[MostlyStable]

Based on the difference in reception of my two comments in this chain, I don't think people realize that this was a sarcastic comment with a link to examples of exactly those things being found in bags of lump charcoal, shopping with a broader comparison of the properties of the two.

[js2]

In my own personal experience, having cooked with both, I prefer lump charcoal lit with a chimney. I've never found rocks, metal, nylon rope, or PVC left behind in my Weber.

But well, that's just like, my opinion, man. The article opens with this disclaimer: "One has to be careful about generalizations here because each brand is different."

I have indeed not cooked with all brands of briquets nor all brands of lump charcoal, so same disclaimer applies to my opinion.

[MostlyStable]

Obviously anyone is allowed to like what they like, and it's not that hard to produce good food when you grill/BBQ/Smoke on almost any fuel you prefer, but there is a lot of FUD in these comments about Briquettes. They provide a clean, consistent, repeatible heat, for a very low price.

This topic, like so many that touch on food in some way, gets bogged down in weird superiority complexes. I People can't just let people have different (usually read "wrong") opinions when it comes to food.

You'll note that one person expressed their opinion on lump. I responded with my contrasting opinion. Only one of those two comments got downvoted.

-edit- In case it wasn't clear, I don't think lump is bad. I prefer briquettes because they produce good, consistent, results (for me) at a low price. My link was meant to push back on the idea that lump was somehow "better/higher quality" than briquettes. I'm sure that one can buy cheap, poor quality briquettes that are bad in all kinds of ways. But obviously it's also possible to get bad quality lump (even if that is not representative of all brands).