On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:44:12 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>....Snip the tiresome crap
>
>>If you know the answer, simply tell us. If you don't, stop the
>> bullshit and say so.
>
>Tell us? Most everyone already has experienced the effects of prolonged
>cooking from opening the door of the pit repeatedly. Heck, elsewhere in this
>thread, someone else even gave you the second reason out of the three major
>reasons why that is so. It's not my job to be your tutor.
>
>Keep focusing on hot air, though. LOL!!!!

And this relates to 20 minutes... How?
Are you reading challenged?
I'm asking about the "20 minute" claim, not that opening the door will
lengthen cooking ime.
I've said this many times, and you refuse to understand it.
Hot air does indeed cook the meat, so what's your problem with my
recognizing that?
It really does seem that you can't justify a "20 minute" automatic
increase in cooking time every time the door is opened, so you must
bluff and riducule. Typical of a person who thinks he's better than he
is.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

United Nations chief nuclear weapons inspector
Mohamed ElBaradei tried to cool tensions between
the U.S. and Iran Thursday. He said it would be
an act of sheer madness to attack Iran over its
refusal to freeze their nuclear program.
So it's a go.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:02:40 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:17 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nick Cramer wrote:
>>>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>>> [everything snipped]
>>>
>>>> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room
>>>> in
>>>> my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>>>
>>> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes
>>> that opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm
>>> sure Bill is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just
>>> plan for dinner being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>>
>> Ah, here's the problem: I *NEVER* said opening he door doesn't prolong
>> cooking time. I very specifically asked about the 20 minute claim.
>> I've repeated it several times.
>
>Yeah, we know. You repeated and repeated and repeated. You refuse to listen
>and listen and listen.

Say something to badck it up, and I'll listen.
>
>> Are you ready to admit the 20 minutes is only a guess, or instead
>> offer some sort of actual reason for "20 minutes"?
>
>20 minutes for whom? For the OP? Reading his post will answer THAT question.
>There are three major factors that determine how long cooking time is
>affected when a pit is opened, and you keep focusing on one: hot air.

It's hot air that cooks the meat. You know that, I know that, we all
know that.
>
>> The reason I ask this, in case you don't get it, it because this has
>> been said many times, and when you, one of the admitted gurus repeated
>> it, I wanted to know the rationale behind a fairly precise "20
>> minutes" claim.
>
>To whom was it said? The OP? What did the OP say in his post?

*YOU* said it.
"Multiply the number of times you opened by 20
minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in the pit."
UI politely asked where you got the "20 minutes" from:
"I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
feet.
I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
10 cf in under 20 minutes.
The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
minutes.
Where did the 20 minute thing come from?"
You answered with "Experience."
When I further asked about this (to a post by Brick), you jumped back
in to ignore the 20 minutes, and go off on a tangent. From there,
you've been arrogant, and insulting.
Again, if you can't answer the question about why "20 minutes", just
say so.
>
>> WHen you camne back with an attitude and insults, I
>> figured out very quickly that you don't like being questioned; sorry
>> about that.
>
>Insults, bubba? ROTFLOL!!!! If I'd called you the putrid spawn of a
>protoplasmic slut, THAT would be an insult. But I didn't.

Se what I mean?
More arrogance.
>
>> But you could have very easily said something like, "Well, 20 minutes
>> isn't exact, but openng he door will obviously add to the cooking
>> time."
>
>Instead of trying to put words into my mouth why didn't you just answer the
>OP with your opinion?

Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>
>> That would have been an excellent answer, and from what you
>> wrote above, it seems that that is the actual answer.
>> Am I right?
>
>Not for the OP. If anything, my 20 minutes was conservative.

And you still don't understand the question, or pretend not to because
you don't have an answer.
You could have let this drop, but you continue to display your
arrogance.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

United Nations chief nuclear weapons inspector
Mohamed ElBaradei tried to cool tensions between
the U.S. and Iran Thursday. He said it would be
an act of sheer madness to attack Iran over its
refusal to freeze their nuclear program.
So it's a go.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:02:40 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:17 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick Cramer wrote:
>>>>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>>>> [everything snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room
>>>>> in
>>>>> my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>>>>
>>>> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes
>>>> that opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life.
>>>> I'm sure Bill is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll
>>>> just
>>>> plan for dinner being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>>>
>>> Ah, here's the problem: I *NEVER* said opening he door doesn't
>>> prolong cooking time. I very specifically asked about the 20 minute
>>> claim.
>>> I've repeated it several times.
>>
>> Yeah, we know. You repeated and repeated and repeated. You refuse to
>> listen and listen and listen.
>
> Say something to badck it up, and I'll listen.

I already have. Sorry you didn't get it.

>>> Are you ready to admit the 20 minutes is only a guess, or instead
>>> offer some sort of actual reason for "20 minutes"?
>>
>> 20 minutes for whom? For the OP? Reading his post will answer THAT
>> question. There are three major factors that determine how long
>> cooking time is affected when a pit is opened, and you keep focusing
>> on one: hot air.
>
> It's hot air that cooks the meat. You know that, I know that, we all
> know that.

That's not the issue though, is it? The issue is: what lengthens cooking
time? Hot air is only one if the variables.

>>> The reason I ask this, in case you don't get it, it because this has
>>> been said many times, and when you, one of the admitted gurus
>>> repeated it, I wanted to know the rationale behind a fairly precise
>>> "20
>>> minutes" claim.
>>
>> To whom was it said? The OP? What did the OP say in his post?
>
> *YOU* said it.
> "Multiply the number of times you opened by 20
> minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in the pit."

YOU can't get it through your head that my answer was specific to his
question based on the information the OP gave.

> UI politely asked where you got the "20 minutes" from:
> "I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
> feet.
> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
> 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
> minutes.
> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?"
> You answered with "Experience."

Yeah, so? And where was your answer to the OP? And if you go back to the OP,
and read what he said, my answer corresponded exactly to the time frame for
his 'Q.

> When I further asked about this (to a post by Brick), you jumped back
> in to ignore the 20 minutes, and go off on a tangent.

ROTFL!!! English, please.

> From there,
> you've been arrogant, and insulting.

Not a bit. I've been restrained. There is no doubt about when I'm insulting.

> Again, if you can't answer the question about why "20 minutes", just
> say so.

But I don't have any difficulty answering the question.

>>> WHen you camne back with an attitude and insults, I
>>> figured out very quickly that you don't like being questioned; sorry
>>> about that.
>>
>> Insults, bubba? ROTFLOL!!!! If I'd called you the putrid spawn of a
>> protoplasmic slut, THAT would be an insult. But I didn't.
>
> Se what I mean?
> More arrogance.

<SNORK>

>>> But you could have very easily said something like, "Well, 20
>>> minutes isn't exact, but openng he door will obviously add to the
>>> cooking
>>> time."
>>
>> Instead of trying to put words into my mouth why didn't you just
>> answer the OP with your opinion?
>
> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.

ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The 20 minute
answer, as I've already explained a few times, was directed at the OP and
pertains to what the OP stated in his post.

>>> That would have been an excellent answer, and from what you
>>> wrote above, it seems that that is the actual answer.
>>> Am I right?
>>
>> Not for the OP. If anything, my 20 minutes was conservative.
>
> And you still don't understand the question, or pretend not to because
> you don't have an answer.

Don't blame me if you can't keep track of what's been stated, bubba.

> You could have let this drop, but you continue to display your
> arrogance.

:-) Stop posting whenever you want. I'm enjoying myself.

"Hey, mom!!!!", the son hollered as he ran full steam through the rickety
backdoor screen.
"What, son?", mom replied as she dried her hands on her apron from doing the
dishes.
"I learned a new word today", Bill exclaimed, wide-eyed.
"And what word is that"?
"Arrogance."
"Very good", said the mother, "can you use it in a sentence?"
Bill lowered his head and sadly shook his head. "No, I had to be excused to
the restroom before the teacher gave us the definition.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Probably"?

Yes, PROBABLY. Do you think that EVERY pit is exactly the same?

> Is there no answer for the 20 minute claim other than guesses?

Have you ever cooked on a covered grill or a smoker? I didn't think so.

> Guys, I'm not saying that opening the door doesn't add to the cookng
> time.

I'm saying that you are being anal about this.

> I'm specifically asking where the "20 minute" claim comes from; what
> measurements were made that says, "when you open the cooking chamber
> door, it adds 20 minutes to the cooking time".

Have you actually done any research? That's the accepted norm.
Go try it. Or go look at my somewhat humorous reply up above (My Stump's
and my Kamados).

> Since so many seem to believe it, I'm asking, "Why?"

Because we're not as anal about things as you seem to be.

> Here, I get, "probably". Elsewhere I get attitude and bullshit.

Go **** yourself. That'll probably take you about 25 seconds to get
satisfied. NOTE...I said *PROBABLY* and *with* attitude. You're supplying
the bullshit.

> If the 20 minute claim is based on guesswork and nothing else, it's
> really OK to say so. Honest. I won't think less of anyone for saying,

Ok, everybody has been lying to you. It's actually 18.56786543000198765
minutes. 20 minutes was a lie.

> "I don't know."

I knew you didn't know anything, right after your first post.

>

> THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Signature lines are supposed to be less than 5 lines.
Go look *THAT* up, too.

BOB
thinking that, once again, Nick was correct

PS, y'all think he just might be related to the one I won't mention?

On Jun 18, 4:48 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
> "Bill Funk" > wrote in message

Bob, Dave, WTF? Bill started this out very conversationally asking
questions starting a (possible) conversation, all the responses from
the get go have been VERY hostile and confrontational.

Dave, if acting hostile to you requires nothing less than cussing like
a 13 y.o., well, I'm sorry that you've lost your sense of manners or
self-respect.

A lot of posts from regulars have been this way lately and it's a
shame.

Tutall wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:48 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
>> "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>
> Bob, Dave, WTF? Bill started this out very conversationally asking
> questions starting a (possible) conversation, all the responses from
> the get go have been VERY hostile and confrontational.

> Dave, if acting hostile to you requires nothing less than cussing like
> a 13 y.o., well, I'm sorry that you've lost your sense of manners or
> self-respect.

You have your opinion, and I see it different. But where was there any
cussing on my part? The only cussing I've seen is your 'WTF' shorthand.

> A lot of posts from regulars have been this way lately and it's a
> shame.

I'm not a regular.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Tutall > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:48 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
> > "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>
> Bob, Dave, WTF? Bill started this out very conversationally asking
> questions starting a (possible) conversation, all the responses from
> the get go have been VERY hostile and confrontational.
>
> Dave, if acting hostile to you requires nothing less than cussing like
> a 13 y.o., well, I'm sorry that you've lost your sense of manners or
> self-respect.
>
> A lot of posts from regulars have been this way lately and it's a
> shame.

And yet, most of the regulars and a lot of the newbies are able to discuss
things amicably and helpfully. We can disagree agreeably. When some twit
comes along and throws shit in the game, it is to be expected that he will
get back more than he bargained for. I have no problem with that, although
I just killfile them, rather than waste my time and energy on them.

--
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 17-Jun-2007, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Nick Cramer wrote:
> > Bill Funk > wrote:
> >> [everything snipped]
>
> > Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in
> > my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>
> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes that
> opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm sure Bill is
> a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just plan for dinner being a
> bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>
> --
> Dave

I don't know what this obsession is with "20 minutes" and I don't care.
It sure as hell doesn't relate to smoke coming out of the chimney.
Would you believe I have never stopwatched my pit getting back up
to temperature? I can't imagine why ever single man that ever ran
a smoker pit didn't at least once stand there with a watch and time
how long it took. On a serious note; I have three thermometers on
my pit, one at the stack and one at either end of the cooking grate.
The most meaningful one is the large one up near the exhaust stack.
Not because it tells me the precise temperature, but ratherr whether
the temperature has gone up or down.Mainly, it tells me when I have
to add fuel and it tells me if and when the pit gets back up to temp-
erature.

In practice I don't open the pit at all until it starts running out of fuel
the first time at three hours or more. I usually catch it before it has
dropped more then twenty to thirty degrees and load some more
cold fuel on top of the fire. I don't open the smoke chamber at all.
At that point I'm guessing that it takes a good thirty minutes for
the fire to build back and get the pit back to cruising temperature.
How do I know when it gets back up there? I simply watch that
stack thermometer from my patio doors. About midway in the
cook, I open the pit to turn the meat 180°. That takes perhaps
one minute, possibly two. I never timed it. In that short time
all of the thermometers drop way down. After I close the pit
the smoke resumes almost right away, maybe a minute or
so, but that stack therm hangs in the 150° range for a long
damn time. I usually recheck it after watching TV for several
minutes to see if it is rising like it's supposed to. If it is I just
leave it alone because I know it will eventually get back where
it belongs. I don't mess with any vents in an attempt to hurry
it up. I have no idea what all contributes to that delay time
and I don't care. I just know that it's there, so I plan around
it. For sure, I don't open that pit any more then I absolutely
have too. Shit any grandmother that's done a lot of baking
will tell you that peeking isn't cooking. The first warning
anyone gets about baking is to not open that door unless
you have to.

Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

> wrote in message
news:xSIdi.1391$5h6.86@trnddc05
> On 17-Jun-2007, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
> > Nick Cramer wrote:
> > > Bill Funk > wrote:
> > > > [everything snipped]
> >
> > > Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make
> > > room in my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
> >
> > I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes
> > that opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life.
> > I'm sure Bill is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll
> > just plan for dinner being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
> >
> > --
> > Dave
>
> I don't know what this obsession is with "20 minutes" and I don't
> care.
> It sure as hell doesn't relate to smoke coming out of the chimney.
> Would you believe I have never stopwatched my pit getting back up
> to temperature? I can't imagine why ever single man that ever ran
> a smoker pit didn't at least once stand there with a watch and time
> how long it took.

LOL. It's not the same thing being discussed here, but I just found a
logging program that runs with my "Stoker".
Next time I fire up more than one smoker, I just might play with the program
and open and close the lid of one of them and log just how long it takes.
Of course, it might not work without the fan running. With the Stoker's
fan, I can completely recover in less than 5 minutes (with a load of meat).
That's one of the reasons that I bought the Stoker. That, and the fact that
I can fully load the four 20" X 20" racks on the Stump's with cold meat and
have the pit temp back up in short order. No, I haven't timed it.

One more thought on this...if "It's done when it's done" is true, then how
do we actually know the amount of time that open the door (or lid) adds to
the time? I've heard the 20 minute thing from many different sources, even
before I heard of cooking BBQ via the internet. ;-)

BOB
going to bed now

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
news
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:18:10 -0600, "Shawn"
> > wrote:
>
>>Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:08:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate
>>>>>>>>>> temp than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>>>>>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover
>>>>>>>>>> temps from opening the door.
>>>>>>>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot
>>snip
>>
>>You are also not adressing one other issue;
>>
>>If you are opening the box every 20-30 minutes, you are retarding the
>>meats
>>temprature rise as well as allowing cold air into the chamber. Not only
>>do
>>you have to re-heat the interior of the smoke chamber, the meat termds to
>>rest at temp (or drop a few degrees). This adds to the cook time
>>measurably.
>>
>>Yes, it will not take 20 minutes to recover the heat in the smoker; but it
>>will probably take that long before the meat's temp starts to rise again.
>>
>
> "Probably"?
> Is there no answer for the 20 minute claim other than guesses?
> Guys, I'm not saying that opening the door doesn't add to the cookng
> time.
> I'm specifically asking where the "20 minute" claim comes from; what
> measurements were made that says, "when you open the cooking chamber
> door, it adds 20 minutes to the cooking time".
> Since so many seem to believe it, I'm asking, "Why?"
> Here, I get, "probably". Elsewhere I get attitude and bullshit.
> If the 20 minute claim is based on guesswork and nothing else, it's
> really OK to say so. Honest. I won't think less of anyone for saying,
> "I don't know."

Depends I guess (which in some circles means probably)
This seemed to have evolved into an academic discussion.

When the outside temp is 30 F definitely; add 20 or more minutes; when it's
110, I can say for certain it will not.
Shawn (who's smoker can cook along at 135 all summer long without fuel)

On Jun 18, 8:10 pm, Nick Cramer > wrote:
> Tutall > wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 4:48 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
> > > "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>
> > Bob, Dave, WTF? Bill started this out very conversationally asking
> > questions starting a (possible) conversation, all the responses from
> > the get go have been VERY hostile and confrontational.
>
> > Dave, if acting hostile to you requires nothing less than cussing like
> > a 13 y.o., well, I'm sorry that you've lost your sense of manners or
> > self-respect.
>
> > A lot of posts from regulars have been this way lately and it's a
> > shame.
>
> And yet, most of the regulars and a lot of the newbies are able to discuss
> things amicably and helpfully.


Bill was discussing things amicably. Read the thread again. Then tell
me who was acting out of line. You'd like it to be Bill and not Dave I
know. Hell, I'd prefer neither of them. Just read what was actually
written instead of leaping to conclusions.

On Jun 18, 7:02 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> Tutall wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 4:48 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
> >> "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>
> > Bob, Dave, WTF? Bill started this out very conversationally asking
> > questions starting a (possible) conversation, all the responses from
> > the get go have been VERY hostile and confrontational.
> > Dave, if acting hostile to you requires nothing less than cussing like
> > a 13 y.o., well, I'm sorry that you've lost your sense of manners or
> > self-respect.
>
> You have your opinion, and I see it different. But where was there any
> cussing on my part? The only cussing I've seen is your 'WTF' shorthand.

Remember this?

>> Insults, bubba? ROTFLOL!!!! If I'd called you the putrid spawn of a
>> protoplasmic slut, THAT would be an insult. But I didn't.

I'm sorry, you're quite correct if you don't consider slut cursing.
You were simply egregiously insulting, my bad.
Though *slut*, if you asked your grandma she'd say *slut* is cussing.
Course my grandma thought that shut-up was a curse word.

> > A lot of posts from regulars have been this way lately and it's a
> > shame.
>
> I'm not a regular.

Ah, well that excuses everything now doesn't it?

On 19 Jun 2007 03:10:29 GMT, Nick Cramer >
wrote:

>Tutall > wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 4:48 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
>> > "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>>
>> Bob, Dave, WTF? Bill started this out very conversationally asking
>> questions starting a (possible) conversation, all the responses from
>> the get go have been VERY hostile and confrontational.
>>
>> Dave, if acting hostile to you requires nothing less than cussing like
>> a 13 y.o., well, I'm sorry that you've lost your sense of manners or
>> self-respect.
>>
>> A lot of posts from regulars have been this way lately and it's a
>> shame.
>
>And yet, most of the regulars and a lot of the newbies are able to discuss
>things amicably and helpfully. We can disagree agreeably. When some twit
>comes along and throws shit in the game, it is to be expected that he will
>get back more than he bargained for. I have no problem with that, although
>I just killfile them, rather than waste my time and energy on them.

You will remember (and if you don't, re-read the thread), it was me
who offered to agree to disagree.
It was Dave who decided to continue, and, indeed, escalate.
If you're going to contribute, get it right.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Donald Trump agreed Friday to executive produce
a new show for Fox called Lady or a Tramp, in
which wild party girls compete to become refined
society ladies. He said he may or may not host
it. They're waiting to see if Bill Clinton's
available.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:24:42 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

....
>> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The 20 minute
>answer, as I've already explained a few times, was directed at the OP and
>pertains to what the OP stated in his post.

So, you recognize that it was YOU who brought it up.
That's good.
But, as I also said, in my original question to you in this thread:

"I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true."

So, as you will see (but maybe not, given your inability to read
well), I we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply,
but to the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been
mentioned.
Is this all just a misunderstanding, based on your lack of reading
compehension? If it is, just say so.
This would be an excellent way to end ths all now.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Donald Trump agreed Friday to executive produce
a new show for Fox called Lady or a Tramp, in
which wild party girls compete to become refined
society ladies. He said he may or may not host
it. They're waiting to see if Bill Clinton's
available.

Tutall wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:02 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>> Tutall wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 4:48 pm, " BOB" > wrote:
>>>> "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Bob, Dave, WTF? Bill started this out very conversationally asking
>>> questions starting a (possible) conversation, all the responses from
>>> the get go have been VERY hostile and confrontational.
>>> Dave, if acting hostile to you requires nothing less than cussing
>>> like a 13 y.o., well, I'm sorry that you've lost your sense of
>>> manners or self-respect.
>>
>> You have your opinion, and I see it different. But where was there
>> any cussing on my part? The only cussing I've seen is your 'WTF'
>> shorthand.
>
> Remember this?
>
>>> Insults, bubba? ROTFLOL!!!! If I'd called you the putrid spawn of a
>>> protoplasmic slut, THAT would be an insult. But I didn't.

That's cussing? And it was said AS AN EXAMPLE of what an insult was. It
wasn't said about Bill.
>
> I'm sorry, you're quite correct if you don't consider slut cursing.
> You were simply egregiously insulting, my bad.
> Though *slut*, if you asked your grandma she'd say *slut* is cussing.
> Course my grandma thought that shut-up was a curse word.

Oh, give it a rest. You're just being strange.

>>> A lot of posts from regulars have been this way lately and it's a
>>> shame.
>>
>> I'm not a regular.
>
> Ah, well that excuses everything now doesn't it?

Expalins what? You said I was a regular. I'm not. Try to grow up a bit.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:24:42 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> ...
>>> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The
>> 20 minute answer, as I've already explained a few times, was
>> directed at the OP and pertains to what the OP stated in his post.
>
> So, you recognize that it was YOU who brought it up.
> That's good.

Huh???? I never said I didn't provide the OP with my answer.

> But, as I also said, in my original question to you in this thread:
>
> "I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true."
>
> So, as you will see (but maybe not, given your inability to read
> well), I we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply,
> but to the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been
> mentioned.

Yet you said it in the context of MY specific answer. MY answer was directed
at the specific OP and his question.

> Is this all just a misunderstanding, based on your lack of reading
> compehension? If it is, just say so.

If there is any misunderstanding it is from you. If you are claiming, now,
that you were not talking about MY specific reply to the OP, just say so.
Oh, you just did when you said this above: "I we not referring specifically
to 20 minutes in your reply, but to the many other times this same 20 minute
figure has been mentioned."

If you didn't want to be misunderstood, a seperate thread would have helped.
A thread labeled: "How long is cooking time increased when you open a pit?"
or "Is 20 minutes a myth?" or "Why does it extend cooking time 20 minutes
when a pit is opened?"

> This would be an excellent way to end ths all now.

I guess we'll see. Ta Ta For Now.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Shawn" wrote:
>
> When the outside temp is 30 F definitely; add 20 or more minutes; when
> it's 110, I can say for certain it will not.
> Shawn (who's smoker can cook along at 135 all summer long without fuel)

Lucky you! I can't get mine--without fuel--down to below 160 here in Lake
Havasu, AZ.



--
Mike

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:17 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Nick Cramer wrote:
>>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>> [everything snipped]
>>
>>> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room
>>> in my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>>
>> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes
>> that opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm
>> sure Bill is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just
>> plan for dinner being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>
> Ah, here's the problem: I *NEVER* said opening he door doesn't prolong
> cooking time. I very specifically asked about the 20 minute claim.
> I've repeated it several times.
> Are you ready to admit the 20 minutes is only a guess, or instead
> offer some sort of actual reason for "20 minutes"?
> The reason I ask this, in case you don't get it, it because this has
> been said many times, and when you, one of the admitted gurus repeated
> it, I wanted to know the rationale behind a fairly precise "20
> minutes" claim. WHen you camne back with an attitude and insults, I
> figured out very quickly that you don't like being questioned; sorry
> about that.
> But you could have very easily said something like, "Well, 20 minutes
> isn't exact, but openng he door will obviously add to the cooking
> time." That would have been an excellent answer, and from what you
> wrote above, it seems that that is the actual answer.
> Am I right?

IIRC my first ECB instruction manual stated that every peek could add "up to
15 minutes of cooking time".

Shit, just using an ECB adds 2 hours to your cook time. <G>

It's not chiseled in stone anywhere, Bill. Might be 20 might be ten.
Ambient temp rules in this situation. There ain't really much point in
peekin' all the time, 'cept in my case I get to drink more beer before the
food gets done.

Bluto©

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:52:08 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:24:42 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The
>>> 20 minute answer, as I've already explained a few times, was
>>> directed at the OP and pertains to what the OP stated in his post.
>>
>> So, you recognize that it was YOU who brought it up.
>> That's good.
>
>Huh???? I never said I didn't provide the OP with my answer.
>
>> But, as I also said, in my original question to you in this thread:
>>
>> "I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true."
>>
>> So, as you will see (but maybe not, given your inability to read
>> well), I we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply,
>> but to the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been
>> mentioned.
>
>Yet you said it in the context of MY specific answer. MY answer was directed
>at the specific OP and his question.

No, I never said that at all.
Go back and re-read my original post to you.
>
>> Is this all just a misunderstanding, based on your lack of reading
>> compehension? If it is, just say so.
>
>If there is any misunderstanding it is from you. If you are claiming, now,
>that you were not talking about MY specific reply to the OP, just say so.
>Oh, you just did when you said this above: "I we not referring specifically
>to 20 minutes in your reply, but to the many other times this same 20 minute
>figure has been mentioned."

Yes, don't you understand that?
I' not referring to your 20 minute response to the OP in referrence to
*his* situation, but to the many times I've seen the truism that every
time yiou open the door, it adds 20 minutes to the cooking time.
I've been very clear about this, and you keep missing it.
>
>If you didn't want to be misunderstood, a seperate thread would have helped.
>A thread labeled: "How long is cooking time increased when you open a pit?"
>or "Is 20 minutes a myth?" or "Why does it extend cooking time 20 minutes
>when a pit is opened?"

It takes a seperate thread?
Ok, just pretend it was a seperate thread.
I didn't know you can't handle more thna one thought at a t ime.
>
>> This would be an excellent way to end ths all now.
>
>I guess we'll see. Ta Ta For Now.

It's really up to you.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Donald Trump agreed Friday to executive produce
a new show for Fox called Lady or a Tramp, in
which wild party girls compete to become refined
society ladies. He said he may or may not host
it. They're waiting to see if Bill Clinton's
available.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:52:08 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:24:42 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The
>>>> 20 minute answer, as I've already explained a few times, was
>>>> directed at the OP and pertains to what the OP stated in his post.
>>>
>>> So, you recognize that it was YOU who brought it up.
>>> That's good.
>>
>> Huh???? I never said I didn't provide the OP with my answer.
>>
>>> But, as I also said, in my original question to you in this thread:
>>>
>>> "I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true."
>>>
>>> So, as you will see (but maybe not, given your inability to read
>>> well), I we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply,
>>> but to the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been
>>> mentioned.
>>
>> Yet you said it in the context of MY specific answer. MY answer was
>> directed at the specific OP and his question.
>
> No, I never said that at all.
> Go back and re-read my original post to you.

I have. You tagged on to an existing thread and based your question on my
reply to the OP. So, you need to re-read the thread and attempt to get the
context correct.

>>
>>> Is this all just a misunderstanding, based on your lack of reading
>>> compehension? If it is, just say so.
>>
>> If there is any misunderstanding it is from you. If you are
>> claiming, now, that you were not talking about MY specific reply to
>> the OP, just say so. Oh, you just did when you said this above: "I
>> we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply, but to
>> the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been mentioned."
>
> Yes, don't you understand that?
> I' not referring to your 20 minute response to the OP in referrence to
> *his* situation, but to the many times I've seen the truism that every
> time yiou open the door, it adds 20 minutes to the cooking time.
> I've been very clear about this, and you keep missing it.

I don't keep missing anything. I won't let you redirect the context.

>> If you didn't want to be misunderstood, a seperate thread would have
>> helped. A thread labeled: "How long is cooking time increased when
>> you open a pit?" or "Is 20 minutes a myth?" or "Why does it extend
>> cooking time 20 minutes when a pit is opened?"
>
> It takes a seperate thread?

It does if you are attempting to redirect the intent of my reply into a
general discussion.

> Ok, just pretend it was a seperate thread.
> I didn't know you can't handle more thna one thought at a t ime.

It is *your* job to be specific about whatever context you wish to convey.
It is not my job to guess that you are barging into a conversation and
redirecting my reply into a whole different conversation.

>>> This would be an excellent way to end ths all now.
>>
>> I guess we'll see. Ta Ta For Now.
>
> It's really up to you.

If you wish to stop, then you'll stop. If you wish to continue, you'll do
so. Whatever.

<Stretch> <Yawn>.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On 19-Jun-2007, "Tinman" > wrote:

> "Shawn" wrote:
> >
> > When the outside temp is 30 F definitely; add 20 or more minutes; when
> > it's 110, I can say for certain it will not.
> > Shawn (who's smoker can cook along at 135 all summer long without fuel)
>
> Lucky you! I can't get mine--without fuel--down to below 160 here in Lake
> Havasu, AZ.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike

Patience Mike. Summer will be here next month and you'll be able to cook
without fuel during the daylight hours. My bride and I were in Phoenix the
second day after we were married and she went into heat prostration. It
was 114°F that day and the Harley wasn't all that well air conditioned. We
learned to wear longsleeved flannel shirts and soak them with water. At
60 MPH, we about froze for the first few miles.

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Tutall > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 8:10 pm, Nick Cramer > wrote:
> > Tutall > wrote:
> > > > "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> > [ . . . ]
> > And yet, most of the regulars and a lot of the newbies are able to
> > discuss things amicably and helpfully.
>
> Bill was discussing things amicably. Read the thread again. Then tell
> me who was acting out of line. You'd like it to be Bill and not Dave I
> know. Hell, I'd prefer neither of them. Just read what was actually
> written instead of leaping to conclusions.

Tut tut, Mr. Tutall. Please read MY post again. I made no inference as to
who was acting out of line, nor did I leap to any conclusions. Thank you.

--
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 Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:34:22 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:52:08 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:24:42 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The
>>>>> 20 minute answer, as I've already explained a few times, was
>>>>> directed at the OP and pertains to what the OP stated in his post.
>>>>
>>>> So, you recognize that it was YOU who brought it up.
>>>> That's good.
>>>
>>> Huh???? I never said I didn't provide the OP with my answer.
>>>
>>>> But, as I also said, in my original question to you in this thread:
>>>>
>>>> "I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true."
>>>>
>>>> So, as you will see (but maybe not, given your inability to read
>>>> well), I we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply,
>>>> but to the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been
>>>> mentioned.
>>>
>>> Yet you said it in the context of MY specific answer. MY answer was
>>> directed at the specific OP and his question.
>>
>> No, I never said that at all.
>> Go back and re-read my original post to you.
>
>I have. You tagged on to an existing thread and based your question on my
>reply to the OP. So, you need to re-read the thread and attempt to get the
>context correct.

Dave, I'm very sorry you just can't get your mind around the concept
of a seperate question asked within a thread.
When it comes to BBQ, it'as obvious you know your stuff.
But maybe you should just recognize your limitiations when it comes to
reading.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Bill Clinton agreed Monday to help Hillary
campaign in Iowa. He's had a lot of success
there before. This time his task is to warn
Iowans about the dangers of the John Edwards
health care plan and not about the presence
of a pool table in their community.

Bill Funk wrote:

> Dave, I'm very sorry you just can't get your mind around the concept
> of a seperate question asked within a thread.

I understand the concept just fine, thank you. Perhaps you should look up
the word "context" if you have access to a dictionary, and learn how to
frame a seperate question within a thread so it appears to be a seperate
question.

> When it comes to BBQ, it'as obvious you know your stuff.

No, I don't.

> But maybe you should just recognize....

Back atcha, bubba. Bwahahahahaha.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Funk wrote:


Just checked back to see what the score is. How many gallons have you guys
peed so far?

Bluto© wrote:
>
> IIRC my first ECB instruction manual stated that every peek could add
> "up to 15 minutes of cooking time".
>
> Shit, just using an ECB adds 2 hours to your cook time. <G>

heh. Same with a Chargriller Smokin' Pro. That slide-out tray for the
firebox is handy, but boy does it leak air.

> It's not chiseled in stone anywhere, Bill. Might be 20 might be ten.
> Ambient temp rules in this situation. There ain't really much point
> in peekin' all the time, 'cept in my case I get to drink more beer
> before the food gets done.
>

There is that.


--
EZ
Traeger BBQ075 "Texas"
CharGriller Smokin Pro
Great Outdoors Smoky Mountain Wide Body
CharmGlow 3-burner All-Stainless Gas Grill
Weber Kettle One-Touch Silver 22-1/2"
Weber Kettle Smoky Joe Silver 14-1/2"

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the ribs
>>>> with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so they had
>>>> equal time close to the fire box.
>>>
>>> Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount of
>>> cooking time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of times
>>> you opened by 20 minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in
>>> the pit.
>>
>> I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
>> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
>> feet.
>> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
>> 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
>> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
>> minutes.
>> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?
>
> Experience.
>

So you can't explain why?

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Nick Cramer wrote:
>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>> [everything snipped]
>
>> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in
>> my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>
> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes that
> opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm sure Bill
> is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just plan for dinner
> being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>

He never said it wouldn't prolong cooking time, he asked you why 20 minutes.
Your answer was because you said so. You can follow a thread can't you?
Go back and tell us were he said it wouldn't prolong cooking time...

PLEASE!

Al Cambell wrote:

A troll's worth of nutin'

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:02:40 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:17 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nick Cramer wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>>>>> [everything snipped]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes
>>>>> that opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life.
>>>>> I'm sure Bill is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll
>>>>> just
>>>>> plan for dinner being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>>>>
>>>> Ah, here's the problem: I *NEVER* said opening he door doesn't
>>>> prolong cooking time. I very specifically asked about the 20 minute
>>>> claim.
>>>> I've repeated it several times.
>>>
>>> Yeah, we know. You repeated and repeated and repeated. You refuse to
>>> listen and listen and listen.
>>
>> Say something to badck it up, and I'll listen.
>
> I already have. Sorry you didn't get it.
>
>>>> Are you ready to admit the 20 minutes is only a guess, or instead
>>>> offer some sort of actual reason for "20 minutes"?
>>>
>>> 20 minutes for whom? For the OP? Reading his post will answer THAT
>>> question. There are three major factors that determine how long
>>> cooking time is affected when a pit is opened, and you keep focusing
>>> on one: hot air.
>>
>> It's hot air that cooks the meat. You know that, I know that, we all
>> know that.
>
> That's not the issue though, is it? The issue is: what lengthens cooking
> time? Hot air is only one if the variables.
>
>>>> The reason I ask this, in case you don't get it, it because this has
>>>> been said many times, and when you, one of the admitted gurus
>>>> repeated it, I wanted to know the rationale behind a fairly precise
>>>> "20
>>>> minutes" claim.
>>>
>>> To whom was it said? The OP? What did the OP say in his post?
>>
>> *YOU* said it.
>> "Multiply the number of times you opened by 20
>> minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in the pit."
>
> YOU can't get it through your head that my answer was specific to his
> question based on the information the OP gave.
>
>> UI politely asked where you got the "20 minutes" from:
>> "I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
>> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
>> feet.
>> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
>> 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
>> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
>> minutes.
>> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?"
>> You answered with "Experience."
>
> Yeah, so? And where was your answer to the OP? And if you go back to the
> OP, and read what he said, my answer corresponded exactly to the time
> frame for his 'Q.
>
>> When I further asked about this (to a post by Brick), you jumped back
>> in to ignore the 20 minutes, and go off on a tangent.
>
> ROTFL!!! English, please.
>
>> From there,
>> you've been arrogant, and insulting.
>
> Not a bit. I've been restrained. There is no doubt about when I'm
> insulting.
>
>> Again, if you can't answer the question about why "20 minutes", just
>> say so.
>
> But I don't have any difficulty answering the question.
>
>>>> WHen you camne back with an attitude and insults, I
>>>> figured out very quickly that you don't like being questioned; sorry
>>>> about that.
>>>
>>> Insults, bubba? ROTFLOL!!!! If I'd called you the putrid spawn of a
>>> protoplasmic slut, THAT would be an insult. But I didn't.
>>
>> Se what I mean?
>> More arrogance.
>
> <SNORK>
>
>>>> But you could have very easily said something like, "Well, 20
>>>> minutes isn't exact, but openng he door will obviously add to the
>>>> cooking
>>>> time."
>>>
>>> Instead of trying to put words into my mouth why didn't you just
>>> answer the OP with your opinion?
>>
>> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The 20
> minute answer, as I've already explained a few times, was directed at the
> OP and pertains to what the OP stated in his post.
>
>>>> That would have been an excellent answer, and from what you
>>>> wrote above, it seems that that is the actual answer.
>>>> Am I right?
>>>
>>> Not for the OP. If anything, my 20 minutes was conservative.
>>
>> And you still don't understand the question, or pretend not to because
>> you don't have an answer.
>
> Don't blame me if you can't keep track of what's been stated, bubba.
>
>> You could have let this drop, but you continue to display your
>> arrogance.
>
> :-) Stop posting whenever you want. I'm enjoying myself.
>
> "Hey, mom!!!!", the son hollered as he ran full steam through the rickety
> backdoor screen.
> "What, son?", mom replied as she dried her hands on her apron from doing
> the dishes.
> "I learned a new word today", Bill exclaimed, wide-eyed.
> "And what word is that"?
> "Arrogance."
> "Very good", said the mother, "can you use it in a sentence?"
> Bill lowered his head and sadly shook his head. "No, I had to be excused
> to the restroom before the teacher gave us the definition.
>

I have heard that same story only it was about someone named Dave that had a
BBQ joint that was closed down because he missed the lesson on washing his
hands.

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:52:08 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:24:42 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Because it was you who brought up "20 minutes", not the OP.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO!!!! Please, now... you're just embarrasing yourself. The
>>>>> 20 minute answer, as I've already explained a few times, was
>>>>> directed at the OP and pertains to what the OP stated in his post.
>>>>
>>>> So, you recognize that it was YOU who brought it up.
>>>> That's good.
>>>
>>> Huh???? I never said I didn't provide the OP with my answer.
>>>
>>>> But, as I also said, in my original question to you in this thread:
>>>>
>>>> "I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true."
>>>>
>>>> So, as you will see (but maybe not, given your inability to read
>>>> well), I we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply,
>>>> but to the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been
>>>> mentioned.
>>>
>>> Yet you said it in the context of MY specific answer. MY answer was
>>> directed at the specific OP and his question.
>>
>> No, I never said that at all.
>> Go back and re-read my original post to you.
>
> I have. You tagged on to an existing thread and based your question on my
> reply to the OP. So, you need to re-read the thread and attempt to get the
> context correct.
>
>>>
>>>> Is this all just a misunderstanding, based on your lack of reading
>>>> compehension? If it is, just say so.
>>>
>>> If there is any misunderstanding it is from you. If you are
>>> claiming, now, that you were not talking about MY specific reply to
>>> the OP, just say so. Oh, you just did when you said this above: "I
>>> we not referring specifically to 20 minutes in your reply, but to
>>> the many other times this same 20 minute figure has been mentioned."
>>
>> Yes, don't you understand that?
>> I' not referring to your 20 minute response to the OP in referrence to
>> *his* situation, but to the many times I've seen the truism that every
>> time yiou open the door, it adds 20 minutes to the cooking time.
>> I've been very clear about this, and you keep missing it.
>
> I don't keep missing anything. I won't let you redirect the context.
>
>>> If you didn't want to be misunderstood, a seperate thread would have
>>> helped. A thread labeled: "How long is cooking time increased when
>>> you open a pit?" or "Is 20 minutes a myth?" or "Why does it extend
>>> cooking time 20 minutes when a pit is opened?"
>>
>> It takes a seperate thread?
>
> It does if you are attempting to redirect the intent of my reply into a
> general discussion.
>
>> Ok, just pretend it was a seperate thread.
>> I didn't know you can't handle more thna one thought at a t ime.
>
> It is *your* job to be specific about whatever context you wish to convey.
> It is not my job to guess that you are barging into a conversation and
> redirecting my reply into a whole different conversation.
>
>>>> This would be an excellent way to end ths all now.
>>>
>>> I guess we'll see. Ta Ta For Now.
>>
>> It's really up to you.
>
> If you wish to stop, then you'll stop. If you wish to continue, you'll do
> so. Whatever.
>
> <Stretch> <Yawn>.
He made a fool of you Dave. You need a good stretch and sleep

Al Cambell wrote:

a garbled buncha nutin'

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

BOB wrote:

> "Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> news
>>
>> "Probably"?
>
> Yes, PROBABLY. Do you think that EVERY pit is exactly the same?
>
>> Is there no answer for the 20 minute claim other than guesses?
>
> Have you ever cooked on a covered grill or a smoker? I didn't think so.
>
>> Guys, I'm not saying that opening the door doesn't add to the cookng
>> time.
>
> I'm saying that you are being anal about this.
>
>> I'm specifically asking where the "20 minute" claim comes from; what
>> measurements were made that says, "when you open the cooking chamber
>> door, it adds 20 minutes to the cooking time".
>
> Have you actually done any research? That's the accepted norm.
> Go try it. Or go look at my somewhat humorous reply up above (My Stump's
> and my Kamados).
>
>> Since so many seem to believe it, I'm asking, "Why?"
>
> Because we're not as anal about things as you seem to be.
>
>> Here, I get, "probably". Elsewhere I get attitude and bullshit.
>
> Go **** yourself. That'll probably take you about 25 seconds to get
> satisfied. NOTE...I said *PROBABLY* and *with* attitude. You're
> supplying the bullshit.
>
>> If the 20 minute claim is based on guesswork and nothing else, it's
>> really OK to say so. Honest. I won't think less of anyone for saying,
>
> Ok, everybody has been lying to you. It's actually 18.56786543000198765
> minutes. 20 minutes was a lie.
>
>> "I don't know."
>
> I knew you didn't know anything, right after your first post.
>
>>
>
>> THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
>
> Signature lines are supposed to be less than 5 lines.
> Go look *THAT* up, too.

Where does it say 5 lines or less?

Nick Cramer wrote:

> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>> Nick Cramer wrote:
>> > Bill Funk > wrote:
>> >> [everything snipped]
>> > Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in
>> > my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>>
>> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes that
>> opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm sure Bill
>> is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just plan for dinner
>> being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>
> Too late, Dave. You're a better man than I am Gunga Bugg!
>

No, its needle dick, the Bugg ****er!

"Al Cambell" > wrote in message
news
>
> Where does it say 5 lines or less?

Wooohooo, AFB has a new troll.

How much longer to the first killfile post?

Graeme...BTW. Do you live in the Greatest Country in the World?

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Al Cambell wrote:

He never said it wouldn't prolong cooking time, he asked you why 20 minutes.
Your answer was because you said so.**You*can*follow*a*thread*can't*you?*
Go back and tell us were he said it wouldn't prolong cooking time...

PLEASE!
>
> a garbled buncha nutin'

I'm troll because you are wrong and now you won't back it up.

WHERE DID HE SAY IT WOULDN'T PROLONG COOKING TIME?

Garble something out bug boy!

Graeme...in London wrote:

>
> "Al Cambell" > wrote in message
> news
>>
>> Where does it say 5 lines or less?
>
> Wooohooo, AFB has a new troll.
>
> How much longer to the first killfile post?
>
> Graeme...BTW. Do you live in the Greatest Country in the World?

Sure, I'm bad toothed Brit just like you.

"Al Cambell" > wrote in message
...
> Graeme...in London wrote:
>
> >
> > "Al Cambell" > wrote in message
> > news
> >>
> >> Where does it say 5 lines or less?
> >
> > Wooohooo, AFB has a new troll.
> >
> > How much longer to the first killfile post?
> >
> > Graeme...BTW. Do you live in the Greatest Country in the World?
>
> Sure, I'm bad toothed Brit just like you.

Sorry my friend, if you're going to troll this group, you must consider your
grammar.

We're a wee bit pernickety about such things here, and a faux pas such as
yours simply will not be tolerated by the higher echelons of this forum.

You have been warned.

Graeme....what makes you think I'm a Brit??

Graeme...in London wrote:

>
> "Al Cambell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Graeme...in London wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Al Cambell" > wrote in message
>> > news >> >>
>> >> Where does it say 5 lines or less?
>> >
>> > Wooohooo, AFB has a new troll.
>> >
>> > How much longer to the first killfile post?
>> >
>> > Graeme...BTW. Do you live in the Greatest Country in the World?
>>
>> Sure, I'm bad toothed Brit just like you.
>
> Sorry my friend, if you're going to troll this group, you must consider
> your grammar.
>
> We're a wee bit pernickety about such things here, and a faux pas such as
> yours simply will not be tolerated by the higher echelons of this forum.
>
> You have been warned.
>
> Graeme....what makes you think I'm a Brit??

Sorry.

Someone from England that has tooth decay.

Is that better?

True, you act a lot more Intelligent than most Brits.

Guess its the in London thing?

Graeme...in London wrote:

> Sorry my friend, if you're going to troll this group, you must
> consider your grammar.
>
> We're a wee bit pernickety about such things here, and a faux pas
> such as yours simply will not be tolerated by the higher echelons of
> this forum.
>
> You have been warned.

Ignore him, Graeme. Do a google on the Wenatchee Prozac Doctor. That is
'Al'. He has been attempting to harrass me, under various aliases, ever
since the police had to remove him from our restaurant for bizarre and
disruptive behavior. He has even gone so far as to post a series of negative
reviews, many of which were removed by the appropriate website admins. The
guy thinks he's clever, but is simply a sad and seriously sick loon.

I'll be stopping by your office later this afternoon to say 'hi', 'Al'.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com