Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
is a wonderful thing.
Nancree

"nancree" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

I hate to tell you, yes, they can.

> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> is a wonderful thing.

It's rude to sit there and just listen. Creepy, for that matter. And, yes,
the people who 'own' the chat can boot you.

nancy

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> "nancree" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> > anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> > but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> > forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>
> I hate to tell you, yes, they can.
>
> > Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> > post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> > is a wonderful thing.
>
> It's rude to sit there and just listen.

Why?

> nancy
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:58:26 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>
> Why?

Because it's active chat, not passive usenet. If they want to sit and
watch/read, they can do it here in rfc.
--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

"Nancy Young" > wrote:

>I hate to tell you, yes, they can.
>
>> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
>> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
>> is a wonderful thing.
>
>It's rude to sit there and just listen. Creepy, for that matter. And, yes,
>the people who 'own' the chat can boot you.
>
>nancy


I use mIrc so it's not an issue, but I wonder if perhaps some of those
who use the web client may just be forgetting to do the name change
thing.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

"AlleyGator" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>>> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
>>> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
>>> is a wonderful thing.
>>
>>It's rude to sit there and just listen. Creepy, for that matter. And,
>>yes,
>>the people who 'own' the chat can boot you.

> I use mIrc so it's not an issue, but I wonder if perhaps some of those
> who use the web client may just be forgetting to do the name change
> thing.

Some people can't change their name for whatever reason, they just
say who they are and it's no big deal. All of this fuss is over a person
who won't say anything even when asked, who are you, or please say
something. Takes brass ones, to me, to be asked a direct question and
not say a word. Night after night. Not that I'm there night after night,
but
it seems they are.

Essentially the person who started this thread rather misconstrued the
newsgroup rule and, I guess, didn't ask anyone what it's about. There
are people who don't use their real name, but we know them as their
fake name. That's okay.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote:

>Some people can't change their name for whatever reason, they just
>say who they are and it's no big deal. All of this fuss is over a person
>who won't say anything even when asked, who are you, or please say
>something. Takes brass ones, to me, to be asked a direct question and
>not say a word. Night after night. Not that I'm there night after night,
>but
>it seems they are.

Oh, OK - I haven't been there for a while - obviously there's a
particular issue involved that I'm not familiar with. I thought maybe
it was just someone who didn't quite know how to use the client.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

"AlleyGator" > wrote in message
...
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>Some people can't change their name for whatever reason, they just
>>say who they are and it's no big deal. All of this fuss is over a person
>>who won't say anything even when asked, who are you, or please say
>>something. Takes brass ones, to me, to be asked a direct question and
>>not say a word. Night after night. Not that I'm there night after night,
>>but
>>it seems they are.
>
> Oh, OK - I haven't been there for a while - obviously there's a
> particular issue involved that I'm not familiar with. I thought maybe
> it was just someone who didn't quite know how to use the client.
>
That was an issue for me. . .I was there once, and couldn't figure out how
to make anything work otherwise I would have responded. I looked at the FAQ
but they didn't tell me how to use it, so I left.
Janet

On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:

>Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
>anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
>but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
>forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
another person, they lose their priviledges.

It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
contribute to conversation is fine.

Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
one knows who they are.

> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
>post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
>is a wonderful thing.

See above.

Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:
>
> >Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> >anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> >but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> >forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>
> Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
> always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
> years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
> priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
> another person, they lose their priviledges.
>
> It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
> person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
> themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
> contribute to conversation is fine.
>
> Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
> one knows who they are.
>
> > Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> >post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> >is a wonderful thing.
>
> See above.
>
> Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)

Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:56:16 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
>publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
>point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
>If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
>each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.

Agreed. I've come close to killfiling the word, "chat" for that very
reason. On the other hand, the frequent announcements have brought a
lot of people to the channel who wouldn't have popped in otherwise.
But I still think it's gotten to be a bit much. Should be listed as
OT at the very least.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:56:16 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
> >Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
> >publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
> >point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
> >If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
> >each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
>
> Agreed. I've come close to killfiling the word, "chat" for that very
> reason. On the other hand, the frequent announcements have brought a
> lot of people to the channel who wouldn't have popped in otherwise.
> But I still think it's gotten to be a bit much. Should be listed as
> OT at the very least.
>
> Carol

Shouldn't be posted - at the very least. Sorry, Carol, but any other
repetitive announcement would be pounced upon by one, all, many, most,
or some as spam. Victor posts a reminder to the FAQ file what, once a
week? Once a month? Great; that's directly related to the group. Why
don't y'all develop a group mailing list and email each other to a
faretheewell. I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.
Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

OB Dinner:
Baked stuffed pork chop from von Hanson's market
Brussels sprouts from the co-op this afternoon. Whoops, I cooked and
ate them already. Too bad, so sad.
Green beans from the co-op
Green salad with balsamic and maybe that avocado oil from TJ Maxx.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:36:14 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>Shouldn't be posted - at the very least. Sorry, Carol, but any other
>repetitive announcement would be pounced upon by one, all, many, most,
>or some as spam. Victor posts a reminder to the FAQ file what, once a
>week? Once a month? Great; that's directly related to the group. Why
>don't y'all develop a group mailing list and email each other to a
>faretheewell. I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.
>Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

I never announce it, myself. I think a mailing list is a good idea.
On the other hand, I'm currently responding to someone who's thinking
of hopping in with us. And that's because of this thread.

I'm Switzerland.

Menopause sucks.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:56:16 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
> > >publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
> > >point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
> > >If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
> > >each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
> >
> > Agreed. I've come close to killfiling the word, "chat" for that very
> > reason. On the other hand, the frequent announcements have brought a
> > lot of people to the channel who wouldn't have popped in otherwise.
> > But I still think it's gotten to be a bit much. Should be listed as
> > OT at the very least.
> >
> > Carol
>
> Shouldn't be posted - at the very least. Sorry, Carol, but any other
> repetitive announcement would be pounced upon by one, all, many, most,
> or some as spam. Victor posts a reminder to the FAQ file what, once a
> week? Once a month? Great; that's directly related to the group. Why
> don't y'all develop a group mailing list and email each other to a
> faretheewell. I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.
> Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

Hows-a-bout estrogin? hehe

Sheldon

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:36:14 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.

Feel free to KF Chat... it's easy to do.

> Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

Take a chill pill. We aren't treating it like the exclusive club it
seemed to be back when you were active in the chat channel.

Sure, the rest of us knew about the chat channel because we had LOTS
of references to your chatting chat AFTER the chat session was well
over. However, there were very few pointers to the channel itself,
which made us feel like we weren't invited, which smacked of "clique".
OTOH, we aren't making assumptions that people hang on our every word
and save posted information for a later date (so they can drop by on a
whim).

The reason we post when the channel isn't dead is that we are trying
to make people feel welcome. If you don't want to come, fine. If you
don't want to see "Chat" posted, then kill it. No skin off my nose or
yours.

BTW: The chat channel is now active. Please join us!

Java link, using your web browser:
http://www.penguinpowered.ca/~vexorg...d.cooking.html


IRC:
Server: irc.penguinpowered.ca
Port: 6667
Channel: #rec.food.cooking
Download software he www.mirc.com


Web Users: to change your nickname - there is a box to fill in on the
right bottom corner (hit enter). If that doesn't work, in the text
bar type /nick <yournewname> (no brackets) and hit enter or click OK

--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:56:16 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
>>>publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
>>>point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
>>>If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
>>>each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
>>
>>Agreed. I've come close to killfiling the word, "chat" for that very
>>reason. On the other hand, the frequent announcements have brought a
>>lot of people to the channel who wouldn't have popped in otherwise.
>>But I still think it's gotten to be a bit much. Should be listed as
>>OT at the very least.
>>
>>Carol
>
>
> Shouldn't be posted - at the very least. Sorry, Carol, but any other
> repetitive announcement would be pounced upon by one, all, many, most,
> or some as spam. Victor posts a reminder to the FAQ file what, once a
> week? Once a month? Great; that's directly related to the group. Why
> don't y'all develop a group mailing list and email each other to a
> faretheewell. I don't give a rat's tail who's chatting or isn't.
> Maybe my attitude would improve with estrogen but I doubt it.

DH seems to think the estrogen is a god send. I'm not so sure In my
case, HRT has helped and while I'm not too thrilled about it, it is
necessary because of my age. Now I hear soy is not as good for you as
once thought

>
> OB Dinner:
> Baked stuffed pork chop from von Hanson's market

What was the stuffing? I'm looking for stuffing ideas. I thought a
veggie based stuffing might be nice but then so would a bread stuffing.

> Brussels sprouts from the co-op this afternoon. Whoops, I cooked and
> ate them already. Too bad, so sad.
> Green beans from the co-op
> Green salad with balsamic and maybe that avocado oil from TJ Maxx.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>
>> On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:
>>
>>> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
>>> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
>>> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an
>>> open forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>>
>> Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
>> always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
>> years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
>> priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
>> another person, they lose their priviledges.
>>
>> It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
>> person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
>> themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
>> contribute to conversation is fine.
>>
>> Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
>> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
>> one knows who they are.
>>
>>> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
>>> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
>>> is a wonderful thing.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)
>
> Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't
> so publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
> point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
> If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
> each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements
> instead.

IIRC, you've dropped in a few times and had little to say and left without
even saying "bye". Granted, we don't *always* talk about food but we often
do and miss your contributions. Just look at all the controversy over lima
beans vs. butter beans That chat carried over into this ng and then back
again in the channel the next day.

Jill

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> IIRC, you've dropped in a few times and had little to say and left without
> even saying "bye".

Months since I was there. Maybe a year or more. The software I was
using had an expiry on it and there was nothing of interest to me. Say
hi to Boli if he's still there. I enjoy IM, but just never got into the
group 'chat' thing.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.

Jill wrote:

> look at all the controversy over lima beans vs. butter beans That chat
> carried over into this ng and then back again in the channel the next day.

For those who weren't on the chat line that night, let me step up and admit
that I STARTED THE WHOLE BUTTER-BEAN THING! On the chat line, I mentioned
that I had a hankering for butter beans. The rest just played itself out
when "certain members" of the discussion couldn't agree on what butter beans
are.

Bob

On 22 Nov 2005 15:52:03 -0600, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>The rest just played itself out
>when "certain members" of the discussion couldn't agree on what butter beans
>are.

I resemble that remark!!!!!!

LOL

Christine

Damsel in dis Dress > writes:

>It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
>person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
>themselves.

They're probably idle, or a chat bot. Or are you sure that's not the
case? I have only done a few chats in my day but we always (always!)
had people just sitting there, idle, while on other windows doing
something.
Chat bots can make themselves look unidle while recording the
conversation, fwiw.

Stacia

Glitter Ninja wrote:

> They're probably idle, or a chat bot. Or are you sure that's not the
> case? I have only done a few chats in my day but we always (always!)
> had people just sitting there, idle, while on other windows doing
> something.
> Chat bots can make themselves look unidle while recording the
> conversation, fwiw.

bots don't use the java client. personally, i could give a rats ass who idles
and who doesn't. i've been using irc for years and i'm used to seeing people
idle for days or weeks at a time. most of the people who are bothered by idlers
are irc novices anyhow.

One time on Usenet, "A.C." > said:
> Glitter Ninja wrote:

> > They're probably idle, or a chat bot. Or are you sure that's not the
> > case? I have only done a few chats in my day but we always (always!)
> > had people just sitting there, idle, while on other windows doing
> > something.
> > Chat bots can make themselves look unidle while recording the
> > conversation, fwiw.

> bots don't use the java client. personally, i could give a rats ass who idles
> and who doesn't. i've been using irc for years and i'm used to seeing people
> idle for days or weeks at a time. most of the people who are bothered by
> idlers are irc novices anyhow.

It depends on how "close" the channel users are -- I used to IRC with
a very tight group and we kicked anyone who didn't identify themselves
immediately. I think the RFCers are being pretty nice about it. Then
again, I don't do IRC so much now; by the time I read the notices and
get to the RFC channel, everyone's asleep or gone...


--
Jani in WA (S'mee)
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

Damsel,
I don't understand why you say this:
You wrote:
"Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
one knows who they are."

Why did you write this when Crash's name is one of those who is always
posted in the list as being on line--yet hours go by and he doesn't
post? He is apparently just watching, not posting. Just curious.
Don't misunderstand me. I prefer it when people identify themselves. I
do. My objection is to people who chime in with new rules that they are
apparently making them up by themselves. Who are the owners of this
RFC chat? Whoever they are, thank you for the work you do. But
perhaps you should identify yourselves, just so we know.
Thanks for any answers. Nancree

On 21 Nov 2005 14:02:25 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:

>Damsel,
>I don't understand why you say this:
>You wrote:
>"Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
>us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
>one knows who they are."
>
>Why did you write this when Crash's name is one of those who is always
>posted in the list as being on line--yet hours go by and he doesn't
>post? He is apparently just watching, not posting. Just curious.
>Don't misunderstand me. I prefer it when people identify themselves. I
>do. My objection is to people who chime in with new rules that they are
>apparently making them up by themselves. Who are the owners of this
>RFC chat? Whoever they are, thank you for the work you do. But
>perhaps you should identify yourselves, just so we know.
> Thanks for any answers. Nancree

Okay, let's see if I can cover all the bases. Several people who
actually talk in the channel have expressed their discomfort with who
knows who sitting and never saying a word. It's a place to have
conversations. Some have felt that they were being spied on. On
numerous occasions, people have welcomed the java users and tried to
explain how to change their nicks. Most of those requests have been
ignored and the person(s) still just sit there.

Crash is always in the channel so that when someone comes in and he's
awake, he can greet them and chat with them. I've been trying to
train him to change his nick to Crash-afk or something when he goes to
bed. I'll keep at him.

Nancree, I rarely see you talk. You generally sit on the sidelines
and watch, too.

Crash made the rule for the emotional comfort of several people who
have approached him regarding the subject.

The server where the channel is hosted is personally run by a
long-time friend of Crash's, so it is a private server. Each channel
(chat room) is free to make their own rules, especially when it
concerns the comfort levels of other participants. And like I said,
this rule was in response to several persons' wishes.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2005 14:02:25 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:
>
>
>>Damsel,
>>I don't understand why you say this:
>>You wrote:
>>"Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
>>us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
>>one knows who they are."
>>
>>Why did you write this when Crash's name is one of those who is always
>>posted in the list as being on line--yet hours go by and he doesn't
>>post? He is apparently just watching, not posting. Just curious.
>>Don't misunderstand me. I prefer it when people identify themselves. I
>>do. My objection is to people who chime in with new rules that they are
>>apparently making them up by themselves. Who are the owners of this
>>RFC chat? Whoever they are, thank you for the work you do. But
>>perhaps you should identify yourselves, just so we know.
>> Thanks for any answers. Nancree
>
>
> Okay, let's see if I can cover all the bases. Several people who
> actually talk in the channel have expressed their discomfort with who
> knows who sitting and never saying a word. It's a place to have
> conversations. Some have felt that they were being spied on. On
> numerous occasions, people have welcomed the java users and tried to
> explain how to change their nicks. Most of those requests have been
> ignored and the person(s) still just sit there.
>
> Crash is always in the channel so that when someone comes in and he's
> awake, he can greet them and chat with them. I've been trying to
> train him to change his nick to Crash-afk or something when he goes to
> bed. I'll keep at him.
>
> Nancree, I rarely see you talk. You generally sit on the sidelines
> and watch, too.
>
> Crash made the rule for the emotional comfort of several people who
> have approached him regarding the subject.
>
> The server where the channel is hosted is personally run by a
> long-time friend of Crash's, so it is a private server. Each channel
> (chat room) is free to make their own rules, especially when it
> concerns the comfort levels of other participants. And like I said,
> this rule was in response to several persons' wishes.
>
> Carol

What really turned me off is when someone was having problems getting
onto the channel and their IP was posted in this newsgroup. The chat
channel is private and information revealed there should be kept
private. For whatever reason, many do not want their IP addresses
revealed on usenet. I thought that was rather a breach of privacy. I
also was turned off when it was announced several times who was in the
channel. Not that it really matters but private run chats should be
kept private much the same as email, IMO.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the few times I dropped in on the chats
but I won't compromise my privacy for them. I think they are great for
those who enjoy that type of thing. I think though that people need to
know they can be identified through their IP address and that they
cannot expect privacy when using mIRC. They also should be aware of the
privacy/security issues involving mIRC if using a PC. Mac users don't
need to be as concerned about the security issues but privacy issues are
still of concern. Those desiring privacy should use a proxy server to
connect to mIRC. As long as participants know the risks, then they
should be able to make an informed decision as to whether to
participate. Just my opinion and that won't count for much as it is a
private channel anyway.

I've said enough on this issue. I'm back to cooking.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:24:29 -0500, ~patches~ wrote:

> I think though that people need to
> know they can be identified through their IP address and that they
> cannot expect privacy when using mIRC.

An IP address does not identify a singular user. It pinpoints the
ISP. Period.
--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.

Merriam Webster

gang

: a group of persons having informal and usually close social
relations

Sheldon Eviction

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>
> Merriam Webster
>
> gang
>
> : a group of persons having informal and usually close social
> relations
>
> Sheldon Eviction

(laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
> >
> > Merriam Webster
> >
> > gang
> >
> > : a group of persons having informal and usually close social relations
> >
> > Sheldon Eviction
>
> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

Sheldon wrote:

> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
> sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
> possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
> receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>
> Sheldon Condom


<translated> chickenshit ;-)

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:44:46 -0500, "A.C." > wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>
>> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
>> sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
>> possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
>> receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
>> learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
>> Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>>
>> Sheldon Condom
>
><translated> chickenshit ;-)

Thing is, Sheldon's been in the channel a few times. He was friendly
and polite. He'd be more than welcome to join us if he continued to
be the gentleman he was in the past.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:44:46 -0500, A.C. wrote:

>
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
> > sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
> > possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
> > receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> > learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> > Imagine... how would I protect myself.
> >
> > Sheldon Condom
>
>
> <translated> chickenshit ;-)
>
No... he's being honest. They've killfiled each other.

--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

"Sheldon" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:

>> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
>
> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
> sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
> possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
> receive more than my share of ridicule here.

Nah, getting kicked is very, very rare, I can only think of one
instance. Fact is, it's a fun place to hang out and no, it's not a
clique and everyone is welcome.

I just saw something on the front page of the newspaper that made
me think of you. So and so of thistown, packing for their annual
winter trip to Florida. Snowbirds. Anyway, I hope their house has
a good alarm system.

nancy

Sheldon wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "Sheldon" wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>>>
>>> Merriam Webster
>>>
>>> gang
>>>
>>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
>>>> relations
>>>
>>> Sheldon Eviction
>>
>> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
>
> Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
> alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
> the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
> up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> Imagine... how would I protect myself.
>
> Sheldon Condom

Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.
You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
you were Penmart01/Penmart10

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> >> "Sheldon" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
> >>>
> >>> Merriam Webster
> >>>
> >>> gang
> >>>
> >>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
> >>>> relations
> >>>
> >>> Sheldon Eviction
> >>
> >> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?
> >
> > Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
> > alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
> > the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
> > up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
> > learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
> > Imagine... how would I protect myself.
> >
> > Sheldon Condom
>
> Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.

You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
ago.

> You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
> you were Penmart01/Penmart10

Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
return.

Sheldon Interrogated

Damsel wrote:
"Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
one knows who they are. "
-----
Still just trying to find out how this thing works. If, as you say,
Crash makes this rule, why does he "just come in and watch the rest of
us". His name is always on the list of people who are present, yet he
never posts,. He apparently "just comes in and watchs the rest of us".
Am I wrong here??

And I didn't know that the RFC was privately owned--I would imagine
that most people don't know that. And just for the record--my
experience with RFC chat is that everyone is friendly, helpful,
light-hearted, pleasant. Much more so than regular RFC.
Good wishes to all,
Nancree

nancree wrote:
> Damsel wrote:
> "Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
> one knows who they are. "
> -----
> Still just trying to find out how this thing works. If, as you say,
> Crash makes this rule, why does he "just come in and watch the rest of
> us". His name is always on the list of people who are present, yet he
> never posts,. He apparently "just comes in and watchs the rest of us".
> Am I wrong here??
>
> And I didn't know that the RFC was privately owned--I would imagine
> that most people don't know that.

rec.food.cooking is not privately owned. It is a usenet newsgroup.

And just for the record--my
> experience with RFC chat is that everyone is friendly, helpful,
> light-hearted, pleasant. Much more so than regular RFC.
> Good wishes to all,
> Nancree
>


--

saerah

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

nancree wrote:
> Damsel wrote:
> "Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
> one knows who they are. "
> -----
> Still just trying to find out how this thing works. If, as you say,
> Crash makes this rule, why does he "just come in and watch the rest of
> us". His name is always on the list of people who are present, yet he
> never posts,. He apparently "just comes in and watchs the rest of us".
> Am I wrong here??
>
> And I didn't know that the RFC was privately owned--I would imagine
> that most people don't know that. And just for the record--my
> experience with RFC chat is that everyone is friendly, helpful,
> light-hearted, pleasant. Much more so than regular RFC.
> Good wishes to all,
> Nancree
...


For 1 I never come in and lurk or post anonymously
the channel I idol in cause I have better things to do at the time or
am away from my desk..

Crash

nancree wrote:
> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
to you.

Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

Jill

> Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> is a wonderful thing.
> Nancree