http://local.msn.com/special/results/2003_bbq.asp

"JoeMcc" wrote in message
...
http://local.msn.com/special/results/2003_bbq.asp




Thanks for the link. Nice index, and I know it's just a tag line, but 'it's
all about the sauce' kinda rubbed me wrong.

Jack (Mad Cow Bull Dodga)

JoeMcc wrote:

http://local.msn.com/special/results/2003_bbq.asp


No Memphis?

No Kansas City?!!


What kind of list is that?




Brian Rodenborn

Default User wrote:
JoeMcc wrote:

http://local.msn.com/special/results/2003_bbq.asp



No Memphis?

No Kansas City?!!


What kind of list is that?


Well at least it isn't like CNN.COM's list last year that had Tony Romas
in the top 10 best.

"Default User" wrote in message

What kind of list is that?
Brian Rodenborn

It is a list of places that serve meat with bones covered with a really
sweet sauce. I've been to a few of the places listed. Yes, thee are some
that have real ribs, the others are voted on by people that just suck down
Bulls Eye by the gallon.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

It's actually a pretty useful site. If you click on any one of the cities,
it gives you an option for "other cities". Click on that, then you can pick
your state, city, or enter a zipcode of where you are going. It will list
dozens of q joints, their address, and how many miles away from the city it
is. Even the small, woodburners will be there, though most are unrated. I
always try to rate them when I can.

BTW, I enjoy reading MOST everyone's posts (sorry tofu boy), and sorry for
the top post!

MonopTN

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. com...

"Default User" wrote in message

What kind of list is that?
Brian Rodenborn

It is a list of places that serve meat with bones covered with a really
sweet sauce. I've been to a few of the places listed. Yes, thee are some
that have real ribs, the others are voted on by people that just suck down
Bulls Eye by the gallon.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

MonopTN wrote:

BTW, I enjoy reading MOST everyone's posts (sorry tofu boy), and sorry for
the top post!


I'm puzzled. Why didn't you just not top-post?




Brian Rodenborn

It seems more logical to me. If I read a post, then select the reply, I
generally remember what the original post was without having to scroll
through it all again. However, if I have forgotten, I can simply scroll
down and read what was written previously. Logical?

MonopTN


"Default User" wrote in message
...
MonopTN wrote:

BTW, I enjoy reading MOST everyone's posts (sorry tofu boy), and sorry
for
the top post!


I'm puzzled. Why didn't you just not top-post?




Brian Rodenborn

"MonopTN" wrote in message
...


"Default User" wrote in message
...
MonopTN wrote:

BTW, I enjoy reading MOST everyone's posts (sorry tofu boy), and sorry
for
the top post!


I'm puzzled. Why didn't you just not top-post?




Brian Rodenborn

It seems more logical to me. If I read a post, then select the reply, I
generally remember what the original post was without having to scroll
through it all again. However, if I have forgotten, I can simply scroll
down and read what was written previously. Logical?

MonopTN

The majority here bottom posts and we've gone round and round on the topic.
The consensus is that it's more logical to read posts in order, from top to
bottom, or earliest to most recent.

Jack

I agree!
Ed


"Jack Schidt®" wrote in message news:airrb.19065
The majority here bottom posts and we've gone round and round on the
topic.
The consensus is that it's more logical to read posts in order, from top
to
bottom, or earliest to most recent.

Jack

hahaha! Ed, you asshole! ;-P

I know, it's the tofu talking.

Jack

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. com...

I agree!
Ed


"Jack Schidt®" wrote in message news:airrb.19065
The majority here bottom posts and we've gone round and round on the
topic.
The consensus is that it's more logical to read posts in order, from top
to
bottom, or earliest to most recent.

Jack

Jack Schidt® wrote:
The majority here bottom posts and we've gone round and round on the topic.
The consensus is that it's more logical to read posts in order, from top to
bottom, or earliest to most recent.

Almost all newsreaders can sort posts in thread order. Even Google
will. Makes little sense since these same 'majority' do not like
quoting entire threads anyways (which is a good thing). Use your reader
if you want to view a thread in order.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 00:49:07 -0600, "MonopTN"
wrote:

It seems more logical to me. If I read a post, then select the reply, I
generally remember what the original post was without having to scroll
through it all again. However, if I have forgotten, I can simply scroll
down and read what was written previously. Logical?


"I'll see you at Linda's wedding."
"Well, see ya soon."
"Congratulations!"
"Ten thousand a year."
"How much?"
"Got a really big raise this time."
"Sorry to hear it. How's the job?"
"She's not feeling well. Flu, I think."
"Same as ever. How's yours?"
"How's your wife?"
"They painted her purple. They should call her the Prune Fart now."
"Good. Did you hear what Martin and Sheila did to the Sea Breeze?"
"Good, and you?"
"Bill! How the heck are you?"

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

What Ed said.

--
Big Jim

www.lazyq.com
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. com...

I agree!
Ed


"Jack Schidt®" wrote in message news:airrb.19065
The majority here bottom posts and we've gone round and round on the
topic.
The consensus is that it's more logical to read posts in order, from top
to
bottom, or earliest to most recent.

Jack

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

"I'll see you at Linda's wedding."
"Well, see ya soon."
"Congratulations!"
"Ten thousand a year."
"How much?"
"Got a really big raise this time."
"Sorry to hear it. How's the job?"
"She's not feeling well. Flu, I think."
"Same as ever. How's yours?"
"How's your wife?"
"They painted her purple. They should call her the Prune Fart now."
"Good. Did you hear what Martin and Sheila did to the Sea Breeze?"
"Good, and you?"
"Bill! How the heck are you?"

ROFL. Not that old lame argument. Who the heck would quote 14 separate
posts? **** poor editing. Use your frigg'n reader to sort the threads
in proper order.