Please don't flame me, I just don't have the WSM ready to go yet, but
had a hankerin' for some oven "bbq" ribs. I have a question about
temperature.

Please know that I like my pork ribs on the dry/crunchy/slightly
overcooked side with a crunchy, even maybe slightly burnt finish,
especially on the bone/membrane side. Again, please don't flame me for
my preference.

I have 2 racks of the St. Louis style ribs well rubbed with my
favorite rub, which includes the following:
1 tsp garlic powder
1 tsp onion powder
1 tsp ground cumin
2 tsp cayenne pepper
1 tbsp salt
1 tbsp sweet paprika
2 tbsp fresh ground black pepper
4 tbsp light brown sugar
Touch of liquid smoke rubbed into both sides of the ribs before the
dry rub goes on (I know, I know, but it's just a touch).

I bake the ribs in a convection oven, on a middle rack with good
drainage, so the ribs don't steam in juice. Like I said, I like 'em
dry and a bit crunchy on the top and bottom.

The question relates to temp and cooking times. Is it best to cook the
ribs at a lower temp (320) initially, and them raise the temp near the
end to finish them off, or, is it better to keep a steady temp all the
way through and just wait for then to dry and crisp?

BTW, is use 320 for the bulk of the cooking because sugar begins to
melt and burn at 325.

What temp and timing would you recommend for what I like?

>BTW, is use 320 for the bulk of the cooking because sugar begins to
>melt and burn at 325.
I meant I use 320 for the ...

Abe wrote:
> Please don't flame me, I just don't have the WSM ready to go yet, but
> had a hankerin' for some oven "bbq" ribs. I have a question about
> temperature.

This is best asked on rec.food.cooking. Why not just call your concoction
oven roasted ribs? Not all cooked ribs have to be bbq -- sometimes I like
to throw some ribs into a crockpot with sauerkraut. If you get "flamed",
it's because of the use of "bbq" even in quotations, not the method of
cooking.

BTW, if you fear that liquid smoke will bring about a negative response, a
"touch" is not a defense that will make it more acceptable to those to whom
it is anathema. No more so than trying to explain to a judge that you are
not guilty because you only committed a "touch" of murder.

As I said, this is a question best asked in the appropriate NG; especially
if you aren't trolling and want a genuine, flame-free response. YMMV.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

>> Please don't flame me, I just don't have the WSM ready to go yet, but
>> had a hankerin' for some oven "bbq" ribs. I have a question about
>> temperature.
>This is best asked on rec.food.cooking. Why not just call your concoction
>oven roasted ribs? Not all cooked ribs have to be bbq -- sometimes I like
>to throw some ribs into a crockpot with sauerkraut. If you get "flamed",
>it's because of the use of "bbq" even in quotations, not the method of
>cooking.
>BTW, if you fear that liquid smoke will bring about a negative response, a
>"touch" is not a defense that will make it more acceptable to those to whom
>it is anathema. No more so than trying to explain to a judge that you are
>not guilty because you only committed a "touch" of murder.
>As I said, this is a question best asked in the appropriate NG; especially
>if you aren't trolling and want a genuine, flame-free response. YMMV.
OK, point well taken. Will do.

On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Abe wrote:
>> Please don't flame me, I just don't have the WSM ready to go yet, but
>> had a hankerin' for some oven "bbq" ribs. I have a question about
>> temperature.
>
>This is best asked on rec.food.cooking. Why not just call your concoction
>oven roasted ribs? Not all cooked ribs have to be bbq -- sometimes I like
>to throw some ribs into a crockpot with sauerkraut. If you get "flamed",
>it's because of the use of "bbq" even in quotations, not the method of
>cooking.
>
>BTW, if you fear that liquid smoke will bring about a negative response, a
>"touch" is not a defense that will make it more acceptable to those to whom
>it is anathema. No more so than trying to explain to a judge that you are
>not guilty because you only committed a "touch" of murder.
>
>As I said, this is a question best asked in the appropriate NG; especially
>if you aren't trolling and want a genuine, flame-free response. YMMV.

Why don't you STFU you ignorant old coot. He asked a question about
temperature, if you don't know the answer why the hell did you bother
to answer him? Oh, thats right, everyone except your little group are
trolls. what a dumbass...

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Abe wrote:
snip
> What temp and timing would you recommend for what I like?
>
I'd use one temp, 250F the entire time, cook until ribs 'break' when bent.

--
Regards,

Piedmont

The Practical Bar-B-Q'r at: http://web.infoave.net/~amwil/Index.htm

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"















*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Ringo wrote:

> Why don't you STFU you ignorant old coot.

Nah.

> .. Oh, thats right, everyone except your little group are
> trolls. what a dumbass...

The only troll here is you, bubba.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:24:11 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Ringo wrote:
>
>> Why don't you STFU you ignorant old coot.
>
>Nah.
>
>> .. Oh, thats right, everyone except your little group are
>> trolls. what a dumbass...
>
>The only troll here is you, bubba.

I just reviewed a couple of this fellow's posts.

I recommend that

- he take some anger management/civilized behaviour training

- I plonk him.

So - Plonk.

Harry

On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> >Abe wrote:
> >> Please don't flame me, I just don't have the WSM ready to go yet, but
> >> had a hankerin' for some oven "bbq" ribs. I have a question about
> >> temperature.
> >
> >This is best asked on rec.food.cooking. Why not just call your
> >concoction
> >oven roasted ribs? Not all cooked ribs have to be bbq -- sometimes I
> >like
> >to throw some ribs into a crockpot with sauerkraut. If you get "flamed",
> >
> >it's because of the use of "bbq" even in quotations, not the method of
> >cooking.
> >
> >BTW, if you fear that liquid smoke will bring about a negative response,
> >a
> >"touch" is not a defense that will make it more acceptable to those to
> >whom
> >it is anathema. No more so than trying to explain to a judge that you are
> >
> >not guilty because you only committed a "touch" of murder.
> >
> >As I said, this is a question best asked in the appropriate NG;
> >especially
> >if you aren't trolling and want a genuine, flame-free response. YMMV.
>
> Why don't you STFU you ignorant old coot. He asked a question about
> temperature, if you don't know the answer why the hell did you bother
> to answer him? Oh, thats right, everyone except your little group are
> trolls. what a dumbass...

The name of this group is alt.food.barbcue. What is it that you don't
understand about BBQ? BBQ by definition in this group is not done
in an oven. BBQ by definition includes fire and smoke. If you can't
handle that, you can expect to be treated rudely in this group. Dave
(Politely) referred the OP to the appropriate group. Dave is a long
way from an "Old Coot".

--
Brick(Found a motor..Trying to get it started.)

Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"

How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?

Stay tuned. . .

> wrote in message
.. .
>
> On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Abe wrote:
>> >> Please don't flame me, I just don't have the WSM ready to go yet, but
>> >> had a hankerin' for some oven "bbq" ribs. I have a question about
>> >> temperature.
>> >
>> >This is best asked on rec.food.cooking. Why not just call your
>> >concoction
>> >oven roasted ribs? Not all cooked ribs have to be bbq -- sometimes I
>> >like
>> >to throw some ribs into a crockpot with sauerkraut. If you get
>> >"flamed",
>> >
>> >it's because of the use of "bbq" even in quotations, not the method of
>> >cooking.
>> >
>> >BTW, if you fear that liquid smoke will bring about a negative response,
>> >a
>> >"touch" is not a defense that will make it more acceptable to those to
>> >whom
>> >it is anathema. No more so than trying to explain to a judge that you
>> >are
>> >
>> >not guilty because you only committed a "touch" of murder.
>> >
>> >As I said, this is a question best asked in the appropriate NG;
>> >especially
>> >if you aren't trolling and want a genuine, flame-free response. YMMV.
>>
>> Why don't you STFU you ignorant old coot. He asked a question about
>> temperature, if you don't know the answer why the hell did you bother
>> to answer him? Oh, thats right, everyone except your little group are
>> trolls. what a dumbass...
>
> The name of this group is alt.food.barbcue. What is it that you don't
> understand about BBQ? BBQ by definition in this group is not done
> in an oven. BBQ by definition includes fire and smoke. If you can't
> handle that, you can expect to be treated rudely in this group. Dave
> (Politely) referred the OP to the appropriate group. Dave is a long
> way from an "Old Coot".
>
> --
> Brick(Found a motor..Trying to get it started.)

"Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote in message
...
> Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>
> How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
> higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
> continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>
> Stay tuned. . .


Are you typing with both hands on the keyboard or keeping one hand on
your joystick? Damn I'm envious. How do I cultivate a newsgroup groupie?
What's the secret? I've got the decoder ring!

Denny Wheeler > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:35:36 -0500, Piedmont > wrote:
>
>>Abe wrote:
>>snip
>>> What temp and timing would you recommend for what I like?
>>>
>>I'd use one temp, 250F the entire time, cook until ribs 'break' when
>>bent.
>
> I agree with Piedmont. And I agree with Dave B about not calling 'em
> 'barbecued'.

