If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't
mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
replies.

Unless the point is to flood out all the other discussions, or just to
get attention. (in which case, carry on.)

Thanks,
Bob

zxcvbob wrote:
>
> If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
> once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
> reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't
> mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
> hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
> replies.

And if you've never even tried the recipe, don't post it,
unless it's in response to someone asking for that recipe.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:52:43 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
>once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
>reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't
>mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
>hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
>replies.
>
>Unless the point is to flood out all the other discussions, or just to
>get attention. (in which case, carry on.)

He's posting the RFC cookbook from 2002. I'm glad, because I no
longer have my copy.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> He's posting the RFC cookbook from 2002. I'm glad, because I no
> longer have my copy.

I don't think the RFC cookbook is online anywhere, so maybe
it's a good idea to post the recipes. It's not as if you can buy
one any more.

nancy

FERRANTE wrote:
>>> Unless the point is to flood out all the other discussions, or just to
>>> get attention. (in which case, carry on.)
>
> I think it only adds to this NG. Recipes are the basis for most
> cooking and have a place here. All you have to do is bypass whatever
> you do not want to read.
>
> I enjoy their inclusion.
>
> Just my two-cents.
>
> Mark


Of course they have a place. All I asked is that collections of recipes
be put in one thread so it can be opened or collapsed rather than each
one in a new thread (crowding out all the discussion threads.)

Bob

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:52:43 -0600, zxcvbob >
> wrote:
>
> >If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
> >once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
> >reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't
> >mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
> >hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
> >replies.
> >
> >Unless the point is to flood out all the other discussions, or just to
> >get attention. (in which case, carry on.)
>
> He's posting the RFC cookbook from 2002. I'm glad, because I no
> longer have my copy.

I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish?
Would a new edition be worthwhile?

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

Nancy Young wrote:

> I don't think the RFC cookbook is online anywhere, so maybe
> it's a good idea to post the recipes. It's not as if you can buy
> one any more.

What if Rusty just compiled the book and built *one* PDF (or even a Word
file) with all the recipes in that document that could be downloaded as
needed from the RFC site? It would be pretty easy to add recipes to
later as well.

As it is, I've only seen a couple of recipes I might be interested in,
but for the most part I'm barely giving them a glance. Besides, unless I
make an active effort to copy and paste all of these, they'll be deleted
in 30 days as that's what I have Thunderbird set to do. I definitely
won't go to google groups to assemble it all later.

Hey, I applaud Rusty for taking it on, but this is just my .02¢ worth.

--Lin

>>Unless the point is to flood out all the other discussions, or just to
>>get attention. (in which case, carry on.)

I think it only adds to this NG. Recipes are the basis for most
cooking and have a place here. All you have to do is bypass whatever
you do not want to read.

I enjoy their inclusion.

Just my two-cents.

Mark

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
wrote:

>I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
>Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
>edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
>wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish?
>Would a new edition be worthwhile?
>
>Sky

The rfc cook.book was obviously a collaborative job, but Nancy Young
took point on the effort, I believe.
--

modom

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> FERRANTE wrote:
> >>> Unless the point is to flood out all the other discussions, or just to
> >>> get attention. (in which case, carry on.)
> >
> > I think it only adds to this NG. Recipes are the basis for most
> > cooking and have a place here. All you have to do is bypass whatever
> > you do not want to read.
> >
> > I enjoy their inclusion.
> >
> > Just my two-cents.
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> Of course they have a place. All I asked is that collections of recipes
> be put in one thread so it can be opened or collapsed rather than each
> one in a new thread (crowding out all the discussion threads.)
>
> Bob

Wuss.
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

Sky wrote:

>
> I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
> Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
> edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
> wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish?
> Would a new edition be worthwhile?
>


It was a hot topic of disagreement for a long time, so hot that I
wondered if it would ever be published. Many people put in countless
hours on the project, collecting recipes, editing, proofreading, finding
a printer, shipping, etc.

Want to be in charge of Volume II?

gloria p

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:19:16 -0600, "modom (palindrome guy)"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
>wrote:
>
>>I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
>>Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
>>edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
>>wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish?
>>Would a new edition be worthwhile?
>>
>>Sky
>
>The rfc cook.book was obviously a collaborative job, but Nancy Young
>took point on the effort, I believe.

And she swore never to do anything like that again.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
> wrote:
>
>> I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
>> Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
>> edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
>> wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to
>> accomplish? Would a new edition be worthwhile?

> The rfc cook.book was obviously a collaborative job, but Nancy Young
> took point on the effort, I believe.

Oh, I was just the treasurer and chief nag, that's what makes it
seem like I did more than anyone else. That book wouldn't have
happened if it was just me, that's for sure.

nancy

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 23:04:27 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
>>> Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
>>> edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
>>> wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to
>>> accomplish? Would a new edition be worthwhile?
>
>> The rfc cook.book was obviously a collaborative job, but Nancy Young
>> took point on the effort, I believe.
>
>Oh, I was just the treasurer and chief nag, that's what makes it
>seem like I did more than anyone else. That book wouldn't have
>happened if it was just me, that's for sure.
>
We all love it when you nag, Nancy.
--

modom

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
wrote:

>Would a new edition be worthwhile?

I seemed to be a lot of effort and I'm not interested anyway. Take
what's been posted lately and store in a file on your completer. I'm
sure if there are missing pages, the OP will post those. In fact, if
we ask her real nice, maybe Chatty Cathy will archive it on the web
site.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Mar 7, 2:52*pm, zxcvbob > wrote:
> If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
> once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
> reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) *I really don't
> mind people posting recipe. Honest! *But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
> hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
> replies.
>
> Unless the point is to flood out all the other discussions, or just to
> get attention. (in which case, carry on.)
>
> Thanks,
> Bob

Sorry if the posts caused any disruption. I will repost in one thread.
One page per post in the new thread. At the end I will also post the
index.

The thread may disappear from some servers in 30 day, but it should be
on Google Groups forever as a reference.

I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
each scan. Much easier than typing.

Rusty

Rusty wrote:

> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
> each scan. Much easier than typing.

Smart man! Proofread carefully though ... not sure about the reliability
stats with the OCR software you are using, but there was a time that
even with clean copy to scan the reliability was 85% at best. Still, it
beats the hell out of typing it all over again.

Carry on, Rusty!

--Lin

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
> wrote:
>
> >I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
> >Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
> >edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
> >wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish?
> >Would a new edition be worthwhile?
> >
> >Sky
>
> The rfc cook.book was obviously a collaborative job, but Nancy Young
> took point on the effort, I believe.
> --
>
> modom

Nancy collected the money. If Bubba Vic hadn't done the background work
I don't think it would have happened. And when no one volunteered to be
the official leader of the group, he kind of fell into it, as I recall.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
"What you say about someone else says more
about you than it does about the other person."

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:59:17 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>Of course they have a place. All I asked is that collections of recipes
>be put in one thread so it can be opened or collapsed rather than each
>one in a new thread (crowding out all the discussion threads.)

It seems that no matter what "one" does, someone else has a problem
with it - even when recipes are posted from an ancient rfc cookbook.

Like Lin, I haven't seen many (if any recipes) that interest me... but
since it's a big part of RFC history, I'd like to see it archived on
the rfc website.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
> wrote:

>I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
>switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
>each scan. Much easier than typing.

Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us...

> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty
> > wrote:
>
>>I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now
>>switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on
>>each scan. Much easier than typing.
>
> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap.
>
>

Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR
software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

> The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
>Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.

Huh! I have an HP 3210 all-in-one. I don't remember it coming with
OCR software - just looked, I don't see a convert option, so I guess
it doesn't have the software. Too bad. I could use it.

I'm over at HP right now checking up on drivers etc. Maybe I will
find the ocr software too.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:49:43p, sf told us...

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>> The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
>>Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.
>
> Huh! I have an HP 3210 all-in-one. I don't remember it coming with
> OCR software - just looked, I don't see a convert option, so I guess
> it doesn't have the software. Too bad. I could use it.
>
> I'm over at HP right now checking up on drivers etc. Maybe I will
> find the ocr software too.
>
>

My model is a 5510.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:54:52 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:49:43p, sf told us...
>
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
>>>Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.
>>
>> Huh! I have an HP 3210 all-in-one. I don't remember it coming with
>> OCR software - just looked, I don't see a convert option, so I guess
>> it doesn't have the software. Too bad. I could use it.
>>
>> I'm over at HP right now checking up on drivers etc. Maybe I will
>> find the ocr software too.
>
>My model is a 5510.

The online documentation for 3210xi says there's an OCR... but I'm not
seeing where to d/l it. It's available in the 64 bit pack, but I
don't see it in plain old XP. Oh, well.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:00:36a, sf told us...

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:54:52 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:49:43p, sf told us...
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my
>>>>Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.
>>>
>>> Huh! I have an HP 3210 all-in-one. I don't remember it coming with
>>> OCR software - just looked, I don't see a convert option, so I guess
>>> it doesn't have the software. Too bad. I could use it.
>>>
>>> I'm over at HP right now checking up on drivers etc. Maybe I will
>>> find the ocr software too.
>>
>>My model is a 5510.
>
> The online documentation for 3210xi says there's an OCR... but I'm not
> seeing where to d/l it. It's available in the 64 bit pack, but I
> don't see it in plain old XP. Oh, well.
>
>

It should be incorporated in the following driver bundle, even though it
isn't mentioned:

HP Photosmart Basic Print and Scan Driver
08-2006 7.0.1 - 45.27M

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

Lin wrote:

> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> I don't think the RFC cookbook is online anywhere, so maybe
>> it's a good idea to post the recipes. It's not as if you can buy
>> one any more.
>
> What if Rusty just compiled the book and built *one* PDF (or even a
> Word file) with all the recipes in that document that could be
> downloaded as needed from the RFC site? It would be pretty easy to add
> recipes to later as well.

I have no problem with putting them up on the RFC site - in PDF format
or whatever... If Rusty wants to email me - webmaster (at)
recfoodcooking (dot) com - maybe we can organize something between us.

BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
sort of word processing format - whatever?) IMHO, there must have been
something like that in order to have the cookbook printed in the first
place. If we could find those, it would save a lot of
typing/scanning...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Mar 8, 12:03*am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> Lin wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> I don't think the RFC cookbook is online anywhere, so maybe
> >> it's a good idea to post the recipes. *It's not as if you can buy
> >> one any more.
>
> > What if Rusty just compiled the book and built *one* PDF (or even a
> > Word file) with all the recipes in that document that could be
> > downloaded as needed from the RFC site? It would be pretty easy to add
> > recipes to later as well.
>
> I have no problem with putting them up on the RFC site - in PDF format
> or whatever... If Rusty wants to email me - webmaster (at)
> recfoodcooking (dot) com - maybe we can organize something between us.
>
> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
> sort of word processing format - whatever?) IMHO, there must have been
> something like that in order to have the cookbook printed in the first
> place. If we could find those, it would save a lot of
> typing/scanning...
> --
> Cheers *
> Chatty Cathy

Cathy,

I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows
Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all
the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have
completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could
dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page
files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5
or 10 pages a day.

Rusty

Rusty wrote:

>
> Cathy,
>
> I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows
> Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all
> the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have
> completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could
> dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page
> files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5
> or 10 pages a day.

Wordpad.rtf suits me just fine, thanks Rusty. Just zip 'em all up and
pass them on to me whenever you're finished. Many thanks for your
efforts, I appreciate it, as I am fairly sure a lot of other rfc-ers do
too.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:27:54 -0800 (PST), Rusty
> wrote:

>I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows
>Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all
>the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have
>completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could
>dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page
>files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5
>or 10 pages a day.
>
>Rusty

Thanks, Rusty... what was your posting name back then?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

loser zxcvbob wrote:
> If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
> once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
> reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't
> mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
> hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
> replies.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob


Of course you say thanks. Since this is most likely your way of getting
a free version of it without having to have had spent the paltry sum of
$11 or so Mr. cheapskate when it was originally released/published!

me

> wrote:

> loser zxcvbob wrote:
>> If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at
>> once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a
>> reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't
>> mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have
>> hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any
>> replies.
>
> Of course you say thanks. Since this is most likely your way of getting a
> free version of it without having to have had spent the paltry sum of $11
> or so Mr. cheapskate when it was originally released/published!

Heh.... Weren't all the recipes in the cookbook posted here before the
cookbook was assembled? I'm not aware of any that are *only* in the
cookbook.

Bob

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Rusty wrote:
>
> >
> > Cathy,
> >
> > I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows
> > Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all
> > the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have
> > completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could
> > dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page
> > files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5
> > or 10 pages a day.
>
> Wordpad.rtf suits me just fine, thanks Rusty. Just zip 'em all up and
> pass them on to me whenever you're finished. Many thanks for your
> efforts, I appreciate it, as I am fairly sure a lot of other rfc-ers do
> too.

I'll second that emotion. :-)
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:03:31 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
>original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
>sort of word processing format - whatever?) IMHO, there must have been
>something like that in order to have the cookbook printed in the first
>place. If we could find those, it would save a lot of
>typing/scanning...

I *might* still have most of it on a backup disk somewhere. It's not
on my current version of MasterCook. If I do, though, it is
incomplete.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:27:54 -0800 (PST), Rusty
> wrote:

>I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows
>Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all
>the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have
>completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could
>dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page
>files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5
>or 10 pages a day.

Thank you, Rusty!

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 03:27:59 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Heh.... Weren't all the recipes in the cookbook posted here before the
>cookbook was assembled? I'm not aware of any that are *only* in the
>cookbook.

Many were e-mailed to the various people who collected them, and more
than a few came from lurkers.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

ChattyCathy > wrote:

> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
> sort of word processing format - whatever?)

Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there
has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which
form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus of
the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically
the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see
no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the
arguments brought forth at the time.

A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules,"
particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should
not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of
people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get
one for free in the future.

However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I
personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned
but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that
the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of
being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say.

As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as
most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times.

Victor

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>
> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR
> software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with
> my
> Paperport software are surprisingly accurate.

When I got my first HP scanner, it did not come with OCR so I spent about
$100 for a program, Omni Page that is about 85% accurate and very slow. .

A few years later, I replaced that scanner with a much cheaper one from
Epson and it came with OCR that is about 98% accurate and much faster.

Victor Sack wrote:
> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
>> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
>> sort of word processing format - whatever?)
>
> Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there
> has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which
> form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus of
> the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically
> the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see
> no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the
> arguments brought forth at the time.
>
> A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules,"
> particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should
> not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of
> people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get
> one for free in the future.
>
> However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I
> personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned
> but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that
> the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of
> being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say.
>
> As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as
> most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times.
>
> Victor

Given the role that you played in the original cookbook, I put
heavy weight on your words and feelings about this.

--
Jean B.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC
>>> Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed
>>> edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I
>>> wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish?
>>> Would a new edition be worthwhile?
>>>
>>> Sky
>> The rfc cook.book was obviously a collaborative job, but Nancy Young
>> took point on the effort, I believe.
>> --
>>
>> modom
>
> Nancy collected the money. If Bubba Vic hadn't done the background work
> I don't think it would have happened. And when no one volunteered to be
> the official leader of the group, he kind of fell into it, as I recall.

I also recall that Victor played the major role in this....

--
Jean B.

me wrote:
> loser zxcvbob wrote:
>> If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group
>> at once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one
>> as a reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really
>> don't mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO)
>> to have hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever
>> receive any replies.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>
>
> Of course you say thanks. Since this is most likely your way of getting
> a free version of it without having to have had spent the paltry sum of
> $11 or so Mr. cheapskate when it was originally released/published!
>
> me
>


Nope, I've looked at a few, haven't saved any of them. Pretty much been
trying to ignore them. When the cookbook originally came out, I didn't
want to support it because it was so divisive hurt too many people's
feeling. Don't see any reason to start now. (Remember "Grandma"?)

I will give you credit for spelling "loser" correctly, loser.

Cheapskate Bob