wrote in message
"Jack Curry" Jack wrote:
Jack, I really have to wonder why you even bother rising to the bait? My
life is so much quieter since I started killfiling these idiots. Try it.
You'll like it!

Kent's too amusing, those other two aren't. I've plonked plenty (and suspect
some have returned the favor) , but I'll never plonk our native Saint of
Warm Brining, too many laughs.

Killfiling in the old daze was called "putting your head in the sand". Only
the stupidest would do this, sometimes to their ultimate demise. Think about
the history that would be rewritten if that hadn't happened. No WWII, maybe?
As ****ed off as I might get, I won't ever killfile. You have to be willing
to read what people write, or you will be in trouble when you get the goal
line.

wrote in message
...
"Jack Curry" Jack wrote:
This took me about 18 seconds to find, Kent. Now puleeze go argue with
this website, since it certainly contradicts your totally stupid
statement.

Jack Curry
-Surprise! Kent remains a numbnuts-

http://www.free-definition.com/Smoking-(food).html
[]
Jack, I really have to wonder why you even bother rising to the bait? My
life is so much quieter since I started killfiling these idiots. Try it.
You'll like it!

--
Nick. Christmas Day, the twenty-fifth Day of December, being established a
Federal holiday by an Act of Congress on June 28, 1870: Merry Christmas!

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

To suggest an internet dictionary definition as gospel is pretty damn
stupid. I don't really think you are stupid; however you are extremely
cerebrally constipated. It's time for you to have a special high colonic
cerebral enema; that may relieve you.

"Jack Curry" Jack wrote in message
...
This took me about 18 seconds to find, Kent. Now puleeze go argue with
this
website, since it certainly contradicts your totally stupid statement.

Jack Curry
-Surprise! Kent remains a numbnuts-


http://www.free-definition.com/Smoking-(food).html
Smoking (food)
Definition, Meaning, Explanation
??????: ??



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Smoking is the process of curing, cooking, or seasoning food by exposing
it
for long periods of time to the smoke from a (usually wood) fire. "Hot
smoking" is typically a several-hours-long process that can be used to
fully
cook raw meats or fish, while "cold smoking" is an hours- or days-long
process that is generally used to preserve or flavour foods (usually meats
or fish, but sometimes cheeses, vegetables, fruits, and even beer).

The fuel used for smoking may contain flavoring adjuncts. For example,
Chinese tea-smoking uses a mixture of uncooked rice, raw sugar, and tea,
heated at the base of a wok, to slowly smoke and flavor meat and other
foods. In Europe, the traditional wood burnt to smoke fish and meat is
alder, but oak is more often used now, and beech to a smaller extent. In
North America, hickory and mesquite wood, in addition to oak and alder,
and
also sometimes wood from fruit trees such as cherry and plum, are commonly
used for smoking.

Historically, farms in the western world included a special small building
termed the smokehouse where meats could be smoked and stored. This was
generally well-separated from other buildings both because of the fire
danger and because of the smoke emanations.

See also: Food preservation, curing

"Jack Curry" Jack wrote in message
...
This took me about 18 seconds to find, Kent. Now puleeze go argue with
this
website, since it certainly contradicts your totally stupid statement.

Jack Curry
-Surprise! Kent remains a numbnuts-



"Kent" wrote in message
news:Gdvwd.250625$HA.61105@attbi_s01...
To suggest an internet dictionary definition as gospel is pretty damn
stupid. I don't really think you are stupid; however you are extremely
cerebrally constipated. It's time for you to have a special high colonic
cerebral enema; that may relieve you.

Rearranged and snipped because Kent is too dumb to understand how to be
polite on a ng-

Ahah! EVERYBODY else is WRONG. Except for Kent. Um, Kent? Would you show
me a source, any source that agrees with your asshead opinion about smoking?
And would you tell us again about how we shouldn't brine a stuffed turkey
because the stuffing will get soggy? That one was your best so far.

Jack Curry
-You are *so* much fun-

"Jack Curry" Jack wrote in message
...
This took me about 18 seconds to find, Kent. Now puleeze go argue with
this
website, since it certainly contradicts your totally stupid statement.

Jack Curry
-Surprise! Kent remains a numbnuts-



"Kent" wrote in message
news:Gdvwd.250625$HA.61105@attbi_s01...
To suggest an internet dictionary definition as gospel is pretty damn
stupid. I don't really think you are stupid; however you are extremely
cerebrally constipated. It's time for you to have a special high colonic
cerebral enema; that may relieve you.

Rearranged and snipped because Kent is too dumb to understand how to be
polite on a ng-

Ahah! EVERYBODY else is WRONG. Except for Kent. Um, Kent? Would you show
me a source, any source that agrees with your asshead opinion about smoking?
And would you tell us again about how we shouldn't brine a stuffed turkey
because the stuffing will get soggy? That one was your best so far.

Jack Curry
-You are *so* much fun-

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:46:18 -0500, "Jack Curry" Jack
wrote:


"Jack Curry" Jack wrote in message
...
This took me about 18 seconds to find, Kent. Now puleeze go argue with
this
website, since it certainly contradicts your totally stupid statement.


"Kent" wrote in message
news:Gdvwd.250625$HA.61105@attbi_s01...
To suggest an internet dictionary definition as gospel is pretty damn
stupid.

No one said it was "Gospel," Kent. That's you, putting words in Jack's
mouth.

Jack posted something that directly contradicts your assertion that
smoking isn't cooking. If you wish to debate the matter, it is now up
to you to refute what Jack posted, not merely question the authority
of Jack's source.

Your hand-waving fools no one, Kent. If you wish to prove Jack's
source as unathoratative, then you have to do so by referring to
authoritative sources. If you wish to prove that his assertion is
incorrect, you have to do so by proving your assertion is correct.

Most 7th-graders understand these basic concepts.

I don't really think you are stupid; however you are extremely
cerebrally constipated. It's time for you to have a special high colonic
cerebral enema; that may relieve you.

Time for some new material, Kent. You've cut-and-pasted that stuff so
often, the pixels are starting to fray around the edges.

Rearranged and snipped because Kent is too dumb to understand how to be
polite on a ng-

Ahah! EVERYBODY else is WRONG. Except for Kent.

Is it time to say, "If a dozen people tell you you're an ass, maybe
it's time to get fitted for a saddle"?

Um, Kent? Would you show
me a source, any source that agrees with your asshead opinion about smoking?

There you go, Kent. This is what is known in The Industry as "put up
or shut up."

You can do it. If smoking isn't cooking, then there must be dozens of
sources that support that assertion. All Jack is asking is that you
post them. Anything else is just arguing from assertion, saying the
same thing over and over as if saying it enough times will make it
true.

And would you tell us again about how we shouldn't brine a stuffed turkey
because the stuffing will get soggy? That one was your best so far.

snicker

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:46:18 -0500, "Jack Curry" Jack
wrote:


"Jack Curry" Jack wrote in message
...
This took me about 18 seconds to find, Kent. Now puleeze go argue with
this
website, since it certainly contradicts your totally stupid statement.


"Kent" wrote in message
news:Gdvwd.250625$HA.61105@attbi_s01...
To suggest an internet dictionary definition as gospel is pretty damn
stupid.

No one said it was "Gospel," Kent. That's you, putting words in Jack's
mouth.

Jack posted something that directly contradicts your assertion that
smoking isn't cooking. If you wish to debate the matter, it is now up
to you to refute what Jack posted, not merely question the authority
of Jack's source.

Your hand-waving fools no one, Kent. If you wish to prove Jack's
source as unathoratative, then you have to do so by referring to
authoritative sources. If you wish to prove that his assertion is
incorrect, you have to do so by proving your assertion is correct.

Most 7th-graders understand these basic concepts.

I don't really think you are stupid; however you are extremely
cerebrally constipated. It's time for you to have a special high colonic
cerebral enema; that may relieve you.

Time for some new material, Kent. You've cut-and-pasted that stuff so
often, the pixels are starting to fray around the edges.

Rearranged and snipped because Kent is too dumb to understand how to be
polite on a ng-

Ahah! EVERYBODY else is WRONG. Except for Kent.

Is it time to say, "If a dozen people tell you you're an ass, maybe
it's time to get fitted for a saddle"?

Um, Kent? Would you show
me a source, any source that agrees with your asshead opinion about smoking?

There you go, Kent. This is what is known in The Industry as "put up
or shut up."

You can do it. If smoking isn't cooking, then there must be dozens of
sources that support that assertion. All Jack is asking is that you
post them. Anything else is just arguing from assertion, saying the
same thing over and over as if saying it enough times will make it
true.

And would you tell us again about how we shouldn't brine a stuffed turkey
because the stuffing will get soggy? That one was your best so far.

snicker

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:11:24 -0600, p0wd3r
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:30:42 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

Nothing of substance.

Oh, look. An anonymous leet-speaking HaX0r d00d rears up on its hind
legs, emboldened by its discovery of the "X-NO-ARCHIVE" header.

Which morphing k00k would you be? Or is it just that Christmas break
came a bit early at your school, so now you have time to tell AFB
"ph342 m\/ 1337 sk1llz"?

PS: Your X-NO-ARCHIVE x-no-works. You even managed to screw that up.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:11:24 -0600, p0wd3r
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:30:42 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

Nothing of substance.

Oh, look. An anonymous leet-speaking HaX0r d00d rears up on its hind
legs, emboldened by its discovery of the "X-NO-ARCHIVE" header.

Which morphing k00k would you be? Or is it just that Christmas break
came a bit early at your school, so now you have time to tell AFB
"ph342 m\/ 1337 sk1llz"?

PS: Your X-NO-ARCHIVE x-no-works. You even managed to screw that up.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kent,

I found this and knew you'd want to know about it. It's the latest in
brine/marinades, especially for smooked foods.

http://www.bestpethealth.com/rcProd1.asp?id=62&c=62

Jack Curry

Kent,

I found this and knew you'd want to know about it. It's the latest in
brine/marinades, especially for smooked foods.

http://www.bestpethealth.com/rcProd1.asp?id=62&c=62

Jack Curry

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:12:00 GMT, "cl" wrote:
We've already established that pattern-matching isn't your strong
suit, Pro. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been repeatedly trolled into
doing unnecessary homework to "prove" the falsity of "errors"
purposely posted to trick you into doing unnecessary homework (cf.
"Request for Consideration").



There wasn't anything that was required of me to recite the RFCs and
meanings, it was off the cuff. Kinda like you talking about food.. Since
your a little slow I might spell out the fact that I have wee presence in
software industry and have authored my shared of servers and services.


Well hell, you are senor semantic/ speel flamer. Who are you to be
talking
Prof.
Ducking the question doesn't make it go away, Pro. What in the
blue-eyed froggy world would make you think I'm a professor? Is this
yet another example of you getting your facts wrong?

Never once thought you were(or cared). That is the role you like to take on
the NGs ESPECIALLY when it comes to english comp. I'm sorry if you were
hoping for more.

-CAL

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:12:00 GMT, "cl" wrote:
We've already established that pattern-matching isn't your strong
suit, Pro. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been repeatedly trolled into
doing unnecessary homework to "prove" the falsity of "errors"
purposely posted to trick you into doing unnecessary homework (cf.
"Request for Consideration").



There wasn't anything that was required of me to recite the RFCs and
meanings, it was off the cuff. Kinda like you talking about food.. Since
your a little slow I might spell out the fact that I have wee presence in
software industry and have authored my shared of servers and services.


Well hell, you are senor semantic/ speel flamer. Who are you to be
talking
Prof.
Ducking the question doesn't make it go away, Pro. What in the
blue-eyed froggy world would make you think I'm a professor? Is this
yet another example of you getting your facts wrong?

Never once thought you were(or cared). That is the role you like to take on
the NGs ESPECIALLY when it comes to english comp. I'm sorry if you were
hoping for more.

-CAL

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:57:25 GMT, "cl" wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:12:00 GMT, "cl" wrote:
We've already established that pattern-matching isn't your strong
suit, Pro. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been repeatedly trolled into
doing unnecessary homework to "prove" the falsity of "errors"
purposely posted to trick you into doing unnecessary homework (cf.
"Request for Consideration").

There wasn't anything that was required of me to recite the RFCs and
meanings,

You still don't geddit, do you? We're not talking about the amount of
effort you put forth to correct my "error"; we're talking about WHY
you felt compelled to correct my "error" -- you just couldn't pass up
the chance to show off your GIANT BRANE, even though a small voice in
your head was probably saying, "Gee, CAL, maybe he's just messing with
your head."

On a side note, we're also talking about the fact that EVERYONE else
recognized what was posted as obvious nonsense, posted with the sole
intention of tricking you into responding in all seriousness to what
was, in essence, a joke.

Another words, YHBT. Why do you continue to act like such a whiny
prat about it? Are you so without a sense of humor that you can't even
admit that you fell for a practical joke?

it was off the cuff. Kinda like you talking about food..

"Off the cuff" would seem to mean that you're some kind of expert
about Requests for Consideration and can speak knowledgeably and
extemporaenously about them and associated subjects. Thanks for saying
that I can do the same about food.

Since
your a little slow I might spell out the fact that I have wee presence in

"Wee presence"? What are you, a freakin' leprechaun?

software industry and have authored my shared of servers and services.

Are we going to have to begin comparing SAT scores now?

Well hell, you are senor semantic/ speel flamer. Who are you to be
talking
Prof.
Ducking the question doesn't make it go away, Pro. What in the
blue-eyed froggy world would make you think I'm a professor? Is this
yet another example of you getting your facts wrong?

Never once thought you were(or cared). That is the role you like to take on
the NGs ESPECIALLY when it comes to english comp. I'm sorry if you were
hoping for more.

Another words, you once again failed to get your facts straight, and
when called on it, you insist that by calling me "Professor" you
didn't really mean that I was a professor. That about right? You have
a bad habit of circling back to say that your words don't mean what
they appear to say, simply because you now say they mean something
different.

I think it might be best if you go back to calling people fat, Pro.
You're not very good at this more subtle stuff.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:57:25 GMT, "cl" wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:12:00 GMT, "cl" wrote:
We've already established that pattern-matching isn't your strong
suit, Pro. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been repeatedly trolled into
doing unnecessary homework to "prove" the falsity of "errors"
purposely posted to trick you into doing unnecessary homework (cf.
"Request for Consideration").

There wasn't anything that was required of me to recite the RFCs and
meanings,

You still don't geddit, do you? We're not talking about the amount of
effort you put forth to correct my "error"; we're talking about WHY
you felt compelled to correct my "error" -- you just couldn't pass up
the chance to show off your GIANT BRANE, even though a small voice in
your head was probably saying, "Gee, CAL, maybe he's just messing with
your head."

On a side note, we're also talking about the fact that EVERYONE else
recognized what was posted as obvious nonsense, posted with the sole
intention of tricking you into responding in all seriousness to what
was, in essence, a joke.

Another words, YHBT. Why do you continue to act like such a whiny
prat about it? Are you so without a sense of humor that you can't even
admit that you fell for a practical joke?

it was off the cuff. Kinda like you talking about food..

"Off the cuff" would seem to mean that you're some kind of expert
about Requests for Consideration and can speak knowledgeably and
extemporaenously about them and associated subjects. Thanks for saying
that I can do the same about food.

Since
your a little slow I might spell out the fact that I have wee presence in

"Wee presence"? What are you, a freakin' leprechaun?

software industry and have authored my shared of servers and services.

Are we going to have to begin comparing SAT scores now?

Well hell, you are senor semantic/ speel flamer. Who are you to be
talking
Prof.
Ducking the question doesn't make it go away, Pro. What in the
blue-eyed froggy world would make you think I'm a professor? Is this
yet another example of you getting your facts wrong?

Never once thought you were(or cared). That is the role you like to take on
the NGs ESPECIALLY when it comes to english comp. I'm sorry if you were
hoping for more.

Another words, you once again failed to get your facts straight, and
when called on it, you insist that by calling me "Professor" you
didn't really mean that I was a professor. That about right? You have
a bad habit of circling back to say that your words don't mean what
they appear to say, simply because you now say they mean something
different.

I think it might be best if you go back to calling people fat, Pro.
You're not very good at this more subtle stuff.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr