Does anyone know?

Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.

But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to persons
to keep the unrelated "topics" off. Seems to me that there are other
newsgroups that would be more appropriate. You may say, don't click on
those posts. I usually don't. One thing you can do is try to remember who
responded to those unrelated topics and don't click on them again -- but all
won't want to exercise their brain in this manner - such a waste of time; I
agree.

If a person's philosophy is an aside such as a postscript to their name,
well, I'd say you can't do much about those persons except TRY not to click
on them again if it is not to your liking. But, I think this is a sneaky way
to get someone to listen to the person's propoganda that you wouldn't
otherwise give them the time of day.

d

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:27:38 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> wrote:

>Does anyone know?
>
>Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
>postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
>postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
>
>But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to persons
>to keep the unrelated "topics" off. Seems to me that there are other
>newsgroups that would be more appropriate. You may say, don't click on
>those posts. I usually don't. One thing you can do is try to remember who
>responded to those unrelated topics and don't click on them again -- but all
>won't want to exercise their brain in this manner - such a waste of time; I
>agree.
>
>If a person's philosophy is an aside such as a postscript to their name,
>well, I'd say you can't do much about those persons except TRY not to click
>on them again if it is not to your liking. But, I think this is a sneaky way
>to get someone to listen to the person's propoganda that you wouldn't
>otherwise give them the time of day.
>
>d
>


Welcome to RFC


~sunshine

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone know?
>
> Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
> postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
> postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
>
> But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to
persons
> to keep the unrelated "topics" off. Seems to me that there are other
> newsgroups that would be more appropriate. You may say, don't click on
> those posts. I usually don't. One thing you can do is try to remember
who
> responded to those unrelated topics and don't click on them again -- but
all
> won't want to exercise their brain in this manner - such a waste of time;
I
> agree.
>
> If a person's philosophy is an aside such as a postscript to their name,
> well, I'd say you can't do much about those persons except TRY not to
click
> on them again if it is not to your liking. But, I think this is a sneaky
way
> to get someone to listen to the person's propoganda that you wouldn't
> otherwise give them the time of day.
>

This group has no moderator. When a newsgroup is first formed it has a
charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is moderated or not.
Most are not - rec.food.recipes is one of the few that is, IIRC. So you
cannot just say "let's get a moderator for this group." Rather you would
have to start a new group, say rec.food.cooking.moderated, that is defined
as moderated from the start.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone know?

If the newsgroup were moderated, you'd see the word "moderated".

Alas, it isn't there.

You can filter out unwanted posts, as many will instruct. I personally have
no one in my killfile. I prefer to scan a subject line, and you can usually
tell if it's related to the topic or not.

Usually I'll put OT (for Off-Topic) in a post that has no bearing on the
concensus.

"Dee Randall" > wrote:

>Does anyone know?
>
>Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
>postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
>postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
>
>But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to persons
>to keep the unrelated "topics" off. Seems to me that there are other
>newsgroups that would be more appropriate. You may say, don't click on
>those posts. I usually don't. One thing you can do is try to remember who
>responded to those unrelated topics and don't click on them again -- but all
>won't want to exercise their brain in this manner - such a waste of time; I
>agree.
>
>If a person's philosophy is an aside such as a postscript to their name,
>well, I'd say you can't do much about those persons except TRY not to click
>on them again if it is not to your liking. But, I think this is a sneaky way
>to get someone to listen to the person's propoganda that you wouldn't
>otherwise give them the time of day.
>
>d
>


Some newsgroups are moderated and were set up that way.

Who would you want to moderate this group? Personally I do my own
moderating rather than having someone else telling me what is OK for
me to read.


--
Susan N.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.

Get a newsreader and put that person in your kill file.

