Zz Yzx wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I'm about to embark a WSM run of 4 pork butts in my WSM. I've decided
> to try sand in the water tray as recommended by so many here. I've
> got a couple of questions:
>
> 1. How much sand? Fill it all the way? 1/2? 3/4?
> 2. What will be the effect on the pit, how long to come up to
> cooking temp, etc.?
>
> Any advice or comments appreciated.
>
> as always, thanks a heap,
>
> -Zz
>
> PS: Anybody tried lava rock instead of sand?


Zz - I hope all this rukus helped you decide :-)

Fill the pan with playground quality sand (3/4), put a couple of sheets
of heavy duty foil over the top, and have fun smoking (just don't tell mom).

Bob

"Brick" > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> I just returned last Sunday from the HTH held at Milan, GA by BobInGa
> and Ginger the BBQ girl. Half a hog was cooked about 20 inches or so
> from hot coals. No water pan, sand pan or any other kind of baffle. When
> it was done, Bob and Ginger stripped all of meat from the carcass and
> mixed it together with some light vinegar based sauce. The sauce was not
> evident in the plated result. If there's better BBQ someplace and you can
> get to it, do it. Neither the hog nor the brisket tasted like smoke. There
> was
> no smoke ring on the hog when it was cut up and none was needed. I tend
> to season my own BBQ at the table, but not that 'Q'. I guess quality BBQ
> is in the eye of the beholder.

No smoke ring? No heavy smoke taste? Not slathered in sauce? Egads....that
must have been horrible....certainly not good Que.....the shame of it all!

Quick, box up the leftovers and send them to me for proper disposal !!!!!!







OH.....TFM® was in residence.....never mind.... 10lbs of sweet meat wouldn't
even fill up his left iris, much less allow leftovers!

KW

KW wrote:
> "Brick" > wrote in message
> ster.com...
>>
>> I just returned last Sunday from the HTH held at Milan, GA by BobInGa
>> and Ginger the BBQ girl. Half a hog was cooked about 20 inches or so
>> from hot coals. No water pan, sand pan or any other kind of baffle.
>> When it was done, Bob and Ginger stripped all of meat from the
>> carcass and mixed it together with some light vinegar based sauce.
>> The sauce was not evident in the plated result. If there's better
>> BBQ someplace and you can get to it, do it. Neither the hog nor the
>> brisket tasted like smoke. There was
>> no smoke ring on the hog when it was cut up and none was needed. I
>> tend to season my own BBQ at the table, but not that 'Q'. I guess quality
>> BBQ is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> No smoke ring? No heavy smoke taste? Not slathered in sauce? Egads....that
> must have been horrible....certainly not good
> Que.....the shame of it all!

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

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...

>> No smoke ring? No heavy smoke taste? Not slathered in sauce?
>> Egads....that must have been horrible....certainly not good
>> Que.....the shame of it all!
>
> LOL!!! Just the typical NC style bbq.
> --

When NC style is done right, the pulled pork has a buttery taste
to it. You'd swear it was drizzled in butter. It doesn't happen
all the time when I do it, but when it "clicks," even the bride
tells me how good it is.

--
Nonny

Americans worry whether the rest of the world
considers us dumb, so we go to the polls and
remove all doubt.

On 29-Jun-2009, "KW" > wrote:

> "Brick" > wrote in message
> ster.com...
> >
> > I just returned last Sunday from the HTH held at Milan, GA by BobInGa
> > and Ginger the BBQ girl. Half a hog was cooked about 20 inches or so
> > from hot coals. No water pan, sand pan or any other kind of baffle.
> > When
> > it was done, Bob and Ginger stripped all of meat from the carcass and
> > mixed it together with some light vinegar based sauce. The sauce was
> > not
> > evident in the plated result. If there's better BBQ someplace and you
> > can
> > get to it, do it. Neither the hog nor the brisket tasted like smoke.
> > There
> > was
> > no smoke ring on the hog when it was cut up and none was needed. I tend
> > to season my own BBQ at the table, but not that 'Q'. I guess quality
> > BBQ
> > is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> No smoke ring? No heavy smoke taste? Not slathered in sauce?
> Egads....that
> must have been horrible....certainly not good Que.....the shame of it
> all!
>
> Quick, box up the leftovers and send them to me for proper disposal
> !!!!!!>
>
> OH.....TFM® was in residence.....never mind.... 10lbs of sweet meat
> wouldn't
> even fill up his left iris, much less allow leftovers!
>
> KW

Big Jim already posted how the meat was prepped for eating. But I can
say that it was the whole hog, not just a butt or picnic or loin or ribs.
It
was in fact the whole hog mixed together in one not so big pile. It was
a small hog after all. There were no leftovers, but it wasn't the fatman's
fault. He may have not even got a serving. He may have been snoozing
when it was served. And oh yeh, it was a whole hog, butterflied and
cooked bone side down until done. No smoke. The heat was supplied
by burned down wood from another fireplace. The pit used was constructed
to resemble the properties of a hole in the ground. Theres no fire door
or vents to adjust. The hog was suspended over the coals on a few
pieces of rebar. It was turned only once to crisp up the skin. It was a
hot day in June and the temperature in the pithouse was probably 120°f
or better. TFM® took some readings with an IR thermometer. Maybe
he'll remember what they were.

All you guys struggling to get your 'Q' right, I wish you luck. Once
you've had the best you truly screwed.

I have to confess that the best 'Q' I ever had was the one I just ate.
I said that in Houston, I said that in Kansas City, I said that in my
own back yard. The best thing is, I remember the 'Q' I had in Houston
and I remember the 'Q' I had in Kansas City and I remember the 'Q'
I had at Big Jim's and I'll always remember the 'Q' I had at Milan, GA.
But I had 'Q' a bunch of other places that I don't remember.

--
Brick said that

Denny Wheeler wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:11:34 -0400, Bob Muncie >
> wrote:
>
>> Denny Wheeler wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Duwop >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's an idea, read Nonny's and Denny's posts, they explained it
>>>> pretty well between em.
>>> Thanks, Duwop.
>>>
>> Well Denny, I guess you and the couple of others that choose to not
>> believe in science ( must be magic) are comfy with your own beliefs. I
>> have zero issues with that. I just hope you have no influence on those
>> trying to learn.
>
> My first reaction to this was 'Bob Muncie can go bugger himself'. But
> I'll not suggest that to you. What I will suggest is this:
>
> Justify, using MY post(s) and verifiable science--not your word,
> sorry--your "choose to not believe in science" claim.
>
> If you prefer to think that you're the great juju here, I'll happily
> help many others disabuse you of that notion.
>
> Oh, and I guess you dislike the idea of my being polite to Duwop. Too
> bad. Heck, I might even be polite to you. Sometime.
> (please note the quote in my sig, btw)
>

Denny - You really are in need of some time off. I don't only not care
where your brain is, I could care less whom you support. Please put the
drink down.

I also need no validation in which science has already provided. Take a
few baby steps, and read (not requiring you learn here), about the stuff
you spout. Might do you little good. try it. It might actually open your
mind past the 4' zone that makes you comfortable.

Bob

On 29-Jun-2009, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> KW wrote:
> > "Brick" > wrote in message
> > ster.com...
> >>
> >> I just returned last Sunday from the HTH held at Milan, GA by BobInGa
> >> and Ginger the BBQ girl. Half a hog was cooked about 20 inches or so
> >> from hot coals. No water pan, sand pan or any other kind of baffle.
> >> When it was done, Bob and Ginger stripped all of meat from the
> >> carcass and mixed it together with some light vinegar based sauce.
> >> The sauce was not evident in the plated result. If there's better
> >> BBQ someplace and you can get to it, do it. Neither the hog nor the
> >> brisket tasted like smoke. There was
> >> no smoke ring on the hog when it was cut up and none was needed. I
> >> tend to season my own BBQ at the table, but not that 'Q'. I guess
> >> quality
> >> BBQ is in the eye of the beholder.
> >
> > No smoke ring? No heavy smoke taste? Not slathered in sauce?
> > Egads....that
> > must have been horrible....certainly not good
> > Que.....the shame of it all!
>
> LOL!!! Just the typical NC style bbq.
> --
> Dave

Wish you could have been there Dave. A good time was had by
all. The children got a good lesson in where their pork comes
from. It was my first experience with pork slow cooked over
direct heat with no smoke.
--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)

Brick wrote:

> Wish you could have been there Dave. A good time was had by
> all. The children got a good lesson in where their pork comes
> from. It was my first experience with pork slow cooked over
> direct heat with no smoke.

I wish I could have been there, too. It sounded like my kind of
get-together, and the descriptions of the bbq and other food has me
drooling. I remember my first trip to North Carolina, some decades ago, when
I first had bbq from a typical open pit. I wondered "where the heck is the
smoke flavor". The chopped pork was wonderful, just no smoke flavor to it. I
got a good lesson from the owner/pit master that day on what open pit whole
hog bbq was all about. It became my first lesson on why smoke is not
necessary for good 'Q, and why smoke (when one uses a closed pit) needs to
be treated as a spice.... where the pit master must carefully monitor and
adjust the amount of smoke that the meat is exposed to.

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

Denny Wheeler wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:20:14 -0400, Bob Muncie >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Denny - You really are in need of some time off. I don't only not care
>> where your brain is, I could care less whom you support. Please put the
>> drink down.
>
> Bob, unless you are a 100% teetotaler, you got no biz telling ME to
> put the drink down.
>
> As to your total snarkiness--take it and deliver it to alt.flames.
> Maybe someone there will find you more impressive than I do. (which
> wouldn't take much)
>
>> I also need no validation in which science has already provided. Take a
>> few baby steps, and read (not requiring you learn here), about the stuff
>> you spout. Might do you little good. try it. It might actually open your
>> mind past the 4' zone that makes you comfortable.
>
> I suggest you ****en learn to read attributions. The ONLY thing I've
> "spouted" in this thread that you could conceivably be referring to
> is:
> (Doug)
>> Thinking along that line wouldn't a large chunk of aluminum or iron
>> do a better job of dampening spikes? Possibly a 1/2" thick pice of
>> cast iron topped with ceramic tile? Or just a couple of fireplace
>> bricks?
> (my reply)
> "Iron would be great. The fireplace bricks good. Aluminum worthless.
> No thermal mass to it. ('thermal mass' meaning 'it holds heat' )
> Ever take something out of the oven that had foil over it? In a
> couple seconds you can remove the foil with your bare hand, because
> aluminum doesn't hold heat."
>
> Now you--if you want any credibility at all--please explain what you
> find incorrect in that. I'd prefer cites--it is a longstanding Usenet
> protocol that one gives cites--as it's gonna take something more than
> your snark to convince me that what I said isn't precisely and exactly
> valid scientifically.
>
How about I read about two paragraphs before realizing you are a total
ass. Didn't read the rest.

