I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie"
(sic) recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded
the moderators. I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn
Robles.


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie" (sic)
> recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded the moderators.
> I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
>
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>
>
I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe "ratatouille"
because there's nothing about it that even remotely resembles the actual
dish known as ratatouille. I replied to the post, but it never showed
up anywhere, despite the original being cross-posted here.

Here's what was posted, in case you wanted it for some reason
>
> Ratatouille
>
> 1/2 lb. pasta
> 2 cans of tomato sauce
> parsley
> garlic powder
> cinnamon
>
> Boil pasta in water until it's soft. Pour tomato sauce in pot and add 1/2
> can of water and 1 Tbsp of extra virgin olive oil. Add a dash if cinnamon,
> garlic, and parsley. Serve with pasta and sprinkle a bit of parsley on the
> top.
>

"flitterbit" > wrote in message
...
> James Silverton wrote:
>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie" (sic)
>> recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded the moderators.
>> I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
>>
>>
>> James Silverton
>> Potomac, Maryland
>>
>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
> >
> >
> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe "ratatouille"
> because there's nothing about it that even remotely resembles the actual
> dish known as ratatouille. I replied to the post, but it never showed up
> anywhere, despite the original being cross-posted here.

I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It wasn't
cross-posted.

Mary

MareCat wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:10:06 -0500:

M> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
M> ...
??>> James Silverton wrote:
??>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the
??>>> "Ratatoullie" (sic) recipe but I looked it up and I don't
??>>> know how it evaded the moderators. I don't think I will
??>>> be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
??>>>
??>>> James Silverton
??>>> Potomac, Maryland
??>>>
??>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
??>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
??>>>
??>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe
??>> "ratatouille" because there's nothing about it that even
??>> remotely resembles the actual dish known as ratatouille.
??>> I replied to the post, but it never showed up anywhere,
??>> despite the original being cross-posted here.

M> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It
M> wasn't cross-posted.

Sorry not to reference your post but I really did lose it as I
said. Incidentally, take a closer look at the terminology both
in the recipe and in my last post. Ms Robles calls it
Ratatoullie in her subject line ;-)

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
news:mK%tj.521$JF.175@trnddc01...
> MareCat wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:10:06 -0500:
>
> M> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
> M> ...
> ??>> James Silverton wrote:
> ??>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the
> ??>>> "Ratatoullie" (sic) recipe but I looked it up and I don't
> ??>>> know how it evaded the moderators. I don't think I will
> ??>>> be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
> ??>>>
> ??>>> James Silverton
> ??>>> Potomac, Maryland
> ??>>>
> ??>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> ??>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
> ??>>>
> ??>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe
> ??>> "ratatouille" because there's nothing about it that even
> ??>> remotely resembles the actual dish known as ratatouille.
> ??>> I replied to the post, but it never showed up anywhere,
> ??>> despite the original being cross-posted here.
>
> M> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It
> M> wasn't cross-posted.
>
> Sorry not to reference your post but I really did lose it as I said.
> Incidentally, take a closer look at the terminology both in the recipe and
> in my last post. Ms Robles calls it Ratatoullie in her subject line ;-)
>
testing

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
news:mK%tj.521$JF.175@trnddc01...
> MareCat wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:10:06 -0500:
>
> M> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
> M> ...
> ??>> James Silverton wrote:
> ??>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the
> ??>>> "Ratatoullie" (sic) recipe but I looked it up and I don't
> ??>>> know how it evaded the moderators. I don't think I will
> ??>>> be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
> ??>>>
> ??>>> James Silverton
> ??>>> Potomac, Maryland
> ??>>>
> ??>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> ??>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
> ??>>>
> ??>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe
> ??>> "ratatouille" because there's nothing about it that even
> ??>> remotely resembles the actual dish known as ratatouille.
> ??>> I replied to the post, but it never showed up anywhere,
> ??>> despite the original being cross-posted here.
>
> M> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It
> M> wasn't cross-posted.
>
> Sorry not to reference your post but I really did lose it as I said.
> Incidentally, take a closer look at the terminology both in the recipe and
> in my last post. Ms Robles calls it Ratatoullie in her subject line ;-)
>
testing testing (teranews)



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

MareCat wrote:
> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
> ...
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie" (sic)
>>> recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded the moderators.
>>> I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
>>>
>>>
>>> James Silverton
>>> Potomac, Maryland
>>>
>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe "ratatouille"
>> because there's nothing about it that even remotely resembles the actual
>> dish known as ratatouille. I replied to the post, but it never showed up
>> anywhere, despite the original being cross-posted here.
>
> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It wasn't
> cross-posted.
>
> Mary
>
>
I saw it, too. It amazes me what gets by those moderators some times. :-)

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> testing
>
> Don't you test at a test group?
>
Does it look like it?

Do you cook?

Rick wrote:
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> testing
>
> Don't you test at a test group?

Sheesh live her be

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...

> testing

Don't you test at a test group?

Janet Wilder wrote:
> MareCat wrote:
>> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie" (sic)
>>>> recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded the
>>>> moderators. I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James Silverton
>>>> Potomac, Maryland
>>>>
>>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe "ratatouille"
>>> because there's nothing about it that even remotely resembles the
>>> actual dish known as ratatouille. I replied to the post, but it
>>> never showed up anywhere, despite the original being cross-posted here.
>>
>> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It wasn't
>> cross-posted.
>>
>> Mary
>>
> I saw it, too. It amazes me what gets by those moderators some times. :-)
>


I don't think "this obviously sucks" is reason enough to reject a recipe
that may have been submitted in good faith by a lousy cook. We all
start somewhere, and I wouldn't want to be the one to discourage someone
who is just learning to cook and perhaps a little too enthusiastic.

If I were a mod, I'd have approved it (and perhaps winced a little)

Bob

zxcvbob wrote:

> I don't think "this obviously sucks" is reason enough to reject a recipe
> that may have been submitted in good faith by a lousy cook. We all
> start somewhere, and I wouldn't want to be the one to discourage someone
> who is just learning to cook and perhaps a little too enthusiastic.
>
> If I were a mod, I'd have approved it (and perhaps winced a little)

It just seems to me that a good mod would take pity on such a newbie.
Letting the recipe through on a cooking group opened the poster to much
embarrassment.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from zxcvbob > contains these words:
>
>> I don't think "this obviously sucks" is reason enough to reject a recipe
>> that may have been submitted in good faith by a lousy cook. We all
>> start somewhere, and I wouldn't want to be the one to discourage someone
>> who is just learning to cook and perhaps a little too enthusiastic.
>
>> If I were a mod, I'd have approved it (and perhaps winced a little)
>
> Wouldn't you have corrected the wrong name? I don't see how it helps
> other novice cooks to tell them a wrong name for a pasta/tomato recipe,
> or to misinform them about what ratatouille is.

I would think a moderator of a recipe ng would at least email the person who
submitted a recipe like that and let her/him know that the title of the
recipe was inaccurate. It would be like someone submitting a recipe titled
"osso buco" that calls for baking a mixture of ground beef, peas, carrots,
rice, and cheese sauce.

Mary

MareCat wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:53:52 -0500:

M> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in
M> message ...
??>> The message >
??>> from zxcvbob > contains these words:
??>>
??>>> I don't think "this obviously sucks" is reason enough to
??>>> reject a recipe that may have been submitted in good
??>>> faith by a lousy cook. We all start somewhere, and I
??>>> wouldn't want to be the one to discourage someone who is
??>>> just learning to cook and perhaps a little too
??>>> enthusiastic.
??>>
??>>> If I were a mod, I'd have approved it (and perhaps winced
??>>> a little)
??>>
??>> Wouldn't you have corrected the wrong name? I don't see
??>> how it helps other novice cooks to tell them a wrong name
??>> for a pasta/tomato recipe, or to misinform them about what
??>> ratatouille is.

M> I would think a moderator of a recipe ng would at least
M> email the person who submitted a recipe like that and let
M> her/him know that the title of the recipe was inaccurate. It
M> would be like someone submitting a recipe titled "osso buco"
M> that calls for baking a mixture of ground beef, peas,
M> carrots, rice, and cheese sauce.

Let's be honest about criticizing the moderators about the
spelling that was different in the subject line and in the body
of the post. Given the most used non-serif fonts for e-mail it
is difficult to see the difference without careful examination,
between Ratatouille and Ratatoullie. Spelling checkers like mine
also don't check the subject line.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

MareCat wrote:
> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
> ...
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie" (sic)
>>> recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded the moderators.
>>> I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
>>>
>>>
>>> James Silverton
>>> Potomac, Maryland
>>>
>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe "ratatouille"
>> because there's nothing about it that even remotely resembles the actual
>> dish known as ratatouille. I replied to the post, but it never showed up
>> anywhere, despite the original being cross-posted here.
>
> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It wasn't
> cross-posted.
>
> Mary
>
>
The recipe as sent to rec.food.recipes was; I didn't see your thread,
sorry to say.

James Silverton wrote:
> MareCat wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:53:52 -0500:
>
> M> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in
> M> message ...
> ??>> The message >
> ??>> from zxcvbob > contains these words:
> ??>>
> ??>>> I don't think "this obviously sucks" is reason enough to
> ??>>> reject a recipe that may have been submitted in good
> ??>>> faith by a lousy cook. We all start somewhere, and I
> ??>>> wouldn't want to be the one to discourage someone who is
> ??>>> just learning to cook and perhaps a little too
> ??>>> enthusiastic.
> ??>>
> ??>>> If I were a mod, I'd have approved it (and perhaps winced
> ??>>> a little)
> ??>>
> ??>> Wouldn't you have corrected the wrong name? I don't see
> ??>> how it helps other novice cooks to tell them a wrong name
> ??>> for a pasta/tomato recipe, or to misinform them about what
> ??>> ratatouille is.
>
> M> I would think a moderator of a recipe ng would at least
> M> email the person who submitted a recipe like that and let
> M> her/him know that the title of the recipe was inaccurate. It
> M> would be like someone submitting a recipe titled "osso buco"
> M> that calls for baking a mixture of ground beef, peas,
> M> carrots, rice, and cheese sauce.
>
> Let's be honest about criticizing the moderators about the spelling that
> was different in the subject line and in the body of the post. Given the
> most used non-serif fonts for e-mail it is difficult to see the
> difference without careful examination, between Ratatouille and
> Ratatoullie. Spelling checkers like mine also don't check the subject line.
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>
>
My comment wasn't about the spelling in the subject line, rather, it was
that the recipe itself bears no resemblance to ratatouille.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
news:_vfuj.4255$0%3.3137@trnddc06...
> MareCat wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:53:52 -0500:
>
> M> "Janet Baraclough" > wrote in
> M> message ...
> ??>> The message >
> ??>> from zxcvbob > contains these words:
> ??>>
> ??>>> I don't think "this obviously sucks" is reason enough to
> ??>>> reject a recipe that may have been submitted in good
> ??>>> faith by a lousy cook. We all start somewhere, and I
> ??>>> wouldn't want to be the one to discourage someone who is
> ??>>> just learning to cook and perhaps a little too
> ??>>> enthusiastic.
> ??>>
> ??>>> If I were a mod, I'd have approved it (and perhaps winced
> ??>>> a little)
> ??>>
> ??>> Wouldn't you have corrected the wrong name? I don't see
> ??>> how it helps other novice cooks to tell them a wrong name
> ??>> for a pasta/tomato recipe, or to misinform them about what
> ??>> ratatouille is.
>
> M> I would think a moderator of a recipe ng would at least
> M> email the person who submitted a recipe like that and let
> M> her/him know that the title of the recipe was inaccurate. It
> M> would be like someone submitting a recipe titled "osso buco"
> M> that calls for baking a mixture of ground beef, peas,
> M> carrots, rice, and cheese sauce.
>
> Let's be honest about criticizing the moderators about the spelling that
> was different in the subject line and in the body of the post. Given the
> most used non-serif fonts for e-mail it is difficult to see the difference
> without careful examination, between Ratatouille and Ratatoullie. Spelling
> checkers like mine also don't check the subject line.

Although I did notice the typo in the subject line of that recipe in r.f.r.,
I know that typos do happen, and my criticism had nothing to do with that.

Mary

"flitterbit" > wrote in message
...
> MareCat wrote:
>> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie" (sic)
>>>> recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded the
>>>> moderators. I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James Silverton
>>>> Potomac, Maryland
>>>>
>>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe "ratatouille"
>>> because there's nothing about it that even remotely resembles the actual
>>> dish known as ratatouille. I replied to the post, but it never showed
>>> up anywhere, despite the original being cross-posted here.
>>
>> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It wasn't
>> cross-posted.
>>
>> Mary
> The recipe as sent to rec.food.recipes was; I didn't see your thread,
> sorry to say.

That particular post in r.f.r. wasn't cross-posted to this group. I just
looked--the only newsgroup included in the "To:" field is r.f.r.

I've noticed that many recipes posted in r.f.r. are indeed crossposted to
r.f.c., but in this case the "Ratatoullie" [sic] recipe wasn't.

Mary

MareCat wrote:
> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
> ...
>> MareCat wrote:
>>> "flitterbit" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>> I've lost the post about r.food.recipes and the "Ratatoullie" (sic)
>>>>> recipe but I looked it up and I don't know how it evaded the
>>>>> moderators. I don't think I will be dining chez Caitlyn Robles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> James Silverton
>>>>> Potomac, Maryland
>>>>>
>>>>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>>>>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know why the person chose to call that recipe "ratatouille"
>>>> because there's nothing about it that even remotely resembles the actual
>>>> dish known as ratatouille. I replied to the post, but it never showed
>>>> up anywhere, despite the original being cross-posted here.
>>> I started a thread in here pointing out that "recipe." It wasn't
>>> cross-posted.
>>>
>>> Mary
>> The recipe as sent to rec.food.recipes was; I didn't see your thread,
>> sorry to say.
>
> That particular post in r.f.r. wasn't cross-posted to this group. I just
> looked--the only newsgroup included in the "To:" field is r.f.r.
>
> I've noticed that many recipes posted in r.f.r. are indeed crossposted to
> r.f.c., but in this case the "Ratatoullie" [sic] recipe wasn't.
>
> Mary
>
>
My mistake; *followup* was set to both r.f.r. and r.f.c.