way off topic. Anyone have a bullet proof charcoal BBQ gril

[default]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a

negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,

and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.
--

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you
want wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips
in the gas grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient, and
that's pretty much all it had going for it.

So, what else is there? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[default]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:43:31 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you
want wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips
in the gas grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient, and
that's pretty much all it had going for it.

So, what else is there? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

McDonald's is fast and convenient.
--

 

[Michael]

On Oct 12, 3:20 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors.  Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.  

Nonsense.  That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders.  So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff.  If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill.  Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

Making charcoal:

http://www.puffergas.com/historic/rules/rules.html

Making briquettes without a press:

http://www.puffergas.com/fireballs/charcoal-fireballs.html

A co-worker highly recommended taking wood from citrus trees and
smoking that in the bbq. Sure does smell nice.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

Real charcoal still has all the wood flavor burned out of it. The flavor
comes from the burning grease, which makes no sense when you've covered the
foods. ...but believe what you want.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a
negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

BS

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

Snob.

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

No, it's like explaining audiophoolery. Exactly, like.

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

Clueless.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

The embers burn for a significant time after you're done cooking.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.

I wouldn't dream of disillusioning a snob.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael <mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 12, 3:20 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors.  Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.  

Nonsense.  That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders.  So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff.  If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill.  Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

Making charcoal:

http://www.puffergas.com/historic/rules/rules.html

Making briquettes without a press:

http://www.puffergas.com/fireballs/charcoal-fireballs.html



A co-worker highly recommended taking wood from citrus trees and
smoking that in the bbq. Sure does smell nice.

Certainly. Put the chips in a gas grill. They make beef taste great.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:34:12 -0400, default wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:43:31 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you
want wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood
chips in the gas grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for
wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it.

So, what else is there? ;-)

McDonald's is fast and convenient.

So, no answer then?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[default]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:33:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

Real charcoal still has all the wood flavor burned out of it. The flavor
comes from the burning grease, which makes no sense when you've covered the
foods. ...but believe what you want.

You are mistaken there. The density of the charcoal gives an idea if
it is too far gone - the stuff I like still has wood inside - just
the volatile compounds burned off.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a
negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

BS

It may be wrong, its just an observation. (notice the word "seems")

Bull Shit would be to assert what you know to be false.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

Snob.

I've been called worse. Passion for cooking is snobbery?

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

No, it's like explaining audiophoolery. Exactly, like.

Does that mean you have a tin ear too?

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

Clueless.

Maybe, but add opinionated, passionate, bull headed, cynical,
skeptical ...

and you story? You believe what you see on TV?

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

The embers burn for a significant time after you're done cooking.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.

I wouldn't dream of disillusioning a snob.

OK then.
--

 

[default]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:02:15 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:34:12 -0400, default wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:43:31 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you
want wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood
chips in the gas grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for
wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it.

So, what else is there? ;-)

McDonald's is fast and convenient.

So, no answer then?

Thanks,
Rich

If McDonald's meets your definition of "food," you have no reason to

delve into the art of cooking, IMO. Can't beat fast and convenient
though - you hand them a buck and they hand you...

I ate my last "burger" from them in 1970, and haven't forgotten it,
have they gotten so much better?
--

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:50:42 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:33:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

Real charcoal still has all the wood flavor burned out of it. The flavor
comes from the burning grease, which makes no sense when you've covered the
foods. ...but believe what you want.

You are mistaken there. The density of the charcoal gives an idea if
it is too far gone - the stuff I like still has wood inside - just
the volatile compounds burned off.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a
negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

BS

It may be wrong, its just an observation. (notice the word "seems")

Bull Shit would be to assert what you know to be false.

I do. Many double-blind tests have show this. So, yes, bullshit.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

Snob.

I've been called worse. Passion for cooking is snobbery?

"Passion for *cooking*" says it all. It's the same as audiophoolery.

