As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling" them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and Boston butts for
pulled pork! This is the way I've always done the before-mentioned
meats- I always used the side fire box for the lump and wood/ chips,
and put the meat in the main body, separate from the heat. I've always
tried to maintain a steady temp of app 225-250 degrees, with a large
degree of success, in part to having done all the suggested mods to my
smoker! However, after several times of pulled pork taking 14+ hours,
ribs 4-6 hours, along with going through anywhere from 5-15 dollars
worth of lump, I decided to try a different method! I use a Char-
Griller Super-Pro, and decided to try lowering the charcoal grate to
it's lowest setting, and putting the lump on the far right side, and
the meat on the far left, under the stack. I've used this method for
ribs, pulled pork, and brisket. The results were interesting, if not
down right controversial! The ribs took about 2 to 2.5 hours, and IMHO
turned out far better, the pulled pork took about 5 to 5.5 hours, and
I'd challenge any of you to tell the difference between pulled pork
smoked the traditional way vs. this way, and the brisket (It was a
piece of brisket left over from grinding it for burgers) took about
3.5 to 4 hours, and was as tasty and juicy as any you could imagine!
The temp during all of this was app 300-325. So- I guess the question
is- is there REALLY an advantage to smoking the traditional way (5-16
hours) vs. the way I've been doing it (2-5 hours)?! I know this flys
against everything I've ever read here, and may seem ridiculous to
most of you, but I can with certainty, tell you that that the results
are no different- in other words, it has not been a case of "whatever
suits my tastes"! Both methods have produced the same results, it's
just that one did so in much less time, with much less lump!

JimnGin wrote:
[ . . . ]

Have you checked out www.lazyq.com ?

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

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

On 9 May, 08:32, JimnGin wrote:
As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling" them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and Boston butts for
pulled pork! This is the way I've always done the before-mentioned
meats- I always used the side fire box for the lump and wood/ chips,
and put the meat in the main body, separate from the heat. I've always
tried to maintain a steady temp of app 225-250 degrees, with a large
degree of success, in part to having done all the suggested mods to my
smoker! However, after several times of pulled pork taking 14+ hours,
ribs 4-6 hours, along with going through anywhere from 5-15 dollars
worth of lump, I decided to try a different method! I use a Char-
Griller Super-Pro, and decided to try lowering the charcoal grate to
it's lowest setting, and putting the lump on the far right side, and
the meat on the far left, under the stack. I've used this method for
ribs, pulled pork, and brisket. The results were interesting, if not
down right controversial! The ribs took about 2 to 2.5 hours, and IMHO
turned out far better, the pulled pork took about 5 to 5.5 hours, and
I'd challenge any of you to tell the difference between pulled pork
smoked the traditional way vs. this way, and the brisket (It was a
piece of brisket left over from grinding it for burgers) took about
3.5 to 4 hours, and was as tasty and juicy as any you could imagine!
The temp during all of this was app 300-325. So- I guess the question
is- is there REALLY an advantage to smoking the traditional way (5-16
hours) vs. the way I've been doing it (2-5 hours)?! I know this flys
against everything I've ever read here, and may seem ridiculous to
most of you, but I can with certainty, tell you that that the results
are no different- in other words, it has not been a case of "whatever
suits my tastes"! Both methods have produced the same results, it's
just that one did so in much less time, with much less lump!

JimGin, we Brits have been doing just that for years. And I'm not even
claiming that we thought of it.

I've used a Weber (definitely from the US) for over 20 years. Mostly I
grill, but I can also cook on indirect heat, as you describe, for
several hours. I couldn't tell you what the temperatures are, but the
results are great. You just need to be a bit careful that the meat
doesn't dry up.

Recently I've started using the Cobb. This is even better as you can
add liquid to keep it moist. I usually add wine with a little water
and some herbs. The taste goes right through the meat.

John
www.morgans-net.com

John Morgan wrote in news:1178700957.743981.300510
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

On 9 May, 08:32, JimnGin wrote:
As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling" them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and Boston butts for
pulled pork! This is the way I've always done the before-mentioned
meats- I always used the side fire box for the lump and wood/ chips,
and put the meat in the main body, separate from the heat. I've always
tried to maintain a steady temp of app 225-250 degrees, with a large
degree of success, in part to having done all the suggested mods to my
smoker! However, after several times of pulled pork taking 14+ hours,
ribs 4-6 hours, along with going through anywhere from 5-15 dollars
worth of lump, I decided to try a different method! I use a Char-
Griller Super-Pro, and decided to try lowering the charcoal grate to
it's lowest setting, and putting the lump on the far right side, and
the meat on the far left, under the stack. I've used this method for
ribs, pulled pork, and brisket. The results were interesting, if not
down right controversial! The ribs took about 2 to 2.5 hours, and IMHO
turned out far better, the pulled pork took about 5 to 5.5 hours, and
I'd challenge any of you to tell the difference between pulled pork
smoked the traditional way vs. this way, and the brisket (It was a
piece of brisket left over from grinding it for burgers) took about
3.5 to 4 hours, and was as tasty and juicy as any you could imagine!
The temp during all of this was app 300-325. So- I guess the question
is- is there REALLY an advantage to smoking the traditional way (5-16
hours) vs. the way I've been doing it (2-5 hours)?! I know this flys
against everything I've ever read here, and may seem ridiculous to
most of you, but I can with certainty, tell you that that the results
are no different- in other words, it has not been a case of "whatever
suits my tastes"! Both methods have produced the same results, it's
just that one did so in much less time, with much less lump!

JimGin, we Brits have been doing just that for years. And I'm not even
claiming that we thought of it.

I've used a Weber (definitely from the US) for over 20 years. Mostly I
grill, but I can also cook on indirect heat, as you describe, for
several hours. I couldn't tell you what the temperatures are, but the
results are great. You just need to be a bit careful that the meat
doesn't dry up.

Recently I've started using the Cobb. This is even better as you can
add liquid to keep it moist. I usually add wine with a little water
and some herbs. The taste goes right through the meat.

John
www.morgans-net.com



In a way you make it sound like this group has invented an unique way of
doing barbecue. As far as I understand this group preach tradition: How
it's being done traditionally, and how you can be part of that tradition
by perfecting the technique.

Around where I live (Austin, TX) there are some pretty serious barbecue
restaurants which have been around for quite a while. All of them is
doing it in almost the same way: Long time, low heat.

As with many foods there's different ways of doing it. You can do dough
nuts with baking powder or yeast, but if you want the Krispy Kream kind
you will have to use yeast and go the extra mile. It's the same way with
barbecue: If you want to get the perfect traditional result, there's no
way around doing it a certain way.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not against you doing it differently as
long as you prefer it that way, but it will be different and not
necessarily better for everyone who tries it. For some people
"different" means "not right", for others it means "improvement". For me
cooking has two aspects. One is "doing it like it's always been done".
The result then not only tastes good, but it brings back memories and
encourages tradition. The other aspect is perfecting what already works,
and sometimes perfecting may mean to change things fundamentally.
However, If I did some of the traditional dishes I brought with me from
Europe any other way they would not bring back the memories like they do
now. I simply do not want to improve on those dishes. It has kind of
become that way with barbecue also. I do not want to change it
fundamentally because I am beginning to expect it to taste a certain way,
and if it doesn't it's not...well...barbecue to me


--
Christian Dysthe ©¿©¬
--
//ceed

On 9 May, 12:04, ceed wrote:
John Morgan wrote in news:1178700957.743981.300510
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:



On 9 May, 08:32, JimnGin wrote:
As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling" them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and Boston butts for
pulled pork! This is the way I've always done the before-mentioned
meats- I always used the side fire box for the lump and wood/ chips,
and put the meat in the main body, separate from the heat. I've always
tried to maintain a steady temp of app 225-250 degrees, with a large
degree of success, in part to having done all the suggested mods to my
smoker! However, after several times of pulled pork taking 14+ hours,
ribs 4-6 hours, along with going through anywhere from 5-15 dollars
worth of lump, I decided to try a different method! I use a Char-
Griller Super-Pro, and decided to try lowering the charcoal grate to
it's lowest setting, and putting the lump on the far right side, and
the meat on the far left, under the stack. I've used this method for
ribs, pulled pork, and brisket. The results were interesting, if not
down right controversial! The ribs took about 2 to 2.5 hours, and IMHO
turned out far better, the pulled pork took about 5 to 5.5 hours, and
I'd challenge any of you to tell the difference between pulled pork
smoked the traditional way vs. this way, and the brisket (It was a
piece of brisket left over from grinding it for burgers) took about
3.5 to 4 hours, and was as tasty and juicy as any you could imagine!
The temp during all of this was app 300-325. So- I guess the question
is- is there REALLY an advantage to smoking the traditional way (5-16
hours) vs. the way I've been doing it (2-5 hours)?! I know this flys
against everything I've ever read here, and may seem ridiculous to
most of you, but I can with certainty, tell you that that the results
are no different- in other words, it has not been a case of "whatever
suits my tastes"! Both methods have produced the same results, it's
just that one did so in much less time, with much less lump!

JimGin, we Brits have been doing just that for years. And I'm not even
claiming that we thought of it.

I've used a Weber (definitely from the US) for over 20 years. Mostly I
grill, but I can also cook on indirect heat, as you describe, for
several hours. I couldn't tell you what the temperatures are, but the
results are great. You just need to be a bit careful that the meat
doesn't dry up.

Recently I've started using the Cobb. This is even better as you can
add liquid to keep it moist. I usually add wine with a little water
and some herbs. The taste goes right through the meat.

John
www.morgans-net.com

In a way you make it sound like this group has invented an unique way of
doing barbecue. As far as I understand this group preach tradition: How
it's being done traditionally, and how you can be part of that tradition
by perfecting the technique.

Around where I live (Austin, TX) there are some pretty serious barbecue
restaurants which have been around for quite a while. All of them is
doing it in almost the same way: Long time, low heat.

As with many foods there's different ways of doing it. You can do dough
nuts with baking powder or yeast, but if you want the Krispy Kream kind
you will have to use yeast and go the extra mile. It's the same way with
barbecue: If you want to get the perfect traditional result, there's no
way around doing it a certain way.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not against you doing it differently as
long as you prefer it that way, but it will be different and not
necessarily better for everyone who tries it. For some people
"different" means "not right", for others it means "improvement". For me
cooking has two aspects. One is "doing it like it's always been done".
The result then not only tastes good, but it brings back memories and
encourages tradition. The other aspect is perfecting what already works,
and sometimes perfecting may mean to change things fundamentally.
However, If I did some of the traditional dishes I brought with me from
Europe any other way they would not bring back the memories like they do
now. I simply do not want to improve on those dishes. It has kind of
become that way with barbecue also. I do not want to change it
fundamentally because I am beginning to expect it to taste a certain way,
and if it doesn't it's not...well...barbecue to me

--
Christian Dysthe ©¿©¬
--
//ceed

Several years ago Paul McCartney was asked what he thought the "best"
kind of music was. To the interviewers surprise, Paul replied that it
really didn't matter what kind of music it was. It could be pop, rock,
jazz, swing or even classical. What mattered was how well it was
played.

"Good music is good music."

I think the same is true of food. The category doesn't matter, as long
as it's done well.

Good food is good food.

John
www.morgans-net.com

John Morgan wrote in
oups.com:

Several years ago Paul McCartney was asked what he thought the "best"
kind of music was. To the interviewers surprise, Paul replied that it
really didn't matter what kind of music it was. It could be pop, rock,
jazz, swing or even classical. What mattered was how well it was
played.

"Good music is good music."

I think the same is true of food. The category doesn't matter, as long
as it's done well.

Good food is good food.

John
www.morgans-net.com

I completely agree, but remember what happened to the "Let it Be" album
when they reissued it recently in another simpler mix called "Naked". Did
most people like it, or did they prefer the original more complex
version?



--
//ceed

On May 9, 12:32 am, JimnGin wrote:

Actually there is a school of thought for pork butt/picnic/shoulder
that higher temps work out fine.

Ask TFM or Kili.

We understand that most of the smoke is absorbed the first 90 minutes.
And is best absorbed at lower temps as that allows the pores to stay
open longer. And that some cuts of meat take well to higher temps,
esp. pork butt.

Now I'm glad you had good results with pork ribs at higher temps, I
haven't. I really think you lose some quality with this cut of meat
using higher temps, shorter cooks.
So it become a time/quality trade off. How much quality for how much
time. That's up to you to decide.

On 9 May, 15:28, ceed wrote:
John Morgan wrote groups.com:



Several years ago Paul McCartney was asked what he thought the "best"
kind of music was. To the interviewers surprise, Paul replied that it
really didn't matter what kind of music it was. It could be pop, rock,
jazz, swing or even classical. What mattered was how well it was
played.

"Good music is good music."

I think the same is true of food. The category doesn't matter, as long
as it's done well.

Good food is good food.

John
www.morgans-net.com

I completely agree, but remember what happened to the "Let it Be" album
when they reissued it recently in another simpler mix called "Naked". Did
most people like it, or did they prefer the original more complex
version?

--
//ceed

Good point. We can try different things and appeal to different
tastes, but it's still the quality that really matters.

I guess that's true for both food and music.

John
www.morgans-net.com

On May 9, 11:07 am, John Morgan wrote:

Good point. We can try different things and appeal to different
tastes, but it's still the quality that really matters.

I guess that's true for both food and music.

Years ago I was in California on a fun trip through the wine country.
At several wineries they were glad to let me know what they thought of
wine snobs, know it alls, and those that closely adhered to the long
held beliefs of the correct way to make wine.

Across the board, it wasn't much.

Bored with the same wines and techniques, some of the somaliers openly
embraced new ideas and products, and obviously enjoyed what they did
quite a bit. It was refereshing to hear that a pinots didn't
necessarily have to taste one way, or a cabernet didn't have to shades
of oak and blueberry to be good.

The best conversation I had was at a little winery that had some very
nice wines made with co-op grapes from several farms. After a great
deal of conversation concerning the close mindedness of some of the
tastors, he revealed to me how many awards they had won in blind taste
tests (obviously so they tastors wouldn't know the labels to choose).

The somalier asked me the same question his teacher asked him when he
was at one of his classes to learn to judge wine:

"Do you know how to tell the differnce between a good wine and a bad
wine?"

Uhhhh... no. I admitted my palate wasn't sophisticated enough to
appreciate the finer points of a good wine.

"Oh, baloney. Here's what you need to know: If it tasted good to you
and you enjoyed it, then it is good wine. All the rest is crap."

Been looking at culinary efforts (and wine!) the same way ever since.

Robert

On 9-May-2007, John Morgan wrote:

On 9 May, 12:04, ceed wrote:
John Morgan wrote in
news:1178700957.743981.300510
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:



On 9 May, 08:32, JimnGin wrote:
As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info
from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before
coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal
briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling"
them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can
see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm
about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all
of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at
least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and
Boston butts for
pulled pork!

snipped long discussion about traditional versus modified
methods of producing barbecued meats.


Several years ago Paul McCartney was asked what he thought
the "best"
kind of music was. To the interviewers surprise, Paul
replied that it
really didn't matter what kind of music it was. It could
be pop, rock,
jazz, swing or even classical. What mattered was how well
it was
played.

"Good music is good music."

I think the same is true of food. The category doesn't
matter, as long
as it's done well.

Good food is good food.

John

What I'm getting from all of this is "It matters not "HOW"
it's
produced, but rather "HOW WELL" it's produced". Bragging
rights are not to be discounted however. If your group
places
a lot of emphasis on the depth of a smoke ring, there's not
much joy to be had from an even color all the way through.
For anyone that cares, I've been cooking way above the
traditional 225°F for a couple of years. Neither do I pay
much
attention to the actual temperature. I do pay attention to
the
rate that meat is cooking near the firebox versus away from
the firebox. For that reason only, I swap meat from end to
end every couple of hours. Eight pound butts take 5.5 to
8 hours. Never do they take longer then 8 hours. Ribs are
always done in 4 hours or less. I cook 'em bone side down
and I never turn them over. Some folks seem to have a
driving
need to play with their food. I don't. I don't marinate
ahead of
time and I don't mop. I do use a dry rub, sometimes over-
night if I happen to think of it in time.

I started out cooking at 225° or thereabouts when I first
got
my pit. My pit doesn't like running that low. I had to mess
with the fire too much. Now it's more like 275° to 325°.
It's not that I believe that's a magic temperature range. I'
don't have an obsession to cook more quickly either. It
all just works out easier that way.

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

On 10 May, 03:18, wrote:
On 9-May-2007, John Morgan wrote:



On 9 May, 12:04, ceed wrote:
John Morgan wrote in
news:1178700957.743981.300510
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

On 9 May, 08:32, JimnGin wrote:
As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info
from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before
coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal
briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling"
them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can
see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm
about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all
of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at
least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and
Boston butts for
pulled pork!

snipped long discussion about traditional versus modified
methods of producing barbecued meats.





Several years ago Paul McCartney was asked what he thought
the "best"
kind of music was. To the interviewers surprise, Paul
replied that it
really didn't matter what kind of music it was. It could
be pop, rock,
jazz, swing or even classical. What mattered was how well
it was
played.

"Good music is good music."

I think the same is true of food. The category doesn't
matter, as long
as it's done well.

Good food is good food.

John

What I'm getting from all of this is "It matters not "HOW"
it's
produced, but rather "HOW WELL" it's produced". Bragging
rights are not to be discounted however. If your group
places
a lot of emphasis on the depth of a smoke ring, there's not
much joy to be had from an even color all the way through.
For anyone that cares, I've been cooking way above the
traditional 225°F for a couple of years. Neither do I pay
much
attention to the actual temperature. I do pay attention to
the
rate that meat is cooking near the firebox versus away from
the firebox. For that reason only, I swap meat from end to
end every couple of hours. Eight pound butts take 5.5 to
8 hours. Never do they take longer then 8 hours. Ribs are
always done in 4 hours or less. I cook 'em bone side down
and I never turn them over. Some folks seem to have a
driving
need to play with their food. I don't. I don't marinate
ahead of
time and I don't mop. I do use a dry rub, sometimes over-
night if I happen to think of it in time.

I started out cooking at 225° or thereabouts when I first
got
my pit. My pit doesn't like running that low. I had to mess
with the fire too much. Now it's more like 275° to 325°.
It's not that I believe that's a magic temperature range. I'
don't have an obsession to cook more quickly either. It
all just works out easier that way.

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

I couldn't agree more with the last 2 posts. If it tastes to you it IS
good.

The HOW is about getting it to taste good.

Incidentally, we don't do much smoking in the UK. So what many in this
group think of as traditional is actually brand new territory for me.
But life is all about learning new things.

John
www.morgans-net.com

JimnGin wrote:
As I've stated before, I've learned a wealth of info from this fine
group, and will always appreciate it! Heck, before coming across
alt.food.barbecue, I used a gas grill, or charcoal briquettes w/
lighter fluid, and BOILED ribs before "grilling" them. So, before I
break with the "accepted" smoking methods, as you can see, I'm kissing
butt, in an attempt to soften the blow of what I'm about to say! As
has always been stated here, and as most, if not all of the
professionals say, low and slow is the only (or at least the best) way
to go when smoking meat, such as ribs, brisket, and Boston butts for
pulled pork! This is the way I've always done the before-mentioned
meats- I always used the side fire box for the lump and wood/ chips,
and put the meat in the main body, separate from the heat. I've always
tried to maintain a steady temp of app 225-250 degrees, with a large
degree of success, in part to having done all the suggested mods to my
smoker! However, after several times of pulled pork taking 14+ hours,
ribs 4-6 hours, along with going through anywhere from 5-15 dollars
worth of lump, I decided to try a different method! I use a Char-
Griller Super-Pro, and decided to try lowering the charcoal grate to
it's lowest setting, and putting the lump on the far right side, and
the meat on the far left, under the stack. I've used this method for
ribs, pulled pork, and brisket. The results were interesting, if not
down right controversial! The ribs took about 2 to 2.5 hours, and IMHO
turned out far better, the pulled pork took about 5 to 5.5 hours,

Wow, you've *almost* discovered *genuine* barbecue.

and
I'd challenge any of you to tell the difference between pulled pork
smoked the traditional way vs. this way,

The *traditional* way is meat somewhere between 16 and 24 inches *above*
live coals produced from a hardwood fire. I can *always* tell the
difference between "traditional" and "internet" BBQ

and the brisket (It was a
piece of brisket left over from grinding it for burgers) took about
3.5 to 4 hours, and was as tasty and juicy as any you could imagine!
The temp during all of this was app 300-325. So- I guess the question
is- is there REALLY an advantage to smoking the traditional way (5-16
hours)

That's *not* traditional, that's internet bullshit. When I quit checking
temps in the pit I was never cooking below 300. 1.5 hours per pound is
bullshit. How long would it take to cook a ridiculously small 70 pound pig
at that rate?

vs. the way I've been doing it (2-5 hours)?! I know this flys
against everything I've ever read here,

Which is Usenet bullshit.


and may seem ridiculous to
most of you,

Not to me.


but I can with certainty, tell you that that the results
are no different- in other words, it has not been a case of "whatever
suits my tastes"! Both methods have produced the same results, it's
just that one did so in much less time, with much less lump!


TFM®

John Morgan wrote:


Several years ago Paul McCartney was asked what he thought the "best"
kind of music was. To the interviewers surprise, Paul replied that it
really didn't matter what kind of music it was. It could be pop, rock,
jazz, swing or even classical. What mattered was how well it was
played.

"Good music is good music."

I think the same is true of food. The category doesn't matter, as long
as it's done well.

Good food is good food.


I'll have to bow out and say, "Amen" to that.

TFM®

wrote:


The somalier asked me the same question his teacher asked him when he
was at one of his classes to learn to judge wine:

"Do you know how to tell the differnce between a good wine and a bad
wine?"

Uhhhh... no. I admitted my palate wasn't sophisticated enough to
appreciate the finer points of a good wine.

"Oh, baloney. Here's what you need to know: If it tasted good to you
and you enjoyed it, then it is good wine. All the rest is crap."

Been looking at culinary efforts (and wine!) the same way ever since.



Very valid point and you make me want to taste some wine now that I know I
won't be considered an idiot. G

TFM®

On May 10, 9:08 pm, "The Fat Man®" wrote:

Wow, you've *almost* discovered *genuine* barbecue.

Maybe you misunderstood my original post, or maybe I don't understand
your post, but as I originally stated, until recently, I've always
smoked meat at app 225 using the side fire box- ribs took app 5 hours
and pulled pork 12-14 hours. What part of that is not as you put it,
"genuine barbecue"?

I'd challenge any of you to tell the difference between pulled pork
smoked the traditional way vs. this way,

The *traditional* way is meat somewhere between 16 and 24 inches *above*
live coals produced from a hardwood fire. I can *always* tell the
difference between "traditional" and "internet" BBQ

Nowhere in my post did I state that I used direct heat, as you stated
16-24" *above* the coals! Internet BBQ? What are you talking about?!

and the brisket (It was a

piece of brisket left over from grinding it for burgers) took about
3.5 to 4 hours, and was as tasty and juicy as any you could imagine!
The temp during all of this was app 300-325. So- I guess the question
is- is there REALLY an advantage to smoking the traditional way (5-16
hours)

That's *not* traditional, that's internet bullshit. When I quit checking
temps in the pit I was never cooking below 300. 1.5 hours per pound is
bullshit. How long would it take to cook a ridiculously small 70 pound pig
at that rate?

There you go again with the "internet bullshit"! 1.5 hours per pound?
I'm not sure where you're coming from here- I never used direct heat,
and a 7 lb Boston butt was done in app 5.5 hours, using indirect heat.
I'd love for you to try pulled pork smoked the way I did it, using
indirect heat vs. the "traditional" method- no, I'm not talking about
direct heat, but instead, (By traditional method, as the way I meant,
was to use the side fire box, at 225 for 12-14 hours). I'd bet the
farm that you couldn't tell the difference between the pulled pork
done in 5.5 hours using indirect heat vs using the side fire box at
225 for 12-14 hours! BTW- as far as a smoke ring that has been
mentioned before- the ribs I did using the indirect method that were
done in 2.5 hours had a great smoke ring!

vs. the way I've been doing it (2-5 hours)?! I know this flys

against everything I've ever read here,

Which is Usenet bullshit

Ok- if I've misunderstood your post, let me apologize now! What are
you calling "Usenet bullshit"? Are we agreeing, or on opposite sides
of the issue?!

and may seem ridiculous to

most of you,

Not to me.

but I can with certainty, tell you that that the results

are no different- in other words, it has not been a case of "whatever
suits my tastes"! Both methods have produced the same results, it's
just that one did so in much less time, with much less lump!

TFM®