And they're not "Memphis style", either.

On 23-May-2006, "Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote:

> Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>
> How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
> higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
> continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>
> Stay tuned. . .
>
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Abe wrote:

Perhaps you will have the balls to identify yourself. Perhaps not.
If not, then **** off. We know who we are. You don't seem to know
who we are. Yet you are actively badmouthing people who have
the ability to seek you out and do you harm.
--
Brick(Found a motor..Trying to get it started.)

>Thank you for actually answering the question. It was apparent from
>the post of the person who actually asked the question, that he had
>been lurking in this group for awhile and knew full well that the post
>would probably generate a bunch of posts refusing to answer the
>question, instead concentrating on the fact that what he is creating
>is not bbq. Of course it's not bbq, but the people who follow this
>group happen to be the most suitable folks to actually give him an
>appropriate answer. Your simple one sentence response will provide
>this fella with some decent baked/oven roasted/NOT bbq ribs that will
>probably still taste pretty good.
Thanks for your post. I was going to give Dave a piece of my mind, but
as you know, arguing on the internet is a useless waste of time.

Next time I go over to Wenatchee (where Dave is), maybe I'll give Dave
a little smack in the back of the head for being such an elitist BBQ
ahole.

>I'd use one temp, 250F the entire time, cook until ribs 'break' when bent.
Thatnks. I followed your advice about temp. At 3 hours they were
perfect. Well done, and slighlty crunchy on the outside. Just the way
I like 'em.

>
> Next time I go over to Wenatchee (where Dave is), maybe I'll give Dave
> a little smack in the back of the head for being such an elitist BBQ
> ahole.

After you buy a plate of his food, of course.

-John O

On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:32:33 GMT, wrote:

>
>On 23-May-2006, "Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote:
>
>> Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>>
>> How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
>> higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
>> continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>>
>> Stay tuned. . .
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Abe wrote:
>
>Perhaps you will have the balls to identify yourself. Perhaps not.
>If not, then **** off. We know who we are. You don't seem to know
>who we are. Yet you are actively badmouthing people who have
>the ability to seek you out and do you harm.

Nice threat. And here I thought it was only Dank who takes
meaningless, trivial Usenet squabbles to real life.

>> Next time I go over to Wenatchee (where Dave is), maybe I'll give Dave
>> a little smack in the back of the head for being such an elitist BBQ
>> ahole.
>After you buy a plate of his food, of course.
Of course.

On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:15 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:32:33 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 23-May-2006, "Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>>>>
>>>>How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
>>>>higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
>>>>continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>>>>
>>>>Stay tuned. . .
>>>>
> wrote in message
et...
>>>>
>>>>>On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Abe wrote:
>>>
>>>Perhaps you will have the balls to identify yourself. Perhaps not.
>>>If not, then **** off. We know who we are. You don't seem to know
>>>who we are. Yet you are actively badmouthing people who have
>>>the ability to seek you out and do you harm.
>>
>>
>> Nice threat. And here I thought it was only Dank who takes
>> meaningless, trivial Usenet squabbles to real life.
>
>Netcop at his finest.

How curious. Why doesn't Dank want anyone in AFB to see his replies to
posts made in AFB? Why would he send his reply to ARK instead of AFB?

Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
been e-mailing my boss again.

On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:37:58 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:15 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:32:33 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 23-May-2006, "Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>>>>>
>>>>>How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
>>>>>higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
>>>>>continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>>>>>
>>>>>Stay tuned. . .
>>>>>
> wrote in message
. net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Abe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you will have the balls to identify yourself. Perhaps not.
>>>>If not, then **** off. We know who we are. You don't seem to know
>>>>who we are. Yet you are actively badmouthing people who have
>>>>the ability to seek you out and do you harm.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice threat. And here I thought it was only Dank who takes
>>> meaningless, trivial Usenet squabbles to real life.
>>
>>Netcop at his finest.
>
>How curious. Why doesn't Dank want anyone in AFB to see his replies to
>posts made in AFB? Why would he send his reply to ARK instead of AFB?
>
>Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
>been e-mailing my boss again.

And why is Dank defending Kevin against the netcop? Or is he
applauding the netcop? Hard to tell whether Dank's post constituted
sarcasm (as I first assumed) or approval.

BW

On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:47:08 -0400, wrote:

>On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:37:58 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:15 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:
>>
>>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:32:33 GMT, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 23-May-2006, "Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
>>>>>>higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
>>>>>>continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stay tuned. . .
>>>>>>
> wrote in message
.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Abe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you will have the balls to identify yourself. Perhaps not.
>>>>>If not, then **** off. We know who we are. You don't seem to know
>>>>>who we are. Yet you are actively badmouthing people who have
>>>>>the ability to seek you out and do you harm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice threat. And here I thought it was only Dank who takes
>>>> meaningless, trivial Usenet squabbles to real life.
>>>
>>>Netcop at his finest.
>>
>>How curious. Why doesn't Dank want anyone in AFB to see his replies to
>>posts made in AFB? Why would he send his reply to ARK instead of AFB?
>>
>>Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
>>been e-mailing my boss again.
>
>And why is Dank defending Kevin against the netcop? Or is he
>applauding the netcop? Hard to tell whether Dank's post constituted
>sarcasm (as I first assumed) or approval.
>
It's neighter sarcasm nor approval. Both would require far more subtle
thinking than he's capable of. It is, in fact, just more
feces-flinging.

Your mistake was in overlooking Dank's bizarre obsession with me and
his oft-stated assertion that each of his posts is directed at one
person and one person only. Take the two together, and it's dead-on
certain that he was just doing what he always does: Flinging feces in
the form of tediously unfunny "insults" that are barely relevant to
the topic at hand, much less expressed in a manner consistent with the
speech patterns of an educated, literate, adult native speaker of
English.

I would hope your post is not an overt threat of bodily harm. That would
likely be a violation of the AUP and/or TOS of both Time Warner Telecom and
Internet Junction, and possibly subject you to termination of you service
with one or both of them for your violations.

warmest regards,




> wrote in message
.. .
>
> On 23-May-2006, "Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote:
>
>> Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>>
>> How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
>> higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
>> continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>>
>> Stay tuned. . .
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Abe wrote:
>
> Perhaps you will have the balls to identify yourself. Perhaps not.
> If not, then **** off. We know who we are. You don't seem to know
> who we are. Yet you are actively badmouthing people who have
> the ability to seek you out and do you harm.
> --
> Brick(Found a motor..Trying to get it started.)

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:15 GMT, Dan Krueger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:32:33 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 23-May-2006, "Keep on Plonkin'" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, another AFB "classic-in-the-making"
>>>>>
>>>>>How long will this thread stay alive and off-topic? Will the flames rise
>>>>>higher than a creosote fire in a 55 gallon grill? Will the "bugg"-ery
>>>>>continue? Will someone invoke Hitler and racism?
>>>>>
>>>>>Stay tuned. . .
>>>>>
> wrote in message
. net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 22-May-2006, Ringo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:13 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Abe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you will have the balls to identify yourself. Perhaps not.
>>>>If not, then **** off. We know who we are. You don't seem to know
>>>>who we are. Yet you are actively badmouthing people who have
>>>>the ability to seek you out and do you harm.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nice threat. And here I thought it was only Dank who takes
>>>meaningless, trivial Usenet squabbles to real life.
>>
>>Netcop at his finest.
>
>
> How curious. Why doesn't Dank want anyone in AFB to see his replies to
> posts made in AFB? Why would he send his reply to ARK instead of AFB?
>
> Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
> been e-mailing my boss again.

I post where the topic is appropriate and delete cross posts. If you
were a smart guy, you would know that.

So now I'm emailing your boss "again"? How long are you going to keep
that up?

On Fri, 26 May 2006 01:47:19 +0000 (UTC), Bryce Utting
> wrote:

>Dan Krueger > wrote:
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>> Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
>>> been e-mailing my boss again.
>>
>> So now I'm emailing your boss "again"? How long are you going to keep
>> that up?
>
>where did he say you'd sent another email to his boss?
>
Good question. Do you suppose he'll answer it?

BTW, this isn't the first time we've seen guilt-induced, reflexive
defensiveness from Dank.

On Thu, 25 May 2006 23:51:46 GMT, Dank wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
<Cutting to the chase>
>> Your mistake was in overlooking Dank's bizarre obsession with me and
>> his oft-stated assertion that each of his posts is directed at one
>> person and one person only. Take the two together, and it's dead-on
>> certain that he was just doing what he always does: Flinging feces in
>> the form of tediously unfunny "insults" that are barely relevant to
>> the topic at hand, much less expressed in a manner consistent with the
>> speech patterns of an educated, literate, adult native speaker of
>> English.
>
>
>Unbelievable.
>
>Kevin's obsession once again took a turn today that might cost him just
>enough to lean an important lesson. Of course, that post wasn't cross
>posted here. No surprise.

SWilson taught dank a new word: obsession! Now dank's used it
incorrectly, but he spelled it right. It's Usenet's version of "How to
Increase Your Vocabulary," just for dank's edification. Of course,
dank thinks "edification" means I'm trying to change his name.

--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
oTTo

>Narcissism. Look it up and get back to us.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Dan Krueger" > wrote in message
news:wjrdg.7731
>
> I post where the topic is appropriate and delete cross posts. If you
> were a smart guy, you would know that.

Looks like an own-goal on this post, dank.

Better luck next time, but me thinks you're a born loser, and a good one at
that.

Graeme

Graeme...in London wrote:
> "Dan Krueger" > wrote in message
> news:wjrdg.7731
>> I post where the topic is appropriate and delete cross posts. If you
>> were a smart guy, you would know that.
>
> Looks like an own-goal on this post, dank.

I believe the score is 54-nil, all own goals.

> Better luck next time, but me thinks you're a born loser, and a good one at
> that.

He's an expert loser from all presentations. If someone would only pay
him he could be a professional.

Or was that cal, not that there is all that much difference.

Matthew

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

Bryce Utting wrote:

> Dan Krueger > wrote:
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
>>>been e-mailing my boss again.
>>
>>So now I'm emailing your boss "again"? How long are you going to keep
>>that up?
>
>
> where did he say you'd sent another email to his boss?
>
>
> butting
>

Exactly. Didn't happen but Kevin will never give up.

Graeme...in London wrote:

> "Dan Krueger" > wrote in message
> news:wjrdg.7731
>
>>I post where the topic is appropriate and delete cross posts. If you
>>were a smart guy, you would know that.
>
>
> Looks like an own-goal on this post, dank.
>
> Better luck next time, but me thinks you're a born loser, and a good one at
> that.
>
> Graeme
>
>


Follow along or Google Wilson's history and you will understand. You
can also check with TFM, his other favorite troll target.

On 2006-05-25, Dan Krueger > wrote:

> I post where the topic is appropriate and delete cross posts.

No fun!

> So now I'm emailing your boss "again"?

Why do you keep doing that?

Bryce Utting wrote:
> Dan Krueger > wrote:
>> Bryce Utting wrote:
>>> Dan Krueger > wrote:
>>>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
>>>>> been e-mailing my boss again.
>>>> So now I'm emailing your boss "again"? How long are you going to keep
>>>> that up?
>>> where did he say you'd sent another email to his boss?
>> Exactly. Didn't happen but Kevin will never give up.
>
> GOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

55-nil, all own goals.

Matthew

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

On Sat, 27 May 2006 00:50:02 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>Bryce Utting wrote:
>
>> Dan Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
>>>>been e-mailing my boss again.
>>>
>>>So now I'm emailing your boss "again"? How long are you going to keep
>>>that up?
>>
>>
>> where did he say you'd sent another email to his boss?
>>
>Exactly. Didn't happen but Kevin will never give up.

You really don't read so good, do you, Dank? Bryce isn't trying to
help you out here, putz.

You're also a pathetic liar without the balls to take responsibility
for your actions. Why don't you grow a pair and admit that you've
e-mailed my boss numerous times?

On Sat, 27 May 2006 00:54:17 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>Graeme...in London wrote:
>
>> "Dan Krueger" > wrote in message
>> news:wjrdg.7731
>>
>>>I post where the topic is appropriate and delete cross posts. If you
>>>were a smart guy, you would know that.
>>
>>
>> Looks like an own-goal on this post, dank.
>>
>> Better luck next time, but me thinks you're a born loser, and a good one at
>> that.
>>
>Follow along or Google Wilson's history and you will understand.

Do you even read the groups you post to, Dank? Graeme's probably been
here longer than you, and I assure you he's been here long enough to
have sized you up correctly as a born loser.

>You can also check with TFM,

<snork>

Now there's a reliable source: a racist, half-literate drunk. BTW,
Dank, did you forget that even The Fat Boi told you to bugger off?

>his other favorite troll target.

