> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:23:51 -0400, "jmcquown" wrote:
>
>
>>is a reference that allegedly many of the
>>"regulars" controlled the ng. This is not, nor has it ever been, a
>>moderated newsgroup
>
>
> No..it isn't moderated...but the "old timers" don't have a problem
> running anyone off if they don't agree with a new fresh idea or
> member. The "be-little-ers club" is in full force.

However, that only effects the timid & weak. IMO RFC's reputation is a
situation analogous to the dog whose bark is worse than it's bite. In
this case RFC's reputations for being difficult is vastly overrated.
And as a group, consequently, more interesting than its 'reputation'
would lead one to think.

Of course, perversity that i am, it finally got to me, and i subscribed
to RFC. And began to read & interact with the group i had been "warned"
about "in another group."

At least xenophobia & national chauvinism is as ridiculous here as it is
prevalent in those more regional cooking groups and way less likely to
be used in any even remotely meaningful way here, in what is an
international group.

None of which stops rude people from being rude. And the existence of
such open, moderated public forums can even be said to encourage the
worst in some people, 'pour le outre.'

The sheer size of this groups contribute to its own moderation, its too
big for any one person or clique to control with autocratic absolutism.
--
Joseph Littleshoes