I've posted a few times in the past regarding pork spareribs I've
smoked, usually w/ less than stellar results. Today, I smoked four
racks ($1.89 lb at Giant Eagle this week), and they actually came out
great- "falling off the bone" tender. I used Royal Oak lump and several
handfuls of Jack Daniel's wood chips made from their oak barrels used
to age their whiskey. The only problem was the BBQ sauce I made- the
wife likes it as sweet as possible, and I prefer it be not so sweet. It
was way too sweet for my tastes, but the wife loved it. The company
loved them as well- my cousin alone was good for about a rack and a
half himself! As for the ribs, I smoked them for 3 hours, then wrapped
them in foil for about 2&1/2 hours, and then took them out of the foil,
and cooked them for about 1/2 hour, during which time I applied the
sauce. I've never used this method before- I've always smoked them
directly on the grates w/o the foil. The other difference was how I put
them on the grates. Before, I always put them on the grates meat side
up. This time, both directly on the grates and in the foil, I put them
meat side down, except for the last 15-20 minutes, when I applied the
sauce. To what do you attribute the difference in quality (much better)
this time vs all the other times? Would you say it was the method I
smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
time instead of meat side up?

Either way, it seems I've turned the corner in regards to smoking pork
spareribs- thanks in no small part to all the expertise that is
represented here!

Thanks once again for your help/suggestions!!

Jim

> wrote in message
> I've posted a few times in the past regarding pork spareribs I've
> smoked, usually w/ less than stellar results. Today, I smoked four
> racks ($1.89 lb at Giant Eagle this week), and they actually came out
> great- "falling off the bone" tender.
> sauce. I've never used this method before- I've always smoked them
> directly on the grates w/o the foil. The other difference was how I put
> them on the grates. Before, I always put them on the grates meat side
> up. This time, both directly on the grates and in the foil, I put them
> meat side down, except for the last 15-20 minutes, when I applied the
> sauce. To what do you attribute the difference in quality (much better)
> this time vs all the other times? Would you say it was the method I
> smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> time instead of meat side up?

Tell truth? Not knowing the cooker you're using it's impossible to tell
isn't it?

Me, I did two full racks of spares (and two chix) today on the >offset<
bone down with no sauce (never while cookin', only as a side) and they
turned out great as usual. Tomorrow I'm bringing in a few ribs for a poor
Texan missing 'Q who endeared me knowing that sauce is for covering up
mistakes and believes that meat is best cooked dry, sauce served on the
side. He's getting extra knowin' that. :-)


D
--

Duwop wrote:

> Me, I did two full racks of spares (and two chix) today on the >offset<
> bone down with no sauce (never while cookin', only as a side) and they
> turned out great as usual.

Amen, bro'. Bone-down always in my offset.

> Tomorrow I'm bringing in a few ribs for a poor
> Texan missing 'Q who endeared me knowing that sauce is for covering up
> mistakes and believes that meat is best cooked dry, sauce served on the
> side. He's getting extra knowin' that. :-)

:-)

So I've been experimenting with sauces, and I've homed-in on my
own style; a decent cheap Zin-reduction with just enough sugar and
wine vinegar to add pleasant tang. I tried using a decent cheap
Cab once and my 10-year old told me to use Zin the next time.

So here's a little confession; I got curious and picked up an
ECB at Wal-Mart. $60 for a Brinkman's Electric Smoker. First cook,
I bought a pack of baby backs at Costco, figuring I wouldn't screw
'em up ;-), gotta think positive. I cut an oak barrel stave into quarters,
wrapped three of them in foil, pricked them a bunch of times to make little
holes on top, and layed them in between the element.

I was quite surprised how well the ribs turned out. I mean, really quite
close to the results I get in the offset with lump. I can tell the difference
but it's pretty subtle. Next time I'll probably use 4 quarters of the stave.

For the first cook, I even put water in the pan, though I got a bag of lava
rock to put in the pan at some point.

It's always fun to experiment, and the results were great as usual. Heat,
smoke, meat and rub.

Dana

>Tell truth? Not knowing the cooker you're using it's impossible to tell isn't it?

-Char Griller Super Pro w/ SFB. True- sauce can cover mistakes, but it
can enhance a well cooked rack o' ribs as well. Why else serve sauce on
the side? The ribs I cooked were really good today. The sauce, in my
opinion, degraded the quality. I'm not trying to start a debate on ribs
w/ sauce vs ribs w/o sauce- I'm just trying to figure out the best way
to smoke them. I recently saw a program on Food Network about 2
brothers- I think in Texas. Each had his own BBQ restaurant, within a
few miles of each other. Each one served ribs- one w/ sauce, and one
w/o, and each claimed that their ribs were the best. They both had
plenty of customers to back their claims. It truly is a matter of
preference!

Jim

wrote:

> Either way, it seems I've turned the corner in regards to smoking pork
> spareribs- thanks in no small part to all the expertise that is
> represented here!

Falling off the bone is a sign of overdone ribs. As to foil, it's just
another method of steaming the meat --- just like tony romas or applebees.
The sauce simply hides the meat taste.

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

Would you say it was the method I
smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
time instead of meat side up?

It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.

Kurt

On 6 Sep 2005 06:08:22 -0700, "Chef Kurt" >
wrote:

>Would you say it was the method I
>smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
>time instead of meat side up?
>
>It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
>literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
>Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
>done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
>
Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.

"Chef Kurt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Would you say it was the method I
> smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> time instead of meat side up?
>
> It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
> literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
> Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
> done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
>
> Kurt
>

Maybe he LIKES chain restaurant ribs. Seriously, I agree on not using foil;
4 hours or so at 250 or so on my smoker gets the job done nicely for me. No
sauce, unless someone asks for it. With beer on hand (or on tap), that's
all the saucing I need.

Jack

"Jack Schidt®" wrote:
>
> "Chef Kurt" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Would you say it was the method I
> > smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> > time instead of meat side up?
> >
> > It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
> > literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
> > Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
> > done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
>
> Maybe he LIKES chain restaurant ribs. Seriously, I agree on not using foil;
> 4 hours or so at 250 or so on my smoker gets the job done nicely for me. No
> sauce, unless someone asks for it. With beer on hand (or on tap), that's
> all the saucing I need.
>
> Jack


You know some regular restaurants like J Alexander's cook their ribs
with a cooker similar to a cookshack. Low and slow smoking.

Some people like smokey tender ribs to fall off the bone. So in that
case finishing with foil is the way to go. It just depends on the
people. Kinda like me overhearing someone order Prime Rib end cut- well
done, yuck.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:53:28 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
>Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.

Headers suggest he was posting from Google groups.
--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:08:31 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:53:28 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
>>Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.
>
>Headers suggest he was posting from Google groups.

There's a way to make google quote properly. Don't recall what it is
though.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:04:59 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>There's a way to make google quote properly. Don't recall what it is
>though.

Or, you could just use Outlook Express with OE-QuoteFix:

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Or, you could really go for broke and use Agent, which quotes
correctly, but costs $.

Of course, both options require a news server, which also usually
costs $$

EZ from St. Louis

On 6-Sep-2005, "Jack Schidt®" > wrote:

> "Chef Kurt" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Would you say it was the method I
> > smoked them, or the way I put them on the grates- meat side down this
> > time instead of meat side up?
> >
> > It had nothing to do with meat side down. By wrapping them in foil, you
> > literally braised them instead of making barbecue out of your ribs.
> > Stay away from the foil, cook your ribs slow for 6 or 7 hours or until
> > done and see the difference. You basically made chain restaurant ribs.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
>
> Maybe he LIKES chain restaurant ribs. Seriously, I agree on not using foil;
> 4 hours or so at 250 or so on my smoker gets the job done nicely for me. No
> sauce, unless someone asks for it. With beer on hand (or on tap), that's
> all the saucing I need.
>
> Jack

I foiled some ribs just one time and I'll never do it again. Neither do I put any
sauce on them. I use my house rub the night before if I happen to think of it,
otherwise I apply the rub just before putting them in the pit. I cook at 250° to
275°F and it usually takes about 4 hours to get them where they'll crack when
I bend them. At that point they are almost, but not quite falling off the bones.
They are juicy and tender with all of their natural flavor intact. There's sauce
available on the table. Nobody ever uses it.

--
The Brick said that (Don't bother to agree with me, I have already changed my mind.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 6-Sep-2005, wrote:

> >Tell truth? Not knowing the cooker you're using it's impossible to tell isn't it?
>
> -Char Griller Super Pro w/ SFB. True- sauce can cover mistakes, but it
> can enhance a well cooked rack o' ribs as well. Why else serve sauce on
> the side? The ribs I cooked were really good today. The sauce, in my
> opinion, degraded the quality. I'm not trying to start a debate on ribs
> w/ sauce vs ribs w/o sauce- I'm just trying to figure out the best way
> to smoke them. I recently saw a program on Food Network about 2
> brothers- I think in Texas. Each had his own BBQ restaurant, within a
> few miles of each other. Each one served ribs- one w/ sauce, and one
> w/o, and each claimed that their ribs were the best. They both had
> plenty of customers to back their claims. It truly is a matter of
> preference!
>
> Jim

I saw that show. In that town anyway it's like pitting Ford agains Chevrolet
for brand loyalty. It can actually get bloody. I definitely wouldn't fit in. I
cook without sauce, but serve it on the table and I just switched from GMC
to Ford. (I can't pull houses anymore, but I can pass gas stations sometimes.)
--
The Brick said that (Don't bother to agree with me, I have already changed my mind.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
crying to your boss, chuckles.

Now go back to alt.cult.kiblogody

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:08:31 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:53:28 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which are your words, and which are the words you're replying to?
>>>Please configure your newsreader so it quotes correctly.
>>
>>Headers suggest he was posting from Google groups.
>
>
> There's a way to make google quote properly. Don't recall what it is
> though.
>

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:56:48 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
>Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
>crying to your boss, chuckles.

Actually, he's the only one who spoke up, twit.

YOU are the only poster I've run across in my 6-plus years on Usenet
who can't manage to quote posts properly.

(of course, everyone else considers it polite to follow the
established conventions...)

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:56:48 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
>Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
>crying to your boss, chuckles.

Going to e-mail my boss again, Dank, in an attempt to get me censured
or fired?

>Now go back to alt.cult.kiblogody

And you post there for what reason, stalker-boi?

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:59:28 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:56:48 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:
>
>>You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
>>Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
>>crying to your boss, chuckles.
>
>Actually, he's the only one who spoke up, twit.
>
>YOU are the only poster I've run across in my 6-plus years on Usenet
>who can't manage to quote posts properly.
>
>(of course, everyone else considers it polite to follow the
>established conventions...)

Careful, Denny. Next thing you know, Dank here will be e-mailing your
boss to try to get you fired for posting to Usenet. He e-mailed my
boss with that intent.

Right, Dank?

I propose we deal with all the childish banter and "sand box" behavior the
way it would be dealt with in the real (off-line) world--by a cage match.
Let's get everyone together in a mutually-agreed upon central location, eat
some 'Q, then put all "the usual suspects" in the caged ring. Last one
standing gets to set the rules which determine posting method, off topic
versus on topic, quoting conventions, etc. We could even make it an annual
event, so that the challengers would have a chance to set the standards in
later years.

No use of folding chairs, no hidden foreign objects, no manager or
girlfriend participation. Gee, I'm smiling right now and I picture it in my
mind's eye...


"Denny Wheeler" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:56:48 GMT, Dan Krueger
> > wrote:
>
>>You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
>>Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
>>crying to your boss, chuckles.
>
> Actually, he's the only one who spoke up, twit.
>
> YOU are the only poster I've run across in my 6-plus years on Usenet
> who can't manage to quote posts properly.
>
> (of course, everyone else considers it polite to follow the
> established conventions...)
>
> --
> -denny-
>
> "I don't like it when a whole state starts
> acting like a marital aid."
> "John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:56:48 GMT, Dan Krueger
> > wrote:
>
> >You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
> >Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
> >crying to your boss, chuckles.
>
> Going to e-mail my boss again, Dank, in an attempt to get me censured
> or fired?

All jokes and banter aside, I never figured out why your boss took
action on something like this. I thought that was a little rinkydink in
the first place.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:55:39 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:56:48 GMT, Dan Krueger
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >You are the only one who can't seem to follow a thread without ">"'s.
>> >Try really hard, pro. I posted on top so I hope that doesn't send you
>> >crying to your boss, chuckles.
>>
>> Going to e-mail my boss again, Dank, in an attempt to get me censured
>> or fired?
>
>All jokes and banter aside, I never figured out why your boss took
>action on something like this. I thought that was a little rinkydink in
>the first place.

He didn't take action. He said, "You have another stalker, and he's
e-mailing me to complain about you posting to Usenet. Be careful." End
of discussion.

You know, taking a Usenet squabble to real life that way is truly
reprehensible. But what makes it both reprehensible AND pathetic is
that Dank won't even admit what he did or otherwise take
responsibility for his actions. That's just sad and lame.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:41:00 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:59:28 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:
>
>Careful, Denny. Next thing you know, Dank here will be e-mailing your
>boss to try to get you fired for posting to Usenet. He e-mailed my
>boss with that intent.

He be SOL if he tries. I don't have net access at work, nor time to
use it if I had it.


--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

So you have nothing to hide. Not the same, evidently, with Swilson.

Odd part is that his banter might give others who dislike him (there
seem to be a few) the idea to actually email a complaint his boss, wife,
doctor, whoever.

Denny Wheeler wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:41:00 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:59:28 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:
>>
>>Careful, Denny. Next thing you know, Dank here will be e-mailing your
>>boss to try to get you fired for posting to Usenet. He e-mailed my
>>boss with that intent.
>
>
> He be SOL if he tries. I don't have net access at work, nor time to
> use it if I had it.
>
>

"CS" > wrote:
>[top-post snipped]

PLONK!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:28:59 GMT, I needed a babel fish to understand
EZ > :

>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:04:59 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>There's a way to make google quote properly. Don't recall what it is
>>though.
>
>Or, you could just use Outlook Express with OE-QuoteFix:
>
>http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>
>Or, you could really go for broke and use Agent, which quotes
>correctly, but costs $.
>
>Of course, both options require a news server, which also usually
>costs $$
>
>EZ from St. Louis

Does Outlook Express pull info from Google groups? I didn't think
they allowed that. If they do now, very cool... if not OE will not
help them out in the least.
The OP is using Google Groups.
----------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke

"LewZephyr" > wrote in message

> Does Outlook Express pull info from Google groups?

What do you mean by "Google Groups", do you mean only those groups that are
not true usenet groups? Google has allowed their users to create their own
groups that are not carried on usenet, so OE could not pull from those (and
they are very few), but as long as a NG is a "real" one, no problemo.

> I didn't think
> they allowed that. If they do now, very cool... if not OE will not
> help them out in the least.

> The OP is using Google Groups.

He's using Google's HTML interface to post and read a usenet group, much as
DejaNews allowed before them.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:19:40 -0700, I needed a babel fish to understand
"Duwop" > :

>"LewZephyr" > wrote in message
>
>> Does Outlook Express pull info from Google groups?
>
>What do you mean by "Google Groups", do you mean only those groups that are
>not true usenet groups? Google has allowed their users to create their own
>groups that are not carried on usenet, so OE could not pull from those (and
>they are very few), but as long as a NG is a "real" one, no problemo.

Ya, I meant the actual usenet, not the groups... just the web
interface at Google refers to it as Google groups. Since the OP was
talking about using the Google web interface to post here... I figured
it was assumed (but we all know what happens there).

>
>> I didn't think
>> they allowed that. If they do now, very cool... if not OE will not
>> help them out in the least.
>
>> The OP is using Google Groups.
>
>He's using Google's HTML interface to post and read a usenet group, much as
>DejaNews allowed before them.

Yep, now back to the 2nd poster comment to use Outlook Express... can
it be configured to download Usenet posts from the free service
provided by Google?

In the end, the gist of my comment was I don't believe you can
configure Outlook Express to pull from Google to download Usenet
groups. Therefore the solution provided by the 2nd poster would not
resolve the issue.

good hunting...

----------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:58:56 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>So you have nothing to hide. Not the same, evidently, with Swilson.
>
>Odd part is that his banter might give others who dislike him (there
>seem to be a few) the idea to actually email a complaint his boss, wife,
>doctor, whoever.

Are you implying that you intend to escalate your stalking, Dank? Just
let me know if that's what you mean. I assure you I'll respond
appropriately.

Why does my boss know your name, Dank? Why are you unwilling to take
responsility for your actions, Dank? Why aren't you man enough to
admit you e-mailed him to try to get me fired?

Give it up, Dank. You can repeat your big lie all you want, but not
even CAL believes that you didn't e-mail my boss, coward.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:40:52 GMT, LewZephyr >
wrote:

>In the end, the gist of my comment was I don't believe you can
>configure Outlook Express to pull from Google to download Usenet
>groups. Therefore the solution provided by the 2nd poster would not
>resolve the issue.

I don't think the first ref. to OE was meant as 'use OE to d/l from
Google.'

I don't think you can use Google as a newsfeed. Just read using their
web interface.

However, on the 'news feed' front, there still are a very few free
servers out there.

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

Ladies and Gentleman of AFB, welcome Dan Krueger back to the fold.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:14:54 -0400, Marc Goodman
> wrote:

>Dan Krueger wrote:
>> Funny. Let's all follow along...
>>
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>> You got that right.
>>>
>> I know you are but what am I? Sheesh...
>
>What exactly are you complaining about, Dank? Is he
>being immature asking you to confess that you emailed
>his boss? Is he being unfair accusing you without proving
>that the email isn't a forgery? Is that your complaint?
>
>You've been following him around for almost a year now
>doing nothing but humping his leg, completely obsessessed,
>contributing nothing to this group, and now you're complaining
>that HE is being immature and unfair? Why don't you just
>**** off and stop responding to him if it really bothers
>you (or even if it doesn't really bother you, why don't
>you just **** off anyway).

Your STOPTOPOSTING

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> Ladies and Gentleman of AFB, welcome Dan Krueger back to the fold.
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:14:54 -0400, Marc Goodman
> > wrote:
>
> >Dan Krueger wrote:
> >> Funny. Let's all follow along...
> >>
> >> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> >>> You got that right.
> >>>
> >> I know you are but what am I? Sheesh...
> >
> >What exactly are you complaining about, Dank? Is he
> >being immature asking you to confess that you emailed
> >his boss? Is he being unfair accusing you without proving
> >that the email isn't a forgery? Is that your complaint?
> >
> >You've been following him around for almost a year now
> >doing nothing but humping his leg, completely obsessessed,
> >contributing nothing to this group, and now you're complaining
> >that HE is being immature and unfair? Why don't you just
> >**** off and stop responding to him if it really bothers
> >you (or even if it doesn't really bother you, why don't
> >you just **** off anyway).

IS THIS THE REPLACEMENT FOR TELEGRAMS + STOP + MUST WE SHOUT + STOP + OR
MUST WE SING + STOP

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:36:24 +0100, cl > wrote:

> Your STOPTOPOSTING
>
> "Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> Ladies and Gentleman of AFB, welcome Dan Krueger back to the fold.
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:14:54 -0400, Marc Goodman
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Dan Krueger wrote:
>> >> Funny. Let's all follow along...
>> >>
>> >> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> >>> You got that right.
>> >>>
>> >> I know you are but what am I? Sheesh...
>> >
>> >What exactly are you complaining about, Dank? Is he
>> >being immature asking you to confess that you emailed
>> >his boss? Is he being unfair accusing you without proving
>> >that the email isn't a forgery? Is that your complaint?
>> >
>> >You've been following him around for almost a year now
>> >doing nothing but humping his leg, completely obsessessed,
>> >contributing nothing to this group, and now you're complaining
>> >that HE is being immature and unfair? Why don't you just
>> >**** off and stop responding to him if it really bothers
>> >you (or even if it doesn't really bother you, why don't
>> >you just **** off anyway).

"madge" > wrote

> IS THIS THE REPLACEMENT FOR TELEGRAMS + STOP + MUST WE SHOUT + STOP + OR
> MUST WE SING + STOP

STOP + IN THE NAME OF LOVE

--oTTo--

Think it oh-woh-ver

Otto Bahn > wrote:
>"madge" > wrote
>> IS THIS THE REPLACEMENT FOR TELEGRAMS + STOP + MUST WE SHOUT + STOP + OR
>> MUST WE SING + STOP
>
>STOP + IN THE NAME OF LOVE

Poor Diana, having to lose that dear Mr. Rehnquist that way! (Who knew he
lived in New Orleans?)

Dave "and what about that confirmation hazing Ms Ross has to give Mr Roberts
now? It's a beautiful day in the legal neigh-bor-hood..." DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

"David DeLaney" > wrote

> >> IS THIS THE REPLACEMENT FOR TELEGRAMS + STOP + MUST WE SHOUT + STOP + OR
> >> MUST WE SING + STOP
> >
> >STOP + IN THE NAME OF LOVE
>
> Poor Diana, having to lose that dear Mr. Rehnquist that way! (Who knew he
> lived in New Orleans?)

The Secrit Service, which ironically stands out like a
cartoon sore thumb throbbing in red. (There may be some
band names in the previous sentence.)

> Dave "and what about that confirmation hazing Ms Ross has to give Mr Roberts
> now? It's a beautiful day in the legal neigh-bor-hood..." DeLaney

Upside down, bouncing off the ceiling, inside out...

--oTTo--

Fondling the obvious song

On 2005-09-14, Otto Bahn (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> The Secrit Service, which ironically stands out like a
> cartoon sore thumb throbbing in red. (There may be some
> band names in the previous sentence.)

"a"

Just like "the the", only better.

--
TimC
Can Jesus heat a microwave burrito so much he can't eat it?
-- Homer Simpson asking an incredibly intelligent question of Ned Flanders