Subject says it all. Where did it go?

"GW" > wrote in message
...
> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>
>
Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one has
emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are subject
to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence, there are no
posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and anything goes, as we
all know. The fraction of good solid posts about cooking has become quite
small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I wish there is a way to balance
the extremes of moderated and non-moderated groups into something that would
work. Is there a way we can keep the flaming foodies and dump the watch
sellers?

Hugh

Hugh wrote:
> "GW" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>>
>>
> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one has
> emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are subject
> to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence, there are no
> posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and anything goes, as we
> all know. The fraction of good solid posts about cooking has become quite
> small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I wish there is a way to balance
> the extremes of moderated and non-moderated groups into something that would
> work. Is there a way we can keep the flaming foodies and dump the watch
> sellers?

Soc.singles.moderated managed to keep itself almost completely free of
spam by moderating not the individual messages, but the first message
from any new posting address. There is a codeword in the FAQ for that
group, and anyone wanting to post needed to include that codeword in
their first post's subject line. The robomoderator would, if my memory
is correct, then strip the codeword and post the message. This kept out
all drive-by posts.

Serene

--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue is here!
http://42magazine.com

"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory

"Hugh" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GW" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>>
>>
> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
> has emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are
> subject to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence,
> there are no posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and
> anything goes, as we all know. The fraction of good solid posts about
> cooking has become quite small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I
> wish there is a way to balance the extremes of moderated and non-moderated
> groups into something that would work. Is there a way we can keep the
> flaming foodies and dump the watch sellers?
>
Killfile.

Serene Vannoy > wrote:

>Soc.singles.moderated managed to keep itself almost completely free of
>spam by moderating not the individual messages, but the first message
>from any new posting address. There is a codeword in the FAQ for that
>group, and anyone wanting to post needed to include that codeword in
>their first post's subject line. The robomoderator would, if my memory
>is correct, then strip the codeword and post the message. This kept out
>all drive-by posts.

Excellent idea, and one I've never myself heard of before.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>
>>Soc.singles.moderated managed to keep itself almost completely free of
>>spam by moderating not the individual messages, but the first message
>>from any new posting address. There is a codeword in the FAQ for that
>>group, and anyone wanting to post needed to include that codeword in
>>their first post's subject line. The robomoderator would, if my memory
>>is correct, then strip the codeword and post the message. This kept out
>>all drive-by posts.
>
> Excellent idea, and one I've never myself heard of before.
>
> Steve
>
>
I'm guessing that is at the discretion of the moderator. As I understand
this once a group is either moderated or nonmoderated it can't turn the
other way. I think the moderator of the moderated group Serene is referring
to above did this on his/her own. I as well think it sounds like an
excellent idea. However it can't be applied to rec.food.cooking because
we're not a moderated group. At least that's my understanding. A new
moderator of rec.food.recipes could if such a person is found. It would be
nice of one could comment on recipes. Now that doesn't occur.

Hugh

"Hugh" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GW" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>>
>>
> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
> has emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are
> subject to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence,
> there are no posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and
> anything goes, as we all know. The fraction of good solid posts about
> cooking has become quite small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I
> wish there is a way to balance the extremes of moderated and non-moderated
> groups into something that would work. Is there a way we can keep the
> flaming foodies and dump the watch sellers?
>
> Hugh
>
>
Killfile googlemail and gmail and you won't see the spammers.

Jill

In article >,
"Hugh" > wrote:

> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one has
> emerged who wants to take that role.

I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
"Hugh" > wrote:

> Is there a way we can keep the flaming foodies and dump the watch
> sellers?
>
> Hugh

Learn how to tweak your kill filters, and learn to use your delete key?
I don't have any problems with it.

It appears that Giganews has good filters and I don't see many of the
spammers that people bitch about appear here, but when I check the list
at work using Googlegroups I can see them.