I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain. Thanks.
dee

"Trent©" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:27:38 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> > wrote:
>
> >Does anyone know?
> >
> >Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of
interesting
> >postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
> >postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
> >
> >But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to
persons
> >to keep the unrelated "topics" off. Seems to me that there are other
> >newsgroups that would be more appropriate. You may say, don't click on
> >those posts. I usually don't. One thing you can do is try to remember
who
> >responded to those unrelated topics and don't click on them again -- but
all
> >won't want to exercise their brain in this manner - such a waste of time;
I
> >agree.
> >
> >If a person's philosophy is an aside such as a postscript to their name,
> >well, I'd say you can't do much about those persons except TRY not to
click
> >on them again if it is not to your liking. But, I think this is a sneaky
way
> >to get someone to listen to the person's propoganda that you wouldn't
> >otherwise give them the time of day.
> >
> >d
> >
>
> Get a newsreader and put that person in your kill file.
>
>
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season...
>
> Trent
>
>
> Cat...the OTHER white meat!

Peter Aitken > wrote:

> This group has no moderator. When a newsgroup is first formed it has a
> charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is moderated or not.

This is only true for new newsgroups. Most newsgroups formed before
1989, rfc being one of them, have no charters. In those balmy days
people still knew what, where and how to post, and charters were deemed
unnecessary.

ObFood: Old-style Lithuanian goose soup. The recipe is adapted from a
book I have here.

Old-style Lithuanian Goose Soup

1-1.25 kg (2 - 2 1/2 lb) goose (or duck)
2 onions
1 carrot
1 parsnip
1/2 celery root
4-5 ceps (boletus, porcini) mushrooms
250 ml (1/4 quart) beetroot kvas or juice of 1 lemon
100 g (3 1/2 oz) pearl barley (preferably large-sized)
2 tablespoons butter
500 ml (1/2 quart) sour cream
3 firm apples suitable for cooking, preferably sour
1/2 teaspoon caraway seeds
fresh dill

Remove the excess fat from the goose (or duck), cut into large pieces,
put into a heavy pot, cover with water and simmer together with 1 onion,
carrot, parsnip, celery root and cut-up apples for about 1 1/2 hours.
Towards the end, add the caraway seeds. Cook the mushrooms and the
second onion (chopped) in 1/2 l (1/2 quart), adding the kvas or lemon
juice. Separately, cook the pearl barley until it disintegrates (making
a kind of barley congee), drain and mix with the butter, working it into
a purée, then whip it up into a whitish soufflé consistency. Add sour
cream and mix until foamy. Mix into the hot soup and heat through,
taking care it doesn't boil. Serve, sprinkled with some dill.

Victor

Victor Sack wrote:
>
> Peter Aitken > wrote:
>
> > This group has no moderator. When a newsgroup is first formed it has a
> > charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is moderated or not.
>
> This is only true for new newsgroups. Most newsgroups formed before
> 1989, rfc being one of them, have no charters. In those balmy days
> people still knew what, where and how to post, and charters were deemed
> unnecessary.
>
> ObFood: Old-style Lithuanian goose soup. The recipe is adapted from a
> book I have here.
>
> Old-style Lithuanian Goose Soup
>
> 1-1.25 kg (2 - 2 1/2 lb) goose (or duck)
> 2 onions
> 1 carrot
> 1 parsnip
> 1/2 celery root
> 4-5 ceps (boletus, porcini) mushrooms
> 250 ml (1/4 quart) beetroot kvas or juice of 1 lemon
> 100 g (3 1/2 oz) pearl barley (preferably large-sized)
> 2 tablespoons butter
> 500 ml (1/2 quart) sour cream
> 3 firm apples suitable for cooking, preferably sour
> 1/2 teaspoon caraway seeds
> fresh dill
>
> Remove the excess fat from the goose (or duck), cut into large pieces,
> put into a heavy pot, cover with water and simmer together with 1 onion,
> carrot, parsnip, celery root and cut-up apples for about 1 1/2 hours.
> Towards the end, add the caraway seeds. Cook the mushrooms and the
> second onion (chopped) in 1/2 l (1/2 quart), adding the kvas or lemon
> juice. Separately, cook the pearl barley until it disintegrates (making
> a kind of barley congee), drain and mix with the butter, working it into
> a purée, then whip it up into a whitish soufflé consistency. Add sour
> cream and mix until foamy. Mix into the hot soup and heat through,
> taking care it doesn't boil. Serve, sprinkled with some dill.
>
> Victor

When Barbara was here, we went to a nice restaurant, Ouest, whose owner,
Tom Vaalenti, happened to be written up in this week's N.Y. Times Food
Section. The soup on the three course prix fixe dinner was duck soup
and both of us ordered it. Marcel had Belgian Endive salad. The soup
was wonderful, but it was not anything like the one of your recipe. No
sour cream, no beetroot and no caraway seeds. Next time I go there, I
will see whether I can get the recipe. I never had any kind of duck
soup before. I thought the very name and the Marx Brothers film meant
that Duck Soup is some kind of joke. MS

In article >, "Dee Randall"
> wrote:

> Get a newsreader and put that person in your kill file.
>
> I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain. Thanks.
> dee

You're using Outlook Express to read news. There exists software
specifically reading news -- Agent, Free Agent, others for Windows;
NewsWatcher, MacSoup, others for Macintosh. The good ones allow you to
create filters on posts -- by author, by subject, perhaps by length of
post. For example, I can choose to highlight the names of certain
posters so their posts are readily visible when my group's list of posts
appears. I can choose to'kill' or "kill file" certain subjects or
posters if I don't even want them to show up on my screen. The filters
may have time limits (you choose) on them. HTH.
--
-Barb
<www.jamlady.eboard.com>
"If you're ever in a jam, here I am."

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
.com:

> This group has no moderator. When a newsgroup is first formed it
> has a charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is
> moderated or not. Most are not - rec.food.recipes is one of the
> few that is, IIRC. So you cannot just say "let's get a moderator
> for this group." Rather you would have to start a new group, say
> rec.food.cooking.moderated, that is defined as moderated from the
> start.

But that would be an uphill battle and a general waste of time. The
attempt to create a group called rec.food.vegetables, if you recall,
was properly trounced by one of the largest no votes in Usenet history.

--
"The problem with the French is they have no
word for entrepreneur."

attributed to George W. Bush by Tony Blair
via Baroness Williams

(Victor Sack) wrote in
:

>> This group has no moderator. When a newsgroup is first formed it
>> has a charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is
>> moderated or not.
>
> This is only true for new newsgroups. Most newsgroups formed
> before 1989, rfc being one of them, have no charters. In those
> balmy days people still knew what, where and how to post, and
> charters were deemed unnecessary.

Oh, the days *before* people discovered how much fun flaming can
be...you're dating yourself, Victor.

--
"The problem with the French is they have no
word for entrepreneur."

attributed to George W. Bush by Tony Blair
via Baroness Williams

"Chris" > wrote in
:

> "Dee Randall" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Does anyone know?
>
> If the newsgroup were moderated, you'd see the word "moderated".
>
> Alas, it isn't there.

Alas????? Sheesh...

> Usually I'll put OT (for Off-Topic) in a post that has no bearing
> on the concensus.

That's a pretty standard Usenet convention.

--
"The problem with the French is they have no
word for entrepreneur."

attributed to George W. Bush by Tony Blair
via Baroness Williams

"Margaret Suran" > wrote in message
...
>
> When Barbara was here, we went to a nice restaurant, Ouest, whose owner,
> Tom Vaalenti, happened to be written up in this week's N.Y. Times Food
> Section. The soup on the three course prix fixe dinner was duck soup
> and both of us ordered it. Marcel had Belgian Endive salad. The soup
> was wonderful, but it was not anything like the one of your recipe. No
> sour cream, no beetroot and no caraway seeds. Next time I go there, I
> will see whether I can get the recipe. I never had any kind of duck
> soup before. I thought the very name and the Marx Brothers film meant
> that Duck Soup is some kind of joke. MS

I'm kinda shocked that any 'east of the elbe' recipe would not contain at
least caraway. But what do I know, other than 'Duck Soup' is the best Marx
Brothers film IMO. Huh? Oh, ok, 'Horsefeathers' and ' Monkey Business'
were colossal also.

Jack T Firefly

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> You're using Outlook Express to read news. There exists software
> specifically reading news -- Agent, Free Agent, others for Windows;
> NewsWatcher, MacSoup, others for Macintosh. The good ones allow you to
> create filters on posts -- by author, by subject, perhaps by length of
> post. For example, I can choose to highlight the names of certain
> posters so their posts are readily visible when my group's list of posts
> appears. I can choose to'kill' or "kill file" certain subjects or
> posters if I don't even want them to show up on my screen. The filters
> may have time limits (you choose) on them. HTH.


It should be noted that the newsreader that is part of OE is able to do
that as well. It's a matter of learning how to use the tools.

There are good reasons not to use OE as a newsreader, but filtering
isn't really one of them, at least at the level we're discussing. I
haven't used it for a while so I can't give explicit instructions to the
OP as to how to use the kill features.




Brian Rodenborn

In article >,
says...
> In article >, "Dee Randall"
> > wrote:
>
> > Get a newsreader and put that person in your kill file.
> >
> > I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain. Thanks.
> > dee
>
> You're using Outlook Express to read news. There exists software
> specifically reading news -- Agent, Free Agent, others for Windows;
> NewsWatcher, MacSoup, others for Macintosh. The good ones allow you to
> create filters on posts -- by author, by subject, perhaps by length of
> post. For example, I can choose to highlight the names of certain
> posters so their posts are readily visible when my group's list of posts
> appears. I can choose to'kill' or "kill file" certain subjects or
> posters if I don't even want them to show up on my screen. The filters
> may have time limits (you choose) on them. HTH.

Ah - good old NewsWatcher. I remember that from about ten years ago and
it was excellent.

I don't know if Gravity is available for the Mac but it is excellent on
the PC platform. I know MicroPlanet officially discontinued Gravity but
it took on a life of it's own and now goes by SuperGravity. Do a web
search.

In article >, Michel Boucher
> writes:

>"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
r.com:
>
>> This group has no moderator.

Hehe, that's what yoose think.... see those strings attached all about yoose
bodies... Ahahahahahahahahaha. . . .


>When a newsgroup is first formed it
>> has a charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is
>> moderated or not. Most are not - rec.food.recipes is one of the
>> few that is, IIRC. So you cannot just say "let's get a moderator
>> for this group." Rather you would have to start a new group, say
>> rec.food.cooking.moderated, that is defined as moderated from the
>> start.
>
>But that would be an uphill battle and a general waste of time. The
>attempt to create a group called rec.food.vegetables, if you recall,
>was properly trounced by one of the largest no votes in Usenet history.
>


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

Victor Sack > wrote:
>Peter Aitken > wrote:
>> This group has no moderator. When a newsgroup is first formed it has a
>> charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is moderated or not.
>
>This is only true for new newsgroups. Most newsgroups formed before
>1989, rfc being one of them, have no charters. In those balmy days
>people still knew what, where and how to post, and charters were deemed
>unnecessary.

Actually, charters were the result of overweaning give-some-people-
a-badge-ism in the news.groups discussions. They're as useless as
tits on a Republican Presidential Candidate.

--Blair
"Give some people a profit motive."

in article , The Cook at
wrote on 12/11/03 11:28 AM:

> "Dee Randall" > wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know?
>>
>> Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
>> postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
>> postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
(snip)
>
>
> Some newsgroups are moderated and were set up that way.
>
> Who would you want to moderate this group? Personally I do my own
> moderating rather than having someone else telling me what is OK for
> me to read.
>

YUP!
It's refreshing to have access to everything that's out there, for ME to
wade through and decide what is chaff and what is grain.

Do you realize that virtually all media we are exposed to is "moderated"?
Think about it. Someone else decides what is newsworthy and what is not, and
what we get to see on the news, on tv, hear on the radio and read in the
newspapers and magazines.

The beauty of the internet is that it's ALL here, for the taking. Whatever
you want to see, you can find it. Whatever you want to avoid, easy to do,
just either click on "next" or don't pull it up in the first place. Each of
us is responsible for our own "content".

You want a moderator? You find a moderated group. There are plenty of them
out there.

Leave this one alone for those of us grown-up enough to "moderate" our own
lives and feel no need to apply our standards to anyone else.

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dee Randall"
> > wrote:
>
> > Get a newsreader and put that person in your kill file.
> >
> > I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain. Thanks.
> > dee
>
> You're using Outlook Express to read news.

For dee:

To killfile someone in Outlook Express, make sure the person's message is
highlighted by clicking it once. Go to the Message menu. Select Block
Sender. You'll be asked if you want all messages from that person removed.
Click Yes if you want to killfile the person, or No to cancel.

To create filters (e.g., to filter out every message with the word
'sausage'), go to the Message menu. Select Create Rule from Message. Follow
the instructions.

Cate

In article >, Default User
> wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> > You're using Outlook Express to read news. There exists software
> > specifically reading news -- Agent, Free Agent, others for Windows;
> > NewsWatcher, MacSoup, others for Macintosh. The good ones allow you to
> > create filters on posts -- by author, by subject, perhaps by length of
> > post. For example, I can choose to highlight the names of certain
> > posters so their posts are readily visible when my group's list of posts
> > appears. I can choose to'kill' or "kill file" certain subjects or
> > posters if I don't even want them to show up on my screen. The filters
> > may have time limits (you choose) on them. HTH.
>
>
> It should be noted that the newsreader that is part of OE is able to do
> that as well. It's a matter of learning how to use the tools.
>
> There are good reasons not to use OE as a newsreader, but filtering
> isn't really one of them, at least at the level we're discussing. I
> haven't used it for a while so I can't give explicit instructions to the
> OP as to how to use the kill features.

> Brian Rodenborn

Thanks for the info about that, Brian. Sounded like Dee didn't know
what a killfile is.
--
-Barb
<www.jamlady.eboard.com>
"If you're ever in a jam, here I am."

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:43:50 -0500, sunshine
> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:27:38 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> wrote:

>>Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
>>postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
>>postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
>>
>>But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to persons
>>to keep the unrelated "topics" off.

>Welcome to RFC

Indeed. There are moderated and unmoderated newsgroups.
rec.food.recipes is, I believe, moderated. Only recipes and recipe
requests are allowed. Chatty groups like rfc frequently post "off
topic (OT)" and a thread that begins with a pickle question can
devolve into a discussion of guitars, depending on who's reminded of
what along the way. Straightforward queries on cooking topics
generally receive serious consideration and reliable replies. At least
for a while. :-)

Many newsreaders have a "killfile" feature that will automatically
eliminate your seeing msgs from particular people/addresses. The
web/internet has traditionally been pretty much 'free form' and
unsupervised. Like Hyde Park -- you can study nature, ride a horse, or
speak on any topic you choose. There's no "net nanny" in the system.

There are too many brilliant liberals in this group simply bursting
with commentary on every subject for there to be any hope of a
moderator functioning at all. Cooking type folk are uniquely
positioned to render opinion on all subjects, and they know it.

Besides---moderation kills groups.

>Does anyone know?
>
>Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
>postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
>postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
>
>But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to persons
>to keep the unrelated "topics" off. Seems to me that there are other
>newsgroups that would be more appropriate. You may say, don't click on
>those posts. I usually don't. One thing you can do is try to remember who
>responded to those unrelated topics and don't click on them again -- but all
>won't want to exercise their brain in this manner - such a waste of time; I
>agree.
>
>If a person's philosophy is an aside such as a postscript to their name,
>well, I'd say you can't do much about those persons except TRY not to click
>on them again if it is not to your liking. But, I think this is a sneaky way
>to get someone to listen to the person's propoganda that you wouldn't
>otherwise give them the time of day.
>
>d
>

On moderation: Generally speaking, it is a good thing. Recently added
way too much garlic my chili. The next batch I reduced to one clove,
which seemed about right for this particular Hellmart garlic. The
problem is the reduced garlic intensity revealed a chronic tartness/
astringency, which I'm now convinced is caused by the tomato products
I've been using for years--Hunt's.

Their plum tomatoes and sauce have always served as a decent base for
chile or sauce, but not anymore. Tuttorrosso brand is good, but still
not there.

Any Suggestions? I've also tried Cento, Furmano, and Contadina. At
this point I'm prepared to pay $$$ and have them imported.
Dave
I've grown Roma and San Marzano which produce sauce that is thoroughly
uninteresting.

>Does anyone know?
>
>Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
>postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
>postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.
>
>But I am wondering if there are no moderators on all newsgroups to persons
>to keep the unrelated "topics" off. Seems to me that there are other
>newsgroups that would be more appropriate. You may say, don't click on
>those posts. I usually don't. One thing you can do is try to remember who
>responded to those unrelated topics and don't click on them again -- but all
>won't want to exercise their brain in this manner - such a waste of time; I
>agree.
>
>If a person's philosophy is an aside such as a postscript to their name,
>well, I'd say you can't do much about those persons except TRY not to click
>on them again if it is not to your liking. But, I think this is a sneaky way
>to get someone to listen to the person's propoganda that you wouldn't
>otherwise give them the time of day.
>
>d
>

Interious wrote:
>
> There are too many brilliant liberals in this group simply bursting
> with commentary on every subject for there to be any hope of a
> moderator functioning at all. Cooking type folk are uniquely
> positioned to render opinion on all subjects, and they know it.
>
> Besides---moderation kills groups.

I just had a good laugh at the thought of what kind of masochist
would take on the 24 hour a day job of sifting through posts to
rfc for content. My next thought was, man, what a damper that
would put on the newsgroup. Best for people who want cooking advice
to just ask for it, usually it is answered. No need to beat the
spirit out of the newsgroup.

nancy

Interious writes:
>
>On moderation: <S>G</S>generally speaking, it is a good thing.

<scum sucking claptrap snipped>

Not for Newbies who can't cook a lick... you need all the unsolicited help you
can muster. Even your sentence structuring sucks big time; commas ain't
decorations and colons are not periods. You're an offensive little *******;
moderate that.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

Nancy Young > writes:

>I just had a good laugh at the thought of what kind of masochist
>would take on the 24 hour a day job of sifting through posts to
>rfc for content.

Most generally folks who subscribe to moderated newsgroups know that they are
moderated, whereas they know in advance the parameters of what content is
permitted, therefore since they hope to see their contributions posted, and
that they don't receive an unvoluntary unsubscribing, they tend to stick to the
rulz... in summary the vast majority of moderated Newsgroups require very
little moderating.
Also, moderated Newsgroups do not as a rule receive nearly the traffic of of
say an <r.f.c>. And moderated Newsgroup servers post in batches, perhaps a few
times each day, so moderators really don't slave away night and day as you
imply.

There really aren't all that many moderated Newsgroups, the vast majority are,
like r.f.c, unmoderated. Mostly those who want 'moderated' for a particular
topic where none exists join a "list serve" group, or start one themselves.
The rest, like those shit heads who pop up here from time to time simply
whine... but then that's the most indicative identifier (whining) of a Newbie,
in particular a Newbie Piece of Shit.

Then of course there are the phucking professional lurkers... useless/worthless
scum that they are... may the gods of terminal diseases visit upon them their
wrath.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>
>
>
> Thanks for the info about that, Brian. Sounded like Dee didn't know
> what a killfile is.



I would say Dee doesn't know a whole hell of allot.





--
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

Dee Randall wrote:

> Does anyone know?
>
> Just now subscribing to this food newsgroup which has a lot of interesting
> postings - some newsgroups have digressed to unrelated and disturbing
> postings to the extent that they have 80%+ got away from their topic.





Oh Christ, not another Dolt who believes the world should change to suit
them.


--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

PENMART01 wrote:
>
> Nancy Young > writes:
>
> >I just had a good laugh at the thought of what kind of masochist
> >would take on the 24 hour a day job of sifting through posts to
> >rfc for content.
>
> Most generally folks who subscribe to moderated newsgroups know that they are
> moderated, whereas they know in advance the parameters of what content is
> permitted, therefore since they hope to see their contributions posted, and
> that they don't receive an unvoluntary unsubscribing, they tend to stick to the
> rulz... in summary the vast majority of moderated Newsgroups require very
> little moderating.

That's obvious, of course traffic would diminish. I knew that, I
was laughing at someone having to do that as it is today. Just a
little laugh, that's all.

> Also, moderated Newsgroups do not as a rule receive nearly the traffic of of
> say an <r.f.c>. And moderated Newsgroup servers post in batches, perhaps a few
> times each day, so moderators really don't slave away night and day as you
> imply.

Wow, I didn't know that! I thought it was 24/7.

(laughing)

QED

>Interious writes:
>>
>>On moderation: <S>G</S>generally speaking, it is a good thing.
>
><scum sucking claptrap snipped>
>
>Not for Newbies who can't cook a lick... you need all the unsolicited help you
>can muster. Even your sentence structuring sucks big time; commas ain't
>decorations and colons are not periods. You're an offensive little *******;
>moderate that.
>
>
>---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
>Sheldon
>````````````
>"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>

Sheryl Rosen > wrote in message >...
> in article , The Cook at
> wrote on 12/11/03 11:28 AM:
>
> You want a moderator? You find a moderated group. There are plenty of them
> out there.

Like egullet. They sanitize posts, edit them at their own will, and
delete anything they don't like that you've said. If you're a newbie
you'll get Private Messages (that you can't disable btw) from
strangers telling you how your posts don't fit in with the thread.
Last I heard, this was a free country. You'd never know it there!
They're a bunch of food snots, but if that's your bag and you're
looking for heavy handed moderation, that board is for you (the OP).

(Carmen Dioxide) wrote in
om:

> Last I heard, this was a free country.

But the administrators may be in one of those US-financed tin-pot
dictatorships like...um...Iraq :-)

--
"The problem with the French is they have no
word for entrepreneur."

attributed to George W. Bush by Tony Blair
via Baroness Williams

"Carmen Dioxide" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Like egullet. They sanitize posts, edit them at their own will, and
> delete anything they don't like that you've said.

I've heard about the random editing, but have never experienced it, myself.
I've seen references to posts being deleted, though. And if they sanitize
posts, it sure isn't evident from Tony Bourdain's posts!

>If you're a newbie
> you'll get Private Messages (that you can't disable btw) from
> strangers telling you how your posts don't fit in with the thread.

Never had that happen. The only PM I've ever gotten was a very friendly
one, much like private e-mails I've gotten here. You don't have to read
PMs, though, or respond to them. I didn't realize I had one until two days
after it had arrived.

> Last I heard, this was a free country. You'd never know it there!

They have their rules, just like other groups do.

> They're a bunch of food snots, but if that's your bag and you're
> looking for heavy handed moderation, that board is for you (the OP).

I don't find them to be snotty at all. I've had some very good discussions
there which have always remained civil and on-topic.

You're right, though. For people who want heavy-handed moderation, e-Gullet
would be better place. Usenet is not for someone who has a low tolerance
for ambiguity or who is hyper-sensitive.

I think there's a place for both :-).

rona
--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!***

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:06:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

>Victor Sack > wrote:
>>Peter Aitken > wrote:
>>> This group has no moderator. When a newsgroup is first formed it has a
>>> charter that specifies, among other things, whether it is moderated or not.
>>
>>This is only true for new newsgroups. Most newsgroups formed before
>>1989, rfc being one of them, have no charters. In those balmy days
>>people still knew what, where and how to post, and charters were deemed
>>unnecessary.
>
>Actually, charters were the result of overweaning give-some-people-
>a-badge-ism in the news.groups discussions. They're as useless as
>tits on a Republican Presidential Candidate.
>
> --Blair
> "Give some people a profit motive."

not ready for liddy dole?

your pal,
blake

blake murphy > wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:06:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>>Actually, charters were the result of overweaning give-some-people-
>>a-badge-ism in the news.groups discussions. They're as useless as
>>tits on a Republican Presidential Candidate.
>
>not ready for liddy dole?

Nor is the Party, obviously.

--Blair
"They're still running their pet chimp."