Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

Kent wrote:


The proposal was not to start moderating RFC, it was to create several new
groups which would theoretically split the discussion into several separate
UNMODERATED forums. In practice, a spammer would simply add *all* the new
groups to their list. The trolls would still troll freely, since there would
be nothing to stop them.

I don't see anything good about the proposal. What's it supposed to
accomplish, other than quintupling the number of groups you'd have to read
if you wanted to keep abreast of discussions which currently happen here?

Bob
 
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:24:57 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
wrote:


All English language food groups except rfc, uk.f+d and of course
alt.binaries.food could be eliminated due to low traffic. They're so
boring that spammers and trolls don't even play in them.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
"Sqwertz" wrote




I'm the other way with sometimes no liquid other than a few splashes of
vinegar and soy (or some other combo depending on end effect desired). The
crockpot holds all the liquid in so it makes it's own. I suppose it depends
on the cut of meat and how fatty it already is.

A beef potroast will get some more liquid, normally a deep broth. A pork
version, might not have any added at all until after 6 hours on medium.

Try next time just the soup mix and the wine? Maybe 1/4 cup DEEP broth?
(Augment with lots of knorrs or minors if you don't make your own regular
enough to have it handy).

Alternatively though stop and think what you use that extra liquid for
later. If you save it for a wonderful second meal (makes sense to me!) then
you may want to just 'try it once' with less liquid to see what the
difference is, then go back to normal.

I think most recipes add so much liquid, because they weren't in sealed
crockpot type cookery so would dry out. In a crockpot, you can literally
add a frozen hunk and turn it on and come back 4-6 hours later to decant the
excess liquid ;-) Not that I make'em that plain except pulled pork types
on occasion (which get spiced later).
 
"Bob Terwilliger" wrote


Bob, wake up. It was a spammer/troll. It isnt and never was a real
suggestion. It was a hijacked post suggested 6-7 YEARS ago or more that was
turned down because that person didn't have to right to suggest it either.
 
On Mar 7, 12:50?pm, Usenet Big 5 wrote:

I call for a vote to decide if this is the stupidest FRD ever. Only an
idiot would come up with an idea that one can increase the signal-to-
noise ratio by taking a healthy and active group and splitting it into
a bunch of inane subgroups.

What idiot proposed this idea? I bet it was some spammer.
 
On Mar 7, 6:17?pm, Sqwertz wrote:

Exactly:

From: [email protected] (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: RFD: rec.food.cooking reorganization
Date: 14 Sep 1994 13:30:58 -0400

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 news.groups. All discussion regarding this proposal should
take
place in news.groups.

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.


Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:

rec.food.cooking.misc
rec.food.cooking.cookware
rec.food.cooking.recipes
rec.food.cooking.books
rec.food.cooking.discuss


Charters:

rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated)
What rfc used to be and should be. For general cooking discussion.
This
newsgroup will replace rec.food.cooking.

rec.food.cooking.cookware (unmoderated)
Bread machines, microwaves, crockpots, knives, cutting boards, glass-
top
stoves, barbecues, cast iron, woks, Calphalon, aluminum,
dehydrators, pasta
makers, rice cookers, etc.

rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated)
Recipes and requests. Before you say that this is redundant with
rec.food.recipes, from moderating rec.food.recipes, I've discovered
that crossposting between rec.food.cooking and rec.food.recipes is
virtually non-existent. Recipe management software discussion
should
go in here as well.

rec.food.cooking.books (unmoderated)
Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv shows.

rec.food.cooking.discuss (unmoderated)
For all the spam and tripe that currently plagues the group. For
flames,
rumors, controversial topics (such as food poisoning), the $250
cookie,
and those threads that bear marginal relevance that seem to go on
forever
like, "What did you have for dinner last night?" "What is your
favourite
fast food restaurant?" "What is your least favourite fast food
restaurant?" Etc, etc.


Discussion will run for a minumum of 21 days. The newsgroups in this
proposal are subject to change, and if major changes are necessary,
the
discussion period may be extended an additional 7 days.

A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion
period.
The vote will be run by a neutral third party.

This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines
set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". Please refer to this
document
if you have questions about the process.

////////////////////////////////////////////////

I wonder: what motivates somebody to destroy our group by splitting it
into a bunch of unviable crumbs?
 
On Mar 8, 9:25?am, Sqwertz wrote:

Can anybody simply propose an RFD to destroy a group? If so, I bet
there will soon be bots running all over Usenet posting RFDs to
destroy all Usenet groups.
 
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:22:11 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:


I've met a lot of people just out of the blue who use Usenet for their
bootleg material. Many more than I met when Usenet was mostly text.
And most of these people don't even know about Usenet discussions.

All the torrent sites advertise Usenet servers for the same material.
Most bootleg torrents actually originate on Usenet. It's easier to
hide the source of the original bootleggers since NSP's don't keep
logs.

I just don't think this is the case. You could take out a large
portion of copyrighted material by hitting the NSP's, of which there
are very few (about 5 nowadays). And it would be easier than
outsourcing companies to harass ISP's into grudgingly sending out
millions of DMCA letters than. And it's a clear cut case of DMCA
violations since the NSP's own the servers on which the material is
hosted in full. You can rarely prove that a torrent user actually has
the whole file, and suing individuals is not cost-effective. Sue NSp's
and you'll make a profit. It would put Pay-For Usenet out of business.

And then everybody would use torrents :-)

-sw
 
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:04:32 -0800 (PST), Ostap Bender wrote:


As in remove a group? Sure, you can post it but it's just a troll.
Just like this one. It would take an even bigger loser to create a
bot to do it. Hipcrime is so... 2002.

-sw
 
On Mar 12, 4:38?pm, "Bob Terwilliger"
wrote:

Not quite correct. Stephanie had a perfect right to make the proposal
and it was properly made according to the formal requirements and duly
rejected, which I think was a good thing for reasons already pointed
out.

She was right in that there was a lot of nastiness around, though one
of the worst perpetrators, whose name I forget, did die about that
time. But giving them more newsgroups to pollute was never going to
solve the problem. And the idea of rec.food.discuss was just plain
hopeless.

Shankar did it more cunningly, and for the right reasons, a little
later by proposing rec.food.baking (I think that was the name) and
leaving out the "cooking" so he didn't get the knee-jerk "breaking up
the group" reaction.

LW
 
On 3/19/2011 12:32 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

Replying to an older post again (sort problems) but that was just after
I first found Usenet. A group I participated in was plagued by Hipcrime
and some even tried to keep it going several years later even though
most news servers knew how to block it by then. I can say that as a
newbie it was confusing. lol
 
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:16:37 -0400, Cheryl
wrote:


I'm an "old-bee" and I've never heard of Hipcrime. Not that I want
to, of course.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:59:01 -0600, Stu wrote:


I consider that anyone who even mentions using a killfile to possess
the intellect of a spoiled three year old, therefor they have no
credibility with me in anything, none whatsoever... wtf do people need
to mention their killfiling, next thing they'll be posting the
intimate details of their last dump.
 
Back
Top