Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Barbecue (alt.food.barbecue) Discuss barbecue and grilling--southern style "low and slow" smoking of ribs, shoulders and briskets, as well as direct heat grilling of everything from burgers to salmon to vegetables. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
Nancy Young wrote:
> George wrote: >> Theron wrote: > >>> Fuel Cost Comparison >>> propane >>> Walmart "choice" charcoal >>> Trader Joe's Charcoal >>> "Lump" Charcoal >>> >>> cost >>> $20.00 >>> $5.27 >>> $6.95 >>> varies >>> >> You might look for a better propane supplier. Sounds like you are >> paying big box megamart we are your friend prices. Typically the >> local propane suppliers sell a refill for half (around here $9.95). >> The only drawback is they aren't open at 3 AM. > > It's $16 to $20 where I live, too. This is from local fuel places. > The price has gone up over the years, like anything else, it hasn't > been $9 for a long time now. One of those things that varies > widely by region, I guess. > nancy A lot of those are just resellers that have a small tank and pump just to fill grill tanks. The local mom & pop place is actually a good size outfit. I can also spend up to $24 here. $9.95 is their current price and they actually completely fill your tank. Some brands that a lot of the megamarts sell actually intentionally short fill the tank. When it got a lot of publicity they simply explained they didn't want to raise the price! Short fill is a price increase. http://www.whtm.com/news/stories/0509/626366.html The local place recently parked a large truck trailer near the property with an eye catching paint job proclaiming tank refills for $9.95. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
Pete C. > wrote:
> Victor Sack wrote: > > > > Pete C. > wrote: > > > > > > Folks, this is the year 2009, and October no less, nearly 2010. The days > > > of 2400 baud or less modems and using USENET shorthand to minimize > > > bandwidth usage are long over. Even folks still stick on dialup are > > > getting 36kbps or better connections generally. > > > > Need help? > > No, but apparently you do, Mr OCD. Yes, you obviously need help, but something makes me sure it won't work. > > Seeing as you are using an ancient Netscape browser > > Yes ancient, yes *newsreader*, browser is separate. Indeed I still use > this ancient *newsreader* since it performs *better* than a number of > new ones I've tried. Went right over your head. The point is, HTML has been in use since 1991; your "newsreader" version was released in about 2000; the latest USEFOR specifications have been released in 2007. What exactly is new about HTML that the USEFOR experts possibly do not know? > You need to evolve ludite. Perhaps since you clearly have too much time > on your hands, you can spend some time working against spam, not valid > posts. You first need to learn what *Luddite* is. Then you might possibly understand the ludicrousness and irrelevancy of your blatherings about bandwidth. Do you want JavaScript and Flash animations, too? Bandwidth is not much of a problem, after all. You want something against spam? Get a newsreader with good killfile capabilities and use a newsserver with a spam filter. HTML is never valid on Usenet. There are valid Usenet standards and protocols. *You* do not set the standards with your ridiculous HTML "defence". I post the rfc FAQ, in plain text. The FAQ contains numerous variously formatted tables. The tool needed to format tables, etc. in plain text is called "tab" (and a monospaced font on the receiving end). The same FAQ can be found on the Web; I converted it to HTML about ten years ago. What is it you can tell me about HTML that I do not already know? Everything has its place. HTML on Usenet is garbage; it does not add anything at all of the slightest use. You want HTML, go take part in Web-based discussion forums and leave Usenet alone. Why don't *you* post HTML, anyway? Victor |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
"Gene" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:56:01 -0400, "Cheryl" > > wrote: > >> >>"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message om... >>> Pete C. wrote: >>>> Dave Bugg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You know that this is a text based format, but ignore it anyway. >>>>> You, sir, are an ass. >>>> >>>> RTF *is* a text format. It is not like posting binaries in a text >>>> group. >>> >>> It uses large amounts of html. It is not used in usenet NGs >>> >> >>Give him a break, guys. He needed an easy way to post a table. You can't >>do that with plain text. > > This is all nonsense. This same crap was posted not long ago. It > showed the same things. Not much of a difference. > > BBQ and grilling is about quality. Some do better with propane, others > lump. it matters not the few cents saved. People will go with what > works for them. > > Give him a break? No. He knows what he is doing, how to do it better, > and what form will get the biggest rise out of the regulars. > That is plain and simply not true. Ed |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
"Cheryl" > wrote in message ... > > "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message > ... >> Pete C. wrote: >>> Dave Bugg wrote: >>>> >>>> You know that this is a text based format, but ignore it anyway. >>>> You, sir, are an ass. >>> >>> RTF *is* a text format. It is not like posting binaries in a text >>> group. >> >> It uses large amounts of html. It is not used in usenet NGs >> > > Give him a break, guys. He needed an easy way to post a table. You can't > do that with plain text. > Thank you for your comment Cheryl. Ed |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
"Pete C." > wrote in message ter.com... > > Dan Abel wrote: >> >> In article >, >> "Dave Bugg" > wrote: >> >> > Theron wrote: >> > >> > I didn't even notice that this was cross-posted, Sorry. Please, >> > everyone, >> > delete the crossposting before replying >> >> I didn't notice, either. Still, since I am not subscribed to afb, do I >> delete that one? It seems to have more to do with barbeque, though, so >> are you suggesting deleting rfc? >> >> Either way, I spend money on charcoal, especially since my younger son, >> when he is home, likes to BBQ/smoke/grill. I'm interested in this post. >> > > Yes, it's crossposted, but within accepted norms, i.e. three groups or > less (only two here), and relevant groups (cooking in general and > barbecue specific). > I agree with that, though I haven't crossposted in the past, other than by accident. > > Personally, I'll worry about cooking fuel costs when they amount to more > than a decimal percentage of my income. > > Ed |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
Ed you forgot to include a column for electric smokers. > > I thought about that when composing the table. You'd have to know the KW rate for your area, of course, and do the math after that. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
Theron wrote:
> "Gene" > wrote in message >> Give him a break? No. He knows what he is doing, how to do it better, >> and what form will get the biggest rise out of the regulars. > That is plain and simply not true. It plain and simply is true. This latest subject is a prime example. -- Dave What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:47:48 -0500, Sqwertz wrote: > >> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:31:41 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote: >> >>> Theron wrote: >>>> "Gene" > wrote in message >>> >>>>> Give him a break? No. He knows what he is doing, how to do it >>>>> better, and what form will get the biggest rise out of the >>>>> regulars. >>> >>>> That is plain and simply not true. >>> >>> It plain and simply is true. This latest subject is a prime example. >> >> Ed's snipping left a little to be desired, but I applied his comment >> to this part of the quoted post: >> >> "BBQ and grilling is about quality. Some do better with propane, >> others lump." >> >> Of course I may be FOS, too. > > Of course I may have thought that was Ed P (The Real Ed) posting, > not that douchebag Kent signing his name as Ed. But I'm sure Ed P is flattered. LOL -- Dave What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
"Sqwertz" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 15:25:00 -0700, Theron wrote: > >> "Cheryl" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> Give him a break, guys. He needed an easy way to post a table. You >>> can't >>> do that with plain text. >>> >> Thank you for your comment Cheryl. > > Translation: "Sucker!" > Translation: You only know how to string one word together. |
Posted to alt.food.barbecue
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more
Wallace wrote:
> you forgot to include a column for electric smokers. FWIW, here's a breakdown for a cookshack <http://robosurf.net/tmp/MOD50_KWH_web.pdf> -- Reg |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fuel Cost Comparisons in Text format | Barbecue | |||
Fuel Cost Comparisons once more | General Cooking | |||
Charcoal Propane Cost Comparisons | Barbecue | |||
Tea comparisons? | Tea | |||
Tea comparisons? | Tea |