plonk mister waste of my two paragraphs.

Bob

On Jul 1, 3:34*am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
> Denny Wheeler wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:20:14 -0400, Bob Muncie >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Denny - You really are in need of some time off. I don't only not care
> >> where your brain is, I could care less whom you support. Please put the
> >> drink down.
>
> > Bob, unless you are a 100% teetotaler, you got no biz telling ME to
> > put the drink down.
>
> > As to your total snarkiness--take it and deliver it to alt.flames.
> > Maybe someone there will find you more impressive than I do. *(which
> > wouldn't take much)
>
> >> I also need no validation in which science has already provided. Take a
> >> few baby steps, and read (not requiring you learn here), about the stuff
> >> you spout. Might do you little good. try it. It might actually open your
> >> mind past the 4' zone that makes you comfortable.
>
> > I suggest you ****en learn to read attributions. *The ONLY thing I've
> > "spouted" in this thread that you could conceivably be referring to
> > is:
> > (Doug)
> >> Thinking along that line wouldn't a large chunk of aluminum or iron
> >> do a better job of dampening spikes? *Possibly a 1/2" thick pice of
> >> cast iron topped with ceramic tile? *Or just a couple of fireplace
> >> bricks?
> > (my reply)
> > "Iron would be great. *The fireplace bricks good. *Aluminum worthless.
> > No thermal mass to it. *('thermal mass' meaning 'it holds heat' )
> > Ever take something out of the oven that had foil over it? *In a
> > couple seconds you can remove the foil with your bare hand, because
> > aluminum doesn't hold heat."
>
> > Now you--if you want any credibility at all--please explain what you
> > find incorrect in that. *I'd prefer cites--it is a longstanding Usenet
> > protocol that one gives cites--as it's gonna take something more than
> > your snark to convince me that what I said isn't precisely and exactly
> > valid scientifically.
>
> How about I read about two paragraphs before realizing you are a total
> ass. Didn't read the rest.
>
> plonk mister waste of my two paragraphs.
>
> Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Damn Denny, you've just been served! You wasted two of his
paragraphs!
You know, in these economic times we need to conserve energy, and
there was a LOT of bullshit in those two paragraphs that could have
been used to heat up a chicken coop or something, instead of just
wasting them as you did.

The horror, the horror.


Dale

Duwop wrote:
>
> Damn Denny, you've just been served! You wasted two of his
> paragraphs!
> You know, in these economic times we need to conserve energy, and
> there was a LOT of bullshit in those two paragraphs that could have
> been used to heat up a chicken coop or something, instead of just
> wasting them as you did.
>
> The horror, the horror.

ROTFLOL!!!! Denny, please keep hold of your grief at being 'plonked'. Chin
up, and all that gibber-jabber. :-0
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On 30-Jun-2009, "Nunya Bidnits" >
wrote:

> In ster.com,
> Brick > typed:
> > On 29-Jun-2009, "KW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Brick" > wrote in message
> >> ster.com...
> >>>
.. . .

> > I have to confess that the best 'Q' I ever had was the one I just ate.
> > I said that in Houston, I said that in Kansas City, I said that in my
> > own back yard. The best thing is, I remember the 'Q' I had in Houston
> > and I remember the 'Q' I had in Kansas City and I remember the 'Q'
> > I had at Big Jim's and I'll always remember the 'Q' I had at Milan,
> > GA. But I had 'Q' a bunch of other places that I don't remember.
>
> Just out of curiousity, Brick, where did you get the memorable Q you had
> in
> Kansas City?
>
> MartyB in KC

Arthur Bryant's circa 1973

--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)

On 30-Jun-2009, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Brick wrote:
>
> > Wish you could have been there Dave. A good time was had by
> > all. The children got a good lesson in where their pork comes
> > from. It was my first experience with pork slow cooked over
> > direct heat with no smoke.
>
> I wish I could have been there, too. It sounded like my kind of
> get-together, and the descriptions of the bbq and other food has me
> drooling. I remember my first trip to North Carolina, some decades ago,
> when
> I first had bbq from a typical open pit. I wondered "where the heck is
> the
> smoke flavor". The chopped pork was wonderful, just no smoke flavor to
> it. I
> got a good lesson from the owner/pit master that day on what open pit
> whole
> hog bbq was all about. It became my first lesson on why smoke is not
> necessary for good 'Q, and why smoke (when one uses a closed pit) needs
> to
> be treated as a spice.... where the pit master must carefully monitor and
>
> adjust the amount of smoke that the meat is exposed to.
>
> --
> Dave

Looking back, I've been cooking 'Q' just over six years now and I finally
got the smoke under control about one year ago. I'm a slow learner. Wishing
you well and a speedy recovery.

--
Brick said that.

Brick wrote:

> Looking back, I've been cooking 'Q' just over six years now and I
> finally got the smoke under control about one year ago. I'm a slow
> learner. Wishing you well and a speedy recovery.

Thanks, Brick. Things are going slow, but sure. :-)

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

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
>> Damn Denny, you've just been served! You wasted two of his
>> paragraphs!
>> You know, in these economic times we need to conserve energy, and
>> there was a LOT of bullshit in those two paragraphs that could have
>> been used to heat up a chicken coop or something, instead of just
>> wasting them as you did.
>>
>> The horror, the horror.
>
> ROTFLOL!!!! Denny, please keep hold of your grief at being 'plonked'. Chin
> up, and all that gibber-jabber. :-0

You can laugh as much as you want. An idiot is an idiot (not mentioning
naes such as Duwop, or his side kick).


That's up to you. Feel free to be stupid to, that's your choice.

Cheers,

Bob

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:58:10 -0700, Zz Yzx >
wrote:

>Hi all;
>
>I'm about to embark a WSM run of 4 pork butts in my WSM. I've decided
>to try sand in the water tray as recommended by so many here. I've
>got a couple of questions:
>
>1. How much sand? Fill it all the way? 1/2? 3/4?
>2. What will be the effect on the pit, how long to come up to
>cooking temp, etc.?
>
>Any advice or comments appreciated.
>
>as always, thanks a heap,
>
>-Zz
>
>PS: Anybody tried lava rock instead of sand?

Ahh what the hell. Might as well add my own 2 cents


This is what I do, did, done...

I use playground sand. For a long time I used water, beer, wine,
almost everything but ****.

Folks here said use sand. Don't know who assplained it but it made
sense to me. Water evaporates, does not stay solid and retain heat as
a solid (well it's NOT a solid) long enough to help regulate temp
variations over time without having to add more water which lowers the
heat in the pit, etc......

Now I have Q'ed on a "water" bullet cooker using charcoal, lump, and
wood, a gas fired cooker, and an electric smoker.

I have used sand in all three to good results.

Yes, even in the electric.

This is what I have learned from reading the posts of the folks here,
reading web sites and books, and from trial and error. Yep, lots of
error.

The best thing to use is not water or any other liquid. What I found
works is ANYTHING that is DENSE and retains heat. Density is the key.
That is why aluminum is not good. It can get very hot, but it does not
retain it's energy. And it is not dense.

Playground sand can be very dense in a small area. It will retain heat
well and shed it at a very slow rate. This helps maintain your pitts'
temp as your heat source ebbs and flows.

Try this...Heat Playground sand, water, a heavy brick, and a bar of
cast iron to 400 degrees. Come back in 10 min. and touch each one. The
one that burns you the most is the one to use.

Now for EASE of use, sand works for me.

Allot of factors can go into making good Q. The outside temp, the
quality of the meat (best quality is a relative term) heat source,
wood, smoke, how drunk I/you/we am/are...etc. And much more. But I
have found that the CONSISTANCY of temp is one of the most important
factors.

But you asked about sand.

Sand is good.

3/4 of the pan is about what works for ME.

How long to come up to cooking temp? Well, as long as it takes. Too
many variables to address here.

IMHO, lava rock will not work well. Not too low density.

Hope this helps.

All of this is IMHO. It is not gospel. There is no such thing. If IT
works for YOU, do IT.

Peace.

--

" Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:40 -0500, VegA wrote:

> Try this...Heat Playground sand, water, a heavy brick, and a bar of
> cast iron to 400 degrees.

Yeah - try heating water to 400F and see how far you get.

I've always managed to steer clear of the water vs. sand debate, but
hear goes: Assuming you heat 1 square meter each of sand and water
to 200F, the sand will cool off quicker than the water.

The only advantage sand has over water is that it doesn't evaporate.
But that extra humidity in the smoker means less water can evaporate
off the surface of the meat.

I'll stick with water. (and I've never had a creosote problem since
that will be the next argument). But y'all can do whatever you want
as long as it makes you happy.

-sw

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:36:57 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:40 -0500, VegA wrote:
>
>> Try this...Heat Playground sand, water, a heavy brick, and a bar of
>> cast iron to 400 degrees.
>
>Yeah - try heating water to 400F and see how far you get.
>
>I've always managed to steer clear of the water vs. sand debate, but
>hear goes: Assuming you heat 1 square meter each of sand and water
>to 200F, the sand will cool off quicker than the water.
>
>The only advantage sand has over water is that it doesn't evaporate.
>But that extra humidity in the smoker means less water can evaporate
>off the surface of the meat.
>
>I'll stick with water. (and I've never had a creosote problem since
>that will be the next argument). But y'all can do whatever you want
>as long as it makes you happy.
>
>-sw

Gzz, you did get the point didn't you?

--

" Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:58:00 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:40 -0500, VegA >
>wrote:
>
>>The best thing to use is not water or any other liquid. What I found
>>works is ANYTHING that is DENSE and retains heat. Density is the key.
>>That is why aluminum is not good. It can get very hot, but it does not
>>retain it's energy. And it is not dense.
>
><denny sits back, waiting for His Greatness to call you an idiot and
>plonk you. After all, you said effectively the same thing I said...>
>
>
>It would be interesting to try your 'heat up several things'
>experiment. I can easily lay hands on just about any size piece of
>1/4" steel plate (I work for an outfit which makes high-quality gas,
>wood, and pellet stoves and fireplaces. We have a LOT of sheet steel
>around.). Not so sure where I could get comparable chunks of cast
>iron.
>
>Gotta agree with ya on the ease of using sand.

Yes, I know. But some people need things explained several different
ways as the length of this tread seems to prove

--

" Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:42:46 -0500, VegA wrote:

> Gzz, you did get the point didn't you?

Not *your* point. Your point was completely defective.

It must be dumbass week.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:40 -0500, VegA wrote:
>
>> Try this...Heat Playground sand, water, a heavy brick, and a bar of
>> cast iron to 400 degrees.
>
> Yeah - try heating water to 400F and see how far you get.
>
> I've always managed to steer clear of the water vs. sand debate, but
> hear goes: Assuming you heat 1 square meter each of sand and water
> to 200F, the sand will cool off quicker than the water.
>
> The only advantage sand has over water is that it doesn't evaporate.
> But that extra humidity in the smoker means less water can evaporate
> off the surface of the meat.
>
> I'll stick with water. (and I've never had a creosote problem since
> that will be the next argument). But y'all can do whatever you want
> as long as it makes you happy.
>
> -sw

You could, you'd just have to have it a bit more under pressure than a
drafty ECB Can get to :-)

Bob

VegA wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:58:00 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:40 -0500, VegA >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The best thing to use is not water or any other liquid. What I found
>>> works is ANYTHING that is DENSE and retains heat. Density is the key.
>>> That is why aluminum is not good. It can get very hot, but it does not
>>> retain it's energy. And it is not dense.
>> <denny sits back, waiting for His Greatness to call you an idiot and
>> plonk you. After all, you said effectively the same thing I said...>
>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to try your 'heat up several things'
>> experiment. I can easily lay hands on just about any size piece of
>> 1/4" steel plate (I work for an outfit which makes high-quality gas,
>> wood, and pellet stoves and fireplaces. We have a LOT of sheet steel
>> around.). Not so sure where I could get comparable chunks of cast
>> iron.
>>
>> Gotta agree with ya on the ease of using sand.
>
> Yes, I know. But some people need things explained several different
> ways as the length of this tread seems to prove
>

All I can do is sigh. and plonk. The two that like to continue an
obviously stupid argument that lack intelligence and common since, just
goes to show how stupid people that even have access to a keyboard can be.

Maybe between them and given enough time, they'll even be able to write
some Shakespearean.

At least Steve puts up good arguments, and actually posts good stuff
often enough, I still read his posts. He also doesn't poster like the
other internet tough guy wannabes.


Hopefully this thread is about over :-) And all this over water vs.
sand. You'll note I never said one negative about the use of water. I
only suggested that sand is a good choice to replacing the water. Those
that want to use the water will be every bit as successful in their
smoking. Sand is just a better choice for "me", since the cleanup is
simpler, I don't have to monitor for running out of sand, and I know
sand will maintain the heat energy better than the water, resulting in
less temperature spikes.

You guys have a nice afternoon.

Bob

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:42:30 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:42:46 -0500, VegA wrote:
>
>> Gzz, you did get the point didn't you?
>
>Not *your* point. Your point was completely defective.
>
>It must be dumbass week.
>
>-sw


You know what? I never said a bad thing to or about you. Why act like
such an asshole towards me?

Now be nice and go ask your mommy for some cookies and milk before
nappy time.

Don't bother to respond, I already kill filed you.

G's, what a dick.

--

" Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:58 -0400, Bob Muncie >
wrote:

>VegA wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:58:00 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:40 -0500, VegA >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The best thing to use is not water or any other liquid. What I found
>>>> works is ANYTHING that is DENSE and retains heat. Density is the key.
>>>> That is why aluminum is not good. It can get very hot, but it does not
>>>> retain it's energy. And it is not dense.
>>> <denny sits back, waiting for His Greatness to call you an idiot and
>>> plonk you. After all, you said effectively the same thing I said...>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to try your 'heat up several things'
>>> experiment. I can easily lay hands on just about any size piece of
>>> 1/4" steel plate (I work for an outfit which makes high-quality gas,
>>> wood, and pellet stoves and fireplaces. We have a LOT of sheet steel
>>> around.). Not so sure where I could get comparable chunks of cast
>>> iron.
>>>
>>> Gotta agree with ya on the ease of using sand.
>>
>> Yes, I know. But some people need things explained several different
>> ways as the length of this tread seems to prove
>>
>
>All I can do is sigh. and plonk. The two that like to continue an
>obviously stupid argument that lack intelligence and common since, just
>goes to show how stupid people that even have access to a keyboard can be.
>
>Maybe between them and given enough time, they'll even be able to write
>some Shakespearean.
>
>At least Steve puts up good arguments, and actually posts good stuff
>often enough, I still read his posts. He also doesn't poster like the
>other internet tough guy wannabes.
>
>
>Hopefully this thread is about over :-) And all this over water vs.
>sand. You'll note I never said one negative about the use of water. I
>only suggested that sand is a good choice to replacing the water. Those
>that want to use the water will be every bit as successful in their
>smoking. Sand is just a better choice for "me", since the cleanup is
>simpler, I don't have to monitor for running out of sand, and I know
>sand will maintain the heat energy better than the water, resulting in
>less temperature spikes.
>
>You guys have a nice afternoon.
>
>Bob

Gee, how the hell did I insult you?

Another asshole to the kill file.

--

" Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Hopefully this thread is about over :-) And all this over water vs.
> sand. You'll note I never said one negative about the use of water. I
> only suggested that sand is a good choice to replacing the water.
> Those that want to use the water will be every bit as successful in
> their smoking. Sand is just a better choice for "me", since the
> cleanup is simpler, I don't have to monitor for running out of sand,
> and I know sand will maintain the heat energy better than the water,
> resulting in
> less temperature spikes.

Most of us here have used sand for a long time, and that has been an issue
discussed long before you knew AFB existed. YOU were every bit as culpable
of the thread 'crap' as anyone else. Of course, no one else chose to 'plonk'
you; which is a major distinction between the protagonists and the
antagonists.
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

VegA wrote:

> Gee, how the hell did I insult you?
>
> Another asshole to the kill file.

Don't plonk him just yet; he may decide to quite being a major hemorrhoid
and settle into being just another regular here.

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

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:02:09 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>VegA wrote:
>
>> Gee, how the hell did I insult you?
>>
>> Another asshole to the kill file.
>
>Don't plonk him just yet; he may decide to quite being a major hemorrhoid
>and settle into being just another regular here.

Thanks but I already kill filed him. I have thick skin but I'm real
tired of people who feel they can bully someone just because they are
on the Internet and know they can't get their ass kicked for their
efforts.

Life is too short. I would rather associate with people that can have
civil discussion with out resorting to stating up shit for the sake of
their immature version of fun.

Peace
--

" Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

VegA wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:02:09 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >

>> Don't plonk him just yet; he may decide to quite being a major
>> hemorrhoid and settle into being just another regular here.
>
> Thanks but I already kill filed him. I have thick skin but I'm real
> tired of people who feel they can bully someone just because they are
> on the Internet and know they can't get their ass kicked for their
> efforts.


> Life is too short. I would rather associate with people that can have
> civil discussion with out resorting to stating up shit for the sake of
> their immature version of fun.
>
> Peace

I certainly understand your feelings on the matter.

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

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:58 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:

> At least Steve puts up good arguments, and actually posts good stuff
> often enough, I still read his posts. He also doesn't poster like the
> other internet tough guy wannabes.

Heck no. I'm a _genuine_ tough guy asshole much of the time.

-sw

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:45:00 -0500, VegA wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:42:30 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:42:46 -0500, VegA wrote:
>>
>>> Gzz, you did get the point didn't you?
>>
>>Not *your* point. Your point was completely defective.
>>
>>It must be dumbass week.
>>
>>-sw
>
> You know what? I never said a bad thing to or about you. Why act like
> such an asshole towards me?

Maybe I had you confused with somebody else. Looking back at your
posts I don't see what might have offended me.

> Now be nice and go ask your mommy for some cookies and milk before
> nappy time.

OK. I take that back. **** you, too. Hypocrite.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:58 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:
>
>> At least Steve puts up good arguments, and actually posts good stuff
>> often enough, I still read his posts. He also doesn't poster like the
>> other internet tough guy wannabes.
>
> Heck no. I'm a _genuine_ tough guy asshole much of the time.

What the hell does 'he doesn't poster like the other internet..." mean?

I think Bob is in love with you, Steve.

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

VegA wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:58 -0400, Bob Muncie >
> wrote:
>
>> VegA wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:58:00 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:40 -0500, VegA >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The best thing to use is not water or any other liquid. What I found
>>>>> works is ANYTHING that is DENSE and retains heat. Density is the key.
>>>>> That is why aluminum is not good. It can get very hot, but it does not
>>>>> retain it's energy. And it is not dense.
>>>> <denny sits back, waiting for His Greatness to call you an idiot and
>>>> plonk you. After all, you said effectively the same thing I said...>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to try your 'heat up several things'
>>>> experiment. I can easily lay hands on just about any size piece of
>>>> 1/4" steel plate (I work for an outfit which makes high-quality gas,
>>>> wood, and pellet stoves and fireplaces. We have a LOT of sheet steel
>>>> around.). Not so sure where I could get comparable chunks of cast
>>>> iron.
>>>>
>>>> Gotta agree with ya on the ease of using sand.
>>> Yes, I know. But some people need things explained several different
>>> ways as the length of this tread seems to prove
>>>
>> All I can do is sigh. and plonk. The two that like to continue an
>> obviously stupid argument that lack intelligence and common since, just
>> goes to show how stupid people that even have access to a keyboard can be.
>>
>> Maybe between them and given enough time, they'll even be able to write
>> some Shakespearean.
>>
>> At least Steve puts up good arguments, and actually posts good stuff
>> often enough, I still read his posts. He also doesn't poster like the
>> other internet tough guy wannabes.
>>
>>
>> Hopefully this thread is about over :-) And all this over water vs.
>> sand. You'll note I never said one negative about the use of water. I
>> only suggested that sand is a good choice to replacing the water. Those
>> that want to use the water will be every bit as successful in their
>> smoking. Sand is just a better choice for "me", since the cleanup is
>> simpler, I don't have to monitor for running out of sand, and I know
>> sand will maintain the heat energy better than the water, resulting in
>> less temperature spikes.
>>
>> You guys have a nice afternoon.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Gee, how the hell did I insult you?
>
> Another asshole to the kill file.
>

What a sensitive lot. That, and I guess I poorly communicated the
sentiment I was try to.

VeGA - I have appreciated all the posts I've read from you. I was trying
to make the point that having contrary positions on a topic, doesn't
mean anyone has to get "retarded" about it. You've been a gentleman.

Steve - I was trying to point out that even though your posting style is
a bit "abrupt", what you post is still worth reading as you usually make
good points.

Both - The two I was referring to in "my" post were not you two. I was
referring to two others that I did plonk as they brought nothing to the
table except non sequitur argument when faced with common sense.

Hope cleared that up without permanent plonking :-)

Bob

Bob Muncie wrote:

> Both - The two I was referring to in "my" post were not you two. I was
> referring to two others that I did plonk as they brought nothing to
> the table except non sequitur argument when faced with common sense.

<snicker> P-K-B

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

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Bob Muncie wrote:
>> Hopefully this thread is about over :-) And all this over water vs.
>> sand. You'll note I never said one negative about the use of water. I
>> only suggested that sand is a good choice to replacing the water.
>> Those that want to use the water will be every bit as successful in
>> their smoking. Sand is just a better choice for "me", since the
>> cleanup is simpler, I don't have to monitor for running out of sand,
>> and I know sand will maintain the heat energy better than the water,
>> resulting in
>> less temperature spikes.
>
> Most of us here have used sand for a long time, and that has been an issue
> discussed long before you knew AFB existed. YOU were every bit as culpable
> of the thread 'crap' as anyone else. Of course, no one else chose to 'plonk'
> you; which is a major distinction between the protagonists and the
> antagonists.

Dave - I doubt anyone has been here very much any longer than I have.
(Been doing internet since 83). I have just been recently posting as I
have the time now, that I have not have before.

You are quite right to point out I allowed myself to interact with two
others and *be* part of the problem that I should have just ignored.
And/or stopped earlier.

I did not know until a few minutes ago that VeGA and Steve had taken
what I said in the last post as me referring to those "two others" being
about "them". I was not. Maybe that early in the morning time is a bad
time to try and make a point when you are irritated with others.

I mentioned plonk (and I did drop the two I mentioned into the filter)
as any one that wants to argue to no point, are wasting my times.

You, VeGA, and Steve are not ones I'd argue with. Maybe disagree with,
but argue no.

Bob

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:58 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:
>>
>>> At least Steve puts up good arguments, and actually posts good stuff
>>> often enough, I still read his posts. He also doesn't poster like the
>>> other internet tough guy wannabes.
>> Heck no. I'm a _genuine_ tough guy asshole much of the time.
>
> What the hell does 'he doesn't poster like the other internet..." mean?
>
> I think Bob is in love with you, Steve.
>

It's called fat fingers... the word intended was "posture".

Again, it was early in the morning, and I don't always speel-check
(inserted for point making).

Bob

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Bob Muncie wrote:
>
>> Both - The two I was referring to in "my" post were not you two. I was
>> referring to two others that I did plonk as they brought nothing to
>> the table except non sequitur argument when faced with common sense.
>
> <snicker> P-K-B
>

http://tinyurl.com/lg62xh ?

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Bob Muncie wrote:
>>
>>> Both - The two I was referring to in "my" post were not you two. I was
>>> referring to two others that I did plonk as they brought nothing to
>>> the table except non sequitur argument when faced with common sense.
>>
>> <snicker> P-K-B
>>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lg62xh ?

