Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:58:02 -0600, "Storrmmee"
wrote:


I think this is a general shake-up of usenet and they finally got to
rfc.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:59:01 -0600, Stu wrote:


Squirts is nothing more than a troll. It walks like a troll, talks
like a troll and posts like a troll...

I thought it was a person at first, but after reading a couple dozen
of it's posts, it was found to be nothing but a troll.

Killfile it.
 
On Mar 7, 3:50?pm, Usenet Big 5 wrote:

What good'll it do? As long as anyone can read and post, it won't
solve a thing. Just ignore trolls and posts intended to be upsetting.

I was in a group totally overrun with spam and trolls, a moderated
groups was formed, and it's almost dead today. I believe that this
will be the ultimate outcome with most groups.
 
On 2011-03-07, gloria.p wrote:


Agreed. In the 10 yrs I've posted here, this whole year has been a
rather pleasant lull in the long stormy history of rfc. None of those
posts from whacko UK wankers we endured for mos on end or the
crossposts from that religious chiropractic psycho or the army of
trolls that follows Steve Kramer around like zombies with an agenda.
In fact this whole thread is just a lame troll by some loser trying to
get a rise. Sorry. Not interested.

nb
 
> Stu wrote:


As usual, Stew speaks up to proudly proclaim his ignorance.

Go Stew!

Doug wrote:


It appears there is a cmsg mechanism for it. Are you saying that most
servers would not be configured to act upon it?

Or are most admins now applying control messages manually at their
discretion? I suspect the legit cmsg traffic is so low that it could
all be done manually, correct?

-sw
 
Usenet Big 5 FAGGOT wrote:

Superfluous comma = PINHEADED IMBECILE!

TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
 
"Usenet Big 5" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
| the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
|
| This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
| rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic, rec.food.recipes,
| rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with
| followups set to rec.food.cooking.
|
| Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for several
| years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with a fair
| amount of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking has been an
| amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split never seemed
| to be justified.
|
| However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate
| posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
| did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I
| feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus that
| it once had.

Good. I love (loathe) the following: "However, in recent weeks the
noise level and number of inappropriate ... posts has skyrocketed."
Who determines "inappropriate?" You? Hitler? an Ayatollah? God?
I haven't seen your qualifications yet. What are they?

pavane
 
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:23:08 -0500, Jean B. wrote:


And Kent.

I would like to point out to Stew that I was only describing the
technical method for unmoderating a newsgroup. And since RFR is an
abandoned group, little or no discussion would need to take place (not
to mention, as Doug has already informed you, you don't know the
proper procedure anyway).

-sw
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:36:39 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:


I don't think so. I don't know why he insists on trying to talk to me
directly, anyway - since he knows I don't read his posts. Tell you
what Stew - anything you want to say to me you can forward through
Sheldon.

-sw
 
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 wrote:


I recognize this post. The author of is Stepahanie De Silva.

Circa 1994.



Looks like one of the paragraphs identifying her was ripped out, but
it's otherwise her post from 16 years ago.

-sw
 
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:10:02 -0800, HumBug! wrote:


You moderate rfc and it will die a quick death, even though there is a goodly
number of off topic posts here for the most part it's just friends chit chattin
amongst themselves. Then there's the trolls who although entertaining can be
filtered.
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:39:49 -0500, Alfie wrote:


Don't you just love how a newbie comes in here and tells everybody to
killfile people who have been here for decades - as if these other
Usenet Lifers couldn't make up their own minds?

What do you call this social disorder - there must be a technical name
for it.

ObStu: Pot Roast in the crock pot as of 10:00am. What makes it a post
roast instead of a stew - larger pieces?

-sw
 
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:59:01 -0800 (PST), Nancy2 wrote:


I never could understand the purpose of RFR since the advent of the
WWW. Billions of recipes are just a few keystrokes away, and the
responses to requests in RFR were most often derived the same way. It
was just as much as a crapshoot as blindly Googling away.

Those of us who do have a few good (signature) recipes up our sleeves
weren't usually monitoring RFR for the chance to post them in response
to a request.

-sw
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:16:15 -0500, cshenk wrote:


I think I use more liquid than a typical crock pot roast - about 4
cups of water and/or wine and a envelope of onion soup mix. It's just
the way I've always done it. I should probably try it with less
liquid.

-sw
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:15:52 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:


I don't think it's worth reviving for all the reasons everybody has
just mentioned. The only one who seemed interesting in reviving it
was Kent. And Om at one point. RFR is past it's prime by about 15
years.

-sw
 
Swertz wrote:


Sometimes, when asking a question of a newsgroup, I'll include something
along the lines of "I'm interested in hearing from people who have
done this, rather than just googled-up answers". Often to no avail.


Steve
 
Back
Top