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.

On Mar 7, 2:50*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.

Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
seems pointless to me.

"rosie" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 2:50 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.

>Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
>topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
>seems pointless to me.
>
>
Absolutely agree! This NG to remain unchanged. The focused ones have all
died. Usenet is probably going to die. We're just enjoying it in its
denouement, to borrow a bit from Shakespeare.

Kent

On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big > wrote:
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

>>
>> 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
>
> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
> seems pointless to me.

I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts.
The better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.

"Hell Toupee" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big > wrote:
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
>> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
>> seems pointless to me.
>
> I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
> split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
> traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts. The
> better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.
>
>
Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example is
alt.food.recipes.

Kent

,a certified turd

i haven't been here that long this time, have looked in from time to time,
when i read the OP, i had two thoughts, first shouldn't there be more than
one person to do such a proposal and second thought was what? you can't use
a kf? Lee
"Hell Toupee" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big > wrote:
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
>> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
>> seems pointless to me.
>
> I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
> split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
> traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts. The
> better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.
>

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.

The mantra "built it and they will come" does not apply to USENET
(except for alt.).Newsgroups are split up when the volume of
discussion on side topics tends to overwhelm the group. The volume of
non-spam postings on rec.food.cooking is in decline, thus no splits
are necessary. If discussion volume declines, the signal-to-noise
ratio will decrease to unity or less. Further, the likelihood of a
successful rec.food.spam (other than the potted meat) is nonexistent.

>
> 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.

Any examples to back up these assertions? Or are they pulled out of
thin air?

>
> 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.

Why?

> 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.

A redundant version of rec.food.equipment. If splits worked, cookware
discussions would take place exclusively in r.f.e.

>
> rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests.

A redundant version of rec.food.recipes. Again, if splits worked,
recipe discussions would take place exclusively in r.f.r.

> rec.food.cooking.media (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows, movies.

I can't imagine a discussion of cookbooks or TV shows that would omit
discussion of recipes, and few non-recipe discussions of shows, books,
etc. occur (e.g. Who's the hottest? Rachael Ray, Nigella Lawson, or
Lidia Bastianich?)

>
> 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.

People who post tripe will post it where people will read it. Barring
moderation, tripe a la mode de Caen will reappear in rec.food.cooking.
You might as well propose one group for all spam.

>
> 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.


So the proposed new groups are
1. redundant (duplicates of existing groups), and/or
2. unnecessary, and/or
3. useless

On Mar 7, 3:47*pm, "Kent" > wrote:
> "Hell Toupee" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big > *wrote:
> >>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> >>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> >>> 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
>
> >> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes *on
> >> topic, sometimes way offtopic. *People come and go, splitting it up
> >> seems pointless to me.
>
> > I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
> > split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
> > traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts. The
> > better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.
>
> Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example is
> alt.food.recipes.
>
> Kent
>
> ,a certified turd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's ridiculous and a waste of time to try and reorganize r.f.c.
There is no more off-topic spam crap now than there was 5 years ago.
Get over it. Don't read it. Just pick the threads relating to food,
if you're going to be picky.

N.

>
> Any examples to back up these assertions? Or are they pulled out of
> thin air?

No worse now than it's always been.

>
>
>
> > 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
>
>
> > rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests.
>
> A redundant version of rec.food.recipes. Again, if splits worked,
> recipe discussions would take place exclusively in r.f.r.

The moderated r.f.r. has already died. Didn't you notice? An
unmoderated group will fare no better.

N.

"Usenet Big 5" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

"Usenet Big 5" > wrote in message
...
> 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 vote "no".

On 07/03/2011 3:50 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.


I got a better idea for you. Leave it the way it is and use filters.
There are a number of regulars who seem to enjoy the current format and
others coming and going.

On Mar 7, 3:08*pm, rosie > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:50*pm, Usenet Big 5 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> > the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>
> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes *on
> topic, sometimes way offtopic. *People come and go, splitting it up
> seems pointless to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
Amen!

On 3/7/2011 3:07 PM, Nancy2 wrote:

>
> It's ridiculous and a waste of time to try and reorganize r.f.c.
> There is no more off-topic spam crap now than there was 5 years ago.
> Get over it. Don't read it. Just pick the threads relating to food,
> if you're going to be picky.
>
> N.



I thought OT posts had diminished quite a bit until I remembered
the number of posters that have gone into my kf/filter recently.
IMO that's a much better solution.

gloria p

In article >,
heyjoe > wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 wrote:
>
> > This RFD is being posted to
>
> > news.announce.newgroups,
>
> Just looked at news.announce.newgroups and there is no post about a
> proposed split.

Is it a moderated group?

> > news.groups,
> > rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>
> > rec.food.recipes,
>
> Just looked at rec.food.recipes - again no post about a proposed split!

I *know* that one is moderated. And the moderator is not posting
*anything*.

> > rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with
> > followups set to rec.food.cooking.
> >
> > However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate
> > posts has skyrocketed,
>
> If you feel the need to do something to reduce the noise and inappropriate
> posts, get Google to clean up their house and actually do something about
> the usenet abuse and usenet spam that originatte from their googlegroups
> servers.

Fix the deficits, too, will you?

And stop all the wars?

> All in all, a really nice troll and you get an A for effort, but an F for
> followthrough.

I don't know how these things work, but it's a request for discussion.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:08:46 -0800 (PST), rosie >
wrote:

> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
> seems pointless to me.

Well put and succinct.

--

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

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:47:46 -0800, "Kent" >
wrote:

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

and rec.food.cuisine.jewish

--

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

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:58:02 -0600, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:

> i haven't been here that long this time, have looked in from time to time,
> when i read the OP, i had two thoughts, first shouldn't there be more than
> one person to do such a proposal and second thought was what? you can't use
> a kf? Lee

I think this is a general shake-up of usenet and they finally got to
rfc.

--

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

On Mar 7, 3:50*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". *Pleas goe refer
> to this document if you have questions about the process.

What good'll it do? As long as anyone can read and post, it won't
solve a thing. Just ignore trolls and posts intended to be upsetting.

I was in a group totally overrun with spam and trolls, a moderated
groups was formed, and it's almost dead today. I believe that this
will be the ultimate outcome with most groups.

Usenet Big 5 FAGGOT wrote:
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

Superfluous comma = PINHEADED IMBECILE!

TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah aha. . . .

"Usenet Big 5" > wrote in message
...
| 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.

Good. I love (loathe) the following: "However, in recent weeks the
noise level and number of inappropriate ... posts has skyrocketed."
Who determines "inappropriate?" You? Hitler? an Ayatollah? God?
I haven't seen your qualifications yet. What are they?

pavane

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:03:42 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>So the proposed new groups are
>1. redundant (duplicates of existing groups), and/or
>2. unnecessary, and/or
>3. useless

Agreed.

-- Larry

On Mar 7, 7:29*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> Usenet Big 5 FAGGOT wrote:
>
>
>
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> >the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> Superfluous comma = PINHEADED IMBECILE!
>
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah aha. . . .

Ditto that LOL

"Andy" > wrote in message ...
> THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
>
> How fast you responders believed a no name troll!
>
> Insecure jerk-offs.
>
> Andy
>
>
Andy, yes a troll, though a point reasonably raised now and then.

Kent

On 8 Mar 2011 01:28:52 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> this whole year has been a
> rather pleasant lull in the long stormy history of rfc

and I was patting myself on the back for having a well tweaked kill
file. Oh, well.

--

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

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:21:41 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

> OTOH, I'd hate to see Usenet die altogether. Ya think the traffic is
> down in toto b/c it's meandering into that great La Brea Tar Pit in
> the Virtual Beyond?

I think it's meandering to internet forums.

--

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

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.

This must be a joke. The group is basically what the participants
want it to be. To the degree that it is now, we are capable of
not reading or filtering.

--
Jean B.

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> heyjoe > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 wrote:
>>
>>> This RFD is being posted to
>>> news.announce.newgroups,
>> Just looked at news.announce.newgroups and there is no post about a
>> proposed split.
>
> Is it a moderated group?
>
>>> news.groups,
>>> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>>> rec.food.recipes,
>> Just looked at rec.food.recipes - again no post about a proposed split!
>
> I *know* that one is moderated. And the moderator is not posting
> *anything*.

Sad, huh? I have various reasons for not posting there now.
>
>>> rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with
>>> followups set to rec.food.cooking.
>>>
>>> However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate
>>> posts has skyrocketed,
>> If you feel the need to do something to reduce the noise and inappropriate
>> posts, get Google to clean up their house and actually do something about
>> the usenet abuse and usenet spam that originatte from their googlegroups
>> servers.
>
> Fix the deficits, too, will you?
>
> And stop all the wars?
>
>> All in all, a really nice troll and you get an A for effort, but an F for
>> followthrough.
>
> I don't know how these things work, but it's a request for discussion.
>


--
Jean B.

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:47:46 -0800, "Kent" >
> wrote:
>
>> Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example is
>> alt.food.recipes.
>
> and rec.food.cuisine.jewish
>
Oh, I was thinking of rfr. Hmm. Can a moderated group be changed
to an unmoderated group? Can one prevent the recipes from being
archived without attribution being stripped, recipe names being
changed, someone else seeming to claim ownership of them?

--
Jean B.

pavane wrote:
> "Usenet Big 5" > wrote in message
> ...
> | 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.
>
> Good. I love (loathe) the following: "However, in recent weeks the
> noise level and number of inappropriate ... posts has skyrocketed."
> Who determines "inappropriate?" You? Hitler? an Ayatollah? God?
> I haven't seen your qualifications yet. What are they?
>
> pavane
>
>
Hmmm. Not too literate either.

--
Jean B.

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/e40b2d943a1efd01?hl=en&dmode=source>
>
> Looks like one of the paragraphs identifying her was ripped out, but
> it's otherwise her post from 16 years ago.
>
> -sw

Interesting. And you have a good memory! I will bite back what I
want to say....

--
Jean B.

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:21:41 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> > wrote:
>
>> OTOH, I'd hate to see Usenet die altogether. Ya think the traffic is
>> down in toto b/c it's meandering into that great La Brea Tar Pit in
>> the Virtual Beyond?
>
> I think it's meandering to internet forums.
>
People seem to look down on NGs, but as with my daughter, they
have not even tried them! I much prefer NGs to lists.

--
Jean B.

notbob wrote:
> On 2011-03-08, sf > wrote:
>
>> I think it's meandering to internet forums.
>
> Precisely.
>
> Usenet requires a modicum of skill, brass and intelligence, although
> you wouldn't think so considering some of the posters one sees. To
> use effectively, learning how to read, write, filter, type (now
> there's a lost art), express one's self, etc, are all important
> skills. Also, forums are for the less adventurous. Those who are
> more thin skinned. Let's face it, forums are moderated, so the meek
> are not attacked by the bullies and don't have to have any real
> defensive skills or learn how to stand up for themselves. Forums are
> usenet with govt mandated safety devices and net nannies built in. In
> short, usenet for wimps.
>
> nb

Heh! When I first was on NGs, I was much more thin-skinned. I
learned one couldn't survive that way.

--
Jean B.

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?
>
> -sw

I dunno. Good question.

--
Jean B.

heyjoe wrote:
> Usenet Big 5 wrote:
>
>> This RFD is being posted to
>
>> news.announce.newgroups,
>
> Just looked at news.announce.newgroups and there is no post about a
> proposed split.

Exactly. It might have been posted and it's stuck waiting on approval.
It might have been posted and was rejected.

>> news.groups,
>> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>
>> rec.food.recipes,

But counting the number of groups says it's a troll. Posts to over 5
groups get trimmed by very many servers.

> All in all, a really nice troll and you get an A for effort, but an F for
> followthrough.

Artfully done. It triggered plenty of responses.

"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
> sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:47:46 -0800, "Kent" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example
>>> is alt.food.recipes.
>>
>> and rec.food.cuisine.jewish
>>
> Oh, I was thinking of rfr. Hmm. Can a moderated group be changed to an
> unmoderated group? Can one prevent the recipes from being archived
> without attribution being stripped, recipe names being changed, someone
> else seeming to claim ownership of them?
>
> --
> Jean B.
>
>
The short answer is no. I tried to do this with the moderated
alt.food.recipes sometime ago when the moderator left. Apparently when a NG
is started the starter designates moderated or non moderated. The NG stays
that way forever. You have to start a new NG and start from zero.

Kent

On Mar 8, 7:39*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2011-03-08, sf > wrote:
>
> > and I was patting myself on the back for having a well tweaked kill
> > file. *Oh, well.
>
> Oh, that's definitely part of it. *Don't sell yourself short. *It's
> taken me a good long while to learn the power of my score file and how
> to fine tune it. *I've no doubt it's contributed immensely to the far
> more pleasant experience usenet now is.
>
> nb

==
And a well-tuned kill-file assures that a closed mind STAYS that way
with no adulteration from riff-raff.
==

On 8 Mar 2011 14:30:51 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> In short, usenet for wimps.




--

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

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:20:21 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:

> I much prefer NGs to lists.

Lists are totally boring. I can't even do Chowhound. If I research
something and want to comment in a thread, I will.... but do I "read"
chowhound? Nope.

--

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

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:16:09 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Can a moderated group be changed to an unmoderated group?

I know nothing about the inner workings of the internet, but I'll
guess "no".

> Can one prevent the recipes from being
> archived without attribution being stripped, recipe names being
> changed, someone else seeming to claim ownership of them?

Can't even make a wild guess on that one.

--

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