Since Tiny is not happy with me today.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKB

Bob

On 2-Jul-2009, "Nunya Bidnits" >
wrote:

> In ster.com,
> Brick > typed:
> > On 30-Jun-2009, "Nunya Bidnits"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> In ster.com,
> >> Brick > typed:
> >>> On 29-Jun-2009, "KW" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Brick" > wrote in message
> >>>> ster.com...
> >>>>>
> > . . .
> >
> >>> I have to confess that the best 'Q' I ever had was the one I just
> >>> ate. I said that in Houston, I said that in Kansas City, I said
> >>> that in my own back yard. The best thing is, I remember the 'Q' I
> >>> had in Houston and I remember the 'Q' I had in Kansas City and I
> >>> remember the 'Q'
> >>> I had at Big Jim's and I'll always remember the 'Q' I had at Milan,
> >>> GA. But I had 'Q' a bunch of other places that I don't remember.
> >>
> >> Just out of curiousity, Brick, where did you get the memorable Q you
> >> had in
> >> Kansas City?
> >>
> >> MartyB in KC
> >
> > Arthur Bryant's circa 1973
>
> Of course. I just call it "The Shrine."

Actually, I'm not positive that it was Bryant's, but; It was run by black
folks,
all male. "Q" and fries were dispensed by the handful, literally. The
square
tables were covered with oil cloth and the lunch crowd was characterized
by folks driving corvettes, towncars and a few limo's. As I remember it
was somewhere on the east side of town. I was stationed at Dickey Goober
at the time and lived in Grandview.
--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)

Bob Muncie wrote:

> Dave - I doubt anyone has been here very much any longer than I have.

So, you've been posting to AFB for the last decade or so?

> (Been doing internet since 83). I have just been recently posting as I
> have the time now, that I have not have before.

So, you HAVEN'T been posting on AFB for the last decade or so.

> You are quite right to point out I allowed myself to interact with two
> others and *be* part of the problem that I should have just ignored.
> And/or stopped earlier.

Fair enough. It is easy to get caught up in the moment. So did those with
whom you were arguing.

> I did not know until a few minutes ago that VeGA and Steve had taken
> what I said in the last post as me referring to those "two others"
> being about "them". I was not. Maybe that early in the morning time
> is a bad time to try and make a point when you are irritated with
> others.

I've been known to be burdened with that same issue.

> I mentioned plonk (and I did drop the two I mentioned into the filter)
> as any one that wants to argue to no point, are wasting my times.


Both of those you were arguing with are people I respect. But I have a
certain loyalty to the friends I already have. I suspect that once I get to
know you, I would feel the same about you after awhile. And yes, I have
personally met many of the regulars here. It would probably be worth
considering 'live and let live'. Folks here get hot and bothered sometimes,
yours truly included, and then get on with life. No one needs to actively
apologize or hold hands; things just tend to smooth-over with time. I won't
presume to speak for the other actors in this play, but I can't imagine
anyone holding a grudge for very long.

Maybe killfiles could be purged and everyone start out on a clean slate?

> You, VeGA, and Steve are not ones I'd argue with. Maybe disagree with,
> but argue no.

:-) Heck, then that will leave you out in the cold. Steve, Vega, and I have
argued and will likely argue in the future. Heck, there have been arguments
going on between regulars as a natural course from time to time.

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

On 3-Jul-2009, "Nunya Bidnits" >
wrote:

> In ster.com,
> Brick > typed:
> > On 2-Jul-2009, "Nunya Bidnits"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> In ster.com,
> >> Brick > typed:
> >>> On 30-Jun-2009, "Nunya Bidnits"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In ster.com,
> >>>> Brick > typed:
> >>>>> On 29-Jun-2009, "KW" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Brick" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ster.com...
> >>>>>>>
> >>> . . .
> >>>
> >>>>> I have to confess that the best 'Q' I ever had was the one I just
> >>>>> ate. I said that in Houston, I said that in Kansas City, I said
> >>>>> that in my own back yard. The best thing is, I remember the 'Q' I
> >>>>> had in Houston and I remember the 'Q' I had in Kansas City and I
> >>>>> remember the 'Q'
> >>>>> I had at Big Jim's and I'll always remember the 'Q' I had at
> >>>>> Milan, GA. But I had 'Q' a bunch of other places that I don't
> >>>>> remember.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just out of curiousity, Brick, where did you get the memorable Q
> >>>> you had in
> >>>> Kansas City?
> >>>>
> >>>> MartyB in KC
> >>>
> >>> Arthur Bryant's circa 1973
> >>
> >> Of course. I just call it "The Shrine."
> >
> > Actually, I'm not positive that it was Bryant's, but; It was run by
> > black folks,
> > all male. "Q" and fries were dispensed by the handful, literally. The
> > square
> > tables were covered with oil cloth and the lunch crowd was
> > characterized by folks driving corvettes, towncars and a few limo's.
> > As I remember it was somewhere on the east side of town. I was
> > stationed at Dickey Goober at the time and lived in Grandview.
>
> Ahh, yes. Didn't we have the Dickey Goober conversation a while back?
>
> That sure sounds like Arthur's. It may have even been called just
> Bryant's
> back at the time... Charlie Bryant was the original owner. Not much has
> changed except that Charlie and Arthur are both long gone... RIP.

We did in fact have the Dickey Goober conversation not too long ago.
--
Brick (Youth is wasted on young people)