Nancy Young wrote:

> 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

<grin>

You getting all nostalgic about this yet, nancy? Wanna do it all over
again? <veg>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:26:59 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>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.

Once it's in the hands of the public, it stays public. You can't
close the lid on Pandora's box.
>
>Personally, I think it's horse puckey, but it's just a fact that some
>people are very protective of their recipes.

In that case, they shouldn't have contributed them to the cookbook.


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

Mae West

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:

>> 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

> You getting all nostalgic about this yet, nancy? Wanna do it all over
> again? <veg>

(laugh) You mean like women who forget the pain of childbirth?
I'd do it again if there really was interest, but if it's done like an
e-book or whatever, there would hardly be any work.

Famous last words.

nancy

On 2009-03-08, Nancy Young > wrote:

> e-book or whatever, there would hardly be any work.

Why e-book? Doesn't that require $$ reader? What's wrong with pdf?
Scribus is OSS and is ported to Windows.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-03-08, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> e-book or whatever, there would hardly be any work.
>
> Why e-book? Doesn't that require $$ reader? What's wrong with pdf?
> Scribus is OSS and is ported to Windows.

Fine. I was curious when you were going to start accepting
recipes. I have a couple in mind.

nancy

On Mar 8, 3:50*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> ChattyCathy wrote:
> > I dunno. I thought this was worth a repost.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...b1771144b72ae?...
>
> 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

Ok, I checked. My copy is a 2nd edition

Rusty.

On 2009-03-08, Christine Dabney > wrote:

> I suggest we raise money for the RFC Old Folks Home....

.....would be spread too thin. Who can live on 4 cents per day?

nb

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:16:30 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Fine. I was curious when you were going to start accepting
>> recipes. I have a couple in mind.

> You mean the grape jelly meatballs? Or the ham...?
>
>

(laugh) I missed the chance to include those in the first
book, this much is true. I've been stewing about it since.

nancy

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:28:36 -0500, Becca > wrote:

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

I did? Cool! Glad I could help in some small way.

Carol

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

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:50:56 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>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)

Who let Sheldon work on the cookbook? ROFL!

Carol

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

Nancy Young wrote:
> 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

I would participate again--preferably not until after I move
though--and that should be in June or July or so.

--
Jean B.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:24:03 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:16:30 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:
>
>>Fine. I was curious when you were going to start accepting
>>recipes. I have a couple in mind.
>
>You mean the grape jelly meatballs? Or the ham...?

Nancy's famous grape jelly meatballs are in the first cookbook. The
ham, though ....

Carol

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

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-03-08, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
> > I suggest we raise money for the RFC Old Folks Home....
>
> ....would be spread too thin. Who can live on 4 cents per day?
>
> nb

Christine. "-)
--
-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."

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

>On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:57:49 +0100, (Victor Sack)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>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?

At this late date I'd say it's a non-issue. It's not as if it's going
to be reprinted on paper... I know my paper copy is long-gone - I left
all my recipe books with my brother when I moved, because he likes to
cook too.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:26:59 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Once it's in the hands of the public, it stays public. You can't
> close the lid on Pandora's box.
> >
> >Personally, I think it's horse puckey, but it's just a fact that some
> >people are very protective of their recipes.
>
> In that case, they shouldn't have contributed them to the cookbook.

But then what would he whine about every couple of years when this comes
up?

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:19:23 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>All three of the recipes that I contributed were NOT posted here
>online.
>
>One is the lentil soup that my family makes. I know my sister got the
>recipe from somewhere, but it was so long ago, that I don't know the
>source.
>
>The other two were treasured family recipes. One is the Apple Cake,
>that was handed down from my grandmother, and was written about in my
>mother's book, Once There Was a Farm: A Country Childhood Remembered.
>I remember having this often when I was growing up, and I have made it
>on occasion myself.
>
>The last one is Sweet Potato Pudding, which came from my other set of
>grandparents...and is an old southern dish.

Hm-mmm. All sound good like they could be good. Hopefully, you're
not the old fashioned type, like the mother on Raymond (old TV show).


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

Mae West

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:23:22 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> It 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.

I didn't have a dog in the fight. I was glad that I stayed out of it
back then (due to time constraints) and I'm glad I did now (because it
got so ugly). I wasn't privy to inner squabbles and that's a good
thing. What over flowed into public was an embarrassment to those
involved. Because I was not involved, I quickly forgot about the
squabbles.

Now, fill me in on Grandma - since you remember so much.


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

Mae West

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:10:27 -0400 in rec.food.cooking, "Nancy Young"
> wrote,
>I'd do it again if there really was interest, but if it's done like an
>e-book or whatever, there would hardly be any work.

There are various print-on-demand services that make it easy to get
from a PDF to a printed and bound book. lulu.com seems to have a good
reputation. Upload the PDF to them and they print, bind, take orders,
and ship copies. There are others.

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> 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

While I've certainly not saved ALL of the recipes, I've certainly
collected a number of recipes over the years that I found interesting or
useful. :-)

That file is getting rather large...
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:23:22 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> >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

> I didn't have a dog in the fight. I was glad that I stayed out of it

> Now, fill me in on Grandma - since you remember so much.

I don't remember a thing about it. Having said that, I'm sure that
after I read one sentence, it will all come back.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:32:17 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:31:12 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>>Hm-mmm. All sound good like they could be good. Hopefully, you're
>>not the old fashioned type, like the mother on Raymond (old TV show).
>
>I wouldn't know. I didn't watch that show.
>
In that case you missed a funny episode about a closely kept recipe.


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

Mae West

Nancy Young wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> You getting all nostalgic about this yet, nancy? Wanna do it all over
>> again? <veg>
>
> (laugh) You mean like women who forget the pain of childbirth?
> I'd do it again if there really was interest, but if it's done like an
> e-book or whatever, there would hardly be any work.
>
> Famous last words.

Here's what I think: I agree that producing an electronic copy would 'be
hardly any work'. i.e. we ask for contributions within a certain time
frame, folks email me their recipes, which I compile and save in a PDF
file for example, free of charge - which would cut out any printing (on
paper) costs completely - and from what I've seen here, those costs ate
into your proceeds quite a bit the first time round...

However, no one has figured out a good way of doing 'Digital Rights
Management' yet (i.e. creating a file that cannot be copied fairly
easily). So, charging for it would not really make much sense because
IMHO, there would be nothing much to stop somebody paying for one copy
and within days/weeks finding a way to make an (illegal) copy (without
any protection whatsoever) which they could then put up on the web
somewhere else for every Tom, Dick and Harriet to download free of
charge anyway.

Also, we would still have the 'admin' side i.e. getting folks to pay for
each copy they download, collecting said monies, agreeing on a charity
of choice, etc. With paper copies the cut-off date is easy to
determine: when there are no more re-prints, there are no more sales,
and the total take gets given away to a charity of choice. But... with
an electronic version we could keep on selling it on an 'on demand'
basis; in two years time it might be down to one sale every month or
so... Think you get my drift.

Famous last words, indeed.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Sqwertz wrote:

> 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

Ah, how splendidly 80s...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Wayne wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:00:13 GMT:

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

Thanks, I must look into PaperPort again. My first scanner was a
PaperPort until a disastrous and destructive jam. I was trying to get
the thing fixed under warranty but the company went bankrupt. I know
they are back again but my warranty was one of the things that were
"reorganized".

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

On Mon 09 Mar 2009 05:24:15a, James Silverton told us...

> Wayne wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:00:13 GMT:
>
>>>
>> Jim, some OCR software, like that made by PaperPort, supports columns
>> quite well. The feature can also be disabled.
>
> Thanks, I must look into PaperPort again. My first scanner was a
> PaperPort until a disastrous and destructive jam. I was trying to get
> the thing fixed under warranty but the company went bankrupt. I know
> they are back again but my warranty was one of the things that were
> "reorganized".
>

Oh, sorry to hear that. BTW, the PaperPort software is sold independently
from their scanners now, and can be used with any scanner. The software has
some great features. I'm currently using it with an HP all-in-one.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

Wayne wrote on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:47:40 GMT:

>> Wayne wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:00:13 GMT:
>>
>>> Jim, some OCR software, like that made by PaperPort,
>>> supports columns quite well. The feature can also be
>>> disabled.
>>
>> Thanks, I must look into PaperPort again. My first scanner
>> was a PaperPort until a disastrous and destructive jam. I
>> was trying to get the thing fixed under warranty but the
>> company went bankrupt. I know they are back again but my
>> warranty was one of the things that were "reorganized".
>>
> Oh, sorry to hear that. BTW, the PaperPort software is sold
> independently from their scanners now, and can be used with
> any scanner. The software has some great features. I'm
> currently using it with an HP all-in-one.

I have OmniPage Pro 9.0 left over from the days when I had a working
PaperPort scanner but that (admittedly old) version did not do even as
good a job as Microsoft on a a recipe with a two-column ingredient list.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

On Mon 09 Mar 2009 08:05:40a, James Silverton told us...

> Wayne wrote on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:47:40 GMT:
>
>>> Wayne wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:00:13 GMT:
>>>
>>>> Jim, some OCR software, like that made by PaperPort, supports
>>>> columns quite well. The feature can also be disabled.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I must look into PaperPort again. My first scanner
>>> was a PaperPort until a disastrous and destructive jam. I
>>> was trying to get the thing fixed under warranty but the
>>> company went bankrupt. I know they are back again but my
>>> warranty was one of the things that were "reorganized".
>>>
>> Oh, sorry to hear that. BTW, the PaperPort software is sold
>> independently from their scanners now, and can be used with
>> any scanner. The software has some great features. I'm currently
>> using it with an HP all-in-one.
>
> I have OmniPage Pro 9.0 left over from the days when I had a working
> PaperPort scanner but that (admittedly old) version did not do even as
> good a job as Microsoft on a a recipe with a two-column ingredient list.
>

OCR software has come a long way from those days. I remember OmniPage Pro
and is was a really good product in its day. Another improvement is the
recognition of many different standard fonts.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

Dan wrote:

> 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.

"Extremely valuable," huh? Was the Neiman-Marcus recipe for chocolate chip
cookies one of them?


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

Well, people can keep their recipes secret if they like... but why
participate HERE if that's your attitude?

Bob

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Mon 09 Mar 2009 05:24:15a, James Silverton told us...
>
>> Wayne wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:00:13 GMT:
>>
>>> Jim, some OCR software, like that made by PaperPort, supports columns
>>> quite well. The feature can also be disabled.
>> Thanks, I must look into PaperPort again. My first scanner was a
>> PaperPort until a disastrous and destructive jam. I was trying to get
>> the thing fixed under warranty but the company went bankrupt. I know
>> they are back again but my warranty was one of the things that were
>> "reorganized".
>>
>
> Oh, sorry to hear that. BTW, the PaperPort software is sold independently
> from their scanners now, and can be used with any scanner. The software has
> some great features. I'm currently using it with an HP all-in-one.
>
I've been using Paperport version 7.02.02 Deluxe since 2001 on a
Visioneer 9650 scanner with very good success. I also use Scansoft's
Textbridge Promillenium software when I'm scanning text documents. Very
little extra editing needed with these. Scanner and software all still
work very good and I've been scanning in old family pictures to be
placed on CD's here lately.

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> "Extremely valuable," huh? Was the Neiman-Marcus recipe for chocolate chip
> cookies one of them?

ROFL!!!

>
>
> > Personally, I think it's horse puckey, but it's just a fact that some
> > people are very protective of their recipes.
>
> Well, people can keep their recipes secret if they like... but why
> participate HERE if that's your attitude?
>
> Bob

Some people take themselves (and food) far too seriously.
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
Copying just recipes for personal private use breaks no copywrite laws....
recipes per se can't be copyrighted anyway.... but they cannot be reproduced
in the original book format, page by page, and in order. People can copy
the recipes but not the book. In fact you can legally add all the rfc
cookbook recipes to those you already have by inserting them randomly
amongst those you already have, alphabeticilly and/or by catagory, you just
can't copy them in order with page numbers as they appear in the book or
identify them as coming from the rfc cookbook (in other words you cannot
make them distiguishable as a book), but you must cite the authors and get
their permission... if someone refuses permission, is deceased or otherwise
unavailable, for those contributions you are SOOL.

Copyright law is really just common sense and takes presidence over what
morality, or lack thereof, your parents instilled in you... an awful lot of
people, in their world, really don't know that stealing is wrong... those
types just don't get it until beaten over the head with the big stick of
personal responsibility. And many never get it, or won't ever admit they're
a thief. You know who/which you are.

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
news
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> You getting all nostalgic about this yet, nancy? Wanna do it all over
>>> again? <veg>
>>
>> (laugh) You mean like women who forget the pain of childbirth?
>> I'd do it again if there really was interest, but if it's done like an
>> e-book or whatever, there would hardly be any work.
>>
>> Famous last words.
>
> Here's what I think: I agree that producing an electronic copy would 'be
> hardly any work'. i.e. we ask for contributions within a certain time
> frame, folks email me their recipes, which I compile and save in a PDF
> file for example, free of charge - which would cut out any printing (on
> paper) costs completely - and from what I've seen here, those costs ate
> into your proceeds quite a bit the first time round...
>
> However, no one has figured out a good way of doing 'Digital Rights
> Management' yet (i.e. creating a file that cannot be copied fairly
> easily). So, charging for it would not really make much sense because
> IMHO, there would be nothing much to stop somebody paying for one copy
> and within days/weeks finding a way to make an (illegal) copy (without
> any protection whatsoever) which they could then put up on the web
> somewhere else for every Tom, Dick and Harriet to download free of
> charge anyway.
>
> Also, we would still have the 'admin' side i.e. getting folks to pay for
> each copy they download, collecting said monies, agreeing on a charity
> of choice, etc. With paper copies the cut-off date is easy to
> determine: when there are no more re-prints, there are no more sales,
> and the total take gets given away to a charity of choice. But... with
> an electronic version we could keep on selling it on an 'on demand'
> basis; in two years time it might be down to one sale every month or
> so... Think you get my drift.
>
> Famous last words, indeed.
> > Chatty Cathy

Sure I get your drift... so haw much money do you think you can skim from
illegal copies?

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:33:13 -0600, Gloria P wrote:

> 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?)
>

if that was the original charter for r.f.c., i'm kind of glad it has
evolved to its modern-day wild and wooly self.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:45:27 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:23:22 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>> It 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.
>
> I didn't have a dog in the fight. I was glad that I stayed out of it
> back then (due to time constraints) and I'm glad I did now (because it
> got so ugly). I wasn't privy to inner squabbles and that's a good
> thing. What over flowed into public was an embarrassment to those
> involved. Because I was not involved, I quickly forgot about the
> squabbles.
>
> Now, fill me in on Grandma - since you remember so much.

grandma's up on the roof and we can't get her down.

your pal,
blake

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

hmm, maybe i should horn into that one, too.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:14:54 -0600, Christine Dabney wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:35:51 -0600, 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.
>>
>>gloria p
>
> I suggest we raise money for the RFC Old Folks Home....
>
> Christine

....and nudist casino bar & grill.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:45:27 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:23:22 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It 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.
>>
>> I didn't have a dog in the fight. I was glad that I stayed out of it
>> back then (due to time constraints) and I'm glad I did now (because it
>> got so ugly). I wasn't privy to inner squabbles and that's a good
>> thing. What over flowed into public was an embarrassment to those
>> involved. Because I was not involved, I quickly forgot about the
>> squabbles.
>>
>> Now, fill me in on Grandma - since you remember so much.
>
> grandma's up on the roof and we can't get her down.
>
>
Nope... you dumb mick, don't you know anything... Grandma got run over by a
reindeer.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> Sure I get your drift... so haw much money do you think you can skim
> from illegal copies?

Sheldon - you really need to get separate newsreader/email software. So
much for 'our little secret'... Dufus.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:14:54 -0600, Christine Dabney wrote:
>>
>> I suggest we raise money for the RFC Old Folks Home....

What makes you think we have old folks around here? TANOF.

Felice
who would be one if there were any

Felice wrote:

>
>
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:14:54 -0600, Christine Dabney wrote:
>>>
>>> I suggest we raise money for the RFC Old Folks Home....
>
> What makes you think we have old folks around here? TANOF.
>
> Felice
> who would be one if there were any

<lol>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy