On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

> > There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family and
> > friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
> > them. I'm simply not one of those people.
>
> AMEN!!!

But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
comment at all?

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

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:06:04 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> And I don't allow FB to send commentary to my friends about the
> games I'm addicted to.

I didn't know that was possible! I don't play games and hate it when
they appear in my news feed. Thank goodness FB makes it possible to
block those notifications, so I only have to see one game once and
it's gone forever.

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

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:15:03 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 9/7/2013 7:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> > Several months ago I subscribed to facebook just to check out the
> > cooking section and to see what all the hoopla was about. It didn't
> > take long (about an hour) when I was informed by the keeper of the
> > gate via email that I was not wanted there. So I unsubscribed. I
> > never posted anything, I was subscribed for less than six hours. I
> > will never again darken the doors of those know nothing sicko facebook
> > freaks. Why pray tell would anyone want to make all their personal
> > bizniz available to everyone on the planet, only reason I can fathom
> > is that NONE of them face book freaks have a life.
>
> Seriously?? I might unsub just based on that if it turns out to be true.

I seriously doubt one of the Admins of RFC FB sent that message.

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

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/6/2013 2:26 PM, graham wrote:
>
>> I joined at the behest of Mike for the uk food group. After a few months
>> of
>> "friending" as FB raids one's e-mail address book, I got fed up with the
>> barrage of requests, and other trivia. Also, it seemed that every time
>> someone farted, they updated their page and that led to another round of
>> FB
>> e-mails. I really don't see the point of it.
>>
> I don't allow FB access to my address book, and I've turned off most
> notifications.
>
I may have been naive but when I joined FB I didn't know of all these
restrictions that one could apply. I first realised something wasn't
"kosher" when I started getting suggestions or requests to "friend" someone
who was in my address book.
Similarly, I wasn't aware at first that one could control notifications. It
just became a bloody nuisance, and I'm using delicate language there!
On a parallel topic, I've just cut back my cable sub so that I now get only
the basic channels. From what I can judge, I'm not missing much, if
anything!
Graham

"Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 12:35:35 -0700, "Julie Bove" >
> wrote:
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 9/7/2013 12:55 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 20:26:48 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>> Huffing and puffing about it every time the subject comes up
> just
>> >>>> shows that you're not very adaptable and snooty.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or they are jealous because they couldn't figure out how to use
> it.
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't go that far. But this isn't the first time Jill
> didn't
>> >> want to learn anything new. She was incapable of running
> Thunderbird,
>> >> for example (even though she was offered lots of help).
>> >>
>> >> -sw
>> >>
>> > I accepted that help, Steve, and I've been using it for months.
> T-bird
>> > isn't a "supported" application anymore. Facebook simply isn't
> my cup of
>> > tea. I'm certainly not jealous of anything. Obviously Julie
> didn't know
>> > much about FB either; she's the one who started this thread.
>
>
>> I do know about it. But I was being told that all of my pics were
> public
>> and they were not.
>
> You don't know as much about facebook as you think. I am not your facebook
> friend, nor am I a "friend of friend". That makes me "public". I could see
> multiple pictures, not just your profile pic. So, don't assert we are the
> liars, because it's simply not true.

As I said... Some of my pics were set to public. But certainly not all.
And there is no "Friend of Friend: setting that I ca see on there any more.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:46:34 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 00:14:33 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't care if friends of friends see my stuff. Chances are that I
>> >> know
>> >> them anyway.
>> >
>> > My point is that you're needlessly bothering them. If they want to
>> > see your stuff that badly, they'll send you a friend request.
>>
>> How am I bothering them? My stuff doesn't post to them. It just means
>> they
>> can see it if they want to.
>
> If you have "friends of friends" as your setting, it's going onto
> their news feed. Get a clue, Julie!

What's going into their newsfeed? The "Friends of Friends" isn't even an
option any more. And what I saw it on was the pic option of "Who can view".
I doubt that was going onto friends of friends newsfeeds. Why the heck
would it?

"graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/6/2013 2:26 PM, graham wrote:
>>
>>> I joined at the behest of Mike for the uk food group. After a few months
>>> of
>>> "friending" as FB raids one's e-mail address book, I got fed up with the
>>> barrage of requests, and other trivia. Also, it seemed that every time
>>> someone farted, they updated their page and that led to another round of
>>> FB
>>> e-mails. I really don't see the point of it.
>>>
>> I don't allow FB access to my address book, and I've turned off most
>> notifications.
>>
> I may have been naive but when I joined FB I didn't know of all these
> restrictions that one could apply. I first realised something wasn't
> "kosher" when I started getting suggestions or requests to "friend"
> someone who was in my address book.
> Similarly, I wasn't aware at first that one could control notifications.
> It just became a bloody nuisance, and I'm using delicate language there!
> On a parallel topic, I've just cut back my cable sub so that I now get
> only the basic channels. From what I can judge, I'm not missing much, if
> anything!
> Graham

I have never gotten that. I do see suggestions of people who have mutual
friends.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:35:46 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> What's going into their newsfeed? The "Friends of Friends" isn't even an
> option any more. And what I saw it on was the pic option of "Who can view".
> I doubt that was going onto friends of friends newsfeeds. Why the heck
> would it?

Glad to hear it's not an option anymore. It was probably being abused
by the clueless.

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

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>> > There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family
>> > and
>> > friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
>> > them. I'm simply not one of those people.
>>
>> AMEN!!!
>
> But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
> comment at all?

You misread what I said. Please read properly next time. I said I went
once and DIDN'T LIKE IT and I never went back so how do you interpret that
as not knowing how to make it work????? HUH???
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:20:10 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> You don't know as much about facebook as you think. I am not your
>>> facebook
>>> friend, nor am I a "friend of friend". That makes me "public". I could
>>> see
>>> multiple pictures, not just your profile pic. So, don't assert we are
>>> the
>>> liars, because it's simply not true.
>>
>> As I said... Some of my pics were set to public. But certainly not all.
>> And there is no "Friend of Friend: setting that I ca see on there any
>> more.
>
> "Friends of Friend" setting is everywhere - you can't have missed it.
>
> It means that if you post a followup or a new topic and if your
> "friends" reply to it, then it is available to all THEIR friends as
> well (it will appear in their feeds). Which would, on the surface,
> seem OK if it was straight-forward dialog with actual friends.
>
> But it also means that all the Facebook Games, Surveys, Photo Sites,
> Dumb Ass Look At Me, and other Gimmicks get access to every post,
> every Like <gag>, everything you have shared with Facebook - public OR
> private.
>
> But the best part is that YOU don't control ANY of those settings.
> Your "friends" do.
>
> As soon as THEY (your "Friends") agree to play Brick Buster Boobie
> Farmtown - then they just sold out all their friends feeds and
> information to a huge data farm in The Cloud.
>
> You cannot control it if you have ANY friends.
>
> Facecbook always makes sure your friends have the "Friends of Friends"
> setting wherever possible - that's how they identify your markets.
> It's an ingenious situation meant to flabbergast and discombobulate
> the masses at the expense of the consumer.
>
> Remember - you are not the customer of... say - Google, Facebook,
> Twitter, AT&T, nor Time Warner. But rather you are the product being
> sold.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-fIO7_HJBo
>
> -sw (I'll probably get fired for this if anybody is looking)

You and I must have different versions. I could have sworn that I saw the
"Friends of Friends" setting on there the other day but it is no longer
listed anywhere on my settings.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-fIO7_HJBo
>
> -sw (I'll probably get fired for this if anybody is looking)

I love Simon and Garfunkel. Will my cred be even lower than when I said I
liked Dwight Yoakam?

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

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> > There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family
> >> > and
> >> > friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
> >> > them. I'm simply not one of those people.
> >>
> >> AMEN!!!
> >
> > But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
> > comment at all?
>
> You misread what I said. Please read properly next time. I said I went
> once and DIDN'T LIKE IT and I never went back so how do you interpret that
> as not knowing how to make it work????? HUH???

I've noticed that sf turns a bit arrogant late at night after she's
(probably) been drinking a bit. Not a good thing to do and
post....better to save those posts as drafts then look at them again
in the morning before deciding whether to send them or not.

G.

On 9/8/2013 12:15 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:33:33 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2013 12:55 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't go that far. But this isn't the first time Jill didn't
>>> want to learn anything new. She was incapable of running Thunderbird,
>>> for example (even though she was offered lots of help).
>>>
>> I accepted that help, Steve, and I've been using it for months.
>
> So I see. I must have missed that climax. Uh <ahem>. Glad you got
> it working and are happy!
>
> -sw
>
Happy enough! At least no one is bitching about my posting using
Windows mail. OE was just fine with Quotefix, but of course by the
time the mail program was "upgraded" the Quotefix programmers had lost
interest...

Jill

On 9/8/2013 12:23 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>> There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family and
>>> friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
>>> them. I'm simply not one of those people.
>>
>> AMEN!!!
>
> But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
> comment at all?
>
Why should I make it work for me? I've said I tried it and discovered
I'm not interested in it. That should be enough. The only reason I
commented at all is because other people said they'd found the constant
changes to FB tiresome/bothersome. You want to use it, go right ahead.
No one is stopping you.

Jill

On 9/8/2013 12:45 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:15:03 -0400, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2013 7:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> Several months ago I subscribed to facebook just to check out the
>>> cooking section and to see what all the hoopla was about. It didn't
>>> take long (about an hour) when I was informed by the keeper of the
>>> gate via email that I was not wanted there. So I unsubscribed. I
>>> never posted anything, I was subscribed for less than six hours. I
>>> will never again darken the doors of those know nothing sicko facebook
>>> freaks. Why pray tell would anyone want to make all their personal
>>> bizniz available to everyone on the planet, only reason I can fathom
>>> is that NONE of them face book freaks have a life.
>>
>> Seriously?? I might unsub just based on that if it turns out to be true.
>
> I seriously doubt one of the Admins of RFC FB sent that message.
>
Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had given
proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge. It's like
a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power. It's all in
their pathetic, need to control everything minds.

Jill

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:52 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 9/8/2013 12:23 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family and
> >>> friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
> >>> them. I'm simply not one of those people.
> >>
> >> AMEN!!!
> >
> > But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
> > comment at all?
> >
> Why should I make it work for me? I've said I tried it and discovered
> I'm not interested in it. That should be enough. The only reason I
> commented at all is because other people said they'd found the constant
> changes to FB tiresome/bothersome. You want to use it, go right ahead.
> No one is stopping you.
>
What's the point in bitching about it if you're not interested and
won't even try to use it?

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

On 9/8/2013 2:48 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:52 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2013 12:23 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family and
>>>>> friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
>>>>> them. I'm simply not one of those people.
>>>>
>>>> AMEN!!!
>>>
>>> But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
>>> comment at all?
>>>
>> Why should I make it work for me? I've said I tried it and discovered
>> I'm not interested in it. That should be enough. The only reason I
>> commented at all is because other people said they'd found the constant
>> changes to FB tiresome/bothersome. You want to use it, go right ahead.
>> No one is stopping you.
>>
> What's the point in bitching about it if you're not interested and
> won't even try to use it?
>
Oh fer cryin' out loud. I DID try it. I didn't like it. Is that okay
with you? Sheesh.

Jill

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:43:08 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 9/8/2013 12:45 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:15:03 -0400, Cheryl >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/7/2013 7:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Several months ago I subscribed to facebook just to check out the
> >>> cooking section and to see what all the hoopla was about. It didn't
> >>> take long (about an hour) when I was informed by the keeper of the
> >>> gate via email that I was not wanted there. So I unsubscribed. I
> >>> never posted anything, I was subscribed for less than six hours. I
> >>> will never again darken the doors of those know nothing sicko facebook
> >>> freaks. Why pray tell would anyone want to make all their personal
> >>> bizniz available to everyone on the planet, only reason I can fathom
> >>> is that NONE of them face book freaks have a life.
> >>
> >> Seriously?? I might unsub just based on that if it turns out to be true.
> >
> > I seriously doubt one of the Admins of RFC FB sent that message.
> >
> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks?

My point was that a real rfc on fb administrator would not do that, so
it was someone impersonating an administrator.

> I once belonged to a
> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had given
> proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge. It's like
> a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power. It's all in
> their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>

Haven't we seen that tried here quite often and to the point that
people have been run off? That kind of nastiness was why rfc on fb
was created, but it looks like someone is pulling off a variation of
it there too.

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

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:53:22 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 9/8/2013 2:48 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:52 -0400, jmcquown >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/8/2013 12:23 AM, sf wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family and
> >>>>> friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
> >>>>> them. I'm simply not one of those people.
> >>>>
> >>>> AMEN!!!
> >>>
> >>> But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
> >>> comment at all?
> >>>
> >> Why should I make it work for me? I've said I tried it and discovered
> >> I'm not interested in it. That should be enough. The only reason I
> >> commented at all is because other people said they'd found the constant
> >> changes to FB tiresome/bothersome. You want to use it, go right ahead.
> >> No one is stopping you.
> >>
> > What's the point in bitching about it if you're not interested and
> > won't even try to use it?
> >
> Oh fer cryin' out loud. I DID try it. I didn't like it. Is that okay
> with you? Sheesh.
>
You and Ophelia seem to be on a continuous rant about how awful it is
and the repetition is boring.

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

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:52 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2013 12:23 AM, sf wrote:
>> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family
>> >>> and
>> >>> friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power
>> >>> to
>> >>> them. I'm simply not one of those people.
>> >>
>> >> AMEN!!!
>> >
>> > But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
>> > comment at all?
>> >
>> Why should I make it work for me? I've said I tried it and discovered
>> I'm not interested in it. That should be enough. The only reason I
>> commented at all is because other people said they'd found the constant
>> changes to FB tiresome/bothersome. You want to use it, go right ahead.
>> No one is stopping you.
>>
> What's the point in bitching about it if you're not interested and
> won't even try to use it?

I guess for the same reason the rest of us bitch about stuff that doesn't
really concern us, but still butt in with our comments.

Cheri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...

> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator jumped
> all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had given proper
> attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge. It's like a God
> Complex - they think they've got some sort of power. It's all in their
> pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>
> Jill


I had one of those control freaks once in a chat room..."Templeton" who
thought he was king of the world. Cracked me up with his level of
self-importance.

Cheri

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 03:11:13 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> As soon as THEY (your "Friends") agree to play Brick Buster Boobie

Sober up, sot.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 00:16:15 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> AdBlock+ is the single-most important add-on

No it's not, you needle-dicked little faggot.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 00:10:45 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> It keep harassing me to "Find
> Friends" "More than I'd ever imagine" ever since Day 1.

Sorta like you stalked Omelet off the net, right needle-dick?

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 00:00:58 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> C'mon - you know it's better than THAT!
>
> -sw

**** off, needle-dick.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 23:41:55 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> You get out of Facebook
> what you EXPECT to get out of Facebook. And you got exactly what you
> asked for.
>
> -sw

You deserve to be shit on.

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:12:24 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 22:30:31 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > There are plenty of other ways for me to stay in contact with family
>> >> > and
>> >> > friends (the ones I want to) than FB. If people love FB, more power to
>> >> > them. I'm simply not one of those people.
>> >>
>> >> AMEN!!!
>> >
>> > But you're two people who can't seem to make FB work for you, so why
>> > comment at all?
>>
>> You misread what I said. Please read properly next time. I said I went
>> once and DIDN'T LIKE IT and I never went back so how do you interpret that
>> as not knowing how to make it work????? HUH???
>
>I've noticed that sf turns a bit arrogant late at night after she's
>(probably) been drinking a bit. Not a good thing to do and
>post....better to save those posts as drafts then look at them again
>in the morning before deciding whether to send them or not.

So is that reason for her ignorance/arrogance here? And I use the word
'arrogance' very specifically, as did you. I've noticed the same thing
myself but never thought about the underlying cause.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 23:33:28 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> I think you'd be
> surprised how Stepford we are.

I think you're heading for a bad place, trust me.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 23:20:40 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Isn't my stalker posting everything on my Facebook, Chowhound, and
> Yelp accounts anyway?

Didn't you stalk Omelet off the net?

Payback is a bitch, ain't it Sqwerty?

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 23:15:43 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> must have missed that climax. Uh <ahem>.

Shooting more mayo out your nneedle-dick.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 13:48:25 -0600, mixatorium > wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 00:16:15 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> > AdBlock+ is the single-most important add-on
>
> No it's not, you needle-dicked little faggot.

I agree that it's fabulous. Which one do you like better?

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

On 9/8/2013 3:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
>> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
>> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
>> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
>> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> I had one of those control freaks once in a chat room..."Templeton" who
> thought he was king of the world. Cracked me up with his level of
> self-importance.
>
> Cheri

I know, right? They think they're so important. "I'm the moderator, I
can do what I want but you can't say what you want." Give me a break.

Jill

On 9/8/2013 2:55 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:43:08 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2013 12:45 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:15:03 -0400, Cheryl >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2013 7:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Several months ago I subscribed to facebook just to check out the
>>>>> cooking section and to see what all the hoopla was about. It didn't
>>>>> take long (about an hour) when I was informed by the keeper of the
>>>>> gate via email that I was not wanted there. So I unsubscribed. I
>>>>> never posted anything, I was subscribed for less than six hours. I
>>>>> will never again darken the doors of those know nothing sicko facebook
>>>>> freaks. Why pray tell would anyone want to make all their personal
>>>>> bizniz available to everyone on the planet, only reason I can fathom
>>>>> is that NONE of them face book freaks have a life.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously?? I might unsub just based on that if it turns out to be true.
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt one of the Admins of RFC FB sent that message.
>>>
>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks?
>
> My point was that a real rfc on fb administrator would not do that, so
> it was someone impersonating an administrator.
>
Oh, so... there are still trolls who impersonate Admins on FB? Doesn't
sound like it is as secure as you think. That makes me feel soooo much
better. LOL

>> I once belonged to a > web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had given
>> proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge. It's like
>> a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power. It's all in
>> their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>
> Haven't we seen that tried here quite often and to the point that
> people have been run off?

I can think of a few people. I won't name the ones I'm reminded of.
They simply sounded like fools to many of us. It was their choice to
leave. We didn't want to listen to the constant drama all the time.
(hence my k/fling Julie)

That kind of nastiness was why rfc on fb
> was created, but it looks like someone is pulling off a variation of
> it there too.
>
I've killfiled most of the obvious trolls, idiots and nymshifters.
They're the people who are trying to kill the ng all the while saying
someone else is doing it.

sf, you seem to like to respond to "casa whoever". Get over it, it's
trolling ane encourages replies from the other folks you think of as trolls.

The people who were allegedly "run off" rfc, why they left or where they
went? RFC has always been a contentious and opinionated newsgroup.
That's why it has always been known as the Chaotic Kitchen.

People leave RFC for a lot of reasons, as with any ng. Sometimes people
die. Or they simply lose interest. If they chose to go to FB, okay.
Some people no longer care to sit in front of a computer.

Margaret Suran's Birthday is tomorrow. She'll be 87 years old. I sent
her a card. She hasn't posted here in a long while. But she's a good,
longtime RFC friend. She's sent me a number of cookbooks over the
years. Happy birthday, Margaret!

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...

> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator jumped
> all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had given proper
> attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge. It's like a God
> Complex - they think they've got some sort of power. It's all in their
> pathetic, need to control everything minds.

Yes. One reason why I dislike most moderated groups.

On 9/8/2013 12:33 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> You can sign up for fake account and at least read the various cooking
> groups to which some of us subscribe. A lot of us old-timers are also
> friends for our personal accounts (and that's where it can get nasty!)

Yeah, and some have even seen my toes.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 9/8/2013 4:11 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> "Friends of Friend" setting is everywhere - you can't have missed it.
>
> It means that if you post a followup or a new topic and if your
> "friends" reply to it, then it is available to all THEIR friends as
> well (it will appear in their feeds). Which would, on the surface,
> seem OK if it was straight-forward dialog with actual friends.
>
> But it also means that all the Facebook Games, Surveys, Photo Sites,
> Dumb Ass Look At Me, and other Gimmicks get access to every post,
> every Like <gag>, everything you have shared with Facebook - public OR
> private.
>
> But the best part is that YOU don't control ANY of those settings.
> Your "friends" do.

The only "friends of friends" stuff I see are on the ticker. I assume
that if I see those, others see mine. You're right, you can't control
that.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 9/8/2013 1:00 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> You're going to question your whole Facebook existence on what Shelly
> experienced in 6 hours?
>
> C'mon - you know it's better than THAT!
>
> -sw
>
I guess you're right, but at the time I admit wondering if it was true...


--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 9/8/2013 4:58 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> The people who were allegedly "run off" rfc, why they left or where they
> went? RFC has always been a contentious and opinionated newsgroup.
> That's why it has always been known as the Chaotic Kitchen.

I think most stayed back then because there weren't many "good" choices.
Now there is.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 9/8/2013 4:11 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> "Friends of Friend" setting is everywhere - you can't have missed it.
>>
>> It means that if you post a followup or a new topic and if your
>> "friends" reply to it, then it is available to all THEIR friends as
>> well (it will appear in their feeds). Which would, on the surface,
>> seem OK if it was straight-forward dialog with actual friends.
>>
>> But it also means that all the Facebook Games, Surveys, Photo Sites,
>> Dumb Ass Look At Me, and other Gimmicks get access to every post,
>> every Like <gag>, everything you have shared with Facebook - public OR
>> private.
>>
>> But the best part is that YOU don't control ANY of those settings.
>> Your "friends" do.
>
> The only "friends of friends" stuff I see are on the ticker. I assume
> that if I see those, others see mine. You're right, you can't control
> that.

What is the ticker?

On 9/8/2013 5:42 PM, Julie Bove wrote:

> What is the ticker?

It's that part of the window on the right side that constantly scrolls.
Various conversations, but none to me so I rarely pay attention. Those
are your friends conversations with other people.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.