Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>
> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
> or not.
>
> What do people think?

I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>
> Carol, opening a can of worms
>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>
>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>> or not.
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.


I'm in the mood for the brain locker, but I should say that I read the
second question in the subjunctive and didn't notice the third options,
so I said "no".

In these discussions, I'm always in favor of giving out recipes for
free. I'm often on the minority side of the argument, but it's how I
feel. My cooking is a part of the gift economy, and if I can find
recipes I think will add joy to the world, I choose to give them away.
That's not to say it's wrong to charge for a recipe book, but that if I
contributed one (or ten) recipe(s) to a book by a group of friends in a
not-for-profit venture, and there was a way to do it for free, I'd
support that.

Serene

--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue March '09!
http://42magazine.com

"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>
>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>
>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>> or not.
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>
>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy

The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
people.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
> that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
> format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
> banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
> people.

I would most certainly make a donation to my local food bank if I
downloaded a copy of the cookbook. I make frequent donations anyway, so
one more wouldn't break my pocketbook.


--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to
> see that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other
> downloadable
> format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
> banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for
> most people.

Now that's not a bad idea, IMHO.

The RFC Cookbook was before my time on this group - but I've done a bit
of googling and from what I've read, it was not exactly a 'cake walk'
for those concerned in getting it compiled and then published. I also
have no idea how much was eventually made for charity; maybe
Nancy/Damsel/Victor could tell us?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy wrote:

> The RFC Cookbook was before my time on this group - but I've done a
> bit of googling and from what I've read, it was not exactly a 'cake
> walk' for those concerned in getting it compiled and then published.
> I also have no idea how much was eventually made for charity; maybe
> Nancy/Damsel/Victor could tell us?

It was in the neighborhood of $7,500.

nancy

On 2009-03-08, ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.

Forget the old rfc cookbook. It's everywhere. If a recipe is good enough,
it's already gone to general web circulation. If we wanna argue/discuss
something, lets discuss a 2nd book. I think an rfc pdf cookbook is an
excellent idea. This is a free and open newsgroup. There's no reason why a
2nd cookbook shouldn't be, also.

nb

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:05:34 -0700, Serene Vannoy
> wrote:

>I should say that I read the
>second question in the subjunctive and didn't notice the third options,
>so I said "no".

So it's only one vote against - maybe that one is like you and really
should be an n/a.


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

Mae West

On 2009-03-08, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
> that continued....

That's one vote for. I disagree, as stated in my other post.

nb

On 2009-03-08, Omelet > wrote:

> I generally just donate food...

I also, Om. If ppl want to make donations, let them choose their favorite
charity and do so. Trying to get everyone to agree on a common cause donation is
counterproductive and not the purpose of rfc.

nb

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 14:05:56 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
>that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
>format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
>banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
>people.

I think if it's going on the web site, it should be freely available
and that also means free of guilt.


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

Mae West

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>
>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>
>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>> or not.
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>
>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy


The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the inside
just who owns the copyright.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:
>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> > site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.

> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the inside
> just who owns the copyright.
>
> Dimitri

The Cabal (TINC)?

Sky

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

Nancy Young wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> The RFC Cookbook was before my time on this group - but I've done a
>> bit of googling and from what I've read, it was not exactly a 'cake
>> walk' for those concerned in getting it compiled and then published.
>> I also have no idea how much was eventually made for charity; maybe
>> Nancy/Damsel/Victor could tell us?
>
> It was in the neighborhood of $7,500.
>
> nancy

Heh. That's pretty darn good. So you must have had about five or six
hundred copies printed?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> >
> > Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
> > for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
> > over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
> > site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
> >
> > I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
> > or not.
> >
> > What do people think?
>
> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
> >
> > Carol, opening a can of worms
> >

Quick and easy. :-)
--
Peace! Om

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

In article >,
Janet Wilder > wrote:

> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > The original publication was to raise money for charity. I'd like to see
> > that continued, even if only a buck, if it is in PDF or other downloadable
> > format. It could be accompanies by links to a few charities or food
> > banks. While not easily enforced, the honor system may be enough for most
> > people.
>
> I would most certainly make a donation to my local food bank if I
> downloaded a copy of the cookbook. I make frequent donations anyway, so
> one more wouldn't break my pocketbook.

I generally just donate food...
--
Peace! Om

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

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> The RFC Cookbook was before my time on this group - but I've done a
>>> bit of googling and from what I've read, it was not exactly a 'cake
>>> walk' for those concerned in getting it compiled and then published.
>>> I also have no idea how much was eventually made for charity; maybe
>>> Nancy/Damsel/Victor could tell us?
>>
>> It was in the neighborhood of $7,500.

> Heh. That's pretty darn good.

It was quite a success. Hats off to rfc.

> So you must have had about five or six hundred copies printed?

You'd think it would be seared in my memory, but no. We did
have to do a second printing. Maybe it was 400, then another
200. That's such a guess. Doing the math, I think it would have
to have been more like 700 total.

nancy

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
>> > site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>
>> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the
>> inside
>> just who owns the copyright.
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> The Cabal (TINC)?
>
> Sky
>
> --
> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

Here is what it says - and I quote

Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.

All services in production of this book were donated. Except for
reproduction and mailing costs, all monies received from the sale of this
book were donated to City Harvest (a new York City affiliate of Second
Harvest) : no profits were made by rec.food.cooning.

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...



> Harvest) : no profits were made by rec.food.cooning.
LOL

Cooking.

Dimitri (ready to take a proofreading class)

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>>
>>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>
>> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>>
>>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chatty Cathy
>
>
> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the
> inside just who owns the copyright.
>
> Dimitri
All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have anything to
say.

At the time the rfc cookbook was still in process a poll was taken as to how
many books would be produced, based in part on how many each said they'd
order, and extras for those who may decide to order. There was also a great
furor over whether to make an electronic version available and it was
decided there would be none in any foremat. It was decided that in the
future that if if others wanted another edition then they could do their
own, but under no circumstances would the original ever be made available
electronically... at the time all those involved agreed... now it is plain
that many a word ain't worth the price of used TP.

Nancy Young wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>
>>>> The RFC Cookbook was before my time on this group - but I've done a
>>>> bit of googling and from what I've read, it was not exactly a 'cake
>>>> walk' for those concerned in getting it compiled and then
>>>> published. I also have no idea how much was eventually made for
>>>> charity; maybe Nancy/Damsel/Victor could tell us?
>>>
>>> It was in the neighborhood of $7,500.
>
>> Heh. That's pretty darn good.
>
> It was quite a success. Hats off to rfc.
>
>> So you must have had about five or six hundred copies printed?
>
> You'd think it would be seared in my memory, but no. We did
> have to do a second printing. Maybe it was 400, then another
> 200. That's such a guess. Doing the math, I think it would have
> to have been more like 700 total.

Wow, 700 copies; that leaves $200 for printing, binding and shipping. If
you still have the contact details for those printers, I have some
other stuff that I'd like to publish, and if that's all it's gonna cost
me, it suddenly becomes affordable...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

brooklyn1 wrote:


> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
> anything to say.

So Sheldon, which recipe(s) did you contribute?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On 2009-03-08, Dimitri > wrote:

> Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.

Where's my royalty checks?

nb

Dimitri wrote:

>
> "Sky" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dimitri wrote:
>>>
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the
>>> > RFC site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>
>>> The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the
>>> inside
>>> just who owns the copyright.
>>>
>>> Dimitri
>>
>> The Cabal (TINC)?
>>
>> Sky
>>
>> --
>> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
>> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice
>
> Here is what it says - and I quote
>
> Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.

Ahem. I have © 2009 rec.food.cooking (TINC) on the RFC site. Which also
has about as much legal clout as a wet fish.
>
> All services in production of this book were donated. Except for
> reproduction and mailing costs, all monies received from the sale of
> this book were donated to City Harvest (a new York City affiliate of
> Second Harvest) : no profits were made by rec.food.cooning.

Heh. I just love typos.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

notbob wrote:

> On 2009-03-08, Dimitri > wrote:
>
>> Copyright © rec.food.cooking 2002.
>
> Where's my royalty checks?
>
> nb

They're in the mail.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:

>>>> It was in the neighborhood of $7,500.
>>
>>> Heh. That's pretty darn good.
>>
>> It was quite a success. Hats off to rfc.
>>
>>> So you must have had about five or six hundred copies printed?
>>
>> You'd think it would be seared in my memory, but no. We did
>> have to do a second printing. Maybe it was 400, then another
>> 200. That's such a guess. Doing the math, I think it would have
>> to have been more like 700 total.
>
> Wow, 700 copies; that leaves $200 for printing, binding and shipping.
> If you still have the contact details for those printers, I have some
> other stuff that I'd like to publish, and if that's all it's gonna
> cost me, it suddenly becomes affordable...

No, that's not right at all. It cost much more than $200. I'm
not sure where you came up with that number. Also, any
calculations would have to take into account that there were
people who donated $ to the effort. And you'd be relying on
my hazy memory of the details.

And, you have to pay the printers for shipping, I am sure you'd
be better off finding a place near you rather than in California.

nancy

"ChattyCathy" wrote:
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
>> anything to say.
>
> So Sheldon, which recipe(s) did you contribute?
>
>
So Cathy, you're doubting I contributed.. you trying to say I couldn't,
what...

You can read em for yourself... as I posted earlier I have some spare copies
available only US$1,100 each + S&H (hey, they're collectibles) how many did
you say you'd like?

Yoose should be embarrased tagging onto a book yoose had not a whit to do
with, and couldn't even if you wanted to.

Polling people who weren't born yet (didn't contribute) is presumptuous to
the max, got a lotta nerve. Anyone wants something to say get yer own
stinkin' book. It won't be easy... yoose won't wanna give yours away.
Anyway, yoose just wanna glom on for a free ride (yoose inept cheapo
bastids) I seriously doubt the majority who comprise rfc now are capable...
there's a challenge for yoose.

In article >,
Sky > wrote:

> Dimitri wrote:
> >
> > "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> > > site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>
> > The RFC cookbook is copyrighted from 2002- It is not clear from the inside
> > just who owns the copyright.
> >
> > Dimitri
>
> The Cabal (TINC)?
>
> Sky

<laughs>
--
Peace! Om

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

brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> "ChattyCathy" wrote:
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
>>> anything to say.
>>
>> So Sheldon, which recipe(s) did you contribute?
>>
>>
> So Cathy, you're doubting I contributed.. you trying to say I
> couldn't, what...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Don't get all 'iffy', please. I was just asking which
recipes you contributed. I don't have a copy of 'the RFC Cookbook',
because it was published before I subscribed to r.f.c. (as you well
know). However if it was available on-line, we wouldn't be having this
discussion, now would we?

And no, I'm not prepared to pay US$1,100 for a copy, even if you
autographed it personally :P

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Nancy Young wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>>>> It was in the neighborhood of $7,500.
>>>
>>>> Heh. That's pretty darn good.
>>>
>>> It was quite a success. Hats off to rfc.
>>>
>>>> So you must have had about five or six hundred copies printed?
>>>
>>> You'd think it would be seared in my memory, but no. We did
>>> have to do a second printing. Maybe it was 400, then another
>>> 200. That's such a guess. Doing the math, I think it would have
>>> to have been more like 700 total.
>>
>> Wow, 700 copies; that leaves $200 for printing, binding and shipping.
>> If you still have the contact details for those printers, I have some
>> other stuff that I'd like to publish, and if that's all it's gonna
>> cost me, it suddenly becomes affordable...
>
> No, that's not right at all. It cost much more than $200. I'm
> not sure where you came up with that number. Also, any
> calculations would have to take into account that there were
> people who donated $ to the effort. And you'd be relying on
> my hazy memory of the details.
>

I worked it out at $11.00 per copy for 700 copies, which would have
amounted to $7700.00.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...3?dmode=source

However, if folks donated more than the $11.00 per copy, that makes
perfect sense.


> And, you have to pay the printers for shipping, I am sure you'd
> be better off finding a place near you rather than in California.

<laugh> Not likely. The printers 'round here charge a fortune for
printing anything; it may well work out cheaper for me to email the PDF
to CA and have them send the printed matter out to the addressees (and
charge said addressees for the P&P) ;-)

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Mar 8, 1:13*pm, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
> >>> anything to say.

He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be
reproduced. -aem

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>
>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>
>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>> or not.
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>
>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy


I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to speak)
has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute to the
charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What difference
does it make now?

Jill

wrote:

> On Mar 8, 1:13Â*pm, ChattyCathy > wrote:
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
>> >>> anything to say.
>
> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be
> reproduced. -aem

Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did
contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my
question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but IME,
Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to cook
anything" people...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>>
>>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>
>> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>>
>>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chatty Cathy
>
>
> I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to speak)
> has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute to the
> charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What
> difference does it make now?
>
> Jill

The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to go.
The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an affront to
all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be absolutely no
motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin' book (not that they
could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-03-08, Omelet > wrote:
>
>> I generally just donate food...
>
> I also, Om. If ppl want to make donations, let them choose their favorite
> charity and do so. Trying to get everyone to agree on a common cause
> donation is
> counterproductive and not the purpose of rfc.
>
> nb


I guess you weren't around back then, nb (don't ask me to go look up Google
posts in 2001, please). The idea for the cookbook and donations to charity
was proposed in the aftermath of 9/11 and to the families and victims
thereof. The common cause donation was agreed upon relatively easily. It
was how to get the damn (heh) thing published that created some dissention
in the group. But in the end, it got done. And done very well! Kudos to
you all!

Jill

On Mar 8, 12:59*pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2009-03-08, Omelet > wrote:
>
> > I generally just donate food...
>
> I also, Om. *If ppl want to make donations, let them choose their favorite
> charity and do so. *Trying to get everyone to agree on a common cause donation is
> counterproductive and not the purpose of rfc. *
>
> nb

I've been around since the first book but I was a newbie. Don't have a
copy, didn't contribute any recipes. I always give my recipes to
anybody who wants them. I'm slightly less than perfectly organized
and I've lost too many that I had to track down!
Lynn in Fargo

brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to
> go. The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an
> affront to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be
> absolutely no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin'
> book (not that they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL

I will ask you again... how many recipes did you contribute?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig wrote:
> On Mar 8, 12:59 pm, notbob > wrote:
>> On 2009-03-08, Omelet > wrote:
>>
>>> I generally just donate food...
>> I also, Om. If ppl want to make donations, let them choose their favorite
>> charity and do so. Trying to get everyone to agree on a common cause donation is
>> counterproductive and not the purpose of rfc.
>>
>> nb
>
> I've been around since the first book but I was a newbie. Don't have a
> copy, didn't contribute any recipes. I always give my recipes to
> anybody who wants them. I'm slightly less than perfectly organized
> and I've lost too many that I had to track down!
> Lynn in Fargo

Same here. I was lurking and not posting back then. AAMOF, I have
undoubtedly lurked here much, much longer than I've posted.

I was interested in the cook book, but I would have had to "surface" and
the logistics of participating were difficult at the time because I was
never in one place more than a few days at a time because we were living
in our RV.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-03-08, ChattyCathy > wrote:
>>
>> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>
> Forget the old rfc cookbook. It's everywhere. If a recipe is good
> enough,
> it's already gone to general web circulation. If we wanna argue/discuss
> something, lets discuss a 2nd book. I think an rfc pdf cookbook is an
> excellent idea. This is a free and open newsgroup. There's no reason why
> a
> 2nd cookbook shouldn't be, also.
>
> nb


nb, the first book was for charity. Right after 9/11. To benefit the
families of those left behind. Soak up as many of those recipes as you
want. But publishing a new one online for FREE would defeat the purpose.

Jill

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:49:11 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Mar 8, 1:13*pm, ChattyCathy > wrote:
>>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> All those who contributed contents, that's who... no others have
>>> >>> anything to say.
>>
>> He has a valid point here -- if contributors object, it shouldn't be
>> reproduced. -aem
>
>Fair enough. But I am still want to know if Sheldon actually did
>contribute any recipes to the RFC Cookbook. He didn't answer my
>question. And forgive me for being a bit insistent about this, but IME,
>Sheldon has always been one of those "I don't need recipes to cook
>anything" people...

Sheldon Martin (Penmart) has at lest two recipes in the RFC cookbook.

Lou