 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Meat loaf and archiving
X-No-Archive: yes
I started a new thread so this doesn't end up in the woodworking group. I am new to using Google as a Usenet reader so please have a little patience with me. FYI: I've never asked to NOT be archived until now. I'm learning how to do this but according to Google my posts will NOT be archived after I copied and pasted "X-No-Archive: yes". I have since removed the quotes and will keep that in mind in the future. I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my" recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time to share. Some were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like to get credit once in awhile. Any way, I have to go cook some Basamati rice to go with our slow cooked beef and peppers. Will be back later. have a great day! Mary |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mash wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes > Actually I used to spend hours on the computer typing in recipes that > were family favorites. <snip> And with google, you can find your favourite recipes, print them out, get the print spattered and throw it out, all faster than pulling out 4 cookbooks trying to remember the name of the dish and which book it might be in. blacksalt > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mash" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, >without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my" >recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time to share. Some >were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like to get credit once >in awhile. The attributions became a non-issue to me when I lost all of my personal recipes. I'm so thankful that I did mass recipe postings while sitting up all night with insomnia. And that they were archived. I'm gradually re-acquiring them. We post recipes to share with others. It's cool when they associate the recipes with you, but so what if they don't? Are you writing a cookbook? Carol -- Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress wrote: > "Mash" >, if that's their real name, wrote: > > >I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, > >without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my" > >recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time to share. Some > >were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like to get credit once > >in awhile. > > [snip] > We post recipes to share with others. It's cool when they associate the > recipes with you, but so what if they don't? [snip] > Carol Agreed. The possessive attitude is especially odd if the recipes weren't original. Google also allows you to remove your own individual posts from the archive after the fact, so long as you are posting from the same addy as the post you're removing. -aem |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
X-No-Archive: yes
Actually I used to spend hours on the computer typing in recipes that were family favorites. It takes time and effort to do so. And it's just plain courteous to credit the poster. Also, I like to remember my friends by the recipes they shared. Since joining again I've already posted a few favorite recipes because this group is about cooking. And I can remember when recipes were posted here, along with chat, and a bit of fun. Just ask about speaking Elbonian... Mary |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mash wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes > Actually I used to spend hours on the computer typing in recipes that > were family favorites. It takes time and effort to do so. And it's > just plain courteous to credit the poster. Yes, that's fine, nobody disagrees, but not everyone is courteous enough or thorough enough to credit the poster. Why is that a big deal? > Also, I like to remember my > friends by the recipes they shared. Since joining again I've already > posted a few favorite recipes because this group is about cooking. > And I can remember when recipes were posted here, along with chat, > and a bit of fun. Just ask about speaking Elbonian... > People still post recipes and still chat and still have fun. Some still mostly have fun by annoying others. And I remember skipping over all the terrible Ebonian jokes. What seems odd to me is that you would feel so hurt about not getting credit years later that you would now decide to try to shorten the life of your postings. But suit yourself. As I mentioned, besides using the no-archive function, you can also remove individual past postings. In both cases, of course, your deletion does not affect someone else's post where they quoted yours. -aem |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's not a matter of the past but a matter of the present. I recently
re-joined and I have decided to ask my postings not be archived. That's all. And no I am not hurt in any way, just decided to not have my postings archived. Thanks for being reasonable and fair about this. Mary |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary wrote:
> It's not a matter of the past but a matter of the present. I recently > re-joined and I have decided to ask my postings not be archived. That's > all. And no I am not hurt in any way, just decided to not have my > postings archived. > > Thanks for being reasonable and fair about this. Well...your postings won't be archived by GOOGLE. But there's nothing preventing any of us from reading your posts and saving them, only to put them forth as our own creations on web sites or on this very newsgroup. If you really want to keep them private, then it's the height of folly to put them on the Internet at all, even though Usenet's user population is dwindling. Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"then it's the height of folly to put
them on the Internet at all, even though Usenet's user population is dwindling. Bob " ----------------------------- What do you mean, Bob, when you say Usenet is dwindling? How do you know this, and why, and what does it mean? Just curious--don't mean to sound rude. Thanks, Nancree |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
nancree wrote:
> "then it's the height of folly to put > them on the Internet at all, even though Usenet's user population is > dwindling. > > Bob " > ----------------------------- > What do you mean, Bob, when you say Usenet is dwindling? How do you > know this, and why, and what does it mean? Just curious--don't mean > to sound rude. > Thanks, Nancree How are people SUPPOSED to hear about Usenet these days? When I first connected, the newsgroups *were* the Internet. Now it's all about the Web. Many ISP's no longer even support Usenet. AOL just dropped its support, and MSN did it a long time ago. The ISP that I use still has a netnews server, but its bandwidth is ridiculously limited, and if only a dozen people are using it, nobody else can even connect. What ISP would discontinue a service which was POPULAR among its subscribers? It's difficult enough to find an ISP which doesn't force HTML e-mails and HTTP mail servers. I suspect that a great deal of pressure is also being exerted by the MPAA and the RIAA, both of whom view the existence of the binary newsgroups as a threat at least as great as that posed by P2P networks. Many computer users these days don't even know that Usenet *exists.* I've got a good friend who's been using the Internet for close to ten years, but she didn't know that any such phenomenon as Usenet existed: She was subscribed first to Earthlink and then to Comcast, but nobody ever told her about the newsgroups -- and she's EDUCATED! (She's a psychiatrist.) Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mash" > wrote:
>I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, >without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my" >recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time to share. Some >were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like to get credit once >in awhile. > >Any way, I have to go cook some Basamati rice to go with our slow >cooked beef and peppers. Will be back later. > >have a great day! > >Mary But it does not work if one person responds to your message/recipe and quotes the whole message. And we know that not everyone snips messages before responding. -- Susan N. "Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral, 48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy." Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mash" > wrote in message oups.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > I started a new thread so this doesn't end up in the woodworking group. > I am new to using Google as a Usenet reader so please have a little > patience with me. You do know that other websites collect google posts and post them on their site right? there really is no such thing as X-No-Archive: yes but for goggle. If your that worried, keep them to yourself. Also about getting credit for your recipes .. no one is going to say "This recipe is by Mary Smith" at the dinner table. If your lucky they will say "I found it on the Internet" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Cook wrote: > > I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, > without attribution. Your recipes... you're kidding... you have no recipes, *no one does*... the only recipes one can take individual credit for are those CRAP CONCOCTIONS that no one else wants to be associated with... so if there are any recipes attributed to just you be well assured that they are *CRAP*! There's good reason that recipes can't be copyrighted... there'd be a better chance of copyrighting mental masturbation. Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sheldon me old mate, you really stuffed up this one. "The Cook" made
a perfectly sensible comment re no archiving and you seem to be blaming him/her/it for something the *previous* poster said. You need to take more care with your attributions, mate. In article . com>, "Sheldon" > wrote: > >The Cook wrote: >> >> I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, >> without attribution. > >Your recipes... you're kidding... you have no recipes, *no one does*... >the only recipes one can take individual credit for are those CRAP >CONCOCTIONS that no one else wants to be associated with... so if there >are any recipes attributed to just you be well assured that they are >*CRAP*! There's good reason that recipes can't be copyrighted... >there'd be a better chance of copyrighting mental masturbation. Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>Your recipes... you're kidding... you have no recipes, *no one does*... >the only recipes one can take individual credit for are those CRAP >CONCOCTIONS that no one else wants to be associated with... Here's my original recipe for crap.  * Exported from MasterCook * Damsel's Dilled Potato Salad Recipe By  amsel in dis DressServing Size : 0 Preparation Time :0:00 Categories : potatoes salads/dressings side dishes Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method -------- ------------ -------------------------------- 8 medium russet potatoes -- diced 4 large eggs -- hard cooked 1 cup mayonnaise 1 tablespoon prepared mustard 3 tablespoon dill pickle juice -- * 1/2 cup dill pickles -- minced 1/2 teaspoon dill weed 1/2 teaspoon onion powder 1 salt and pepper -- to taste * If red potatoes are used, reduce pickle juice to 2 tbsp. 1. Hard cook the eggs; chill, remove shells, and cut in half. Remove yolks and dice the whites. Set aside 2. Cook potatoes in water until desired tenderness. Drain; rinse under cold, running water to stop the cooking process. 3. While potatoes are cooking, combine mashed egg yolks with remaining ingredients. 4. Combine chilled potatoes and the sauce mixture. Add egg whites. 5. Refrigerate for several hours or overnight, to allow flavors to blend. 6. Check for moisture. If too dry, add more pickle juice or milk until desired consistency is achieved. 7. Sprinkle paprika on top just prior to serving, if desired. VARIATIONS: - Use dill pickle relish instead of chopped pickles. - Use fresh minced onions in place of onion powder. - Add finely chopped celery for crunchiness. - Add a dash of tabasco sauce for a little extra zing. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Per serving: 2349 Calories (kcal); 206g Total Fat; (74% calories from fat); 38g Protein; 117g Carbohydrate; 825mg Cholesterol; 6955mg Sodium Food Exchanges: 7 1/2 Grain(Starch); 3 1/2 Lean Meat; 1/2 Vegetable; 0 Fruit; 17 1/2 Fat; 0 Other Carbohydrates -- Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
X-No-Archive: yes
Well I didn't mean to start a flame war here. I've been off Usenet for a few years but I guess I came back in style. :> Sheldon, my dear acquaintance we shared a few e-mails when you were on AOL perhaps you still are, and I do hope you remember that I was smile and I tried to get along with everyone. And I have created a few recipes in my day, perhaps not as many as some, but I have do have a few in my files. Mary The Cook wrote: > "Mash" > wrote: > > > >I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, > >without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my" > snippage... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mash wrote: > Actually I used to spend hours on the computer typing in recipes that > were family favorites. It takes time and effort to do so. And it's just > plain courteous to credit the poster. Also, I like to remember my > friends by the recipes they shared. Since joining again I've already > posted a few favorite recipes because this group is about cooking. And > I can remember when recipes were posted here, along with chat, and a > bit of fun. Just ask about speaking Elbonian... Your reasons are your own as far as archiving. I disagree, but that's no matter. However, if you are going to use Google to post you need to start replying to messages in usenet standard fashion. That means quoting a relevant portion of the message you are replying to. To do that with the Google interface, click "show options" and select the Reply in the expanded message headers. That will have proper quotes and attributions for your reply. Brian |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for the tip and is this better? I'm used posting on Usenet minus
the web so I'm still learning. Sure do appreciate the help. Mary The Cook wrote: > "Mash" > wrote: > > > >I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, > >without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my" > >recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time to share. Some snippage... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>Here's my original recipe for crap. > This is crap??? Don't think so <G> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mash wrote: > > Sheldon, my dear acquaintance we shared a few e-mails when you were on > AOL perhaps you still are, and I do hope you remember that I was smile > and I tried to get along with everyone. I really don't remember you, either you didn't post very long, very prolifically, or left no lasting impression. >And I have created a few > recipes in my day, perhaps not as many as some, but I have do have a > few in my files. > > Mary No one here has created any recipes, in fact no one on this planet has created a recipe in perhaps 5,000 years, probably a lot longer. The one thing every being on this planet has done since there are beings is eat... everyone has to eat (well, except Terri)... do you have any idea how many beings have passed through this planet throuhgout the millenia... ****ING ZILLIONS, and ZILLIONS, and ZILLIONS... they all had to eat and the vast majority had to cook. I can assure everyone, there is no one alive today who can create a recipe that hasn't been done before in some corner of the planet, zillions of times... the fact that they are not written is of no consequence, people have been cooking since long before there was writing, and in fact most people who cook even today can't write a lick... and that's why recipes cannot be copyrighted, they've all been done before. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>Lemme know if you try it. > >Carol >-- >Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon I take it that's a warning - from experience. Looks good on paper. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sheldon wrote:
> No one here has created any recipes, in fact no one on this planet has > created a recipe in perhaps 5,000 years, probably a lot longer. This is plain-out nonsense on the face of it. Think about things like mayonnaise. Think about things that use ingredients not heretofore available. Think about technological change that makes milkshakes. Not to mention ice cream. Potato chips. Cheeze-its. Tomato sauce. It's this sort of blowhole madness that dilutes the small benefit of Sheldon's plagiaristic posts where he says things here as though they were his. And his copyright violations where he quotes passages from books and thinks it shows him to be knowledgeable. > The > one thing every being on this planet has done since there are beings is > eat... everyone has to eat (well, except Terri)... do you have any idea > how many beings have passed through this planet throuhgout the > millenia... ****ING ZILLIONS, and ZILLIONS, and ZILLIONS... they all > had to eat and the vast majority had to cook. Actually the vast majority *didn't* have to cook. NOt back when and not today. In tribal and clan settings, labor was divided. Likewise in homes of extended families. Likewise in most nuclear families. Likewise in virtually every culture on earth. > I can assure everyone, > there is no one alive today who can create a recipe that hasn't been > done before in some corner of the planet, zillions of times... How preposterous. It would seem that sludgewit Sheldon doesn't read the food mags. Or books. Why would he after that brilliant culinary education he got as a U.S. Navy cook 40 years ago? They're known for the delicate and sophisticated cuisines, you know. I bet he did foams back then. And freeze-dried foods. Sure. And concentrates of all sorts. And he microwaved things. Cooked in skillets without fat because they were non-stick surfaces. No-fat cooking? New idea. He can assure us - what? From that vast storehouse of knowledge and wisdom that gets shot down most of the time? He can assure us that there's nothing new. Brilliant. Typical. > the fact > that they are not written is of no consequence, people have been > cooking since long before there was writing, and in fact most people > who cook even today can't write a lick... This is what non sequitur is all about. Irrelevancies piled on irrelevancies... all tending toward false conclusions. To prove a point that is no point. > and that's why recipes cannot > be copyrighted, they've all been done before. And he administers the coup de grace to himself - by himself. Of course recipes can be copyrighted. I have thousands of them that I've published and they're mine. They can't be copied and used without my permission. What can't be copyrighted is the list of ingredients. Any and all headnotes, instructions and endnotes are "original expression" and, as such, intellectual property and, as such, automatically copyrighted upon creation. Just like the law says. So *every* recipe is subject to copyright as an "original work" even if some component of it isn't. Just like novels are copyrighted even though page numbers aren't and individual words aren't. Idiot. Pontificating poseur. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>And, puh-lease! Could you start putting a space between your responses and >what you're responding to? Makes it a lot easier for folks. Sorry. My reader automatically differentiates between the 2 with ">>" on each quoted line. Guess I thought that was the way it always worked. You know I'm gonna forget. But I'll try. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob (this one) wrote: > Sheldon wrote: Thanks Bob! Actually I've learned to tolerate Sheldon and even if he's forgotten how we used to correspond I understand. It's been awhile since I've posted here. > > snippage... > > This is what non sequitur is all about. Irrelevancies piled on > irrelevancies... all tending toward false conclusions. To prove a point > that is no point. > > > and that's why recipes cannot > > be copyrighted, they've all been done before. > > And he administers the coup de grace to himself - by himself. Of course > recipes can be copyrighted. I have thousands of them that I've published > and they're mine. They can't be copied and used without my permission. > What can't be copyrighted is the list of ingredients. Any and all > headnotes, instructions and endnotes are "original expression" and, as > such, intellectual property and, as such, automatically copyrighted upon > creation. Just like the law says. So *every* recipe is subject to > copyright as an "original work" even if some component of it isn't. Just > like novels are copyrighted even though page numbers aren't and > individual words aren't. > > Idiot. Pontificating poseur. > > Pastorio As to copyright, you are correct. The list of ingredients can NOT be copyrighted only the descriptive text can. That is where the real writing takes place. As a semi-retired journalist, I've had to learn a bit about copyright, libel, etc. My last reporting job included writing about government and military affairs, the environment and for fun I wrote a weekly food column. I enjoyed writing this column because I love to write about food. Sometimes the articles dealt with my cooking adventures and sometimes I used pre-written copy. I always gave the appropriate attribution because it was polite and correct. Any way, Sheldon alias Penmart, I hope you remember who I am. Because I considered you a missed net pal. have a great day! Mary |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mash wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote: > >> Sheldon wrote: > > Thanks Bob! Actually I've learned to tolerate Sheldon and even if > he's forgotten how we used to correspond I understand. It's been > awhile since I've posted here. I usually just ignore his blather and blunder. But sometimes he posts such a load of crap that he just cries out for a smack. Like this. >> snippage... >> >> This is what non sequitur is all about. Irrelevancies piled on >> irrelevancies... all tending toward false conclusions. To prove a >> point that is no point. > >>> and that's why recipes cannot be copyrighted, they've all been >>> done before. >> >> And he administers the coup de grace to himself - by himself. Of >> course recipes can be copyrighted. I have thousands of them that >> I've published and they're mine. They can't be copied and used >> without my permission. What can't be copyrighted is the list of >> ingredients. Any and all headnotes, instructions and endnotes are >> "original expression" and, as such, intellectual property and, as >> such, automatically copyrighted upon creation. Just like the law >> says. So *every* recipe is subject to copyright as an "original >> work" even if some component of it isn't. Just like novels are >> copyrighted even though page numbers aren't and individual words >> aren't. >> >> Idiot. Pontificating poseur. >> >> Pastorio > > As to copyright, you are correct. The list of ingredients can NOT be > copyrighted only the descriptive text can. That is where the real > writing takes place. Of course. It's the descriptions, directions and further thoughts that make it into a communication of "original thought." > As a semi-retired journalist, I've had to learn a bit about > copyright, libel, etc. My last reporting job included writing about > government and military affairs, the environment and for fun I wrote > a weekly food column. I enjoyed writing this column because I love to > write about food. Sometimes the articles dealt with my cooking > adventures and sometimes I used pre-written copy. I always gave the > appropriate attribution because it was polite and correct. One of my editors suggested I look at copyright laws as they applied to what we were working on so there were no surprises in how we dealt with each other. I thought I knew them until I went to the Copyright Office web site and actually read the laws. A lot of it is controversial, but the basic stuff is pretty clear. I wrote about 600 articles for her, IIRC. Then I had to break in a new editor. And another. And then another... Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mash" > wrote in
ups.com: > > Bob (this one) wrote: > > Sheldon wrote: > > Thanks Bob! Actually I've learned to tolerate Sheldon and even if he's > forgotten how we used to correspond I understand. It's been awhile > since I've posted here. > > > > > > snippage... > > > > This is what non sequitur is all about. Irrelevancies piled on > > irrelevancies... all tending toward false conclusions. To prove a > point > > that is no point. > > > > > > and that's why recipes cannot > > > be copyrighted, they've all been done before. > > > > And he administers the coup de grace to himself - by himself. Of > course > > recipes can be copyrighted. I have thousands of them that I've > published > > and they're mine. They can't be copied and used without my > permission. > > What can't be copyrighted is the list of ingredients. Any and all > > headnotes, instructions and endnotes are "original expression" and, > as > > such, intellectual property and, as such, automatically copyrighted > upon > > creation. Just like the law says. So *every* recipe is subject to > > copyright as an "original work" even if some component of it isn't. > Just > > like novels are copyrighted even though page numbers aren't and > > individual words aren't. > > > > Idiot. Pontificating poseur. > > > > Pastorio > > As to copyright, you are correct. The list of ingredients can NOT be > copyrighted only the descriptive text can. That is where the real > writing takes place. > > As a semi-retired journalist, I've had to learn a bit about copyright, > libel, etc. My last reporting job included writing about government and > military affairs, the environment and for fun I wrote a weekly food > column. I enjoyed writing this column because I love to write about > food. Sometimes the articles dealt with my cooking adventures and > sometimes I used pre-written copy. I always gave the appropriate > attribution because it was polite and correct. > > Any way, Sheldon alias Penmart, I hope you remember who I am. Because I > considered you a missed net pal. > > have a great day! > > Mary > > Pud? is that you? -- No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal. Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 7.3, 5.5, 5.6 mmol Continuing to be Manitoban |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Monsur Fromage du Pollet wrote:
> "Mash" > wrote in > ups.com: > snippage... > > > > > > Pud? is that you? > > -- > No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal. > Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 7.3, 5.5, 5.6 mmol > Continuing to be Manitoban Nope. But I wish it was. Mary |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote: [snip] > >No one here has created any recipes, in fact no one on this planet has >created a recipe in perhaps 5,000 years, probably a lot longer. The >one thing every being on this planet has done since there are beings is >eat... everyone has to eat (well, except Terri)... do you have any idea >how many beings have passed through this planet throuhgout the >millenia... ****ING ZILLIONS, and ZILLIONS, and ZILLIONS... they all Dunno how many in one of your ZILLIONS Sheldon, mate, but the experts tell me there's been no more than around 12 to maybe 14 billion (US) of us on the planet, including the 6 or 7 billion alive today. (Got something to do with the maths of geometric growth I'm told. ;-) >had to eat and the vast majority had to cook. I can assure everyone, >there is no one alive today who can create a recipe that hasn't been >done before in some corner of the planet, zillions of times... the fact >that they are not written is of no consequence, people have been >cooking since long before there was writing, and in fact most people >who cook even today can't write a lick... and that's why recipes cannot >be copyrighted, they've all been done before. It certainly seems to be accepted that *recipes* as such can't be copyrighted, only the written expressions of them. Even if you did come up with a new recipe (how about my Davidson plum jam on a mealy muffin fried in whale blubber?) you could only copyright the literary form in which you express it (which is why I'm keeping it secret 8-). Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
It certainly seems to be accepted that *recipes* as such can't be
copyrighted, only the written expressions of them. Even if you did come up with a new recipe (how about my Davidson plum jam on a mealy muffin fried in whale blubber?) you could only copyright the literary form in which you express it (which is why I'm keeping it secret 8-). Cheers, Phred. That's right, you can only copyright the accompanying text, and the compilation thereof, NOT the actual recipes. And I've made fried muffins topped with all sorts of jams, I'm sure plum included... go to any Dunkin Donut joint and see people scoffing em, they even have special uniforms to wear for the purpose and those fanatics wear weapons, they'll shoot you for even looking at their fried dough... they realize how intolerant they are, is why they keep to themselves 'round back sitting in their strangely painted vehicles. I used to fry those toast-r corn muffins in bacon blubber. But then zillions of people have fried blobs of dough/batter in all its variations containing all manner ingredients... I happen to like corn batter conch fritters with tabasco jelly. http://www.tabasco.com/taste_tent/co...lly_recipe.cfm Last night to accompany my pasta dinner I prepared a bowlful of anchovy zepole... fried in corn blubber... tried em dipped in tomato sauce (tomato jam?) but they were better a ju... didja ever have zepole prepared with tinned flat anchovy fillets minced and stired into the batter... very yummy... I bet not, but I bet I'm far from the first. Next time I'll make em with saw-seech n' onyons. Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sheldon wrote:
> It certainly seems to be accepted that *recipes* as such can't be > copyrighted, only the written expressions of them. Even if you did > come up with a new recipe (how about my Davidson plum jam on a mealy > muffin fried in whale blubber?) you could only copyright the literary > form in which you express it (which is why I'm keeping it secret 8-). > > Cheers, Phred. > > > That's right, you can only copyright the accompanying text, and the > compilation thereof, NOT the actual recipes. Jayzus are you dim. The "the accompanying text, and the compilation thereof" *is* the recipe. When a recipe has a descriptive headnote, a title, a list of ingredients, directions, endnotes or footnotes, that entire package *is* the recipe. It seems in your frantic opacity that you think the ingredient list is the recipe with everything else somehow decorative or non-essential. How, uh, smart... > And I've made fried muffins topped with all sorts of jams, I'm sure > plum included... go to any Dunkin Donut joint and see people scoffing > em, they even have special uniforms to wear for the purpose and those > fanatics wear weapons, they'll shoot you for even looking at their > fried dough... they realize how intolerant they are, is why they keep > to themselves 'round back sitting in their strangely painted vehicles. > I used to fry those toast-r corn muffins in bacon blubber. But then > zillions of people have fried blobs of dough/batter in all its > variations containing all manner ingredients... And, as ever, the long-demented Shecky Pencilneck doesn't know the difference between a description of a technique and a recipe. Lessee... frying batter in fat is a series of techniques. By contrast, this is a *recipe* for a specific product: Navajo Fry Bread Yields: about a dozen and a half rounds. 2 cups oil for frying 4 cups all-purpose flour 1 1/2 tablespoons baking powder 1 tablespoons salt 2 1/2 cups warm milk In a large heavy bottomed frying pan, heat 1 inch of vegetable oil or lard to 365°F. In a large mixing bowl, combine flour, baking powder, salt and milk; mix well. When the dough has pulled together, form it into small balls and press and pat them flat; about 1/4-inch thick. Put 3 or 4 at a time into the hot oil. When the rounds become golden on the bottom, flip them over to do the same. Drain on paper towels and serve hot with honey and butter. See? Technique description - fry bread dough in oil. Recipe? Look above. > I happen to like corn > batter conch fritters with tabasco jelly. > > http://www.tabasco.com/taste_tent/co...lly_recipe.cfm <LOL> No matter what you've done, Sheldon did it first, bigger, wider, fancier, greasier, healthier, richer, fussier, smarter, tastier... And he can provide a web site to, um, prove it... > Last night to accompany my pasta dinner I prepared a bowlful of anchovy > zepole... fried in corn blubber... tried em dipped in tomato sauce > (tomato jam?) but they were better a ju... Could that possibly be "au jus" screwed up like his usual foolishness? And doesn't "jus" mean juice in French? What "ju" did he mean? The corn oil? Does our resident culinary wizard think that "a ju" means with no juice? Did he make up a new language? Are his meds still sitting on the kitchen counter...? > didja ever have zepole > prepared with tinned flat anchovy fillets minced and stired into the > batter... very yummy... I bet not, but I bet I'm far from the first. > Next time I'll make em with saw-seech n' onyons. Uh, sure. But try to remember it's not a new thing. No such thing as a new recipe in 5000 years. Got it. Idiot. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> "Mash" >, if that's their real name, wrote: > > >>I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes, >>without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my" >>recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time to share. Some >>were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like to get credit once >>in awhile. > > > The attributions became a non-issue to me when I lost all of my personal > recipes. I'm so thankful that I did mass recipe postings while sitting up > all night with insomnia. And that they were archived. I'm gradually > re-acquiring them. > > We post recipes to share with others. It's cool when they associate the > recipes with you, but so what if they don't? Are you writing a cookbook? > > Carol My thoughts on not archiving recipes are that somewhere someone is going to archive. That tag means nothing because each time someone sees a recipe, they may or may not save it. I am grateful for each tried and true recipe posted. I try them and if we don't like the dish, it gets tossed. As far as getting credit for recipes, yes it is nice. If you don't want to share them (a pity) don't post them. Once they are posted, you have no control over how they are used. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually under old Usenet rules, the X-No-Archive: yes was started so
not all posts would be archived. This gave posters a choice on whether they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of operating Usenet. My biggest beef, and I will be showing my knowledge of Usenet, is some people began archiving recipes and then charging for them through their recipe collections. I have no problem freely sharing recipes but what gets my craw is seeing someone financially benefit for all the efforts put in by people who freely post. At least trying to use the X-No-Archive: yes should slow down this process. Mary Serendipity wrote: > Damsel in dis Dress wrote: > >snippage... > > My thoughts on not archiving recipes are that somewhere someone is going > to archive. That tag means nothing because each time someone sees a > recipe, they may or may not save it. I am grateful for each tried and > true recipe posted. I try them and if we don't like the dish, it gets > tossed. As far as getting credit for recipes, yes it is nice. If you > don't want to share them (a pity) don't post them. Once they are > posted, you have no control over how they are used. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Serendipity > wrote in
: > Damsel in dis Dress wrote: > > > "Mash" >, if that's their real name, wrote: > > > > > >>I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my > >>recipes, without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all > >>were "my" recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time > >>to share. Some were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like > >>to get credit once in awhile. > > > > > > The attributions became a non-issue to me when I lost all of my > > personal recipes. I'm so thankful that I did mass recipe postings > > while sitting up all night with insomnia. And that they were > > archived. I'm gradually re-acquiring them. > > > > We post recipes to share with others. It's cool when they > > associate the recipes with you, but so what if they don't? Are > > you writing a cookbook? > > > > Carol > > My thoughts on not archiving recipes are that somewhere someone is > going to archive. That tag means nothing because each time someone > sees a recipe, they may or may not save it. I am grateful for each > tried and true recipe posted. I try them and if we don't like the > dish, it gets tossed. As far as getting credit for recipes, yes it > is nice. If you don't want to share them (a pity) don't post them. > Once they are posted, you have no control over how they are used. > Just like children...once they are grown and out in the real world, there's no controling them. But who'd want to? If a recipe of mine was good and people enjoyed it, that's the point. If people like the recipe and also modify it's even better. I'm not the only one with ideas, their idea might make my recipe better and I'm for better recipes. If food was just fuel to me I'd live on dog food. But food is more than fuel to me therefore I like sharing and modifying recipes. -- No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal. Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 7.3, 5.5, 5.6 mmol Continuing to be Manitoban |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mash wrote: > This gave posters a choice on whether > they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is > still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of > operating Usenet. Ummm, Google's done what? Brian |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
One time on Usenet, "Default User" > said:
> Mash wrote: > > This gave posters a choice on whether > > they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is > > still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of > > operating Usenet. > Ummm, Google's done what? My reaction as well -- has something happened other since Google purchased Deja News? Yes, I'm a bit behind on tech news... -- J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~ "You still haven't explained why the pool is filled with elf blood." - Frylock, ATHF |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com>, "Mash" > wrote:
>Actually under old Usenet rules, the X-No-Archive: yes was started so >not all posts would be archived. This gave posters a choice on whether >they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is >still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of >operating Usenet. My memory is different. The "X" in the header indicates it is NOT a standard USENET header; so there's no obligation at all on operators of news servers to acknowledge it. AFAIK it was conceived as an "instruction" to Google specifically (or perhaps Deja News originally?) rather than with any expectation it would be obeyed universally. In any case, as someone previously mentioned, if a response quotes all the stuff you didn't want archived, it will get added to the pile anyway. So it's pretty much a wasted effort AFAICS. >My biggest beef, and I will be showing my knowledge of Usenet, is some >people began archiving recipes and then charging for them through their >recipe collections. I have no problem freely sharing recipes but what >gets my craw is seeing someone financially benefit for all the efforts >put in by people who freely post. Pretty trivial concern compared with all the *******s who benefit financially by now restricting access to all the wild places I could freely enjoy as a child! >At least trying to use the X-No-Archive: yes should slow down this >process. Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Meat loaf | General Cooking | |||
| REC: Meat Loaf #2 | General Cooking | |||
| Meat Loaf | General Cooking | |||
| Meat Loaf Q | General Cooking | |||
| Best Ever Meat Loaf | Recipes (moderated) | |||
Linear Mode
