On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:16:01 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:37:11 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:53:04 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:30:28 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:16:38 -0500, Andy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Everyone should always remain present and accounted for until the end of
>>>>>time.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, come on. Only active posters should be on the mugshots page.
>>>> What "active" means will be defined later. My cut off is 6 months to
>>>> a year of no posting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>what ****ing difference does it make? the page loads in about three
>>>seconds for me (d.s.l.).
>>>
>>>why are you so het up about this?
>>>
>> I live in the here and now, not the past.
>
>how new-agey of you. guess you'll have to put up with us dinosaurs, huh?
>
You post regularly, pal. My beef is with those who lurk or have been
gone for what seems like forever.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos
> of
> ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to
> last until the end of time.

Might make a change from the usual OT stuff have to admit. But no, I'm
not gonna put up a nude pic of myself - but you can thank me for that
later...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:50:26 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:

>> I like them there. I like seeing the old faces and wonder what
>> they're up to. They aren't bothering anyone (aside from you),
>> so what's the problem?
>>
> I'm not the sentimental type when it comes to Usenet. When you're
> gone, you're gone - unless you come back and I'm certainly not going
> to spend time looking at mugshots wondering what someone I didn't know
> in person is doing at any given moment.

That's fine, you don't need to look at the website at all. It's the
rfc website, put up and maintained by Cathy, because one person
doesn't like something doesn't mean they get their way. We
already took a vote (two?) on the matter and majority wins. Or,
if she wanted, Cathy wins, because it's up to her to maintain.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
> >>
> > Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
> > picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
> > mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
> > photo, hidden face, etc)? Take yours for instance...
> > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/mug/shot/Sky.jpg Why bother?
> >
> >> It'd be really nice
> >> to have yours there, too, don't you think? Otherwise, why complain
> >> about whose photo is there or not?
> >
> > This isn't Facebook. Why do long gone posters, semi-occasional
> > posters and lurkers need their pictures plastered on the mugshot page
> > for eternity?
>
> I like them there. I like seeing the old faces and wonder what
> they're up to. They aren't bothering anyone (aside from you),
> so what's the problem?
>
> nancy

I agree with you, Nancy. It's nice to look at the mugshots and thing
about those folks and what they're up to.

Sky

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

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
>
> >SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
> >
> Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
> picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
> mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
> photo, hidden face, etc)? Take yours for instance...
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/mug/shot/Sky.jpg Why bother?
>
> >It'd be really nice
> >to have yours there, too, don't you think? Otherwise, why complain
> >about whose photo is there or not?
>
> This isn't Facebook. Why do long gone posters, semi-occasional
> posters and lurkers need their pictures plastered on the mugshot page
> for eternity?

The RFC newsgroup and RFC chat are as 'social' as Facebook and MySpace.
Whoever chooses or chooses not to include their 'mugshot' on the RFC
website is up to any individual. My mugshot is not dissimilar to others
already included, but I won't draw particular notice to those as you
have with mine. Everyone has the option to ask (or not ask) the "RFC
Webmaster" to include their mugshot if they so choose. You've opted not
to include your mugshot. I respect your choice and your opinions.

Cathy works hard and does a wonderful job with the RFC websites and
surveys. Asking Cathy to keep track of who recently posts or doesn't
post to RFC just to maintain and update the mugshots webpage is rather
presumptious to meet someone's sense of whose mugshots should or
shouldn't be included. Besides, there are some folks who don't or
rarely do post on RFC, but they often participate in RFC chat on IRC and
have chosen to include their mugshots. How is it possible to tell the
difference there? Just because someone doesn't post to RFC doesn't mean
their mugshot should be deleted. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to
it ;P

Sky

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

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> > If this turns into an RFC survey, I'm voting for topless - seems
> > safest of the choices offered 8-)
>
> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos of
> ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to last
> until the end of time.
>
> Michael

ROFL

Certainly be interesting at the very least!
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >
> > I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos
> > of
> > ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to
> > last until the end of time.
>
> Might make a change from the usual OT stuff have to admit. But no, I'm
> not gonna put up a nude pic of myself - but you can thank me for that
> later...

