Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:15:52 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> There's a technicality here - That would make it "act" like it is
>> unmoderated except for having spam filters in the email stage. It would
>> technically remain moderated. There would be movable parts involved
>> that could break and need to be repaired. Few would care about the
>> difference but it would need a moderating go-to-guy for occasional
>> technical work.
>>
>> Because RFC works so well I don't think it's worth the effort to work on
>> reviving RFR.
>
> I don't think it's worth reviving for all the reasons everybody has
> just mentioned. The only one who seemed interesting in reviving it
> was Kent. And Om at one point. RFR is past it's prime by about 15
> years.
>
> -sw

I'd like to see it revived, but it seems to be defunct.

--
Jean B.

Swertz wrote:

> I never could understand the purpose of RFR since the advent of the
> WWW. Billions of recipes are just a few keystrokes away, and the
> responses to requests in RFR were most often derived the same way. It
> was just as much as a crapshoot as blindly Googling away.

Sometimes, when asking a question of a newsgroup, I'll include something
along the lines of "I'm interested in hearing from people who have
done this, rather than just googled-up answers". Often to no avail.


Steve

Kent wrote:

> Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example is
> alt.food.recipes.

The proposal was not to start moderating RFC, it was to create several new
groups which would theoretically split the discussion into several separate
UNMODERATED forums. In practice, a spammer would simply add *all* the new
groups to their list. The trolls would still troll freely, since there would
be nothing to stop them.

I don't see anything good about the proposal. What's it supposed to
accomplish, other than quintupling the number of groups you'd have to read
if you wanted to keep abreast of discussions which currently happen here?

Bob

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Maybe somebody can clue me in: How does the RIAA and MPAA and the
> *AA-whoever get away with slapping around private individuals using
> torrents (and free torrent search/tracker sites) while dozens of
> Usenet servers actually *host* much of the same pirated material while
> CHARGING MONEY for it and not get dinged?

I think UseNet is below the radar for these groups. Maybe because web
searches do not index Usenet.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:24:57 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> I don't see anything good about the proposal. What's it supposed to
> accomplish, other than quintupling the number of groups you'd have to read
> if you wanted to keep abreast of discussions which currently happen here?

All English language food groups except rfc, uk.f+d and of course
alt.binaries.food could be eliminated due to low traffic. They're so
boring that spammers and trolls don't even play in them.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"Sqwertz" wrote
> cshenk wrote:

>>> ObStu: Pot Roast in the crock pot as of 10:00am. What makes it a post
>>> roast instead of a stew - larger pieces?

>> My take? Most amount of liquid in some types. Others, a pot roast is a
>> whole piece of meat (though may be shreeded to smaller at serving time)
>> and
>> not much liquid. In a stew, the veggies are usually cooked with the
>> meat.
>> In a potroast, they may be separate.

> I think I use more liquid than a typical crock pot roast - about 4
> cups of water and/or wine and a envelope of onion soup mix. It's just
> the way I've always done it. I should probably try it with less
> liquid.

I'm the other way with sometimes no liquid other than a few splashes of
vinegar and soy (or some other combo depending on end effect desired). The
crockpot holds all the liquid in so it makes it's own. I suppose it depends
on the cut of meat and how fatty it already is.

A beef potroast will get some more liquid, normally a deep broth. A pork
version, might not have any added at all until after 6 hours on medium.

Try next time just the soup mix and the wine? Maybe 1/4 cup DEEP broth?
(Augment with lots of knorrs or minors if you don't make your own regular
enough to have it handy).

Alternatively though stop and think what you use that extra liquid for
later. If you save it for a wonderful second meal (makes sense to me!) then
you may want to just 'try it once' with less liquid to see what the
difference is, then go back to normal.

I think most recipes add so much liquid, because they weren't in sealed
crockpot type cookery so would dry out. In a crockpot, you can literally
add a frozen hunk and turn it on and come back 4-6 hours later to decant the
excess liquid ;-) Not that I make'em that plain except pulled pork types
on occasion (which get spiced later).

"Bob Terwilliger" wrote

> I don't see anything good about the proposal.

Bob, wake up. It was a spammer/troll. It isnt and never was a real
suggestion. It was a hijacked post suggested 6-7 YEARS ago or more that was
turned down because that person didn't have to right to suggest it either.

Carol wrote:

>> I don't see anything good about the proposal.
>
> Bob, wake up. It was a spammer/troll. It isnt and never was a real
> suggestion. It was a hijacked post suggested 6-7 YEARS ago or more that
> was turned down because that person didn't have to right to suggest it
> either.

You are correct. Sorry.

Bob

On Mar 7, 12:50*pm, Usenet Big 5 > wrote:
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic, rec.food.recipes,
> rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with
> followups set to rec.food.cooking.
>
> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for several
> years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with a fair
> amount of regularity. *Traditionally, rec.food.cooking has been an
> amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split never seemed
> to be justified.
>
> However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate
> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. *I
> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus that
> it once had.
>
> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>
> rec.food.cooking.misc rec.food.cooking.cookware rec.food.cooking.recipes
> rec.food.cooking.media rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
> Charters:
>
> rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated) What rfc used to be and should be.
> For general cooking discussion. *This newsgroup will replace
> rec.food.cooking.
>
> rec.food.cooking.cookware (unmoderated) Bread machines, microwaves,
> crockpots, knives, cutting boards, glass-top stoves, barbecues, cast
> iron, woks, Calphalon, aluminum, dehydrators, pasta makers, rice
> cookers, etc.
>
> rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests.
>
> rec.food.cooking.media (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows, movies.
>
> rec.food.cooking.discuss (unmoderated) For all the spam and tripe that
> currently plagues the group. *For flames, rumors, controversial topics
> (such as food poisoning), the $250 cookie, and those threads that bear
> marginal relevance that seem to go on forever like, "What did you have
> for dinner last night?" *"What is your favorite fast food restaurant?"
> "What is your least favorite fast food restaurant?" *Etc, etc.
>
> Discussion will run for a minumum of 21 days. *The newsgroups in this
> proposal are subject to change, and if major changes are necessary, the
> discussion period may be extended an additional 7 days.
>
> A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion
> period. The vote will be run by a neutral third party.
>
> This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
> guidelines set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". *Please refer
> to this document if you have questions about the process.

I call for a vote to decide if this is the stupidest FRD ever. Only an
idiot would come up with an idea that one can increase the signal-to-
noise ratio by taking a healthy and active group and splitting it into
a bunch of inane subgroups.

What idiot proposed this idea? I bet it was some spammer.

On Mar 7, 6:17*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 wrote:
> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> > the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> I recognize this post. *The author of is Stepahanie De Silva.
>
> Circa 1994.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.sourdough/msg/e40b2d943a1efd0...>
>
> Looks like one of the paragraphs identifying her was ripped out, but
> it's otherwise her post from 16 years ago.

Exactly:

From: (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: RFD: rec.food.cooking reorganization
Date: 14 Sep 1994 13:30:58 -0400

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
of
the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic, rec.food.recipes,
rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with
followups
set to news.groups. All discussion regarding this proposal should
take
place in news.groups.

Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
several
years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with a fair
amount
of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking has been an amazingly
civil,
calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split never seemed to be
justified.

However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate
posts
has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually did
the
trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I feel
that
splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus that it once
had.


Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:

rec.food.cooking.misc
rec.food.cooking.cookware
rec.food.cooking.recipes
rec.food.cooking.books
rec.food.cooking.discuss


Charters:

rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated)
What rfc used to be and should be. For general cooking discussion.
This
newsgroup will replace rec.food.cooking.

rec.food.cooking.cookware (unmoderated)
Bread machines, microwaves, crockpots, knives, cutting boards, glass-
top
stoves, barbecues, cast iron, woks, Calphalon, aluminum,
dehydrators, pasta
makers, rice cookers, etc.

rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated)
Recipes and requests. Before you say that this is redundant with
rec.food.recipes, from moderating rec.food.recipes, I've discovered
that crossposting between rec.food.cooking and rec.food.recipes is
virtually non-existent. Recipe management software discussion
should
go in here as well.

rec.food.cooking.books (unmoderated)
Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv shows.

rec.food.cooking.discuss (unmoderated)
For all the spam and tripe that currently plagues the group. For
flames,
rumors, controversial topics (such as food poisoning), the $250
cookie,
and those threads that bear marginal relevance that seem to go on
forever
like, "What did you have for dinner last night?" "What is your
favourite
fast food restaurant?" "What is your least favourite fast food
restaurant?" Etc, etc.


Discussion will run for a minumum of 21 days. The newsgroups in this
proposal are subject to change, and if major changes are necessary,
the
discussion period may be extended an additional 7 days.

A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion
period.
The vote will be run by a neutral third party.

This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines
set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". Please refer to this
document
if you have questions about the process.

////////////////////////////////////////////////

I wonder: what motivates somebody to destroy our group by splitting it
into a bunch of unviable crumbs?

On Mar 8, 9:25*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:18:17 -0500, Jean B. wrote:
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 wrote:
>
> >> Looks like one of the paragraphs identifying her was ripped out, but
> >> it's otherwise her post from 16 years ago.
>
> > Interesting. *And you have a good memory! *I will bite back what I
> > want to say....
>
> Does she still even read this group?

Can anybody simply propose an RFD to destroy a group? If so, I bet
there will soon be bots running all over Usenet posting RFDs to
destroy all Usenet groups.

"Swertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:59:01 -0800 (PST), Nancy2 wrote:
>
>> There's no need for an unmoderated r.f.r. when this r.f.c. group
>> exists. It would turn into another one, and still stay dead.
>
> I never could understand the purpose of RFR since the advent of the
> WWW. Billions of recipes are just a few keystrokes away, and the
> responses to requests in RFR were most often derived the same way. It
> was just as much as a crapshoot as blindly Googling away.
>
> Those of us who do have a few good (signature) recipes up our sleeves
> weren't usually monitoring RFR for the chance to post them in response
> to a request.
>
> -sw
>
>
Moderation, Moderation, and Moderation,
I have to be in a nonmoderated group. I must have the input of all.

Kent

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 wrote:

> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

25/10.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Mar 12, 4:38*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Carol wrote:
> > Bob, wake up. *It was a spammer/troll. *It isnt and never was a real
> > suggestion. *It was a hijacked post suggested 6-7 YEARS ago or more that
> > was turned down because that person didn't have to right to suggest it
> > either.
>
> You are correct. Sorry.

Not quite correct. Stephanie had a perfect right to make the proposal
and it was properly made according to the formal requirements and duly
rejected, which I think was a good thing for reasons already pointed
out.

She was right in that there was a lot of nastiness around, though one
of the worst perpetrators, whose name I forget, did die about that
time. But giving them more newsgroups to pollute was never going to
solve the problem. And the idea of rec.food.discuss was just plain
hopeless.

Shankar did it more cunningly, and for the right reasons, a little
later by proposing rec.food.baking (I think that was the name) and
leaving out the "cooking" so he didn't get the knee-jerk "breaking up
the group" reaction.

LW

On 3/19/2011 12:32 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:04:32 -0800 (PST), Ostap Bender wrote:
>
>> Can anybody simply propose an RFD to destroy a group? If so, I bet
>> there will soon be bots running all over Usenet posting RFDs to
>> destroy all Usenet groups.
>
> As in remove a group? Sure, you can post it but it's just a troll.
> Just like this one. It would take an even bigger loser to create a
> bot to do it. Hipcrime is so... 2002.

Replying to an older post again (sort problems) but that was just after
I first found Usenet. A group I participated in was plagued by Hipcrime
and some even tried to keep it going several years later even though
most news servers knew how to block it by then. I can say that as a
newbie it was confusing. lol

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:16:37 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> A group I participated in was plagued by Hipcrime
> and some even tried to keep it going several years later even though
> most news servers knew how to block it by then. I can say that as a
> newbie it was confusing. lol

I'm an "old-bee" and I've never heard of Hipcrime. Not that I want
to, of course.

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