Google really needs to tighten things up a bit!
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> "Hugh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "GW" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
> >>
> >>
> > Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
> > has emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are
> > subject to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence,
> > there are no posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and
> > anything goes, as we all know. The fraction of good solid posts about
> > cooking has become quite small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I
> > wish there is a way to balance the extremes of moderated and non-moderated
> > groups into something that would work. Is there a way we can keep the
> > flaming foodies and dump the watch sellers?
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> >
> Killfile googlemail and gmail and you won't see the spammers.
>
> Jill

If you killfile gmail, you will lose a lot of good posters too. Many of
us use gmail. :-(
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

GW said...

> Subject says it all. Where did it go?


Last recipes were posted on April 14th, 2009.

Rec.food.recipes is moderated by Tracy Karman at .
Only recipes and recipe requests are accepted for posting.
Please allow several days for your submission to appear.
Archives: http://www.cdkitchen.com/rfr/ http://recipes.alastra.com/

It's pretty much a lost cause newsgroup nowadays as there's no peer review
so recipes are a coin toss at best. Many were riddled with typos. One of my
recipes was actually edited which totally ruined it and they wouldn't
change it back!

Put your trust in peer review recipe websites. You'll be better "served,"
imho.

Best,

Andy
--
Eat first, talk later.

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>> "Hugh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "GW" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No
>> > one
>> > has emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are
>> > subject to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence,
>> > there are no posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and
>> > anything goes, as we all know. The fraction of good solid posts about
>> > cooking has become quite small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I
>> > wish there is a way to balance the extremes of moderated and
>> > non-moderated
>> > groups into something that would work. Is there a way we can keep the
>> > flaming foodies and dump the watch sellers?
>> >
>> > Hugh
>> >
>> >
>> Killfile googlemail and gmail and you won't see the spammers.
>>
>> Jill
>
> If you killfile gmail, you will lose a lot of good posters too. Many of
> us use gmail. :-(
> --
> Peace! Om
>

Ah, the blessings of Vista I get to pick and choose, sweetie. I see
your posts. I don't see the ones I don't want to. Other "real" newsreaders
allow you to write strings to block things. Blinky was very good at
informing people about that but alas, we lost Blinky.

Jill

Hugh wrote:
> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>>
>>> Soc.singles.moderated managed to keep itself almost completely free of
>>> spam by moderating not the individual messages, but the first message
>> >from any new posting address. There is a codeword in the FAQ for that
>>> group, and anyone wanting to post needed to include that codeword in
>>> their first post's subject line. The robomoderator would, if my memory
>>> is correct, then strip the codeword and post the message. This kept out
>>> all drive-by posts.
>> Excellent idea, and one I've never myself heard of before.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
> I'm guessing that is at the discretion of the moderator. As I understand
> this once a group is either moderated or nonmoderated it can't turn the
> other way. I think the moderator of the moderated group Serene is referring
> to above did this on his/her own.

No, I think ssm decided to do it as a group.

> I as well think it sounds like an
> excellent idea. However it can't be applied to rec.food.cooking because
> we're not a moderated group. At least that's my understanding.

Mine, too. It's my understanding we'd have to start a new, moderated group.

> A new
> moderator of rec.food.recipes could if such a person is found. It would be
> nice of one could comment on recipes. Now that doesn't occur.

*nod* If I had the time and energy, I'd be willing to do it, but I'd
take a different approach from the one the previous moderator took. (I
wouldn't edit people's posts. I would allow discussion of recipes. I
wouldn't reject recipes that weren't in a certain format. Etc.)

Serene

--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue is here!
http://42magazine.com

"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Hugh" > wrote:
>
>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one has
>> emerged who wants to take that role.
>
> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(


Better to let the group die, I guess.

Bob

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > "jmcquown" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Hugh" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "GW" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No
> >> > one
> >> > has emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are
> >> > subject to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence,
> >> > there are no posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and
> >> > anything goes, as we all know. The fraction of good solid posts about
> >> > cooking has become quite small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I
> >> > wish there is a way to balance the extremes of moderated and
> >> > non-moderated
> >> > groups into something that would work. Is there a way we can keep the
> >> > flaming foodies and dump the watch sellers?
> >> >
> >> > Hugh
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Killfile googlemail and gmail and you won't see the spammers.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >
> > If you killfile gmail, you will lose a lot of good posters too. Many of
> > us use gmail. :-(
> > --
> > Peace! Om
> >
>
> Ah, the blessings of Vista I get to pick and choose, sweetie. I see
> your posts. I don't see the ones I don't want to. Other "real" newsreaders
> allow you to write strings to block things. Blinky was very good at
> informing people about that but alas, we lost Blinky.
>
> Jill

I miss him. <sniffs>

Cheers Jill! (raising one for Blinky the Shark)
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Hugh" > wrote:
> >
> >> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
> >> has
> >> emerged who wants to take that role.
> >
> > I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>
>
> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>
> Bob

If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

"GW" > wrote in message
...
> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
It's still there. There is a new moderator as Pat has given it up. But
it's been very quiet.


--
mompeagram
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
Owner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rec-Food-Baking-cooking/
http://mompeagram.homestead.com

Hugh wrote:
> "GW" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>>
>>
> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one has
> emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are subject
> to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence, there are no
> posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and anything goes, as we
> all know. The fraction of good solid posts about cooking has become quite
> small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I wish there is a way to balance
> the extremes of moderated and non-moderated groups into something that would
> work. Is there a way we can keep the flaming foodies and dump the watch
> sellers?
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
I thought there was a new moderator. Maybe we should try some
test posts.

--
Jean B.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Hugh" > wrote:
>
>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one has
>> emerged who wants to take that role.
>
> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(

That was truly unfortunate. I'd have loved to see you as
moderator. The person who emerged as the new moderator was no one
I had ever heard of.

--
Jean B.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 08:22:42 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Mack A. Damia > wrote:
>(snip)
>> Mere lists of ingredients and steps to prepare a dish obviously cannot
>> be copyrighted. Don't copy the recipe word-for-word and you'll be
>> safe.
>>
>> Wordy recipes annoy me anyway!
>> --
>> mad
>
>If by "wordy" you mean explicitly worded, with all steps thoroughly
>described, IMNSHO that has to be because fewer and fewer young people
>are being taught basic cooking information and need detailed
>information. If that is not what you mean, what do you mean? :-)

Basically, poorly written explanations (anything, really,including
recipes and instructions).

For example, may websites are designed and written by "techies" and
not English majors; consequently, as you know - many of them can be
downright confusing and frustrating to navigate.

This has been a citicism for as long as I can remember. Same thing
with recipes. Mainly food people write them and not "writers".

Not all the time, of course, but I encounter confusing instructions,
etc. failry often. Part of the "dumbing" down of society.
--
mad

On Mon, 18 May 2009 10:10:34 -0500, wrote:

>On Sun, 17 May 2009 08:16:34 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 May 2009 08:22:42 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Mack A. Damia > wrote:
>>>(snip)
>>>> Mere lists of ingredients and steps to prepare a dish obviously cannot
>>>> be copyrighted. Don't copy the recipe word-for-word and you'll be
>>>> safe.
>>>>
>>>> Wordy recipes annoy me anyway!
>>>> --
>>>> mad
>>>
>>>If by "wordy" you mean explicitly worded, with all steps thoroughly
>>>described, IMNSHO that has to be because fewer and fewer young people
>>>are being taught basic cooking information and need detailed
>>>information. If that is not what you mean, what do you mean? :-)
>>
>>Basically, poorly written explanations (anything, really,including
>>recipes and instructions).
>>
>>For example, may websites are designed and written by "techies" and
>>not English majors; consequently, as you know - many of them can be
>>downright confusing and frustrating to navigate.
>>
>
>Not entirely true. Alot of the Techies know what annoys people and
>try their hardest to make the site user friendly, but it's the owner
>of the site who pays the bills that wants it all glittzy, loaded with
>flash intros. Mine is easy to navigate, I have no annoying flash,
>popups, tracking cookies or java apps the follow you around the page.
>If you make it too hard to navigate most people will not return, so
>all the glitz has done is ****ed the potential customer off.

That's one website. What about the other 10 million?

Ever try to navigate around eBay? Customer service?

It's exactly the same with the telephone answering systems these days
many of them take you in circles with the button pushing.

I see people screaming about this all the time - give me a "live"
person"!

Same idea.....flow charts designed by techies and not language
(feet-on-the-ground) people.
--
mad

Andy wrote:
> GW said...
>
>> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>
>
> Last recipes were posted on April 14th, 2009.
>
> Rec.food.recipes is moderated by Tracy Karman at .
> Only recipes and recipe requests are accepted for posting.
> Please allow several days for your submission to appear.
> Archives: http://www.cdkitchen.com/rfr/ http://recipes.alastra.com/
>
> It's pretty much a lost cause newsgroup nowadays as there's no peer review
> so recipes are a coin toss at best. Many were riddled with typos. One of my
> recipes was actually edited which totally ruined it and they wouldn't
> change it back!
>
> Put your trust in peer review recipe websites. You'll be better "served,"
> imho.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

Oh I am reminded. The archives REALLY tick me off, with the
omission of parts of the recipe names which would make them
immensely easier to find and sift through, omission of
introductory material, and omission of the contributor. In fact,
that is a major reason why I am not so wild about contributing
recipes there any more. I posted recipes as a tribute to my dead
mother and my grandmother, thinking they would live on in this
small way. But no!!!!

--
Jean B.

zxcvbob wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>
>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No
>>> one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>
>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>
>
> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>
> Bob

Obviously.

--
Jean B.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
>>>> has
>>>> emerged who wants to take that role.
>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>
>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>
>> Bob
>
> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?

Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the
ramifications be for rfc? How would the group differ from what we
have here? How would it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?

Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.

My immediate thoughts would be:

1. Recipe-oriented
2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed
(but then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then
the fact that is has not been tried should be made clear.

--
Jean B.

mom peagram wrote:
>
> "GW" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
> It's still there. There is a new moderator as Pat has given it up. But
> it's been very quiet.
>
>
The only current post is Victor's FAQ.

--
Jean B.

Jean B. wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired.
>>>>> No one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>>
>>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
>> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>
> Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be
> for rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How would
> it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
>
> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
>
> My immediate thoughts would be:
>
> 1. Recipe-oriented
> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed (but
> then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the fact
> that is has not been tried should be made clear.
>
Adding on...

No flaming.

No spamming.

--
Jean B.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:43:46 -0700, Hugh wrote:

> "GW" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>>
>>
> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one has
> emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are subject
> to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence, there are no
> posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and anything goes, as we
> all know. The fraction of good solid posts about cooking has become quite
> small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I wish there is a way to balance
> the extremes of moderated and non-moderated groups into something that would
> work. Is there a way we can keep the flaming foodies and dump the watch
> sellers?
>
> Hugh

dump outlook express for a real newsreader with reasonable filtering
capabilities, or download nfilter and configure it to use with o.e.:

<http://www.nfilter.org/faq.html#1.1>

it's not hard to do.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 17 May 2009 08:52:44 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >,
>> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Hugh" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > "GW" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> Subject says it all. Where did it go?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No
>>> > one
>>> > has emerged who wants to take that role. As a moderated NG messages are
>>> > subject to a moderator's approval. There isn't a moderator and hence,
>>> > there are no posted messages. This newsgroup is non moderated, and
>>> > anything goes, as we all know. The fraction of good solid posts about
>>> > cooking has become quite small, and overwhelmed by spams and flames. I
>>> > wish there is a way to balance the extremes of moderated and
>>> > non-moderated
>>> > groups into something that would work. Is there a way we can keep the
>>> > flaming foodies and dump the watch sellers?
>>> >
>>> > Hugh
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Killfile googlemail and gmail and you won't see the spammers.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> If you killfile gmail, you will lose a lot of good posters too. Many of
>> us use gmail. :-(
>> --
>> Peace! Om
>>
>
> Ah, the blessings of Vista I get to pick and choose, sweetie. I see
> your posts. I don't see the ones I don't want to. Other "real" newsreaders
> allow you to write strings to block things. Blinky was very good at
> informing people about that but alas, we lost Blinky.
>
> Jill

but the usenet improvement project lives on:

<http://improve-usenet.org/filters_bg.html>

your pal,
blake

"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No
>>>>> one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>>
>>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
>> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>
> Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be for
> rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How would it
> differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
>
> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
>
> My immediate thoughts would be:
>
> 1. Recipe-oriented
> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed (but
> then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the fact
> that is has not been tried should be made clear.
>
> --
> Jean B.

>
There are already moderated "recipe" groups on Yahoo. I should know, I got
kicked off one for submitting what the moderators felt was a "copyrighted"
recipe. I personally am not for some (ahem) yahoos deciding what is and
what isn't copyrighted. AFAIK, my recipes are copyrighted. As long as
someone gives proper attribution rather than claim them as their own I don't
give a rip who re-posts them. But they were a bunch of uptight nellies,
acting like they were going to be sued (as if anyone really pays that much
attention). I posted this from a microwave cookbook I got with my microwave
oven back in 1980. So sorry it didn't tell me who came up with the
following (delicious!) recipe:

Almond Butter Crunch
(tastes like 'Heath' Candy Bars)

2 Tbs. butter
1/2 c. slivered almonds
1/2 c. butter, cut into pieces
1-1/2 c. white sugar
3 Tbs. water
1 Tbs. light corn syrup
3 oz. bar of chocolate or bag of chocolate chips (I used milk chocolate
chips)

Line a baking sheet with aluminium foil and butter the foil; set aside.

Place 2 Tbs. butter in a shallow glass bowl. Microwave on HIGH about 60
seconds or until butter melts. Stir in slivered almonds. Microwave on HIGH
about 5 minutes, stirring every minute, until almonds are browned. Drain on
paper towels and sprinkle on foil lined baking sheet in a 12X8 inch area.

In a 2 quart pyrex measure or microwavable mixing bowl, combine remaining
ingredients except chocolate. Microwave on HIGH 2-3 minutes or until sugar
dissolves and mixture can be stirred smooth. Place a microwave candy
thermometer in the mixture (I never did this... guess I just had a knack)
and microwave on HIGH for 5-6 minutes or until temp reaches 300F.

Immediately pour the mixture over the almonds on the baking sheet. Let
stand for 1 minute, then arrange the chocolate on top. As the chocolate
melts over the toffee mixture, spread it with a knife to cover the top of
the candy. Chill mixture to set, then break it into pieces. Makes 1 lb.

Jill

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
>>>> has
>>>> emerged who wants to take that role.
>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>
>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>
>> Bob
>
> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?

I'd participate. I once owned a private Yahoo! Group and co-moderated
another semi-private group. The private group was by invite only. It did
not appear in the listings. The semi-private group was in the listing,
but you had to be accepted by the moderator after sending a brief email
why you want to join. It's not very difficult to moderate a Yahoo! Group.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

Jean B. wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired.
>>>>> No one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>>
>>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
>> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>
> Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be
> for rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How would
> it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
>
> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
>
> My immediate thoughts would be:
>
> 1. Recipe-oriented
> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed (but
> then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the fact
> that is has not been tried should be made clear.
>

I think it should be recipes and requests for recipes only. Just like
r.f.r used to be, but it won't be linked to that stupid web site so
there won't be all of those dumb requests from illiterates.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

Jean B. wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired.
>>>>>> No one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>>>
>>>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
>>> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>>
>> Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be
>> for rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How
>> would it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
>>
>> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
>>
>> My immediate thoughts would be:
>>
>> 1. Recipe-oriented
>> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed
>> (but then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
>> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
>> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the
>> fact that is has not been tried should be made clear.
>>
> Adding on...
>
> No flaming.
>
> No spamming.
>

Of course! I'd like to add no gratuitous profanity, too.

