Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:39:25 -0500, "Johnny" > wrote:

>Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
Yes.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

In article >, "Johnny" >
wrote:

> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?

No.

monroe(never have either)

Johnny wrote:

> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>

Yes and no. If it comes off easily, I take it off. If it doesn't, I
leave it on.

Matthew

--
<http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/>

Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

...
> In article >, "Johnny" >
> wrote:
>
> > Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
I leave it on there and kinda like to peel it off with my teeth and eat
it....after they're cooked of course.
Jack

Johnny wrote:
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?

For two or three racks, peeling the membrane is not so bad. However,
when you're doing 6-8 racks, peeling is just tedious.

--
Aloha,

Nathan Lau
San Jose, CA

#include <std.disclaimer>

"Matthew L. Martin" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Johnny wrote:
>
> > Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
> >
>
> Yes and no. If it comes off easily, I take it off. If it doesn't, I
> leave it on.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> <http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/>
>
> Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
> You can't break even.
> You can't get out of the game.
>
>
In other words, yes. Or no.
Jack Curry

Johnny wrote:

> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?

Baby backs: Always
Spares: Almost always
Beef: Always

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

In ,
Johnny > typed:
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?

I let it burn off.

BOB

In ,
Jack Sloan > typed:
> ...
>> In article >, "Johnny" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>>
> I leave it on there and kinda like to peel it off with my teeth and eat
> it....after they're cooked of course.
> Jack

Either that, or ot burns off.

BOB

"Johnny" > wrote in message
...
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
>

I remove it.

"Johnny" > wrote in message
...
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
>

NO
--
Big Jim

www.lazyq.com

"Johnny" > wrote in message
...
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
for home or contests absolutely---well most of the time anyway. If its a
cater job involving a case ot tw0 of ribs usually not--just don't pay

Buzz

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:39:25 -0500, "Johnny" > wrote:


>Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?

Never. I like to think it acts as a barrier to keep moisture in.

-sw

> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?

I haven't figured out a good way to get it off yet. Seems like a helluva lot
of work.

John O

> In ,
> Johnny > typed:
> > Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>

No

John O wrote:
>>Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
> I haven't figured out a good way to get it off yet. Seems like a helluva lot
> of work.
>
> John O

I find using a clam knife to get under the membrane without piercing it,
and a piece of paper towel with which to grip it and peel it off makes
it relatively easy work.

--
Stan
<http://www.tocquevillian.com>

Johnny wrote:
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
>
I pull off what I can. Normally, I can get a large piece off in my first
attempt. Occasionally, it comes off in pieces. I won't spend allot of
time trying. Less than 5 minutes per rack.

Happy Q'en
BBQ

"bbq" wrote
>
>
> I pull off what I can. Normally, I can get a large piece off in my
first
> attempt. Occasionally, it comes off in pieces. I won't spend allot
of
> time trying. Less than 5 minutes per rack.
>
> Happy Q'en
> BBQ
>
What BBQ said;

Brick (Tried it once and it was a PITA.)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:39:25 -0500, "Johnny" > wrote:

>Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
Ribs, no.
Shrimp, yes.

YES

> I find using a clam knife to get under the membrane without piercing it,
> and a piece of paper towel with which to grip it and peel it off makes
> it relatively easy work.

I'll have to chase down a clam knife. They aren't common here in the Great
Lakes. :-)

John O

I just use a screwdriver to get it started. Just slip it in between the
membrane and the bone and jently get a flap lifted up. Then you can stick your
finger in there and gently work the membrane off in a matter of a few seconds.
A paper towel helps to grip the membrane once you have an end of it free.

D a n

John O wrote:
>>I find using a clam knife to get under the membrane without piercing it,
>>and a piece of paper towel with which to grip it and peel it off makes
>>it relatively easy work.
>
>
> I'll have to chase down a clam knife. They aren't common here in the Great
> Lakes. :-)
>
> John O
>
>
I use a spoon. I will look for a section that is kinda loose at the edge
of the rack around the middle of the long side. Then I will push the
spoon across the length of the bones. Once through the other side, I
will slide and lift a finger under the membrane towards one end of the
rack. Then I will hold the half that is loose and pull the rest off.
Using a spoon seems to be thin enough to get under the membrane without
puncturing it.

It works most of the time. If it gets punctured and tears, coming off in
pieces rather than a whole piece, I'll get what I can. Rub, cook and enjoy.

Happy Q'en,
BBQ

"Johnny" > wrote in message
...
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
Yes

"John O" > wrote in message
.com...
> > I find using a clam knife to get under the membrane without piercing it,
> > and a piece of paper towel with which to grip it and peel it off makes
> > it relatively easy work.
>
> I'll have to chase down a clam knife. They aren't common here in the Great
> Lakes. :-)

Just use a big blade screwdriver

Michael wrote:
>
> "John O" > wrote in message
> .com...
> > > I find using a clam knife to get under the membrane without piercing it,
> > > and a piece of paper towel with which to grip it and peel it off makes
> > > it relatively easy work.
> >
> > I'll have to chase down a clam knife. They aren't common here in the Great
> > Lakes. :-)
>
> Just use a big blade screwdriver

I use an old-fashioned butter knife, the kind with a thin blade and
rounded tip. Not the somewhat serrated heavy-bladed ones designed to
serve as a weak substitute for a steak knife.



Brian Rodenborn

Always pull the membrane. That way the rub and the smoke can reach the meat
back there.







"Johnny" > wrote in message
...
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>
>
>

"Johnny" > wrote in message
...
> Do y'all pull the membrane off the inside of the ribs before smoking?
>

I think this is one of those personal preference things. My suggestion -
get three racks. Take the membrane off one, leave it on one, and on the
third one, score it in a criss cross pattern with a sharp knife. Toss them
all on and see which one you (and your family) like best.

Scott

Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!


"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> Michael wrote:
>>
>> "John O" > wrote in message
>> .com...
>> > > I find using a clam knife to get under the membrane without piercing
>> > > it,
>> > > and a piece of paper towel with which to grip it and peel it off
>> > > makes
>> > > it relatively easy work.
>> >
>> > I'll have to chase down a clam knife. They aren't common here in the
>> > Great
>> > Lakes. :-)
>>
>> Just use a big blade screwdriver
>
> I use an old-fashioned butter knife, the kind with a thin blade and
> rounded tip. Not the somewhat serrated heavy-bladed ones designed to
> serve as a weak substitute for a steak knife.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Hank wrote:
> Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Hank wrote:
>> Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!
>
> Please.... don't top-post.

"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just how
long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?


--
Mike | Have you ever imagined a world with no
'05 BBQ070 | hypothetical situations?

Tinman wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>>Hank wrote:
>>
>>>Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!
>>
>>Please.... don't top-post.
>
>
> "Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just how
> long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?
>

What an odd question. Google's archive is older than that.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Hank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!
>>>
>>> Please.... don't top-post.
>>
>>
>> "Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
>> how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?
>>
>
> What an odd question.

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?


> Google's archive is older than that.

What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast if he
posted from Google?


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>Tinman wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!
>>>>
>>>>Please.... don't top-post.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
>>>how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?
>>>
>>
>>What an odd question.
>
>
> Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Being rhetorical doesn't keep it from being odd.

>>Google's archive is older than that.
>
>
> What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast if he
> posted from Google?

Do you know that google attempts to archive every post and they propose
to do so for as long as it makes money for them? The fact that someone
responds to a long dead thread has nothing to do with the practice of
top-posting.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Tinman wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>Tinman wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!
>>>>
>>>>Please.... don't top-post.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
>>>how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?
>>>
>>
>>What an odd question.
>
>
> Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Being rhetorical doesn't keep it from being odd.

>>Google's archive is older than that.
>
>
> What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast if he
> posted from Google?

Do you know that google attempts to archive every post and they propose
to do so for as long as it makes money for them? The fact that someone
responds to a long dead thread has nothing to do with the practice of
top-posting.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Tinman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hank wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please.... don't top-post.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
>>>> how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What an odd question.
>>
>>
>> Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
>
> Being rhetorical doesn't keep it from being odd.
>
>>> Google's archive is older than that.
>>
>>
>> What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast
>> if he posted from Google?
>
> Do you know that google attempts to archive every post and they
> propose to do so for as long as it makes money for them?

Noooo??!! Really?

Of course Google has absolutely nothing to do with this incident, since
the poster obviously did not post from Google; nor did he read the post
he responded to from Google. I won't get into why this might be
considered odd, as you are in apparent awe of Google's archive.


> The fact
> that someone responds to a long dead thread has nothing to do with
> the practice of top-posting.

WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus to
school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

> WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus to
> school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste everyone's time?

Matthew

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Tinman wrote:

> WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus to
> school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste everyone's time?

Matthew

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus
>> to school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...
>
> Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste
> everyone's time?

Good grief. Let me make this easy for you:

1.) Some guy replies to a post that was a year and a half old. He
top-posts.

2.) Someone else chides him for the top-posting. I don't have a problem
with this, as I abhor top-posting.

3.) Regardless, I replied--sarcastically--indicating that perhaps the
bigger issue was the resurrection of a long-dead thread. Further, to
indicate where he posted from I rhetorically asked about Comcast's
retention policy. Ironically, I did this purposely, so that no one would
assume the guy accidentally replied from Google.

4.) The above, apparently, went over your head and you responded, IMO,
ignorantly--even going so far as to mention Google. And although each of
your three replies to this thread failed to discuss BBQ, you still
managed to equate not discussing BBQ with "wasting everyone's time."

So while I do read this group for BBQ, I found your replies rather
ignorant. If you are elderly, or perhaps just not very computer
literate, then I apologize.


--
Mike