|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|
|
What happened to Rec.Food.Reipes?
Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> Janet Wilder > wrote:
>
>> Jean B. wrote:
>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired.
>>>>>>>> No one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>>>>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>>>>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
>>>>> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>>>> Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be
>>>> for rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How
>>>> would it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
>>>>
>>>> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
>>>>
>>>> My immediate thoughts would be:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Recipe-oriented
>>>> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed
>>>> (but then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
>>>> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
>>>> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the
>>>> fact that is has not been tried should be made clear.
>>>>
>>> Adding on...
>>>
>>> No flaming.
>>>
>>> No spamming.
>>>
>> Of course! I'd like to add no gratuitous profanity, too.
>>
>> The moderators can screen initial posts from members until they get a
>> feel for how things will be. You could also moderate some people but not
>> others. We have a few "bi-polar" posters here that probably warrant such
>> monitoring. That would also work for those who are constantly spoofed.
>> The moderator would be able to weed out the genuine from the spoof.
>
> Just set up a group if anyone wants to play:
>
>
Post a usable link to join, please. One just gets a bounce with
that addy.
--
Jean B.
|