In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> Would there be any interest in having a Facebook group for food photos
> that encompasses people from RFC, ABF, AFB, ACC-C (dead?), and other
> food related groups on Usenet?
(snip)
> Thank you for reading this far and considering the concept.
>
> -sw (Have I been assimilated? Are there a new medical profession for
> this?)

I skipped 85% of it. "-)
Already there exist RFC on Facebook (73 members), and recfoodcooking
(also on Facebook). It's easy enough to just look at the photos. . . .
That's enough for me.

I established the recfoodcooking "thing" and never did anything else
with it -- frankly, I'm not even sure what it was that I made with that
name. . .

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:
> The RFC/recfoodcooking facebook groups are just replacements for
> rec.food.cokoing itself. The new group would specifically be for
> photos and also be more of interest to those people who gave up Usenet
> for various reasons.

It *can* serve the same purpose you suggest, though. Nothing says you
have to get involved in any discussion (there are but few, btw [maybe 1
every 3 weeks], that I've noticed) and it would not require another new
thing to keep track of. I believe it would be easy enough to simply
post a food pic there and it should be easy enough to simply go to the
page and go directly to the Photos link on the left side. Right now
there are only four pictures posted to that group (RFC on FaceBook).

> -sw

And I'll give you a pass on your smarmy remark about my reading ability.
This one time. "-) Pffthhggbtt. (So much for giving you a pass.)
--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

On 18/01/2011 8:39 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:21:08 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Would there be any interest in having a Facebook group for food photos
>>> that encompasses people from RFC, ABF, AFB, ACC-C (dead?), and other
>>> food related groups on Usenet?
>> (snip)
>>> Thank you for reading this far and considering the concept.
>>>
>>> -sw (Have I been assimilated? Are there a new medical profession for
>>> this?)
>>
>> I skipped 85% of it. "-)
>> Already there exist RFC on Facebook (73 members), and recfoodcooking
>> (also on Facebook). It's easy enough to just look at the photos. . . .
>> That's enough for me.
>>
>> I established the recfoodcooking "thing" and never did anything else
>> with it -- frankly, I'm not even sure what it was that I made with that
>> name. . .
>
> But this would not be an RFC specific group. This is one for sharing
> cooking photos similar to ABF. But not people have access to ABF, and
> many of the former members are posting on Facebook.
>
> The RFC/recfoodcooking facebook groups are just replacements for
> rec.food.cokoing itself. The new group would specifically be for
> photos and also be more of interest to those people who gave up Usenet
> for various reasons.
>
> You needed to read the other 85%. If you don't use your finger to
> point at the words on the screen as you read you can read it much
> faster :-P
>
> It was a long post, and I know that turns a lot of people off right
> there.
>
> -sw

I think it was more likely the attitude of the poster rather than the
length of the post "that turns a lot of people off right there".
If you want to lead and desire others to follow, you need to set the
right example ALL of the time in ALL of your posts. People only follow a
leader they respect! After all, when using a pseudonym, the only way
people can judge you is by what you write here on RFC.

Krypsis (who finds Facebook tiresome and tedious!)

On 2011-01-17, Melba's Jammin' > wrote:
> Sqwertz > wrote:

>> -sw (Have I been assimilated?

No doubt.

> I skipped 85% of it. "-)
> (also on Facebook). It's easy enough to just look at the photos. . . .

Something many ppl don't realize, the EULA all FB users sign gives FB
full rights to any article or photo you post. That means FB "owns"
it! Yes, some ppl have already found their own photo mugshots tacked
onto promotional banners/endorsements, etc, generated by FB and
others. You signed it away, so they can do that. Surprise!!

nb

On 2011-02-09, Christine Dabney > wrote:

> Not any more. You can disallow all that.

Provided you are aware of it. Opting out is not the same as opting
in.

nb

Christine Dabney > wrote:

>On 9 Feb 2011 16:24:23 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>>Something many ppl don't realize, the EULA all FB users sign gives FB
>>full rights to any article or photo you post. That means FB "owns"
>>it! Yes, some ppl have already found their own photo mugshots tacked
>>onto promotional banners/endorsements, etc, generated by FB and
>>others. You signed it away, so they can do that. Surprise!!

>Not any more. You can disallow all that.

I need to go into their menus and un-click whatever blanket permissions
I originally gave them.


S.

Christine Dabney > wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:51:09 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>Pope) wrote:
>
>>I need to go into their menus and un-click whatever blanket permissions
>>I originally gave them.
>
>I already did that. When people go to my profile, they see very
>little, other than my picture. And I don't do any of the apps...I
>disabled all those.

Yes, I have apps totally turned off, and FB functions as well as I would
like it. The only glitch is someone's "vote for me in my contest" thing
that I would normally want to do, but with apps turned off can't. Not
enough reason to turn them on.


Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
> >On 9 Feb 2011 16:24:23 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> >>Something many ppl don't realize, the EULA all FB users sign gives FB
> >>full rights to any article or photo you post. That means FB "owns"
> >>it! Yes, some ppl have already found their own photo mugshots tacked
> >>onto promotional banners/endorsements, etc, generated by FB and
> >>others. You signed it away, so they can do that. Surprise!!
>
> >Not any more. You can disallow all that.
>
> I need to go into their menus and un-click whatever blanket permissions
> I originally gave them.

Let me reword that for you, Steve:

"I need to go into their menus and remove all those default permissions
that were set to maximize their advertising revenues and net worth."

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:51:09 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

> I need to go into their menus and un-click whatever blanket permissions
> I originally gave them.

Not sure what you're talking about and I'm familiar with the menus.
Where is this supposed to be located? Are you talking about not
letting "everyone" see what you post?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:24:01 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Let me reword that for you, Steve:
>
> "I need to go into their menus and remove all those default permissions
> that were set to maximize their advertising revenues and net worth."

Oh, is that it? OK.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.