General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,814
Default A modest proposal


"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> me wrote:
>> loser zxcvbob wrote:
>>> If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
>>> once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
>>> reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't
>>> mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
>>> hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
>>> replies.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bob

>>
>>
>> Of course you say thanks. Since this is most likely your way of getting a
>> free version of it without having to have had spent the paltry sum of $11
>> or so Mr. cheapskate when it was originally released/published!
>>
>> me
>>

>
>
> Nope, I've looked at a few, haven't saved any of them. Pretty much been
> trying to ignore them. When the cookbook originally came out, I didn't
> want to support it because it was so divisive hurt too many people's
> feeling. Don't see any reason to start now. (Remember "Grandma"?)
>
> I will give you credit for spelling "loser" correctly, loser.
>
>

Not to mention that reproducing the rfc cookbook in its entirety or major
portions thereof violates copywrite law.

Since I have extras in mint condition, including inserted postcard, if
anyone needs a copy I will make it availale this coming week only for the
paltry sum of US$1,100 plus you pay S&H.




  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61,789
Default A modest proposal

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:26:45 -0500, zxcvbob >
wrote:

> I didn't
>want to support it because it was so divisive hurt too many people's
>feeling. Don't see any reason to start now. (Remember "Grandma"?)


Please remind us what happened as far as recipes and grandma.


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

Mae West
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,191
Default A modest proposal

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:09:16 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:26:45 -0500, zxcvbob >
>wrote:
>
>> I didn't
>>want to support it because it was so divisive hurt too many people's
>>feeling. Don't see any reason to start now. (Remember "Grandma"?)

>
>Please remind us what happened as far as recipes and grandma.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

Victor Sack > wrote in message
.. .
> Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there
> has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which
> form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus
> of the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically
> the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see
> no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the
> arguments brought forth at the time.


Didn't you (or Nancy) summarize the discussion at one point, so that people
could weigh in on the topic without having to dig through the entire thread?
It's been too long and my gooja skills are insufficient to bring up the
thread to verify this.

The Ranger




  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,651
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>
> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
> or not.
>
> What do people think?


I think that the statute of limitations has run out on the rfc cookbook,
not only don't I mind it being made available online, I've been
enjoying seeing them revived here.

nancy
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,124
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

In article >,
(Victor Sack) wrote:

> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
> > BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
> > original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
> > sort of word processing format - whatever?)

>
> Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there
> has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which
> form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus of
> the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically
> the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see
> no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the
> arguments brought forth at the time.
>
> A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules,"
> particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should
> not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of
> people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get
> one for free in the future.
>
> However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I
> personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned
> but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that
> the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of
> being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say.
>
> As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as
> most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times.
>
> Victor


Hear, hear!!

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
"What you say about someone else says more
about you than it does about the other person."
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36,804
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
> I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
> Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
> edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
> wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish?
> Would a new edition be worthwhile?
>
> Sky
>
> --
> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice



I have to agree with Victor somewhat about this. It may be somewhat
advantageous to post something downloadable on the rfc site. The book is no
longer in publication. There's no reason to hold it as a sacred object
anymore.

But lest anyone forget (or for those who weren't reading/posting to rfc at
the time) the point of the cookbook was to raise money for charity. It was
about raising money to benefit families of the victims of 9/11/2001.
Publishing a new edition has been discussed here many times since you joined
rfc. Creating cd's rather than books has been discussed many times over the
years. How do you create a cd and still collect the money for each cd to
benefit the charity? People can burn CD's with impunity, as is obvious by
Rusty's OCR scanning and posting.

I'd love to see the 2002 cookbook on the rfc web site since the book has
been out of print for a long time. I don't see us doing another one anytime
soon, though. It was a lot of work and a source of much contention as to
how to do it, who should do what. I wanted several book copies because I
prefer cookbooks in that format. But I also wanted one to send to my
parents who never owned a computer in their life.

Anyway, if you want to take on the project of a new cookbook... consult the
old posts from 2001 and see what a hassle you'll be up against. Collect the
recipes. IIRC they had to be limited to three recipes per person? Find
people to edit the recipes (they had to be edited into European and US
measurements IIRC). Find a publisher. Find someone willing to collect the
funds (I'm pretty sure Nancy isn't willing to take on that task again).
Divide up the shipping regions, U.S. vs. European vs. Asian and get the
books mailed out. Just reading about all of it exhausted me.

Jill

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,980
Default A modest proposal

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...
>
>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
>>>switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
>>>each scan. Much easier than typing.

>>
>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap.
>>
>>

>
>Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR
>software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
>Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.


Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I
think I'll get another one, I miss it.

koko
--

There is no love more sincere than the love of food
George Bernard Shaw
www.kokoscorner.typepad.com
updated 03/07
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,994
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
> wrote:
>
>> Would a new edition be worthwhile?

>
> I seemed to be a lot of effort and I'm not interested anyway. Take
> what's been posted lately and store in a file on your completer. I'm
> sure if there are missing pages, the OP will post those. In fact, if
> we ask her real nice, maybe Chatty Cathy will archive it on the web
> site.
>



If posters have favorite recipes to submit to a cookbook, please just
post them here instead with comments. That way there's no expense, no
time lag, an readers can choose to save or ignore each recipe as it
appears. (Wasn't that pretty much the original charter for rfc?)

I bought quite a few of the cookbooks, gave them to people I knew would
appreciate them, and was happy to do so. I don't know if I could stand
all the sturm und drang that was involved in producing the original.

If anyone desperately wants a copy of the original, I may be able to
find one or two. Email me for details.

gloria p



  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61,789
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:32:53 -0500, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:

>I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>or not.


It's a non-issue. I was watching from the sidelines (mainly) and
don't remember a thing except it caused an entertaining tizzy in rfc.
In fact, I would appreciate a rehash of the brouhaha to remind me of
what happened. I want it blow by blow and the grandma incident is at
the top of my list now.

Seriously, I'll be glad to see the cookbook on the rfc website as a
searchable file to pick and choose/copy recipes from... like our
"signature dishes" are set up.



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

Mae West
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61,789
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:00:26 -0700, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

>Didn't you (or Nancy) summarize the discussion at one point, so that people
>could weigh in on the topic without having to dig through the entire thread?
>It's been too long and my gooja skills are insufficient to bring up the
>thread to verify this.


Oh, oh... this is good. Somebody find it!


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

Mae West
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,516
Default A modest proposal

koko wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
>>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
>>>> each scan. Much easier than typing.
>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap.
>>>
>>>

>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR
>> software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
>> Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.

>
> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I
> think I'll get another one, I miss it.
>


One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one
still can.


--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36,804
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
.. .
> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
>> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
>> sort of word processing format - whatever?)

>
> Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there
> has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which
> form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus of
> the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically
> the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see
> no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the
> arguments brought forth at the time.
>
> A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules,"
> particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should
> not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of
> people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get
> one for free in the future.
>

(snippage)
>
> Victor



The charity aspect was precisely why an electronic option of the 2002 book
was rejected way back then. We were collecting funds for charity. Offering
up a CD would have allowed anyone who purchased a single copy to then burn a
million (heh) copies for free, thus skipping the charity.

Like others, however, I believe the "statute of limitations" has run out on
the 2002 cookbook. Many, if not all, of the recipes have already been
posted here many times over the years (even without the RFC Cookbook
designation in the subject line). So why not put them on the rfc web site?
If Cathy is willing to deal with it... I'm not sure what format would be
best for most people.

I have the original book so I don't care about downloading it.

Jill

  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default A modest proposal

Rusty wrote:

> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
> each scan. Much easier than typing.
>
> Rusty


Do a Google search for "rfc cookbook" + "online recipe links" (with
quotes). At least one of the hits will be what *appears to be* the RFC
cookbook index page with live links to the original post of the recipe
on RFC. Several recipes are missing or substituted and there is no
editing or conversion to European units. I don't have the original cook
book to compare it to, so I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice
before).

ObFood: take with a grain of salt.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

In article >,
sf > wrote:


> I seemed to be a lot of effort and I'm not interested anyway. Take
> what's been posted lately and store in a file on your completer. I'm
> sure if there are missing pages, the OP will post those. In fact, if
> we ask her real nice, maybe Chatty Cathy will archive it on the web
> site.


Various suggestions have been made over the years. Believe it or not,
there has been much anguish about it posted here. I don't believe that
legal action was threatened, but it was pretty much that level of anger.
I suspect that most submissions were electronic, and that when all of
those people all over the world worked on standardizing the recipes,
that they didn't mail pieces of paper back and forth.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 492
Default A modest proposal

On Mar 8, 12:01*pm, Janet Wilder > wrote:
> koko wrote:


>
> >>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
> >>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
> >>>> each scan. Much easier than typing.
> >>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. *OCR clean up isn't a simple snap.

>
> >> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR
> >> software. *The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
> >> Paperport software are surprisingly accurate. *

>
> > Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I
> > think I'll get another one, I miss it.

>
> One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one
> still can.
>
> --
> Janet Wilder
> Way-the-heck-south-Texas


I'm using a freeware OCR software called "FreeOCR". I downloaded it
from CNET's Download.com:

http://www.download.com/FreeOCR/3000...html?tag=mncol

It will accept picture files directly from a scanner or it will
process picture files to text. I seems to be about 99% accurate. It
will export directly into Microsoft Word or as a standard text file.

Rusty
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,994
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

Victor Sack wrote:

>
> A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules,"
> particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should
> not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of
> people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get
> one for free in the future.


Even if "in the future" was the 8 years or so that have passed?

> However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I
> personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned
> but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that
> the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of
> being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say.
>
> As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as
> most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times.
>



I do not argue with your premise, Victor, but we do have new readers
here rather frequently, don't we? (Although we seem to do a fair job of
scaring some of them away.)

In the long run, I bow to your experience. A new cookbook would be fun
for some of us but, I fear, a tremendous task for anyone who chooses to
play a large part.

gloria p
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,980
Default A modest proposal

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder
> wrote:

>koko wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
>>>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
>>>>> each scan. Much easier than typing.
>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR
>>> software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
>>> Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.

>>
>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I
>> think I'll get another one, I miss it.
>>

>
>One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one
>still can.


Thanks, that's worth looking into.

koko
--

There is no love more sincere than the love of food
George Bernard Shaw
www.kokoscorner.typepad.com
updated 03/07
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,994
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"



Those of us who were here when the cookbook idea arose will remember
that it was prompted as a charitable undertaking after 9/11 with the
proceeds going to a food charity, Second Harvest. We raised more money
than anyone hoped for, IIRC.

The need is certainly not less in these economic times but could we
agree on a charity or even a country?

My major hesitation comes from not wanting to make the project a burden
for anyone.

gloria p


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,651
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

Gloria P wrote:
> Those of us who were here when the cookbook idea arose will remember
> that it was prompted as a charitable undertaking after 9/11 with the
> proceeds going to a food charity, Second Harvest. We raised more
> money than anyone hoped for, IIRC.
>
> The need is certainly not less in these economic times but could we
> agree on a charity or even a country?
>
> My major hesitation comes from not wanting to make the project a
> burden for anyone.


Every time it's come up since, the interest level is at about 5%
of what it would take to sustain the project. I'm not feeling it,
though I'd be happy to help out if it did happen.

nancy, not holding breath
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,974
Default A modest proposal

On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us...

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder
> > wrote:
>
>>koko wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
>>>>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
>>>>>> each scan. Much easier than typing.
>>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple
>>>>> snap.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular
>>>> OCR software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and
>>>> also with my Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.
>>>
>>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I
>>> think I'll get another one, I miss it.
>>>

>>
>>One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one
>>still can.

>
> Thanks, that's worth looking into.
>
> koko
> --


My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second one was
problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have the latest PaperPort
software that can be used with any scanner. It also has the capability of
storing and/or converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF
options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word.


--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,555
Default OCR software (was: A modest proposal)

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us...
>
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> koko wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
>>>>>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
>>>>>>> each scan. Much easier than typing.
>>>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple
>>>>>> snap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular
>>>>> OCR software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and
>>>>> also with my Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.
>>>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I
>>>> think I'll get another one, I miss it.
>>>>
>>> One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one
>>> still can.

>> Thanks, that's worth looking into.
>>
>> koko
>> --

>
> My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second one was
> problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have the latest PaperPort
> software that can be used with any scanner. It also has the capability of
> storing and/or converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF
> options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word.
>
>




The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years ago
is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a *lot* of symbols)
and reasonably fast. It even detects multiple font changes and tries
picks ones it thinks are the same type.

Bob
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,555
Default A modest proposal

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:09:16 -0700, sf > wrote:
>


>> Please remind us what happened as far as recipes and grandma.


Just the name is enough for those that remember; no need to dredge it
all up again for those that don't. The cookbook project sort of took on
a life of its own, and it wasn't necessarily a happy life, I'll just
leave it at that.

>
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
>


;-)


Bob


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

ChattyCathy > wrote:

> IMHO, there must have been
> something like that in order to have the cookbook printed in the first
> place. If we could find those, it would save a lot of
> typing/scanning...


It was done in troff using MS's notepad.exe

-sw


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,516
Default A modest proposal

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second one was
> problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have the latest PaperPort
> software that can be used with any scanner. It also has the capability of
> storing and/or converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF
> options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word.
>
>


My first scanner was a Visioneer and it used PaperPort software. Is your
software the regular or the "Pro" The regular gets some evil revues.


--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

sf > wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:27:54 -0800 (PST), Rusty
> > wrote:
>
>>I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows
>>Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all
>>the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have
>>completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could
>>dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page
>>files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5
>>or 10 pages a day.
>>
>>Rusty

>
> Thanks, Rusty... what was your posting name back then?


Rusty. I remember him, and his intentions to do this a few years
ago. I remember contributing .... something towards that effort. I
I may have even started the collection by rounding up the recipes
that had already been published on Usenet, and Rusty was going to
finish it. Or something like that.

IIRC, The idea met with a fair amount of resistance even back then.
Which is probably whey I felt the need to compile the list int he
first place ;-)

-sw
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

Rusty > wrote:

> I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows
> Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all
> the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have
> completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could
> dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page
> files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5
> or 10 pages a day.


I'm fairly y impressed with my $130 Brother
scanner/printer/fax/phone and the OCR sofware that comes with it. I
started out using OCR software in it's infancy and Itw as shit
compared to what's available nowadays.

Something like that would male quick work out of 150 pages.

-sw
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,191
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:30:06 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>Rusty. I remember him, and his intentions to do this a few years
>ago. I remember contributing .... something towards that effort. I
>I may have even started the collection by rounding up the recipes
>that had already been published on Usenet, and Rusty was going to
>finish it. Or something like that.
>
>IIRC, The idea met with a fair amount of resistance even back then.
>Which is probably whey I felt the need to compile the list int he
>first place ;-)


My passive-aggressive little buddy!

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,380
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

Victor Sack wrote:

> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
>> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
>> sort of word processing format - whatever?)

>
> Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However,
> there has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to
> which form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the
> consensus of
> the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically
> the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I
> see no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the
> arguments brought forth at the time.
>
> A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the
> "rules," particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable
> kind - should
> not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of
> people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to
> get one for free in the future.


Well, in the last four years I've been subscribed to r.f.c., I've seen
quite a bit of enthusiasm for doing another RFC cookbook, but nothing
much has actually *happened*. IMHO, it's one of those "As long as I
don't have to do anything except buy it, I'm for it" things. Surprise,
surprise. So... I'm not holding my breath for 'The RFC Cookbook, Vol
II' to be published (on paper?) anytime soon.

>
> However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I
> personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned
> but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that
> the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of
> being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say.


OK. Hear what you're saying...

>
> As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as
> most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times.


Have to say this... in view of the above: how do we know that somebody
(or more than one somebody) hasn't already saved most of the recipes
posted here to some recipe software/master file of their own?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,516
Default OCR software

zxcvbob wrote:

> The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years ago
> is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a *lot* of symbols)
> and reasonably fast. It even detects multiple font changes and tries
> picks ones it thinks are the same type.


I have an Epson, too, and I agree the OCR software is pretty darned
good. It will permit me to import scanned material to Word Perfect,
which many programs will not. I believe it's "ABBYY Fine Reader"

I scanned a very old cookbook a few months ago that used an obscure font
for fractions and had the recipes with the ingredients in two columns
and the directions in one column and the software did a remarkable job.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,207
Default OCR software (was: A modest proposal)

zxcvbob wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:29:08 -0500:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us...
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> koko wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired.
>>>>>>>> ;-) I've now switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a
>>>>>>>> little cleanup on each scan. Much easier than
>>>>>>>> typing.
>>>>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a
>>>>>>> simple snap.
>>>>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and
>>>>>> the particular OCR software. The OCR software that came with my
>>>>>> HP all-in-one and also with my Paperport software
>>>>>> are surprisingly accurate.
>>>>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I
>>>>> ever owned. I think I'll get another one, I miss it.
>>>> One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't
>>>> know if one still can.
>>> Thanks, that's worth looking into. koko
>>> --

>>
>> My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second
>> one was problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have
>> the latest PaperPort software that can be used with any
>> scanner. It also has the capability of storing and/or
>> converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF
>> options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word.
>>

> The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years
> ago is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a
> *lot* of symbols) and reasonably fast. It even detects
> multiple font changes and tries picks ones it thinks are the
> same type.


In general, I've found OCR, even the MS 2002 variety, works quite well
with recipes except those that have 2 columns of ingredients. The
characters are recognized but not the formatting.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33,326
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

Nancy Young > wrote:

> Every time it's come up since, the interest level is at about 5%
> of what it would take to sustain the project. I'm not feeling it,
> though I'd be happy to help out if it did happen.


The second edition has already been published as:

http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php

Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he
first edition.

-sw
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,191
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:21 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>The second edition has already been published as:
>
>http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php
>
>Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he
>first edition.


Hey, that's pretty easy!

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,380
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

Sqwertz wrote:

> Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> Every time it's come up since, the interest level is at about 5%
>> of what it would take to sustain the project. I'm not feeling it,
>> though I'd be happy to help out if it did happen.

>
> The second edition has already been published as:
>
> http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php
>
> Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he
> first edition.
>
> -sw


<g> You might have a point there.

And <gasp> I'm willing to bet that quite a few of the RFC Cookbook
recipes can also be found on some of the "Cook-in" pages - the contents
of which I inherited from the original RFC site (that Damsel started in
19-dot).
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy


  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default A modest proposal

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Heh.... Weren't all the recipes in the cookbook posted here before the
> cookbook was assembled? I'm not aware of any that are *only* in the
> cookbook.


Prepare to die, Bob. There were some *extremely* valuable recipes that
were never posted anywhere, and that were contributed with the
understanding that they will never be posted.

Personally, I think it's horse puckey, but it's just a fact that some
people are very protective of their recipes.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,664
Default RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:21 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>
>> The second edition has already been published as:
>>
>> http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php
>>
>> Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he
>> first edition.
>>

>
> Hey, that's pretty easy!
>
> Carol


Carol, you found an error in one of my recipes, so I remember that you
working on the cookbook project.


Becca
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,380
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> (Victor Sack) wrote:


>>
>> As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as
>> most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times.
>>
>> Victor

>
> Hear, hear!!


I dunno. I thought this was worth a repost.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...e?dmode=source


From: (Victor Sack)
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: rfc Cook.Book: A messed-up recipe
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 08:40:14 +0100
Organization: infinite loop
Lines: 52
Message-ID: >
NNTP-Posting-Host: p508d1a54.dip.t-dialin.net (80.141.26.84)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1041406815 10775584 80.141.26.84 (16 [5537])
X-Orig-Path: sackv
X-Face: $dO4505L-bM3\Iz"(V=y.bL/7
{5ys3:B[-aPBQvs*Z%fdBqFhvc85hmZN4j1kwRzwvY*R4
nvQ/#/+kWXH((aXWh\%mvG1V()Z0k:NwZAIu\S0d1%,nv`^
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6

Unfortunately, one of the recipes included in the rfc cook.book is
hideously screwed-up. :-(( I'm the one to blame for this, as well as
for any other faults of the book. The recipe in question is Barb
Schaller's Mango-Strawberry Jam with Kiwifruit on page 148. It is the
last recipe in the book. I'm very sorry and I hope Barb and everyone
else will accept my heartfelt apologies.

Since it appears impractical to ask the printers to re-print the last
sheet (pages 147-148) and then have it sent to all who ordered the book,
I suggest you do the following: Print your own sheet, using #60 paper
and Arial font, and cut the rectangular holes using an exacto knife or
something. The sheet can be replaced easily.

Victor

Now, here is the correct recipe:

BARB SCHALLER'S BARB SCHALLER
MANGO-STRAWBERRY JAM Minnesota, USA
WITH KIWIFRUIT

Made it up for 1996 State Fair. Best stuff I made all summer; it didn't
win
a thing at the Fair. Humbug! But it did win First Place in 1997!! But
not in
1998. A couple of preservers on rec.food.preserving have won blue
ribbons with this recipe in their fairs on the west coast! What a kick!

2 cups (475 ml) diced mango 1 teaspoon citric acid
1 3/4 cups (415 ml) mashed 7 1/2 cups (1.4 kg) granulated
strawberries sugar
3/4 cup (180 ml) diced kiwifruit 2 pouches Certo brand liquid
fruit
1/4 cup (60 ml) lemon juice pectin (6 oz/170 g total)

Prepare 12 half-pint jars and metal lids: Bring jars to boil in large
quantity of water. Keep hot in water until ready to fill. Prepare lids
as instructed by manufacturer (preparation may vary from brand to
brand.)

Use Certo instructions for cooked Strawberry Jam using the measures
above
for the quantity of fruit: Place prepared fruit into a large (6-quart/6
l)
heavy saucepot. Add the lemon juice and citric acid. Stir in the sugar
and
bring mixture to a full rolling boil (a boil that doesn't stop bubbling
when
stirred) on high heat, stirring constantly. The mixture will be very
thick
and sugary until it heats, so stir it carefully and constantly to
prevent
scorching. Quickly stir in the pectin and return to a full rolling boil.
Boil exactly one minute, stirring constantly. Remove from heat, remove
foam
with a metal spoon, stir slowly for 3-5 minutes then pour into prepared
jars
and seal with metal lids and rings. Process in a boiling water bath for
5
minutes. Remove from water and let cool, undisturbed. Jars are sealed
when
the lid is concave. After 24 hours, remove metal ring from jars and wipe
inside rings dry. Replace loosely and store in a cool dark place. Best
used
within a year; realistically 2-3 years is okay, though quality and
appearance may suffer.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,651
Default A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes

ChattyCathy wrote:

> I dunno. I thought this was worth a repost.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...e?dmode=source


There is a whole correction list. I have no idea how some recipes
changed from the originator to the final product. The second
printing was corrected, but anyone with the first printing had to
print off a list.

The funniest one was a recipe for coleslaw where the ingredient
was Tabasco, not tatas! (laugh) Here's the list:

http://tinyurl.com/bjglon

nancy

  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,974
Default OCR software (was: A modest proposal)

On Sun 08 Mar 2009 02:42:58p, James Silverton told us...

> zxcvbob wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:29:08 -0500:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us...
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> koko wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired.
>>>>>>>>> ;-) I've now switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a
>>>>>>>>> little cleanup on each scan. Much easier than typing.
>>>>>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple
>>>>>>>> snap.
>>>>>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and
>>>>>>> the particular OCR software. The OCR software that came with my
>>>>>>> HP all-in-one and also with my Paperport software are
>>>>>>> surprisingly accurate.
>>>>>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned.
>>>>>> I think I'll get another one, I miss it.
>>>>> One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if
>>>>> one still can.
>>>> Thanks, that's worth looking into. koko --
>>>
>>> My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second
>>> one was problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have
>>> the latest PaperPort software that can be used with any
>>> scanner. It also has the capability of storing and/or
>>> converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF
>>> options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word.
>>>

>> The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years
>> ago is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a
>> *lot* of symbols) and reasonably fast. It even detects
>> multiple font changes and tries picks ones it thinks are the same
>> type.

>
> In general, I've found OCR, even the MS 2002 variety, works quite well
> with recipes except those that have 2 columns of ingredients. The
> characters are recognized but not the formatting.
>
>


Jim, some OCR software, like that made by PaperPort, supports columns quite
well. The feature can also be disabled.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a modest proposal for Dale W., and others... Ronin Wine 1 22-01-2010 06:22 PM
Proposal. RW Vegan 0 18-12-2004 03:19 AM
A Modest Proposal was Chung's insanity redux WAS: How t Charlotte L. Blackmer General Cooking 0 20-11-2004 06:21 PM
A Modest Proposal Melba's Jammin' General Cooking 8 01-03-2004 10:20 PM
A Modest Proposal. [That has nothing to do with eating the Irish] Cameron Lewis Tea 8 23-02-2004 03:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"