Anyone game for RFC 'chat'?

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:54 -0800, Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Andy wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:4B121187.2B21399A@sonic.net:
>>
>> > Dave Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >> > Sky wrote:
>> >> >> P.S. Any comments from the peanuts galleries??? Flame away!! ;D
>> >> >
>> >> > You should only post to the mailing list of people who
>> >> > actually participate in chat. Please don't post to
>> >> > the whole newsgroup. That's impolite.
>> >>
>> >> It is impolite of you to acts as net nanny. Chat is a forum for the
>> >> participants in this group.
>> >
>> > You can be sure this posting will be archived
>> > on the mailing list of people who find
>> > Dave Smith annoying. As moderator of that
>> > list, you can take that to the bank!
>>
>> Poor Thorson.
>>
>> You actually moderate a mailing list of "people who find Dave Smith
>> annoying" all by your lonesome?
>>
>> I imagine you're also it's only member!
>
>No, there are currently 85 members. Oddly,
>the mailing list for people who find Andy annoying
>has only 7 members, counting myself. I suppose
>you just aren't that interesting, Andy. :-)

That may be so but then compared with Andy being interesting you are
comotose.

brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:54 -0800, Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Andy wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in
> >> news:4B121187.2B21399A@sonic.net:
> >>
> >> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >> >> > Sky wrote:
> >> >> >> P.S. Any comments from the peanuts galleries??? Flame away!! ;D
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You should only post to the mailing list of people who
> >> >> > actually participate in chat. Please don't post to
> >> >> > the whole newsgroup. That's impolite.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is impolite of you to acts as net nanny. Chat is a forum for the
> >> >> participants in this group.
> >> >
> >> > You can be sure this posting will be archived
> >> > on the mailing list of people who find
> >> > Dave Smith annoying. As moderator of that
> >> > list, you can take that to the bank!
> >>
> >> Poor Thorson.
> >>
> >> You actually moderate a mailing list of "people who find Dave Smith
> >> annoying" all by your lonesome?
> >>
> >> I imagine you're also it's only member!
> >
> >No, there are currently 85 members. Oddly,
> >the mailing list for people who find Andy annoying
> >has only 7 members, counting myself. I suppose
> >you just aren't that interesting, Andy. :-)
>
> That may be so but then compared with Andy being interesting you are
> comotose.

And the number of members of the mailing list
who find Sheldon annoying is minus one. I got
two requests to be removed from the list from
people who were not subscribed. I guess nobody
wants to be reminded of your existence. :-)

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>>
>> You actually moderate a mailing list of "people who find Dave Smith
>> annoying" all by your lonesome?
>>
>> I imagine you're also it's only member!
>
> No, there are currently 85 members. Oddly,
> the mailing list for people who find Andy annoying
> has only 7 members, counting myself. I suppose
> you just aren't that interesting, Andy. :-)

Wow. I am impressed. It must be almost as big as the list of people
interested in recipes using food grade propane.

Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in news:4B12CBEE.E7ED6C02
@sonic.net:

> Andy wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:4B121187.2B21399A@sonic.net:
>>
>> > Dave Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >> > Sky wrote:
>> >> >> P.S. Any comments from the peanuts galleries??? Flame away!!
;D
>> >> >
>> >> > You should only post to the mailing list of people who
>> >> > actually participate in chat. Please don't post to
>> >> > the whole newsgroup. That's impolite.
>> >>
>> >> It is impolite of you to acts as net nanny. Chat is a forum for the
>> >> participants in this group.
>> >
>> > You can be sure this posting will be archived
>> > on the mailing list of people who find
>> > Dave Smith annoying. As moderator of that
>> > list, you can take that to the bank!
>>
>> Poor Thorson.
>>
>> You actually moderate a mailing list of "people who find Dave Smith
>> annoying" all by your lonesome?
>>
>> I imagine you're also it's only member!
>
> No, there are currently 85 members. Oddly,
> the mailing list for people who find Andy annoying
> has only 7 members, counting myself. I suppose
> you just aren't that interesting, Andy. :-)


That CAN come in handy!

For instance at the post office I'm much better off being on the "Least
Wanted" list.

Andy

"cshenk" <cshenk1@cox.net> wrote in
news:RxBQm.92541$gg6.20798@newsfe25.iad:

> "Lou Decruss" wrote
>
>> I don't do chat but it seems if folks here want to try to get together
>> it doesn't seem like it's an issue to announce it especially with all
>> the other nonsense that get's posted here. There's a page on the RFC
>> site with directions to get there so there must be some interest in
>> it.
>
> There is Lou. It lets those of us know who like to chat, that someone
> is in there. Thats all it is. Last night was pretty fun when 3 of us
> ladies ganged up on the poor Oz fellow in there. 3 against one (grin).
> Some serious stuff too, but mostly just fun.
>
>


I knew there was a reason why I don't do 'chat' ;-P


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

Sky wrote:
> Just like the subject line says<G> - anyone game for RFC chat? The
> 'scoop' about RFC chat can be found here:
>
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/chat.html
>
> or/and here
>
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/webchat.html
>
> Sky, who's suffering a case of yap-yaps, again<G>!!
>
> P.S. Any comments from the peanuts galleries??? Flame away!! ;D
>

Nope.

Rob

On Nov 28, 8:35*pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Sky wrote:
>
> > P.S. *Any comments from the peanuts galleries??? *Flame away!! ;D
>
> You should only post to the mailing list of people who
> actually participate in chat. *Please don't post to
> the whole newsgroup. *That's impolite.

What's impolite is you posting the disgusting crap you cook, such as
wormy turbot and broccoli soup for breakfast. That's VERY impolite!

Netkkkopping is impolite, too. So knock it off, asswipe.

On Nov 29, 8:28*am, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>>> P.S. *Any comments from the peanuts galleries??? *Flame away!! ;D
> >>> You should only post to the mailing list of people who
> >>> actually participate in chat. *Please don't post to
> >>> the whole newsgroup. *That's impolite.
> >> It is impolite of you to acts as net nanny. Chat is a forum for the
> >> participants in this group.
>
> > You can be sure this posting will be archived
> > on the mailing list of people who find
> > Dave Smith annoying. *As moderator of that
> > list, you can take that to the bank!
>
> Oh good for you to moderator of a group. Just remember that it is not
> RFC, so you have no business telling other people *not to invite others
> not to participate in chat. Yours will be a small group of the elite
> forks who scour ebay looking for objects they can't identify and recipes
> calling for food grade butane.

LMAO

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:19:15 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Directions are there so they don't need to be posted to the Newsgroup
>> and for no other reason whatsoever... nor should anything regarding
>> chat be posted to the Newsgroup... what happens in chat needs to stay
>> in chat. That's why the Chat is not safe, nothing said there is
>> sacred, and as far as I know nothing said there is logged... so go lie
>> your lonely-loser psychotic heads off.
>
> I don't do the chat thing very often, maybe once every month or two. I
> have encountered a lot of the regular posters in there. Sometimes there
> is no one there, so a post suggesting that someone is there are relevant
> to the group.
>
> I don't know what your paranoia is based on. I have never seen anything
> in chat they someone would have to be worried about being called on later.
>

more sheldon projection. though with all the psychotic crap he posts here,
i can't imagine why he'd fret that chat coulod come back on him later.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:33:52 -0500, brooklyn1
<gravesend10@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:14:31 -0600, Lou Decruss
><LouDecruss@biteme.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:35:07 -0800, Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Sky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Any comments from the peanuts galleries??? Flame away!! ;D
>>>
>>>You should only post to the mailing list of people who
>>>actually participate in chat. Please don't post to
>>>the whole newsgroup. That's impolite.
>>
>>I don't do chat but it seems if folks here want to try to get together
>>it doesn't seem like it's an issue to announce it especially with all
>>the other nonsense that get's posted here. There's a page on the RFC
>>site with directions to get there so there must be some interest in
>>it.
>>
>
>Directions are there so they don't need to be posted to the Newsgroup
>and for no other reason whatsoever... nor should anything regarding
>chat be posted to the Newsgroup...

Because you said so?

>what happens in chat needs to stay in chat.

I'll agree with that.

>That's why the Chat is not safe, nothing said there is
>sacred, and as far as I know nothing said there is logged...

On March 1st of last there was a thread in which a bot named nagger
was mentioned. I don't do chat and I don't know who controls nagger
and what it does but I have little doubt it has the capability to log.
Also anyone who is in irc can log. Even private chats can be logged.

>so go lie your lonely-loser psychotic heads off.

You're an idiot- newbie- liar. If you don't want to see chat posts
just killfile the word. Maybe someone will have to tell you how as
you seem to simple to grasp much.

Lou

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:25:13 -0500, "cshenk" <cshenk1@cox.net> wrote:

>"Lou Decruss" wrote
>
>> I don't do chat but it seems if folks here want to try to get together
>> it doesn't seem like it's an issue to announce it especially with all
>> the other nonsense that get's posted here. There's a page on the RFC
>> site with directions to get there so there must be some interest in
>> it.
>
>There is Lou. It lets those of us know who like to chat, that someone is in
>there. Thats all it is. Last night was pretty fun when 3 of us ladies
>ganged up on the poor Oz fellow in there. 3 against one (grin). Some
>serious stuff too, but mostly just fun.

Fun is a good thing. Seems some folks don't like seeing others
enjoying it. As I've said chat isn't for me but for those who like it
I have no problem with the posts inviting others.

Lou

In article <1e3c7a3opdnq3$.1xvhdgbvgffhs.dlg@40tude.net>,
blake murphy <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:19:15 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >> Directions are there so they don't need to be posted to the Newsgroup
> >> and for no other reason whatsoever... nor should anything regarding
> >> chat be posted to the Newsgroup... what happens in chat needs to stay
> >> in chat. That's why the Chat is not safe, nothing said there is
> >> sacred, and as far as I know nothing said there is logged... so go lie
> >> your lonely-loser psychotic heads off.
> >
> > I don't do the chat thing very often, maybe once every month or two. I
> > have encountered a lot of the regular posters in there. Sometimes there
> > is no one there, so a post suggesting that someone is there are relevant
> > to the group.
> >
> > I don't know what your paranoia is based on. I have never seen anything
> > in chat they someone would have to be worried about being called on later.
> >
>
> more sheldon projection. though with all the psychotic crap he posts here,
> i can't imagine why he'd fret that chat coulod come back on him later.

Just try looking up his old posts in Google. Just try. They're gone.
I believe they've been purged twice. Along with his Google account.
He's got good cause to be concerned.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net

blake murphy wrote:
>
> more sheldon projection. though with all the psychotic crap he posts here,
> i can't imagine why he'd fret that chat coulod come back on him later.

The fine distinctions between different grades of
psychotic crap are obviously lost on you. Leave
it to the experts. Everything he says is archived
on a web site in western Kazakhstan, outside of his
control. Even as I speak, highly skilled Jewish
libel attorneys are examining them for actionable
defamation. They also do divorces, if anybody is
interested. (They made me mention that.)

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:01:18 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> more sheldon projection. though with all the psychotic crap he posts here,
>> i can't imagine why he'd fret that chat coulod come back on him later.
>
> The fine distinctions between different grades of
> psychotic crap are obviously lost on you.

true. in my own posts i can only manage twenty proof or so.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:28:50 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article <1e3c7a3opdnq3$.1xvhdgbvgffhs.dlg@40tude.net>,
> blake murphy <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:19:15 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Directions are there so they don't need to be posted to the Newsgroup
>>>> and for no other reason whatsoever... nor should anything regarding
>>>> chat be posted to the Newsgroup... what happens in chat needs to stay
>>>> in chat. That's why the Chat is not safe, nothing said there is
>>>> sacred, and as far as I know nothing said there is logged... so go lie
>>>> your lonely-loser psychotic heads off.
>>>
>>> I don't do the chat thing very often, maybe once every month or two. I
>>> have encountered a lot of the regular posters in there. Sometimes there
>>> is no one there, so a post suggesting that someone is there are relevant
>>> to the group.
>>>
>>> I don't know what your paranoia is based on. I have never seen anything
>>> in chat they someone would have to be worried about being called on later.
>>>
>>
>> more sheldon projection. though with all the psychotic crap he posts here,
>> i can't imagine why he'd fret that chat coulod come back on him later.
>
> Just try looking up his old posts in Google. Just try. They're gone.

i'd rather drink ink.

> I believe they've been purged twice. Along with his Google account.
> He's got good cause to be concerned.

i'd say he's more immediately concerned with the local police.

your pal,
blake