|
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On 2009-03-08, jmcquown > wrote:
> I guess you weren't around back then, nb...... You guess wrong. I have my 3 recipes in the book, a fact you'd know if you read it. > was proposed in the aftermath of 9/11 and to the families and victims > thereof. The common cause donation was agreed upon relatively easily. A national tragedy and easily agreed upon. No such rallying point currently exists. > was how to get the damn (heh) thing published that created some dissention > in the group. I was, initially, deeply involved, so know of it very well. I reluctantly bailed after vicious personal attacks started flying. I would love to be involved again, but will again abstain rather than be part of the same insanity. nb |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote: > >> ChattyCathy wrote: >> >>> The RFC Cookbook was before my time on this group - but I've done a >>> bit of googling and from what I've read, it was not exactly a 'cake >>> walk' for those concerned in getting it compiled and then published. >>> I also have no idea how much was eventually made for charity; maybe >>> Nancy/Damsel/Victor could tell us? >> >> It was in the neighborhood of $7,500. > That much? For some reason I've got $5K+ on the brain. Like $5700. > Victor will know exactly how much it was. You are most likely correct. I messed up. nancy |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On 2009-03-08, jmcquown > wrote:
> want. But publishing a new one online for FREE would defeat the purpose. Whose purpose? Not mine. I think it should be free. nb |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:49:11 +0200, ChattyCathy > > wrote: > wrote: >> >>> On Mar 8, 1:13Â*pm, ChattyCathy > wrote: >>>> brooklyn1 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others >>>> >>> have anything to say. >>> >>> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be >>> reproduced. -aem >> >>Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did >>contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my >>question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but >>IME, Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to >>cook anything" people... > > Sheldon Martin (Penmart) has at lest two recipes in the RFC cookbook. > > Lou Thanks. -- Cheers Chatty Cathy - still wondering why Sheldon couldn't have told me that himself... |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
> > Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did > contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my > question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but IME, > Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to cook > anything" people... Yes, He did. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
ChattyCathy wrote:
> > Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did > contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my > question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but IME, > Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to cook > anything" people... He contributed three, which was the limit one could send in. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:59:25 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>On 2009-03-08, Omelet > wrote: > >> I generally just donate food... > >I also, Om. If ppl want to make donations, let them choose their favorite >charity and do so. Trying to get everyone to agree on a common cause donation is >counterproductive and not the purpose of rfc. > If people want to make this charitable, then why not link the cookbook to one of the sites that help people like http://freerice.com/index.php or animals like http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com ? -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On 2009-03-08, Margaret Suran > wrote:
> He contributed three, which was the limit one could send in. No. You could send in as many as you like, but only three would be printed. nb |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote: > ChattyCathy wrote: > > > The RFC Cookbook was before my time on this group - but I've done a > > bit of googling and from what I've read, it was not exactly a 'cake > > walk' for those concerned in getting it compiled and then published. > > I also have no idea how much was eventually made for charity; maybe > > Nancy/Damsel/Victor could tell us? > > It was in the neighborhood of $7,500. > > nancy That much? For some reason I've got $5K+ on the brain. Like $5700. Victor will know exactly how much it was. -- -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." |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > >> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, ChattyCathy > wrote: >>> brooklyn1 wrote: >>> >>> >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have >>> >>> anything to say. >> >> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be >> reproduced. -aem > > Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did > contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my > question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but IME, > Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to cook > anything" people... > I don't need recipes because anything I cook regularly I have committed to memory, and I never follow any recipe exactly... recipes are merely a guide. As far as I know anyone who contributed a recipe to the rfc cookbook has always glady emailed or posted it to anyone who has asked, myself included... in fact just yesterday I posted one of my rfc cookbook recipes here... I've posted my rfc cookbook recipes many, many times, all anyone has to do is search... and in fact I've posted many other of my *original* recipes and with exquitely detailed instructions, probably more than from all others combined (99% of recipes posted here are lifted/stolen off the net). I don't mind sharing recipes, but no way will I condone violating copyright laws to STEAL an entire book. I pray with all my might that the messenger of terminal illness visits this nobody douchebag rusty and his family... and all those who concur with his scumbaggery. |
Ping: Michael "Dog 3"
Michael,
I just got finished reading the February 2009 issue of Reader's Digest. There is a story about the rescue of a young woman by a fire department in Maryland. One of the rescuers was named Michael Lonergan and there is a resemblance between the photo in the magazine and yours in the mug shot gallery. Are you this hero? If you are, I'm sure you are very proud. -- Janet Wilder Way-the-heck-south-Texas |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"Dan Abel" > wrote in message ... > In article > >, > wrote: > >> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, ChattyCathy > wrote: >> > brooklyn1 wrote: >> > >> > >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have >> > >>> anything to say. >> >> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be >> reproduced. -aem > > But what if some contributors want it available, and some don't? Why > not just not post recipes for people who don't want their own recipes > posted? > > That's already been done... many people have always posted their recipes whenever asked, even when not asked. Anyone who is honestly interested in having the recipe wouldn't care that they received it individually... those who want the book page version have another agenda, and definitely not honest. Folks ought to look up the word "larceny". |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"notbob" > wrote in message ... > On 2009-03-08, jmcquown > wrote: > >> want. But publishing a new one online for FREE would defeat the purpose. > > Whose purpose? Not mine. I think it should be free. > > nb If it was posted for free, with no purpose, it would just be a collection of recipes that anyone can put together. The last time, we published a book with a purpose. The purpose was to raise money to help people. We had a lot of participants. We knew it was a good cause so we sent recipes, and many did a lot of extra work in editing, mailing etc. If you want to just post a bunch of recipes, go to it. I doubt you'll get the participation in both numbers and zeal that a "purpose" would generate. The internet is loaded with hundreds of thousands of free recipes. Very few collections helped others though. RFC did. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig" > wrote in message ... On Mar 8, 12:59 pm, notbob > wrote: > On 2009-03-08, Omelet > wrote: > > > I generally just donate food... > > I also, Om. If ppl want to make donations, let them choose their favorite > charity and do so. Trying to get everyone to agree on a common cause > donation is > counterproductive and not the purpose of rfc. > > nb I've been around since the first book but I was a newbie. Don't have a copy, didn't contribute any recipes. I always give my recipes to anybody who wants them. I'm slightly less than perfectly organized and I've lost too many that I had to track down! I was also around. I ordered a book. I was going to participate initially until my DH was diagnosed with a terminal illness. He subsequently died about the time we were ordering. Debbie |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On 2009-03-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> If it was posted for free, with no purpose, it would just be a collection of > recipes that anyone can put together. That's all it was. The fact ppl paid for it was incidental. Do you think $7.5K was spit in the overall total? Do you need a noble cause to contribute a recipe? Do you need a reason to put forth some community effort? I don't. > The last time, we published a book > with a purpose. The purpose was to raise money to help people. We had a lot > of participants. We knew it was a good cause so we sent recipes, and many > did a lot of extra work in editing, mailing etc. Fine. I have no problem with that. I also don't need a good cause to merely contribute to a community effort. Just contributing to a group effort is enough for me. There are thousands of group efforts that are contributed to the common good. Linux, mirc, etc. No money expected. I don't need a monetary reward to contribute. > If you want to just post a bunch of recipes, go to it. I just may. What? I can't try and rally others to contribute likewise? I gotta shill for money to satisfy your mercinary sensibilities? I don't think so. > The internet is loaded with hundreds of thousands of free recipes. Very few > collections helped others though. RFC did. Fine. If you need a dollar amount to make a contribution worthwhile, so be it. I don't. nb |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"notbob" > wrote in message
... > On 2009-03-08, jmcquown > wrote: > >> I guess you weren't around back then, nb...... > > You guess wrong. I have my 3 recipes in the book, a fact you'd know if > you > read it. > I didn't "read it". I, too, have 3 recipes in the book. I bought a number of copies of it to send to family and friends. My copy is still back in TN. Jill |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
... > > "jmcquown" > wrote in message > ... >> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message >> ... >>> 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 have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC >>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one. >>>> >>>> Carol, opening a can of worms >>>> >>> -- >>> Cheers >>> Chatty Cathy >> >> >> I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to >> speak) has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute >> to the charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What >> difference does it make now? >> >> Jill > > The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to go. > The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an affront > to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be absolutely > no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin' book (not that > they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL > > I seem to be waffling in my convictions ;) On the one hand I think we collected monies to help City Harvest and that was the intention of the book, so it probably should still cost something. On the other hand, most of the recipes were already posted here anyway. Anyone who cares to really look (outside of Rusty's posts) could find them if they really wanted to. <shrug> Jill |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
... > brooklyn1 wrote: > >> >> The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to >> go. The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an >> affront to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be >> absolutely no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin' >> book (not that they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL > > I will ask you again... how many recipes did you contribute? > -- > Cheers > Chatty Cathy He had three published. That was the limit for all of us. Some of us contributed many more but in the end it had to be limited to three published recipes. We had to select which three of our recipes we wanted. (The book was getting to be cumbersome and costly.) I remember the debate over the type of cookbook (ring bound, spiral bound or hard bound) as well as who would publish/print it. Jill |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On 2009-03-09, jmcquown > wrote:
> I didn't "read it". Then, what was the point of buying it? nb |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
brooklyn1 wrote:
> > "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message > ... >> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, ChattyCathy > wrote: >>>> brooklyn1 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others >>>> >>> have anything to say. >>> >>> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be >>> reproduced. -aem >> >> Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did >> contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my >> question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but >> IME, Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to >> cook anything" people... >> > > I don't need recipes because anything I cook regularly I have > committed to memory, and I never follow any recipe exactly... recipes > are merely a guide. > > As far as I know anyone who contributed a recipe to the rfc cookbook > has always glady emailed or posted it to anyone who has asked, myself > included... in fact just yesterday I posted one of my rfc cookbook > recipes here... I've posted my rfc cookbook recipes many, many times, > all anyone has to do is search... and in fact I've posted many other > of my *original* recipes and with exquitely detailed instructions, > probably more than from all others combined (99% of recipes posted > here are lifted/stolen off the net). > > I don't mind sharing recipes, but no way will I condone violating > copyright > laws to STEAL an entire book. I pray with all my might that the > messenger of terminal illness visits this nobody douchebag rusty and > his family... and all those who concur with his scumbaggery. As usual, I think you are overreacting here just a tad, Sheldon. As you say, your (and most of the other) recipes in the book have been posted publicly here (and elsewhere) over time. So the only copyright that could be violated is the aggregation of a particular set of recipes. However, since the table of contents has been posted (and has been put up on other websites already, GIYF) things have gone past the point of no return on that. IMHO, this genie can't be put back into the bottle... -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"notbob" > wrote in message
... > On 2009-03-09, jmcquown > wrote: > >> I didn't "read it". > > Then, what was the point of buying it? > > nb Uh... it was for charity? I lost 295 collegues when the WTC fell, thirty of whom I knew personally. The cookbook was dedicated to the victims and the families of the victims of 9/11 in NYC, Washington and Pennsylvania. Jill |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
ChattyCathy wrote:
> brooklyn1 wrote: > >> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message >> ... >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, ChattyCathy > wrote: >>>>> brooklyn1 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others >>>>>>>> have anything to say. >>>> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be >>>> reproduced. -aem >>> Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did >>> contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my >>> question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but >>> IME, Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to >>> cook anything" people... >>> >> I don't need recipes because anything I cook regularly I have >> committed to memory, and I never follow any recipe exactly... recipes >> are merely a guide. >> >> As far as I know anyone who contributed a recipe to the rfc cookbook >> has always glady emailed or posted it to anyone who has asked, myself >> included... in fact just yesterday I posted one of my rfc cookbook >> recipes here... I've posted my rfc cookbook recipes many, many times, >> all anyone has to do is search... and in fact I've posted many other >> of my *original* recipes and with exquitely detailed instructions, >> probably more than from all others combined (99% of recipes posted >> here are lifted/stolen off the net). >> >> I don't mind sharing recipes, but no way will I condone violating >> copyright >> laws to STEAL an entire book. I pray with all my might that the >> messenger of terminal illness visits this nobody douchebag rusty and >> his family... and all those who concur with his scumbaggery. > > As usual, I think you are overreacting here just a tad, Sheldon. > > As you say, your (and most of the other) recipes in the book have been > posted publicly here (and elsewhere) over time. So the only copyright > that could be violated is the aggregation of a particular set of > recipes. However, since the table of contents has been posted (and has > been put up on other websites already, GIYF) things have gone past the > point of no return on that. IMHO, this genie can't be put back into the > bottle... > Now why is that? Sure folks can use the ToC to search for the recipes, but IMO that is not the same as putting this (or any other) book out in its entirety. -- Jean B. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:21:00 +0200, ChattyCathy > > wrote: > > >> However, I see that some more pages have been posted. If it carries on >> this way, we can lay this to rest once and for all - because once >> something is published on the net it can never be revoked. > > Yeah. > > I wrote earlier about this. It does bother me, as a person who > contributed to the cookbook...but also as a member of RFC. > > None of us (here on RFC and especially the people who worked on the > cookbook) were ever asked if we minded if the recipes/cookbook was > copied/published in the way it is being done. That to me, is really > not respecting us at all...and what we did. It is like someone > copying the chapters of my mother's book and publishing them on the > web, or posts from my blog.. I would find it highly insulting....and > to be honest, I do find it rather insulting that we were not asked if > anyone minded if someone did this publishing of the cookbook. > > Christine I agree. -- Jean B. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-03-08, ChattyCathy > wrote: >> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC >> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one. > > Forget the old rfc cookbook. It's everywhere. If a recipe is good enough, > it's already gone to general web circulation. If we wanna argue/discuss > something, lets discuss a 2nd book. I think an rfc pdf cookbook is an > excellent idea. This is a free and open newsgroup. There's no reason why a > 2nd cookbook shouldn't be, also. > > nb If it is everywhere, as you state, then there is no reason to put this book out page by page. -- Jean B. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
Christine Dabney > wrote in
: > > I wrote earlier about this. It does bother me, as a person who > contributed to the cookbook...but also as a member of RFC. > > None of us (here on RFC and especially the people who worked on the > cookbook) were ever asked if we minded if the recipes/cookbook was > copied/published in the way it is being done. That to me, is really > not respecting us at all...and what we did. It is like someone > copying the chapters of my mother's book and publishing them on the > web, or posts from my blog.. I would find it highly insulting....and > to be honest, I do find it rather insulting that we were not asked if > anyone minded if someone did this publishing of the cookbook. > I feel the same, Christine. -- Rhonda Anderson Cranebrook, NSW, Australia Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold, For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold. My Country, Dorothea MacKellar, 1904 |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
The internet web recipe sites far outclass the rfc cookbook,
Heck with copyrights! It's all been written before, pretty much. I could probably post more recipe websites than recipes. Andy |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
Jean B. wrote:
> So, it appears that you and many others don't care that some of us > who contributed both recipes and time think this should not be the > case? > <sarcasm> Of course I don't care. I don't care so much that I put up a survey about it because, well - I don't care. Not to mention that I run the site 365 days a year because I don't care about you (or anybody else) on this group. </sarcasm> -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Ping: Michael "Dog 3"
Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Janet Wilder > news:00a63724$0$31678$c3e8da3 > @news.astraweb.com: in rec.food.cooking > >> Michael, >> >> I just got finished reading the February 2009 issue of Reader's >> Digest. There is a story about the rescue of a young woman by a fire >> department in Maryland. One of the rescuers was named Michael >> Lonergan and there > is >> a resemblance between the photo in the magazine and yours in the mug >> shot gallery. Are you this hero? >> >> If you are, I'm sure you are very proud. > > That Michael Lonergan is related to me but is not me. I was shocked to > see him in the article my mother sent to me. Nice to have hero in the family, nonetheless. You must be proud. :) -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"jmcquown" > wrote in message ... > "brooklyn1" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "jmcquown" > wrote in message >> ... >>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> 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 have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC >>>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one. >>>>> >>>>> Carol, opening a can of worms >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers >>>> Chatty Cathy >>> >>> >>> I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to >>> speak) has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute >>> to the charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What >>> difference does it make now? >>> >>> Jill >> >> The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to go. >> The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an affront >> to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be absolutely >> no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin' book (not that >> they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL >> >> > I seem to be waffling in my convictions ;) On the one hand I think we > collected monies to help City Harvest and that was the intention of the > book, so it probably should still cost something. On the other hand, most > of the recipes were already posted here anyway. Anyone who cares to > really look (outside of Rusty's posts) could find them if they really > wanted to. <shrug> > > Jill True, the individual recipes are no ones property, and not only should be free, they are free... the recipes per se cannot be copyrighted, no recipe can be copywrited. But the rfc cookbook, like any book, became copyrighted intellectual property at the point of its creation. To reproduce by any method any part of the book, page by page or in its entirety, is in fact a major violation of international copyright law. I don't know how to go about enforcing copyright law on the net but anyone caught violating the sanctity of the rfc cookbook should be ostracised. I for one truly hope this rusty douchebag and his family die a horrible lingering most painful death. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
Christine Dabney > wrote in
: > Did we mind if our cookbook was > copied for all to see? > it was for charity and not personal glory....I do NOT give permission for my 3 recipes to be used in anyway not assissting charity in some way. -- The beet goes on -Alan |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
jmcquown wrote:
> > I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to > speak) has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to > contribute to the charity. The money was contributed, the project > shut down. What difference does it make now? > > Jill I agree. We had a specific goal. With everyone's efforts, we met it. What, then, is everyone arguing about? A lot of those excellent recipes had already been posted on r.f.c., or perhaps have been since then. Am I going to sue for violation of copyright? And collect from whom? Calm down, everyone - don't we all delight in sharing? Dora |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:21:00 +0200, ChattyCathy > > wrote: > > >>However, I see that some more pages have been posted. If it carries on >>this way, we can lay this to rest once and for all - because once >>something is published on the net it can never be revoked. > > Yeah. > > I wrote earlier about this. It does bother me, as a person who > contributed to the cookbook...but also as a member of RFC. > > None of us (here on RFC and especially the people who worked on the > cookbook) were ever asked if we minded if the recipes/cookbook was > copied/published in the way it is being done. That to me, is really > not respecting us at all...and what we did. It is like someone > copying the chapters of my mother's book and publishing them on the > web, or posts from my blog.. I would find it highly insulting....and > to be honest, I do find it rather insulting that we were not asked if > anyone minded if someone did this publishing of the cookbook. > > Christine Christine, your memory is failing... we were indeed asked, in fact it was a topic of great contention... in the end the vast majority agreed that the rfc cookbook would not be made available in any other form, mainly because any electronic version at that time would be too easy to reproduce. Today CDs can be produced that canot be copied or transfered. I have no aversion to a 2nd edition in CD format (at a typical CD price - say US$15.) if it cannot be copied... I'd like to have a Registered copy of the rfc cookbook as a searchable CD, but only if it was not capable of being copied in part or in whole nor in any way transferable. I am 200% positive that those who want to see the rfc cookbook made public are the cheap *******s who never would have paid for it at its inception had they the opportunity. The only way they can prove otherwise to me is if they produce their own stinkin' cookbook and then lets see how quick they'd be to make it available for free. Of course this will never be, very few of today's rfc'ers are capable of producing a cookbook... in fact those clammoring the loudest for making the original free can't cook a lick. They can call theirs The Hijacked Recipe Cookbook. LOL |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On 2009-03-09, Christine Dabney > wrote:
> Yes and that is why copyright laws exist. So we can address those > issues, and seek redress. I think our cookbook is copyrighted. No one asked me for permission to copyright my contribution. > that a simple question was not asked: Did we mind if our cookbook was > copied for all to see? I don't mind. nb |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
On 2009-03-09, Dora > wrote:
> I going to sue for violation of copyright? And collect from whom? > Calm down, everyone - don't we all delight in sharing? Apparently not, Dora. :| nb |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
brooklyn1 wrote:
> > And those who were not part of creating the rfc cookbook really have > no voice in the matter and should STFU (Shut The **** up). <snork> Like that's ever gonna happen on this group. -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-03-09, Dora > wrote: > >> I going to sue for violation of copyright? And collect from whom? >> Calm down, everyone - don't we all delight in sharing? > > Apparently not, Dora. :| > > nb I dunno. *I* think it makes a pleasant change from 'My fool-proof method of boiling/peeling hard cooked eggs', 'Cilantro tastes/does not taste like soap', 'Making chicken stock - from scratch' and not to forget <Cathy lowers her voice to a whisper> 'How I hate Off-topic (OT) posts (even though I post to those threads with gusto when the mood takes me)' topics. ;-) -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote: > Jean B. wrote: > > > > So, it appears that you and many others don't care that some of us > > who contributed both recipes and time think this should not be the > > case? > > > <sarcasm> > Of course I don't care. > > I don't care so much that I put up a survey about it because, well - I > don't care. Not to mention that I run the site 365 days a year because > I don't care about you (or anybody else) on this group. > </sarcasm> We luvs ya CC :-) -- Peace! Om I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"notbob" > wrote in message > >> If you want to just post a bunch of recipes, go to it. > > I just may. What? I can't try and rally others to contribute likewise? > I gotta > shill for money to satisfy your mercinary sensibilities? I don't think > so. > >> The internet is loaded with hundreds of thousands of free recipes. Very >> few >> collections helped others though. RFC did. > > Fine. If you need a dollar amount to make a contribution worthwhile, so > be > it. I don't. > > nb You make is sound as though I'd actually profit from the money and that I'd inhibit you from starting suck a project. I think your thinking is screwed up here so don't try to interpret something I never said. . If people want to contribute to a recipe collection because they want to, fine. I just think that people would be more willing to expend their time knowing there is a reward, monetary or otherwise, for a good cause. Our opinions differ, but a collection of recipes is just that. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see any value to contributing to such a project but others may. OTOH, if anyone requests a recipe and I have it, I'll gladly share. |
(2009-03-08) NS-RFC: The RFC Cookbook on-line
"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > >> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, ChattyCathy > wrote: >>> brooklyn1 wrote: >>> >>> >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have >>> >>> anything to say. >> >> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be >> reproduced. -aem > > Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did > contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my > question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but IME, > Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to cook > anything" people... > -- > Cheers > Chatty Cathy 3 to be exact. all very very good. Dimitri |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter