I want to make it clear that I did not compile these lists. I got it
from the GEnie Service, the Food Roundtable, over ten years ago, and I
have saved them ever since.

I'm glad to be a more productive member of this ng.

Mordechai

Thanks for posting both lists!

Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
website...what do you reckon?

cheers and many thanks,

LadyJane
--
"Never trust a skinny cook!"

LadyJane wrote:
> Thanks for posting both lists!
>
> Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
> website...what do you reckon?

Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
much to Mordechai.

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/food.html

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/herbsspices.html

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"Chatty Cathy" > wrote in message
...
> LadyJane wrote:
>> Thanks for posting both lists!
>>
>> Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
>> website...what do you reckon?
>
> Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
> much to Mordechai.
>
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/food.html
>
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/herbsspices.html

Nice job, Cathy! Thanks for the mention.

Mordechai Housman wrote:
> "Chatty Cathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> LadyJane wrote:
>>> Thanks for posting both lists!
>>>
>>> Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
>>> website...what do you reckon?
>>
>> Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
>> much to Mordechai.
>>
>> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/food.html
>>
>> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/herbsspices.html
>
> Nice job, Cathy! Thanks for the mention.
>
My pleasure - and thanks again for sharing

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Mordechai Housman wrote:
> >
> > Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
> > much to Mordechai.
> >
> > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/food.html
> >
> > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/herbsspices.html
>
> Nice job, Cathy! Thanks for the mention.

Thanks to both of you! These will come in handy!
-L.

Chatty Cathy wrote:
> LadyJane wrote:
> > Thanks for posting both lists!
> >
> > Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
> > website...what do you reckon?
>
> Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
> much to Mordechai.

Since you run the site you can do what you like, but they seem like
useless, semi-random groupings to me. I can't imagine anyone choosing
something from Column A to go with something from Column B, rather than
relying on their own taste or experience or recipe. -aem

aem wrote:
> Chatty Cathy wrote:
> > LadyJane wrote:
> > > Thanks for posting both lists!
> > >
> > > Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
> > > website...what do you reckon?
> >
> > Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
> > much to Mordechai.
>
> Since you run the site you can do what you like, but they seem like
> useless, semi-random groupings to me. I can't imagine anyone choosing
> something from Column A to go with something from Column B, rather than
> relying on their own taste or experience or recipe. -aem

I just stumbled onto it.. that info is pure garbage, has no redeeming
value whatsoever, NONE!

Sheldon

-L. wrote:
> Mordechai Housman wrote:
> > >
> > > Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
> > > much to Mordechai.
> > >
> > > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/food.html
> > >
> > > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/herbsspices.html
> >
> >> Thanks to both of you! These will come in handy!
> -L.

Handy for what... do you save the newsprint the fishmonger used to wrap
your smelt... that info has the value of used tampons... perhaps you
launder yours. LOL

Don't laugh... some of yoose pre-WWll gals will remember the time
before the invention of sanitary napkins... you saved old linen, tore
it into strips and folded to fit... then when there was a bunch you
laundered them, many by hand on a scrub board because many couldn't
afford automatic washers, as automatic as they were back then. I bet
many of yoose young'uns are shocked, that there was really a time
before manufactured feminine products... in much of the world still.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> aem wrote:
>> Chatty Cathy wrote:
>>> LadyJane wrote:
>>>> Thanks for posting both lists!
>>>>
>>>> Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
>>>> website...what do you reckon?
>>> Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
>>> much to Mordechai.
>> Since you run the site you can do what you like, but they seem like
>> useless, semi-random groupings to me. I can't imagine anyone choosing
>> something from Column A to go with something from Column B, rather than
>> relying on their own taste or experience or recipe. -aem
>
> I just stumbled onto it.. that info is pure garbage, has no redeeming
> value whatsoever, NONE!
>
> Sheldon
>
ROFLMAO

Did you two forget to take your meds today or something?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Chatty Cathy wrote:

> Did you two forget to take your meds today or something?
>
Speaking for myself, No. But I also don't check my brain at the door
before reading rfc, and it's always a little disappointing, even if
expected, when others do. -aem

aem wrote:
>
> Since you run the site you can do what you like, but they seem like
> useless, semi-random groupings to me. I can't imagine anyone choosing
> something from Column A to go with something from Column B, rather than
> relying on their own taste or experience or recipe. -aem

I'd use it to get some ideas if I was experimenting around and wanted
to try something new in a dish. <shrug>

-L.

One time on Usenet, Chatty Cathy > said:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > aem wrote:
> >> Chatty Cathy wrote:
> >>> LadyJane wrote:
> >>>> Thanks for posting both lists!

> >>>> Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
> >>>> website...what do you reckon?

> >>> Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
> >>> much to Mordechai.

> >> Since you run the site you can do what you like, but they seem like
> >> useless, semi-random groupings to me. I can't imagine anyone choosing
> >> something from Column A to go with something from Column B, rather than
> >> relying on their own taste or experience or recipe. -aem

> > I just stumbled onto it.. that info is pure garbage, has no redeeming
> > value whatsoever, NONE!

> ROFLMAO
>
> Did you two forget to take your meds today or something?

They make a good point -- half the stuff on the list I read
didn't even come close to what one would refer to as "spices"
or "herbs". Cheese? Bacon? Mordechai's heart may be in the right
place, but I don't see how these lists qualify for web site status.
Quite the contrary, it's kind of embarrasing...

--
"Kthonian" is Jani in WA
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

Sheldon wrote:

> -L. wrote:
> > Mordechai Housman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks
very
> > > > much to Mordechai.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/food.html
> > > >
> > > > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/tips/herbsspices.html
> > >
> > >> Thanks to both of you! These will come in handy!
> > -L.
>
> Handy for what... do you save the newsprint the fishmonger used to wrap
> your smelt... that info has the value of used tampons... perhaps you
> launder yours. LOL


"-L" doesn't eat fish, remember, she considers fishermen "rapists"...a can
of tuna to her is like garlic is to Dracula!

--
Best
Greg

Kthonian wrote:

> Mordechai's heart may be in the right
> place, but I don't see how these lists qualify for web site status.
> Quite the contrary, it's kind of embarrasing...
>

My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
for website status"?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Chatty Cathy wrote:
> >
>
> My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
> for website status"?

No matter what you do there will always be some asshole or naysayer who
says it isn't good enough. Moredechai asked if he should post it, a
number of people said yes, and obviously some of us think it's useful
enough to be on the website. Not everyone has been cooking 50 years
and is trained at the CIA. This kind of info *is* useful to people who
haven't experimented much or may not have a complete knowledge of what
spices or ingredients may be suitable for certain dishes. The bottom
line is, why be an asshole about it if you (generic) don't find it
useful? Just so you can hear yourself bitch? Just shut up and move
on. Sheesh.

-L.

aem wrote:
> Chatty Cathy wrote:
>
>> Did you two forget to take your meds today or something?
>>
> Speaking for myself, No. But I also don't check my brain at the door
> before reading rfc, and it's always a little disappointing, even if
> expected, when others do. -aem
>
I hereby formally invite you to contribute some content for the Tips 'n
Tricks section on the RFC website. You seem to be quite a good cook, and
as your brain is where it should be, this shouldn't be difficult.
Pictures are welcome. (of the food that is, not your brain).

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:55:16 +0200, Chatty Cathy
> wrote:

>Kthonian wrote:
>
>> Mordechai's heart may be in the right
>> place, but I don't see how these lists qualify for web site status.
>> Quite the contrary, it's kind of embarrasing...
>
>My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
>for website status"?

'Cause *I* said they're an asset to the site. <EG>

They're very handy. I'll use them often.

Carol

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:55:16 +0200, Chatty Cathy wrote:

> Kthonian wrote:
>
>> Mordechai's heart may be in the right
>> place, but I don't see how these lists qualify for web site status.
>> Quite the contrary, it's kind of embarrasing...
>>
>
> My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
> for website status"?

Maybe you should use the polling tool that you have on the web site. What
is useful to some is absolutely of no use to others. You tried to
accomodate those that ask that it be put up on the site.. good for you.
How much are you being paid? <G> Good work!

-L. wrote:
>
> No matter what you do there will always be some asshole or naysayer who
> says it isn't good enough. Moredechai asked if he should post it, a
> number of people said yes, and obviously some of us think it's useful
> enough to be on the website. Not everyone has been cooking 50 years
> and is trained at the CIA. This kind of info *is* useful to people who
> haven't experimented much or may not have a complete knowledge of what
> spices or ingredients may be suitable for certain dishes. The bottom
> line is, why be an asshole about it if you (generic) don't find it
> useful? Just so you can hear yourself bitch? Just shut up and move
> on. Sheesh.
>
> -L.

By the way, this isn't directed at you, Cathy - but to the people doing
the bitchin'.

-L.

-L. wrote:

>
> By the way, this isn't directed at you, Cathy - but to the people doing
> the bitchin'.

I knew that, -L. Thanks.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:55:16 +0200, Chatty Cathy
> > wrote:
>
>> Kthonian wrote:
>>
>>> Mordechai's heart may be in the right
>>> place, but I don't see how these lists qualify for web site status.
>>> Quite the contrary, it's kind of embarrasing...
>> My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
>> for website status"?
>
> 'Cause *I* said they're an asset to the site. <EG>

ROFL

>
> They're very handy. I'll use them often.


--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

jay wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:55:16 +0200, Chatty Cathy wrote:
>
>> Kthonian wrote:
>>
>>> Mordechai's heart may be in the right
>>> place, but I don't see how these lists qualify for web site status.
>>> Quite the contrary, it's kind of embarrasing...
>>>
>> My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
>> for website status"?
>
> Maybe you should use the polling tool that you have on the web site. What
> is useful to some is absolutely of no use to others. You tried to
> accomodate those that ask that it be put up on the site.. good for you.
> How much are you being paid? <G> Good work!

At the moment I get paid 250 Kind a week.... do you think I should ask
for a raise?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Sheldon wrote:
> aem wrote:
>> Chatty Cathy wrote:
>>> LadyJane wrote:
>>>> Thanks for posting both lists!
>>>>
>>>> Hey Chatty Cathy - think these would do well on rfc (unofficial)
>>>> website...what do you reckon?
>>> Your wish is my command Done! You can find them here... thanks very
>>> much to Mordechai.
>> Since you run the site you can do what you like, but they seem like
>> useless, semi-random groupings to me. I can't imagine anyone choosing
>> something from Column A to go with something from Column B, rather than
>> relying on their own taste or experience or recipe. -aem
>
> I just stumbled onto it.. that info is pure garbage, has no redeeming
> value whatsoever, NONE!
>
> Sheldon
>
I disagree. I'm a bit of a clueless cook due to inexperience (Although I
do enjoy cooking.) and this list is a good general guideline and gives
me a bit of direction.

One time on Usenet, Chatty Cathy > said:
> Kthonian wrote:
>
> > Mordechai's heart may be in the right
> > place, but I don't see how these lists qualify for web site status.
> > Quite the contrary, it's kind of embarrasing...

Just to clarify -- what bothers me is the title of "Foods, and
the Spices for Them" on a list that suggests using things like
red wine and croutons, which implys (to my mind) that RFCers don't
know the difference. *That's* what I find embarrasing, and as my
sig says, I'm just a novice.

BTW, I realize that Mordechai didn't write the title or list,
but I have to wonder about the guy who did.

> My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
> for website status"?

Wait a bit longer for group opinion to form an obvious consensus?
Or use a poll, like jay suggested? And perhaps if the group really
wants a list like this, one could use what Mordechai posted as a
springboard of sorts and create a list based on group suggestions?

FYI, I'm not trying to be a bitch, Cathy -- AAMOF, I appreciate your
efforst in dealing with the group's site... :-)

--
"Kthonian" is Jani in WA
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

Kthonian wrote:

>
> Just to clarify -- what bothers me is the title of "Foods, and
> the Spices for Them" on a list that suggests using things like
> red wine and croutons, which implys (to my mind) that RFCers don't
> know the difference. *That's* what I find embarrasing, and as my
> sig says, I'm just a novice.

Jani,

Oh, red wine is not a spice? Darn, there goes my excuse for using so
much of it in my cooking - mind you, more for me to drink!! <I am just
joking, BTW > I saw that, but didn't think people would get so worked
up about it. But I have to point out that nowhere on the site do we
claim that the content is perfect or intended to be some sort of cooking
"Bible". Its just stuff that cooks want to share with other cooks,
novices or otherwise.

> BTW, I realize that Mordechai didn't write the title or list,
> but I have to wonder about the guy who did.

Google is my friend:

This was the first hit for Martin Katahn

http://www.chasefreedom.com/rotationdiet2.html
>
>> My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
>> for website status"?
>
> Wait a bit longer for group opinion to form an obvious consensus?
> Or use a poll, like jay suggested? And perhaps if the group really
> wants a list like this, one could use what Mordechai posted as a
> springboard of sorts and create a list based on group suggestions?

I thought about the poll thing too. However, in order to vote on whether
you like something or not, you have to actually read it. Do I put it on
the site, ask people what they think, and then take it off again? Sorry.
Not prepared to go to all that trouble, because I have to convert it to
html, etc. And no, I don't use any html tools/editors - I do it by hand
to keep the code "clean".

Or do we ask them to put it onto r.f.c. (which is text only - so it
wouldn't cover everything)? If this is the case, *I* may not even see
them, as there are days when I don't have time to look at r.f.c. either!

And how long do we wait for the result? A week, a month? There are quite
a few "regulars" on r.f.c., I know, but even some of them only catch up
once a week or so and might miss the deadline for voting (or the post).
Then if the vote didn't go in their favour, they are still going to moan
about it - simply because they can. We are just cutting the tedious
steps out of the process, and going straight to "moaning".

I know, I know, lets vote on it !!!

>
> FYI, I'm not trying to be a bitch, Cathy -- AAMOF, I appreciate your
> efforst in dealing with the group's site... :-)

I know you are not trying to be a bitch, and I know a lot of people do
appreciate it. At least you were "polite" when stating your view. Other
people (who will remain nick-less) are not quite so considerate.

But the bottom line is this, no matter what I do, or do not, put on the
site, there will always be someone moaning about something... For those
who violently disagree, there are many options to add your 2 cents worth
to the web. Starting a MySpace page is just one of them

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"Kthonian" > wrote in message
...

> And perhaps if the group really
> wants a list like this, one could use what Mordechai posted as a
> springboard of sorts and create a list based on group suggestions?

I second the motion,. It's more or less what I had in mind when I posted
them. After all, most of the denizens here know more about this stuff
than I do, and would therefore be better judges of it than I.

As it happens, I also saw one or two additions I thought might be
useful.

Mordechai

One time on Usenet, Chatty Cathy > said:
> Kthonian (Now Little Malice) wrote:

> > Just to clarify -- what bothers me is the title of "Foods, and
> > the Spices for Them" on a list that suggests using things like
> > red wine and croutons, which implys (to my mind) that RFCers don't
> > know the difference. *That's* what I find embarrasing, and as my
> > sig says, I'm just a novice.

> Oh, red wine is not a spice? Darn, there goes my excuse for using so
> much of it in my cooking - mind you, more for me to drink!! <I am just
> joking, BTW >

I figured as much. :-)

> I saw that, but didn't think people would get so worked
> up about it.

Looks like I'm the only person bothered by the discrepency between
herbs and, say, cheese. I guess I'm just weird!

> But I have to point out that nowhere on the site do we
> claim that the content is perfect or intended to be some sort of cooking
> "Bible". Its just stuff that cooks want to share with other cooks,
> novices or otherwise.

Well, *I* know that, but my concern was for people who're new to
RFC. But like I said, no one else seemed to notice, so I was
probably worried about nothing. Not the first time.

> > BTW, I realize that Mordechai didn't write the title or list,
> > but I have to wonder about the guy who did.
>
> Google is my friend:
>
> This was the first hit for Martin Katahn
>
> http://www.chasefreedom.com/rotationdiet2.html

Oh, *that* guy. Okay, thanks.

> >> My question is this: How do I determine what content actually "qualifies
> >> for website status"?
> >
> > Wait a bit longer for group opinion to form an obvious consensus?
> > Or use a poll, like jay suggested? And perhaps if the group really
> > wants a list like this, one could use what Mordechai posted as a
> > springboard of sorts and create a list based on group suggestions?
>
> I thought about the poll thing too. However, in order to vote on whether
> you like something or not, you have to actually read it. Do I put it on
> the site, ask people what they think, and then take it off again? Sorry.
> Not prepared to go to all that trouble, because I have to convert it to
> html, etc. And no, I don't use any html tools/editors - I do it by hand
> to keep the code "clean".

Hey, we're on the same page there -- I hate html editors!

> Or do we ask them to put it onto r.f.c. (which is text only - so it
> wouldn't cover everything)? If this is the case, *I* may not even see
> them, as there are days when I don't have time to look at r.f.c. either!
>
> And how long do we wait for the result? A week, a month? There are quite
> a few "regulars" on r.f.c., I know, but even some of them only catch up
> once a week or so and might miss the deadline for voting (or the post).
> Then if the vote didn't go in their favour, they are still going to moan
> about it - simply because they can. We are just cutting the tedious
> steps out of the process, and going straight to "moaning".
>
> I know, I know, lets vote on it !!!

You have many valid points. I guess I'd say this -- wait one day, see
if the majority is against it (which was not the case here), then put
it on the site. But that's just my opinion of course.

> > FYI, I'm not trying to be a bitch, Cathy -- AAMOF, I appreciate your
> > efforst in dealing with the group's site... :-)
>
> I know you are not trying to be a bitch, and I know a lot of people do
> appreciate it. At least you were "polite" when stating your view.

I try to be nice -- I spent my first few years on Usenet as a regular
in a flame group and I don't want to do that anymore.

> Other
> people (who will remain nick-less) are not quite so considerate.
>
> But the bottom line is this, no matter what I do, or do not, put on the
> site, there will always be someone moaning about something... For those
> who violently disagree, there are many options to add your 2 cents worth
> to the web. Starting a MySpace page is just one of them

*Ahem* I know that's not aimed at me... ;-)

--
"Little Malice" is Jani in WA
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~