My God, I have finally learned how to bottom post!

My God, I have finally learned how to bottom post!

Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting isn't
the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.
Kent

Sean wrote:
>
> Sorry Dave, that's how I prefer to do things. You're certainly welcome to do
> it another way, if that's how you prefer to do things. Either way I'm sure
> this world is big enough to accommodate both of us.
>
> - Sean
>
> "Dave Bugg" <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
> ...
> > Sean wrote:
> >
> > snip of good info.
> >
> > > I've smoked cheese and other cold foods a number of times like this,
> > > and it works really well. The cheese stays completely firm, although
> > > if you leave it too long it goes a little glossy. It only adds smoke
> > > flavor of course, it will not dry jerky or anything like that. Might
> > > be worth a try on your summer sausage.
> >
> > Sean, please don't top-post.
> >
> >

"Kent H." > wrote in message
...
> Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting isn't
> the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
> you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
> constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.
> Kent

Top posting is fine for a reply to one message. When you have an ongoing
thread, it is simple to follow with bottom posting. When both are used, it
is confusing as hell for anyone , but especially for those that miss a post
or two along the way.

The norm is to read a book from front to back. Or a memo from top to bottom.
Posting in a newsgroups should follow the same simple logic.

"Kent H." > wrote in message
...
> Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting isn't
> the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
> you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
> constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.
> Kent

Top posting is fine for a reply to one message. When you have an ongoing
thread, it is simple to follow with bottom posting. When both are used, it
is confusing as hell for anyone , but especially for those that miss a post
or two along the way.

The norm is to read a book from front to back. Or a memo from top to bottom.
Posting in a newsgroups should follow the same simple logic.

Kent H. wrote:
> Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting isn't
> the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
> you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
> constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.
> Kent
>

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Kent H. wrote:
> Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting isn't
> the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
> you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
> constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.
> Kent
>

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

"Matthew L. Martin" > wrote in message

|| Kent H. wrote:
||| Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting
||| isn't the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I
||| agree with you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of
||| cerebral constipation regarding this meaningless issue is
||| mindblowing.
||| Kent
|||
||
|| Please don't top post.
||
|| No. I'm not singling you out.
||
|| >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for
|| me! > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
|| > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
|| >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
|| >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
|| >>> quoting.
|| >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does
|| that >>>> mean?
|| >>>>> A: Top posters.
|| >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
||
|| Matthew
||
|| --

I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if it's a
thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the latest response at
the top and respond on top. But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
don't gripe about bottom posters.

Just my $0.02

JD

"Matthew L. Martin" > wrote in message

|| Kent H. wrote:
||| Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting
||| isn't the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I
||| agree with you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of
||| cerebral constipation regarding this meaningless issue is
||| mindblowing.
||| Kent
|||
||
|| Please don't top post.
||
|| No. I'm not singling you out.
||
|| >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for
|| me! > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
|| > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
|| >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
|| >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
|| >>> quoting.
|| >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does
|| that >>>> mean?
|| >>>>> A: Top posters.
|| >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
||
|| Matthew
||
|| --

I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if it's a
thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the latest response at
the top and respond on top. But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
don't gripe about bottom posters.

Just my $0.02

JD

JD wrote:

> I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if it's a
> thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the latest response at
> the top and respond on top.

Yeah, that's great for you and lousy for anyone with a less than perfect
news feed when articles arrive out of order or not at all. Then there
are those people who are coming into the middle of a conversation.

> But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
> don't gripe about bottom posters.
>

Do you read books/magazines/dialogs from the last page towards the front?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

JD wrote:

> I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if it's a
> thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the latest response at
> the top and respond on top.

Yeah, that's great for you and lousy for anyone with a less than perfect
news feed when articles arrive out of order or not at all. Then there
are those people who are coming into the middle of a conversation.

> But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
> don't gripe about bottom posters.
>

Do you read books/magazines/dialogs from the last page towards the front?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

In article > , "Edwin
Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Kent H." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting isn't
> > the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
> > you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
> > constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.
> > Kent
>
> Top posting is fine for a reply to one message. When you have an ongoing
> thread, it is simple to follow with bottom posting. When both are used, it
> is confusing as hell for anyone , but especially for those that miss a post
> or two along the way.

Kunth amazes all with his stupidity once again. Sweet Jesus what utter
drivel.
I might agree with you Ed, but who can tell ahead of time when a thread
is one message or it is to continue? I guess the dumbass top posters
get to be psychic and decide this for us all. How nice. How
egotistical. How confusing. How stupidly wrong.
The sane and mannerly thing would be to treat all threads as ongoing
and bottom post. Explaining this is like lecturing on the importance of
wiping one's ass-I mean-why should it be necessary at all?
Looking at which side Kunthagen chimed in on speaks volumes don't it?

monroe(God really hates top posters)





>
> The norm is to read a book from front to back. Or a memo from top to bottom.
> Posting in a newsgroups should follow the same simple logic.

In article > , "Edwin
Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Kent H." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why top posting isn't
> > the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
> > you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
> > constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.
> > Kent
>
> Top posting is fine for a reply to one message. When you have an ongoing
> thread, it is simple to follow with bottom posting. When both are used, it
> is confusing as hell for anyone , but especially for those that miss a post
> or two along the way.

Kunth amazes all with his stupidity once again. Sweet Jesus what utter
drivel.
I might agree with you Ed, but who can tell ahead of time when a thread
is one message or it is to continue? I guess the dumbass top posters
get to be psychic and decide this for us all. How nice. How
egotistical. How confusing. How stupidly wrong.
The sane and mannerly thing would be to treat all threads as ongoing
and bottom post. Explaining this is like lecturing on the importance of
wiping one's ass-I mean-why should it be necessary at all?
Looking at which side Kunthagen chimed in on speaks volumes don't it?

monroe(God really hates top posters)





>
> The norm is to read a book from front to back. Or a memo from top to bottom.
> Posting in a newsgroups should follow the same simple logic.

"Matthew L. Martin" > wrote in message

|| JD wrote:
||
||| I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if
||| it's a thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the
||| latest response at the top and respond on top.
||
|| Yeah, that's great for you and lousy for anyone with a less than
|| perfect
|| news feed when articles arrive out of order or not at all. Then there
|| are those people who are coming into the middle of a conversation.
||
||| But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
||| don't gripe about bottom posters.
|||
||
|| Do you read books/magazines/dialogs from the last page towards the
|| front?
||
|| Matthew
||

When I have a stack of magazines and the new issue comes in, I don't read
all the old ones again to get to the new issue.

JD

"Matthew L. Martin" > wrote in message

|| JD wrote:
||
||| I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if
||| it's a thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the
||| latest response at the top and respond on top.
||
|| Yeah, that's great for you and lousy for anyone with a less than
|| perfect
|| news feed when articles arrive out of order or not at all. Then there
|| are those people who are coming into the middle of a conversation.
||
||| But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
||| don't gripe about bottom posters.
|||
||
|| Do you read books/magazines/dialogs from the last page towards the
|| front?
||
|| Matthew
||

When I have a stack of magazines and the new issue comes in, I don't read
all the old ones again to get to the new issue.

JD

"JD" > wrote in message
> When I have a stack of magazines and the new issue comes in, I don't read
> all the old ones again to get to the new issue.
>
> JD


That is true, however . . . . . .

You did not read the last couple of issues. A new issue comes in and you
see part 3 of a very interesting article on making barbecue. Do you read in
backwards? Do you just skip the first two because you missed them?

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:06:38 GMT, "JD" >
wrote:

>When I have a stack of magazines and the new issue comes in, I don't read
>all the old ones again to get to the new issue.

Then I guess you don't have anything to say about top-posting or
bottom-posting. Instead, you're talking about people's inability or
unwillingness to snip irrelevant text when following-up. Glad I could
clear that up for you.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:06:38 GMT, "JD" >
wrote:

>When I have a stack of magazines and the new issue comes in, I don't read
>all the old ones again to get to the new issue.

Then I guess you don't have anything to say about top-posting or
bottom-posting. Instead, you're talking about people's inability or
unwillingness to snip irrelevant text when following-up. Glad I could
clear that up for you.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:09:15 GMT, "JD" >
wrote:

>I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if it's a
>thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the latest response at
>the top and respond on top.

In other words, your time and convenience are much more important than
the time and convenience of your readers. Gotcha. Thanks for being
sharing.

>But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
>don't gripe about bottom posters.

I think you mean, "I don't gripe about bottom posters because I don't
have anything even remotely resembling a sound, logical argument,
other than to say that top-posting is easier for me."

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:09:15 GMT, "JD" >
wrote:

>I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if it's a
>thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the latest response at
>the top and respond on top.

In other words, your time and convenience are much more important than
the time and convenience of your readers. Gotcha. Thanks for being
sharing.

>But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
>don't gripe about bottom posters.

I think you mean, "I don't gripe about bottom posters because I don't
have anything even remotely resembling a sound, logical argument,
other than to say that top-posting is easier for me."

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:10:02 GMT, "Kent H." >
wrote:

>Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand

Why am I not surprised?

> why top posting isn't
>the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
>you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
>constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.

<snip 20 lines that this top-posting, full-quoting bozo is too lazy or
stupid to snip>

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:10:02 GMT, "Kent H." >
wrote:

>Sean, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand

Why am I not surprised?

> why top posting isn't
>the norm, or is at least an acceptable means of responding. I agree with
>you. That's what I choose to do as well. The level of cerebral
>constipation regarding this meaningless issue is mindblowing.

<snip 20 lines that this top-posting, full-quoting bozo is too lazy or
stupid to snip>

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Matthew L. Martin said on 8/30/2004 6:30 PM:
> JD wrote:
>
>> I bottom post because I tire of hearing the whiners. For *me* if it's a
>> thread I've been following it's *much* easier to read the latest
>> response at the top and respond on top.
>
> Yeah, that's great for you and lousy for anyone with a less than perfect
> news feed when articles arrive out of order or not at all. Then there
> are those people who are coming into the middle of a conversation.
>
>> But I'm not terribly anal about such things so I
>> don't gripe about bottom posters.
>>
>
> Do you read books/magazines/dialogs from the last page towards the front?
>
> Matthew
>
No. But I don't have to re-read EVERY chapter over and over every time I
start a new one either.

Some of these threads go on forever without a single snip. I counted
plenty of threads with a bunch of posts with each succeeding message
getting longer and longer and longer requiring 8, 9, 10... turns of my
scroll wheel for each, most with one-liner responses. And not one
single complaint from y'all.... (Thats the plural y'all, not the singular!)

<grin>.

ToLo wrote:

> Some of these threads go on forever without a single snip. I counted
> plenty of threads with a bunch of posts with each succeeding message
> getting longer and longer and longer requiring 8, 9, 10... turns of my
> scroll wheel for each, most with one-liner responses. And not one
> single complaint from y'all.... (Thats the plural y'all, not the singular!)

Yes, that does happen. Usually by top posting bozos. It is as annoying
as top posting and even more wasteful of time. That said, top posting is
always annoying, as well. You will find that most of the posting style
corrections here deal with top posting first and non-snippage second.

Matthew

ToLo wrote:

> Some of these threads go on forever without a single snip. I counted
> plenty of threads with a bunch of posts with each succeeding message
> getting longer and longer and longer requiring 8, 9, 10... turns of my
> scroll wheel for each, most with one-liner responses. And not one
> single complaint from y'all.... (Thats the plural y'all, not the singular!)

Yes, that does happen. Usually by top posting bozos. It is as annoying
as top posting and even more wasteful of time. That said, top posting is
always annoying, as well. You will find that most of the posting style
corrections here deal with top posting first and non-snippage second.

Matthew

"Matthew L. Martin" > wrote in message
> ToLo wrote:
>
> > Some of these threads go on forever without a single snip. I counted

> Yes, that does happen. Usually by top posting bozos. It is as annoying

But it is the funniest when (not) done by someone complaining about top
posting.


On topic, the SO has pre aproved a large-ish Klose purchase. Food TV
featured him and they showed one of his units they quoted as being $1300,
and she said "wow, that's a lot of cooker for the money, is this the one
you've talked about honey?". I'm still grinnin'.

Duwop wrote:

>
> On topic, the SO has pre aproved a large-ish Klose purchase. Food TV
> featured him and they showed one of his units they quoted as being $1300,
> and she said "wow, that's a lot of cooker for the money, is this the one
> you've talked about honey?". I'm still grinnin'.
>

I have had similar good fortune. SWMBO has said "As long as it will make
you happy and I get to eat what you cook, get what you want" in
reference to a Kamado purchase. Now I have to agonize over the size,
options and (gasp!) color.

Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

Duwop wrote:

>
> On topic, the SO has pre aproved a large-ish Klose purchase. Food TV
> featured him and they showed one of his units they quoted as being $1300,
> and she said "wow, that's a lot of cooker for the money, is this the one
> you've talked about honey?". I'm still grinnin'.
>

I have had similar good fortune. SWMBO has said "As long as it will make
you happy and I get to eat what you cook, get what you want" in
reference to a Kamado purchase. Now I have to agonize over the size,
options and (gasp!) color.

Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:31:12 -0500, ToLo > wrote:

>Some of these threads go on forever without a single snip.

Oh. So you're not talking about top-posting, then.

>I counted
>plenty of threads with a bunch of posts with each succeeding message
>getting longer and longer and longer requiring 8, 9, 10... turns of my
>scroll wheel for each, most with one-liner responses. And not one
>single complaint from y'all.... (Thats the plural y'all, not the singular!)

We can start anytime, if you like.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:31:12 -0500, ToLo > wrote:

>Some of these threads go on forever without a single snip.

Oh. So you're not talking about top-posting, then.

>I counted
>plenty of threads with a bunch of posts with each succeeding message
>getting longer and longer and longer requiring 8, 9, 10... turns of my
>scroll wheel for each, most with one-liner responses. And not one
>single complaint from y'all.... (Thats the plural y'all, not the singular!)

We can start anytime, if you like.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:33:54 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

> (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

If you're cooking most often for just for you and your wife, go with
the combo. You'll do lots of grilling on the 3, bulk low and slow on
the 7, and use them both for larger groups.

I have a 7, a 5, and a 1, and usually cook for two people, three on
Sundays. I most often cook on the 3, using the 1 for camping and for
grilling a few burgers, chicken breasts, or side dishes. The 7 gets
used only when cooking for large groups or doing large amounts of low
and slow.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:33:54 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

> (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

If you're cooking most often for just for you and your wife, go with
the combo. You'll do lots of grilling on the 3, bulk low and slow on
the 7, and use them both for larger groups.

I have a 7, a 5, and a 1, and usually cook for two people, three on
Sundays. I most often cook on the 3, using the 1 for camping and for
grilling a few burgers, chicken breasts, or side dishes. The 7 gets
used only when cooking for large groups or doing large amounts of low
and slow.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
> I have had similar good fortune. SWMBO has said "As long as it will
> make you happy and I get to eat what you cook, get what you want" in
> reference to a Kamado purchase. Now I have to agonize over the size,
> options and (gasp!) color.
>
> Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

So the moral is: good cooking is it's own reward, and more! Me? I'd get the
biggest one, well..........tough decision. That #9 is massive, talk about a
conversation piece. Funny thing is, the wife just isnt impressed by Kamado's
for some reason, but when she saw that big piece of iron she was. I don't
mind, I kinda like offsets myself anyway.

Dale
--

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
> I have had similar good fortune. SWMBO has said "As long as it will
> make you happy and I get to eat what you cook, get what you want" in
> reference to a Kamado purchase. Now I have to agonize over the size,
> options and (gasp!) color.
>
> Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

So the moral is: good cooking is it's own reward, and more! Me? I'd get the
biggest one, well..........tough decision. That #9 is massive, talk about a
conversation piece. Funny thing is, the wife just isnt impressed by Kamado's
for some reason, but when she saw that big piece of iron she was. I don't
mind, I kinda like offsets myself anyway.

Dale
--

Duwop wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>>Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)
>
>
> So the moral is: good cooking is it's own reward, and more! Me? I'd get the
> biggest one, well..........tough decision. That #9 is massive, talk about a
> conversation piece.

This process is really taxing. The only K I've seen up close and
personal is a cobalt #5. It is physically imposing, even with it's small
grill. Trying to figure what size or combination of sizes would best
match our usage isn't easy.

> Funny thing is, the wife just isnt impressed by Kamado's
> for some reason, but when she saw that big piece of iron she was. I don't
> mind, I kinda like offsets myself anyway.

My wife likes the looks of the K better than I do. I don't call them
"giant concrete cocktail shakers" for any other reason than that's what
they look like to me. I'm looking for the flexibility, ease of use and
functionality that they can provide.

Matthew

Duwop wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>>Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)
>
>
> So the moral is: good cooking is it's own reward, and more! Me? I'd get the
> biggest one, well..........tough decision. That #9 is massive, talk about a
> conversation piece.

This process is really taxing. The only K I've seen up close and
personal is a cobalt #5. It is physically imposing, even with it's small
grill. Trying to figure what size or combination of sizes would best
match our usage isn't easy.

> Funny thing is, the wife just isnt impressed by Kamado's
> for some reason, but when she saw that big piece of iron she was. I don't
> mind, I kinda like offsets myself anyway.

My wife likes the looks of the K better than I do. I don't call them
"giant concrete cocktail shakers" for any other reason than that's what
they look like to me. I'm looking for the flexibility, ease of use and
functionality that they can provide.

Matthew

In article >, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

> Duwop wrote:
>
> >
> > On topic, the SO has pre aproved a large-ish Klose purchase. Food TV
> > featured him and they showed one of his units they quoted as being $1300,
> > and she said "wow, that's a lot of cooker for the money, is this the one
> > you've talked about honey?". I'm still grinnin'.
> >
>
> I have had similar good fortune. SWMBO has said "As long as it will make
> you happy and I get to eat what you cook, get what you want" in
> reference to a Kamado purchase. Now I have to agonize over the size,
> options and (gasp!) color.
>
> Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

"Just go ahead and buy the damn thing already!" is how my dearest
Miranda put it.
Words to set my lil heart aflutter!

monroe(ahhh romance)

In article >, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

> Duwop wrote:
>
> >
> > On topic, the SO has pre aproved a large-ish Klose purchase. Food TV
> > featured him and they showed one of his units they quoted as being $1300,
> > and she said "wow, that's a lot of cooker for the money, is this the one
> > you've talked about honey?". I'm still grinnin'.
> >
>
> I have had similar good fortune. SWMBO has said "As long as it will make
> you happy and I get to eat what you cook, get what you want" in
> reference to a Kamado purchase. Now I have to agonize over the size,
> options and (gasp!) color.
>
> Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)

"Just go ahead and buy the damn thing already!" is how my dearest
Miranda put it.
Words to set my lil heart aflutter!

monroe(ahhh romance)

In article >, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

> My wife likes the looks of the K better than I do. I don't call them
> "giant concrete cocktail shakers" for any other reason than that's what
> they look like to me. I'm looking for the flexibility, ease of use and
> functionality that they can provide.
>
Yard art Schmard art. Looks were the last thing on my mind when I
ordered the K. That doesn't mean I wasn't just whomperjawed at how nice
it looked when it was uncrated.

monroe(owner of maybe the world's dirtiest K)

Monroe, of course... wrote:

> In article >, "Matthew L. Martin"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Matthew (do I get a #9 or a #7 and a #3)
>
>
> "Just go ahead and buy the damn thing already!" is how my dearest
> Miranda put it.
> Words to set my lil heart aflutter!
>

I've been told that I have four sets of tile samples in the mail. They
should be in my mailbox by Saturday.

Matthew (or a #9 and a #5?)