Hey - I need some advice from the pros. I'm cooking on a Chargriller Pro
with an offset fire box. When I cook a butt, I usually shoot for about 7.5#,
and with the right fire, it usually takes around 8 1/2 - 9 1/2 hours, +/-.
I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a neighborhood party next
weekend, and I think two of 'em in this same size range should be about
right. I've never cooked two at the same time, and won't have a chance to do
a dry run. I'd appreciate any thoughts on a couple questions -

1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm cooking two
butts rather than one?
2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred method for
keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without overcooking it or drying it
out?

Thanks for your help,
~OC~

OC wrote:
> Hey - I need some advice from the pros. I'm cooking on a Chargriller Pro
> with an offset fire box. When I cook a butt, I usually shoot for about 7.5#,
> and with the right fire, it usually takes around 8 1/2 - 9 1/2 hours, +/-.
> I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a neighborhood party next
> weekend, and I think two of 'em in this same size range should be about
> right. I've never cooked two at the same time, and won't have a chance to do
> a dry run. I'd appreciate any thoughts on a couple questions -
>
> 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm cooking two
> butts rather than one?
> 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred method for
> keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without overcooking it or drying it
> out?
>
> Thanks for your help,
> ~OC~
>
>
IMHO your cook times will not be significantly longer than a single.
Swap end for end at 1/4 intervals
swap positions halfway through.
Don't chop until just before serving (I only chop the scraps after
slicing.)

If you finish early, keep wrapped in foil, in a towel, in a ice chest.

"shawn" > wrote in message
...
> OC wrote:
>> Hey - I need some advice from the pros. I'm cooking on a Chargriller Pro
>> with an offset fire box. When I cook a butt, I usually shoot for about
>> 7.5#, and with the right fire, it usually takes around 8 1/2 - 9 1/2
>> hours, +/-. I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a neighborhood
>> party next weekend, and I think two of 'em in this same size range should
>> be about right. I've never cooked two at the same time, and won't have a
>> chance to do a dry run. I'd appreciate any thoughts on a couple
>> questions -
>>
>> 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm cooking
>> two butts rather than one?
>> 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred method for
>> keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without overcooking it or drying it
>> out?
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>> ~OC~
> IMHO your cook times will not be significantly longer than a single.
> Swap end for end at 1/4 intervals
> swap positions halfway through.
> Don't chop until just before serving (I only chop the scraps after
> slicing.)
>
> If you finish early, keep wrapped in foil, in a towel, in a ice chest.

Shawn - Thanks for the info. I couldn't come up with a good reason why time
should be a lot longer, but didn't have any experience to base it on. Also,
thanks for the ice chest tip.
~OC~

"OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message

> "shawn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OC wrote:
> > > Hey - I need some advice from the pros. I'm cooking on a
> > > Chargriller Pro with an offset fire box. When I cook a butt, I
> > > usually shoot for about 7.5#, and with the right fire, it usually
> > > takes around 8 1/2 - 9
> > > 1/2 hours, +/-. I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a
> > > neighborhood party next weekend, and I think two of 'em in this
> > > same size range should be about right. I've never cooked two at
> > > the same time, and won't have a chance to do a dry run. I'd
> > > appreciate any thoughts on a couple questions -
> > >
> > > 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm
> > > cooking two butts rather than one?
> > > 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred
> > > method for keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without
> > > overcooking it or drying it out?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help,
> > > ~OC~
> > IMHO your cook times will not be significantly longer than a single.
> > Swap end for end at 1/4 intervals
> > swap positions halfway through.
> > Don't chop until just before serving (I only chop the scraps after
> > slicing.)
> >
> > If you finish early, keep wrapped in foil, in a towel, in a ice
> > chest.
>
> Shawn - Thanks for the info. I couldn't come up with a good reason
> why time should be a lot longer, but didn't have any experience to
> base it on. Also, thanks for the ice chest tip.
> ~OC~

Adding two points...
#1. Yes, the smoking time will be close to the same if there is air space
between the pieces of meat. Time will be increased only slightly at the
beginning of the cook while you are bringing the cold meat up to
temperature.
#2 (And I know you already know this.) *DON'T* put ice in the ice
chest/cooler.

BOB

On May 12, 4:23 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
> "OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > "shawn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > OC wrote:
> > > > Hey - I need some advice from the pros. I'm cooking on a
> > > > Chargriller Pro with an offset fire box. When I cook a butt, I
> > > > usually shoot for about 7.5#, and with the right fire, it usually
> > > > takes around 8 1/2 - 9
> > > > 1/2 hours, +/-. I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a
> > > > neighborhood party next weekend, and I think two of 'em in this
> > > > same size range should be about right. I've never cooked two at
> > > > the same time, and won't have a chance to do a dry run. I'd
> > > > appreciate any thoughts on a couple questions -
>
> > > > 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm
> > > > cooking two butts rather than one?
> > > > 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred
> > > > method for keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without
> > > > overcooking it or drying it out?
>
> > > > Thanks for your help,
> > > > ~OC~
> > > IMHO your cook times will not be significantly longer than a single.
> > > Swap end for end at 1/4 intervals
> > > swap positions halfway through.
> > > Don't chop until just before serving (I only chop the scraps after
> > > slicing.)
>
> > > If you finish early, keep wrapped in foil, in a towel, in a ice
> > > chest.
>
> > Shawn - Thanks for the info. I couldn't come up with a good reason
> > why time should be a lot longer, but didn't have any experience to
> > base it on. Also, thanks for the ice chest tip.
> > ~OC~
>
> Adding two points...
> #1. Yes, the smoking time will be close to the same if there is air space
> between the pieces of meat. Time will be increased only slightly at the
> beginning of the cook while you are bringing the cold meat up to
> temperature.
> #2 (And I know you already know this.) *DON'T* put ice in the ice
> chest/cooler.
>
> BOB

I agree with shawn, and got a great laugh out of Bob's post.

I buy packer's cut briskets at about 18-20 lbs a piece, and sometimes
smoke both if I know I won't be able to have a free weekend to for a
while.

Last year at Thanksgiving I smoked a 14# and a 16# turkey at the same
time for me and two sets of relatives.

I would guess that the extra time for both meats of doing two instead
of one only added 10% or so more time. Just a guess... it wasn't much
at all.

Robert

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 12, 4:23 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
>> "OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "shawn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > OC wrote:
>> > > > Hey - I need some advice from the pros. I'm cooking on a
>> > > > Chargriller Pro with an offset fire box. When I cook a butt, I
>> > > > usually shoot for about 7.5#, and with the right fire, it usually
>> > > > takes around 8 1/2 - 9
>> > > > 1/2 hours, +/-. I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a
>> > > > neighborhood party next weekend, and I think two of 'em in this
>> > > > same size range should be about right. I've never cooked two at
>> > > > the same time, and won't have a chance to do a dry run. I'd
>> > > > appreciate any thoughts on a couple questions -
>>
>> > > > 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm
>> > > > cooking two butts rather than one?
>> > > > 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred
>> > > > method for keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without
>> > > > overcooking it or drying it out?
>>
>> > > > Thanks for your help,
>> > > > ~OC~
>> > > IMHO your cook times will not be significantly longer than a single.
>> > > Swap end for end at 1/4 intervals
>> > > swap positions halfway through.
>> > > Don't chop until just before serving (I only chop the scraps after
>> > > slicing.)
>>
>> > > If you finish early, keep wrapped in foil, in a towel, in a ice
>> > > chest.
>>
>> > Shawn - Thanks for the info. I couldn't come up with a good reason
>> > why time should be a lot longer, but didn't have any experience to
>> > base it on. Also, thanks for the ice chest tip.
>> > ~OC~
>>
>> Adding two points...
>> #1. Yes, the smoking time will be close to the same if there is air
>> space
>> between the pieces of meat. Time will be increased only slightly at the
>> beginning of the cook while you are bringing the cold meat up to
>> temperature.
>> #2 (And I know you already know this.) *DON'T* put ice in the ice
>> chest/cooler.
>>
>> BOB
>
> I agree with shawn, and got a great laugh out of Bob's post.
>
> I buy packer's cut briskets at about 18-20 lbs a piece, and sometimes
> smoke both if I know I won't be able to have a free weekend to for a
> while.
>
> Last year at Thanksgiving I smoked a 14# and a 16# turkey at the same
> time for me and two sets of relatives.
>
> I would guess that the extra time for both meats of doing two instead
> of one only added 10% or so more time. Just a guess... it wasn't much
> at all.
>
> Robert
>

Thanks for all the feedback. I'll be sure to remember not to use ice. <G>
~OC~

"OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message
...

>>>>>>>> I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a
> >> > > > neighborhood party next weekend, and I think two of 'em in this
> >> > > > same size range should be about right. I've never cooked two at
> >> > > > the same time, and won't have a chance to do a dry run. I'd
> >> > > > appreciate any thoughts on a couple questions -
> >>
> >> > > > 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm
> >> > > > cooking two butts rather than one?
> >> > > > 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred
> >> > > > method for keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without
> >> > > > overcooking it or drying it out?

You have some real good advice here. My two cents, and your mileage may vary
of course, but I've noticed that with my CharGriller it doesn't really
matter how much meat I put on it, the cook times stay about the same,
probably because the meat all goes on one level. With my GOSM, because it's
a vertical smoker with 4 shelves, if I load it up full, it adds a
couple-three hours to the cook.

Here's a tip for your CharGriller. If you haven't made any modifications at
all, give this a try. Take the fire grate in the main cooking chamber (NOT
the firebox) and turn it upside down so it looks like an inverted U shape
instead of a regular U shape. Adjust the hangers so it just covers the
opening from the firebox. This will turn it into a baffle, sort of, and keep
more of the smoke and heat down under the whole length of the unit, rather
than having all the smoke and heat go from the firebox right to the top of
the cooking chamber and out the stack. When you're all done and you want to
burn off whatever grease collected, just turn it right-side up again, pour
the coals from the firebox onto the grate, and let the grease burn off.

And, as far as keeping it warm, in the past, I've sometimes gone ahead and
pulled it a couple hours before my guests arrive, and put the pulled pork
into a crock pot to keep it warm at a safe temperature. Sometimes I've put
my own favorite bbq sauce on it (currently, Super Smokers Tennessee-style),
and sometimes I'd just put a little bit of water in with it to keep it
moist.

Again, that's how I do it. YMMV and all that.

EZ

In your vertical smoker, do you notice a difference in cooking time
between the lowest and highest racks? If so, which do you find cooks
the quickest?

Nonny

EZ.Rider wrote:
> "OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>>>>>> I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a
>>>>>>> neighborhood party next weekend, and I think two of 'em in this
>>>>>>> same size range should be about right. I've never cooked two at
>>>>>>> the same time, and won't have a chance to do a dry run. I'd
>>>>>>> appreciate any thoughts on a couple questions -
>>>>>>> 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm
>>>>>>> cooking two butts rather than one?
>>>>>>> 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred
>>>>>>> method for keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without
>>>>>>> overcooking it or drying it out?
>
> You have some real good advice here. My two cents, and your mileage may vary
> of course, but I've noticed that with my CharGriller it doesn't really
> matter how much meat I put on it, the cook times stay about the same,
> probably because the meat all goes on one level. With my GOSM, because it's
> a vertical smoker with 4 shelves, if I load it up full, it adds a
> couple-three hours to the cook.
>
> Here's a tip for your CharGriller. If you haven't made any modifications at
> all, give this a try. Take the fire grate in the main cooking chamber (NOT
> the firebox) and turn it upside down so it looks like an inverted U shape
> instead of a regular U shape. Adjust the hangers so it just covers the
> opening from the firebox. This will turn it into a baffle, sort of, and keep
> more of the smoke and heat down under the whole length of the unit, rather
> than having all the smoke and heat go from the firebox right to the top of
> the cooking chamber and out the stack. When you're all done and you want to
> burn off whatever grease collected, just turn it right-side up again, pour
> the coals from the firebox onto the grate, and let the grease burn off.
>
> And, as far as keeping it warm, in the past, I've sometimes gone ahead and
> pulled it a couple hours before my guests arrive, and put the pulled pork
> into a crock pot to keep it warm at a safe temperature. Sometimes I've put
> my own favorite bbq sauce on it (currently, Super Smokers Tennessee-style),
> and sometimes I'd just put a little bit of water in with it to keep it
> moist.
>
> Again, that's how I do it. YMMV and all that.
>
> EZ
>
>

--
---Nonnymus---
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

"EZ.Rider" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> >> > > > 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm
>> >> > > > cooking two butts rather than one?
>> >> > > > 2) If I get nervous and start too early, is there a preferred
>> >> > > > method for keeping the bbq warm after I chop it, without
>> >> > > > overcooking it or drying it out?
>
> You have some real good advice here. My two cents, and your mileage may
> vary
> of course, but I've noticed that with my CharGriller it doesn't really
> matter how much meat I put on it, the cook times stay about the same,
> probably because the meat all goes on one level. With my GOSM, because
> it's
> a vertical smoker with 4 shelves, if I load it up full, it adds a
> couple-three hours to the cook.
>
> Here's a tip for your CharGriller. If you haven't made any modifications
> at
> all, give this a try. Take the fire grate in the main cooking chamber (NOT
> the firebox) and turn it upside down so it looks like an inverted U shape
> instead of a regular U shape. Adjust the hangers so it just covers the
> opening from the firebox. This will turn it into a baffle, sort of, and
> keep
> more of the smoke and heat down under the whole length of the unit, rather
> than having all the smoke and heat go from the firebox right to the top of
> the cooking chamber and out the stack. When you're all done and you want
> to
> burn off whatever grease collected, just turn it right-side up again, pour
> the coals from the firebox onto the grate, and let the grease burn off.
>
> And, as far as keeping it warm, in the past, I've sometimes gone ahead and
> pulled it a couple hours before my guests arrive, and put the pulled pork
> into a crock pot to keep it warm at a safe temperature. Sometimes I've put
> my own favorite bbq sauce on it (currently, Super Smokers
> Tennessee-style),
> and sometimes I'd just put a little bit of water in with it to keep it
> moist.
>
> Again, that's how I do it. YMMV and all that.
>
> EZ
>

Thanks, EZ. Considering its price, I've been pleased with the CharGriller.
I'm just a little nervous since I've never cooked more than one butt at a
time. I've done several mods to the cooker, including inverting the fire
grate. I was still occasionally getting some charring on that end,
particularly if a stick of wood flared up, so I added a baffle of sorts,
using the fire box mounting bolts. It was a simple mod, and I think
worthwhile in getting a little more even heat. I thought the biggest
difference came from extending the exhaust stack down almost to the cooking
surface, using a rolled up piece of aluminum sheet. A hose clamp at the
lower end keeps it in a snug roll. I've added a row of bricks in the bottom,
under the upside-down fire grate, but I'm not real sure they did much for
evening out the heat. I also added some legs to the fire grate in the fire
box. On long cooks, the accumulated ash seemed to interfere with getting
good air flow to the bottom of the lump. That one was trial-and-error. The
first legs were a little too long and a real disaster. Air flowed right
under the fire grate into the cooking chamber, and I couldn't get the sucker
up to temp. Shorter legs worked out nicely.

Thanks for the crock pot tip. I'd like to get it pulled and get me degreased
before company shows up. What happens if I stick a pan covered with foil in
the oven at about 180F? I usually don't take it off until about 195F, so a
180F oven shouldn't cook it any further, should it? I figure the outside
brown will probably lose its crunchiness, but that might have to be a
sacrifice for this round. Thoughts?

Thanks,
~OC~

"Nonnymus" > wrote in message
...
> In your vertical smoker, do you notice a difference in cooking time
> between the lowest and highest racks? If so, which do you find cooks
> the quickest?

Arther,

I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember, simply because it's been close to
two years since I used it! Cooking with charcoal and wood chunks on the
Chargriller gives me such an improved result that I have pretty much
abandoned the GOSM. But, if it was in the '40's and I wanted to do an
overnight cook, I'd definitely fire it up.

If I were to guess, I'd guess that the top rack is the hottest, and the
bottom rack is the coldest. My GOSM is the cheaper Wal-Mart brand, with no
side vents at all. Just a top vent, which stays wide open, and whatever air
comes in from the very bottom where the burner is.

I can say that I've tested the temperature at the middle rack, and it's
right on par with the door thermometer, so I don't even bother with a pit
thermometer on it. I do make sure to have a probe in each piece of meat,
though, and I take them off when each one is "done."

EZ

"OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message
...

> Thanks, EZ. Considering its price, I've been pleased with the CharGriller.

So have I. In fact, my expensive Traeger that I just bought about a month
ago turned out a brisket that was very good, but the smoke ring was very
thin. Maybe it's having to babysit the CharGriller all day long, but it
seems the CharGriller wins, so far, on the brisket front.

> I've done several mods to the cooker, including inverting the fire
> grate.

<snip>

Impressive bunches of mods! I've heard of the lowering the smokestack mod,
but so far, the only one I've done is inverting the grate in the main
cooking chamber.

> Thanks for the crock pot tip. I'd like to get it pulled and get me
degreased
> before company shows up. What happens if I stick a pan covered with foil
in
> the oven at about 180F?

I think that would be just fine. A light sprinkle of water before covering
it might help keep it moist.

The nice thing is, pork shoulder is about the most forgiving cut there is.
You really can't ruin it unless you try hard. As long as you're getting it
up to 190 or so internal nice and slow over a 225-250 or so pit temp, I
think you'll end up with a crowd pleaser!

EZ

Thanks for the reply. My reason for asking was an uneven result I got
for the first time last week. It was windy, but the temperature was
around 80f. I used all 4 shelves in the Bradley to accommodate 6 racks
of back ribs. As in the past, my temperature probes were in the
thickest piece, away from the bone, and located in the center of the
cooker. After 6 hours at 190f, the ribs toward the bottom were a tad
more cooked than I prefer, and the ribs at the top were a bit
undercooked. That's contrary to my initial logic.

My guess is that the wind got in the draft on top, cooling the upper
part of the box a little. The heater for cooking is low, and perhaps
worked a bit too hard trying to keep the middle and upper portions at
temperature.

In the future, I think I'll do some experimenting with the temperature
probe to see what the temperatures are in different locations in the
box, even though it'll mean I open the door during cooking.

Nonny

EZ wrote:
> "Nonnymus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In your vertical smoker, do you notice a difference in cooking time
>> between the lowest and highest racks? If so, which do you find cooks
>> the quickest?
>
> Arther,
>
> I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember, simply because it's been close to
> two years since I used it! Cooking with charcoal and wood chunks on the
> Chargriller gives me such an improved result that I have pretty much
> abandoned the GOSM. But, if it was in the '40's and I wanted to do an
> overnight cook, I'd definitely fire it up.
>
> If I were to guess, I'd guess that the top rack is the hottest, and the
> bottom rack is the coldest. My GOSM is the cheaper Wal-Mart brand, with no
> side vents at all. Just a top vent, which stays wide open, and whatever air
> comes in from the very bottom where the burner is.
>
> I can say that I've tested the temperature at the middle rack, and it's
> right on par with the door thermometer, so I don't even bother with a pit
> thermometer on it. I do make sure to have a probe in each piece of meat,
> though, and I take them off when each one is "done."
>
> EZ
>
>

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.

On 2007-05-15, Nonnymus > wrote:
>
> My guess is that the wind got in the draft on top, cooling the upper
> part of the box a little. The heater for cooking is low, and perhaps
> worked a bit too hard trying to keep the middle and upper portions at
> temperature.

Nonny --

You might try putting something as simple as a small cardboard box over
"flue" or whatever sort of exhaust pipe your cooker has -- that may be
enough to discourage the wind from stealing your heat.. YMMV!

"Rick F." > wrote in message

> On 2007-05-15, Nonnymus > wrote:
> >
> > My guess is that the wind got in the draft on top, cooling the upper
> > part of the box a little. The heater for cooking is low, and
> > perhaps worked a bit too hard trying to keep the middle and upper
> > portions at temperature.
>
> Nonny --
>
> You might try putting something as simple as a small cardboard box
> over "flue" or whatever sort of exhaust pipe your cooker has -- that
> may be enough to discourage the wind from stealing your heat.. YMMV!

" Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all good,
intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
respond to them.

BOB

BOB wrote:
> "Rick F." > wrote in message
>
>> On 2007-05-15, Nonnymus > wrote:
>>> My guess is that the wind got in the draft on top, cooling the upper
>>> part of the box a little. The heater for cooking is low, and
>>> perhaps worked a bit too hard trying to keep the middle and upper
>>> portions at temperature.
>> Nonny --
>>
>> You might try putting something as simple as a small cardboard box
>> over "flue" or whatever sort of exhaust pipe your cooker has -- that
>> may be enough to discourage the wind from stealing your heat.. YMMV!
>
> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all good,
> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
> respond to them.

Thanks to you both. I currently have a piece of aluminum flashing bent
over the draft, like a half round piece. When I get a chance, I'll add
a second and obviously larger one at right angles. I want the draft to
function well, and perhaps the second baffle will keep wind from drawing
out the smoke and heat.

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.

" BOB" > wrote in message
...

> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
good,
> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
> respond to them.

I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of this
newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de facto
standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when there
are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.

If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous material to
make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.

EZ

"Nonnymus" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> In the future, I think I'll do some experimenting with the temperature
> probe to see what the temperatures are in different locations in the
> box, even though it'll mean I open the door during cooking.

Or, just keep asking for more temperature probes for birthdays, holidays,
etc., until you have enough to stick four through four old wine corks to
place on each grate, and a half-dozen or more to put in each cut of meat.
I'm actually serious here! I haven't gone to those extremes, but I do own 5
or 6 probes, two of them remote so I can be inside my house monitoring the
two most important or most likely to get "done" first cuts.

While we're on the subject, I have several different brands - Weber,
Maverick, Pampered Chef - and only the Pampered Chef can be trusted to give
me the accurate pit temp. I set it on "Candy" and it tells me what the temp
is very reliably. All the others max out, and show just plain "High" or in
the case of the Weber, get confused and just start beeping uncontrolably
until I reset it, but usually it gets confused again- no matter what the
actual internal meat temperature, the thermometer just goes berserk.

EZ

On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:12:30 -0500, "EZ" >
wrote:

>I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of this
>newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here,

That would be me.

>what is the accepted protocol - top posting or bottom posting.

Bottom posting, with extraneous or irrelevant text deleted from the
message to which you are replying.

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote

> >I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of this
> >newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here,
>
> That would be me.
>
> >what is the accepted protocol - top posting or bottom posting.
>
> Bottom posting, with extraneous or irrelevant text deleted from the
> message to which you are replying.

Well, only because this is a usenet chatroom. On web chat rooms
it is the other way around.

--oTTo--

EZ wrote:
> " BOB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
> good,
>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>> respond to them.
>
> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of this
> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de facto
> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when there
> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>
> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous material to
> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>
> EZ

Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is
to post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just
above the .sig?

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.

Nonnymus wrote:


> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of
> the message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the
> standard is to post at the top?

No. You should start at the top as you move down and eliminate
unnecessary text.

2) Is there a way to have the cursor
> go to just above the .sig?

Bottom-posting with full quotes is not correct either.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"EZ" > wrote:
> " BOB" > wrote in message
> [ . . . ]
> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous material
> to make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.

That's what I do.

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

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

EZ wrote:

> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace
> of this newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is
> the accepted protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the
> universal de facto standard,

You are confusing bad personal choices with standards and norms. For NGs,
bottom posting with trimmed text, or interleaved posting are the accepted
usenet netiquette norms.
http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/...aq08-topp.html
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/

Other references can be supplied if needed.

> although I'm guessing one or the other
> is the rule on this particular newsgroup. For example, at my
> workplace, top posting is the accepted norm, and we all learn to read
> from the bottom up, even when there are literally dozens of replies
> going on for pages and pages in a single email message.

Your workplace is not usenet. In addition, business emails have their own
standards of format that are not related to usenet standards.

> In other
> newsgroups to which I belong, such as rec.motorcycles.harley, you
> will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.

As well they should.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> EZ wrote:

> > although I'm guessing one or the other
> > is the rule on this particular newsgroup. For example, at my
> > workplace, top posting is the accepted norm, and we all learn to
> > read from the bottom up, even when there are literally dozens of
> > replies going on for pages and pages in a single email message.
>
> Your workplace is not usenet. In addition, business emails have their
> own standards of format that are not related to usenet standards.

I learned to use email when I did usenet, that was on the university
system. So I started out doing email just like usenet posts, trimming,
interleaving, etc. I still do it that way at work, even though no one
else does. However, on the grand list of reasons why they think I'm
weird, that's down fairly low, I suspect. No one ever mentions it.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

I'm a bi-poster.


"EZ" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> " BOB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
> good,
>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>> respond to them.
>
> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of
> this
> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
> facto
> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
> there
> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>
> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous material to
> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>
> EZ
>

I'm a bi-poster.

Bottom-posting is old skool.


"Nonnymus" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> EZ wrote:
>> " BOB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
>> good,
>>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>>> respond to them.
>>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of
>> this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
>> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
>> facto
>> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
>> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
>> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
>> there
>> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
>> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
>> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>>
>> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous material
>> to
>> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> EZ
>
> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
> message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is to
> post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just above
> the .sig?
>
> --
> ---Nonnymus---
> You don't stand any taller by
> trying to make others appear shorter.

Bottom-posting is old skool.


"Nonnymus" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> EZ wrote:
>> " BOB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
>> good,
>>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>>> respond to them.
>>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of
>> this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
>> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
>> facto
>> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
>> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
>> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
>> there
>> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
>> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
>> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>>
>> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous material
>> to
>> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> EZ
>
> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
> message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is to
> post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just above
> the .sig?
>
> --
> ---Nonnymus---
> You don't stand any taller by
> trying to make others appear shorter.

Bottom-posting is old skool.


"Nonnymus" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> EZ wrote:
>> " BOB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
>> good,
>>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>>> respond to them.
>>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of
>> this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
>> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
>> facto
>> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
>> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
>> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
>> there
>> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
>> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
>> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>>
>> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous material
>> to
>> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> EZ
>
> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
> message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is to
> post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just above
> the .sig?
>
> --
> ---Nonnymus---
> You don't stand any taller by
> trying to make others appear shorter.

"EZ" > wrote in message
...
> "Nonnymus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In your vertical smoker, do you notice a difference in cooking time
>> between the lowest and highest racks? If so, which do you find cooks
>> the quickest?
>
> Arther,
>
> I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember, simply because it's been close to
> two years since I used it! Cooking with charcoal and wood chunks on the
> Chargriller gives me such an improved result that I have pretty much
> abandoned the GOSM. But, if it was in the '40's and I wanted to do an
> overnight cook, I'd definitely fire it up.
>
> If I were to guess, I'd guess that the top rack is the hottest, and the
> bottom rack is the coldest. My GOSM is the cheaper Wal-Mart brand, with no
> side vents at all. Just a top vent, which stays wide open, and whatever
> air
> comes in from the very bottom where the burner is.
>
> I can say that I've tested the temperature at the middle rack, and it's
> right on par with the door thermometer, so I don't even bother with a pit
> thermometer on it. I do make sure to have a probe in each piece of meat,
> though, and I take them off when each one is "done."
>
> EZ

I can add to this a bit, since I use a GOSM, in fact, the same cheaper model
as EZ. It depends on what I'm doing as to where the "hotter" is. I
actually tried to use mine as a pizza oven once, and played around with
where I put the pizza stone. Without the water pan there as a heat shield,
the lower rack was definitely hotter, as I figured it'd be, since it was
getting more of the direct "fire". I'd have to agree with EZ though that
under a "normal" use, the top is a touch higher, although I don't think it's
all that much. Unlike EZ though, my door thermometer is off by about
25degrees.

I've never used an offset smoker, but I do like the results(and ease of
use!) I get with the GOSM.

>
>

On 16-May-2007, "EZ" > wrote:

> " BOB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the
> > post (like all
> good,
> > intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read
> > his posts and
> > respond to them.
>
> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the
> general populace of this
> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what
> is the accepted
> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the
> universal de facto
> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the
> rule on this
> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top
> posting is the
> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom
> up, even when there
> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and
> pages in a single
> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such
> as
> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully
> if you top post.
>
> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out
> extraneous material to
> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>
> EZ

We've been lobbying for bottom posting for five years that I
know of and I for one can't imagine why anyone would prefer
to read from the bottom up. Hell, why not just read from
top to bottom and right to left like the Japanese do. They
must know what they're doing, they've been around a hell of
a lot longer then we have.

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Nonnymus wrote:
>
>
> EZ wrote:
>> " BOB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
>> good,
>>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>>> respond to them.
>>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace
>> of this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
>> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
>> facto
>> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
>> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
>> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
>> there
>> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
>> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
>> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>>
>> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous
>> material to
>> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> EZ
>
> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
> message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is
> to post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just
> above the .sig?
>
Nonnymus wrote:
>
>
> EZ wrote:
>> " BOB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
>> good,
>>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>>> respond to them.
>>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace
>> of this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
>> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
>> facto
>> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
>> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
>> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
>> there
>> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
>> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
>> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>>
>> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous
>> material to
>> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> EZ
>
> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
> message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is
> to post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just
> above the .sig?
>

For Mozilla/Thunderbird users;

Mail & Newsgroup Account Settings
Verizon News Account (Whatever you named your account)
Composition & Addressing
Check "Automatically quote the original message when replying
Then, choose, "start my reply below the quote" from the drop down box.

If you're using "Outhouse", download "QuoteFix" and install it.

This posted from SeaMonkey (Mozilla Suite/Thunderbird) which automatically
placed my cursor at the end of the original quote.

Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Nonnymus wrote:
>
>
> EZ wrote:
>> " BOB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
>> good,
>>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>>> respond to them.
>>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace
>> of this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
>> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
>> facto
>> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
>> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
>> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
>> there
>> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
>> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
>> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>>
>> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous
>> material to
>> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> EZ
>
> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
> message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is
> to post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just
> above the .sig?
>
Nonnymus wrote:
>
>
> EZ wrote:
>> " BOB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> " Nonny" might also try responding at the bottom of the post (like all
>> good,
>>> intellegent, people do!) and then more people might read his posts and
>>> respond to them.
>>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace
>> of this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here, what is the accepted
>> protocol - top posting or bottom posting. Neither is the universal de
>> facto
>> standard, although I'm guessing one or the other is the rule on this
>> particular newsgroup. For example, at my workplace, top posting is the
>> accepted norm, and we all learn to read from the bottom up, even when
>> there
>> are literally dozens of replies going on for pages and pages in a single
>> email message. In other newsgroups to which I belong, such as
>> rec.motorcycles.harley, you will get flamed unmercifully if you top post.
>>
>> If the suggested norm is to bottom post and cut out extraneous
>> material to
>> make it easier to sift through, then I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> EZ
>
> Both Thunderbird and Outlook Express place the cursor at the top of the
> message, when you hit "reply." 1) Does that imply that the standard is
> to post at the top? 2) Is there a way to have the cursor go to just
> above the .sig?
>

For Mozilla/Thunderbird users;

Mail & Newsgroup Account Settings
Verizon News Account (Whatever you named your account)
Composition & Addressing
Check "Automatically quote the original message when replying
Then, choose, "start my reply below the quote" from the drop down box.

If you're using "Outhouse", download "QuoteFix" and install it.

This posted from SeaMonkey (Mozilla Suite/Thunderbird) which automatically
placed my cursor at the end of the original quote.

Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:12:30 -0500, "EZ" >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not Nonny, but your reply prompts me to ask the general populace of this
>> newsgroup, or its owner if he/she still posts here,
>
> That would be me.
>
>> what is the accepted protocol - top posting or bottom posting.
>
> Bottom posting, with extraneous or irrelevant text deleted from the
> message to which you are replying.

X-Post deleted.

Has your wife ever caught her crazy 70's afro on fire during a cook?

"OC" <oystercracker@nowheredotcom> wrote in message
...
> Hey - I need some advice from the pros. I'm cooking on a Chargriller Pro
> with an offset fire box. When I cook a butt, I usually shoot for about
> 7.5#, and with the right fire, it usually takes around 8 1/2 - 9 1/2
> hours, +/-. I've been asked to smoke a couple butts for a neighborhood
> party next weekend, and I think two of 'em in this same size range should
> be about right. I've never cooked two at the same time, and won't have a
> chance to do a dry run. I'd appreciate any thoughts on a couple
> questions -
>
> 1) How much extra cooking time should I allow, considering I'm cooking two
> butts rather than one?
>..........................

Just wanted to say thanks for all the great feedback. After a couple delays,
the party finally happened Friday nite and the bbq was a big hit. Good thing
it was Friday nite, 'cause about 3" of rain named Barry moved in on
Saturday. As suggested, I didn't really see an increase in cooking time for
two butts, considering all the other variables involved. If anything, it
probably went a little faster because one butt was closer to the fire box
than when I usually cook. I rotated the butt locations a few times, which
seemed to work out fine. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for all the help.
~OC~