Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
is a wonderful thing.
Nancree

"nancree" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

I hate to tell you, yes, they can.

> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> is a wonderful thing.

It's rude to sit there and just listen. Creepy, for that matter. And, yes,
the people who 'own' the chat can boot you.

nancy

On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:

>Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
>anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
>but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
>forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
another person, they lose their priviledges.

It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
contribute to conversation is fine.

Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
one knows who they are.

> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
>post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
>is a wonderful thing.

See above.

Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.

Merriam Webster

gang

: a group of persons having informal and usually close social
relations

Sheldon Eviction

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>
> Merriam Webster
>
> gang
>
> : a group of persons having informal and usually close social
> relations
>
> Sheldon Eviction

(laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
> >
> > Merriam Webster
> >
> > gang
> >
> > : a group of persons having informal and usually close social relations
> >
> > Sheldon Eviction
>
> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

Sheldon wrote:

> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
> sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
> possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
> receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>
> Sheldon Condom


<translated> chickenshit ;-)

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:44:46 -0500, "A.C." > wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>
>> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
>> sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
>> possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
>> receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
>> learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
>> Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>>
>> Sheldon Condom
>
><translated> chickenshit ;-)

Thing is, Sheldon's been in the channel a few times. He was friendly
and polite. He'd be more than welcome to join us if he continued to
be the gentleman he was in the past.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

nancree wrote:
> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
to you.

Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

Jill

> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> is a wonderful thing.
> Nancree

"Sheldon" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:

>> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
>
> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
> sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
> possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
> receive more than my share of ridicule here.

Nah, getting kicked is very, very rare, I can only think of one
instance. Fact is, it's a fun place to hang out and no, it's not a
clique and everyone is welcome.

I just saw something on the front page of the newspaper that made
me think of you. So and so of thistown, packing for their annual
winter trip to Florida. Snowbirds. Anyway, I hope their house has
a good alarm system.

nancy

Sheldon wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "Sheldon" wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>>>
>>> Merriam Webster
>>>
>>> gang
>>>
>>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
>>>> relations
>>>
>>> Sheldon Eviction
>>
>> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
>
> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
> alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
> the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
> up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>
> Sheldon Condom

Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.
You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
you were Penmart01/Penmart10

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> >> "Sheldon" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
> >>>
> >>> Merriam Webster
> >>>
> >>> gang
> >>>
> >>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
> >>>> relations
> >>>
> >>> Sheldon Eviction
> >>
> >> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
> >
> > Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
> > alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
> > the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
> > up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> > learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> > Imagine... how would I protect myself.
> >
> > Sheldon Condom
>
> Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.

You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
ago.

> You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
> you were Penmart01/Penmart10

Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
return.

Sheldon Interrogated

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> nancree wrote:
> > Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> > anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> > but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> > forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>
> As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
> separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
> offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just
new
> to you.
>
> Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
> you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
> identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.
>
> Jill
>

Yep, it's not an open forum. It's owned, operated and moderated. You can
get kicked out. It's not Usenet!

kili

Sheldon wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>> "Sheldon" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Merriam Webster
>>>>>
>>>>> gang
>>>>>
>>>>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
>>>>>> relations
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheldon Eviction
>>>>
>>>> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
>>>
>>> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
>>> alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
>>> the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set
>>> myself
>>> up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that
>>> I've learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds
>>> visiting Cuba. Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>>>
>>> Sheldon Condom
>>
>> Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three
>> years ago.
>
> You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
> ago.
>
>> You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make
>> you prove you were Penmart01/Penmart10
>
> Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
> much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
> return.
>
> Sheldon Interrogated

We just didn't believe it was really you! You seem to have a lot of
impersonators. This should be flattering to you And you're right, time
does fly... more like 5 years. Dang, has it been that long?!

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> nancree wrote:
> > Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> > anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> > but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> > forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>
> As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
> separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
> offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
> to you.

It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.

> Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
> you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
> identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss the
chat in public.

A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to exist
privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise. To those
who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics of
the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat members
need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here at
rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.

I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
one of them is me. <G>

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.

Sheldon Bewarned

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
> > Sheldon wrote:
> > > Nancy Young wrote:
> > >> "Sheldon" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
> > >>>
> > >>> Merriam Webster
> > >>>
> > >>> gang
> > >>>
> > >>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
> > >>>> relations
> > >>>
> > >>> Sheldon Eviction
> > >>
> > >> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
> > >
> > > Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
> > > alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
> > > the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
> > > up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> > > learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> > > Imagine... how would I protect myself.
> > >
> > > Sheldon Condom
> >
> > Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.
>
> You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
> ago.
>
> > You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
> > you were Penmart01/Penmart10
>
> Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
> much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
> return.
>
> Sheldon Interrogated
>

I'm betting you don't like to do chat so much because you have less time
to think about your answers. ;-)

I'd do it more, just have not had time lately.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
> > nancree wrote:
> > > Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> > > anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> > > but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> > > forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
> > separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
> > offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
> > to you.
>
> It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
> version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.
>
> > Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
> > you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
> > identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.
>
> It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss the
> chat in public.
>
> A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to exist
> privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise. To those
> who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics of
> the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat members
> need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here at
> rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.
>
> I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
> whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
> posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
> what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
> that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
> one of them is me. <G>
>
> What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.
>
> Sheldon Bewarned
>

I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)

As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.
I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC, just "live"
and faster as opposed to the delayed posting times.

Just my 2 cents Shel' dear! :-)

<smooch>
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
> > jmcquown wrote:
> > > nancree wrote:
> > > > Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> > > > anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> > > > but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> > > > forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
> > >
> > > As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
> > > separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
> > > offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
> > > to you.
> >
> > It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
> > version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.
> >
> > > Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
> > > you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
> > > identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.
> >
> > It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss the
> > chat in public.
> >
> > A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to exist
> > privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise. To those
> > who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics of
> > the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat members
> > need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here at
> > rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.
> >
> > I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
> > whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
> > posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
> > what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
> > that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
> > one of them is me. <G>
> >
> > What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.
> >
> > Sheldon Bewarned
> >
>
> I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
> It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)
>
> As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.

Well, then just announce when you're there[period]

> I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC

It's ADMITTEDLY not (see above)... can't have it both ways.

> Just my 2 cents Shel' dear! :-)
>
> <smooch>

Kish mier en toochis aka Smooch my ass.. and while yer down there...

Sheldon Crack

One time on Usenet, OmManiPadmeOmelet > said:
> In article .com>,
> "Sheldon" > wrote:

<snip>

> > I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
> > whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
> > posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
> > what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
> > that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
> > one of them is me. <G>
> >
> > What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.
> >
> > Sheldon Bewarned

Sheldon, give it a rest -- you're no Jack Schidt!

> I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
> It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)
>
> As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.
> I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC, just "live"
> and faster as opposed to the delayed posting times.

Several years ago, I helped maintain a Netiquette site -- AFAIK, there
are no rules against discussing IRC outside of that forum. Heck, some
channels post entire sessions for those who missed out. There's no
expectation of privacy with IRC and anyone who thinks there should be
might want to try private web message boards instead...


--
Jani in WA (S'mee)
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

S'mee wrote:
> AFAIK, there are no rules against discussing IRC outside of that forum. Heck, some
> channels post entire sessions for those who missed out.
>
>There's no expectation of privacy with IRC and anyone who thinks there should be
> might want to try private web message boards instead...

No, just don't participate.

Thank you for your concurrance.

Sheldon

In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:
>
> >Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> >anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> >but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> >forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>
> Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
> always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
> years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
> priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
> another person, they lose their priviledges.
>
> It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
> person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
> themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
> contribute to conversation is fine.
>
> Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
> one knows who they are.
>
> > Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> >post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> >is a wonderful thing.
>
> See above.
>
> Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)

Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> "nancree" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> > anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> > but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> > forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>
> I hate to tell you, yes, they can.
>
> > Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> > post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> > is a wonderful thing.
>
> It's rude to sit there and just listen.

Why?

> nancy
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.

Damsel in dis Dress > writes:

>It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
>person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
>themselves.

They're probably idle, or a chat bot. Or are you sure that's not the
case? I have only done a few chats in my day but we always (always!)
had people just sitting there, idle, while on other windows doing
something.
Chat bots can make themselves look unidle while recording the
conversation, fwiw.

Stacia

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Sheldon" > wrote:
> >
> > > jmcquown wrote:
> > > > nancree wrote:
> > > > > Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> > > > > anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> > > > > but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> > > > > forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
> > > > separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol
> > > > have
> > > > offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing,
> > > > just new
> > > > to you.
> > >
> > > It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
> > > version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.
> > >
> > > > Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just
> > > > because
> > > > you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to
> > > > not
> > > > identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.
> > >
> > > It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss the
> > > chat in public.
> > >
> > > A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to exist
> > > privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise. To those
> > > who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics of
> > > the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat members
> > > need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here at
> > > rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.
> > >
> > > I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
> > > whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
> > > posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
> > > what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
> > > that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
> > > one of them is me. <G>
> > >
> > > What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.
> > >
> > > Sheldon Bewarned
> > >
> >
> > I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
> > It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)
> >
> > As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.
>
> Well, then just announce when you're there[period]
>
> > I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC
>
> It's ADMITTEDLY not (see above)... can't have it both ways.
>
> > Just my 2 cents Shel' dear! :-)
> >
> > <smooch>
>
> Kish mier en toochis aka Smooch my ass.. and while yer down there...
>
> Sheldon Crack
>

ooh baby....... ;-*
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Sheldon wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>> "Sheldon" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Merriam Webster
>>>>>
>>>>> gang
>>>>>
>>>>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
>>>>>> relations
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheldon Eviction
>>>>
>>>> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
>>>
>>> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
>>> alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
>>> the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set
>>> myself
>>> up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that
>>> I've learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds
>>> visiting Cuba. Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>>>
>>> Sheldon Condom
>>
>> Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three
>> years ago.
>
> You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
> ago.
>
>> You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make
>> you prove you were Penmart01/Penmart10
>
> Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
> much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
> return.
>
> Sheldon Interrogated

The server changed... used to be a different one. This one is more constant
without as many IRC channel splits. Silly. But still to address Nancree's
point... yes, we like to know who is who. It is, after all, a CABAL.
(laughing)

Jill

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>> nancree wrote:
>>>> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
>>>> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post
>>>> anonymously,
>>>> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an
>>>> open forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>>>
>>> As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
>>> separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and
>>> Carol have offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a
>>> new thing, just new to you.
>>
>> It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
>> version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.
>>
>>> Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just
>>> because you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is
>>> no excuse to not identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not
>>> be identified.
>>
>> It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss
>> the
>> chat in public.
>>
>> A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to
>> exist privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise.
>> To those
>> who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics
>> of
>> the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat
>> members
>> need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here
>> at
>> rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.
>>
>> I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree...
>> and whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT
>> EVER be
>> posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently,
>> and what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email
>> list... not
>> that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
>> one of them is me. <G>
>>
>> What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta
>> chat.
>>
>> Sheldon Bewarned
>>
>
> I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
> It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)
>
> As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.
> I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC, just "live"
> and faster as opposed to the delayed posting times.
>
> Just my 2 cents Shel' dear! :-)
>
> <smooch>

When we announce a chat we are just inviting folks to join in. The fact is
most of us are on different time zones so we decided it's a good idea to
announce chatting to encourage more people to join in if it's convenient. I
don't see anything wrong with it.

BUT we would like to know who you are.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:


<snipped>

It is, after all, a CABAL.
> (laughing)
>
> Jill
>
>

FFS. TINC!!!



--
Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

Jill wrote:

> When we announce a chat we are just inviting folks to join in. The fact
> is most of us are on different time zones so we decided it's a good idea
> to announce chatting to encourage more people to join in if it's
> convenient. I don't see anything wrong with it.
>
> BUT we would like to know who you are.

When I get into the chat, some people already know it's me even before I
change my nick from "Anonymous". I assume my IP address is being shown.

If I were Sheldon, I probably wouldn't participate in the chat either, but
that's mainly because of the hours that the chat line is active. I'm
astounded at the late hours kept by some of the East Coast chat
participants. GRATEFUL for their welcome participation, but wow! Sometimes
they don't sign off until 5 AM!.

Bob

Glitter Ninja wrote:

> They're probably idle, or a chat bot. Or are you sure that's not the
> case? I have only done a few chats in my day but we always (always!)
> had people just sitting there, idle, while on other windows doing
> something.
> Chat bots can make themselves look unidle while recording the
> conversation, fwiw.

bots don't use the java client. personally, i could give a rats ass who idles
and who doesn't. i've been using irc for years and i'm used to seeing people
idle for days or weeks at a time. most of the people who are bothered by idlers
are irc novices anyhow.

Damsel wrote:
"Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
one knows who they are. "
-----
Still just trying to find out how this thing works. If, as you say,
Crash makes this rule, why does he "just come in and watch the rest of
us". His name is always on the list of people who are present, yet he
never posts,. He apparently "just comes in and watchs the rest of us".
Am I wrong here??

And I didn't know that the RFC was privately owned--I would imagine
that most people don't know that. And just for the record--my
experience with RFC chat is that everyone is friendly, helpful,
light-hearted, pleasant. Much more so than regular RFC.
Good wishes to all,
Nancree

Damsel,
I don't understand why you say this:
You wrote:
"Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
one knows who they are."

Why did you write this when Crash's name is one of those who is always
posted in the list as being on line--yet hours go by and he doesn't
post? He is apparently just watching, not posting. Just curious.
Don't misunderstand me. I prefer it when people identify themselves. I
do. My objection is to people who chime in with new rules that they are
apparently making them up by themselves. Who are the owners of this
RFC chat? Whoever they are, thank you for the work you do. But
perhaps you should identify yourselves, just so we know.
Thanks for any answers. Nancree

nancree wrote:
> Damsel wrote:
> "Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
> one knows who they are. "
> -----
> Still just trying to find out how this thing works. If, as you say,
> Crash makes this rule, why does he "just come in and watch the rest of
> us". His name is always on the list of people who are present, yet he
> never posts,. He apparently "just comes in and watchs the rest of us".
> Am I wrong here??
>
> And I didn't know that the RFC was privately owned--I would imagine
> that most people don't know that.

rec.food.cooking is not privately owned. It is a usenet newsgroup.

And just for the record--my
> experience with RFC chat is that everyone is friendly, helpful,
> light-hearted, pleasant. Much more so than regular RFC.
> Good wishes to all,
> Nancree
>


--

saerah

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:56:16 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
>publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
>point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
>If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
>each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.

Agreed. I've come close to killfiling the word, "chat" for that very
reason. On the other hand, the frequent announcements have brought a
lot of people to the channel who wouldn't have popped in otherwise.
But I still think it's gotten to be a bit much. Should be listed as
OT at the very least.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

nancree wrote:
> Damsel wrote:
> "Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
> one knows who they are. "
> -----
> Still just trying to find out how this thing works. If, as you say,
> Crash makes this rule, why does he "just come in and watch the rest of
> us". His name is always on the list of people who are present, yet he
> never posts,. He apparently "just comes in and watchs the rest of us".
> Am I wrong here??
>
> And I didn't know that the RFC was privately owned--I would imagine
> that most people don't know that. And just for the record--my
> experience with RFC chat is that everyone is friendly, helpful,
> light-hearted, pleasant. Much more so than regular RFC.
> Good wishes to all,
> Nancree
...


For 1 I never come in and lurk or post anonymously
the channel I idol in cause I have better things to do at the time or
am away from my desk..

Crash

On 21 Nov 2005 14:02:25 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:

>Damsel,
>I don't understand why you say this:
>You wrote:
>"Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
>us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
>one knows who they are."
>
>Why did you write this when Crash's name is one of those who is always
>posted in the list as being on line--yet hours go by and he doesn't
>post? He is apparently just watching, not posting. Just curious.
>Don't misunderstand me. I prefer it when people identify themselves. I
>do. My objection is to people who chime in with new rules that they are
>apparently making them up by themselves. Who are the owners of this
>RFC chat? Whoever they are, thank you for the work you do. But
>perhaps you should identify yourselves, just so we know.
> Thanks for any answers. Nancree

Okay, let's see if I can cover all the bases. Several people who
actually talk in the channel have expressed their discomfort with who
knows who sitting and never saying a word. It's a place to have
conversations. Some have felt that they were being spied on. On
numerous occasions, people have welcomed the java users and tried to
explain how to change their nicks. Most of those requests have been
ignored and the person(s) still just sit there.

Crash is always in the channel so that when someone comes in and he's
awake, he can greet them and chat with them. I've been trying to
train him to change his nick to Crash-afk or something when he goes to
bed. I'll keep at him.

Nancree, I rarely see you talk. You generally sit on the sidelines
and watch, too.

Crash made the rule for the emotional comfort of several people who
have approached him regarding the subject.

The server where the channel is hosted is personally run by a
long-time friend of Crash's, so it is a private server. Each channel
(chat room) is free to make their own rules, especially when it
concerns the comfort levels of other participants. And like I said,
this rule was in response to several persons' wishes.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

On 21 Nov 2005 15:24:52 -0800, "Crash" > wrote:

>was
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:56:16 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
> >Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
> >publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
> >point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
> >If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
> >each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
>
> Agreed. I've come close to killfiling the word, "chat" for that very
> reason. On the other hand, the frequent announcements have brought a
> lot of people to the channel who wouldn't have popped in otherwise.
> But I still think it's gotten to be a bit much. Should be listed as
> OT at the very least.
>
> Carol

Shouldn't be posted - at the very least. Sorry, Carol, but any other
repetitive announcement would be pounced upon by one, all, many, most,
or some as spam. Victor posts a reminder to the FAQ file what, once a
week? Once a month? Great; that's directly related to the group. Why
don't y'all develop a group mailing list and email each other to a
faretheewell. I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.
Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

OB Dinner:
Baked stuffed pork chop from von Hanson's market
Brussels sprouts from the co-op this afternoon. Whoops, I cooked and
ate them already. Too bad, so sad.
Green beans from the co-op
Green salad with balsamic and maybe that avocado oil from TJ Maxx.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:36:14 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>Shouldn't be posted - at the very least. Sorry, Carol, but any other
>repetitive announcement would be pounced upon by one, all, many, most,
>or some as spam. Victor posts a reminder to the FAQ file what, once a
>week? Once a month? Great; that's directly related to the group. Why
>don't y'all develop a group mailing list and email each other to a
>faretheewell. I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.
>Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

I never announce it, myself. I think a mailing list is a good idea.
On the other hand, I'm currently responding to someone who's thinking
of hopping in with us. And that's because of this thread.

I'm Switzerland.

Menopause sucks.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:56:16 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
> > >publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
> > >point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
> > >If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
> > >each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
> >
> > Agreed. I've come close to killfiling the word, "chat" for that very
> > reason. On the other hand, the frequent announcements have brought a
> > lot of people to the channel who wouldn't have popped in otherwise.
> > But I still think it's gotten to be a bit much. Should be listed as
> > OT at the very least.
> >
> > Carol
>
> Shouldn't be posted - at the very least. Sorry, Carol, but any other
> repetitive announcement would be pounced upon by one, all, many, most,
> or some as spam. Victor posts a reminder to the FAQ file what, once a
> week? Once a month? Great; that's directly related to the group. Why
> don't y'all develop a group mailing list and email each other to a
> faretheewell. I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.
> Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

Hows-a-bout estrogin? hehe

Sheldon

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
>> On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:
>>
>>> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
>>> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
>>> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an
>>> open forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>>
>> Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
>> always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
>> years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
>> priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
>> another person, they lose their priviledges.
>>
>> It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
>> person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
>> themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
>> contribute to conversation is fine.
>>
>> Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
>> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
>> one knows who they are.
>>
>>> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
>>> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
>>> is a wonderful thing.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)
>
> Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't
> so publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
> point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
> If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
> each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements
> instead.

IIRC, you've dropped in a few times and had little to say and left without
even saying "bye". Granted, we don't *always* talk about food but we often
do and miss your contributions. Just look at all the controversy over lima
beans vs. butter beans That chat carried over into this ng and then back
again in the channel the next day.

Jill