On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:18:59 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

>Can't people somehow make sure they stay together when they get
>rid of them?

It's not their choice unless the books are on consignment.

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

sandi wrote:
> "Jean B." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Do any of you know of a good email list for cookbook
>> collectors? I'd love to rattle on and on about these things
>> but think most people here would be really bored. The only
>> list I have found seems to be mostly for dealers with books to
>> sell. Almost no discussion at all.
>>
>> Of course, I'd prefer an NG, but I don't think any such thing
>> exists!
>
> Good reading:
> http://nylon.net/alt/

Thanks. I will read this.

--
Jean B.

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:27:37 -0600, Christine Dabney
> > wrote:
>
>> I got the Time Life Foods of the World series as it was
>> published...one every other month. I was still a teenager, and was
>> so excited. I have all the volumes and the recipe books as well,
>> although some of those are getting pretty ragged.
>
> My grandmother gifted me with one of those A-Z type cookbook series
> (I'm pretty sure it was Time-Life) after I exhibited an interest in
> it. I had xmas every month and I LOVED it (and yes, I even cooked
> some recipes). However, a couple of decades ago I pruned my cookbooks
> and that series was donated to a good samaritan organization. I can
> only hope whoever bought the entire set because it was complete. I
> get sad about that every time we talk about old cookbook *series* in
> rfc.
>
Nodding. Yes, I don't like seeing sets broken up.

--
Jean B.

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:18:59 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Can't people somehow make sure they stay together when they get
>> rid of them?
>
> It's not their choice unless the books are on consignment.
>
In some places, I get the feeling it is because the two volumes
(at least) have not been banded together.

--
Jean B.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:08:11 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:18:59 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>
>>> Can't people somehow make sure they stay together when they get
>>> rid of them?
>>
>> It's not their choice unless the books are on consignment.
>>
>In some places, I get the feeling it is because the two volumes
>(at least) have not been banded together.

OK, that's another option... maybe the store owner you're thinking of
has a vision other than $$, I dunno. However, I applaud it. I can't
imagine a vendor binding 12 or more volumes together though.

Breaking up a set like that is like breaking up the Smithsonian.
Ok, I over stated it... but you get my meaning. LOL

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

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:32:49 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:21:38 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>WTF are you talking about? Mark "watch" *if I'm looking for
>>something*? I don't think you know your head from your tail.
>
>He's correct. You can follow posts that way with Agent. Very easy to
>mark threads or posters that you want to follow.
>
>Christine, a longtime Agent user.

Mark posts means the entire thread, if you have the entire thread is
marked as watch. It won't help you if the post you want is deleted.

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

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:17:10 -0500, Lou Decruss
> wrote:

>Another thing it will do is over-ride my killfile if I click on her
>message id in your headers and I can see all the sllly stuff she
>spewed. You can also get a message id from goggle and agent will
>retrieve it if it's something I want to reply to. In this case I
>don't care to.

Disregarding the inflammatory nature of what Lou said, I learned only
yesterday about how to click on a message ID in "full headers" which I
usually don't have turned on because I don't give a flying f*ck about
headers.

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

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:17:10 -0500, Lou Decruss
> > wrote:
>
>> Another thing it will do is over-ride my killfile if I click on her
>> message id in your headers and I can see all the sllly stuff she
>> spewed. You can also get a message id from goggle and agent will
>> retrieve it if it's something I want to reply to. In this case I
>> don't care to.
>
> Disregarding the inflammatory nature of what Lou said, I learned only
> yesterday about how to click on a message ID in "full headers" which I
> usually don't have turned on because I don't give a flying f*ck about
> headers.
>
Which reminds me of your oft repeated complaint about AOL and the "small
letter window" yet no one I know seems to have that problem but you?

If I were looking for a recipe I knew had been posted, I myself would
just use dejanews (ok, Google group search, geesh) and enter a few words
into the advanced search parameters and look around a bit. It ain't
brain surgery.

koko wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:31:56 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:41:06 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

>>> I can't see anything inappropriate/boring about discussing cookbooks
>>> right here. I dunno about other news services, but when I go to
>>> my 'Subscribe to newsgroups' list, the 'Description' for
>>> rec.food.cooking is listed as "Food, cooking, cookbooks and
>>> recipes".
>>>
>>> Besides, as somebody else pointed out, those that aren't interested
>>> can skip the threads - especially if you come up with some sort
>>> of 'standardized' subject line that indicates that it's a cookbook
>>> thread... maybe start the thread with "CB:" (or something like
>>> that?) that way folks can easily set up a filter if they're not
>>> interested.
>>>
>>> Just my two cents.
>>
>>god damn it, there you go being sensible again.
>>
>>your outraged pal,
>>blake
>
> I agree. Sensibility has no place here.
> Wait until the Cabal (tinc) hears about this.
>
> another outraged pal.
>
> koko

Oops. Sorry guys, I'll try and be less sensible in future. <eg>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Jean B. wrote:
>
> Hehe. Well, we seem to be discussing cookbooks in that thread
> anyway, so maybe this will just evolve!
>
Quite so. Can't get much more food/cooking-related than discussing
cookbooks <lol>. FWIW, I'm enjoying this thread... My Mom had some of
the T-L cookbooks - brings back some good memories.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:08:11 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:18:59 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can't people somehow make sure they stay together when they get
>>>> rid of them?
>>> It's not their choice unless the books are on consignment.
>>>
>> In some places, I get the feeling it is because the two volumes
>> (at least) have not been banded together.
>
> OK, that's another option... maybe the store owner you're thinking of
> has a vision other than $$, I dunno. However, I applaud it. I can't
> imagine a vendor binding 12 or more volumes together though.
>
> Breaking up a set like that is like breaking up the Smithsonian.
> Ok, I over stated it... but you get my meaning. LOL
>

Of course, keeping the whole set together is an even better idea
than keeping the 2 volumes together. BUT if they can't do the
former, then they should at least do the latter.

I don't buy much online, but when I was scrolling through various
offerings, I did not that some old sets had been broken up, and I
was sure not going to encourage such dealers by buying the volumes
that way.

--
Jean B.

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>> Hehe. Well, we seem to be discussing cookbooks in that thread
>> anyway, so maybe this will just evolve!
>>
> Quite so. Can't get much more food/cooking-related than discussing
> cookbooks <lol>. FWIW, I'm enjoying this thread... My Mom had some of
> the T-L cookbooks - brings back some good memories.

I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
search across all ngs.) Also, minor by comparison, I'd have to
find a different newsreader that allows one to post control messages.

--
Jean B.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:59:14 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:17:10 -0500, Lou Decruss
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Another thing it will do is over-ride my killfile if I click on her
>>> message id in your headers and I can see all the sllly stuff she
>>> spewed. You can also get a message id from goggle and agent will
>>> retrieve it if it's something I want to reply to. In this case I
>>> don't care to.
>>
>> Disregarding the inflammatory nature of what Lou said, I learned only
>> yesterday about how to click on a message ID in "full headers" which I
>> usually don't have turned on because I don't give a flying f*ck about
>> headers.
>>
>Which reminds me of your oft repeated complaint about AOL and the "small
>letter window" yet no one I know seems to have that problem but you?
>
>If I were looking for a recipe I knew had been posted, I myself would
>just use dejanews (ok, Google group search, geesh) and enter a few words
>into the advanced search parameters and look around a bit. It ain't
>brain surgery.

She's just learning about her 8-9 year old reader she says "I" don't
know my "head from my tail." Good lard!

Lou

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:13:31 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> koko wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:31:56 -0400, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:41:06 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>>>> I can't see anything inappropriate/boring about discussing cookbooks
>>>> right here. I dunno about other news services, but when I go to
>>>> my 'Subscribe to newsgroups' list, the 'Description' for
>>>> rec.food.cooking is listed as "Food, cooking, cookbooks and
>>>> recipes".
>>>>
>>>> Besides, as somebody else pointed out, those that aren't interested
>>>> can skip the threads - especially if you come up with some sort
>>>> of 'standardized' subject line that indicates that it's a cookbook
>>>> thread... maybe start the thread with "CB:" (or something like
>>>> that?) that way folks can easily set up a filter if they're not
>>>> interested.
>>>>
>>>> Just my two cents.
>>>
>>>god damn it, there you go being sensible again.
>>>
>>>your outraged pal,
>>>blake
>>
>> I agree. Sensibility has no place here.
>> Wait until the Cabal (tinc) hears about this.
>>
>> another outraged pal.
>>
>> koko
>
> Oops. Sorry guys, I'll try and be less sensible in future. <eg>

really. good thing it doesn't seem to be contagious.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy > wrote:

> if you mean the old google newgroup search, it is he
>
> <http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/GoogleGroupsAdvSearch.htm>

It is just an old search page. The search engine is of course the same
and delivers exactly the same results. One can build one's own search
page to one's liking. Years ago, I used my own page, combining
MetaCrawler, Google Groups, and Epicurious Food Dictionary searches. I
did not bother to update the links, so now only Google Groups works -
exactly the same as the page above or the new one.

Victor

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:10:41 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not, however, trying to cook my way through 1000+ cookbooks. I
>>> enjoy reading them, but I don't feel I have to make something from every
>>> single one of them.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> I don't think I have to cook from all of them either, Jill.
>
> And I certainly don't cook from all of mine either!! But sometimes I
> will start thinking of some particular idea or dish, and I will go to
> my books and start exploring. That is fun in itself!!
>
> Christine

I do the same, usually with a foray onto the internet as well to compare
recipes, variations, techniques, etc. I don't even want to think
about how many of my cookbooks have never seen any actual cooking action
at all!!!

TammyM

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:10:41 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not, however, trying to cook my way through 1000+ cookbooks. I
>>> enjoy reading them, but I don't feel I have to make something from every
>>> single one of them.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> I don't think I have to cook from all of them either, Jill.
>
> And I certainly don't cook from all of mine either!! But sometimes I
> will start thinking of some particular idea or dish, and I will go to
> my books and start exploring. That is fun in itself!!
>
> Christine

I do the same, usually with a foray onto the internet as well to compare
recipes, variations, techniques, etc. I don't even want to think
about how many of my cookbooks have never seen any actual cooking action
at all!!!

TammyM

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:00:02 -0400, Jean B. wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Jean B. wrote:
>>> Hehe. Well, we seem to be discussing cookbooks in that thread
>>> anyway, so maybe this will just evolve!
>>>
>> Quite so. Can't get much more food/cooking-related than discussing
>> cookbooks <lol>. FWIW, I'm enjoying this thread... My Mom had some of
>> the T-L cookbooks - brings back some good memories.
>
> I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
> looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
> foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
> all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
> google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
> groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
> function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
> search across all ngs.)

if you mean the old google newgroup search, it is he

<http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/GoogleGroupsAdvSearch.htm>

you can use wildcards in the groups to search function, but it might still
be daunting.

your pal,
blake

Jean B. > wrote:

> I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
> looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
> foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
> all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
> google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
> groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
> function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
> search across all ngs.) Also, minor by comparison, I'd have to
> find a different newsreader that allows one to post control messages.

Be careful. Some people on alt.config tend to exaggerate their
importance to the point of self-aggrandisement. The alt.* hierarchy is
omitted by a lot of news providers as a whole. No one on alt.config,
nor the the alt.config as a whole, can guarantee or promise anything
definite at all. They do count, but that's all.

As suggested before - and repeated very strongly - you are well advised
to spend at least a few months reading news.groups - and that would
apply for alt.config, too - to get some actual idea of what you are
thinking to do.

I'd also suggest you e-mail Brian Mailman and ask for his personal
advice. He's been active on both news.groups and alt.config for a long
time - and he used to be an rfc regular and is still a regular on at
least one rec.food newsgroup. He is also is a moderator of the
rec.food.cuisine.jewish .

Victor

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:42:38 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> if you mean the old google newgroup search, it is he
>>
>> <http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/GoogleGroupsAdvSearch.htm>
>
> It is just an old search page. The search engine is of course the same
> and delivers exactly the same results.

i'm quite sure it does lead to the same (cruddy or not) results. but
trying to get from the google homepage to the usenet group search page has
never seemed intuitive to me, and as i recall, the layout once you get
there doesn't make as much sense, either. so i bookmarked that one.

>One can build one's own search
> page to one's liking. Years ago, I used my own page, combining
> MetaCrawler, Google Groups, and Epicurious Food Dictionary searches. I
> did not bother to update the links, so now only Google Groups works -
> exactly the same as the page above or the new one.
>
> Victor

your knowledge and skill probably outweigh mine.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:00:02 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>> Hehe. Well, we seem to be discussing cookbooks in that thread
>>>> anyway, so maybe this will just evolve!
>>>>
>>> Quite so. Can't get much more food/cooking-related than discussing
>>> cookbooks <lol>. FWIW, I'm enjoying this thread... My Mom had some of
>>> the T-L cookbooks - brings back some good memories.
>> I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
>> looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
>> foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
>> all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
>> google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
>> groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
>> function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
>> search across all ngs.)
>
> if you mean the old google newgroup search, it is he
>
> <http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/GoogleGroupsAdvSearch.htm>
>
> you can use wildcards in the groups to search function, but it might still
> be daunting.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Thanks. I do see that LISTS are included though. :-(

--
Jean B.

Victor Sack wrote:
> Jean B. > wrote:
>
>> I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
>> looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
>> foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
>> all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
>> google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
>> groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
>> function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
>> search across all ngs.) Also, minor by comparison, I'd have to
>> find a different newsreader that allows one to post control messages.
>
> Be careful. Some people on alt.config tend to exaggerate their
> importance to the point of self-aggrandisement. The alt.* hierarchy is
> omitted by a lot of news providers as a whole. No one on alt.config,
> nor the the alt.config as a whole, can guarantee or promise anything
> definite at all. They do count, but that's all.
>
> As suggested before - and repeated very strongly - you are well advised
> to spend at least a few months reading news.groups - and that would
> apply for alt.config, too - to get some actual idea of what you are
> thinking to do.
>
> I'd also suggest you e-mail Brian Mailman and ask for his personal
> advice. He's been active on both news.groups and alt.config for a long
> time - and he used to be an rfc regular and is still a regular on at
> least one rec.food newsgroup. He is also is a moderator of the
> rec.food.cuisine.jewish .
>
> Victor
>
Thanks, Victor. I have reached some of the same conclusions. I
may also have found a list about cookbooks that suits my needs.
If it proves to be as good as it seems, I will post more about it.
Oddly enough, I found it by mistake. In the course of trying to
find a site I had run into on preserving old cookbooks, I
actually got a list of yahoo groups, which was better than any I
had seen before.

--
Jean B.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:16:18 -0400, Jean B. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:00:02 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>>
>>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>>> Hehe. Well, we seem to be discussing cookbooks in that thread
>>>>> anyway, so maybe this will just evolve!
>>>>>
>>>> Quite so. Can't get much more food/cooking-related than discussing
>>>> cookbooks <lol>. FWIW, I'm enjoying this thread... My Mom had some of
>>>> the T-L cookbooks - brings back some good memories.
>>> I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
>>> looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
>>> foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
>>> all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
>>> google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
>>> groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
>>> function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
>>> search across all ngs.)
>>
>> if you mean the old google newgroup search, it is he
>>
>> <http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/GoogleGroupsAdvSearch.htm>
>>
>> you can use wildcards in the groups to search function, but it might still
>> be daunting.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Thanks. I do see that LISTS are included though. :-(

i'm not sure what you mean by this.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:16:18 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:00:02 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>>>
>>>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>>>> Hehe. Well, we seem to be discussing cookbooks in that thread
>>>>>> anyway, so maybe this will just evolve!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Quite so. Can't get much more food/cooking-related than discussing
>>>>> cookbooks <lol>. FWIW, I'm enjoying this thread... My Mom had some of
>>>>> the T-L cookbooks - brings back some good memories.
>>>> I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
>>>> looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
>>>> foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
>>>> all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
>>>> google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
>>>> groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
>>>> function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
>>>> search across all ngs.)
>>> if you mean the old google newgroup search, it is he
>>>
>>> <http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/GoogleGroupsAdvSearch.htm>
>>>
>>> you can use wildcards in the groups to search function, but it might still
>>> be daunting.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>> Thanks. I do see that LISTS are included though. :-(
>
> i'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I want to be able to search for content across newsgroups without
email lists included.

--
Jean B.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:13:56 -0400, Jean B. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:16:18 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:00:02 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>>>>> Hehe. Well, we seem to be discussing cookbooks in that thread
>>>>>>> anyway, so maybe this will just evolve!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite so. Can't get much more food/cooking-related than discussing
>>>>>> cookbooks <lol>. FWIW, I'm enjoying this thread... My Mom had some of
>>>>>> the T-L cookbooks - brings back some good memories.
>>>>> I am especially leaning toward that evolution/posting here after
>>>>> looking at the link that Sandi posted. Immediate problems I
>>>>> foresee: determining the number of cookbook-related posts across
>>>>> all newsgroups over the past three months. (I am reminded that
>>>>> google has screwed up the group search by combined ngs and email
>>>>> groups, etc. Someone once posted a link to the old search
>>>>> function, and maybe that would help, but it would seem daunting to
>>>>> search across all ngs.)
>>>> if you mean the old google newgroup search, it is he
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/GoogleGroupsAdvSearch.htm>
>>>>
>>>> you can use wildcards in the groups to search function, but it might still
>>>> be daunting.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>> Thanks. I do see that LISTS are included though. :-(
>>
>> i'm not sure what you mean by this.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I want to be able to search for content across newsgroups without
> email lists included.

o.k.

your pal,
blake