FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Barbecue (https://www.foodbanter.com/barbecue/)
-   -   Cold smoking in WSM (https://www.foodbanter.com/barbecue/32315-cold-smoking-wsm.html)

WiScottsin 23-08-2004 02:59 AM

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.



f/256 23-08-2004 03:02 AM


"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



Edwin Pawlowski 23-08-2004 03:21 AM


"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



WiScottsin 23-08-2004 03:23 AM


"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.



f/256 23-08-2004 03:42 AM


"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!!

:-)



bbq 23-08-2004 04:40 AM



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


Sean 23-08-2004 07:16 AM

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.
>
>




Monroe, of course... 23-08-2004 03:48 PM

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)

Dave Bugg 23-08-2004 05:01 PM

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.



f/256 23-08-2004 09:39 PM


> 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!!
:-)




Nathan Lau 23-08-2004 09:51 PM

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>

Default User 23-08-2004 10:14 PM

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

Jeff Russell 23-08-2004 10:26 PM

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!!
> :-)
>
>
>




Dave Bugg 23-08-2004 10:44 PM

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.



Dave Bugg 23-08-2004 10:49 PM

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 :-)



Duwop 23-08-2004 10:52 PM

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.


--




Matthew L. Martin 23-08-2004 10:53 PM

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!!
> :-)
>
>
>



Default User 23-08-2004 11:09 PM

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

Dave Bugg 23-08-2004 11:27 PM

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.



Matthew L. Martin 23-08-2004 11:39 PM

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


WiScottsin 23-08-2004 11:41 PM


"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...



BOB 24-08-2004 12:00 AM

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



Sean 24-08-2004 12:02 AM

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)




Sean 24-08-2004 12:03 AM

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.
>
>




Duwop 24-08-2004 12:11 AM

"Sean" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry Dave, that's how I prefer to do things. You're certainly welcome to

do

*Plonk*




Dave Bugg 24-08-2004 12:25 AM

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.



Steve Calvin 24-08-2004 12:25 AM

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.


Dana Myers 24-08-2004 12:27 AM

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

Steve Calvin 24-08-2004 12:29 AM

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.


Sean 24-08-2004 12:31 AM

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*
>
>
>




Steve Calvin 24-08-2004 12:34 AM

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.


Steve Calvin 24-08-2004 12:37 AM

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.


Steve Calvin 24-08-2004 12:38 AM

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.


Default User 24-08-2004 12:39 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin 24-08-2004 12:52 AM

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


Sean 24-08-2004 12:54 AM

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.
>
>




Steve Calvin 24-08-2004 12:54 AM

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.


Steve Calvin 24-08-2004 12:54 AM

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.


Monroe, of course... 24-08-2004 01:13 AM

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)

Dave Bugg 24-08-2004 01:21 AM

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