"Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown posters? And why?
If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as if you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't complain if it's a telemarketer.
I don't even open posts, let alone links, from people I don't recognize. I wait for someone else to do the honors and then check out the reply. (It worked this time; I never saw the original message but I've enjoyed all the brouhaha it's caused!)
> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown > posters? > And why?
> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as if > you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't complain > if it's a telemarketer.
> I don't even open posts, let alone links, from people I don't recognize. I > wait for someone else to do the honors and then check out the reply. (It > worked this time; I never saw the original message but I've enjoyed all the > brouhaha it's caused!)
> Felice"
> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
> Kent
Good question! Used to be that people in RFC knew how to quote...
> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown > posters? > And why?
> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as if > you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't complain > if it's a telemarketer.
Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of reasons.
> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
> Kent
Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't nearly what it is now.
Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.
In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.
Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.
Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.
Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can say anything to family.
Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the 'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.
It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out ‹ you just stop replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at your door and punch your lights out.
Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your "friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.
I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.
-Barb
-- -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007
> In article <L8adne0zqMOeM8HanZ2dnUVZ_tajn...@comcast.com>, > "Kent" <kh6...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> From Felice:
>> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown >> posters? >> And why?
>> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as >> if >> you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't >> complain >> if it's a telemarketer.
> Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone > numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of > reasons.
>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>> Kent
> Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking > have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't > nearly what it is now.
> Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.
> In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their > personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their > veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.
> Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where > you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have > said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going > to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.
> Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.
> Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can > say anything to family.
> Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not > belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile > it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the > 'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.
> It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the > part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I > do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out < you just stop > replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show > because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at > your door and punch your lights out.
> Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because > they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so > well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your > "friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer > questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have > always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in > opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.
> I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something > it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.
I am so sad for people who cannot be happy unless things are the way they think they SHOULD be. I mean this sincerely.
Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used it for years are now more savvy.
There have always been Topic Police and offtopic posters, and the ensuing conflicts, among other things, gave birth to people who responded to attempts to control the free-for-all with a hearty, "Well, if an offtopic post bothered you THAT much, how do you like this?"
People like you like to call such people "trolls."
In any case, nothing has changed. I'm willing to bet you and Goomba and others who feel the same way were singing the same tune in your first month on Usenet.
If you want moderation, go to a moderated group. If you want a free-for-all, Usenet is for you.
Discussion subject changed to "Shrimp Creole Recipe, was Re: Sheldon or not, here's my question; this is why this NG is turning to shit!" by Melba's Jammin'
Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote: > ObFood: Leftover king crab leg, leftover shrimp, leftover menudo, > leftover salad, leftover rice, and leftover barbacoa for dinner.
> -sw
Are they all left over from the same meal? Prolly not, huh?
I'm thawing a bag of frozen uncooked shrimp. I'm thinking Shrimp Creole for dinner, using this recipe:
Shrimp Creole posted to rec.food.cookiing by Barb Schaller, 12/10/2007.
From my trusty Betty Crocker "Dinner For Two" cookbook, copyright 1964. I used this book a LOT before we had kids. Now I'm back to it again for some old favorites.
€3/4 cup chopped onion, (1 medium) € 1 clove garlic, minced or pressed € 1 medium green pepper, finely chopped € 1/2 cup finely chopped celery € 2 tablespoons butter € 8 ounce can tomato sauce € 1/2 cup water € 1 bay leaf, crushed € 1 teaspoon minced fresh parsley € 1/2 teaspoon salt € scant 1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper € 1 7-ounce package frozen shrimp, thawed
€ Fluffy white rice
In medium skillet, sauté onion, garlic, green pepper, and celery in butter about 5 minutes or until tender.
Remove from heat; stir in tomato sauce, water, bay leaf, parsley, salt, and pepper. Simmer 10 minutes, adding additional water if needed.
Add thawed shrimp; bring to boil and cook covered over medium heat for 5 minutes.
Serve Shrimp Creole over white rice.
Makes 2 generous servings. Notes: I've been making this since 1966. Is it "authentic?" Heck if I know. -- -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007
>>> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown >>> posters? >>> And why?
>>> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as >>> if >>> you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't >>> complain >>> if it's a telemarketer. >> Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone >> numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of >> reasons.
>>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>>> Kent >> Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking >> have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't >> nearly what it is now.
>> Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.
>> In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their >> personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their >> veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.
>> Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where >> you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have >> said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going >> to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.
>> Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.
>> Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can >> say anything to family.
>> Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not >> belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile >> it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the >> 'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.
>> It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the >> part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I >> do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out < you just stop >> replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show >> because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at >> your door and punch your lights out.
>> Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because >> they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so >> well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your >> "friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer >> questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have >> always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in >> opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.
>> I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something >> it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.
> I am so sad for people who cannot be happy unless things are the way > they think they SHOULD be. I mean this sincerely.
> Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used > it for years are now more savvy.
> There have always been Topic Police and offtopic posters, and the > ensuing conflicts, among other things, gave birth to people who responded > to attempts to control the free-for-all with a hearty, "Well, if an offtopic > post bothered you THAT much, how do you like this?"
> People like you like to call such people "trolls."
> In any case, nothing has changed. I'm willing to bet you and Goomba and > others who feel the same way were singing the same tune in your first > month on Usenet.
> If you want moderation, go to a moderated group. If you want a > free-for-all, Usenet is for you.
Love-15.
Silence, ladies and gentlemen, please.
-- Cheers Chatty Cathy
Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible
> On Dec 10, 11:21 am, aem <aem_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Dec 10, 8:38 am, Melba's Jammin' <barbschal...@earthlink.net> > > wrote:
> > > Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking > > > have moved on. [snip the rest for brevity, agreeing with it for the most > part]
> > When I am looking for suggestions or advice about a cooking topic now, > > I often use the "search this group" function and read the old posts > > first. Much better signal to noise content than initiating a new post > > nowadays. Sometimes when I'm bored I just search for "Shankar" or > > "Kaye" and read whatever pops up. When I'm *really* bored I search > > under "Penmart" for a good laugh. -aem
> Sorry for the typo. Meant to write I search for "Kay Hartman." - > aem
I knew who you meant. I was lucky enough to be reading when they were still posting. We still have a lot of knowledgable folks here though...
> Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has > always been.
Are you sure it has always been a free-for-all? I don't think so.
> It has not changed at all, except those who have used > it for years are now more savvy.
It has changed considerably. There are more computer users and maybe more posters. There is no way to know if the number of lurkers has increased. That there are more computer users is no guarantee that they are savvy about proper and improper use of them. The advent of the World Wide Web on the internet changed computer use dramatically and made all these wonderful things available to damn near anyone who wanted to partake but didn't quite know how.
> In any case, nothing has changed. I'm willing to bet you and Goomba and > others who feel the same way were singing the same tune in your first > month on Usenet.
Bet, huh? What's your wager?
> If you want moderation, go to a moderated group. If you want a > free-for-all, Usenet is for you.
If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking used to be more civilized neither a free-for-all nor a moderated group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either. There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the "savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.
Kent asked why the group has gone to shit. I gave him my opinion and my reasons. Would I like it to be my way? Sure ‹ I'm a benevolent dictator. <grin> -- -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007
Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:38:44 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
(Barb's opinions snipped)
> This is better presented than any of the numerous rants I've > initiated over the years.
> Is that marriage offer still good?
> -sw
Sure, if you don't tell my husband. "-) -- -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
<barbschal...@earthlink.net> wrote: >If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a >free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking >used to be more civilized neither a free-for-all nor a moderated >group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity >and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either. >There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the >"savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such >questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.
You can see this to be true if you google back to the early to mid 90s for rfc. I have done this, and it was no where like this in those days. Some terrific posters posting then...
I remember a time, maybe in 95 or so, when Ninette Enrique posted about her pregnancy. It prompted an outcry about being off topic. This type of post (about her pregnancy) was out of the ordinary in this group. I simply don't remember off topic posts then, and it is proven out by googling the posts back then. Same for name calling, etc.
So take a look back to the earlier days of rfc, those of you who think that it has always been a free-for-all.... It can be rather enlightening.
One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough <janet.and.j...@zetnet.co.uk> said:
> The message <475d6395$0$26019$88260...@free.teranews.com> > from "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> contains these words: > > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has > > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used > > it for years are now more savvy.
> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of > how much it has changed for the worse.
I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all". Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading before then knows how much that changed things...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> <barbschal...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a > >free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking > >used to be more civilized - neither a free-for-all nor a moderated > >group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity > >and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either. > >There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the > >"savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such > >questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.
> You can see this to be true if you google back to the early to mid 90s > for rfc. I have done this, and it was no where like this in those > days. Some terrific posters posting then...
> I remember a time, maybe in 95 or so, when Ninette Enrique posted > about her pregnancy. It prompted an outcry about being off topic. > This type of post (about her pregnancy) was out of the ordinary in > this group. I simply don't remember off topic posts then, and it is > proven out by googling the posts back then. Same for name calling, > etc.
> So take a look back to the earlier days of rfc, those of you who think > that it has always been a free-for-all.... It can be rather > enlightening.
The Golden Age of Usenet is over. That said: Back in 1998, alt.punk had 149,341 posts, quite a few more than this NG, but curiously, rfc had its biggest year, # of posts wise, in 2006, with a whopping 166,513 posts.
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:48 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> <barbschal...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >If I want moderation, I'll go to a moderated group. If I want a > >free-for-all, I'll enter a mud-wrestling contest. Rec.food.cooking > >used to be more civilized - neither a free-for-all nor a moderated > >group. There was plenty of discussion that did not turn to vulgarity > >and name-calling. And more that never started out that way, either. > >There was plenty of give and take and it was about cooking. And the > >"savvy" folks posted their questions to the appropriate groups for such > >questions, where they would be ON topic instead of OFF.
> You can see this to be true if you google back to the early to mid 90s > for rfc. I have done this, and it was no where like this in those > days. Some terrific posters posting then...
> I remember a time, maybe in 95 or so, when Ninette Enrique posted > about her pregnancy. It prompted an outcry about being off topic. > This type of post (about her pregnancy) was out of the ordinary in > this group. I simply don't remember off topic posts then, and it is > proven out by googling the posts back then. Same for name calling, > etc.
> So take a look back to the earlier days of rfc, those of you who think > that it has always been a free-for-all.... It can be rather > enlightening.
> Christine
As someone who has used USENET from the beginning, I am one who remembers the early days of rfc. Obviously times have channged, for better or worse, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I think the primary difference is that prior to the web, usenet news was there primarily as way to share information, not to socialize. When the web became a major source for searching for answers to questions, many news groups turned into places for expressing opinions. And as most of you know, RFC turned into more of a free for all than most... The majority of the groups I frequent are still 99% on topic. The bottom line is that the usual suspects (you know who you are) can continue incessant bitching and moaning in ongoing off topic posts, or you make the effort to restore this group to some approximation of what it once was.
In article <barbschaller-E1DB69.11050010122...@news.iphouse.com>, Melba's Jammin' <barbschal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <1nolwdkr8foud$....@sqwertz.com>, > Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> > ObFood: Leftover king crab leg, leftover shrimp, leftover menudo, > > leftover salad, leftover rice, and leftover barbacoa for dinner.
> > -sw
> Are they all left over from the same meal? Prolly not, huh?
> I'm thawing a bag of frozen uncooked shrimp. I'm thinking Shrimp Creole > for dinner, using this recipe:
(recipe snipped) It was a terrific dinner. Broccoli and brown rice instead of white rice accompanied and I had goo intentions about a salad but then said to hell with it. The shrimp I had were very good, IMO (I'm not especially a connoisseur). They'd been prepped for easy peeling and they were. They were tender and succulent ‹ poifect to me. -- -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007
> The majority of the groups I frequent are still 99% on topic. The > bottom line is that the usual suspects (you know who you are) can > continue incessant bitching and moaning in ongoing off topic posts, or > you make the effort to restore this group to some approximation of > what it once was.
In article <eb2abbbd-03db-4ce4-bf5b-2cebc7d26...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, kuvasz guy <fpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the primary difference is that prior to the web, usenet news > was there primarily as way to share information, not to socialize. > ..fred
Thanks -- that's what I was trying to express; you did a much better job. -- -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007
> One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough <janet.and.j...@zetnet.co.uk> said: >> The message <475d6395$0$26019$88260...@free.teranews.com> >> from "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
>> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it >> > has >> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used >> > it for years are now more savvy.
>> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of >> how much it has changed for the worse.
> I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all". > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading > before then knows how much that changed things...
I began reading in 1994. When did the AOL thing start?
This question has been asked at least twice a year since I started on this group back in 1991 (as a lurker as I had so little connection time). Plus çà change, plus c'est la même chose.
> In article <L8adne0zqMOeM8HanZ2dnUVZ_tajn...@comcast.com>, > "Kent" <kh6...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> From Felice:
>> "Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown >> posters? And why?
>> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just >> as if you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you >> shouldn't complain if it's a telemarketer.
> Maybe, but the 'unknown caller' isn't necessarily a telemarketer. Phone > numbers don't show up on caller identification units for a variety of > reasons.
>> What the phuque is happening to this NG?
>> Kent
> Many of the people who were interested in good food and serious cooking > have moved on. They got tired of the crap long ago when it wasn't > nearly what it is now.
> Usenet has changed, and the way people relate to each other has changed.
> In my opinion, too many people have decided that r.f.c. will be their > personal blog, their Yellow Pages, their confessional, their > veterinarian, their soapbox, and their playground for bullies.
> Too many have latched on to the "we're like a big kitchen table where > you sit around and argue about all kinds of stuff." My mom would have > said, "Get the hell out of here and go outside and fight if you're going > to be like that!" Mom ran a tight ship. She was The Moderator.
> Rec.food.cooking does not have moderator.
> Too many think that r.f.c. regulars are their family and that you can > say anything to family.
> Too many don't "get" that too much of the stuff lately simply does not > belong here and instead say, "Well, if you don't like it, just killfile > it or ignore it." That attitude, I believe, is tacit support of the > 'anything goes' mentality that is so prevalent.
> It's difficult to resist the seductive temptations that appeal to the > part of us that wants to "be helpful" in an OT thread (sure, sometimes I > do open the OP) because it is so damned easy to get out ‹ you just stop > replying to the thread. And it's easy to let your ugliness show > because it really is pretty unlikely that someone is going to show up at > your door and punch your lights out.
> Too many refuse to ask their questions in an appropriate group because > they "know the people" here. There's a joke. If you "know" them so > well, why don't you have their private email addresses (they're your > "friends," remember?) and ask privately? Yeah, I DO ask my computer > questions on the computer groups and the folks where I've asked have > always been straightforward with their responses and the differences in > opinions are put forth with civility not with venom and bluster.
> I understand thread drift, how the discussion can morph into something > it was not, and I'll bet that's not what you're talking about, either.
> -Barb
Very well stated, Barb.
-- Wayne Boatwright
Date: Mon, 12/10/2007
******************************************* Countdown 'til Christmas 2wks 18hrs 15mins 55secs ******************************************* If it weren't for lawyers, I think we could have invented a universal symbolic representation of reality.
Janet Baraclough wrote: > The message <475d6395$0$26019$88260...@free.teranews.com> > from "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has > > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used > > it for years are now more savvy.
> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of > how much it has changed for the worse.
I'm a Usenet newbie (10 years) and the decline in the quality of posts and posters has been really steep, some formerly great groups barely register anymore...
Interestingly, the same, "Why is this group dying?" topic has been discussed on groups as diverse as alt.autos.studebakers and alt.gossip.celebrities during the past week...and shortly before that it was bandied about on rec.travel.europe.
On Dec 10, 5:56 pm, Little.Mal...@g33mail.com (Little Malice) wrote:
> One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough <janet.and.j...@zetnet.co.uk> said:
> > The message <475d6395$0$26019$88260...@free.teranews.com> > > from "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> contains these words: > > > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it has > > > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used > > > it for years are now more savvy.
> > Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of > > how much it has changed for the worse.
> I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all". > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway.
> > One time on Usenet, Janet Baraclough <janet.and.j...@zetnet.co.uk> said: > >> The message <475d6395$0$26019$88260...@free.teranews.com> > >> from "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
> >> > Usenet IS a free-for-all. Whether it should be or not, it is, and it > >> > has > >> > always been. It has not changed at all, except those who have used > >> > it for years are now more savvy.
> >> Obviously you have not used it for years, or you would be aware of > >> how much it has changed for the worse.
> > I had a similar thought. Usenet has NOT always been a "free-for-all". > > Not until AOL was loosed upon it, anyway. Anyone who was reading > > before then knows how much that changed things...
> I began reading in 1994. When did the AOL thing start?
It's questions like this that makes me think that you are either really stupid or simply a troll...
FYI AOL'ers got access to Usenet in 1997 IIRC, as did WebTVer's...
HTH...hand.
:-)
-- Best Greg
" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that we are some kind of comedy team turns my stomach." - "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking
> This question has been asked at least twice a year since I started > on this group back in 1991 (as a lurker as I had so little > connection time). Plus çà change, plus c'est la même chose.
This was my point. Some people are annoyed by OT posts, I am annoyed by the stock old timers whining about the good old days and how the group has gone to hell.
> In article <barbschaller-E1DB69.11050010122...@news.iphouse.com>, > Melba's Jammin' <barbschal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <1nolwdkr8foud$....@sqwertz.com>, >> Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
>> > ObFood: Leftover king crab leg, leftover shrimp, leftover menudo, >> > leftover salad, leftover rice, and leftover barbacoa for dinner.
>> > -sw
>> Are they all left over from the same meal? Prolly not, huh?
>> I'm thawing a bag of frozen uncooked shrimp. I'm thinking Shrimp Creole >> for dinner, using this recipe:
> (recipe snipped) > It was a terrific dinner. Broccoli and brown rice instead of white rice > accompanied and I had goo intentions about a salad but then said to hell > with it. The shrimp I had were very good, IMO (I'm not especially a > connoisseur). They'd been prepped for easy peeling and they were. > They were tender and succulent < poifect to me.
It was le' leftovers at our house. There was dinner at Mama's this weekend for the Deacons of our church and she had so much food leftover we went and leftovered for dinner at her house last night and we brought plenty for dinner tonight. Tomorrow though it's something different. The leftovers are done for me.
|