The moderators can screen initial posts from members until they get a
feel for how things will be. You could also moderate some people but not
others. We have a few "bi-polar" posters here that probably warrant such
monitoring. That would also work for those who are constantly spoofed.
The moderator would be able to weed out the genuine from the spoof.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

Jean B. wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>
>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No
>>> one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>
>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>
> That was truly unfortunate. I'd have loved to see you as moderator.
> The person who emerged as the new moderator was no one I had ever heard of.
>

Me either. It appears no one was comfortable with the new moderator
because the group is pretty dead.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

jmcquown wrote:
> "Jean B." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired.
>>>>>> No one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>>>
>>>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
>>> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>>
>> Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be
>> for rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How
>> would it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
>>
>> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
>>
>> My immediate thoughts would be:
>>
>> 1. Recipe-oriented
>> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed
>> (but then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
>> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
>> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the
>> fact that is has not been tried should be made clear.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
>>
> There are already moderated "recipe" groups on Yahoo. I should know, I
> got kicked off one for submitting what the moderators felt was a
> "copyrighted" recipe. I personally am not for some (ahem) yahoos
> deciding what is and what isn't copyrighted. AFAIK, my recipes are
> copyrighted. As long as someone gives proper attribution rather than
> claim them as their own I don't give a rip who re-posts them. But they
> were a bunch of uptight nellies, acting like they were going to be sued
> (as if anyone really pays that much attention). I posted this from a
> microwave cookbook I got with my microwave oven back in 1980. So sorry
> it didn't tell me who came up with the following (delicious!) recipe:
>
> Almond Butter Crunch
> (tastes like 'Heath' Candy Bars)
>
> 2 Tbs. butter
> 1/2 c. slivered almonds
> 1/2 c. butter, cut into pieces
> 1-1/2 c. white sugar
> 3 Tbs. water
> 1 Tbs. light corn syrup
> 3 oz. bar of chocolate or bag of chocolate chips (I used milk chocolate
> chips)
>
> Line a baking sheet with aluminium foil and butter the foil; set aside.
>
> Place 2 Tbs. butter in a shallow glass bowl. Microwave on HIGH about 60
> seconds or until butter melts. Stir in slivered almonds. Microwave on
> HIGH
> about 5 minutes, stirring every minute, until almonds are browned.
> Drain on
> paper towels and sprinkle on foil lined baking sheet in a 12X8 inch area.
>
> In a 2 quart pyrex measure or microwavable mixing bowl, combine remaining
> ingredients except chocolate. Microwave on HIGH 2-3 minutes or until sugar
> dissolves and mixture can be stirred smooth. Place a microwave candy
> thermometer in the mixture (I never did this... guess I just had a knack)
> and microwave on HIGH for 5-6 minutes or until temp reaches 300F.
>
> Immediately pour the mixture over the almonds on the baking sheet. Let
> stand for 1 minute, then arrange the chocolate on top. As the chocolate
> melts over the toffee mixture, spread it with a knife to cover the top of
> the candy. Chill mixture to set, then break it into pieces. Makes 1 lb.
>
> Jill

Mmmm. I do something similar on the stove top.

You bring up some interesting points re sources. You, like me and
many others, may not have noted sources way back when we started
collecting recipes.... Just this morning, I was thinking of a
recipe I have for Salzburg Nockerln (not looking this up, so I
have the words a bit wrong). It is unlike any other recipes I
have seen for it. I am pretty sure I copied it out of an old
cookbook that was in the bowels of my local library--or some other
library. I'm sure the book has long since been ousted from
wherever it was. So, does that mean I can never share this recipe?

And would moderators have some legal liability for recipes that
came from books?

BTW, that gets me back to the stripping of various things from
recipes that end up on rfr's archives.... I wonder what the legal
ramifications of THAT might be?

Another pondering I have had... If one posts a recipe with its
source, can it ever be considered to be an ad of sorts for the
source?

--
Jean B.

Janet Wilder wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired.
>>>>>> No one has emerged who wants to take that role.
>>>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>>>>
>>>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
>>> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>>
>> Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be
>> for rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How
>> would it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
>>
>> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
>>
>> My immediate thoughts would be:
>>
>> 1. Recipe-oriented
>> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed
>> (but then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
>> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
>> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the
>> fact that is has not been tried should be made clear.
>>
>
> I think it should be recipes and requests for recipes only. Just like
> r.f.r used to be, but it won't be linked to that stupid web site so
> there won't be all of those dumb requests from illiterates.
>
What web site is that, Janet?

--
Jean B.

In article >,
"Jean B." > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Hugh" > wrote:
> >
> >> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
> >> has
> >> emerged who wants to take that role.
> >
> > I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
>
> That was truly unfortunate. I'd have loved to see you as
> moderator. The person who emerged as the new moderator was no one
> I had ever heard of.

It would have been fun, but c'est la vie! :-)

And, thanks.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
"Jean B." > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > zxcvbob > wrote:
> >
> >> Omelet wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Hugh" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
> >>>> has
> >>>> emerged who wants to take that role.
> >>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
> >>
> >> Better to let the group die, I guess.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
> > Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>
> Think about the rules. If any.

<vbg>

> Also, what would the
> ramifications be for rfc? How would the group differ from what we
> have here? How would it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?

Personally, I'm happy here and DO both post and save the recipes that
appear from time to time.

>
> Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.

I doubt it would!

>
> My immediate thoughts would be:
>
> 1. Recipe-oriented
> 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed
> (but then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
> 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
> submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then
> the fact that is has not been tried should be made clear.

Sounds like it'd be naught but an allegory. <g>
Or a synonym...
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
"Jean B." > wrote:

> Jean B. wrote:
> > Omelet wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> zxcvbob > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Omelet wrote:
> >>>> In article >,
> >>>> "Hugh" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired.
> >>>>> No one has emerged who wants to take that role.
> >>>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
> >>>
> >>> Better to let the group die, I guess.
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>
> >> If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
> >> Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
> >
> > Think about the rules. If any. Also, what would the ramifications be
> > for rfc? How would the group differ from what we have here? How would
> > it differ from rfr (as it was, of course)?
> >
> > Might be interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it supplant rfc.
> >
> > My immediate thoughts would be:
> >
> > 1. Recipe-oriented
> > 2. Discussion of recipes and prose related to the recipes allowed (but
> > then where do you draw the line, so you don't slip into banter?)
> > 3. Tried and true recipes only (made clear in some way with the
> > submission) UNLESS someone asks for a specific recipe--and then the fact
> > that is has not been tried should be made clear.
> >
> Adding on...
>
> No flaming.
>
> No spamming.

That is one good point of Yahoogroups.com.

Moderated lists can totally filter out Spams!

I co-moderate a couple of lists. One that is dedicated to local
freecycling (I save egg cartons and cat litter buckets and give them
away on a regular basis, along with other "stuff" I want to get rid of)
and an RKBA 2nd amendment list.

If anyone is truly interested, let me know and I'll be happy to start
one up for recipes :-).
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

Janet Wilder wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:

>> That was truly unfortunate. I'd have loved to see you as moderator.
>> The person who emerged as the new moderator was no one I had ever
>> heard of.
>>
>
> Me either. It appears no one was comfortable with the new moderator
> because the group is pretty dead.

Do you really think that no one has tried to post a recipe in what,
a month? I'm only asking, I don't normally subscribe to that group,
I was curious when I took a look yesterday. Either everyone stopped
trying to post or this new moderator is not letting anything through.

nancy

In article >,
Janet Wilder > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > zxcvbob > wrote:
> >
> >> Omelet wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Hugh" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Rec.food.recipes is a moderated newsgroup. The moderator retired. No one
> >>>> has
> >>>> emerged who wants to take that role.
> >>> I offered, but they rejected me because I drove a mac. :-(
> >>
> >> Better to let the group die, I guess.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > If anyone is interested, we could try starting one up on Yahoogroups?
> > Several of us could run it as co-moderators?
>
> I'd participate. I once owned a private Yahoo! Group and co-moderated
> another semi-private group. The private group was by invite only. It did
> not appear in the listings. The semi-private group was in the listing,
> but you had to be accepted by the moderator after sending a brief email
> why you want to join. It's not very difficult to moderate a Yahoo! Group.

Ok, the group has been created if y'all are interested. :-) I'm the
current group owner and will be happy to add co-moderators. We can
discuss the "rules" about unmoderating memberships to speed the list up.

Go to:

to sign on.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.