Thread: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

On Mar 7, 2:50*pm, Usenet Big 5 <use...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.media 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.
>
> rec.food.cooking.media (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows, movies.
>
> 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 favorite fast food restaurant?"
> "What is your least favorite 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.

Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
seems pointless to me.

"rosie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big 5 <use...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.media 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.
>
> rec.food.cooking.media (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows, movies.
>
> 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 favorite fast food restaurant?"
> "What is your least favorite 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.

>Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
>topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
>seems pointless to me.
>
>
Absolutely agree! This NG to remain unchanged. The focused ones have all
died. Usenet is probably going to die. We're just enjoying it in its
denouement, to borrow a bit from Shakespeare.

Kent

On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big 5<use...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

>>
>> 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.media rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
> seems pointless to me.

I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts.
The better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.

"Hell Toupee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:il3jhs$9c6$[email protected]..
> On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big 5<use...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>>>
>>> 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.media rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>
>> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
>> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
>> seems pointless to me.
>
> I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
> split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
> traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts. The
> better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.
>
>
Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example is
alt.food.recipes.

Kent

,a certified turd

i haven't been here that long this time, have looked in from time to time,
when i read the OP, i had two thoughts, first shouldn't there be more than
one person to do such a proposal and second thought was what? you can't use
a kf? Lee
"Hell Toupee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:il3jhs$9c6$[email protected]..
> On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big 5<use...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>>>
>>> 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.media rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>
>> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
>> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
>> seems pointless to me.
>
> I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
> split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
> traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts. The
> better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.
>

On Mar 7, 12:50*pm, Usenet Big 5 <use...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

The mantra "built it and they will come" does not apply to USENET
(except for alt.).Newsgroups are split up when the volume of
discussion on side topics tends to overwhelm the group. The volume of
non-spam postings on rec.food.cooking is in decline, thus no splits
are necessary. If discussion volume declines, the signal-to-noise
ratio will decrease to unity or less. Further, the likelihood of a
successful rec.food.spam (other than the potted meat) is nonexistent.

>
> 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.

Any examples to back up these assertions? Or are they pulled out of
thin air?

>
> 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.media 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.

Why?

> 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.

A redundant version of rec.food.equipment. If splits worked, cookware
discussions would take place exclusively in r.f.e.

>
> rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests.

A redundant version of rec.food.recipes. Again, if splits worked,
recipe discussions would take place exclusively in r.f.r.

> rec.food.cooking.media (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows, movies.

I can't imagine a discussion of cookbooks or TV shows that would omit
discussion of recipes, and few non-recipe discussions of shows, books,
etc. occur (e.g. Who's the hottest? Rachael Ray, Nigella Lawson, or
Lidia Bastianich?)

>
> 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 favorite fast food restaurant?"
> "What is your least favorite fast food restaurant?" *Etc, etc.

People who post tripe will post it where people will read it. Barring
moderation, tripe a la mode de Caen will reappear in rec.food.cooking.
You might as well propose one group for all spam.

>
> 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.


So the proposed new groups are
1. redundant (duplicates of existing groups), and/or
2. unnecessary, and/or
3. useless

On Mar 7, 3:47*pm, "Kent" <keh6...@ana.yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Hell Toupee" <w...@menull.com> wrote in message
>
> news:il3jhs$9c6$[email protected]..
>
>
>
> > On 3/7/2011 3:08 PM, rosie wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 2:50 pm, Usenet Big 5<use...@usenet.invalid> *wrote:
> >>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> >>> the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> >>> 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.media rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
> >> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes *on
> >> topic, sometimes way offtopic. *People come and go, splitting it up
> >> seems pointless to me.
>
> > I've been on a couple other newsgroups that used this rationale to
> > split/create offshoot groups, and all it accomplished was killing off
> > traffic on all the groups, with the perpetual exception of spam posts. The
> > better solution is using a newsreader with good filtering capability.
>
> Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example is
> alt.food.recipes.
>
> Kent
>
> ,a certified turd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's ridiculous and a waste of time to try and reorganize r.f.c.
There is no more off-topic spam crap now than there was 5 years ago.
Get over it. Don't read it. Just pick the threads relating to food,
if you're going to be picky.

N.

>
> Any examples to back up these assertions? Or are they pulled out of
> thin air?

No worse now than it's always been.

>
>
>
> > 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.media rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
>
> > rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests.
>
> A redundant version of rec.food.recipes. Again, if splits worked,
> recipe discussions would take place exclusively in r.f.r.

The moderated r.f.r. has already died. Didn't you notice? An
unmoderated group will fare no better.

N.

"Usenet Big 5" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4d75450e$0$1261$[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.
>
> 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.media 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.
>
> rec.food.cooking.media (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows, movies.
>
> 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 favorite fast food restaurant?"
> "What is your least favorite 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.

"Usenet Big 5" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4d75450e$0$1261$[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.
>
> 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.media 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.
>
> rec.food.cooking.media (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows, movies.
>
> 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 favorite fast food restaurant?"
> "What is your least favorite 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 vote "no".

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

> This RFD is being posted to

> news.announce.newgroups,

Just looked at news.announce.newgroups and there is no post about a
proposed split.

> news.groups,
> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,

> rec.food.recipes,

Just looked at rec.food.recipes - again no post about a proposed split!

> rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with
> followups set to rec.food.cooking.
>
> However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate
> posts has skyrocketed,

If you feel the need to do something to reduce the noise and inappropriate
posts, get Google to clean up their house and actually do something about
the usenet abuse and usenet spam that originatte from their googlegroups
servers.


All in all, a really nice troll and you get an A for effort, but an F for
followthrough.


--
Posting from groups.google.com or www.foodbanter.com or other web-forums
dramatically reduces the chance of your post being read.
Use the real usenet!
Eternal-september is free, <http://www.eternal-september.org/>.

Usenet Big 5 <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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:


Who the hell are you, little Hitler?!!

You're just trolling for comments?

For your information rfc has been a noisy place for years not weeks.

To split it into unmoderated newsgroups is ludicrous. Everybody can post
to them all, solving nothing.

And since you don't have a valid email address. you're just talking out
of your ass.

Troll.

Andy

On 07/03/2011 3:50 PM, Usenet Big 5 wrote:
> 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.


I got a better idea for you. Leave it the way it is and use filters.
There are a number of regulars who seem to enjoy the current format and
others coming and going.

On Mar 7, 3:08*pm, rosie <RMi1013...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:50*pm, Usenet Big 5 <use...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> > the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>
> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes *on
> topic, sometimes way offtopic. *People come and go, splitting it up
> seems pointless to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
Amen!

On 3/7/2011 3:07 PM, Nancy2 wrote:

>
> It's ridiculous and a waste of time to try and reorganize r.f.c.
> There is no more off-topic spam crap now than there was 5 years ago.
> Get over it. Don't read it. Just pick the threads relating to food,
> if you're going to be picky.
>
> N.



I thought OT posts had diminished quite a bit until I remembered
the number of posters that have gone into my kf/filter recently.
IMO that's a much better solution.

gloria p

In article <rtwwckvlv7cs$.[email protected]>,
heyjoe <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 wrote:
>
> > This RFD is being posted to
>
> > news.announce.newgroups,
>
> Just looked at news.announce.newgroups and there is no post about a
> proposed split.

Is it a moderated group?

> > news.groups,
> > rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>
> > rec.food.recipes,
>
> Just looked at rec.food.recipes - again no post about a proposed split!

I *know* that one is moderated. And the moderator is not posting
*anything*.

> > rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with
> > followups set to rec.food.cooking.
> >
> > However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate
> > posts has skyrocketed,
>
> If you feel the need to do something to reduce the noise and inappropriate
> posts, get Google to clean up their house and actually do something about
> the usenet abuse and usenet spam that originatte from their googlegroups
> servers.

Fix the deficits, too, will you?

And stop all the wars?

> All in all, a really nice troll and you get an A for effort, but an F for
> followthrough.

I don't know how these things work, but it's a request for discussion.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:50:02 -0600, Usenet Big 5 <[email protected]>
wrote:

>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
>the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

Ya SHOULDDA LEARNED, if it AIN'T broke, DON'T try to fix it!

Until USERS quit responding to trolls, any UNmoderated newsgroup will
have it's problems.

ONLY fix for THAT is moderation, and most moderate groups fail due to
no one qualified OR WILLING to moderate!!

Splitting the group will NOT help it!!

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:08:46 -0800 (PST), rosie <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Sorry, this newsgroup has been this way for years. Sometimes on
> topic, sometimes way offtopic. People come and go, splitting it up
> seems pointless to me.

Well put and succinct.

--

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

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:47:46 -0800, "Kent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Moderated or filtered newsgroups have failed almost always. An example is
> alt.food.recipes.

and rec.food.cuisine.jewish

--

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