On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:57:02 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

> No need for obscurity as facebook has options for blocking people. Or
> one could simply NOT INVITE unwanted guests (read .. pests)

It looks like the page has moderators, so if anyone steps out of line
they will probably be kicked.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:
>On 10/28/2011 3:10 PM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members and no
>>>>> activity.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course, that's in
>>>> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
>>>> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...cebook-privacy) But if
>>>> you friend some of the RFC Facebook participants (e.g., Christine Dabney)
>>>> you might gain access that way.
>>>
>>> Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
>>> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit.
>>> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
>>> shit, too.
>>
>> Wow. Overreact, much?
>
>Another county heard from.
>
LOL. Funny thing, this internet, yes? Move on.

--

On 29/10/2011 4:28 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:17:48 -0500, George Leppla
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 12:04 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2011 10:49 AM, Christine Dabney wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:46:57 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, "RFC on Facebook" works. Sorry about the post to Becca, when I
>>>>> actually tried it - it took me to the rfc unofficial website. Didn't
>>>>> realize FB did that.
>>>>
>>>> When I start to put it in the search bar on FB, the group is the first
>>>> thing that pops up. Don't even have to get beyond RFC...
>>>
>>> I'm neither stupid nor inept. When I enter RFC on Facebook in the search
>>> bar, here is what I get:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Did you mean:icon pacebook
>>>>
>>>> Icon Pacebook
>>>>
>>>> Web Results
>>>>
>>>> Lawsuit Summary - Easyweb Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
>>>> Date Filed: 10/20/2011; Plaintiff: Easyweb Innovations, LLC;
>>>> Defendant: Facebook, Inc.; Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
>>>> http://www.rfcexpress.com/.../83878/...ok-inc/summary
>>>>
>>>> Usk RFC • News - Usk Rugby Football Club
>>>> Usk RFC facebook Page Usk RFC has started it's official Facebook page
>>>> please join for all updates, look up "Usk RFC". Usk Vs Abergavenny
>>>> 22nd January 2011
>>>> www.uskrfc.co.uk/Home.aspx
>>>> RFC 5514 - IETF Tools
>>>> tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5514
>>>>
>>>> See More Results
>>>
>>> The "more results" takes me to Bing and page after page of everything it
>>> can find that has "RFC" and "Facebook" in its name... except
>>> rec.food.cooking's FB page.
>>>
>>> When I type "RFC," "RFC o," "RFC on," "RFC on Facebook" or "RFC on
>>> FaceBook" into the search bar, nothing happens automatically. I've got
>>> to tell it to start the search.
>>
>>
>> Congratulations... you are officially dumber than a stump. You may be
>> on a Facebook page, but you are typing your search query in your browser
>> search bar, not the Facebook search bar.
>>
>> George L
>>
> I was tempted to try to find it. I know nothing about Facebook. But
> I am really computer clueless and don't want to ask for help. By now
> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be welcome.
> Janet US

This little thread indicates to me that I wouldn't want to be part of
any invite only secret society. Seems counter to the original intent of
usenet and the internet really.

--

Krypsis

On 29/10/2011 6:46 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 1:20 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:17:48 -0500, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2011 12:04 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "more results" takes me to Bing and page after page of
>>>> everything it
>>>> can find that has "RFC" and "Facebook" in its name... except
>>>> rec.food.cooking's FB page.
>>>>
>>>> When I type "RFC," "RFC o," "RFC on," "RFC on Facebook" or "RFC on
>>>> FaceBook" into the search bar, nothing happens automatically. I've got
>>>> to tell it to start the search.
>>>
>>> Congratulations... you are officially dumber than a stump. You may be
>>> on a Facebook page, but you are typing your search query in your browser
>>> search bar, not the Facebook search bar.
>>
>> That's what it sounds like to me, too. I'm sure of it.
>
> Nope. You too, read up. All entered into the Facebook search bar (even
> though I'm sure you'll NEVER believe my descriptions of what I was doing).

I managed to get no more than you on my search on Facebook. I believe
your description as it exactly matches mine. Seems to me it's a private,
by invite only, facebook site.

--

Krypsis

On 29/10/2011 9:19 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:17:48 -0500, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2011 12:04 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "more results" takes me to Bing and page after page of everything it
>>>> can find that has "RFC" and "Facebook" in its name... except
>>>> rec.food.cooking's FB page.
>>>>
>>>> When I type "RFC," "RFC o," "RFC on," "RFC on Facebook" or "RFC on
>>>> FaceBook" into the search bar, nothing happens automatically. I've got
>>>> to tell it to start the search.
>>>
>>> Congratulations... you are officially dumber than a stump. You may be
>>> on a Facebook page, but you are typing your search query in your browser
>>> search bar, not the Facebook search bar.
>>
>> That's what it sounds like to me, too. I'm sure of it.
>
> It does sound strange, but then, FB is weird. I don't know how much
> searching you have done in FB, but it is very frustrating. Either it
> magically finds what you want right away, or you can never find it, even
> after spending many minutes viewing many screens. And yes, it does go
> to Bing and starts searching the entire web!
>
Best to kill off bing, useless search engine that it is.

--

Krypsis

On 29/10/2011 6:53 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:48:18 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 1:18 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I tried it from a facebook account that has never even
>>> glanced at RFC on Facebook. And I still found it just fine.
>>
>> Your explanation would carry more weight if I were not the only person
>> who's been unable to find it using the Facebook search bar.
>
> Who else hasn't been able to find it?
>
> -sw

Me, me, & me!!

--

Krypsis

On 29/10/2011 7:20 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 3:48 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That's why I tried it from a facebook account that has never even
>>> glanced at RFC on Facebook. And I still found it just fine.
>>
>> Your explanation would carry more weight if I were not the only person
>> who's been unable to find it using the Facebook search bar.
>>
>
> Yours would carry more weight had not so many others managed to find it.
> There are more than a 100 members. They obviously found it. Many of them
> appear not to be regulars here. Goodness knows how many looked at it
> without joining.

I had no luck finding it with a search in Facebook. Only found it once I
used the supplied link.

--

Krypsis

On 29/10/2011 4:04 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 10:49 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your response. I did just that, and I got a lot of results
>> for unrelated pages and groups that also contained RFC in their names,
>> but not this group. Varied searches had already revealed some inactive
>> page with no members (someone else mentioned having gotten this page,
>> too, but I don't remember who it was that posted it). Until I got the
>> link last evening, there was no way for me to get to the page at all.
>> Even this morning, I still cannot find the page/group with a search.
>
> Facebook searches can be frustrating. Search for the words "RFC on
> FaceBook", there are around 110 members.
>
> Becca

I did exactly that and no joy!

--

Krypsis

On 29/10/2011 9:29 AM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 4:58 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>> Over one hundred people didn't join the group just this morning, George,
>> right after doing a little Facebook search. I'm confident of that.
>
>
> I've already proved to you that I joined this morning with no trouble at
> all.
>
> But you are right. It was much easier for everyone else who joined the
> group before today. THEY had easy access... then they made it harder to
> join just because they knew you were coming.
>
> Face it... you couldn't find you way out of a paper bag with both hands
> and a road map.
>
> George L

Well, your attitude convinces me that I want no part of group that
accepts you.

--

Krypsis

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:37:59 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

> I had no luck finding it with a search in Facebook. Only found it once I
> used the supplied link.

That was my experience a few months ago. My experience was exactly
like Pennyaline's and I was told 'you're doing it wrong' too, but at
least it was done privately and not plastered all over rfc.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 30/10/2011 1:18 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
> On 10/29/2011 7:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> It is the paranoid accusations I resent:
>> "Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
>> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit.
>> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
>> shit, too. "
>>
>> Nobody here was restricting her access.
>
> That statement was made very early in the thread, after I'd been told by
> a couple of members that things were made intentionally "obscure" to
> keep unwanted elements out/from migrating over from the newsgroup. That
> tactic restricts everybody's access, not just mine. That is a shitty
> thing to do, for two reason. First, the FB group requires membership for
> participation, so filtering access at the n.g. level is unnecessary.
> Second, it suggests that only a special stratum of n.g. member can have
> access. That kind of segregation is horse shit, and the people who
> practice it are horse shit--middle-schoolish, adolescent-girlish,
> whispering-behind-your-hands-at-the-lunch-tableish horse shit.
>
> But it's time for you to get over it now, Dave. Everyone else has moved
> on. If you don't want to apologize, nobody cares.

I'm in 100% agreement with you.

--

Krypsis

On 28/10/2011 5:43 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 12:15 AM, gloria.p wrote:
>> On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>>
>>>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members
>>>> and no
>>>> activity.
>>>
>>> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course,
>>> that's in
>>> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
>>> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
>>
>>
>>
>> Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
>> pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.
>>
>
> How the hell is that like real conversations? Even the best of friends
> have differences of opinions and argue sometimes. Sometimes they even
> quit talking for a while. But the bond makes them talk again. Without
> "pointless bickering" it is no different than a blog. Usenet is a back
> and forth thing. I hope it never goes away.
>
I think I prefer usenet. I can block whomever I dislike but others can
still read/respond to those I block. Can't get much more fair than that!
RFC on Facebook seems like it will turn into some kind of private club
like so many moderated forums do.

--

Krypsis

On Oct 29, 8:48*pm, Krypsis > wrote:
> On 30/10/2011 1:18 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/29/2011 7:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >> It is the paranoid accusations I resent:
> >> "Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
> >> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit..
> >> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
> >> shit, too. "
>
> >> Nobody here was restricting her access.
>
> > That statement was made very early in the thread, after I'd been told by
> > a couple of members that things were made intentionally "obscure" to
> > keep unwanted elements out/from migrating over from the newsgroup. That
> > tactic restricts everybody's access, not just mine. That is a shitty
> > thing to do, for two reason. First, the FB group requires membership for
> > participation, so filtering access at the n.g. level is unnecessary.
> > Second, it suggests that only a special stratum of n.g. member can have
> > access. That kind of segregation is horse shit, and the people who
> > practice it are horse shit--middle-schoolish, adolescent-girlish,
> > whispering-behind-your-hands-at-the-lunch-tableish horse shit.
>
> > But it's time for you to get over it now, Dave. Everyone else has moved
> > on. If you don't want to apologize, nobody cares.
>
> I'm in 100% agreement with you.
>
> --
>
> Krypsis

That he should suck my cock? Thank You.

On 29/10/2011 12:57 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>>> Well, now, it's not THAT exclusive. I'm a member.
>>>
>>> I just want to cry when I see that this is how RFC pays respect to a
>>> lost friend.
>>
>> For me it's a separate thread since Bob changed the subject, which
>> SHOULD start a new thread in your browser.
>>
>> Besides, Blake would understand.
>
> I think this is just one shining example of how Facebook leads to
> high-school behavior. If not for my in-laws using Facebook as their primary
> means of communication, I wouldn't have an account.
>
> Bob
>
>
Ditto for me. Took my family a long time to persuade me to have an
account and mine has NOTHING of a personal nature on it.

--

Krypsis

On 30/10/2011 9:50 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:57:02 +1100, >
> wrote:
>
>> No need for obscurity as facebook has options for blocking people. Or
>> one could simply NOT INVITE unwanted guests (read .. pests)
>
> It looks like the page has moderators, so if anyone steps out of line
> they will probably be kicked.
>
Wait until the power goes to their heads! They'll be kicking for the
most minimal of sins. A lot of the moderated web forums are just
hopeless because of these power hungry fools.

--

Krypsis

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:26:45 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

> On 30/10/2011 9:50 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:57:02 +1100, >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> No need for obscurity as facebook has options for blocking people. Or
> >> one could simply NOT INVITE unwanted guests (read .. pests)
> >
> > It looks like the page has moderators, so if anyone steps out of line
> > they will probably be kicked.
> >
> Wait until the power goes to their heads! They'll be kicking for the
> most minimal of sins. A lot of the moderated web forums are just
> hopeless because of these power hungry fools.

I like usenet too. I've never participated in standard web forums
other than the one for Hijack-This to have a specific log analyzed.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

Goomba > wrote:

>Chris- I just signed on to Facebook using my real name and then tried to
>search for RFC on Facebook. I couldn't find it in the return list
>either! So its private and not easily found, as Penny has attested.

FB search is pretty wonky. I'm thinking it's the three-letter-acronym
"RFC" that is throwing off this particlar search.

Steve

BillyZoom wrote:
> On Oct 29, 8:48 pm, > wrote:
>> On 30/10/2011 1:18 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/29/2011 7:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> It is the paranoid accusations I resent:
>>>> "Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
>>>> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit..
>>>> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
>>>> shit, too. "
>>>> Nobody here was restricting her access.
>>> That statement was made very early in the thread, after I'd been told by
>>> a couple of members that things were made intentionally "obscure" to
>>> keep unwanted elements out/from migrating over from the newsgroup. That
>>> tactic restricts everybody's access, not just mine. That is a shitty
>>> thing to do, for two reason. First, the FB group requires membership for
>>> participation, so filtering access at the n.g. level is unnecessary.
>>> Second, it suggests that only a special stratum of n.g. member can have
>>> access. That kind of segregation is horse shit, and the people who
>>> practice it are horse shit--middle-schoolish, adolescent-girlish,
>>> whispering-behind-your-hands-at-the-lunch-tableish horse shit.
>>> But it's time for you to get over it now, Dave. Everyone else has moved
>>> on. If you don't want to apologize, nobody cares.
>> I'm in 100% agreement with you.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Krypsis
> That he should suck my cock? Thank You.
We get it! Your ***!

-HB (As seen on TV!)

Goomba wrote:
> Christine Dabney wrote:
>
>> You have a totally different search bar than I do, then. Where it
>> says Facebook on my page, it is a white font on a blue background. No
>> where that I see, except in the web browser, is there a black font.
>> Below that, is the search bar that I use.
>> Wish I could see a screen shot of your page...
>>
>> Christine
>
>
> Chris- I just signed on to Facebook using my real name and then tried to
> search for RFC on Facebook. I couldn't find it in the return list
> either! So its private and not easily found, as Penny has attested.
> I looked under "groups" as well as "pages" too.
> (Justa) Goomba


See if this does anything?

https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/45106798639/

If the group creators would set up the email for RFC FB group one could
give a better URL and reply via e mail rather than the FB site.
--
JL

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:35:23 -0700, "M. JL Esq." >
wrote:

> Goomba wrote:
> > Christine Dabney wrote:
> >
> >> You have a totally different search bar than I do, then. Where it
> >> says Facebook on my page, it is a white font on a blue background. No
> >> where that I see, except in the web browser, is there a black font.
> >> Below that, is the search bar that I use.
> >> Wish I could see a screen shot of your page...
> >>
> >> Christine
> >
> >
> > Chris- I just signed on to Facebook using my real name and then tried to
> > search for RFC on Facebook. I couldn't find it in the return list
> > either! So its private and not easily found, as Penny has attested.
> > I looked under "groups" as well as "pages" too.
> > (Justa) Goomba
>
>
> See if this does anything?
>
> https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/45106798639/
>
> If the group creators would set up the email for RFC FB group one could
> give a better URL and reply via e mail rather than the FB site.

That did nothing useful. I have a FB account but I still had to sign
in.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:35:23 -0700, "M. JL Esq." >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Goomba wrote:
>>
>>>Christine Dabney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You have a totally different search bar than I do, then. Where it
>>>>says Facebook on my page, it is a white font on a blue background. No
>>>>where that I see, except in the web browser, is there a black font.
>>>>Below that, is the search bar that I use.
>>>>Wish I could see a screen shot of your page...
>>>>
>>>>Christine
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris- I just signed on to Facebook using my real name and then tried to
>>>search for RFC on Facebook. I couldn't find it in the return list
>>>either! So its private and not easily found, as Penny has attested.
>>>I looked under "groups" as well as "pages" too.
>>>(Justa) Goomba
>>
>>
>>See if this does anything?
>>
>>https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/45106798639/
>>
>>If the group creators would set up the email for RFC FB group one could
>>give a better URL and reply via e mail rather than the FB site.
>
>
> That did nothing useful. I have a FB account but I still had to sign
> in.
>

I was able to find the group on the FB search feature by typing in "RFC
on FaceBook" i wonder if the url issue has to fo with there being no e
mail address for the group.

Which is a voluntary option option the owner/s of the group are not
forced to include.

Another FB group i read does have an e mail address and to find that
group is easy enough, here is that groups URL string suitably emended
for RFC

https://www.facebook.com/groups/rfconfacebook/

I don't know if it is any better than the other.
---
JL

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:08:44 -0700, "M. JL Esq." >
wrote:

> Another FB group i read does have an e mail address and to find that
> group is easy enough, here is that groups URL string suitably emended
> for RFC
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/rfconfacebook/
>
> I don't know if it is any better than the other.

That link took me to my own FB home page when I was logged in and to
the FB login page when I wasn't... and I'm a member of rfc on
facebook.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 30/10/2011 2:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:08:44 -0700, "M. JL >
> wrote:
>
>> Another FB group i read does have an e mail address and to find that
>> group is easy enough, here is that groups URL string suitably emended
>> for RFC
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/rfconfacebook/
>>
>> I don't know if it is any better than the other.
>
> That link took me to my own FB home page when I was logged in and to
> the FB login page when I wasn't... and I'm a member of rfc on
> facebook.
>

I tried searching it for it from my wife's FB account. She doesn't even
know about RFC. It took me right to the RFC on FB.

There may be a problem, but there was no reason for someone to make
about being kept out and not being given the proper information to find
a group on a social networking site on which she was already a member.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:30:28 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 30/10/2011 2:21 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:08:44 -0700, "M. JL >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Another FB group i read does have an e mail address and to find that
> >> group is easy enough, here is that groups URL string suitably emended
> >> for RFC
> >>
> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/rfconfacebook/
> >>
> >> I don't know if it is any better than the other.
> >
> > That link took me to my own FB home page when I was logged in and to
> > the FB login page when I wasn't... and I'm a member of rfc on
> > facebook.
> >
>
> I tried searching it for it from my wife's FB account. She doesn't even
> know about RFC. It took me right to the RFC on FB.
>
> There may be a problem, but there was no reason for someone to make
> about being kept out and not being given the proper information to find
> a group on a social networking site on which she was already a member.

I don't have any answers, just observations.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 10/30/2011 1:30 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> I tried searching it for it from my wife's FB account. She doesn't even
> know about RFC. It took me right to the RFC on FB.
>
> There may be a problem, but there was no reason for someone to make
> about being kept out and not being given the proper information to find
> a group on a social networking site on which she was already a member.

I didn't say I wasn't being given the proper information. I said the
information I was being given wasn't working.

It's obvious that you are never going to comprehend what went on, and in
that case it's time for you to back away from the discussion (and since
it's over anyway, that shouldn't be hard to do).

On 31/10/2011 6:30 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 30/10/2011 2:21 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:08:44 -0700, "M. JL >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Another FB group i read does have an e mail address and to find that
>>> group is easy enough, here is that groups URL string suitably emended
>>> for RFC
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/rfconfacebook/
>>>
>>> I don't know if it is any better than the other.
>>
>> That link took me to my own FB home page when I was logged in and to
>> the FB login page when I wasn't... and I'm a member of rfc on
>> facebook.
>>
>
> I tried searching it for it from my wife's FB account. She doesn't even
> know about RFC. It took me right to the RFC on FB.

And you obviously know nothing about cookies (the computer variety).

The cookies would quite likely be the same regardless of the account
logged into.
>
> There may be a problem, but there was no reason for someone to make
> about being kept out and not being given the proper information to find
> a group on a social networking site on which she was already a member.
>
I had EXACTLY the same results as pennyaline when I searched for the RFC
page no matter what form the search terms took. I wasn't alone. Lots of
other people had the same experience. I tried it here with a Windows PC,
A PowerMac and a laptop... still no joy until I received and used the
direct link.

--

Krypsis

On 31/10/2011 6:18 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 31/10/2011 6:30 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 30/10/2011 2:21 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:08:44 -0700, "M. JL >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another FB group i read does have an e mail address and to find that
>>>> group is easy enough, here is that groups URL string suitably emended
>>>> for RFC
>>>>
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/rfconfacebook/
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it is any better than the other.
>>>
>>> That link took me to my own FB home page when I was logged in and to
>>> the FB login page when I wasn't... and I'm a member of rfc on
>>> facebook.
>>>
>>
>> I tried searching it for it from my wife's FB account. She doesn't even
>> know about RFC. It took me right to the RFC on FB.
>
> And you obviously know nothing about cookies (the computer variety).
>
> The cookies would quite likely be the same regardless of the account
> logged into.

I make no pretense of a computer tech. When I go to FB under my profile
I am logged in automatically. When I tried it under my wife's profile it
went to her account, so I am assuming there were different cookies.

>>
>> There may be a problem, but there was no reason for someone to make
>> about being kept out and not being given the proper information to find
>> a group on a social networking site on which she was already a member.
>>
> I had EXACTLY the same results as pennyaline when I searched for the RFC
> page no matter what form the search terms took. I wasn't alone. Lots of
> other people had the same experience. I tried it here with a Windows PC,
> A PowerMac and a laptop... still no joy until I received and used the
> direct link.

You were not the not the one suggesting that you had to kiss someone's
ass to get the right information or that someone was purposely keeping
you out.

On 10/28/2011 11:28 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:

> I was tempted to try to find it. I know nothing about Facebook. But
> I am really computer clueless and don't want to ask for help. By now
> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be welcome.
> Janet US

Nah, you'd be welcome. They're really nice in there, but it isn't the
same as this group, that's for sure.

If you don't have a Facebook page, set one up, then go ahead and use the
link:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/45106798639


Damsel wants to see you there. She's using a recipe she'd like to thank
you for!

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:38:31 -0600, Pennyaline
> wrote:

>On 10/28/2011 11:28 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
>> I was tempted to try to find it. I know nothing about Facebook. But
>> I am really computer clueless and don't want to ask for help. By now
>> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be welcome.
>> Janet US
>
>Nah, you'd be welcome. They're really nice in there, but it isn't the
>same as this group, that's for sure.
>
>If you don't have a Facebook page, set one up, then go ahead and use the
>link:
>
>http://www.facebook.com/groups/45106798639
>
>
>Damsel wants to see you there. She's using a recipe she'd like to thank
>you for!
Thank you for your assistance. I'd like to talk to Damsel again.
O.k., I'll give it a shot later today. thanks again.
Janet US

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:38:31 -0600, Pennyaline
> > wrote:
>
>>On 10/28/2011 11:28 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>>> I was tempted to try to find it. I know nothing about Facebook. But
>>> I am really computer clueless and don't want to ask for help. By now
>>> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be welcome.
>>> Janet US
>>
>>Nah, you'd be welcome. They're really nice in there, but it isn't the
>>same as this group, that's for sure.
>>
>>If you don't have a Facebook page, set one up, then go ahead and use the
>>link:
>>
>>http://www.facebook.com/groups/45106798639
>>
>>
>>Damsel wants to see you there. She's using a recipe she'd like to thank
>>you for!
> Thank you for your assistance. I'd like to talk to Damsel again.
> O.k., I'll give it a shot later today. thanks again.

I wish Damsel would come back here! I miss her and i don't do facebook

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Oct 29, 10:22*pm, Honey Badger > wrote:
> BillyZoom wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 8:48 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 30/10/2011 1:18 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
> >>> On 10/29/2011 7:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >>>> It is the paranoid accusations I resent:
> >>>> "Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
> >>>> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit..
> >>>> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
> >>>> shit, too. "
> >>>> Nobody here was restricting her access.
> >>> That statement was made very early in the thread, after I'd been told by
> >>> a couple of members that things were made intentionally "obscure" to
> >>> keep unwanted elements out/from migrating over from the newsgroup. That
> >>> tactic restricts everybody's access, not just mine. That is a shitty
> >>> thing to do, for two reason. First, the FB group requires membership for
> >>> participation, so filtering access at the n.g. level is unnecessary.
> >>> Second, it suggests that only a special stratum of n.g. member can have
> >>> access. That kind of segregation is horse shit, and the people who
> >>> practice it are horse shit--middle-schoolish, adolescent-girlish,
> >>> whispering-behind-your-hands-at-the-lunch-tableish horse shit.
> >>> But it's time for you to get over it now, Dave. Everyone else has moved
> >>> on. If you don't want to apologize, nobody cares.
> >> I'm in 100% agreement with you.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Krypsis
> > That he should suck my cock? Thank You.
>
> We get it! *Your ***!
>
> -HB (As seen on TV!)

My *** what? Illiterate asshole.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:59:21 -0700, BillyZoom wrote:

> On Oct 29, 10:22*pm, Honey Badger > wrote:

>>
>> We get it! *Your ***!
>>
>> -HB (As seen on TV!)
>
> My *** what? Illiterate asshole.

<snork>

May I humbly suggest that you two get a room (and some spelling/grammar
lessons)?


--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

BillyZoom wrote:
> On Oct 29, 10:22 pm, Honey > wrote:
>> BillyZoom wrote:
>>> On Oct 29, 8:48 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On 30/10/2011 1:18 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2011 7:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> It is the paranoid accusations I resent:
>>>>>> "Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
>>>>>> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit..
>>>>>> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
>>>>>> shit, too. "
>>>>>> Nobody here was restricting her access.
>>>>> That statement was made very early in the thread, after I'd been told by
>>>>> a couple of members that things were made intentionally "obscure" to
>>>>> keep unwanted elements out/from migrating over from the newsgroup. That
>>>>> tactic restricts everybody's access, not just mine. That is a shitty
>>>>> thing to do, for two reason. First, the FB group requires membership for
>>>>> participation, so filtering access at the n.g. level is unnecessary.
>>>>> Second, it suggests that only a special stratum of n.g. member can have
>>>>> access. That kind of segregation is horse shit, and the people who
>>>>> practice it are horse shit--middle-schoolish, adolescent-girlish,
>>>>> whispering-behind-your-hands-at-the-lunch-tableish horse shit.
>>>>> But it's time for you to get over it now, Dave. Everyone else has moved
>>>>> on. If you don't want to apologize, nobody cares.
>>>> I'm in 100% agreement with you.
>>>> --
>>>> Krypsis
>>> That he should suck my cock? Thank You.
>> We get it! Your ***!
>>
>> -HB (As seen on TV!)
> My *** what? Illiterate asshole.
So sorry. You're really ***!

-HB (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

Pennyaline wrote about RFC Facebook:

> They're really nice in there, but it isn't the same as this group, that's
> for sure.

YES IT IS! YES IT IS! I'm going to log in to Facebook right now to call you
a bitch! And PARANOID. :-Þ

Bob

On 10/31/2011 7:16 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote about RFC Facebook:
>
>> They're really nice in there, but it isn't the same as this group, that's
>> for sure.
>
> YES IT IS! YES IT IS! I'm going to log in to Facebook right now to call you
> a bitch! And PARANOID. :-Þ

And stupid. Don't forget stupid.

On Friday, October 28, 2011 6:07:31 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:03:59 -0500, Andy wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> All is forgiven!
>
> >
>
> > He didn't ask for nor want your forgiveness from you, asshole. Never
>
> > for minute think that deep down inside, and even in death, that he
>
> > doesn't think you're a prime jackass.
>
> >
>
> > And don't forget it.
>
> >
>
> > And I know he'd approve of this message.
>
>
>
> Indeed he would!!! Well said, Steve!!! I can never forgive those the
>
> mocked his disability and I hope they rot in hell!
>
There was no love lost between Blake and I, but I felt the same way. Andy
was despicable.

--Bryan

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:23:21 -0700 (PDT), Vegan Earthworm Holocaust
> wrote:

> There was no love lost between Blake and I, but I felt the same way. Andy
> was despicable.

I thought he went off his rocker, but that seems to be the case with
some before they die.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:21:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Thorson wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:23:21 -0700 (PDT), Vegan Earthworm Holocaust
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > There was no love lost between Blake and I, but I felt the same way. Andy
>
> > > was despicable.
>
> >
>
> > I thought he went off his rocker, but that seems to be the case with
>
> > some before they die.
>
>
>
> The cloud of fear has lifted from loaves
>
> of bread at Trader Joe's everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Whipple

--Bryan

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:23:21 -0700 (PDT), Vegan Earthworm Holocaust
> > wrote:
>
> > There was no love lost between Blake and I, but I felt the same way. Andy
> > was despicable.
>
> I thought he went off his rocker, but that seems to be the case with
> some before they die.

The cloud of fear has lifted from loaves
of bread at Trader Joe's everywhere.

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:47:52 -0700, sf > wrote:



>
>I thought he went off his rocker, but that seems to be the case with
>some before they die.

He became one of three people to ever make my kill file. For a long
time though, he was a personable person. Something affected his
behavior and I'd never with death as a cure for anything. Sad,
really.