blake murphy said...

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:08:28 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:18:32 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>"James Silverton" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Since rec.food.recipes carries a large number of recipes from
>>>>> posters who
>>>>> feel that they are providing some sort of service by dumping
>>>>> untested (I am sure) recipes, I have kill-filled about three of them
>>>>> as well as deleting anything with "delicious" in the subject. This
>>>>> morning there were
>>>>> 35 recipes waiting, after application of the filters, the number
>>>>> went to 5.
>>>>
>>>>I took a look over there a little while back ... I didn't see what
>>>>the purpose of the newsgroup was, to be honest. The web
>>>>is crawling with recipes.
>>>>
>>>>My question is this, what were you looking for there? A recipe
>>>>for anything in particular? Looking for ideas?
>>
>>> i went looking for naked broads and was sorely disappointed.
>>
>>That probably happens a lot. However, my curiosity was why look
>>there rather than ask here. It wouldn't occur to me to go look there
>>hoping to coincidentally see something I was interested in.
>>
>>nancy
>>
> moderated groups in general make me nervous. and r.f.r. seems to be
> so constricted as to seriously lack entertainment value.
>
> your pal,
> blake


There are one or two r.f.r members that just seem to load up recipes from
other sources constantly and they've transcribed them with no care for
accuracy. I kf'd those users.

It's far better to google or ultimately visit a peer-review recipe website.

I don't think you can get on the internet anymore without a web browser.
Gopher is long gone! I wonder why r.f.r actually exists anymore.

Andy