From Felice:

"Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
posters?
And why?

If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as if
you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't complain
if it's a telemarketer.

I don't even open posts, let alone links, from people I don't recognize. I
wait for someone else to do the honors and then check out the reply. (It
worked this time; I never saw the original message but I've enjoyed all the
brouhaha it's caused!)

Felice"

What the phuque is happening to this NG?

Kent

One time on Usenet, "Kent" > said:
> From Felice:
>
> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
> posters?
> And why?
>
> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as if
> you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't complain
> if it's a telemarketer.
>
> I don't even open posts, let alone links, from people I don't recognize. I
> wait for someone else to do the honors and then check out the reply. (It
> worked this time; I never saw the original message but I've enjoyed all the
> brouhaha it's caused!)
>
> Felice"
>
> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>
> Kent

Good question! Used to be that people in RFC knew how to quote...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Jani in WA

In article >,
"Kent" > wrote:

> From Felice:
>
> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
> posters?
> And why?
>
> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as if
> you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't complain
> if it's a telemarketer.

Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone
numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of
reasons.

> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>
> Kent

Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking
have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't
nearly what it is now.

Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.

In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their
personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their
veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.

Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where
you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have
said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going
to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.

Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.

Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can
say anything to family.

Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not
belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile
it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the
'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.

It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the
part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I
do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out ‹ you just stop
replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show
because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at
your door and punch your lights out.

Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because
they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so
well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your
"friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer
questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have
always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in
opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.

I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something
it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.

-Barb

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kent" > wrote:
>
>> From Felice:
>>
>> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>> posters?
>> And why?
>>
>> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as
>> if
>> you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't
>> complain
>> if it's a telemarketer.
>
> Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone
> numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of
> reasons.
>
>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>>
>> Kent
>
> Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking
> have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't
> nearly what it is now.
>
> Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.
>
> In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their
> personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their
> veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.
>
> Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where
> you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have
> said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going
> to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.
>
> Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.
>
> Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can
> say anything to family.
>
> Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not
> belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile
> it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the
> 'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.
>
> It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the
> part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I
> do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out < you just stop
> replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show
> because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at
> your door and punch your lights out.
>
> Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because
> they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so
> well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your
> "friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer
> questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have
> always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in
> opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.
>
> I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something
> it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.
>

I am so sad for people who cannot be happy unless things are the way
they think they SHOULD be. I mean this sincerely.

Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
it for years are now more savvy.

There have always been Topic Police and offtopic posters, and the
ensuing conflicts, among other things, gave birth to people who responded
to attempts to control the free-for-all with a hearty, "Well, if an offtopic
post bothered you THAT much, how do you like this?"

People like you like to call such people "trolls."

In any case, nothing has changed. I'm willing to bet you and Goomba and
others who feel the same way were singing the same tune in your first
month on Usenet.

If you want moderation, go to a moderated group. If you want a
free-for-all, Usenet is for you.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> ObFood: Leftover king crab leg, leftover shrimp, leftover menudo,
> leftover salad, leftover rice, and leftover barbacoa for dinner.
>
> -sw

Are they all left over from the same meal? Prolly not, huh?

I'm thawing a bag of frozen uncooked shrimp. I'm thinking Shrimp Creole
for dinner, using this recipe:

Shrimp Creole
posted to rec.food.cookiing by Barb Schaller, 12/10/2007.

From my trusty Betty Crocker "Dinner For Two" cookbook, copyright 1964.
I used this book a LOT before we had kids. Now I'm back to it again for
some old favorites.

€3/4 cup chopped onion, (1 medium)
€ 1 clove garlic, minced or pressed
€ 1 medium green pepper, finely chopped
€ 1/2 cup finely chopped celery
€ 2 tablespoons butter
€ 8 ounce can tomato sauce
€ 1/2 cup water
€ 1 bay leaf, crushed
€ 1 teaspoon minced fresh parsley
€ 1/2 teaspoon salt
€ scant 1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper
€ 1 7-ounce package frozen shrimp, thawed

€ Fluffy white rice

In medium skillet, sauté onion, garlic, green pepper, and celery in
butter about 5 minutes or until tender.

Remove from heat; stir in tomato sauce, water, bay leaf, parsley, salt,
and pepper. Simmer 10 minutes, adding additional water if needed.

Add thawed shrimp; bring to boil and cook covered over medium heat for 5
minutes.

Serve Shrimp Creole over white rice.

Makes 2 generous servings.
Notes: I've been making this since 1966. Is it "authentic?" Heck if I
know.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007

cybercat wrote:
> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Kent" > wrote:
>>
>>> From Felice:
>>>
>>> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>>> posters?
>>> And why?
>>>
>>> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as
>>> if
>>> you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't
>>> complain
>>> if it's a telemarketer.
>> Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone
>> numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of
>> reasons.
>>
>>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>>>
>>> Kent
>> Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking
>> have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't
>> nearly what it is now.
>>
>> Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.
>>
>> In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their
>> personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their
>> veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.
>>
>> Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where
>> you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have
>> said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going
>> to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.
>>
>> Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.
>>
>> Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can
>> say anything to family.
>>
>> Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not
>> belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile
>> it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the
>> 'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.
>>
>> It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the
>> part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I
>> do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out < you just stop
>> replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show
>> because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at
>> your door and punch your lights out.
>>
>> Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because
>> they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so
>> well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your
>> "friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer
>> questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have
>> always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in
>> opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.
>>
>> I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something
>> it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.
>>
>
> I am so sad for people who cannot be happy unless things are the way
> they think they SHOULD be. I mean this sincerely.
>
> Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
> always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> it for years are now more savvy.
>
> There have always been Topic Police and offtopic posters, and the
> ensuing conflicts, among other things, gave birth to people who responded
> to attempts to control the free-for-all with a hearty, "Well, if an offtopic
> post bothered you THAT much, how do you like this?"
>
> People like you like to call such people "trolls."
>
> In any case, nothing has changed. I'm willing to bet you and Goomba and
> others who feel the same way were singing the same tune in your first
> month on Usenet.
>
> If you want moderation, go to a moderated group. If you want a
> free-for-all, Usenet is for you.
>
>
>
Love-15.

Silence, ladies and gentlemen, please.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

On Dec 10, 8:38 am, Melba's Jammin' >
wrote:
>
> Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking
> have moved on. [snip the rest for brevity, agreeing with it for the most part]

When I am looking for suggestions or advice about a cooking topic now,
I often use the "search this group" function and read the old posts
first. Much better signal to noise content than initiating a new post
nowadays. Sometimes when I'm bored I just search for "Shankar" or
"Kaye" and read whatever pops up. When I'm *really* bored I search
under "Penmart" for a good laugh. -aem

On Dec 10, 11:21 am, aem > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 8:38 am, Melba's Jammin' >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking
> > have moved on. [snip the rest for brevity, agreeing with it for the most part]
>
> When I am looking for suggestions or advice about a cooking topic now,
> I often use the "search this group" function and read the old posts
> first. Much better signal to noise content than initiating a new post
> nowadays. Sometimes when I'm bored I just search for "Shankar" or
> "Kaye" and read whatever pops up. When I'm *really* bored I search
> under "Penmart" for a good laugh. -aem

Sorry for the typo. Meant to write I search for "Kay Hartman." -
aem

On Dec 9, 9:11�pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:16:15 -0800, Kent wrote:
> > What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>
> You're not keeping us in line like you should be, Kent.
>
> ObFood: Leftover king crab leg, leftover shrimp, leftover menudo,
> leftover salad, leftover rice, and leftover barbacoa for dinner.
>
> -sw

How is it possible to have LO menudo??? YUMMMM

Rosie

One time on Usenet, aem > said:
> On Dec 10, 11:21 am, aem > wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 8:38 am, Melba's Jammin' >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking
> > > have moved on. [snip the rest for brevity, agreeing with it for the most
> part]
> >
> > When I am looking for suggestions or advice about a cooking topic now,
> > I often use the "search this group" function and read the old posts
> > first. Much better signal to noise content than initiating a new post
> > nowadays. Sometimes when I'm bored I just search for "Shankar" or
> > "Kaye" and read whatever pops up. When I'm *really* bored I search
> > under "Penmart" for a good laugh. -aem
>
> Sorry for the typo. Meant to write I search for "Kay Hartman." -
> aem

I knew who you meant. I was lucky enough to be reading when they were
still posting. We still have a lot of knowledgable folks here
though...

--
Jani in WA

In article >,
"cybercat" > wrote:

> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
(Barb's opinions snipped)

> Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
> always been.

Are you sure it has always been a free-for-all? I don't think so.

> It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> it for years are now more savvy.

It has changed considerably. There are more computer users and maybe
more posters. There is no way to know if the number of lurkers has
increased. That there are more computer users is no guarantee that they
are savvy about proper and improper use of them. The advent of the
World Wide Web on the internet changed computer use dramatically and
made all these wonderful things available to damn near anyone who wanted
to partake but didn't quite know how.

> In any case, nothing has changed. I'm willing to bet you and Goomba and
> others who feel the same way were singing the same tune in your first
> month on Usenet.

Bet, huh? What's your wager?

> If you want moderation, go to a moderated group. If you want a
> free-for-all, Usenet is for you.

If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a
free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking
used to be more civilized * neither a free-for-all nor a moderated
group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity
and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either.
There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the
"savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such
questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.

Kent asked why the group has gone to shit. I gave him my opinion and my
reasons. Would I like it to be my way? Sure ‹ I'm a benevolent
dictator. <grin>
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:38:44 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
(Barb's opinions snipped)
> This is better presented than any of the numerous rants I've
> initiated over the years.
>
> Is that marriage offer still good?
>
> -sw

Sure, if you don't tell my husband. "-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:


>If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a
>free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking
>used to be more civilized * neither a free-for-all nor a moderated
>group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity
>and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either.
>There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the
>"savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such
>questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.

You can see this to be true if you google back to the early to mid 90s
for rfc. I have done this, and it was no where like this in those
days. Some terrific posters posting then...

I remember a time, maybe in 95 or so, when Ninette Enrique posted
about her pregnancy. It prompted an outcry about being off topic.
This type of post (about her pregnancy) was out of the ordinary in
this group. I simply don't remember off topic posts then, and it is
proven out by googling the posts back then. Same for name calling,
etc.

So take a look back to the earlier days of rfc, those of you who think
that it has always been a free-for-all.... It can be rather
enlightening.

Christine

One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
> The message >
> from "cybercat" > contains these words:

> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > it for years are now more savvy.
>
> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> how much it has changed for the worse.

I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading
before then knows how much that changed things...

--
Jani in WA

On Dec 10, 5:42 pm, Christine Dabney > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>
> > wrote:
> >If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a
> >free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking
> >used to be more civilized - neither a free-for-all nor a moderated
> >group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity
> >and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either.
> >There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the
> >"savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such
> >questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.
>
> You can see this to be true if you google back to the early to mid 90s
> for rfc. I have done this, and it was no where like this in those
> days. Some terrific posters posting then...
>
> I remember a time, maybe in 95 or so, when Ninette Enrique posted
> about her pregnancy. It prompted an outcry about being off topic.
> This type of post (about her pregnancy) was out of the ordinary in
> this group. I simply don't remember off topic posts then, and it is
> proven out by googling the posts back then. Same for name calling,
> etc.
>
> So take a look back to the earlier days of rfc, those of you who think
> that it has always been a free-for-all.... It can be rather
> enlightening.

The Golden Age of Usenet is over. That said:
Back in 1998, alt.punk had 149,341 posts, quite a few more than this
NG, but curiously, rfc had its biggest year, # of posts wise, in 2006,
with a whopping 166,513 posts.
>
> Christine

--Bryan

On Dec 10, 6:42 pm, Christine Dabney > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>
> > wrote:
> >If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a
> >free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking
> >used to be more civilized - neither a free-for-all nor a moderated
> >group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity
> >and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either.
> >There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the
> >"savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such
> >questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.
>
> You can see this to be true if you google back to the early to mid 90s
> for rfc. I have done this, and it was no where like this in those
> days. Some terrific posters posting then...
>
> I remember a time, maybe in 95 or so, when Ninette Enrique posted
> about her pregnancy. It prompted an outcry about being off topic.
> This type of post (about her pregnancy) was out of the ordinary in
> this group. I simply don't remember off topic posts then, and it is
> proven out by googling the posts back then. Same for name calling,
> etc.
>
> So take a look back to the earlier days of rfc, those of you who think
> that it has always been a free-for-all.... It can be rather
> enlightening.
>
> Christine

As someone who has used USENET from the beginning, I am one who
remembers the early days of rfc. Obviously times have channged, for
better or worse, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I
think the primary difference is that prior to the web, usenet news was
there primarily as way to share information, not to socialize. When
the web became a major source for searching for answers to questions,
many news groups turned into places for expressing opinions. And as
most of you know, RFC turned into more of a free for all than most...
The majority of the groups I frequent are still 99% on topic. The
bottom line is that the usual suspects (you know who you are) can
continue incessant bitching and moaning in ongoing off topic posts, or
you make the effort to restore this group to some approximation of
what it once was.

The choice is yours...

...fred

In article >,
Melba's Jammin' > wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> > ObFood: Leftover king crab leg, leftover shrimp, leftover menudo,
> > leftover salad, leftover rice, and leftover barbacoa for dinner.
> >
> > -sw
>
> Are they all left over from the same meal? Prolly not, huh?
>
> I'm thawing a bag of frozen uncooked shrimp. I'm thinking Shrimp Creole
> for dinner, using this recipe:

(recipe snipped)
It was a terrific dinner. Broccoli and brown rice instead of white rice
accompanied and I had goo intentions about a salad but then said to hell
with it. The shrimp I had were very good, IMO (I'm not especially a
connoisseur). They'd been prepped for easy peeling and they were.
They were tender and succulent ‹ poifect to me.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007

"kuvasz guy" > wrote
> The majority of the groups I frequent are still 99% on topic. The
> bottom line is that the usual suspects (you know who you are) can
> continue incessant bitching and moaning in ongoing off topic posts, or
> you make the effort to restore this group to some approximation of
> what it once was.
>
> The choice is yours...
>

Absolutely.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article
>,
kuvasz guy > wrote:

> I think the primary difference is that prior to the web, usenet news
> was there primarily as way to share information, not to socialize.

> ..fred

Thanks -- that's what I was trying to express; you did a much better job.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007

"Little Malice" > wrote in message
...
> One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
>> The message >
>> from "cybercat" > contains these words:
>
>> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it
>> > has
>> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
>> > it for years are now more savvy.
>>
>> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
>> how much it has changed for the worse.
>
> I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading
> before then knows how much that changed things...
>
I began reading in 1994. When did the AOL thing start?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Kent" > scripsit in
:

> What the phuque is happening to this NG?

This question has been asked at least twice a year since I started
on this group back in 1991 (as a lurker as I had so little
connection time). Plus çà change, plus c'est la même chose.

Oh pshaw, on Mon 10 Dec 2007 09:38:44a, Melba's Jammin' meant to say...

> In article >,
> "Kent" > wrote:
>
>> From Felice:
>>
>> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>> posters? And why?
>>
>> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just
>> as if you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you
>> shouldn't complain if it's a telemarketer.
>
> Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone
> numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of
> reasons.
>
>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>>
>> Kent
>
> Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking
> have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't
> nearly what it is now.
>
> Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.
>
> In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their
> personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their
> veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.
>
> Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where
> you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have
> said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going
> to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.
>
> Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.
>
> Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can
> say anything to family.
>
> Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not
> belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile
> it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the
> 'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.
>
> It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the
> part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I
> do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out ‹ you just stop
> replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show
> because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at
> your door and punch your lights out.
>
> Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because
> they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so
> well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your
> "friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer
> questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have
> always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in
> opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.
>
> I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something
> it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.
>
> -Barb
>

Very well stated, Barb.

--
Wayne Boatwright

Date: Mon, 12/10/2007

*******************************************
Countdown 'til Christmas
2wks 18hrs 15mins 55secs
*******************************************
If it weren't for lawyers, I think we
could have invented a universal
symbolic representation of reality.

Janet Baraclough wrote:

> The message >
> from "cybercat" > contains these words:
>
> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > it for years are now more savvy.
>
> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> how much it has changed for the worse.


I'm a Usenet newbie (10 years) and the decline in the quality of posts
and posters has been really steep, some formerly great groups barely
register anymore...

Interestingly, the same, "Why is this group dying?" topic has been
discussed on groups as diverse as alt.autos.studebakers and
alt.gossip.celebrities during the past week...and shortly before that
it was bandied about on rec.travel.europe.


--
Best
Greg

On Dec 10, 5:56 pm, (Little Malice) wrote:
> One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
>
> > The message >
> > from "cybercat" > contains these words:
> > > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
> > > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > > it for years are now more savvy.
>
> > Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> > how much it has changed for the worse.
>
> I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway.


Let's not forget WebTV...

;-)


--
Best
Greg former WebTV'er

cybercat queries:

> "Little Malice" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
> >> The message >
> >> from "cybercat" > contains these words:
>
> >> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it
> >> > has
> >> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> >> > it for years are now more savvy.
>
> >> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> >> how much it has changed for the worse.
>
> > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading
> > before then knows how much that changed things...
>
> I began reading in 1994. When did the AOL thing start?


It's questions like this that makes me think that you are either
really stupid or simply a troll...

FYI AOL'ers got access to Usenet in 1997 IIRC, as did WebTVer's...

HTH...hand.

:-)



--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to
claim that we are some kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

"Michel" > wrote in message
1...
> "Kent" > scripsit in
> :
>
>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>
> This question has been asked at least twice a year since I started
> on this group back in 1991 (as a lurker as I had so little
> connection time). Plus çà change, plus c'est la même chose.

This was my point. Some people are annoyed by OT posts, I am annoyed
by the stock old timers whining about the good old days and how the
group has gone to hell.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Melba's Jammin' > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>> > ObFood: Leftover king crab leg, leftover shrimp, leftover menudo,
>> > leftover salad, leftover rice, and leftover barbacoa for dinner.
>> >
>> > -sw
>>
>> Are they all left over from the same meal? Prolly not, huh?
>>
>> I'm thawing a bag of frozen uncooked shrimp. I'm thinking Shrimp Creole
>> for dinner, using this recipe:
>
> (recipe snipped)
> It was a terrific dinner. Broccoli and brown rice instead of white rice
> accompanied and I had goo intentions about a salad but then said to hell
> with it. The shrimp I had were very good, IMO (I'm not especially a
> connoisseur). They'd been prepped for easy peeling and they were.
> They were tender and succulent < poifect to me.

It was le' leftovers at our house. There was dinner at Mama's this weekend
for the Deacons of our church and she had so much food leftover we went and
leftovered for dinner at her house last night and we brought plenty for
dinner tonight. Tomorrow though it's something different. The leftovers are
done for me.

Cindi

> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
> Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
> http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:08:11 -0800 (PST), Bobo Bonobo(R) wrote:
>
>> rfc had its biggest year, # of posts wise, in 2006,
>> with a whopping 166,513 posts.
>
> 2007 isn't over yet.
>

I wonder, in comparison to 2006, how many of RFCs total posts for 2007 were
spam, shams, and/or cross-posted political/religious rants. Just wondering.

Cindi

> -sw

"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:08:11 -0800 (PST), Bobo Bonobo(R) wrote:
>>
>>> rfc had its biggest year, # of posts wise, in 2006,
>>> with a whopping 166,513 posts.
>>
>> 2007 isn't over yet.
>>
>
> I wonder, in comparison to 2006, how many of RFCs total posts for 2007
> were spam, shams, and/or cross-posted political/religious rants. Just
> wondering.
>
> Cindi
>
>> -sw
>


Yes, I wonder.

Let it be known here that I am ashamed of any reply that I have given to
those people's postings who use any reason to slam politicians,
governments, groups or religions.

Replying to them makes me look as pathetic as I feel they are.

Stupid is as stupid does,
Dee Dee

One time on Usenet, "cybercat" > said:
>
> "Little Malice" > wrote in message
> ...
> > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
> >> The message >
> >> from "cybercat" > contains these words:
> >
> >> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it
> >> > has
> >> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> >> > it for years are now more savvy.
> >>
> >> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> >> how much it has changed for the worse.
> >
> > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading
> > before then knows how much that changed things...
> >
> I began reading in 1994. When did the AOL thing start?

Before that -- I'm thinking '92 or '93, but my memory isn't always the
best...

--
Jani in WA

One time on Usenet, Gregory Morrow > said:
> On Dec 10, 5:56 pm, (Little Malice) wrote:
> > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
> >
> > > The message >
> > > from "cybercat" > contains these words:
> > > > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
> > > > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > > > it for years are now more savvy.
> >
> > > Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> > > how much it has changed for the worse.
> >
> > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway.
>
>
> Let's not forget WebTV...
>
> ;-)

I'm trying to, really I am... ;-)

--
Jani in WA

"Little Malice" > wrote
> Before that -- I'm thinking '92 or '93, but my memory isn't always the
> best...
>
Maybe I missed the Good Old Days of Usenet. I was still in college then.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:08:11 -0800 (PST), Bobo Bonobo(R) wrote:
>>
>>> rfc had its biggest year, # of posts wise, in 2006,
>>> with a whopping 166,513 posts.
>>
>> 2007 isn't over yet.
>>
>
> I wonder, in comparison to 2006, how many of RFCs total posts for 2007
> were spam, shams, and/or cross-posted political/religious rants. Just
> wondering.
>

These things never bother me. I filter. Anyone who has been on Usenet for
even a few months who does not use a killfile or filter deserves what they
get.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Little Malice wrote:

> One time on Usenet, Gregory Morrow > said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 5:56 pm, (Little Malice) wrote:
> > > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
>
> > > > The message >
> > > > from "cybercat" > contains these words:
> > > > > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has
> > > > > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > > > > it for years are now more savvy.
>
> > > > Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> > > > how much it has changed for the worse.
>
> > > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> > > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway.
>
> > Let's not forget WebTV...
>
> > ;-)
>
> I'm trying to, really I am... ;-)


Well, I had the thing for three years in the late 90's...it was LOTSA
fun to throw that unit and it's shabby keyboard down the garbage
chute.

The "interesting" thing is that Microsoft - owned WebTV, now known as
"MSN TV" *still* provides Usenet for it's customers, but the MSN ISP
(or is it just a mail service now?) dropped Usenet years ago...

There are still some clueless WebTVer's around, I'm thinking
specifically of the infamous Maryanne "Loafhead" Kehoe...


--
Best
Greg

Little Malice wrote:

> One time on Usenet, "cybercat" > said:
>
>
> > "Little Malice" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
> > >> The message >
> > >> from "cybercat" > contains these words:
>
> > >> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it
> > >> > has
> > >> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > >> > it for years are now more savvy.
>
> > >> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> > >> how much it has changed for the worse.
>
> > > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> > > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading
> > > before then knows how much that changed things...
>
> > I began reading in 1994. When did the AOL thing start?
>
> Before that -- I'm thinking '92 or '93, but my memory isn't always the
> best...



It was '93:

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/S...ver-ended.html

"September that never ended

All time since September 1993. One of the seasonal rhythms of the
Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who,
lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of
themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their
first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn
what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be
assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users
became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers'
capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the
period before, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of
discussions on newsgroups. Syn: eternal September."


--
Best
Greg

cyberOVUM wrote:

> "Little Malice" > wrote> Before that -- I'm thinking '92 or '93, but my memory isn't always the
> > best...
>
> Maybe I missed the Good Old Days of Usenet. I was still in college then.
>


Wow, still young and fertile I see...


;-P


--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to
claim that we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
...
> cyberOVUM wrote:
>
>> "Little Malice" > wrote> Before that -- I'm
>> thinking '92 or '93, but my memory isn't always the
>> > best...
>>
>> Maybe I missed the Good Old Days of Usenet. I was still in college then.
>>
>
>
> Wow, still young and fertile I see...
>
>
> ;-P
>
>
> --

Stop leering at me, you nutbag. I am not young, I was just in school late.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"cybercat" > scripsit in
:

> "Michel" > wrote in message
> 1...
>> "Kent" > scripsit in
>> :
>>
>>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>>
>> This question has been asked at least twice a year since I
>> started on this group back in 1991 (as a lurker as I had so
>> little connection time). Plus çà change, plus c'est la même
>> chose.
>
> This was my point. Some people are annoyed by OT posts, I am
> annoyed by the stock old timers whining about the good old
> days and how the group has gone to hell.

Those aren't all old timers. They've been here a few years (and in
same cases only months) and think they know it all.

They're the same sort as those who have heard of "trolls" and think
they can apply that to people whose posts they just don't like, as
if their opinion is as bright as the sun they think shines out
their ass.

There is only one reality, and some find it hard to accept. And it
is this:

"This is an unmoderated newsgroup."

You takes the bad wif the good.

Can we all say "un-mo-de-ra-ted"? I knew we could.

One time on Usenet, Gregory Morrow > said:
> Little Malice wrote:
> > One time on Usenet, Gregory Morrow > said:
> > > On Dec 10, 5:56 pm, (Little Malice) wrote:
> > > > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
> > > > > The message >
> > > > > from "cybercat" > contains these words:

> > > > > > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it
> has
> > > > > > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > > > > > it for years are now more savvy.
> >
> > > > > Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> > > > > how much it has changed for the worse.
> >
> > > > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> > > > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway.
> >
> > > Let's not forget WebTV...
> >
> > > ;-)
> >
> > I'm trying to, really I am... ;-)
>
>
> Well, I had the thing for three years in the late 90's...it was LOTSA
> fun to throw that unit and it's shabby keyboard down the garbage
> chute.

I never had one, but I *was* an AOL user for a bit. Then a cow-orker
told me about our local ISP. To say it was an improvement would be an
understatement.

> The "interesting" thing is that Microsoft - owned WebTV, now known as
> "MSN TV" *still* provides Usenet for it's customers, but the MSN ISP
> (or is it just a mail service now?) dropped Usenet years ago...
>
> There are still some clueless WebTVer's around, I'm thinking
> specifically of the infamous Maryanne "Loafhead" Kehoe...

You are? Why, trying to diet..? ;-)

--
Jani in WA

One time on Usenet, Gregory Morrow > said:
> Little Malice wrote:
>
> > One time on Usenet, "cybercat" > said:
> >
> >
> > > "Little Malice" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough > said:
> > > >> The message >
> > > >> from "cybercat" > contains these words:
> >
> > > >> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it
> > > >> > has
> > > >> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used
> > > >> > it for years are now more savvy.
> >
> > > >> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of
> > > >> how much it has changed for the worse.
> >
> > > > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all".
> > > > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading
> > > > before then knows how much that changed things...
> >
> > > I began reading in 1994. When did the AOL thing start?
> >
> > Before that -- I'm thinking '92 or '93, but my memory isn't always the
> > best...
>
>
>
> It was '93:
>
> http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/S...ver-ended.html
>
> "September that never ended
>
> All time since September 1993. One of the seasonal rhythms of the
> Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who,
> lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of
> themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their
> first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn
> what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be
> assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users
> became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers'
> capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the
> period before, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of
> discussions on newsgroups. Syn: eternal September."

Yeah, "Eternal September"! That phrase was hiding in the back of my
mind. Thanks, Greg.

ObFood: DH & DS want *shudder* jarred spaghetti sauce tonight. I
really hate that stuff, but whatever makes them happy. Personally, I
prefer tomato sauce with ground beef, onions, Worchestershire,
garlic, and chili powder, like my mom used to make...

--
Jani in WA