Theron wrote:
> There are several number of reasons why it is reasonable to readdress
> an issue such as that.
>
> 1. It wasn't fully answered last time.

Says you. Your past questions were fully answered. You repeat questions for
only one purpose: to impress newbies. However there are archives which house
past questions and can be accessed quite readily.

> 2. I don't think it's answered by the country ham industry, or if
> it presumably is, some lawyer is telling them what to say.

And here we have people's exhibit 29,387 of why Kent is an asshat. You throw
out non-sequitors and straw-men as if they are relevant, when they are, by
any measure, not. You do so to keep attention on yourself, to pursue the
'number of angels on the head of a pin', and to appear knowledgeable and
sophisticated.

> 3. New people watch this group daily, who have different and
> hopefully better insights than those who responded four years ago.

Prove it. Which new people have chimed in to your inane questions? And if
so, what profound 'new' insights were offered? Again, you prove that you are
doing this to capture people's attention and to pose in the limelight so
that any potential newbie sees you as cool and knowledgeable. You hope to
fool newbies because the folks here just find you inane and tedious.

> 4. I think it's a good question.

Oh, wow. You think a pretentious question from years ago has transformed
into a 'good' question today? Good for you. Maybe in four more years you can
pose your same stupid stuff yet again.

> 5. Finally, if you can't raise a fundamental question now and
> then, like mop, rub, charcoal, temperature, and etc. what else is there?

Oh, so your inanities and boorish presence is really designed to HELP us be
fresh and relevant. So you contend that your repeating questions, being a
poseur, and running a discussion into a nit-picking den of ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!
is a good thing?

> How many times do you want to hear "OB food: steak and fries tonight" at
> the end of an otherwise inane message?

Well, as the Royal Regent of Ridiculous Inanity that is an odd question.
Just quit adding that OB to the end of your messages. Better yet, don't post
at all.

> Regarding trolling:

Uh, now that you are recognized as the Official NG Troll are you going to
lecture us on trollisims? I don't think there is much interest.


> Finally, this is a non moderated newsgroup.

Duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh. Oh, and DUH!!!!!!!

>While there may have been a standard of subject, behavior, and so forth
>when the NG started, a non moderated newsgroup will expand on its own.

Blood sugar a little low?

> The thrust is supposed to be bbq "Low and Slow".

No. It is dedicated to BBQ and other forms of outdoor cooking. Ask anyone.
The charter has been a frequent topic of discussion. Yet another example of
your dedication to irrelevance.

> It isn't, and can't be because a minority of this NG's readers are
> dedicated "Low and Slow" BBQers. I suspect from a usage standpoint the gas
> grill wins hands down, other charcoal grills next, and last the true
> smokers if you measure popularity.

I know you think you have a point, Kent, but trust me, your point is awol
and has left you treading water.

> Cheers to all

I crap better cheers than you have the ability to offer.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan