Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 147

Thread: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

  1. #1
    Usenet Big 5 Guest

    Default Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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.

  2. #2
    rosie Guest

    Default Re: 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.

  3. #3
    Kent Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization


    "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





  4. #4
    Hell Toupee Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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.


  5. #5
    Kent Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization


    "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




  6. #6
    Storrmmee Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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.
    >




  7. #7
    spamtrap1888 Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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

  8. #8
    Nancy2 Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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.

  9. #9
    Nancy2 Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    >
    > 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.

  10. #10
    Julie Bove Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization


    "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.




  11. #11
    Julie Bove Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization


    "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".



  12. #12
    heyjoe Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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/>.

  13. #13
    Andy Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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

  14. #14
    Dave Smith Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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.

  15. #15
    ItsJoanNotJoann Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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!


  16. #16
    gloria.p Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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


  17. #17
    Dan Abel Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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]

  18. #18
    HumBug! Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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!!








  19. #19
    sf Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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.

  20. #20
    sf Guest

    Default Re: Rec.food.cooking Reorganization

    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.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32