On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:07:55 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

> And then another person suggested "BBQ Beans." They had nothing to do
> with BBQ either.
> Now I'm not such a purist that I gripe about people using BBQ when
> grilled would be the correct term,

You'd grill beans? Must be hard to do.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

notbob wrote:

> Yes, I call it a cult, as it never even existed 30 yrs ago.

It might not have existed for YOU 30 years ago, but it has been around for
about as long as this nation has existed. Hell, many of the best bbq joints
throughout the southeast, from florida through the carolinas, have been
around for the better part of the last 6 genrations or longer. My granddaddy
in Missouri was shooing my 6 year old butt out of the way while he was
bbqing whole hogs and shoulders on his carolina-style pits (built up from
the ground from brick or concrete block, with metal grating on top. Woods
was burned down to coals in a burn pile, and then shoveled into the pit,
under the meat.)

Sure, the enthusiasm of learning to cook bbq has grown over the last couple
of decades.... it mimics the growth of other styles of cooking which have
garnered enthusiasts... but home-grown bbq pitmasters have been around in
large numbers for far longer than 30 years.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

notbob wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > writes:
>
>
>> Not a zealot at all, but cooking terms have meaning, otherwise
>> cooking terminology would all be relative to the individual and
>> references to methods of cooking meaningless when following recipes.
>
> Who's recipes? Yours? Not my recipes.
>
> I was gonna change it to "traditionalists" but that's even more
> absurd.
> I doubt the originators of "barbacoa" had offset smokers, lump, and
> Polder temp probes, so, by their standards, you are corrupting their
> recipes, you scrofulous pretenders!!

What!!??? Who says you need all that stuff to cook bbq? But more to the
point, how does the use of modern gadgets change the primary method of
cooking? The cooking is still done using fire, wood, and time. Hell, you can
make a fire pit out of a crockpot if you want. It matters not whether the
pit is above ground, or below ground, the meat cooks just the same with
wood, smoke, and fire. As to thermometers, I don't use them at all.

> The deeper this gets, the more silly.

To me, the silly stuff involves arguments over involving how high or low the
temperature of a pit should run. It should run at a temperature and at a
time which will allow the meat to tenderize while maintaining its moisture,
the amount of time and temperature it takes to accomplish that task is
pretty flexible. Crockpots can do the job. So can electric ovens. But the
difference between those methods of crockpotting and slow roasting versus
bbq cooking is fire and wood (of which include both lump and briquettes, and
even pellets).


--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

ravenlynne wrote:

> It's thread hijacking to use someone's thread to go off on a lunatic
> rant like you did.

A 'lunatic rant'? Really? It has actually been a fairly reasoned debate.
Such dismissive terminology used to be beneath you. You ought to go back and
re-read your posts from several years ago.... you were much more tolerant,
sweet, and giving. It has been surprising to come back to RFC and read such
an apparent difference in your online personality.

Sorry to see it happen.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

"Dave Bugg" wrote

> and watch people go nuts. Crockpotting pork does not equate to bbq.

> Bzzt, wrong. I taught a barbecue 101 and 201 course at the restaurant
> (using

Oh please. Not another 'I know, I'm a professional' sort of post. I don't
care that you used to teach some class on your version of Q. Dishes
referred to as that as older than the USA by far and vary as much as the
people making them through the ages.

> "Specialization is for insects."

Now apply that to cooking.

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:07:55 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> > wrote:
>
>> And then another person suggested "BBQ Beans." They had nothing to
>> do with BBQ either.
>> Now I'm not such a purist that I gripe about people using BBQ when
>> grilled would be the correct term,
>
> You'd grill beans? Must be hard to do.

At the restauraunt I had 'smoked beans'. White beans with leftover brisket,
pork and chicken mixed with my sauce, onions, and andouille sausage in large
6 inch deep full-size restaurant pans. The pans were placed in the pit for
up to 4 hours, under the pork shoulders and brisker, just as the meat was
toward the end of its 16 hour cook. The beans would absorb some of the smoke
while cooking, as well as the meat drippings. The beans came out when they
reached 165 F. We had people coming in just to buy quarts of the beans, and
they were our most popular side dish.
--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

cshenk wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" wrote
>
>> and watch people go nuts. Crockpotting pork does not equate to bbq.
>
>> Bzzt, wrong. I taught a barbecue 101 and 201 course at the restaurant
>> (using
>
> Oh please. Not another 'I know, I'm a professional' sort of post.

Oh please, not another 'I'm going to snip things out of context so that I
can than spout of on something that wasn't posted the way you have it posted
in your reply so that you can look so terribly galant.

>I
> don't care that you used to teach some class on your version of Q.

And I don't give a shit-covered penny that you don't care. What I posted had
nothing to do with my claiming any superiority. If you kept the context of
the previous post...to which my response had been made...such was plainly
obvious.

> Dishes referred to as that as older than the USA by far and vary as
> much as the people making them through the ages.

And those variations, through the ages, have common components: Wood,
fire,and smoke. Crockpotting doesn't qualify.

>> "Specialization is for insects."

> Now apply that to cooking.

And aside from the snarky attempt to appear clever, what is it that you know
about my range of cooking which allows for such a silly assessment? BBQ is
far from the only cooking that I do.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:37:00 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> At the restauraunt I had 'smoked beans'. White beans with leftover brisket,
>> pork and chicken mixed with my sauce, onions, and andouille sausage in large
>> 6 inch deep full-size restaurant pans. The pans were placed in the pit for
>> up to 4 hours, under the pork shoulders and brisker, just as the meat was
>> toward the end of its 16 hour cook. The beans would absorb some of the smoke
>> while cooking, as well as the meat drippings. The beans came out when they
>> reached 165 F. We had people coming in just to buy quarts of the beans, and
>> they were our most popular side dish.
>> --
>
> Ohmygosh, those sound so good!
> How would you go about replicating that (as far as one can reasonably
> do so) at home?
>
> Christine

using on of those tabletop smoking devices and baking them maybe?
I don't particularly care for beans as a rule but Dave's beans did sound
wonderful to me too.
Hmmmmmm....burnt ends and beans- possibly a wonderful combination.

On Dec 30, 5:49*pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> > Yes, I call it a cult, as it never even existed 30 yrs ago.
>
> It might not have existed for YOU 30 years ago, but it has been around for
> about as long as this nation has existed. Hell, many of the best bbq joints
> throughout the southeast, from florida through the carolinas, have been
> around for the better part of the last 6 genrations or longer. My granddaddy
> in Missouri was shooing my 6 year old butt out of the way while he was
> bbqing whole hogs and shoulders on his carolina-style pits (built up from
> the ground from brick or concrete block, with metal grating on top. Woods
> was burned down to coals in a burn pile, and then shoveled into the pit,
> under the meat.)

When I was a young teenager, the KFC used to sell these things they
called barbecue chicken sandwich. It was the leftover fried chicken
from the day before, shredded after removing the skin and bones, and
mixed with barbecue sauce, on a bun. You'd have to get there right
after school, because they'd run out. They called it "barbecue"
chicken, not barbecued chicken. How about we agree that it's OK to
call the stuff in the crock pot that has never seen smoke, barbecue
pork, but not barbecued pork (*barbecued* being reserved for meat that
has been subjected to smoke)? Barbecue, as a noun means what the
purists like Dave say.
Kind of like there are "shakes" and there are "milk shakes." There is
"whipped cream," and then there's "whip creme."

Just a suggestion. Some folks will look at that stuff in the crock
pot and say, "BBQ," whereas I just say, "Faux Q."
>
> --
> Dave

--Bryan

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:37:00 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> At the restauraunt I had 'smoked beans'. White beans with leftover
>> brisket, pork and chicken mixed with my sauce, onions, and andouille
>> sausage in large 6 inch deep full-size restaurant pans. The pans
>> were placed in the pit for up to 4 hours, under the pork shoulders
>> and brisker, just as the meat was toward the end of its 16 hour
>> cook. The beans would absorb some of the smoke while cooking, as
>> well as the meat drippings. The beans came out when they reached 165
>> F. We had people coming in just to buy quarts of the beans, and they
>> were our most popular side dish. --
>
> Ohmygosh, those sound so good!
> How would you go about replicating that (as far as one can reasonably
> do so) at home?

You can do it in the oven, although you would loose the wood smoke
component. Yes, you could use liquid smoke if you so choose, but I have
never found the subtilties in wood smoke to come out the same in liquid
smoke. And no, I have no objection to the use of liquid smoke.

You need a source of meat.... any kind of meat. Steak, roast, bacon,
chicken, sausage, etc.

Depending on quantity, find the number and size of cans of a pre-cooked
bean. Bush's regular beans are pretty good if you don't want to fiddle with
cooking up a batch of white beans from scratch.

Lasagne pans would probably do just fine.

Pick a flavor of tomato and molasses based bbq sauce that you like. I make
my own sauces at the store in 50 gallon batches at a time. You can always
doctor-up a bought sauce with extra molasses, brown sugar, granulated
garlic, granulated onions, vinegar, mustard, etc.

In a large bowl, mix in the sauce with your beans. Adjust the amount of
sauce to make the beans more soupy or less soupy based on what you want.
Keep in mind that the sauce will thicken as the beans cook.

Place a cookie sheet on the bottom rack in the oven. You want a large cookie
sheet that will hold any meat drippings that miss the bean pan. Put the pan
of beans on top of the cookie sheet.

Now, pick a meat that you want to roast: beef, pork, etc.

This is the potentially messy part: place the meat DIRECTLY on the rack,
which is situated above the bean pan.

Roast the meat. The juices will fall into the beans.

I would suggest roasting at a temperature no higher than 300F. If the beans
have not reached 160-165F by the time the roast is finished, pull the roast
and continue cooking the beans at a higher heat until temp is reached. I
would periodically stir them if such is needed to be done.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

On 12/29/2010 8:39 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2010-12-29, > wrote:
>
>> Meat that hasn't been BBQed and has BBQ sauce applied isn't BBQ.
>
> What nonsense. I learned to love TN BBQ while stationed outside
> Nashville. I don't know the way he made it, but that local standard
> was providing BBQ pork and beef to every restaurant and cafe for a 20
> mile radius, that I knew of.
>
> When I returned to CA it was years before I found anything remotely
> like that luscious served-in-a-sauce pork/beef that I and thousands of
> other Southerners had no qualms whatsever calling BBQ. The place I
> finally found was a very popular dive in San Jose that mostly pit
> grilled burgers and chickens, but called itself a BBQ joint and served
> up that classic pulled Q I'd learned to love in TN. Near as I can
> tell, they took already roasted (maybe baked) pork roast and simmered
> it in sauce till it fell apart and resembled pull-pork. To die for!
>
> Yes, I've had a few serious barbecue smokers and know how to do
> low-n-slow pull pork and brisket and ribs, but all that is jes one
> person's opinion and is no more the authentic standard definition of
> bar-bee-cue than a dozen other methods. It's merely a word, not
> a religion.
>
> nb

Of course not but words mean something. What is wrong with being
specific? I expect every item in the meat section to be wearing a
descriptive label not just the word "meat" Big box fast food places need
to call their milk shake like products "shakes" for a reason.
Manufacturers who make say products that have fruit mentioned in the
label but no actual fruit "fruit flavored". Those butter like products
aren't called butter they are called "spreads" and on and on.

On Dec 30, 3:40*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:07:55 -0800 (PST), Bryan
>
> > wrote:
> > And then another person suggested "BBQ Beans." *They had nothing to do
> > with BBQ either.
> > Now I'm not such a purist that I gripe about people using BBQ when
> > grilled would be the correct term,
>
> You'd grill beans? *Must be hard to do.
>
Dave answered about smoked beans, but what I meant was that something
cooked over direct heat from wood or charcoal that was basted with
sauce might not meet Dave's strict definition, but it meets almost
everyone else's. In St. Louis, folks slow grill pork shoulders sliced
into 1/2" steaks, basting both sides with sauce, often multiple times,
and they're called "barbecued pork steaks." Similarly, there's
barbecued chicken. We have this unusual sauce called Maull's, that's
controversial even here. I love it, but only cooked on, not out of
the bottle.

--Bryan

Christine Dabney wrote:

> Okay, I am now thinking that this could be done very well in the Weber
> Bullet. Maybe with a pork butt over the beans? That way I could get
> the smokiness at the same time..and have a great piece of smoked pork.

Oh, most definately, Christine!!! I was trying to think of a method for
someone who didn't wish to bbq, but you could the WSM pit would do
exceedingly well. You could even use a large cake pan for the beans, which
would be easier to manage in the Weber.
--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

"Dave Bugg" wrote
> cshenk wrote:

>>> and watch people go nuts. Crockpotting pork does not equate to bbq.
>>> Bzzt, wrong. I taught a barbecue 101 and 201 course at the restaurant
>>> (using

>> Oh please. Not another 'I know, I'm a professional' sort of post.

> Oh please, not another 'I'm going to snip things out of context so that I
> can than spout of on something that wasn't posted the way you have it
> posted in your reply so that you can look so terribly galant.

If you had said anything worth repeating, I would have. Honestly, your
whole theme sums up to 'has to be wood and smoke or isnt Q.'

Got it the first 15 times you said it.

> >I
>> don't care that you used to teach some class on your version of Q.
>
> And I don't give a shit-covered penny that you don't care. What I posted
> had nothing to do with my claiming any superiority. If you kept the
> context of the previous post...to which my response had been made...such
> was plainly obvious.

Really? Gee. Sorry but some of us are capable of tracking without over
quoting. A quote is only a reminder of a part of a thread. Usenet 101.

What I know of you is only what you have posted and you have not been here
long enough to be noted as other than a blip in this one thread so far on my
part. In this one however, you disabuse all methods of Q that are not like
your own and utterly ignore home versions which are termed that widely
across the country. In a conversation about home versions, you just jumped
in and insulted most of the respondants here in the thread.

Enjoy yourself. It is afterall, usenet.

"Christine Dabney" wrote
> "cshenk" wrote:

>>What I know of you is only what you have posted and you have not been here
>>long enough to be noted as other than a blip in this one thread so far on
>>my
>>part.

> Dave Bugg has been a long time poster here. Kili was married in his
> restaurant, among other things.

Seasonal poster then. The name rings no bells here.

I think he probably does do a decent enough smoker routine. What's relevant
is he drove off a new cook from even trying to express himself in his own
thread. The method didn't fit Bugg's view and that was that.

On 12/30/2010 7:26 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> ravenlynne wrote:
>
>> It's thread hijacking to use someone's thread to go off on a lunatic
>> rant like you did.
>
> A 'lunatic rant'? Really? It has actually been a fairly reasoned debate.
> Such dismissive terminology used to be beneath you. You ought to go back and
> re-read your posts from several years ago.... you were much more tolerant,
> sweet, and giving. It has been surprising to come back to RFC and read such
> an apparent difference in your online personality.
>
> Sorry to see it happen.
>

I'm sorry to see a bunch of normally reasonable posters going off the
hinge because a poster called something bbq. Maybe you should step back
and look at yourself and discover why a simple term is such a big deal
to you people. With all that is wrong with the world THIS is such a
major thing?

--
Currently Reading: Falling Free by Lois McMaster Bujold

On 12/30/2010 9:16 PM, ravenlynne wrote:
> On 12/30/2010 7:26 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>> ravenlynne wrote:
>>
>>> It's thread hijacking to use someone's thread to go off on a lunatic
>>> rant like you did.
>>
>> A 'lunatic rant'? Really? It has actually been a fairly reasoned debate.
>> Such dismissive terminology used to be beneath you. You ought to go
>> back and
>> re-read your posts from several years ago.... you were much more
>> tolerant,
>> sweet, and giving. It has been surprising to come back to RFC and read
>> such
>> an apparent difference in your online personality.
>>
>> Sorry to see it happen.
>>
>
> I'm sorry to see a bunch of normally reasonable posters going off the
> hinge because a poster called something bbq. Maybe you should step back
> and look at yourself and discover why a simple term is such a big deal
> to you people. With all that is wrong with the world THIS is such a
> major thing?
>

Bouncing off my post is rude, but I didn't have another to bounce off
of. I'm dropping out of the debate. It's silly. Enjoy your prefences,
life's too short.

--
Currently Reading: Falling Free by Lois McMaster Bujold

cshenk wrote:

> If you had said anything worth repeating, I would have. Honestly,
> your whole theme sums up to 'has to be wood and smoke or isnt Q.'

But it is a lie to snip out relevant text and the n replace it with out of
context responses. Therefore, you are a liar who makes things up to try and
make a point.

> Got it the first 15 times you said it.

Now you've decided to take a turn in a whole new direction to attempt
further obfuscation of the sleazy snipping of text to create a context that
I never said.


> Really? Gee. Sorry but some of us are capable of tracking without
> over quoting. A quote is only a reminder of a part of a thread. Usenet
> 101.

And that quote was in response to someone who said that people doing bbq at
home would decrease the profitability of my store because they would no
longer need to buy from the restaurant. Here is the entire quote including
the post which I responded to:

<Begin quote of post I responded to>
> If we want
> Dave's kind of "real" we'll go to a restaurant. They should be glad
> we don't do it at home, because they wouldn't have a business if we
> did. I, for one, don't order what I can make at home in a restaurant.

<Now my response>
Bzzt, wrong. I taught a barbecue 101 and 201 course at the restaurant (using
weber smokey mountains..WSMs. It actually drew more customers in, because
when they developed a craving for ribs, brisket, or pulled pork, they didn't
want to wait for the weekend to fire up the pit and then wait for the hours
it takes for the meat to bbq.

As can plainly be seen, I was not, as you desperately tried to restructure
the context, claiming superior knowledge to argue that any definition of bbq
was the right one. I was demonstrating that the more people know how to bbq,
the more business a good bbq restaurant will do.

> What I know of you is only what you have posted and you have not been
> here long enough to be noted as other than a blip in this one thread
> so far on my part.

Then you don't know much, and are ignorant of what you speak. I have been
here for over a decade... probably a lot longer, but I can't recall for
sure. I even posted about when I opened up my restaurant, which, btw, is
where Kili and TFM were married. You do know who Kili is?

> In this one however, you disabuse all methods of
> Q that are not like your own and utterly ignore home versions which
> are termed that widely across the country. In a conversation about
> home versions, you just jumped in and insulted most of the
> respondants here in the thread.

The only disabuse is your ignorance of what bbq is. And, pray tell, just
what is MY method of Q? I have been to well over 300 bbq joints around the
country, have spent a lot of time with people, at their homes, all over the
country who bbq, and have seen a whole ton of different methods of producing
bbq'd meat. I got started doing bbq at home many decades of home, and I come
from a family that has done bbq far longer than I have been alive. I've
learned what I know from a lot of experts in every region of America and
have spent a lot of time looking at the historical and the anthropological
aspects to this form of cooking.

> Enjoy yourself. It is afterall, usenet.

I'm apparently enjoying it a lot more than you are. I might not be an expert
and know much, but you seem to take pride in speaking from an abyssmal level
of ignorance. Whatever.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Christine Dabney > writes:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:23:59 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >

> with the fixin's. A pork shoulder, smoked long and slow...those
> beans..

Pretty much all beans are cooked long and slow, specially at 8K ft.
I'll do my next batch using dried beans parked downwind from a daylong
campfire. That should make 'em authentic bbq.

nb

Christine Dabney wrote:

> Okay, another question. Is your sauce based on any of the sauces
> found in some of the smoking/bbq books? Or I should just look for a
> molasses based one and go from there? I prefer to make my own.

All bbq sauces will have a mother. The biggest distinction seems to be a
whether the Mother is a vinegar base, or whether it is a tomato
(catsup)-molasses base. My Crazy Pig Red is a molasses-catsup base. My Crazy
Pig Yellow is a vinegar (both white and apple cider)-mustard base.

I say all that because even though I make my own and didn't use a specific
recipe from a book, any sauce will use similar ingredients that are common.
Then you have north-eastern Alabama which has a unique 'white' bbq sauce
based around mayonnaise (hey, don't go yuck until you try it.... it works on
certain meats.).

For the beans, I use my red sauce. So you can pick a recipe where tomato and
molasses are the top ingredients, and then doctor it up from there.

> I think I am going to try this once I have access to my smoker again.
> The Terwilligers have custody of it right now, but I don't think they
> have even used in the time it has been there..
>
> I am now dreaming of bbq, and maybe not going out to dinner for my big
> 60 birthday dinner this year. BBQ is sounding awfully good, along
> with the fixin's. A pork shoulder, smoked long and slow...those
> beans..

For a lot of folk bbq can get to be a craving. :-)
--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

cshenk wrote:
>
> Seasonal poster then. The name rings no bells here.

Hardly seasonal at all. The fact that my name doesn't ring your bell is
indicative of the fact that you spoke from ignorance when you could have
easily gone to the archives to see if your claim was accurate.

> I think he probably does do a decent enough smoker routine. What's
> relevant is he drove off a new cook from even trying to express
> himself in his own thread. The method didn't fit Bugg's view and
> that was that.

I have no power to drive anyone off. I do not control whether or not someone
can post to usenet. I do have the perfect right, and will take advantage of
such, to debate what are the base elements to bbq and what is faux bbq
wannabe. You can disagree or not, but you do not have the right to change
the meaning and context behind that which I write. That shows a sad lack of
character and an inability to significantly post anything of value in the
conversation.
--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

"Dave Bugg" > writes:


> garnered enthusiasts... but home-grown bbq pitmasters have been around in
> large numbers for far longer than 30 years.

So has the French version of scrambled eggs, probably before this
country was even settled. Low temps, a slow execution resulting in an
almost custardy texture, a totally different dish than what is commonly
known in the US. Does that completely negate what we Americans now know
and cook as "scrambled eggs"? Not bloody likely!

If you want to adhere to a highly modified retro definition of what
constitutes "bbq", you have every right. Likewise, I have every right
to dismiss it as complete claptrap.

nb

ravenlynne wrote:
> On 12/30/2010 7:26 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>> ravenlynne wrote:
>>
>>> It's thread hijacking to use someone's thread to go off on a lunatic
>>> rant like you did.
>>
>> A 'lunatic rant'? Really? It has actually been a fairly reasoned
>> debate. Such dismissive terminology used to be beneath you. You
>> ought to go back and re-read your posts from several years ago....
>> you were much more tolerant, sweet, and giving. It has been
>> surprising to come back to RFC and read such an apparent difference
>> in your online personality. Sorry to see it happen.
>>
>
> I'm sorry to see a bunch of normally reasonable posters going off the
> hinge because a poster called something bbq.

There you go again. No one has gone 'off the hinge' except those who are
desperate to try and make points by using such dismissive comments.

> Maybe you should step
> back and look at yourself and discover why a simple term is such a
> big deal to you people. With all that is wrong with the world THIS
> is such a major thing?

I'm not the one who needs to take a step back. I've carried out a discussion
and have not accused anyone of being 'unhinged' or angry or other emotions
which seems to be a mirror of how upset the user of such terms seems to be.
You ask "With all that is wrong with the world THIS is such a major thing?",
yet ignore the irony of that question by posting to usenet which, in a
logical continuance of the point you thought you were making, would be
exceedingly frivilous to the state of the world at large. So Pot, why accuse
the kettle of being black?

BBQ is a method of cooking. This is a cooking ng. This thread is relevant to
cooking discussion. You may not like the participation of those who enjoy
the art of bbq cooking, but that is not my, or the other participant's,
problem.


--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

ravenlynne wrote:
> On 12/30/2010 9:16 PM, ravenlynne wrote:
>> On 12/30/2010 7:26 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> ravenlynne wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's thread hijacking to use someone's thread to go off on a
>>>> lunatic rant like you did.
>>>
>>> A 'lunatic rant'? Really? It has actually been a fairly reasoned
>>> debate. Such dismissive terminology used to be beneath you. You
>>> ought to go back and
>>> re-read your posts from several years ago.... you were much more
>>> tolerant,
>>> sweet, and giving. It has been surprising to come back to RFC and
>>> read such
>>> an apparent difference in your online personality.
>>>
>>> Sorry to see it happen.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to see a bunch of normally reasonable posters going off the
>> hinge because a poster called something bbq. Maybe you should step
>> back and look at yourself and discover why a simple term is such a
>> big deal to you people. With all that is wrong with the world THIS
>> is such a major thing?
>>
>
> Bouncing off my post is rude, but I didn't have another to bounce off
> of. I'm dropping out of the debate. It's silly. Enjoy your
> prefences, life's too short.

I don't think it is rude.
--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

notbob wrote:
> Christine Dabney > writes:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:23:59 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
>
>> with the fixin's. A pork shoulder, smoked long and slow...those
>> beans..
>
> Pretty much all beans are cooked long and slow, specially at 8K ft.
> I'll do my next batch using dried beans parked downwind from a daylong
> campfire. That should make 'em authentic bbq.

In any event, they'll be goooood. :-)

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

notbob wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > writes:
>
>
>> garnered enthusiasts... but home-grown bbq pitmasters have been
>> around in large numbers for far longer than 30 years.
>
> So has the French version of scrambled eggs, probably before this
> country was even settled. Low temps, a slow execution resulting in an
> almost custardy texture, a totally different dish than what is
> commonly known in the US. Does that completely negate what we
> Americans now know and cook as "scrambled eggs"? Not bloody likely!
>
> If you want to adhere to a highly modified retro definition of what
> constitutes "bbq", you have every right. Likewise, I have every right
> to dismiss it as complete claptrap.

Please, what is my definition of BBQ

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:37:00 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At the restauraunt I had 'smoked beans'. White beans with leftover
>>> brisket, pork and chicken mixed with my sauce, onions, and
>>> andouille sausage in large 6 inch deep full-size restaurant pans.
>>> The pans were placed in the pit for up to 4 hours, under the pork
>>> shoulders and brisker, just as the meat was toward the end of its
>>> 16 hour cook. The beans would absorb some of the smoke while
>>> cooking, as well as the meat drippings. The beans came out when
>>> they reached 165 F. We had people coming in just to buy quarts of
>>> the beans, and they were our most popular side dish. --
>>
>> Ohmygosh, those sound so good!
>> How would you go about replicating that (as far as one can reasonably
>> do so) at home?
>>
>> Christine
>
> That does sound good, and just became a must try. :-)
> Since I use an offset pit, I can easily put a pan of beans under the
> meat to catch yummy drippings.

Absolutely.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

"Dave Bugg" > writes:

> bbq cooking is fire and wood (of which include both lump and briquettes, and
> even pellets).

So, let me get this straight. You're saying a hamburger patty grilled
on a Weber Smokey Joe, over coals from a pine 2X4, for 4 mins per side,
it"s actually bbq, sauce or no? Or is that not slow enough. If I were
to grill it at a temp that took 4-5 hrs, it would come out a hockey
puck. Yer starting to lose me, Dave.

nb

George > writes:


> Of course not but words mean something. What is wrong with being
> specific? I expect every item in the meat section to be wearing a
> descriptive label not just the word "meat" Big box fast food places
> need to call their milk shake like products "shakes" for a
> reason. Manufacturers who make say products that have fruit mentioned
> in the label but no actual fruit "fruit flavored". Those butter like
> products aren't called butter they are called "spreads" and on and on.

Sounds good in print, but unfortunately it doesn't translate to real
life worth a damn.

nb

"Dave Bugg" > writes:

>>> A 'lunatic rant'? Really? It has actually been a fairly reasoned
>>> debate.

I'll give you that, Dave. Been a pleasure benchracing bbq with you.

nb

Omelet > writes:


> At 8k ft. altitude, I'd use a pressure cooker to cook them first, then
> take the out to the pit! ;-)

I bought a PC jes to do beans a bit faster, Om. Guess what! They don't
come out quite the same. The pulp is jes a bit different, a bit
gummier. Not sure why. I need to explore this phenom, as canned beans
are also pressure cooked and I have no problem with them. <shrug>

nb

On Dec 30, 9:32*pm, notbob > wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > writes:
> > bbq cooking is fire and wood (of which include both lump and briquettes, and
> > even pellets).
>
> So, let me get this straight. *You're saying a hamburger patty grilled
> on a Weber Smokey Joe, over coals from a pine 2X4, for 4 mins per side,
> it"s actually bbq, sauce or no? *Or is that not slow enough. *If I were
> to grill it at a temp that took 4-5 hrs, it would come out a hockey
> puck. *Yer starting to lose me, Dave. *

It's not BBQ, but it's closer to BBQ than the OP's stuff in the crock
pot.
>
> nb

--Bryan

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:38:36 -0800, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:26:31 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>
> >What I know of you is only what you have posted and you have not been here
> >long enough to be noted as other than a blip in this one thread so far on my
> >part. In this one however, you disabuse all methods of Q that are not like
> >your own and utterly ignore home versions which are termed that widely
> >across the country. In a conversation about home versions, you just jumped
> >in and insulted most of the respondants here in the thread.
> >
> >Enjoy yourself. It is afterall, usenet.
>
> Dave Bugg has been a long time poster here. Kili was married in his
> restaurant, among other things.
>
She didn't know she was supposed to hold him in awe. To someone like
Carol who has been here a relatively short amount of time in terms of
years, but posts *actively*, someone like Dave who rarely posts here
*is* an unknown.

> I personally respect his knowledge
> about bbq..and have learned a lot from him about smoking.

Nobody was talking about smoking anything - just pulled pork with bbq
sauce on it.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:22:56 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

> Dave answered about smoked beans, but what I meant was that something
> cooked over direct heat from wood or charcoal that was basted with
> sauce might not meet Dave's strict definition, but it meets almost
> everyone else's.

I was teasing you, Bryan. I would have added that it must take a long
time to string them on all those little hooks for smoking; but I was
typing one handed at the moment with a sleeping baby in the other arm
and didn't take the time to peck it out.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Dec 30, 10:00*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:38:36 -0800, Christine Dabney
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:26:31 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
> > >What I know of you is only what you have posted and you have not been here
> > >long enough to be noted as other than a blip in this one thread so far on my
> > >part. *In this one however, you disabuse all methods of Q that are not like
> > >your own and utterly ignore home versions which are termed that widely
> > >across the country. *In a conversation about home versions, you just jumped
> > >in and insulted most of the respondants here in the thread.
>
> > >Enjoy yourself. *It is afterall, usenet.
>
> > Dave Bugg has been a long time poster here. *Kili was married in his
> > restaurant, among other things. *
>
> She didn't know she was supposed to hold him in awe. *To someone like
> Carol who has been here a relatively short amount of time in terms of
> years, but posts *actively*, someone like Dave who rarely posts here
> *is* an unknown.

Not unknown to me, and a lot of other folks know who he is.
>
> > I personally respect his knowledge
> > about bbq..and have learned a lot from him about smoking. *
>
> Nobody was talking about smoking anything - just pulled pork with bbq
> sauce on it.
>
And the person called it Bar-B-Q, which it's not.
It's "Faux-Q."

--Bryan

On 2010-12-31, Dave Bugg > wrote:

> Please, what is my definition of BBQ

What? Don't you know!?

nb

Bryan > writes:


> It's not BBQ, but it's closer to BBQ than the OP's stuff in the crock
> pot.

hee hee hee.... I love this stuff.

OK, why is it "closer"?

The heat source? Wood? Guess what. Raw pork don't give a good
gawddamn what the source of heat. Microwave, electricity, propane,
yada. The pork will cook exactly to the correct doneness regardless of
the heat source. It will fall apart to finger pulling goodness, no
matter.

Time? I've learned that pork will pull when it's done, whether it took
3 hrs or 13 hrs.

Smoke flavor? Let's explore that. How much does smoke inpact the
flavor of what is "traditionally" called BBQ? Yes, there's the "ring".
The "bark". But, quite frankly, after I add some..... some..... dare I
say it?.... bbq sauce!!.... the whole smoke thing is pretty much
academic. Don't like sauce on yer perfect Q? You're in the minority,
Pal, regardless of how traditional/fanatical/puritanical you may be. If
this wasn't true, there would be no conflict between vinegar and tomato,
would there. hee hee....

I love this!

nb

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:48:44 -0700, notbob > wrote:

> Omelet > writes:
>
>
> > At 8k ft. altitude, I'd use a pressure cooker to cook them first, then
> > take the out to the pit! ;-)
>
> I bought a PC jes to do beans a bit faster, Om. Guess what! They don't
> come out quite the same. The pulp is jes a bit different, a bit
> gummier. Not sure why. I need to explore this phenom, as canned beans
> are also pressure cooked and I have no problem with them. <shrug>
>
When I make beans, I know it'll take a long time. So, I'd like the PC
to hurry up that process too, but I have come to the conclusion they
seem overcooked whenever I use it. I am thinking about undercooking
them next time I try to use the PC for it. It won't go fast, but
maybe I'll be able to knock off an hour or two.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

notbob wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > writes:
>
>> bbq cooking is fire and wood (of which include both lump and
>> briquettes, and even pellets).
>
> So, let me get this straight. You're saying a hamburger patty grilled
> on a Weber Smokey Joe, over coals from a pine 2X4, for 4 mins per
> side, it"s actually bbq, sauce or no? Or is that not slow enough.
> If I were to grill it at a temp that took 4-5 hrs, it would come out
> a hockey puck. Yer starting to lose me, Dave.

Instead of snipping my reply, thereby using only the part which you wish to
formulate your argument, let's look at what I really wrote:

"But the difference between those methods of crockpotting and slow roasting
versus
bbq cooking is fire and wood (of which include both lump and briquettes, and
even pellets)."

It is obvious that what is being talked about is methods of cooking, not
WHAT can be edibly cooked by any particular method. All the methods
mentioned involve a form of slow cooking. So the difference between those
methods is the use of fire and wood. Nothing problematic there. Now, you are
trying to insert an element that hasn't been part of the equation: what meat
is appropriate for slow cooking by any method, and what isn't. Slow cooking
meat is designed to do one type of balancing act.... to take a tough cut of
meat and tenderize it through the cooking process while maintaining internal
moisture.

Hamburger does not fit that description, but, as you indicated, can be
barbecued. It just wouldn't be a good way to prepare it.

As to which wood to use, you know as well as I do that every species of wood
is not usable for bbq. Again, that introduces a red herring into the basic
definition; just because pine is not suitable for bbq does not invalidate
the definition that bbq uses wood.

"You're saying a hamburger patty grilled on a Weber Smokey Joe, over coals
from a pine 2X4, for 4 mins per side, it"s actually bbq, sauce or no?"

Are you saying that grilling, which is what you are describing, cannot be
done over wood coals? Grilling is the application of direct, high heat. The
high heat can come from any fuel source, including wood. The fact that one
may use wood to grill does not invalidate the fact that bbq uses wood and
fire.

Ya crack me up, Bob. I do appreciate the deconstructive elements of the
debate, though.
--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

notbob wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > writes:
>
>>>> A 'lunatic rant'? Really? It has actually been a fairly reasoned
>>>> debate.
>
> I'll give you that, Dave. Been a pleasure benchracing bbq with you.
>
>
> nb


Likewise, my friend. :-)

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."