There is a website for classic recipes http://galley.belleisleships.com/
1,500 plus classic recipes, dating back to the 1800's.

swordman56 wrote:
> There is a website for classic recipes
> http://galley.belleisleships.com/ 1,500 plus classic recipes, dating
> back to the 1800's.

There are a gazzillion of those. Why should we visit this one? In fact,
why can't we just find them on our own. In the words of W.C. Fields (look
him up) "Go away boy, you bother me".

Jill

On Mar 31, 9:57 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:

>
> There are a gazzillion of those. Why should we visit this one? In fact,
> why can't we just find them on our own. In the words of W.C. Fields (look
> him up) "Go away boy, you bother me".
>
> Jill


Why be rude? I see no harm in posting a new link. Or am I missing
something?

~Eri in TX (who hasn't had a chance to post lately)

Abe wrote:
>> What got me is the recipe for Jewish cabbage rolls that calls for both
>> ground beef and milk. Classic? I think not!
>>
>> You should check out the quality and authenticity of the recipes
>> before posting a link to them. It's that simple.


> Not you, sorry, but the OP.

I didn't check this out, but I thought is was funny and I am thinking
"Hash Matzoh". )


<http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL2857645120070328?feedType=RSS>


A Happy and Sweet Passover to all.

Felines&Fuzzbutts wrote:
> On Mar 31, 9:57 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>>
>> There are a gazzillion of those. Why should we visit this one? In
>> fact, why can't we just find them on our own. In the words of W.C.
>> Fields (look him up) "Go away boy, you bother me".
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> Why be rude? I see no harm in posting a new link. Or am I missing
> something?
>
> ~Eri in TX (who hasn't had a chance to post lately)

Okay, I apologize. I was unpardonably rude. But why would a group of
people participating in a cooking newsgroup need a link to yet another bunch
of recipes? We're (most of us) perfectly capable of Googling for recipes if
we can't find them here without upping someone's website hits counter or
potential SPAM on the link.

It's like this person who showed up recently, perhaps you didn't see him/her
(sorry I forget the name, I k/f'd the person right off the bat). Every
post, every reply to every thread was "Do you cook Chinese food?" In reply
to my thread about using fresh mozzarella there's a reply "Do you cook
Chinese food?" and a link to their website where they SELL cook books (at
least in one post they *did* say they have them for sale so that was a no
brainer). But it's funny, I've never had fresh mozzarella in any Chinese
dish I've eaten! I'm very, very suspicious of newbies who pop in here
posting links about recipes. We rarely ever see them again, either, so why
encourage them?

Jill

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 08:46:15 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>I'm very, very suspicious of newbies who pop in here
>posting links about recipes. We rarely ever see them again, either, so why
>encourage them?

I'm associating the newest influx of undesirable posters directly with
the "mirror" of rfc that was discussed here recently.

--
See return address to reply by email

jmcquown wrote on 01 Apr 2007 in rec.food.cooking

> Okay, I apologize. I was unpardonably rude.

I didn't find you rude....I'd of told the bugger to F off. I believe the
poster of the link was rude,,,Barging in with an attempt of selling me crap
I neither want or need with just a link to a measlely 1500 recipes. Hell
real recipes sites carry well over that small amount...Hell even my
personal recipe webpage carries close to that.

Insulting my intelligence plus being pushie about it equals asshole in my
books. You may quote me on that.

Water...Never drink the stuff ...Bends a straight stick...WC Fields.

I hear you burried your wife...I had to she died... WC Fields.

sf wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 08:46:15 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
> > I'm very, very suspicious of newbies who pop in here
> > posting links about recipes. We rarely ever see them again,
> > either, so why encourage them?
>
> I'm associating the newest influx of undesirable posters directly with
> the "mirror" of rfc that was discussed here recently.

Not this particular one, it was posted via Google Groups.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 08:46:15 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm very, very suspicious of newbies who pop in here
>> posting links about recipes. We rarely ever see them again, either, so why
>> encourage them?
>
> I'm associating the newest influx of undesirable posters directly with
> the "mirror" of rfc that was discussed here recently.
>

Well.. the problem isn't helped either by all the trash and OT navel
contemplation that some regulars here also post. It gives the impression
of "anything is appropriate" when in fact it is not.

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 08:46:15 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm very, very suspicious of newbies who pop in here
>> posting links about recipes. We rarely ever see them again, either,
>> so why encourage them?
>
> I'm associating the newest influx of undesirable posters directly with
> the "mirror" of rfc that was discussed here recently.

Entirely possible. No reason to mirror this site, that's for sure.

Goomba38 wrote:


> sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 08:46:15 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> I'm very, very suspicious of newbies who pop in here
> >> posting links about recipes. We rarely ever see them again, either, so why
> >> encourage them?
>
> > I'm associating the newest influx of undesirable posters directly with
> > the "mirror" of rfc that was discussed here recently.
>
> Well.. the problem isn't helped either by all the trash and OT navel
> contemplation that some regulars here also post. It gives the impression
> of "anything is appropriate" when in fact it is not.


Of course a problem with these noobie junk posters is that a number of
folks have to pile on and respond, "OH, this is SPAM!", etc. Then we
all have to waste time wading through the responses/threads. I'm not
pointing fingers, I've done it at times in the past myself...so I'm
just sayin'.

['course in this thread I guess I am adding to the "problem"...lol...]

As if it's not bad enuf we also have "junk" posters who fancy
themselves regulars here too, e.g. "Joe Sparebedroom", "ShaunRe",
"cyberTWOT", "Barry", etc. Or noobie idjits who don't have the brain
cells to rub together in order to figger out how to make a smaller
amount of brown rice, etc., etc....

<whatever/>

My rule of thumb about clicking on links is that I'll only click on
links provided by regular posters, you know who you are...I'm happy to
see food or cat pix or whatever. Anything else I'll normally pass
right on by...*without* comment. I'm perfectly able to discern spam
posts for myself...recipe "links" I DON'T need.



--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
>
> Of course a problem with these noobie junk posters

Greggie, Greggie, Greggie. A man your age and your weight,
especially with a face like yours, should NOT use prepubescent
terms like this. Makes you look like even more of an ass than you
are.

No, wait, that is not possible.

On Apr 1, 1:18 am, Abe > wrote:
> >What got me is the recipe for Jewish cabbage rolls that calls for both
> >ground beef and milk. Classic? I think not!
>
> >You should check out the quality and authenticity of the recipes
> >before posting a link to them. It's that simple.
>
> Not you, sorry, but the OP.

The problem is that we have litteraly been dumped with over 3,000
recipes all at one time and are just a little overloaded as far as
trying to correct all the errors. Because the majority of these
recipes have been around longer then you probably have we are trying
to honor the creator and keep the original name, how it was obtained,
etc... and unfortunately people were not alway careful in how they
named things decades ago.

There is a forums area to report errors, but no, instead of helping
out, you choose to blast us in another location. Who checks the
validity of recipes posted here?

Fortunately there are are plenty of readers here that do not feel the
same way you do.

On Apr 1, 9:46 am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> Felines&Fuzzbutts wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 9:57 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> >> There are a gazzillion of those. Why should we visit this one? In
> >> fact, why can't we just find them on our own. In the words of W.C.
> >> Fields (look him up) "Go away boy, you bother me".
>
> >> Jill
>
> > Why be rude? I see no harm in posting a new link. Or am I missing
> > something?
>
> > ~Eri in TX (who hasn't had a chance to post lately)
>
> Okay, I apologize. I was unpardonably rude. But why would a group of
> people participating in a cooking newsgroup need a link to yet another bunch
> of recipes? We're (most of us) perfectly capable of Googling for recipes if
> we can't find them here without upping someone's website hits counter or
> potential SPAM on the link.
>
> It's like this person who showed up recently, perhaps you didn't see him/her
> (sorry I forget the name, I k/f'd the person right off the bat). Every
> post, every reply to every thread was "Do you cook Chinese food?" In reply
> to my thread about using fresh mozzarella there's a reply "Do you cook
> Chinese food?" and a link to their website where they SELL cook books (at
> least in one post they *did* say they have them for sale so that was a no
> brainer). But it's funny, I've never had fresh mozzarella in any Chinese
> dish I've eaten! I'm very, very suspicious of newbies who pop in here
> posting links about recipes. We rarely ever see them again, either, so why
> encourage them?
>
> Jill

Well, if the site was dedicated to recipes from the 1800's, I could
see the point. But unfortunately, s/he seems to have _some_ recipes
dating back that far, and the rest? Yet another not particularly well-
designed archive.

maxine in ri