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

ChattyCathy wrote:
> 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.


I'm in the mood for the brain locker, but I should say that I read the
second question in the subjunctive and didn't notice the third options,
so I said "no".

In these discussions, I'm always in favor of giving out recipes for
free. I'm often on the minority side of the argument, but it's how I
feel. My cooking is a part of the gift economy, and if I can find
recipes I think will add joy to the world, I choose to give them away.
That's not to say it's wrong to charge for a recipe book, but that if I
contributed one (or ten) recipe(s) to a book by a group of friends in a
not-for-profit venture, and there was a way to do it for free, I'd
support that.

Serene

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

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

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:05:34 -0700, Serene Vannoy
> wrote:

>I should say that I read the
>second question in the subjunctive and didn't notice the third options,
>so I said "no".

So it's only one vote against - maybe that one is like you and really
should be an n/a.


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

Mae West

"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

The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
people.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
> that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
> format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
> banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
> people.

I would most certainly make a donation to my local food bank if I
downloaded a copy of the cookbook. I make frequent donations anyway, so
one more wouldn't break my pocketbook.


--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas

In article >,
Janet Wilder > wrote:

> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
> > that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
> > format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
> > banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
> > people.
>
> I would most certainly make a donation to my local food bank if I
> downloaded a copy of the cookbook. I make frequent donations anyway, so
> one more wouldn't break my pocketbook.

I generally just donate food...
--
Peace! Om

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

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

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> 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 guess you weren't around back then, nb (don't ask me to go look up Google
posts in 2001, please). The idea for the cookbook and donations to charity
was proposed in the aftermath of 9/11 and to the families and victims
thereof. The common cause donation was agreed upon relatively easily. It
was how to get the damn (heh) thing published that created some dissention
in the group. But in the end, it got done. And done very well! Kudos to
you all!

Jill

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!
Lynn in Fargo

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

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to
> see that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other
> downloadable
> format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
> banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for
> most people.

Now that's not a bad idea, IMHO.

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?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

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

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

Heh. That's pretty darn good. So you must have had about five or six
hundred copies printed?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy 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.

> Heh. That's pretty darn good.

It was quite a success. Hats off to rfc.

> So you must have had about five or six hundred copies printed?

You'd think it would be seared in my memory, but no. We did
have to do a second printing. Maybe it was 400, then another
200. That's such a guess. Doing the math, I think it would have
to have been more like 700 total.

nancy

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."

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

On 2009-03-08, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
> that continued....

That's one vote for. I disagree, as stated in my other post.

nb

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 14:05:56 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
>that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
>format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
>banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
>people.

I think if it's going on the web site, it should be freely available
and that also means free of guilt.


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

Mae West

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> 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
> >

Quick and easy. :-)
--
Peace! Om

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

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

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> 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


nb, the first book was for charity. Right after 9/11. To benefit the
families of those left behind. Soak up as many of those recipes as you
want. But publishing a new one online for FREE would defeat the purpose.

Jill

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

"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.

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

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.

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

Well, if there is to be a second rfc cookbook, I would still vote
for a hard copy and not a pdf file.

--
Jean B.

"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


The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the inside
just who owns the copyright.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:
>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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.

> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the inside
> just who owns the copyright.
>
> Dimitri

The Cabal (TINC)?

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > 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.
>
>> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the
>> inside
>> just who owns the copyright.
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> The Cabal (TINC)?
>
> Sky
>
> --
> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

Here is what it says - and I quote

Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.

All services in production of this book were donated. Except for
reproduction and mailing costs, all monies received from the sale of this
book were donated to City Harvest (a new York City affiliate of Second
Harvest) : no profits were made by rec.food.cooning.

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...



> Harvest) : no profits were made by rec.food.cooning.
LOL

Cooking.

Dimitri (ready to take a proofreading class)

On 2009-03-08, Dimitri > wrote:

> Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.

Where's my royalty checks?

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2009-03-08, Dimitri > wrote:
>
>> Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.
>
> Where's my royalty checks?
>
> nb

They're in the mail.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Dimitri wrote:

>
> "Sky" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dimitri wrote:
>>>
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>
>>> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the
>>> inside
>>> just who owns the copyright.
>>>
>>> Dimitri
>>
>> The Cabal (TINC)?
>>
>> Sky
>>
>> --
>> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
>> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice
>
> Here is what it says - and I quote
>
> Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.

Ahem. I have © 2009 rec.food.cooking (TINC) on the RFC site. Which also
has about as much legal clout as a wet fish.
>
> All services in production of this book were donated. Except for
> reproduction and mailing costs, all monies received from the sale of
> this book were donated to City Harvest (a new York City affiliate of
> Second Harvest) : no profits were made by rec.food.cooning.

Heh. I just love typos.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article >,
Sky > wrote:

> Dimitri wrote:
> >
> > "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> > The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the inside
> > just who owns the copyright.
> >
> > Dimitri
>
> The Cabal (TINC)?
>
> Sky

<laughs>
--
Peace! Om

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

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:26:05 -0500, Sky wrote:

> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the inside
>> just who owns the copyright.
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> The Cabal (TINC)?
>
> Sky

those ****ers (TANF) have their fingers into everything, don't they?

your pal,
blake

"Dimitri" > 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
>
>
> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the
> inside just who owns the copyright.
>
> Dimitri
All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have anything to
say.

At the time the rfc cookbook was still in process a poll was taken as to how
many books would be produced, based in part on how many each said they'd
order, and extras for those who may decide to order. There was also a great
furor over whether to make an electronic version available and it was
decided there would be none in any foremat. It was decided that in the
future that if if others wanted another edition then they could do their
own, but under no circumstances would the original ever be made available
electronically... at the time all those involved agreed... now it is plain
that many a word ain't worth the price of used TP.

brooklyn1 wrote:


> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
> anything to say.

So Sheldon, which recipe(s) did you contribute?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"ChattyCathy" wrote:
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
>> anything to say.
>
> So Sheldon, which recipe(s) did you contribute?
>
>
So Cathy, you're doubting I contributed.. you trying to say I couldn't,
what...

You can read em for yourself... as I posted earlier I have some spare copies
available only US$1,100 each + S&H (hey, they're collectibles) how many did
you say you'd like?

Yoose should be embarrased tagging onto a book yoose had not a whit to do
with, and couldn't even if you wanted to.

Polling people who weren't born yet (didn't contribute) is presumptuous to
the max, got a lotta nerve. Anyone wants something to say get yer own
stinkin' book. It won't be easy... yoose won't wanna give yours away.
Anyway, yoose just wanna glom on for a free ride (yoose inept cheapo
bastids) I seriously doubt the majority who comprise rfc now are capable...
there's a challenge for yoose.

brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> "ChattyCathy" wrote:
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
>>> anything to say.
>>
>> So Sheldon, which recipe(s) did you contribute?
>>
>>
> So Cathy, you're doubting I contributed.. you trying to say I
> couldn't, what...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Don't get all 'iffy', please. I was just asking which
recipes you contributed. I don't have a copy of 'the RFC Cookbook',
because it was published before I subscribed to r.f.c. (as you well
know). However if it was available on-line, we wouldn't be having this
discussion, now would we?

And no, I'm not prepared to pay US$1,100 for a copy, even if you
autographed it personally :P

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:20:12 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
>> anything to say.
>
> So Sheldon, which recipe(s) did you contribute?

sheldon's spam soufflé is truly yummy.

your pal,
blake