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

No, it's like explaining audiophoolery. Exactly, like.

Does that mean you have a tin ear too?

Snob, and an asshole. You wouldn't be related to Obama, would you?

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

Clueless.

Maybe, but add opinionated, passionate, bull headed, cynical,
skeptical ...

Ok, consider it done.

and you story? You believe what you see on TV?

Only the truly clueless use strawmen to make a point.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

The embers burn for a significant time after you're done cooking.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.

I wouldn't dream of disillusioning a snob.

OK then.

Glad you still have your illusion of adequacy, snob.

 

[default]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:24:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:50:42 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:33:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

Real charcoal still has all the wood flavor burned out of it. The flavor
comes from the burning grease, which makes no sense when you've covered the
foods. ...but believe what you want.

You are mistaken there. The density of the charcoal gives an idea if
it is too far gone - the stuff I like still has wood inside - just
the volatile compounds burned off.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a
negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

BS

It may be wrong, its just an observation. (notice the word "seems")

Bull Shit would be to assert what you know to be false.

I do. Many double-blind tests have show this. So, yes, bullshit.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

Snob.

I've been called worse. Passion for cooking is snobbery?

"Passion for *cooking*" says it all. It's the same as audiophoolery.

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

No, it's like explaining audiophoolery. Exactly, like.

Does that mean you have a tin ear too?

Snob, and an asshole. You wouldn't be related to Obama, would you?

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

Clueless.

Maybe, but add opinionated, passionate, bull headed, cynical,
skeptical ...

Ok, consider it done.

and you story? You believe what you see on TV?

Only the truly clueless use strawmen to make a point.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

The embers burn for a significant time after you're done cooking.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.

I wouldn't dream of disillusioning a snob.

OK then.

Glad you still have your illusion of adequacy, snob.

I don't get you. You seemed to be getting all worked up simply
because my opinion is different than yours? Over a subject like food?
Heaven forbid, we discuss politics or religion.


Interjecting audio quackism and Obama into the discussion too?

Or perhaps you have neatly pigeon-holed me as a "snob."

"All snobs" have certain characteristics like voting for Obama, and if
I were more humble it would be Bush? I don't like Obama, he's a
disappointment.
--

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:50:57 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:24:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:50:42 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:33:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

Real charcoal still has all the wood flavor burned out of it. The flavor
comes from the burning grease, which makes no sense when you've covered the
foods. ...but believe what you want.

You are mistaken there. The density of the charcoal gives an idea if
it is too far gone - the stuff I like still has wood inside - just
the volatile compounds burned off.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a
negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

BS

It may be wrong, its just an observation. (notice the word "seems")

Bull Shit would be to assert what you know to be false.

I do. Many double-blind tests have show this. So, yes, bullshit.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

Snob.

I've been called worse. Passion for cooking is snobbery?

"Passion for *cooking*" says it all. It's the same as audiophoolery.

Lack of response noted.

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

No, it's like explaining audiophoolery. Exactly, like.

Does that mean you have a tin ear too?

Snob, and an asshole. You wouldn't be related to Obama, would you?

Lack of response noted.

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

Clueless.

Maybe, but add opinionated, passionate, bull headed, cynical,
skeptical ...

Ok, consider it done.
and you story? You believe what you see on TV?

Only the truly clueless use strawmen to make a point.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

The embers burn for a significant time after you're done cooking.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.

I wouldn't dream of disillusioning a snob.

OK then.

Glad you still have your illusion of adequacy, snob.


I don't get you. You seemed to be getting all worked up simply
because my opinion is different than yours? Over a subject like food?
Heaven forbid, we discuss politics or religion.

Worked up? Me? You're the one who has such a "passion for *cooking*" that
he's forced to defend the indefensible. Yes, like audiophoolery.

Interjecting audio quackism and Obama into the discussion too?

You've never heard of a simile? I suppose not.

Or perhaps you have neatly pigeon-holed me as a "snob."

You've done that yourself. You *are* a snob.

"All snobs" have certain characteristics like voting for Obama, and if
I were more humble it would be Bush? I don't like Obama, he's a
disappointment.

Exactly my point, "a disappointment". You *are* an elitist snob.

 

[default]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:30:50 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:50:57 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:24:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:50:42 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:33:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

Real charcoal still has all the wood flavor burned out of it. The flavor
comes from the burning grease, which makes no sense when you've covered the
foods. ...but believe what you want.

You are mistaken there. The density of the charcoal gives an idea if
it is too far gone - the stuff I like still has wood inside - just
the volatile compounds burned off.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a
negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

BS

It may be wrong, its just an observation. (notice the word "seems")

Bull Shit would be to assert what you know to be false.

I do. Many double-blind tests have show this. So, yes, bullshit.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

Snob.

I've been called worse. Passion for cooking is snobbery?

"Passion for *cooking*" says it all. It's the same as audiophoolery.

Lack of response noted.

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

No, it's like explaining audiophoolery. Exactly, like.

Does that mean you have a tin ear too?

Snob, and an asshole. You wouldn't be related to Obama, would you?

Lack of response noted.

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

Clueless.

Maybe, but add opinionated, passionate, bull headed, cynical,
skeptical ...

Ok, consider it done.
and you story? You believe what you see on TV?

Only the truly clueless use strawmen to make a point.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

The embers burn for a significant time after you're done cooking.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.

I wouldn't dream of disillusioning a snob.

OK then.

Glad you still have your illusion of adequacy, snob.


I don't get you. You seemed to be getting all worked up simply
because my opinion is different than yours? Over a subject like food?
Heaven forbid, we discuss politics or religion.

Worked up? Me? You're the one who has such a "passion for *cooking*" that
he's forced to defend the indefensible. Yes, like audiophoolery.

I mentioned music and apparently that means electronic reproduction of

music to you. Believe it or not - music can exist without
electronics.

Interjecting audio quackism and Obama into the discussion too?

You've never heard of a simile? I suppose not.

Of course. You, apparently have not studied logical fallacies.

Or perhaps you have neatly pigeon-holed me as a "snob."

You've done that yourself. You *are* a snob.

I don't have the immeasurable wisdom and knowledge of someone like
you?

"All snobs" have certain characteristics like voting for Obama, and if
I were more humble it would be Bush? I don't like Obama, he's a
disappointment.

Exactly my point, "a disappointment". You *are* an elitist snob.

Well, your opinion. Not my problem.
--

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:30:03 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:30:50 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:50:57 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:24:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:50:42 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:33:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:38:10 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:20:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:19 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Wood certainly does make a difference, with differing woods imparting
different flavors. Charcoal does not, other than it is often hotter so does a
better job on decent beef.

Real hardwood charcoal still retains some of its flavor.

Nonsense. That's what Kingsford wants you to believe but it's all been burned
out of it.

I avoid Kingsford as a rule - expensive and tastes bad. Real charcoal
is not charcoal briquettes.

Real charcoal still has all the wood flavor burned out of it. The flavor
comes from the burning grease, which makes no sense when you've covered the
foods. ...but believe what you want.

You are mistaken there. The density of the charcoal gives an idea if
it is too far gone - the stuff I like still has wood inside - just
the volatile compounds burned off.

The "charcoal briquette" is made from a slurry of waste wood and
powdered charcoal from a variety of sources along with additive
binders. So called "natural" briquettes leave out the binders and
paraffin accelerators, lime or other additives.

...leaving nothing.
Less ash for sure, better tasting as a rule. There seems to be a
negative correlation between the amount of ash and taste...

BS

It may be wrong, its just an observation. (notice the word "seems")

Bull Shit would be to assert what you know to be false.

I do. Many double-blind tests have show this. So, yes, bullshit.

But it is cheap, commonly available, denser - takes up a less room per
pound, a little harder to light, lots more ash, less heat per pound...

I use briquettes when going for long and slow covered dishes (sear the
meat on embers from an open wood flame add seasoning and liquid then
into a covered roaster and add briquettes to the fire), and plain
hardwood and/or real charcoal for steaks chops and ribs.

Gas would work just as well, if not better, for the slow stuff. If you want
wood flavor for the stuff that's cooked in the open, use wood chips in the gas
grill. Our grill even has a tray specifically for wood chips.

I do have a gas grill, or did have one. It was fast and convenient,
and that's pretty much all it had going for it. Great when in a hurry
for steaks or chops, and useless for most other things except maybe
searing peppers. (and yes I used lava rocks, smoker baskets, etc.)

Snob.

I've been called worse. Passion for cooking is snobbery?

"Passion for *cooking*" says it all. It's the same as audiophoolery.

Lack of response noted.

OK I guess. Like explaining an etude to someone with a tin ear
here...

No, it's like explaining audiophoolery. Exactly, like.

Does that mean you have a tin ear too?

Snob, and an asshole. You wouldn't be related to Obama, would you?

Lack of response noted.

Not wanting to waste it, I gutted the works and use it for the crock
pot - keeps the rain off/out and lets me run it outdoors so I don't
have the odors and heat indoors. Improved the efficiency about 30%
too.

Clueless.

Maybe, but add opinionated, passionate, bull headed, cynical,
skeptical ...

Ok, consider it done.
and you story? You believe what you see on TV?

Only the truly clueless use strawmen to make a point.

...but if you like to work for nothing (and want the danger of charcoal
burning unattended), go right ahead.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and worth overdoing.

Danger? I suppose, but there's an element of risk in most endeavors.

The embers burn for a significant time after you're done cooking.

You won't convince me to go back to gas.

I wouldn't dream of disillusioning a snob.

OK then.

Glad you still have your illusion of adequacy, snob.


I don't get you. You seemed to be getting all worked up simply
because my opinion is different than yours? Over a subject like food?
Heaven forbid, we discuss politics or religion.

Worked up? Me? You're the one who has such a "passion for *cooking*" that
he's forced to defend the indefensible. Yes, like audiophoolery.

I mentioned music and apparently that means electronic reproduction of
music to you. Believe it or not - music can exist without
electronics.

Your mention of music has nothing to do with this conversation. You apply the
same principles to cooking as audiophools do to entertainment electronics. Do
you understand the concept of a simile? I suppose not.

Interjecting audio quackism and Obama into the discussion too?

You've never heard of a simile? I suppose not.

Of course. You, apparently have not studied logical fallacies.

Not at all. However, you're too stupid to understand a simple simile.

Or perhaps you have neatly pigeon-holed me as a "snob."

You've done that yourself. You *are* a snob.

I don't have the immeasurable wisdom and knowledge of someone like
you?

It doesn't take great knowledge to spot a snob. *You* are a snob.

"All snobs" have certain characteristics like voting for Obama, and if
I were more humble it would be Bush? I don't like Obama, he's a
disappointment.

Exactly my point, "a disappointment". You *are* an elitist snob.

Well, your opinion. Not my problem.

If it's not your probe lm, why are defending yourself like I was challenging
your virginity (a silly thing to do).

 

[default]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:03:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

If it's not your probe lm, why are defending yourself like I was challenging
your virginity

Always amazed with the fundamentalist mind set - it is just so alien.
--

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:10:49 -0400, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:03:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


If it's not your probe lm, why are defending yourself like I was challenging
your virginity

Always amazed with the fundamentalist mind set - it is just so alien.

You really are stupid, but at least you've been consistent.

 

[Rich Grise]

default wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:03:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


If it's not your probe lm, why are defending yourself like I was
challenging your virginity

Always amazed with the fundamentalist mind set - it is just so alien.
--
Nah, not alien, just stuck in its programming.

Thanks,
Rich