I think I know how you feel CC. <lol>
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
Sky > wrote:

> sf wrote:

> > This isn't Facebook. Why do long gone posters, semi-occasional
> > posters and lurkers need their pictures plastered on the mugshot page
> > for eternity?

We need to obey the laws and file our taxes in the US. The rest aren't
"needs". We do the things we want to do, mostly. Cathy did a survey.
The choice of leaving the old pictures up, won. What else is there to
say? You don't "need" to look at that page. If you don't like it,
don't look at it.

> The RFC newsgroup and RFC chat are as 'social' as Facebook and MySpace.

For those on Facebook, there is a "RFC on Facebook" group, created by
Villi Bernaroli, and open to all.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
>
> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos of
> ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to last
> until the end of time.

That is referred to as making "small" talk

In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
> >
> > I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos of
> > ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to last
> > until the end of time.
>
> That is referred to as making "small" talk

Only if you point and laugh.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

On 09 Apr 2009 15:38:37 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> "l, not -l" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> On 8-Apr-2009, "brooklyn1" > wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the Mugshots you didn't exist then or in the here and now.
>>> .. and
>>> probably not in the hereafter. And before anyone comments I'm in the
>>> process of choosing my new mugshot and one of the Jilly... just
>>> haven't decided on topless, bottomless, or nekid. I spent a few
>>> hours scanning photos today, and I found some of me at my Belize
>>> properties.
>>
>> If this turns into an RFC survey, I'm voting for topless - seems
>> safest of the choices offered 8-)
>
> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos of
> ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to last
> until the end of time.
>

either that or cause people to shun r.f.c. forever.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:30:41 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>
>> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos
>> of
>> ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to
>> last until the end of time.
>
> Might make a change from the usual OT stuff have to admit. But no, I'm
> not gonna put up a nude pic of myself - but you can thank me for that
> later...

any chance of e-mail, then?

your pal,
blake

On Apr 9, 10:38*am, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
> "l, not -l" @flpi146 .ffdc.sbc.com:in rec.food.cooking
>
>
>
> > On *8-Apr-2009, "brooklyn1" > wrote:
>
> >> Regarding the Mugshots you didn't exist then or in the here and now.
> >> .. and
> >> probably not in the hereafter. *And before anyone comments I'm in the
> >> process of choosing my new mugshot and one of the Jilly... just
> >> haven't decided on topless, bottomless, or nekid. *I spent a few
> >> hours scanning photos today, and I found some of me at my Belize
> >> properties.
>
> > If this turns into an RFC survey, I'm voting for topless - *seems
> > safest of the choices offered * 8-)
>
> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos of
> ourselves *Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to last
> until the end of time.

Someone could plan a rfc get together at a nudist club. This one is
pretty centrally located: http://www.oaklaketrails.com/
Acres and acres of hiking trails.
>
> Michael
>
--Bryan

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:38 am, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>
>> "l, not -l" @flpi146 .ffdc.sbc.com:in rec.food.cooking
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 8-Apr-2009, "brooklyn1" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regarding the Mugshots you didn't exist then or in the here and now.
>>>> .. and
>>>> probably not in the hereafter. And before anyone comments I'm in the
>>>> process of choosing my new mugshot and one of the Jilly... just
>>>> haven't decided on topless, bottomless, or nekid. I spent a few
>>>> hours scanning photos today, and I found some of me at my Belize
>>>> properties.
>>>>
>>> If this turns into an RFC survey, I'm voting for topless - seems
>>> safest of the choices offered 8-)
>>>
>> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos of
>> ourselves Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to last
>> until the end of time.
>>
>
> Someone could plan a rfc get together at a nudist club. This one is
> pretty centrally located: http://www.oaklaketrails.com/
> Acres and acres of hiking trails.
>
>> Michael
>>
>>
> --Bryan
>


Try it, you might like it.


Becca

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:46:04 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
>
>>SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
>>
> Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
> picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
> mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
> photo, hidden face, etc)? Take yours for instance...
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/mug/shot/Sky.jpg Why bother?
>

....but she's showing her legs, which most aren't brave enough to do.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:24:06 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:50:26 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
>>>>
>>> Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
>>> picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
>>> mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
>>> photo, hidden face, etc)? Take yours for instance...
>>> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/mug/shot/Sky.jpg Why bother?
>>>
>>>> It'd be really nice
>>>> to have yours there, too, don't you think? Otherwise, why complain
>>>> about whose photo is there or not?
>>>
>>> This isn't Facebook. Why do long gone posters, semi-occasional
>>> posters and lurkers need their pictures plastered on the mugshot page
>>> for eternity?
>>
>>I like them there. I like seeing the old faces and wonder what
>>they're up to. They aren't bothering anyone (aside from you),
>>so what's the problem?
>>
> I'm not the sentimental type when it comes to Usenet. When you're
> gone, you're gone - unless you come back and I'm certainly not going
> to spend time looking at mugshots wondering what someone I didn't know
> in person is doing at any given moment.

well, you're certainly spending a lot of time arguing about whose mugshots
should be there.

your pal,
blake

On Apr 10, 12:46*pm, Becca > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 10:38 am, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>
> >> "l, not -l" @flpi146 .ffdc.sbc.com:inrec.food.cooking
>
> >>> On *8-Apr-2009, "brooklyn1" > wrote:
>
> >>>> Regarding the Mugshots you didn't exist then or in the here and now.
> >>>> .. and
> >>>> probably not in the hereafter. *And before anyone comments I'm in the
> >>>> process of choosing my new mugshot and one of the Jilly... just
> >>>> haven't decided on topless, bottomless, or nekid. *I spent a few
> >>>> hours scanning photos today, and I found some of me at my Belize
> >>>> properties.
>
> >>> If this turns into an RFC survey, I'm voting for topless - *seems
> >>> safest of the choices offered * 8-)
>
> >> I'm voting for the Full Monte. I think we should all post nude photos of
> >> ourselves *Wouldn't *that* create enough off topic discussion to last
> >> until the end of time.
>
> > Someone could plan a rfc get together at a nudist club. *This one is
> > pretty centrally located:http://www.oaklaketrails.com/
> > Acres and acres of hiking trails.
>
> >> Michael
>
> > --Bryan
>
> Try it, you might like it.

Have you tried it?

That club is really nice. They keep the clubhouse and pool area
immaculately clean. More importantly, they keep it clean
philosophically. There's no sleaziness at all. They're hosting the
national convention this August.
>
> Becca

--Bryan

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:46:04 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
> >>
> > Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
> > picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
> > mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
> > photo, hidden face, etc)? Take yours for instance...
> > http://www.recfoodcooking.com/mug/shot/Sky.jpg Why bother?
> >
>
> ...but she's showing her legs, which most aren't brave enough to do.
>
> your pal,
> blake

VBG!!!!!

Sky

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

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:46:04 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
>>>
>> Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
>> picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
>> mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
>> photo, hidden face, etc)? Take yours for instance...
>> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/mug/shot/Sky.jpg Why bother?
>>
>
> ...but she's showing her legs, which most aren't brave enough to do.
>
>
And a frontal pretty well representitive of some fine fun bags... I mean the
face isn't really all that important on a gal with jugs. LOL And I'm
positive Sky's mug is nowhere near as repulsive as that baboon butt Twilly
calls a face. hehe

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:00:22 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>well, you're certainly spending a lot of time arguing about whose mugshots
>should be there.

In case you didn't notice, I didn't begin this discussion TWICE.
Cathy did an "in your face" at me in another thread and sky pinged me.
Try reading the subject line of this thread.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:00:22 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>well, you're certainly spending a lot of time arguing about whose
>>mugshots should be there.
>
> In case you didn't notice, I didn't begin this discussion TWICE.
> Cathy did an "in your face" at me in another thread

And you rose to the bait nicely <veg>.

> and sky pinged me.
> Try reading the subject line of this thread.
>
>
Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.

And fact is, although I enjoy running the site, I'm not going to weed
out the 'no shows' unless the majority of folks want it that way,
because I've got better things to do with my time...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy
"Sorry Dear, dinner is late, had to reboot the stove." -mrr

"ChattyCathy" wrote

> Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
> handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
> just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
> others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.

I have a feeling that only it it got really HUGE one day, would filtering
down (just to save you space) may come in. At that stage, it would be
something *you* wanted to make room for more current pics. I doubt then if
anyone would mind if the pics of those who arent or never were 'regulars'
were moved away to make room for new regulars.

Moot really since you seem no place near full.

cshenk wrote:
>
> I have a feeling that only it it got really HUGE one day, would
> filtering
> down (just to save you space) may come in. At that stage, it would be
> something *you* wanted to make room for more current pics. I doubt
> then if anyone would mind if the pics of those who arent or never were
> 'regulars' were moved away to make room for new regulars.
>
> Moot really since you seem no place near full.

That has been mentioned before. If I were to suddenly get thousands of
pictures pouring in, which is highly unlikely, I'd probably have to
re-vamp the layout - but it's not really the disk space, that's pretty
cheap these days.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy
"Sorry Dear, dinner is late, had to reboot the stove." -mrr

blake murphy wrote:


> i do like how some posters are volunteering *you* for extra work,
> though.

I noticed. Always been the same with anything else I've ever volunteered
to do before. You offer people a (free) pinky-finger, yet some of them
expect an arm and a leg for nothing too. Of course, they're always too
busy and/or not in a position to help you out themselves - but they
seem to find the time to bitch and moan about the way things are being
done.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:46 pm, Becca > wrote:
>
>>
>> Try it, you might like it.
>>
>
> Have you tried it?
>
> That club is really nice. They keep the clubhouse and pool area
> immaculately clean. More importantly, they keep it clean
> philosophically. There's no sleaziness at all. They're hosting the
> national convention this August.
>
>> Becca
>>
>
> --Bryan
>

Sounds like a nice place, but I have not been there. I am a nudist and
I have been to other resorts and clubs. It really puts you at one with
yourself and with nature. And you do not have to wash swimsuits during
your vacation. :-)


A clothing optional beach is a great place to start. You can remove
clothes as you begin feeling more comfortable. Haulover Beach in
Florida and Sandy Hook in New Jersey are my favorite two beaches.
Friendly people, too.


Becca

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:36:02 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
>handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
>just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
>others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.
>
>And fact is, although I enjoy running the site, I'm not going to weed
>out the 'no shows' unless the majority of folks want it that way,
>because I've got better things to do with my time...

For the record...

Cathy, I don't care *what* you do with the site, it's entirely up to
you. I *do* care --- and am very thankful --- that you do it! It's a
very nice service that is free to all who care to use it.

Thanks again!
Terry
....who does a large chunk of volunteer work, and gets a trifle ticked
off when people won't do the work themselves but freely tell me how
*I* should do it...

On Apr 11, 9:24*am, Becca > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 12:46 pm, Becca > wrote:
>
> >> Try it, you might like it.
>
> > Have you tried it?
>
> > That club is really nice. *They keep the clubhouse and pool area
> > immaculately clean. *More importantly, they keep it clean
> > philosophically. *There's no sleaziness at all. *They're hosting the
> > national convention this August.
>
> >> Becca
>
> > --Bryan
>
> Sounds like a nice place, but I have not been there. *I am a nudist and
> I have been to other resorts and clubs. *It really puts you at one with
> yourself and with nature. *And you do not have to wash swimsuits during
> your vacation. :-) * *
>
> A clothing optional beach is a great place to start. *You can remove
> clothes as you begin feeling more comfortable. * Haulover Beach in
> Florida and Sandy Hook in New Jersey are my favorite two beaches.
> Friendly people, too.

We've been to quite a few clubs.. We were members of Cypress Cove and
Lake Como. Oaklake Trails is really nice.
>
> Becca

--Bryan
The album, "School of the Americas" is now available online.
Go to: http://www.thebonobos.com/
Click on the album cover to purchase. This is a fold out case with a
lyrics booklet for only $9.99. That's right folks, only $9.99.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:46:04 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
>>>>
>>> Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
>>> picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
>>> mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
>>> photo, hidden face, etc)? Take yours for instance...
>>> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/mug/shot/Sky.jpg Why bother?
>>>
>>
>> ...but she's showing her legs, which most aren't brave enough to do.
>>
>>
> And a frontal pretty well representitive of some fine fun bags... I mean
> the face isn't really all that important on a gal with jugs. LOL And I'm
> positive Sky's mug is nowhere near as repulsive as that baboon butt Twilly
> calls a face. hehe
>

And as a wise man once said, it takes a repulsive baboon butt to know a
repulsive baboon butt.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:10:48 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>
>> i do like how some posters are volunteering *you* for extra work,
>> though.
>
>I noticed. Always been the same with anything else I've ever volunteered
>to do before. You offer people a (free) pinky-finger, yet some of them
>expect an arm and a leg for nothing too. Of course, they're always too
>busy and/or not in a position to help you out themselves - but they
>seem to find the time to bitch and moan about the way things are being
>done.

To be honest, I wasn't volunteering you for anything. It's my
opinion. I'm as entitled to one as you are and I still can't
understand the egos of people who don't post but need to have their
faces plastered up there.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:00:22 GMT, blake murphy
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>well, you're certainly spending a lot of time arguing about whose
> >>mugshots should be there.

[snipped all]

> Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
> handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
> just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
> others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.

Let's just repeat this for the record, so 47 readers don't have to go
look it up:

9 - delete old ones
22 - don't care
24 - don't remove


And, of course, we *all* care what you do. For one thing, that's why we
filled out the survey. For another, we want to thank you for all the
work you do. Even though we shower you with millions every year, thanks
are still appreciated.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

Terry wrote:

> For the record...
>
> Cathy, I don't care *what* you do with the site, it's entirely up to
> you. I *do* care --- and am very thankful --- that you do it! It's a
> very nice service that is free to all who care to use it.
>

Thanks to you and others who have said such 'nice things' <g> and you
may rest assured, I *have* done pretty much what I want with regards to
the layout and even added a couple of bells and whistles that weren't
on the old site. However, the content on the site doesn't belong to me
per se - it belongs to the various contributors in this group - so I
try and be as accommodating as I can, as far as that goes.

BTW, the Mugshots page was not my idea - you can thank Damsel for
suggesting it to me (and for talking a couple of the original 'Mugs'
into sending in their photos). <g> I did think that it might make a
good addition to site, so I went ahead with it.

> Thanks again!
> Terry

> ...who does a large chunk of volunteer work, and gets a trifle ticked
> off when people won't do the work themselves but freely tell me how
> *I* should do it...

Quite so. Said something similar to blake in another post.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

sf wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:10:48 +0200, ChattyCathy
> > wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> i do like how some posters are volunteering *you* for extra work,
>>> though.
>>
>>I noticed. Always been the same with anything else I've ever
>>volunteered to do before. You offer people a (free) pinky-finger, yet
>>some of them expect an arm and a leg for nothing too. Of course,
>>they're always too busy and/or not in a position to help you out
>>themselves - but they seem to find the time to bitch and moan about
>>the way things are being done.
>
> To be honest, I wasn't volunteering you for anything.

So you're volunteering, then. Glad to hear it.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sat 11 Apr 2009 08:22:56a, sf told us...

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:10:48 +0200, ChattyCathy
> > wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> i do like how some posters are volunteering *you* for extra work,
>>> though.
>>
>>I noticed. Always been the same with anything else I've ever volunteered
>>to do before. You offer people a (free) pinky-finger, yet some of them
>>expect an arm and a leg for nothing too. Of course, they're always too
>>busy and/or not in a position to help you out themselves - but they
>>seem to find the time to bitch and moan about the way things are being
>>done.
>
> To be honest, I wasn't volunteering you for anything. It's my
> opinion. I'm as entitled to one as you are and I still can't
> understand the egos of people who don't post but need to have their
> faces plastered up there.
>

Some of those people have probably even forgotten that their picture is
there.

--
Wayne Boatwright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the old saying that man built the house but woman made of it a
"home" might be added the modern supplement that woman accepted
cooking as a chore but man has made of it a recreation. ~Emily Post

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:37:40 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:00:22 GMT, blake murphy
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>well, you're certainly spending a lot of time arguing about whose
>> >>mugshots should be there.
>
>[snipped all]
>
>> Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
>> handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
>> just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
>> others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.
>
>Let's just repeat this for the record, so 47 readers don't have to go
>look it up:
>
> 9 - delete old ones
>22 - don't care
>24 - don't remove
>
>
>And, of course, we *all* care what you do. For one thing, that's why we
>filled out the survey. For another, we want to thank you for all the
>work you do. Even though we shower you with millions every year, thanks
>are still appreciated.
>
Yes, many thanks to Cathy and wouldn't you know? I completely missed
the survey so my vote isn't one of the nine.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"cshenk" wrote
> "ChattyCathy" wrote
>
>> Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
>> handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
>> just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
>> others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.
>
> I have a feeling that only it it got really HUGE one day, would filtering
> down (just to save you space) may come in. At that stage, it would be
> something *you* wanted to make room for more current pics. I doubt then
> if anyone would mind if the pics of those who arent or never were
> 'regulars' were moved away to make room for new regulars.
>
> Moot really since you seem no place near full.
>
>
>
Instead of just tossing their pics there's no reason there can't be a
seperate page for "The Lost", those who haven't posted for say a year and
whose pics wrankle sf so. I think those who seem so miffed over the old
Mugs are really saying what they want is their own page just for them...
perhaps Cathy will put up a totally blank page containing just the text
"sf". Each of the Mug Whiners can have their own similarly blank page...
the link to that section can be labeled "RFC Nobodys Who Think They're
Somebody". Perhaps Cathy will bless this new page so that when opened music
plays, I offer this dedicated to "sf":

http://oldkunnel.net/nobody21.html

Me, everytime I'm feeling "down" I open the RFC Mugshots, and even though I
don't remember who she is, Anna never fails to cheer me "up".

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:28:43 -0500, Terry wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:36:02 +0200, ChattyCathy
> > wrote:
>
>>Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
>>handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
>>just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
>>others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.
>>
>>And fact is, although I enjoy running the site, I'm not going to weed
>>out the 'no shows' unless the majority of folks want it that way,
>>because I've got better things to do with my time...
>
> For the record...
>
> Cathy, I don't care *what* you do with the site, it's entirely up to
> you. I *do* care --- and am very thankful --- that you do it! It's a
> very nice service that is free to all who care to use it.
>
> Thanks again!
> Terry
> ...who does a large chunk of volunteer work, and gets a trifle ticked
> off when people won't do the work themselves but freely tell me how
> *I* should do it...

a social club i used to belong to had an informal rule: the first one who
complains about the way someone is doing a job has volunteered for that
job.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:37:40 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>
>> Thing is, what you can't seem to grasp is that nobody but you and a
>> handful of others seem to care what I do, or they like the Mugshots
>> just where they are; the responses I've seen in this thread and a few
>> others - plus the survey I did - indicate this pretty clearly, IMNSHO.
>
> Let's just repeat this for the record, so 47 readers don't have to go
> look it up:
>
> 9 - delete old ones
> 22 - don't care
> 24 - don't remove
>
> And, of course, we *all* care what you do. For one thing, that's why we
> filled out the survey. For another, we want to thank you for all the
> work you do. Even though we shower you with millions every year, thanks
> are still appreciated.
>
> :-)

wait, there's money in this? why was i not informed?

your pal,
blake

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
>
>> SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
>>
> Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
> picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
> mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
> photo, hidden face, etc)?

You're so adamant about it that it makes me feel your ashamed of your
looks or something?

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> sf wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:44:25 -0500, Sky >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SF, why isn't your mugshot included in the webpage?
>> Let's put it this way, sky. It will be a cold day in H... rfc when my
>> picture goes up there. How many regulars from here and chat have
>> mugshots up that make them all but unrecognizable in real life (old
>> photo, hidden face, etc)?
>
> You're so adamant about it that it makes me feel your ashamed of your
> looks or something?

That's a stupid assumption on your part. You generally err on the petty,
unpleasant side, so no surprise. There are many good reasons not to post
one's photo on the web.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:20:28 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>Some of those people have probably even forgotten that their picture is
>there.

Most likely.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.