Cold smoking in WSM
I'm considering making some summer sausage out of a bunch of ground venison
that I have in the freezer, using my WSM. We used to make it on my great uncles farm in very large quantities, and smoke in a great old offset smoker with a small barrel stove providing smoke for an old refirigerator that was lined with steel. Unfortunatley, he and the farm are not with us anymore. I was reading on the webervirtualbullet.com site and saw the mod for constructing a separate cardboard box and tube devices, and I trust that works as I've gotten good advice from the other parts of the site. But I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried cold smoking in the WSM without a separate "smokebox". Either using wood/charcoal for fuel or possibly slapping an electric hotplate on the charcoal grate with some chunks/chips? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. |
"WiScottsin" > wrote in message ... > I'm considering making some summer sausage out of a bunch of ground venison > that I have in the freezer, using my WSM. We used to make it on my great > uncles farm in very large quantities, and smoke in a great old offset smoker > with a small barrel stove providing smoke for an old refirigerator that was > lined with steel. Unfortunatley, he and the farm are not with us anymore. > > I was reading on the webervirtualbullet.com site and saw the mod for > constructing a separate cardboard box and tube devices, and I trust that > works as I've gotten good advice from the other parts of the site. > > But I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried cold smoking in the WSM without a > separate "smokebox". Either using wood/charcoal for fuel or possibly > slapping an electric hotplate on the charcoal grate with some chunks/chips? > > Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Take a look at this: http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/coldsmoker.html |
"f/256" > wrote in message > > > > I was reading on the webervirtualbullet.com site and saw the mod for > > constructing a separate cardboard box and tube devices, and I trust that > > works as I've gotten good advice from the other parts of the site. > > > > But I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried cold smoking in the WSM without > > Take a look at this: http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/coldsmoker.html > > Seems as thought you did not read the original post. Anyhow, I've not tried it with the WSM, but I do cold smoke on my smoker using a hotplate. There is a picture on my web page. Hotplate, pie pan, sawdust, and you are ready to go. Only downside I see is the ability to regulate the temperature. If you have the hotplate on the bottom, it is not easily reached to turn it down. A heavy duty rheostat could do it though. Ed http://pages.cthome.net/edhome |
"f/256" > wrote... > > "WiScottsin" > wrote in message > ... > > I'm considering making some summer sausage out of a bunch of ground > venison > > that I have in the freezer, using my WSM. We used to make it on my great > > uncles farm in very large quantities, and smoke in a great old offset > smoker > > with a small barrel stove providing smoke for an old refirigerator that > was > > lined with steel. Unfortunatley, he and the farm are not with us anymore. > > > > I was reading on the webervirtualbullet.com site and saw the mod for > > constructing a separate cardboard box and tube devices, and I trust that > > works as I've gotten good advice from the other parts of the site. > > > > But I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried cold smoking in the WSM without > a > > separate "smokebox". Either using wood/charcoal for fuel or possibly > > slapping an electric hotplate on the charcoal grate with some > chunks/chips? > > > > Any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Take a look at this: http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/coldsmoker.html > > Thanks, but if you read my post a little more closely you'll see that I already looked at the VWB link and was wondering if anyone had success cold smoking without a separate fire/smoke-box. |
"WiScottsin" > wrote in message ... > > Thanks, but if you read my post a little more closely you'll see that I > already looked at the VWB link and was wondering if anyone had success cold > smoking without a separate fire/smoke-box. Just wanted to make sure all you guy were paying attention...Congratulation you all passed the test!! :-) |
WiScottsin wrote: > I'm considering making some summer sausage out of a bunch of ground venison > that I have in the freezer, using my WSM. We used to make it on my great > uncles farm in very large quantities, and smoke in a great old offset smoker > with a small barrel stove providing smoke for an old refirigerator that was > lined with steel. Unfortunatley, he and the farm are not with us anymore. > > I was reading on the webervirtualbullet.com site and saw the mod for > constructing a separate cardboard box and tube devices, and I trust that > works as I've gotten good advice from the other parts of the site. > > But I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried cold smoking in the WSM without a > separate "smokebox". Either using wood/charcoal for fuel or possibly > slapping an electric hotplate on the charcoal grate with some chunks/chips? > > Any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > I smoked cheese in my old bullet type smoker without any modifications. Just used 3 briquettes and some wood chips for the smoke. I maintained the temperature around 80°. The outside temperature was around 30°. Cold smoking is definitely a cool weather cook. Don't know much about making summer sausage, but would suggest trying some cheese first to get a feel for how it is going to work. I did a couple 1 lb. blocks of cheddar and smoked it for about 60 minutes or so. I now have a WSM and have no doubt that you can cold smoke without modifications. But again, cool weather and just a couple briquettes are key to success. I will be doing some cheese again once the weather cools down. I post pics on ABF of most of my outdoor cooks. Check back in October or so and I will have a report on my efforts. Happy Q'en, BBQ |
I've gotten good results from using a small [soup] can with both ends
removed. I place the can in the middle of the charcoal grate, put a firelighter in the bottom, then fill the can with briquettes (4 or 5). Light the firelighter and wait until it has burnt out and the briquettes are all ashed over and then some. Assemble the unit, with cold tap water in the pan, and put your meat on. Put as many small chunks of your smoking wood on top of the can of coals as you can and then close it all up. Close all the vents completely. It fills with thick thick smoke but stays a very low temp for a long time. Just some tips: I light the firelighter using a long stemmed BBQ lighter. Just shoot the flame down through the grate beside the can, so the flame comes up to light the firelighter from below. I cold smoke in the afternoon, so the WSM is not in direct sunlight. Being black metal the sun adds a lot of heat. I also occasionally open the top vent, partially because I feel it lets any accumulating heat out, lets an equal amount of air find it's way in (to keep the coals burning) and allows me to see just how much smoke is in there. 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 "WiScottsin" > wrote in message ... > I'm considering making some summer sausage out of a bunch of ground venison > that I have in the freezer, using my WSM. We used to make it on my great > uncles farm in very large quantities, and smoke in a great old offset smoker > with a small barrel stove providing smoke for an old refirigerator that was > lined with steel. Unfortunatley, he and the farm are not with us anymore. > > I was reading on the webervirtualbullet.com site and saw the mod for > constructing a separate cardboard box and tube devices, and I trust that > works as I've gotten good advice from the other parts of the site. > > But I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried cold smoking in the WSM without a > separate "smokebox". Either using wood/charcoal for fuel or possibly > slapping an electric hotplate on the charcoal grate with some chunks/chips? > > Any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > |
In article >, "Sean"
> wrote: > I've gotten good results from using a small [soup] can with both ends > removed. I place the can in the middle of the charcoal grate, put a > firelighter in the bottom, then fill the can with briquettes (4 or 5). Light > the firelighter and wait until it has burnt out and the briquettes are all > ashed over and then some. Assemble the unit, with cold tap water in the pan, > and put your meat on. Put as many small chunks of your smoking wood on top > of the can of coals as you can and then close it all up. Close all the vents > completely. It fills with thick thick smoke but stays a very low temp for a > long time. The soup can fire ring sounds like a good idea <smacks forehead> why din't I think of that? The secret to cold smoking on a bullet type is to keep a 3-4 briquette sized fire (with apropriate smoke) going for hours and hours. This is one of the most tedious things a human can do. I've easily run my K at 140-150F due to its great airflow control. I don't know if a WSM will shutter up that tightly. monroe(thinking of smoked peppers) |
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. |
> Sean, please don't top-post. What's the deal about "top posting", how that bothers people? I ask because I haven't found a reason to dislike top posting, actually, when I am actually following a thread, I never read the previous post, only the new post, so top posting actually let me read the new msg w/o having to scroll down. So why top posting bothers people? Just want to know, may me if the reasons are valid and carry some weight, I should let them bother me too!! :-) |
f/256 wrote:
>>Sean, please don't top-post. > > > What's the deal about "top posting", how that bothers people? I ask because > I haven't found a reason to dislike top posting, actually, when I am > actually following a thread, I never read the previous post, only the new > post, so top posting actually let me read the new msg w/o having to scroll > down. So why top posting bothers people? Just want to know, may me if the > reasons are valid and carry some weight, I should let them bother me too!! Well, there goes that *that* thread. *plink* -- Aloha, Nathan Lau San Jose, CA #include <std.disclaimer> |
f/256 wrote:
> > > Sean, please don't top-post. > > What's the deal about "top posting", how that bothers people? I ask because > I haven't found a reason to dislike top posting, actually, when I am > actually following a thread, I never read the previous post, only the new > post, so top posting actually let me read the new msg w/o having to scroll > down. So why top posting bothers people? Just want to know, may me if the > reasons are valid and carry some weight, I should let them bother me too!! > :-) Run a google search on the subject. It's been hashed to death here and elsewhere. For this group, note that we took a vote and overwhelmingly disaproved of it. Some people here will killfile over it. Brian Rodenborn |
I top post too and many are way too uptight about the issue.
I've tried to pose the same question and never received a reasonable or civil answer. I think different news readers handle the posts differently and some make top posting hard to read. It's only a guess. Like you, I rarely read the enclosed post or snippet, so top posting saves me scrolling. I guess, it's really a cultural thing and people don't like variance or change, so many use bully tactics to keep their order. "f/256" > wrote in message able.rogers.com... > > > Sean, please don't top-post. > > What's the deal about "top posting", how that bothers people? I ask because > I haven't found a reason to dislike top posting, actually, when I am > actually following a thread, I never read the previous post, only the new > post, so top posting actually let me read the new msg w/o having to scroll > down. So why top posting bothers people? Just want to know, may me if the > reasons are valid and carry some weight, I should let them bother me too!! > :-) > > > |
Jeff Russell wrote:
> I top post too and many are way too uptight about the issue. > I've tried to pose the same question and never received a reasonable > or civil answer. Reading takes place top to bottom. Answers follow statements or questions. It's a simple concept. |
f/256 wrote:
> What's the deal about "top posting", how that bothers people? Context is out of place. > I ask > because I haven't found a reason to dislike top posting, actually, > when I am actually following a thread, I never read the previous > post, only the new post, so top posting actually let me read the new > msg w/o having to scroll down. Many folks don't just read a new post.... they have to refer back to the previous post to determine the context to which the new post is made. Asn as far as scrolling down is concerned, that is an issue of trimming the previous text to which one is responding. Trimming is also a long standing usenet tradition. > So why top posting bothers people? Already answered. > Just want to know, may me if the reasons are valid and carry some > weight, I should let them bother me too!! :-) It doesn't have to bother *you* in order to do the right thing :-) |
Jeff Russell wrote:
> I top post too and many are way too uptight about the issue. > I've tried to pose the same question and never received a reasonable > or civil answer. > I think different news readers handle the posts differently and some > make top posting hard to read. It's only a guess. > Like you, I rarely read the enclosed post or snippet, so top posting > saves me scrolling. > I guess, it's really a cultural thing and people don't like variance > or change, so many use bully tactics to keep their order. Jess, if you've been paying attention there have been good reasonable and polite explanations. More than just a few too. Your complaint about scrolling is a separate issue: <snipping> , people here need to be reminded of that as well. Who doesn't hate scrolling down two pages to see someone's "me too!"? People who do that too much end up in peoples' killfile too. One more time, just for you : -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TOP POSTING, WHY? Here is how *not* to do it: "I'll see you at Linda's wedding." "Well, see ya soon." "Congratulations!" "Ten thousand a year." "How much?" "Got a really big raise this time." "Sorry to hear it. How's the job?" "She's not feeling well. Flu, I think." "Same as ever. How's yours?" "How's your wife?" "They painted her purple. They should call her the Prune Fart now." "Good. Did you hear what Martin and Sheila did to the Sea Breeze?" "Good, and you?" "Bill! How the heck are you?" Here is further information: Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting Adapted from http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html By Anton Smit and H.W. de Haan Definitions: Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup. Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is placed below the original text. As Usenet-readers, we are often annoyed by people who keep top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net etiquette'. The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than top-posting. In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts of the message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly beneath the quoted relevant parts. [1] Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated but still has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this site: "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!" [2] We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders like Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, which is the Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however has some serious bugs. Let us quote someone we know: "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to implement to put a signature at the end of the post instead of putting it directly above the post you are replying to and can not change the position. Forte Agent has as a feature that reply to a post it will remove the signature (recognizable by '-- ', note the extra space) and everything below it, so it will remove a part of the original message. This is good Usenet practice so Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express on the other hand is faulty, check this bugreport regarding the Usenet signature delimiter. http://www.okinfoweb.com/moe/bugs/bugs_047.htm If you want to try Agent, you can get it at http://www.forteinc.com/ [3] Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about, due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed. [4] To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new text, it is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with regard to one's reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts, because most top-posters leave the original message intact. All these long posts not only clutter up discussions, but they also clutter up the server space. [5] Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the relevant parts: it not possible to answer within the original message. Bottom-posting does not make top-posting any harder. [6] Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping. This can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start, and using only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has do it manually, and that can be tiresome. [7] A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check the previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome than scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be simply unavailable. [8] Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in their charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch newsgroups, you will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if you fail to follow Usenet conventions or if you do not quote according to the quoting guidelines. In general: it is better to practice the guidelines, if one does not want to get flamed in a newsgroup one just subscribed to. We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for top-posting. The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people spend on making posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post, that is it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no irrelevant 'b*llsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the majority of the group will adhere to this convention, the group will be nicer, tidier and easier to read. As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means that the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely removed. It makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and whom one is replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong settings of news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to start with clean replies. -- |
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 f/256 wrote: >>Sean, please don't top-post. > > > What's the deal about "top posting", how that bothers people? I ask because > I haven't found a reason to dislike top posting, actually, when I am > actually following a thread, I never read the previous post, only the new > post, so top posting actually let me read the new msg w/o having to scroll > down. So why top posting bothers people? Just want to know, may me if the > reasons are valid and carry some weight, I should let them bother me too!! > :-) > > > |
Jeff Russell wrote:
> > I top post too and many are way too uptight about the issue. > I've tried to pose the same question and never received a reasonable or > civil answer. Yes you did. *plonk* Brian Rodenborn |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> 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 Dang, Matthew, what an excellent illustration. |
Dave Bugg wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote: > >>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 > > > Dang, Matthew, what an excellent illustration. In all modesty, I must say that I stole it:-) Matthew |
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote > > Seems as thought you did not read the original post. > > Anyhow, I've not tried it with the WSM, but I do cold smoke on my smoker > using a hotplate. There is a picture on my web page. > > Hotplate, pie pan, sawdust, and you are ready to go. Only downside I see is > the ability to regulate the temperature. If you have the hotplate on the > bottom, it is not easily reached to turn it down. A heavy duty rheostat > could do it though. > Ed > > http://pages.cthome.net/edhome > > Thanks for the tip Ed - I was thinking of trying the same thing. From the little info I've been able to find, temp control is the issue with the WSM, even with an electric hotplate. I guess the only way to find out is to actually try it... |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote: > >> Matthew L. Martin wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> >> Dang, Matthew, what an excellent illustration. > > In all modesty, I must say that I stole it:-) > > Matthew Well...I just stole it *again*! And saved it. Thanks. BOB |
I think the key to smoking cold is to keep the heat down as much as
possible, while keeping it all concentrated in one place as much as possible. That way you can create plenty of smoke with the heat, while keeping the overall temp extremely low. The can really helps there, keeping the coals together while focusing all the heat up through the smoking wood. As a side note, be careful not to over-smoke! I've found cheese particularly seems to suck in the smoke. "I don't know if a WSM will shutter up that tightly." While I have not tried to do sub boiling point cooks for extended periods, if you close all the vents on the WSM the fire snuffs pretty quick. Based on that I think you should be able to maintain any temperature you want, provided (as with any fire) you concentrate the fire enough to set new fuel off as old fuel is depleted. Using the method I described creates a cold environment (well below 140ºF measured from the dome) for much longer than it takes to smoke flavor food. If you wanted to do it for extended periods, you should be able to just drop more fuel into the can, and more wood on top of that as you go. I would advise anyone to check the smokiness though, as I think that would end up WAAAYY too smokey. - Sean "Monroe, of course..." > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Sean" > > wrote: > > The soup can fire ring sounds like a good idea <smacks forehead> why > din't I think of that? > The secret to cold smoking on a bullet type is to keep a 3-4 briquette > sized fire (with apropriate smoke) going for hours and hours. This is > one of the most tedious things a human can do. > I've easily run my K at 140-150F due to its great airflow control. I > don't know if a WSM will shutter up that tightly. > > monroe(thinking of smoked peppers) |
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. > > |
"Sean" > wrote in message
... > Sorry Dave, that's how I prefer to do things. You're certainly welcome to do *Plonk* |
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. The weak rhetoric of the self-indulgent and self-centered. Top posting is against established netiquette. You'll find that your attitude does little to win friends here. |
Dave Bugg wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote: > >>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 > > > Dang, Matthew, what an excellent illustration. > > Sure is. Top posting and not snipping are just plain rude usenet behavior and shows that someone really has no clue (or just plain doesn't care) about accepted protocalls. -- Steve Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener. |
Steve Calvin wrote:
> Sure is. Top posting and not snipping are just plain rude usenet > behavior and shows that someone really has no clue (or just plain > doesn't care) about accepted protocalls. Or perhaps even established protocols. ;-) Dana |
Duwop wrote:
> [2] We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders > like Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, > which is the Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however > has some serious bugs. Let us quote someone we know: > > "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably > the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge > Oh well, my screen needed cleaned anyhow. Not necessarily with beer but... -- Steve Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener. |
LOL! I love that, that's supposed to be you telling me you're putting me in
your ignore list right? LOL You think I care, and I think that's special. Especially as from what reading I have done in this group, most people don't actually put the person on ignore! :-) All the same, it does have entertainment value, and displays how wonderfully uptight and retentive some people are. I can imagine these people who *plonk* out loud at the drop of a hat do so because it's not happening on the toilet. My advice is to just relax, and it'll happen. People need to widen their horizons a little: If you can't handle someone posting "on top" so much that you would rather *plonk* them you've lost the plot! LOL - Sean "Duwop" > wrote in message ... > "Sean" > wrote in message > ... > > Sorry Dave, that's how I prefer to do things. You're certainly welcome to > do > > *Plonk* > > > |
Duwop wrote:
> "Sean" > wrote in message > ... > >>Sorry Dave, that's how I prefer to do things. You're certainly welcome to > > do > > *Plonk* > > > Ya know, I've never put anyone in a killfile but with the recent rash of top posters and non-snippers I just may start. I'm sure that some of them have valid points, it's just a shame that they can't follow conventions that have been established long before anything with a www.anything ever existed. Kinda like saying "aw the hell with it, I don't care if everyone else in the U.S. drives on the right side of the road! I'm driving on the left!". People WILL get out of your way. -- Steve Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener. |
Dana Myers wrote:
> Steve Calvin wrote: > > >> Sure is. Top posting and not snipping are just plain rude usenet >> behavior and shows that someone really has no clue (or just plain >> doesn't care) about accepted protocalls. > > > Or perhaps even established protocols. > > ;-) > > Dana OOPS! My bad. Damned fat fingers! (Guess that I really can't touch type! ;-) ) -- Steve Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener. |
Sean wrote:
> LOL! I love that, that's supposed to be you telling me you're putting me in > your ignore list right? LOL You think I care, and I think that's special. > Especially as from what reading I have done in this group, most people don't > actually put the person on ignore! :-) Keep top posting and see if you get any answers or advice from this group. If 20 people are telling you that your shit stinks, you may want to smell it... -- Steve Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener. |
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. *plonk* Brian Rodenborn |
Steve Calvin wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote: >> >> Dang, Matthew, what an excellent illustration. >> >> > Sure is. Top posting and not snipping are just plain rude usenet > behavior and shows that someone really has no clue (or just plain > doesn't care) about accepted protocalls. > As I have said before, top posting is useful when you want to be rude and dismissive. Matthew -- Thermodynamics for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
I don't think there is anything self-centered about posting on top. I'm sure
others prefer top posting too, and if people who prefer top posting do so, then you'll see top posted replies to the percentage people prefer that. Which is the way it should be. I realize there is no point to arguing the topic to those that get upset over such things though, so I'll move on and ask them to do as they see fit. If they cannot handle top posted replies, then "plonk" the user so it doesn't continue to upset you and move on. I would much rather those who *plonk*, and revert so quickly to personal attacks and insults, plonk me anyway. It sounds like the best way forward for all of us. - Sean "Dave Bugg" <deebuggatcharterdotnet> wrote in message ... > 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. > > The weak rhetoric of the self-indulgent and self-centered. Top posting is > against established netiquette. You'll find that your attitude does little > to win friends here. > > |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Steve Calvin wrote: > >> Dave Bugg wrote: >> >>> >>> Dang, Matthew, what an excellent illustration. >>> >>> >> Sure is. Top posting and not snipping are just plain rude usenet >> behavior and shows that someone really has no clue (or just plain >> doesn't care) about accepted protocalls. >> > > As I have said before, top posting is useful when you want to be rude > and dismissive. > > Matthew > Good point Matthew. I'll cease and desist. I guess "ignore" mode is still the best reply. I just need reminded of it once in a while. ;-) -- Steve Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener. |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Steve Calvin wrote: > >> Dave Bugg wrote: >> >>> >>> Dang, Matthew, what an excellent illustration. >>> >>> >> Sure is. Top posting and not snipping are just plain rude usenet >> behavior and shows that someone really has no clue (or just plain >> doesn't care) about accepted protocalls. >> > > As I have said before, top posting is useful when you want to be rude > and dismissive. > > Matthew > Good point Matthew. I'll cease and desist. I guess "ignore" mode is still the best reply. I just need reminded of it once in a while. ;-) -- Steve Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener. |
In article >, "Sean"
> wrote: > I don't think there is anything self-centered about posting on top. I'm sure > others prefer top posting too, and if people who prefer top posting do so, > then you'll see top posted replies to the percentage people prefer that. > Which is the way it should be. I realize there is no point to arguing the > topic to those that get upset over such things though, so I'll move on and > ask them to do as they see fit. If they cannot handle top posted replies, > then "plonk" the user so it doesn't continue to upset you and move on. I > would much rather those who *plonk*, and revert so quickly to personal > attacks and insults, plonk me anyway. It sounds like the best way forward > for all of us. > Spoken like a true dyed-in-the-wool asswipe. Jeez-just when I thought you might have something interesting to contribute here, you prove otherwise. I bet you fart in crowded elevators, too. monroe(CYSP) |
Sean wrote:
> I don't think there is anything self-centered about posting on top. Sure it is. It's what YOU want, ignoring the preference of usenet as a whole. > I'm sure others prefer top posting too, and if people who prefer top > posting do so, then you'll see top posted replies to the percentage > people prefer that. Wrong. We took the time to do a poll. Outside of a very few, the vast majority agreed that the establishe netiquette is preferable. > Which is the way it should be. I realize there is > no point to arguing the topic to those that get upset over such > things though, so I'll move on and ask them to do as they see fit. Of course you will. And I suppose you go into other peoples homes and **** on their carpets as well. > If > they cannot handle top posted replies, then "plonk" the user so it > doesn't continue to upset you and move on. Funny, it's not up to you to dictate how people choose to handle your rude behavior. Some may plonk you, others may decide to continue on. > I would much rather those > who *plonk*, and revert so quickly to personal attacks and insults, > plonk me anyway. It sounds like the best way forward for all of us. Again, it ain't your call, Bubba. As I see it, you've decided to willingly foul the waters here and tell everyone else, "tough luck". |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter