"Ms Leebee" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote...

>> I don't really see a clique.
>> Perhaps it's the old forest/trees thing.
>
> Possibly, Nancy.
> I tend to agree with Phred though.

I think 'regulars' are confused with being a clique. There's a difference.

> At once stage a few of us posted 'test' posts to RFC to prove to ourselves
> that the disinterest was not imagined.
> Posts were appropriately titled ( if you want me to google them, i'll try,
> but i'm pretty sure they were all x-no-archived posters , and we even
> had a couple of mini-threads going on, where only we, the Australians,
> replied to ourselves ( note: they were NOT 'Aussie' threads that would be
> of no interest to others - they were general food threads ).

I would certainly be interested to know what threads they were. The
implication here is that people are even noticing the threads are from
'Aussies', therefore ignored. Lots of posts go unanswered, from people
all over.

> Nobody from RFC replied, and the threads died naturally.

Here's the thing. *You* are from RFC. The other people are from RFC.
(laugh) I feel as if I'm about to say there is no cabal. RFC *is* the
people
who post here. You are not outsiders.

If you think there are RFCers and then there is everyone else, no wonder
you might feel (whatever). But don't go forming a group for that reason,
form it for the other reasons that were offered. Not because you aren't
welcome in rfc, because that couldn't be further from the truth.

At any rate, yeah, you might not get so much of a response in a thread
about vegemite. I am frightened of it.

Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
Foster's beer. (laughing)

nancy (that last was a *joke*)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:53:50 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>
>"Ms Leebee" > wrote
>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote...
>
>>> I don't really see a clique.
>>> Perhaps it's the old forest/trees thing.
>>
>> Possibly, Nancy.
>> I tend to agree with Phred though.
>
>I think 'regulars' are confused with being a clique. There's a difference.
>
>> At once stage a few of us posted 'test' posts to RFC to prove to ourselves
>> that the disinterest was not imagined.
>> Posts were appropriately titled ( if you want me to google them, i'll try,
>> but i'm pretty sure they were all x-no-archived posters , and we even
>> had a couple of mini-threads going on, where only we, the Australians,
>> replied to ourselves ( note: they were NOT 'Aussie' threads that would be
>> of no interest to others - they were general food threads ).
>
>I would certainly be interested to know what threads they were. The
>implication here is that people are even noticing the threads are from
>'Aussies', therefore ignored. Lots of posts go unanswered, from people
>all over.
>
>> Nobody from RFC replied, and the threads died naturally.
>
>Here's the thing. *You* are from RFC. The other people are from RFC.
>(laugh) I feel as if I'm about to say there is no cabal. RFC *is* the
>people
>who post here. You are not outsiders.
>
>If you think there are RFCers and then there is everyone else, no wonder
>you might feel (whatever). But don't go forming a group for that reason,
>form it for the other reasons that were offered. Not because you aren't
>welcome in rfc, because that couldn't be further from the truth.
>
>At any rate, yeah, you might not get so much of a response in a thread
>about vegemite. I am frightened of it.
>
>Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
>the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
>Foster's beer. (laughing)
>
>nancy (that last was a *joke*)
>
HEY! We also have Bundy rum, give us some credit!

Cheryl

"Cheryl" > wrote

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:53:50 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:

>>Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
>>the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
>>Foster's beer. (laughing)
>>
>>nancy (that last was a *joke*)
>>
> HEY! We also have Bundy rum, give us some credit!

HEY yourself!! We have Al Bundy, we just don't drink his rum!

(smile) nancy

G'day Nance,

In article >, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:
[...]
>Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
>the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
>Foster's beer. (laughing)

"Shrimp" was a translation in the ads for you northern hemisphere
ferals; we ferals down here always throw a *prawn* on the barbie.
Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
triumph of marketing over reality!

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:09:46 GMT, Phred wrote:

> G'day Nance,
>
> In article >, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
> [...]
> >Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
> >the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
> >Foster's beer. (laughing)
>
> "Shrimp" was a translation in the ads for you northern hemisphere
> ferals; we ferals down here always throw a *prawn* on the barbie.
> Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
> gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
> raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
> rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
> triumph of marketing over reality!
>
> Cheers, Phred.

What is foster's down there? It's chicken in my area.

sf wrote on 20 Sep 2005 in rec.food.cooking

> What is foster's down there? It's chicken in my area.
>

Didn't foster invent flaming Bananas?

--
The eyes are the mirrors....
But the ears...Ah the ears.
The ears keep the hat up.

sf wrote:

> What is foster's down there? It's chicken in my area.

It's beer.

http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/fosters_lager.htm

I've heard Aussie friends of mine say exactly what Phred is saying.
Americans seem to think Foster's is big in Australia, and they swear
it's anything but. Brilliant marketing there.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

"Phred" > wrote in message
...

> "Shrimp" was a translation in the ads for you northern hemisphere
> ferals; we ferals down here always throw a *prawn* on the barbie.
> Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
> gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
> raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
> rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
> triumph of marketing over reality!

That's just the Australian version of the Coors Beer Phenomenon;
for years, Coors has been seen throughout the rest of the country
as the quintessential "Western" or "Rocky Mountain" beer, and
until relatively recently (when Coors expanded their distribution
nationwide), people looked longingly toward Colorado and thought
how very, very lucky those of us who LIVED here were, to
have the actual source of the Wonderbeer virtually in our back
yards! People would actually lug cases of the stuff back home
at the end of a Colorado vacation.

The only problem is that most Coloradans view Coors as somewhere
between stagnant pond water and the sweat from old gym socks, in
terms of it being their preferred drink; it's certainly not seen as
significantly better than Budweiser, or pretty much any other weak,
watered-down, "American-style" beer you'd think of. The classic
joke here refers to a Coors competitor sending a sample of the stuff
off to a lab for analysis, and then the report comes back with,
"Dear Sir: Regret to inform you that your horse has diabetes...."

Same thing, different beer....


Bob M.

(Phred) wrote in news:3pbtnaF9o1rkU1
@individual.net:


> Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
> gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
> raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
> rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
> triumph of marketing over reality!
>

There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today reporting on
Fosters planning to try and increase their Australian market share by
getting more taps into pubs. Apparently only 250 of Australia's 5000 pubs
have Fosters on tap. Of 100 million slabs of Fosters drunk in 150
countries, only 4 million are sold in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/...otting-a-home-
run/2005/09/21/1126982122853.html

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia