame shit. PLONK

--
Brick(I'm paddling as fast as I can)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

>
> PS: What was the food like in jail?
>

It was great when you were tossin' his salad!

You out of funny one liners Kev. Time to surf on the State's time and find
some new material.

Spud

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:39:30 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I should point out that this is one of the few times in the book where
>>>the authors endorse using a remote-probe thermometer. For the most
>>>part they treat thermometers with contempt, favoring other
>>>tried-and-true methods for determining doneness, such as "shaking
>>>hands" with the bird, palpating a brisket, the fork test on pork
>>>shoulder, etc.
>>
>>After openly referring to the group as a bunch of
>>losers with nothing to say,
>
>
> Don't put words in my mouth unless you're able to produce the post in
> which I used the term "losers."
>
>
>>crossposting a bunch of
>>trollbait, then intentionally posting disinformation,
>>why do you even bother posting something like this?
>
>
> Oh, gee. I dunno. Why would someone purposely post obvious nonsense to
> the Usernet (tm)? I wouldn't, of course, because I always check my
> facts before posting nonsense. But other people do, regularly enough
> that I'm surprised there isn't a name for such activity.
>
>
>>You were BSing this subject just a few minutes ago.
>
>
> Oh? Please to be pointing me to the BS.
>
>
>>On the one hand, you complain about what a wasteland
>>the group has become.
>
>
> You are mistaking an assertion for a complaint. I said that AFB is
> irrelevant; I didn't complain that it was irrelevant. To complain I
> would first have to care about its relevancy, and I stopped caring
> right around the time that one of the AFB regulars, Dan Krueger,
> started e-mailing my boss to complain about me posting to Usenet.
>
>

Nice try. Post it. It's been nine months you've been telling this
story. One version had me as a second "offender". You obviously have
something to hide. Let's see this post!

Dan

Kevin, you always measure fowl doneness by its temp. in the thickest
portion of the thigh, near the hip joint. When that part of the fowl is 180F
the fowl is done. Usually when the breast reaches 160-165F that is true. You
must, however, have the thigh temp. at 175-180F.

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:10:20 -0800, JimBob > wrote:
>
>>It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
>>(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
>>attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
>>about 2.5 hours to achieve the desired 180 degree doneness.
>
> Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
> breast, with the probe touching the breast.
>

You don't measure the temp. with the thermometer on the bone, only in the
muscle[of the thigh].

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:10:20 -0800, JimBob > wrote:
>>
>>>It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
>>>(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
>>>attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
>>>about 2.5 hours to achieve the desired 180 degree doneness.
>>
>>Why such a high temp? With fowl I usually go to 161 measured in the
>>breast, with the probe touching the breast.
>
> Breast bone, that is.
>

Kevin, when you don't know what you are talking about you really foam at the
mouth. That's one of the primary reasons we all come here. It's sort of
like watching a falling gladiator in the bullring.

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:20:03 -0600, Steve Wertz
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:35:56 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:59:42 GMT, "Brian D." >
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>> Why have the probe touching the breast bone, as opposed to just
>>>> making
>>>>sure the probe is in the thickest part of the breast?
>>>>
>>>Suggested by Bruce Aidells and Denis Kelly in "The Complete Meat
>>>Cookbook," and it works for me.
>>
>>Liar. I happen to have that book within reach here and it says
>>nothing about turkey except for a recipe using ground turkey in a
>>beef andouille meatloaf. The book only discusses beef, veal,
>>lamb, and pork - not poultry.
>
> I wonder what other meaningless homework I can get you to do. Dance,
> puppet.
>
>>As for what it says about using thermometers to measure
>>temperatu "You poke them deep into the center, avoiding the
>>bone".
>>
> One line out of hundreds, huh? You'd think maybe they'd have more than
> that to say.
>
> PS: What was the food like in jail?
>

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:11:21 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:20:03 -0600, Steve Wertz
> wrote:
>
>>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:35:56 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote:
>
>>>>Suggested by Bruce Aidells and Denis Kelly in "The Complete Meat
>>>>Cookbook," and it works for me.
>
>>>Liar. I happen to have that book within reach here and it says
>>>nothing about turkey except for a recipe using ground turkey in a
>>>beef andouille meatloaf. The book only discusses beef, veal,
>>>lamb, and pork - not poultry.
>
>>I wonder what other meaningless homework I can get you to do. Dance,
>>puppet.
>
> You would think a highly-educated professional writer such as

HIGHLY EDUCATED? HIGHLY EDUCATED??
PROFESSIONAL???

> yourself would have better sense than to cite an authoritative
> source that says the exact *opposite* of what you claim. Duh.
>
> Step aside and let the pros handle this advice here. You can
> still sit there and cry and pout, though. We'd have it no other
> way.
>
>>>As for what it says about using thermometers to measure
>>>temperatu "You poke them deep into the center, avoiding the
>>>bone".
>>>
>>One line out of hundreds, huh? You'd think maybe they'd have more than
>>that to say.
>
> That one line was says it all. What, do you think later in the
> book it's gonna say put it *against* the breast bone? Uh-huh.
> Maybe you should actually buy the book. Oh - wait - you can't
> even afford an ISP and newsfeed.
>
>>PS: What was the food like in jail?
>
> <yawn> More of the same old BS that you resort to when you're
> caught being a putz again. Next you'll claim I called your boss
> trying to get you fired. C'mon - you can do it....
>
> Grow up and act like a man, you pathetic little pussy.
>
> -sw

Default, I think it's great that Squertz slams Kevie. That's what this
newsgroup is all about. MEN that barbecue are all in the patio thumping
their chests, thinking they know what they are doing. The little women are
looking through from the window overlying the kitchen sink, smiling. They
know that's what keeps all the egos and the marriage and the family intact.
It raises young boys to be men. Get out there, take your shirt off and
thump your chest.
Kent

People that killfile have their heads in the sand, somewhat worse than
having it in their inferior orifice!

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>
>> Grow up and act like a man, you pathetic little pussy.
>
>
> Steve, would it be possible to get you to stop replying to Kevin? I
> have him killfiled to avoid his crap, but that only works if he doesn't
> have a partner in crime to churn his stuff up.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
> --
> If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
> won't shut up.
> -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:07:24 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:10:20 -0800, JimBob > wrote:
>Kevin, you always measure fowl doneness by its temp. in the thickest
>>>It's December here in California, but yesterday I did a 14 pound turkey
>portion of the thigh, near the hip joint. When that part of the fowl is 180F
>>(unstuffed) on a Weber kettle using the Weber #2290 rotisserie
>the fowl is done. Usually when the breast reaches 160-165F that is true. You
>>attachment. Turned out great. Used some dampened wood chips. Took
>must, however, have the thigh temp. at 175-180F.

Learn how to post, bozo.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:07:24 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:

>Kevin, you always measure fowl doneness by its temp. in the thickest
>portion of the thigh, near the hip joint. When that part of the fowl is 180F
>the fowl is done. Usually when the breast reaches 160-165F that is true. You
>must, however, have the thigh temp. at 175-180F.

Um, no, Kent, you top-posting, full-quoting bozo. Always? Must? I
don't think so.

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2005 19:40:08 GMT, "Default User"
> > wrote:

>>Steve, would it be possible to get you to stop replying to Kevin? I
>>have him killfiled to avoid his crap, but that only works if he doesn't
>>have a partner in crime to churn his stuff up.
>
>
> Just ignore any threads with Kevin in them

Well, that's not going to happen. I'm not going to miss an otherwise
good thread like this one due to adolescent hissy-fits.

> and/or killfile me.

It'll have to br that option.

> It's that easy. Nobody is forcing you to read the messages.

Of course not, but I thought I'd ask the favor before killfiling you.
Thanks anyway.



Brian

Graeme...in London wrote:

> C'mon, Brian, that simply ain't fair for us punters who have paid top dollar
> for the best ringside seats, waiting on the next round of a truly great bare
> knuckle scrap.


Well, I guess if your goal is to have the newsgroup cease to serve any
function besides flamewars, then that's the way to go. My preference is
to have it remain a useful source of information. We'll see if that's
possible.


Brian

"Default User" > wrote in message
. ..
> Graeme...in London wrote:
>
> > C'mon, Brian, that simply ain't fair for us punters who have paid top
dollar
> > for the best ringside seats, waiting on the next round of a truly great
bare
> > knuckle scrap.
>
>
> Well, I guess if your goal is to have the newsgroup cease to serve any
> function besides flamewars, then that's the way to go. My preference is
> to have it remain a useful source of information. We'll see if that's
> possible.
>

Brian, perhaps take one step back and look hard at exactly what useful info
you personally have added in the last 6 months. Google can be your friend.

I'm not looking for an arguement, but to question me for fooling around in
an otherwise "****alltospeakaboutotherthanlumppricesineasternya nkeecounty"
then I apologise.

Can I get my cash back for those ring side seats?

Graeme

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:41:23 GMT, Default User
> wrote:

>Graeme...in London wrote:
>
>> C'mon, Brian, that simply ain't fair for us punters who have paid top dollar
>> for the best ringside seats, waiting on the next round of a truly great bare
>> knuckle scrap.
>
>
>Well, I guess if your goal is to have the newsgroup cease to serve any
>function besides flamewars, then that's the way to go. My preference is
>to have it remain a useful source of information. We'll see if that's
>possible.
>
Of course it's possible. You just need to refine your definition of
"information" to mean "meaningless babble about the weather" and
"trite expressions of support for the troops and the Commander in
Chief."

Graeme...in London wrote:
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> . ..

>>Well, I guess if your goal is to have the newsgroup cease to serve any
>>function besides flamewars, then that's the way to go. My preference is
>>to have it remain a useful source of information. We'll see if that's
>>possible.

> Brian, perhaps take one step back and look hard at exactly what useful info
> you personally have added in the last 6 months. Google can be your friend.

Let's do a couple months:

12/22: added my 2 cents about thermometer placement and setting.

11/14: tossed in a bit of personal experience with the WSM.

10/26-10/31: tried to help out with someone looking for lump.

10/25: little bit more personal WSM stuff.

10/24-10/25: first time pork picnic cook experience.

10/20: another lump thread.

10/3: reported on a new type of lump that I tried.


What's your minimum requirement before someone can express an opinion
about flamewars and such?


Brian

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:38:15 GMT, Default User
> wrote:

>Steve Wertz wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2005 19:40:08 GMT, "Default User"
>> > wrote:
>
>>>Steve, would it be possible to get you to stop replying to Kevin? I
>>>have him killfiled to avoid his crap, but that only works if he doesn't
>>>have a partner in crime to churn his stuff up.
>>
>>
>> Just ignore any threads with Kevin in them
>
>Well, that's not going to happen. I'm not going to miss an otherwise
>good thread like this one due to adolescent hissy-fits.
>
>> and/or killfile me.
>
>It'll have to br that option.
>
>> It's that easy. Nobody is forcing you to read the messages.
>
>Of course not, but I thought I'd ask the favor before killfiling you.
>Thanks anyway.
>
>
>
>Brian

Hey guys - cut the petty BS - it's Yuletide Season Savour the good
vibes, eh. Leave the other stuff to K & Co.

Harry

OB BBQ just setting up some ribs on the K7 pour le souper. [The gas
lump lighting thing is POS & I'm sending it back to Richard. ****er
just about blew me up - again!].

The ribs will be great though.

Default User > wrote:
> Graeme...in London wrote:
>
> > C'mon, Brian, that simply ain't fair for us punters who have paid top
> > dollar for the best ringside seats, waiting on the next round of a
> > truly great bare knuckle scrap.
>
> Well, I guess if your goal is to have the newsgroup cease to serve any
> function besides flamewars, then that's the way to go. My preference is
> to have it remain a useful source of information. We'll see if that's
> possible.
>
Brian, when I was raised in da Nort' Bronx, long ago, we had family values,
education and gang wars (fists only, in those days of yesteryear), existing
side-by-side. At least here, there are no bloody noses! Merry Christmas!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

"Reg" > wrote

> Hey, let's try and ruin some noob's Holiday dinner. >What a hoot.
>
> Destruction for destruction's sake, eh? Sure.


*That's* *it*! And all in a very small nutshell. Good job Reg.

I hope everyone gets it.

Now how do I set my thingamabob to ignore all messages from condescending
pricks?

--
The Honorable Reverend
Fosco Gamgee Whitfurrows
and his 6" Boner
speaking on behalf of his
Traveling Entourage of Rock Hard Religious Loonies

The Reverend wrote:

> "Reg" > wrote
>
>
>>Hey, let's try and ruin some noob's Holiday dinner. >What a hoot.
>>
>>Destruction for destruction's sake, eh? Sure.
>
>
>
> *That's* *it*! And all in a very small nutshell. Good job Reg.
>
> I hope everyone gets it.

It's all pretty pathetic.

> Now how do I set my thingamabob to ignore all messages from condescending
> pricks?
>

That's called "semantic filtering". Select or filter out based on
meaning. Kind of like fuzzy logic applied to language.

It's on the way. I'm betting google gets there first, but my guess
is we're about 5 years from seeing a commercial implementation.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

And yet another AFB "classic" in-the- making. Great entertainment. Not
much content these days, but great entertainment.


"robrjt" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> More confirmed reports of Wilson being FOS? Never doubted he was.
>