Is that what you're crying about? Because you got trolled? Because
someone called you names on the Usernet (tm)? Boo-hoo.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 02:34:37 +0000 (UTC), Bryce Utting
> wrote:

>Dan Krueger > wrote:
>> Bryce Utting wrote:
>>> Dan Krueger > wrote:
>>>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Shame, probably. Or maybe he's worried that I'll mention that he's
>>>>>been e-mailing my boss again.
>>>>
>>>>So now I'm emailing your boss "again"? How long are you going to keep
>>>>that up?
>>>
>>> where did he say you'd sent another email to his boss?
>>
>> Exactly. Didn't happen but Kevin will never give up.
>
>GOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
>
I take back what I said about subtlety being wasted on Americans. If
it doesn't arrive strapped to a clue-by-four, Dank just ain't gonna
geddit.

SCO DANK: 0 EVERYONE ELSE: 1 BAJILLION

On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:54:43 +0100, Adam Funk >
wrote:

>On 2006-05-25, Dan Krueger > wrote:
>
>> I post where the topic is appropriate and delete cross posts.
>
>No fun!
>
>> So now I'm emailing your boss "again"?
>
>Why do you keep doing that?

Good question. Think he'll ever work up the courage to answer it?

On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:13:32 -0400, Chris McGonnell
> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:05:58 -0400, barbara wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 May 2006 01:05:49 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:
>>
>>>So you drag your laundry dow the street to clean it?
>>
>>Do you take such a bizarre interest in everyone's dirty laundry, or
>>just women's dirty laundry?
>
>Dank with a woman's dirty laundry? Ewwwwwwww! For that mental image, I
>must now wash my brane with lye.

Yep. Along with his other unsavory characteristics, it seems that
Dank is a panty-sniffer. Not that I'm surprised.

BW

On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:26:30 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:35:36 -0500, Piedmont > wrote:
>
>>Abe wrote:
>>snip
>>> What temp and timing would you recommend for what I like?
>>>
>>I'd use one temp, 250F the entire time, cook until ribs 'break' when bent.
>
>I agree with Piedmont. And I agree with Dave B about not calling 'em
>'barbecued'.

Put BBQ sauce on it, its BBQ. why else would they call BBQ sauce?

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:32:34 +0000 (UTC), Barry Bean
> wrote:

>Denny Wheeler > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:35:36 -0500, Piedmont > wrote:
>>
>>>Abe wrote:
>>>snip
>>>> What temp and timing would you recommend for what I like?
>>>>
>>>I'd use one temp, 250F the entire time, cook until ribs 'break' when
>>>bent.
>>
>> I agree with Piedmont. And I agree with Dave B about not calling 'em
>> 'barbecued'.
>
>And they're not "Memphis style", either.

memphis style is "dry" rub , no sauce. you can read the guys subject
can't you? what a bunch of dumb bunnies. you idiots think BBQ means
cooking on a WSM.

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

On Tue, 23 May 2006 23:47:34 -0700, Abe > wrote:

>>Thank you for actually answering the question. It was apparent from
>>the post of the person who actually asked the question, that he had
>>been lurking in this group for awhile and knew full well that the post
>>would probably generate a bunch of posts refusing to answer the
>>question, instead concentrating on the fact that what he is creating
>>is not bbq. Of course it's not bbq, but the people who follow this
>>group happen to be the most suitable folks to actually give him an
>>appropriate answer. Your simple one sentence response will provide
>>this fella with some decent baked/oven roasted/NOT bbq ribs that will
>>probably still taste pretty good.
>Thanks for your post. I was going to give Dave a piece of my mind, but
>as you know, arguing on the internet is a useless waste of time.
>
>Next time I go over to Wenatchee (where Dave is), maybe I'll give Dave
>a little smack in the back of the head for being such an elitist BBQ
>ahole.

now that would be too easy, ask a simple question like what is "BBQ"
watch the jokers stumble all over each other trying to prove who know
the most about BBQ. actually its quite fun to watch.

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Ringo > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:32:34 +0000 (UTC), Barry Bean
> > wrote:
>
>>Denny Wheeler > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:35:36 -0500, Piedmont >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Abe wrote:
>>>>snip
>>>>> What temp and timing would you recommend for what I like?
>>>>>
>>>>I'd use one temp, 250F the entire time, cook until ribs 'break' when
>>>>bent.
>>>
>>> I agree with Piedmont. And I agree with Dave B about not calling
>>> 'em 'barbecued'.
>>
>>And they're not "Memphis style", either.
>
> memphis style is "dry" rub , no sauce. you can read the guys subject
> can't you? what a bunch of dumb bunnies. you idiots think BBQ means
> cooking on a WSM.

We know that BBQ requires cooking with smoke on a grill. Cooking in an
oven is baking, broiling, or roasting. None of those are BBQ.