You can get a copy of the latest BBQ List FAQ
in one of the following ways:

1) Vince Vielhaber has set up an email autoresponder.

Send email to:

and you'll get the ascii text version, zipped up, by return
email.

Send mail to:

and you'll get the ascii text version in a self extracting zip file
by return email.


and you'll get a straight ascii version, not zipped.


and you will get the MS Word 6.0 version in a self-extracting zip file
by return mail.


Leave the subject and message body blank.


2) You can also get the BBQ List FAQ by visiting Vince's Web site:

http://www.eaglequest.com/~bbq/

You can download several different formats of the FAQ here.

You can also view the FAQ in HTML format he

http://www.eaglequest.com/~bbq/faq


3) You can read the FAQ on Dan Gill's Barbecue Survival Guide Web
page at:

http://members.tripod.com/~DanGill/Survive.HTML


4) Alex Baker has Word 6.0 and Adobe Acrobat versions of the
FAQ available for downloading.

His Web site is http://www.calweb.com/~ambaker/bbqfaq.html

Or you can get them directly via ftp by:

ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/a/ambaker/faq-word.zip
ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/a/ambaker/faq-10.doc
ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/a/ambaker/faq-acro.pdf

Alex also has a link to download the Adobe Acrobat viewer.
The Acrobat version of the FAQ has internal links from the
Table of Contents to the respective sections in the document.


For those of you who do not have MS Word 6.0 or 7.0 or Word 97 who wish to read
the FAQ in Word format, you can download the MS Word Viewer from Microsoft for
free. The Word viewer will allow you to view MS Word documents and print
them, but not edit them or create new documents.

Here's how to get it:

Set your Web browser to:

http://www.microsoft.com/msword/internet/viewer/

and select the version for the Windows operating system you have:

The 97 version for Win95 and the 16-bit version for Win3.1x


Bill

"Bill Wight" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can get a copy of the latest BBQ List FAQ
> in one of the following ways:

WARNING!
*Please* read the FAQ before asking any questions on the BBQ group - I
popped in one time to ask a quick question about parboiling chicken and got
flamed big-time. Turns out that dedicated BBQ-ers go up in flames <wink>
about certain topics, and parboiling is one of them. The more fanatical
posters were so hostile and rude, I just unsubscribed and haven't been back
since.

~Shelly~

"Bill Wight" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can get a copy of the latest BBQ List FAQ
> in one of the following ways:

WARNING!
*Please* read the FAQ before asking any questions on the BBQ group - I
popped in one time to ask a quick question about parboiling chicken and got
flamed big-time. Turns out that dedicated BBQ-ers go up in flames <wink>
about certain topics, and parboiling is one of them. The more fanatical
posters were so hostile and rude, I just unsubscribed and haven't been back
since.

~Shelly~

The Ranger wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:34:44 GMT, "~Shelly~"
> > wrote:
>> [..] I popped in one time to ask a quick question about
>> parboiling [..]
>
> Moose; is that you?

Naw. Moosie would stay around for the fireworks. Not just slink away and
cry on another group.

>
> The Ranger
> --
> "I ask a *simple* question and the barbarians attack with
> forks and mops!"

The Ranger wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:34:44 GMT, "~Shelly~"
> > wrote:
>> [..] I popped in one time to ask a quick question about
>> parboiling [..]
>
> Moose; is that you?

Naw. Moosie would stay around for the fireworks. Not just slink away and
cry on another group.

>
> The Ranger
> --
> "I ask a *simple* question and the barbarians attack with
> forks and mops!"

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:34:44 GMT, "~Shelly~" >
wrote:
> [..] I popped in one time to ask a quick question about
> parboiling [..]

Moose; is that you?

The Ranger
--
"I ask a *simple* question and the barbarians attack with forks and
mops!"

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Moose; is that you?
>
> The Ranger

Who's Moose? It really happened about three or four years ago on Mother's
Day. I was going to try to barbeque chicken for the first time when my
husband and another guest started talking about whether or not chicken
should be boiled first before putting on the grill. I thought I'd just jump
into the BBQ newsgroup and ask the experts. Turned out to be a wrong move.
I had no idea that parboiling was a trigger for the more, shall we say,
dedicated <cough-fanatical-cough> BBQ-ers. You could probably find the
thread if the archives go back that far.

~Shelly~

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Moose; is that you?
>
> The Ranger

Who's Moose? It really happened about three or four years ago on Mother's
Day. I was going to try to barbeque chicken for the first time when my
husband and another guest started talking about whether or not chicken
should be boiled first before putting on the grill. I thought I'd just jump
into the BBQ newsgroup and ask the experts. Turned out to be a wrong move.
I had no idea that parboiling was a trigger for the more, shall we say,
dedicated <cough-fanatical-cough> BBQ-ers. You could probably find the
thread if the archives go back that far.

~Shelly~

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:41:20 -0500, " BOB" > wrote:
> The Ranger wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:34:44 GMT, "~Shelly~" > wrote:
> >> [..] I popped in one time to ask a quick question about
> >> parboiling [..]
> >
> > Moose; is that you?
>
> Naw. Moosie would stay around for the fireworks. Not just slink
> away and cry on another group.

I think he's done both; unsubbed after asking one of his parboiling
posts and then complained here where his two or three groupies
hang.

The Ranger
--
Grits are akin to Elmer's Paste with less flavor and more sand.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:46:25 GMT, "~Shelly~" >
wrote:
> Who's Moose?

No one of consequence.

> It really happened [..] You could probably find the
> thread if the archives go back that far.

I've no doubt you posted it or that I could find it -- if I was so
inclined (I'm not). I found your warning comical in a very humorous
way, though.

The Ranger
---
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely, in an attractive and well-preserved body. Rather
one should skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the
other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out while screaming
'WOO HOO! What a ride!'"

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:46:25 GMT, "~Shelly~" >
wrote:
> Who's Moose?

No one of consequence.

> It really happened [..] You could probably find the
> thread if the archives go back that far.

I've no doubt you posted it or that I could find it -- if I was so
inclined (I'm not). I found your warning comical in a very humorous
way, though.

The Ranger
---
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely, in an attractive and well-preserved body. Rather
one should skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the
other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out while screaming
'WOO HOO! What a ride!'"

The Ranger wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:46:25 GMT, "~Shelly~" >
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I've no doubt you posted it or that I could find it -- if I was so
> inclined (I'm not). I found your warning comical in a very humorous
> way, though.
>


The FAQ is posted regularly on that group as well as this one to give
folks a "heads up".

I just went there and read the FAQ and have had no problem there at all.
If you go in asking about boiling ribs or something for que then you're
probably going to get flamed, true. Asking questions about "gassers" is
questionable, although usually tolerated.

Go anywhere and try to join a group without knowing at least the basic
"rules" of the group it just plain asking for it. Keep your flak jacket
and flame resistant suit very handy.

--
Steve

If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.

The Ranger wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:46:25 GMT, "~Shelly~" >
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I've no doubt you posted it or that I could find it -- if I was so
> inclined (I'm not). I found your warning comical in a very humorous
> way, though.
>


The FAQ is posted regularly on that group as well as this one to give
folks a "heads up".

I just went there and read the FAQ and have had no problem there at all.
If you go in asking about boiling ribs or something for que then you're
probably going to get flamed, true. Asking questions about "gassers" is
questionable, although usually tolerated.

Go anywhere and try to join a group without knowing at least the basic
"rules" of the group it just plain asking for it. Keep your flak jacket
and flame resistant suit very handy.

--
Steve

If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.

"~Shelly~" > wrote in message
news:BifGd.854$J6.488@trnddc02...
>

> I was going to try to barbeque chicken for the first time when my
> husband and another guest started talking about whether or not chicken
> should be boiled first before putting on the grill. I thought I'd just
> jump
> into the BBQ newsgroup and ask the experts. Turned out to be a wrong
> move.
> I had no idea that parboiling was a trigger for the more, shall we say,
> dedicated <cough-fanatical-cough> BBQ-ers. You could probably find the
> thread if the archives go back that far.
>
> ~Shelly~

Well at least you know parboiling is not a good idea. You asked, you got
the right answer. Done deal.

No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either. You
don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either. You
> don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
>
>



Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
and no one has told me till now?

gloria p

Puester wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either.
>> You don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
>>
>
> Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
> You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> and no one has told me till now?
>
> gloria p

[posted and emailed]

Of course, Gloria. You're wrong, the BBQ folks are right. But I do have to
ask, did you ever par-boil a chicken before roasting or grilling it?

Jill

Puester wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either.
>> You don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
>>
>
> Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
> You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> and no one has told me till now?
>
> gloria p

[posted and emailed]

Of course, Gloria. You're wrong, the BBQ folks are right. But I do have to
ask, did you ever par-boil a chicken before roasting or grilling it?

Jill

"Puester" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either. You
>> don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
>
>
>
> Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
> You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> and no one has told me till now?
>
> gloria p

Where did I say "one" right way"???? There are dozens of "right" ways to
grill or barbecue a chicken, but par boiling the flavor out of the meat is
the wrong way.

In rec.food.cooking, jmcquown > wrote:
> Puester wrote:
> > Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either.
> >> You don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
> >>
> >
> > Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
> > You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> > and no one has told me till now?
> >
> > gloria p

> [posted and emailed]

> Of course, Gloria. You're wrong, the BBQ folks are right. But I do have to
> ask, did you ever par-boil a chicken before roasting or grilling it?


them folks is crazy. There's more than one way to cook a cat!

I like bef. BBQ is the best.

I like to put a big piece of round roast into a pot and JUST cover it
with
BBQ sauce. Ten I put it on the stovetop and boil it until tender. If
necessary, add some water.

Nobody can tellME I do it wrog! Three grown kids ca't all be crazy!

In rec.food.cooking, jmcquown > wrote:
> Puester wrote:
> > Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either.
> >> You don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
> >>
> >
> > Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
> > You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> > and no one has told me till now?
> >
> > gloria p

> [posted and emailed]

> Of course, Gloria. You're wrong, the BBQ folks are right. But I do have to
> ask, did you ever par-boil a chicken before roasting or grilling it?


them folks is crazy. There's more than one way to cook a cat!

I like bef. BBQ is the best.

I like to put a big piece of round roast into a pot and JUST cover it
with
BBQ sauce. Ten I put it on the stovetop and boil it until tender. If
necessary, add some water.

Nobody can tellME I do it wrog! Three grown kids ca't all be crazy!

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:41:38 GMT, Puester
> wrote:

> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either. You
> > don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
> You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> and no one has told me till now?
>
Are you saying you parboil CHICKEN before bbqing? That's
overkill.


sf

sf wrote:

> ht way to cook everything?
> > You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> > and no one has told me till now?
> >
> Are you saying you parboil CHICKEN before bbqing? That's
> overkill.
>

I've been known to do that. When cooking a lot of chicken and don't have room for
offset cooking, I sometimes parboil it, then dress it up and finish on the grill.
I have done a lot of ribs that way too. It may seem a sacrilege to some BBQ
fanatics, but the people who ate them sure liked them.:-)

sf wrote:

> ht way to cook everything?
> > You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
> > and no one has told me till now?
> >
> Are you saying you parboil CHICKEN before bbqing? That's
> overkill.
>

I've been known to do that. When cooking a lot of chicken and don't have room for
offset cooking, I sometimes parboil it, then dress it up and finish on the grill.
I have done a lot of ribs that way too. It may seem a sacrilege to some BBQ
fanatics, but the people who ate them sure liked them.:-)

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:41:38 GMT, Puester
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> >
>> > No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either. You
>> > don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
>> You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
>> and no one has told me till now?
>>
>
> Are you saying you parboil CHICKEN before bbqing? That's
> overkill.
>
> sf

Of course not, but there are hundreds of ways to cook chicken
(and everything else) and no one way is "right".

gloria p

On Sun 16 Jan 2005 02:52:59p, Puester tittered and giggled, and giggled
and tittered, and finally blurted out...

> sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:41:38 GMT, Puester
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>> >
>>> > No need to play funny games with the "cough-fanatical" thing either.
>>> > You don't have to be a fanatic to cook things the right way.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh-oh. IS there only one right way to cook everything?
>>> You mean to tell me I've been doing it wrong for ~50+ years
>>> and no one has told me till now?
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying you parboil CHICKEN before bbqing? That's overkill.
>>
>> sf
>
> Of course not, but there are hundreds of ways to cook chicken
> (and everything else) and no one way is "right".
>
> gloria p
>

Yep, just one "right" way! Apparently you didn't get a copy of the rule
book. Plague and famine to those who do not follow the "rules"! :-)

Wayne

This topic calls for a song to the tune of "Teddy Bear's Picnic".

If you go to the BBQ group...


--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood
Decluttering http://Decluttering.blogspot.com
Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.

This topic calls for a song to the tune of "Teddy Bear's Picnic".

If you go to the BBQ group...


--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood
Decluttering http://Decluttering.blogspot.com
Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.

Seems to me there's a difference in how a group's members respond to a
new person's innocent request for info. It's one thing to inform
someone that they've violated the NG's rules, failed to read the FAQ or
some such thing, politely, vs. flaming them. Over the years, I've come
to realize that when I flame someone for not being in line, it's just
my self-righteous side, which I try to curb.
I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
"micowave wok". Seems to happen in a lot of groups. I believe that
flaming someone in this circumstance is just our need to be in the
"inside", to feel good about ourselves by putting someone else on the
"outside". Probably a very natural human inclination, but not the best
one to practice or promulgate. Bullying others is just not that great a
thing to do, though it may feel good in the moment. For me, in the long
run, it just makes me feel bad about myself. Much worse than improper
preparation of a chicken!

"salgud" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Seems to me there's a difference in how a group's members respond to a
> new person's innocent request for info. It's one thing to inform
> someone that they've violated the NG's rules, failed to read the FAQ or
> some such thing, politely, vs. flaming them. Over the years, I've come
> to realize that when I flame someone for not being in line, it's just
> my self-righteous side, which I try to curb.
> I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
> "micowave wok". Seems to happen in a lot of groups. I believe that
> flaming someone in this circumstance is just our need to be in the
> "inside", to feel good about ourselves by putting someone else on the
> "outside". Probably a very natural human inclination, but not the best
> one to practice or promulgate. Bullying others is just not that great a
> thing to do, though it may feel good in the moment. For me, in the long
> run, it just makes me feel bad about myself. Much worse than improper
> preparation of a chicken!
>

Your post is very perceptive. Lots of people should read it and take it to
heart.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "salgud" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Seems to me there's a difference in how a group's members respond to a
>>new person's innocent request for info. It's one thing to inform
>>someone that they've violated the NG's rules, failed to read the FAQ or
>>some such thing, politely, vs. flaming them. Over the years, I've come
>>to realize that when I flame someone for not being in line, it's just
>>my self-righteous side, which I try to curb.
>>I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
>>"micowave wok". Seems to happen in a lot of groups. I believe that
>>flaming someone in this circumstance is just our need to be in the
>>"inside", to feel good about ourselves by putting someone else on the
>>"outside". Probably a very natural human inclination, but not the best
>>one to practice or promulgate. Bullying others is just not that great a
>>thing to do, though it may feel good in the moment. For me, in the long
>>run, it just makes me feel bad about myself. Much worse than improper
>>preparation of a chicken!
>>
>
>
> Your post is very perceptive. Lots of people should read it and take it to
> heart.
>
>
yup. A gentle nudge toward the FAQ (if there is one) is usually enough
to get the person headed in the right direction without requiring a
flame-proof suit. Now, if they don't take the hint then that's a
different story.

--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "salgud" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Seems to me there's a difference in how a group's members respond to a
>>new person's innocent request for info. It's one thing to inform
>>someone that they've violated the NG's rules, failed to read the FAQ or
>>some such thing, politely, vs. flaming them. Over the years, I've come
>>to realize that when I flame someone for not being in line, it's just
>>my self-righteous side, which I try to curb.
>>I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
>>"micowave wok". Seems to happen in a lot of groups. I believe that
>>flaming someone in this circumstance is just our need to be in the
>>"inside", to feel good about ourselves by putting someone else on the
>>"outside". Probably a very natural human inclination, but not the best
>>one to practice or promulgate. Bullying others is just not that great a
>>thing to do, though it may feel good in the moment. For me, in the long
>>run, it just makes me feel bad about myself. Much worse than improper
>>preparation of a chicken!
>>
>
>
> Your post is very perceptive. Lots of people should read it and take it to
> heart.
>
>
yup. A gentle nudge toward the FAQ (if there is one) is usually enough
to get the person headed in the right direction without requiring a
flame-proof suit. Now, if they don't take the hint then that's a
different story.

--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

rationalizes:
>
>Seems to me there's a difference in how a group's members respond to a
>new person's innocent request for info. It's one thing to inform
>someone that they've violated the NG's rules, failed to read the FAQ or
>some such thing, politely, vs. flaming them. Over the years, I've come
>to realize that when I flame someone for not being in line, it's just
>my self-righteous side, which I try to curb.
>I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
>"micowave wok". Seems to happen in a lot of groups. I believe that
>flaming someone in this circumstance is just our need to be in the
>"inside", to feel good about ourselves by putting someone else on the
>"outside". Probably a very natural human inclination, but not the best
>one to practice or promulgate. Bullying others is just not that great a
>thing to do, though it may feel good in the moment. For me, in the long
>run, it just makes me feel bad about myself. Much worse than improper
>preparation of a chicken!

Oh, rubbish... whaddaya sell used cars... who're trying to convince, us or you.
You're obviously a brand new newbie... um, your very first post was about a
month ago and you've only made 33 posts. U R a NEWBIE!

Flaming is an inextricable and necessary part of Usenet, keeps the bullshiting
know nothings at bay... this is not your small town church meeting... grow
thicker skin or ooze back out.


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

On 17 Jan 2005 07:39:20 -0800, "salgud"
> wrote:

> I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
> "micowave wok".

Here? I don't remember that.

Just to make sure, I went to Google and plugged in your
name. It turned out that you're very thin skinned. What
Jill said to you was: "How about you read the SUBJECT
"Microwave Wok" for starters?" and you started crying about
being flamed. Sheesh! You don't belong anywhere near most
internet newsgroups, if you're that sensitive.

So, rec.food.recipes will be better than rfc for you.
There's no flaming in rfr, unless it's called for in a
recipe.

sf

On 17 Jan 2005 07:39:20 -0800, "salgud"
> wrote:

> I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
> "micowave wok".

Here? I don't remember that.

Just to make sure, I went to Google and plugged in your
name. It turned out that you're very thin skinned. What
Jill said to you was: "How about you read the SUBJECT
"Microwave Wok" for starters?" and you started crying about
being flamed. Sheesh! You don't belong anywhere near most
internet newsgroups, if you're that sensitive.

So, rec.food.recipes will be better than rfc for you.
There's no flaming in rfr, unless it's called for in a
recipe.

sf

PENMART01 wrote:

> Flaming is an inextricable and necessary part of Usenet, keeps the
bullshiting
> know nothings at bay... this is not your small town church meeting... grow
> thicker skin or ooze back out.


*lol*...my sentiments *exactly*...

--
Best
Greg

PENMART01 wrote:

> Flaming is an inextricable and necessary part of Usenet, keeps the
bullshiting
> know nothings at bay... this is not your small town church meeting... grow
> thicker skin or ooze back out.


*lol*...my sentiments *exactly*...

--
Best
Greg

sf wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2005 07:39:20 -0800, "salgud"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
>> "micowave wok".
>
>
> Here? I don't remember that.
>
> Just to make sure, I went to Google and plugged in your
> name. It turned out that you're very thin skinned. What
> Jill said to you was: "How about you read the SUBJECT
> "Microwave Wok" for starters?" and you started crying about
> being flamed. Sheesh! You don't belong anywhere near most
> internet newsgroups, if you're that sensitive.
>
> So, rec.food.recipes will be better than rfc for you.
> There's no flaming in rfr, unless it's called for in a
> recipe.
>
> sf

I didn't bother to look it up sf, but after seeing your post I did.
You're right, that's a pretty lame flame. ;-)


--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

sf wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2005 07:39:20 -0800, "salgud"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement about a
>> "micowave wok".
>
>
> Here? I don't remember that.
>
> Just to make sure, I went to Google and plugged in your
> name. It turned out that you're very thin skinned. What
> Jill said to you was: "How about you read the SUBJECT
> "Microwave Wok" for starters?" and you started crying about
> being flamed. Sheesh! You don't belong anywhere near most
> internet newsgroups, if you're that sensitive.
>
> So, rec.food.recipes will be better than rfc for you.
> There's no flaming in rfr, unless it's called for in a
> recipe.
>
> sf

I didn't bother to look it up sf, but after seeing your post I did.
You're right, that's a pretty lame flame. ;-)


--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

sf wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2005 07:39:20 -0800, "salgud"
> > wrote:
>
> > I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement
about a
> > "micowave wok".
>
> Here? I don't remember that.
>
> Just to make sure, I went to Google and plugged in your
> name. It turned out that you're very thin skinned. What
> Jill said to you was: "How about you read the SUBJECT
> "Microwave Wok" for starters?" and you started crying about
> being flamed. Sheesh! You don't belong anywhere near most
> internet newsgroups, if you're that sensitive.


Right. What some many of these whiners consider "flaming" is any
contradiction, correction, redirection, or anything else less than
bending over backwards to accomodate them.

Too many people have failed to learn basic netiquette. Things like:
lurk in the newsgroup for at least week and read all back messages,
find and read the FAQ for the group, take criticism with a dash of
humility and don't take it personally as it probably wasn't meant that
way.


Brian

sf wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2005 07:39:20 -0800, "salgud"
> > wrote:
>
> > I recently got flamed in this NG for making a naive statement
about a
> > "micowave wok".
>
> Here? I don't remember that.
>
> Just to make sure, I went to Google and plugged in your
> name. It turned out that you're very thin skinned. What
> Jill said to you was: "How about you read the SUBJECT
> "Microwave Wok" for starters?" and you started crying about
> being flamed. Sheesh! You don't belong anywhere near most
> internet newsgroups, if you're that sensitive.


Right. What some many of these whiners consider "flaming" is any
contradiction, correction, redirection, or anything else less than
bending over backwards to accomodate them.

Too many people have failed to learn basic netiquette. Things like:
lurk in the newsgroup for at least week and read all back messages,
find and read the FAQ for the group, take criticism with a dash of
humility and don't take it personally as it probably wasn't meant that
way.


Brian