There are a lot of really crappy recipes on http://www.cooks.com

This is a classic:
http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html

Who in their right freakin' mind would spoil lobster by making soup
with CANNED EVAPORATED MILK?!?!

And if you're wondering, "What the heck is "lobster soup base,"
http://www.redibase.com/nut_facts/lobster.htm

Put "margarine" into their search and you get, 76360 matches for
margarine.
Do the same for "butter," and you get 7020 matches for butter.

Don't believe me? Try it yourself.

Yesterday, for Valentine's Day, I made my wife a lobster, and served
her the tail (already cut up), with a butter lime sauce for dipping.
I fed the innards to the kitty. I got as much of the meat as I could
from the rest and threw the shells back into the pot When that had
reduced, I strained it into another pot, and put another few inches of
water in and repeated, adding that broth to the other, then added the
leftover meat. Later today, I'll make a nice chowder, without canned
milk (or anything else canned).

Oh, and look at this thoroughly trashy "recipe" for " LOBSTER AND
SHRIMP BISQUE."
http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,171,...248192,00.html

A recipe that calls for canned (brand unspecified) soup to which you
are supposed to add those nasty Geisha canned shrimps is not cooking.
It is preparing hog slop.

--Bryan

Bobo Bonobo® said...

> There are a lot of really crappy recipes on http://www.cooks.com
>
> This is a classic:
> http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html


Bryan,

Yep! I'm in complete agreement!

Cooks.com is downright awful!

No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!

It truly sucks, imho.

Best,

Andy

On Feb 15, 10:16*am, Andy > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® said...
>
> > There are a lot of really crappy recipes onhttp://www.cooks.com
>
> > This is a classic:
> >http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>
> Bryan,
>
> Yep! I'm in complete agreement!
>
> Cooks.com is downright awful!
>
> No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!

r.f.c also has that "No recipes refused!" thing,
>
> It truly sucks, imho.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

--Bryan

Bobo Bonobo® said...

> On Feb 15, 10:16*am, Andy > wrote:
>> Bobo Bonobo® said...
>>
>> > There are a lot of really crappy recipes onhttp://www.cooks.com
>>
>> > This is a classic:
>> >http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>>
>> Bryan,
>>
>> Yep! I'm in complete agreement!
>>
>> Cooks.com is downright awful!
>>
>> No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!
>
> r.f.c also has that "No recipes refused!" thing,


Bryan,

Me thinks you mean r.f.r (rec.food.recipes)

Just about one in the same pretty much.

Best,

Andy

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> There are a lot of really crappy recipes on http://www.cooks.com

No kidding.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Feb 15, 10:31*am, Andy > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® said...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:16*am, Andy > wrote:
> >> Bobo Bonobo® said...
>
> >> > There are a lot of really crappy recipes onhttp://www.cooks.com
>
> >> > This is a classic:
> >> >http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>
> >> Bryan,
>
> >> Yep! I'm in complete agreement!
>
> >> Cooks.com is downright awful!
>
> >> No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!
>
> > r.f.c also has that "No recipes refused!" *thing,
>
> Bryan,
>
> Me thinks you mean r.f.r (rec.food.recipes)

Here too, though. And a lot of folks here are too nice, polite,
whatever, to call slop, slop.
>
> Just about one in the same pretty much.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

--Bryan

"Bobo Bonobo®" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 10:16 am, Andy > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® said...
>
> > There are a lot of really crappy recipes onhttp://www.cooks.com
>
> > This is a classic:
> >http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>
> Bryan,
>
> Yep! I'm in complete agreement!
>
> Cooks.com is downright awful!
>
> No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!

r.f.c also has that "No recipes refused!" thing,
>
> It truly sucks, imho.
>--Bryan

rfc isn't a "web site".

Jill

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:04:53 -0800 (PST), Bobo Bonobo®
> wrote:

>There are a lot of really crappy recipes

Aren't you glad that we still have a choice? You like it, you use
it...you don't like it, you kill file it...mush like this message.

wrote:

> On Feb 15, 10:31Â*am, Andy > wrote:
>> Bobo Bonobo® said...

>>
>> >> No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!
>>
>> > r.f.c also has that "No recipes refused!" Â*thing,
>>
>> Bryan,
>>
>> Me thinks you mean r.f.r (rec.food.recipes)
>
> Here too, though. And a lot of folks here are too nice, polite,
> whatever, to call slop, slop.

I have to disagree. IMO, there are some really good cooks who post to
r.f.c. - and they have been known to call some recipes that have been
posted here far worse names than 'slop'...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Mr. Bill wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:04:53 -0800 (PST), Bobo Bonobo®
> > wrote:
>
>>There are a lot of really crappy recipes
>
> Aren't you glad that we still have a choice? You like it, you use
> it...you don't like it, you kill file it...mush like this message.

"Mush like this message"?. Have one for me, Mr. Bill.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Andy wrote on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:16:22 -0600:

>> There are a lot of really crappy recipes on http://www.cooks.com
>>
>> This is a classic:
>> http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html

> Bryan,

> Yep! I'm in complete agreement!

> Cooks.com is downright awful!

> No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!

> It truly sucks, imho.

> Best,

I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in a search
for a particular recipe. I used to read rec.food.recipes but you can't
make comments there and a lot of the posters think they are performing a
public service by indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried
personally.



--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article
>,
Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

> On Feb 15, 10:16*am, Andy > wrote:

> > No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!
>
> r.f.c also has that "No recipes refused!" thing,

But people can comment on the recipes, which you have done, many times,
and sometimes (IMNSHO) rather abusively.

As for the margarine, I'm not surprised. Back before I was born, which
was long before you were born, margarine was not only cheaper, but it
was considered to be more healthy than butter. It isn't surprising that
there are still a whole lot of recipes floating around that call for
margarine. It's pretty easy to substitute butter (and I suspect many of
these recipes originally called for butter, and got tweaked to be more
healthy by substituting margarine). Same thing with solid shortening.
It was considered more healthy than lard, which was often used before
Crisco was invented.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

> There are a lot of really crappy recipes on http://www.cooks.com

I've added "127.0.0.1 cooks.com" to all my hosts files so I don't
accidentally visit that site. I've been doing that for at least 6
years now.

-sw

Andy wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® said...
>
>> On Feb 15, 10:16 am, Andy > wrote:
>>> Bobo Bonobo® said...
>>>
>>>> There are a lot of really crappy recipes onhttp://www.cooks.com
>>>> This is a classic:
>>>> http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>>> Bryan,
>>>
>>> Yep! I'm in complete agreement!
>>>
>>> Cooks.com is downright awful!
>>>
>>> No peer reviews with a "No recipes refused!" mentality!
>> r.f.c also has that "No recipes refused!" thing,
>
>
> Bryan,
>
> Me thinks you mean r.f.r (rec.food.recipes)
>
> Just about one in the same pretty much.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

Maybe it should be a TNT (tried and true) r.f.r unless someone has
asked for a specific recipe, which one happens to have.

Back to the question... I do a lot of food searches. I hate
sites that have the exact same recipes, purloined from god only
knows what original source. Sometimes from here. So those rank
up there as worst recipe sites for me.

--
Jean B.

James Silverton wrote:
> I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in a search
> for a particular recipe. I used to read rec.food.recipes but you can't
> make comments there and a lot of the posters think they are performing a
> public service by indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried
> personally.
>
r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
I wonder when the transition will be taking place?

--
Jean B.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:04:53 -0800 (PST), Bobo Bonobo®
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>There are a lot of really crappy recipes on http://www.cooks.com
>
>This is a classic:
>http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html

<rest of post snipped>

I've found 3 or 4 good recipes on the following new-ish website (at
least it's new to me):

http://www.cookstr.com/

I made their lobster bisque recipe, for instance, with good results.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

In article >,
Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:

> I've found 3 or 4 good recipes on the following new-ish website (at
> least it's new to me):
>
> http://www.cookstr.com/
>
> I made their lobster bisque recipe, for instance, with good results.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

Heh!! Bea Ojakangas is a very well known Minnesota cookbook author and
was honored as one Minnesota's 'notable women' by our First Lady, Mary
Pawlenty, in June of 2005 (I'm not sure of the year). I see that she
has several convection-heating recipes on the site.

I like the 'lightness' of the site.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller

On Feb 15, 11:04*am, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
> There are a lot of really crappy recipes onhttp://www.cooks.com
>
> This is a classic:http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>
> Who in their right freakin' mind would spoil lobster by making soup
> with CANNED EVAPORATED MILK?!?!
>
> And if you're wondering, "What the heck is "lobster soup base,"http://www..redibase.com/nut_facts/lobster.htm
>
> Put "margarine" into their search and you get, 76360 matches for
> margarine.
> Do the same for "butter," and you get 7020 matches for butter.
>
> Don't believe me? *Try it yourself.
>
> Yesterday, for Valentine's Day, I made my wife a lobster, and served
> her the tail (already cut up), with a butter lime sauce for dipping.
> I fed the innards to the kitty. *I got as much of the meat as I could
> from the rest and threw the shells back into the pot *When that had
> reduced, I strained it into another pot, and put another few inches of
> water in and repeated, adding that broth to the other, then added the
> leftover meat. *Later today, I'll make a nice chowder, without canned
> milk (or anything else canned).
>
> Oh, and look at this thoroughly trashy "recipe" for " LOBSTER AND
> SHRIMP BISQUE."http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,171,133184-248192,00.html
>
> A recipe that calls for canned (brand unspecified) soup to which you
> are supposed to add those nasty Geisha canned shrimps is not cooking.
> It is preparing hog slop.
>
> --Bryan

Well, Cooks.com isn't my favorite either. Neither is allrecipes.com.
Although I feel they are good for some people, they just don't suit my
tastes very well.

But my favorite is epicurious.com. Great feedback/rating system and
enough traffic to assure you that you get input that's straight. Plus
the recipe database is huge and has excellent recipes!

Kris

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:59:56 -0800 (PST), Kris >
wrote:

>But my favorite is epicurious.com. Great feedback/rating system and
>enough traffic to assure you that you get input that's straight. Plus
>the recipe database is huge and has excellent recipes!

It's my favorite, as well. I've gotten several recipes there that are
so incredibly good! And it's nice to see how other people have
adapted the recipes and the results of their adaptations. I seldom
leave a recipe alone.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Damsel in dis Dress > admitted in message
...
> [Epicurious.com's] my favorite, as well. I've gotten several
> recipes there that are so incredibly good! And it's nice to
> see how other people have adapted the recipes and the
> results of their adaptations. I seldom leave a recipe alone.

INFIDEL!

You would tweak a recipe from such a holy site?!

Witch!

Heretic!

Infidel!

The Ranger

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:32:56 -0800, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress > admitted in message
.. .
>> [Epicurious.com's] my favorite, as well. I've gotten several
>> recipes there that are so incredibly good! And it's nice to
>> see how other people have adapted the recipes and the
>> results of their adaptations. I seldom leave a recipe alone.
>
>INFIDEL!
>
>You would tweak a recipe from such a holy site?!
>
>Witch!
>
>Heretic!
>
>Infidel!
>
>The Ranger

Eh, blow it out your butt! LOL!

How the heck are ya? I haven't seen you posting much lately.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Damsel in dis Dress > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:32:56 -0800, "The Ranger"
> > wrote:
>>Damsel in dis Dress > admitted in message
. ..
>>> [Epicurious.com's] my favorite, as well. I've gotten several
>>> recipes there that are so incredibly good! And it's nice to
>>> see how other people have adapted the recipes and the
>>> results of their adaptations. I seldom leave a recipe alone.
>>
>>INFIDEL!
>>
>>You would tweak a recipe from such a holy site?!
>>
>>Witch!
>>
>>Heretic!
>>
>>Infidel!
>>
> Eh, blow it out your butt! LOL!

I'm going to enjoy slow-roasting you over indirect heat. Let's see if we can
cast that demon out!

> How the heck are ya? I haven't seen you posting much lately.

Real Life® took an long look at my boring life and provided some interesting
situations. <shrug> More grist for the story wheel.

The Ranger

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:53:56 -0800, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

>Real Life® took an long look at my boring life and provided some interesting
>situations. <shrug> More grist for the story wheel.

I look forward to more of your stories. I miss them. You're right up
there with Bill Cosby, in my book.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> There are a lot of really crappy recipes on http://www.cooks.com
>
> This is a classic:
> http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>
> Who in their right freakin' mind would spoil lobster by making soup
> with CANNED EVAPORATED MILK?!?!
>
> And if you're wondering, "What the heck is "lobster soup base,"
> http://www.redibase.com/nut_facts/lobster.htm
>
> Put "margarine" into their search and you get, 76360 matches for
> margarine.
> Do the same for "butter," and you get 7020 matches for butter.
>
> Don't believe me? Try it yourself.
>
> Yesterday, for Valentine's Day, I made my wife a lobster, and served
> her the tail (already cut up), with a butter lime sauce for dipping.
> I fed the innards to the kitty. I got as much of the meat as I could
> from the rest and threw the shells back into the pot When that had
> reduced, I strained it into another pot, and put another few inches of
> water in and repeated, adding that broth to the other, then added the
> leftover meat. Later today, I'll make a nice chowder, without canned
> milk (or anything else canned).
>
> Oh, and look at this thoroughly trashy "recipe" for " LOBSTER AND
> SHRIMP BISQUE."
> http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,171,...248192,00.html
>
> A recipe that calls for canned (brand unspecified) soup to which you
> are supposed to add those nasty Geisha canned shrimps is not cooking.
> It is preparing hog slop.
>
> --Bryan

I go there for ideas sometimes. I have never used any of their recipes,
but reading them helps me to get a perspective on making a new dish.
Unless I'm baking, I rarely follow any recipe exactly.

Melba's Jammin' > wrote in news:barbschaller-
:

> Heh!! Bea Ojakangas is a very well known Minnesota cookbook author and
> was honored as one Minnesota's 'notable women' by our First Lady,

Nigella Lawson ---recipe of the day--- ain't no slouch either. I enjoy her
cookbooks and the food tastes good to great in my book. Maybe in the USA
you aren't exposed to her much not sure these days.

--

The beet goes on -Alan

On Feb 15, 12:12*pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
> > I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in a search
> > for a particular recipe. I used to read rec.food.recipes but you can't
> > make comments there and a lot of the posters think they are performing a
> > public service by indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried
> > personally.
>
> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?

Usenet is moribund.
>
> --
> Jean B.

--Bryan

said...

>> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>
> Usenet is moribund.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
> --Bryan


NOT TRUE!

alt.binaries.birds

Andy

The Ranger wrote:
> Real Life® took an long look at my boring life and provided some
> interesting situations. <shrug> More grist for the story wheel.

I can't wait

wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>> I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in a search
>>> for a particular recipe. I used to read rec.food.recipes but you can't
>>> make comments there and a lot of the posters think they are performing a
>>> public service by indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried
>>> personally.
>> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>
> Usenet is moribund.

You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.

--
Jean B.

Jean B. wrote:

> wrote:
> >On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
> > > James Silverton wrote:
> > > > I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in
> > > > a search for a particular recipe. I used to read
> > > > rec.food.recipes but you can't make comments there and a lot of
> > > > the posters think they are performing a public service by
> > > > indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried personally.
> > > r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
> > > I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
> >
> > Usenet is moribund.
>
> You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.

This group, no. But the people who used to post on alt.recovery about
Twelve Step Groups Are Evil (too Christian, not Christian enough -- one
managed both those in one post) aren't around any longer; and almost
nobody else is.

fr.rec.cuisine used to get a lot of posts, but now gets rather few.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
Mirror Journal http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Mirror 2 http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Dan Goodman wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>> I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in
>>>>> a search for a particular recipe. I used to read
>>>>> rec.food.recipes but you can't make comments there and a lot of
>>>>> the posters think they are performing a public service by
>>>>> indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried personally.
>>>> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>>>> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>>> Usenet is moribund.
>> You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.
>
> This group, no. But the people who used to post on alt.recovery about
> Twelve Step Groups Are Evil (too Christian, not Christian enough -- one
> managed both those in one post) aren't around any longer; and almost
> nobody else is.
>
> fr.rec.cuisine used to get a lot of posts, but now gets rather few.

I'm on several very busy newsgroups, and a few that seem to be either
dead or dying. It has been that way since I got here in 1998. If Usenet
is dying, it's taking its sweet time about it.

Serene

--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue March '09!
http://42magazine.com

"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:53:31 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> Usenet is moribund.
>
>You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.

LOLOL! Good one Jean B.




--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Feb 16, 3:47 pm, Janet Wilder > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> > There are a lot of really crappy recipes onhttp://www.cooks.com
>
> > This is a classic:
> >http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1748...242196,00.html
>
> > Who in their right freakin' mind would spoil lobster by making soup
> > with CANNED EVAPORATED MILK?!?!
>
> > And if you're wondering, "What the heck is "lobster soup base,"
> >http://www.redibase.com/nut_facts/lobster.htm
>
> > Put "margarine" into their search and you get, 76360 matches for
> > margarine.
> > Do the same for "butter," and you get 7020 matches for butter.
>
> > Don't believe me? Try it yourself.
>
> > Yesterday, for Valentine's Day, I made my wife a lobster, and served
> > her the tail (already cut up), with a butter lime sauce for dipping.
> > I fed the innards to the kitty. I got as much of the meat as I could
> > from the rest and threw the shells back into the pot When that had
> > reduced, I strained it into another pot, and put another few inches of
> > water in and repeated, adding that broth to the other, then added the
> > leftover meat. Later today, I'll make a nice chowder, without canned
> > milk (or anything else canned).
>
> > Oh, and look at this thoroughly trashy "recipe" for " LOBSTER AND
> > SHRIMP BISQUE."
> >http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,171,...248192,00.html
>
> > A recipe that calls for canned (brand unspecified) soup to which you
> > are supposed to add those nasty Geisha canned shrimps is not cooking.
> > It is preparing hog slop.
>
> > --Bryan
>
> I go there for ideas sometimes. I have never used any of their recipes,
> but reading them helps me to get a perspective on making a new dish.
> Unless I'm baking, I rarely follow any recipe exactly.

Beware, sloppy typers (like me).

I had an extra vowel in epicuriois; couldn't remember if it was
american, or americas test kitchen. All three mistakes brought up the
same sketchy looking site that I didn't explore.

Once I found http://www.americastestkitchen.com/ (I think that's
right), no. I like Chris Kimbal and his harem but I'm too cheap and
resourceful, with y'alls help, of course, to subscribe to anything.

b

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:53:31 -0500, Jean B. wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in a search
>>>> for a particular recipe. I used to read rec.food.recipes but you can't
>>>> make comments there and a lot of the posters think they are performing a
>>>> public service by indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried
>>>> personally.
>>> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>>> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>>
>> Usenet is moribund.
>
> You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.

i don't know, a lot of posters seem to be sick. and i ain't feeling all
that good either.

(o.k., that's a lie. i don't feel moribund in the slightest.)

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:36:26 -0600, Dan Goodman wrote:

> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>>On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>> > James Silverton wrote:
>>> > > I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in
>>> > > a search for a particular recipe. I used to read
>>> > > rec.food.recipes but you can't make comments there and a lot of
>>> > > the posters think they are performing a public service by
>>> > > indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried personally.
>>> > r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>>> > I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>>>
>>> Usenet is moribund.
>>
>> You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.
>
> This group, no. But the people who used to post on alt.recovery about
> Twelve Step Groups Are Evil (too Christian, not Christian enough -- one
> managed both those in one post) aren't around any longer; and almost
> nobody else is.
>
> fr.rec.cuisine used to get a lot of posts, but now gets rather few.

groups come and go, usenet goes on.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:51:09 -0800, Serene Vannoy wrote:

> Dan Goodman wrote:
>> Jean B. wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>> I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in
>>>>>> a search for a particular recipe. I used to read
>>>>>> rec.food.recipes but you can't make comments there and a lot of
>>>>>> the posters think they are performing a public service by
>>>>>> indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried personally.
>>>>> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>>>>> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>>>> Usenet is moribund.
>>> You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.
>>
>> This group, no. But the people who used to post on alt.recovery about
>> Twelve Step Groups Are Evil (too Christian, not Christian enough -- one
>> managed both those in one post) aren't around any longer; and almost
>> nobody else is.
>>
>> fr.rec.cuisine used to get a lot of posts, but now gets rather few.
>
> I'm on several very busy newsgroups, and a few that seem to be either
> dead or dying. It has been that way since I got here in 1998. If Usenet
> is dying, it's taking its sweet time about it.
>
> Serene

it's always annoying when someone lingers on their deathbed for months or
years. get on with it, already!

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:53:31 -0500, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>> I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in a search
>>>>> for a particular recipe. I used to read rec.food.recipes but you can't
>>>>> make comments there and a lot of the posters think they are performing a
>>>>> public service by indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried
>>>>> personally.
>>>> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>>>> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>>> Usenet is moribund.
>> You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.
>
> i don't know, a lot of posters seem to be sick. and i ain't feeling all
> that good either.
>
> (o.k., that's a lie. i don't feel moribund in the slightest.)
>
> your pal,
> blake

....which is good... :-)

--
Jean B.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:20:23 -0500, Jean B. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:53:31 -0500, Jean B. wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>> I don't regularly visit recipe web sites unless they come up in a search
>>>>>> for a particular recipe. I used to read rec.food.recipes but you can't
>>>>>> make comments there and a lot of the posters think they are performing a
>>>>>> public service by indiscriminate dumping recipes they have not tried
>>>>>> personally.
>>>>> r.f.r (yes, not a site, but...) has been rather moribund lately.
>>>>> I wonder when the transition will be taking place?
>>>> Usenet is moribund.
>>> You mean like this group? I hadn't noticed.
>>
>> i don't know, a lot of posters seem to be sick. and i ain't feeling all
>> that good either.
>>
>> (o.k., that's a lie. i don't feel moribund in the slightest.)
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> ...which is good... :-)

i guess that depends on who you talk to.

your pal,
blake