|
Food » rec.food.baking » rec.food.baking
| rec.food.baking [message #79772] |
Mon, 23 May 2005 03:58 |
|
I'm assuming that "rec.food.baking" stands for Recreational Food Baking... I
don't really understand the consept of the name. It occurs to me that a
good number of the "regulars" are really serious bakers. I guess that what
I'm trying to figure out is where the recreation in "rec.food.baking" comes
in. I noticed a while back that someone wrote in something about something
other than baking... and was flamed for doing so....
Anyway I'm wondering if there is a FAQ or whatever available.
jms
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #79773 ] |
Mon, 23 May 2005 04:36 |
|
"jimmyjames" <jimmyjames [at] upyourstreet.com> wrote:
>I'm assuming that "rec.food.baking" stands for Recreational Food Baking...
Not quite. Rec is Recreation, nor recreational. Rec. is one of the
original "Big 8" in Usenet newsgroup hierarchy (soc, sci, comp,
humanities, misc, news, talk, rec) and food was put in the rec area,
partly because it didn't really fit anywhere else, and partly because
many people see preparing food as a recreational activity.
And, of course, just because it's in the rec. hierarchy doesn't mean
that people can't make a living doing it. (rec.arts.sf.* have more
than a few published writers and editors participating,
rec.crafts.textiles.* have professionals in the field participating.)
Unless it's a moderated list, there's nothing that keeps the pros out
of the rec.* groups.
>I don't really understand the consept of the name. It occurs to me that a
>good number of the "regulars" are really serious bakers. I guess that what
>I'm trying to figure out is where the recreation in "rec.food.baking" comes
>in.
A lot of people on RFB do cook/bake for enjoyment, not for a living.
Probably at least some of the "serious" bakers enjoy it as well.
>I noticed a while back that someone wrote in something about something
>other than baking... and was flamed for doing so....
Most Usenet groups are less than tolerant of off topic posts. Some
are more tolerant than others. For a quick overview of Usenet and
newsgroups in general, see Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup>.
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking [message #79774 ] |
Mon, 23 May 2005 05:14 |
|
Many years ago, before the Internet took off, the universities that
were the main users of the usenet set up a set of standard groups.
rec. was one, alt was another, biz was set up for business use, edu
for use by universities, comp and sci are others. Alt is actually the
only one that is a free for all, with anyone being allowed to start a
usenet group in alt while all the others technically need to be
approved by whomever controls that grouping, be it rec or comp or sci,
etc. From the point of view of the universities that set this up,
baking would be recreational... except for those few universities that
have a hotel management or cooking degree available. That does not,
however, mean that the users of the group have to BE recreational
bakers. I am, but others are not... Anyway, that is how the group
likely was created in and stays in rec...
RsH
On Mon, 23 May 2005 01:58:00 GMT, "jimmyjames"
<jimmyjames [at] upyourstreet.com> wrote:
>I'm assuming that "rec.food.baking" stands for Recreational Food Baking... I
>don't really understand the consept of the name. It occurs to me that a
>good number of the "regulars" are really serious bakers. I guess that what
>I'm trying to figure out is where the recreation in "rec.food.baking" comes
>in. I noticed a while back that someone wrote in something about something
>other than baking... and was flamed for doing so....
>Anyway I'm wondering if there is a FAQ or whatever available.
>jms
>
>
>
=======================================================
<rsh [at] idirect.com>
Copyright retained. My opinions - no one else's...
If this is illegal where you are, do not read it!
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #82743 ] |
Fri, 27 May 2005 20:17 |
|
"Jenn Ridley" <jridley [at] chartermi.net> wrote
Hi. I am another recent lurker in this chatroom.
> >I'm assuming that "rec.food.baking" stands for Recreational Food Baking...
>
> Not quite. Rec is Recreation, nor recreational.
Not quite, the wikipedia web page says Rec is for "recreational activities".
> Rec. is one of the
> original "Big 8" in Usenet newsgroup hierarchy (soc, sci, comp,
> humanities, misc, news, talk, rec) and food was put in the rec area,
> partly because it didn't really fit anywhere else, and partly because
> many people see preparing food as a recreational activity.
Actually there were originally only a big six, and three got added later.
> And, of course, just because it's in the rec. hierarchy doesn't mean
> that people can't make a living doing it. (rec.arts.sf.* have more
> than a few published writers and editors participating,
> rec.crafts.textiles.* have professionals in the field participating.)
> Unless it's a moderated list, there's nothing that keeps the pros out
> of the rec.* groups.
>
>
> >I don't really understand the consept of the name. It occurs to me that a
> >good number of the "regulars" are really serious bakers. I guess that what
> >I'm trying to figure out is where the recreation in "rec.food.baking" comes
> >in.
>
> A lot of people on RFB do cook/bake for enjoyment, not for a living.
> Probably at least some of the "serious" bakers enjoy it as well.
I would think professional cooking would be off topic here.
> >I noticed a while back that someone wrote in something about something
> >other than baking... and was flamed for doing so....
>
> Most Usenet groups are less than tolerant of off topic posts. Some
> are more tolerant than others. For a quick overview of Usenet and
> newsgroups in general, see Wikipedia
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup>.
The let sex and drugs on the Usenet?! I need to get some kiddie filters installed.
--oTTo--
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #82767 ] |
Mon, 30 May 2005 05:28 |
|
Otto Bahn wrote:
> "Jenn Ridley" <jridley [at] chartermi.net> wrote
>
> Hi. I am another recent lurker in this chatroom.
>
>
Hi, I was lurking here on the internet too and happened to find this on
google.
>>>I'm assuming that "rec.food.baking" stands for Recreational Food Baking...
>>
>>Not quite. Rec is Recreation, nor recreational.
>
>
> Not quite, the wikipedia web page says Rec is for "recreational activities".
>
>
Which is just a long, overly verbose way of saying "recreation". So the
penultimate poster was technically correct, although marks should be
deducted because they didn't check their facts before posting nonsense
to unsenet (as one should always do).
>>Rec. is one of the
>>original "Big 8" in Usenet newsgroup hierarchy (soc, sci, comp,
>>humanities, misc, news, talk, rec) and food was put in the rec area,
>>partly because it didn't really fit anywhere else, and partly because
>>many people see preparing food as a recreational activity.
>
>
> Actually there were originally only a big six, and three got added later.
>
Yeah, and "soc" was never that big at the time so it was more of big
four and the other ones.
>
>>And, of course, just because it's in the rec. hierarchy doesn't mean
>>that people can't make a living doing it. (rec.arts.sf.* have more
>>than a few published writers and editors participating,
>>rec.crafts.textiles.* have professionals in the field participating.)
>>Unless it's a moderated list, there's nothing that keeps the pros out
>>of the rec.* groups.
>>
>>
Yes, but if they do something recreational for a profession, what do
they do in their spare time? and surely the time constraits on a
professional would limit how much time he or she could spend checking
facts and posting nonsense to usenet.
>>
>>>I don't really understand the consept of the name. It occurs to me that a
>>>good number of the "regulars" are really serious bakers. I guess that what
>>>I'm trying to figure out is where the recreation in "rec.food.baking" comes
>>>in.
>>
>>A lot of people on RFB do cook/bake for enjoyment, not for a living.
>>Probably at least some of the "serious" bakers enjoy it as well.
>
>
> I would think professional cooking would be off topic here.
>
So the polite thing to do if you must post about professional matters on
a rec group is label your posts, e.g. [OT](pro baker), so people know
your comments are coming from someone who does baking for a living and
not for the enjoyment which may or may not be part and parcel of your
work place environment (i.e. bakeries).
>
>>>I noticed a while back that someone wrote in something about something
>>>other than baking... and was flamed for doing so....
>>
>>Most Usenet groups are less than tolerant of off topic posts. Some
>>are more tolerant than others. For a quick overview of Usenet and
>>newsgroups in general, see Wikipedia
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup>.
>
>
> The let sex and drugs on the Usenet?! I need to get some kiddie filters installed.
>
In which newsgroups are sex and drugs off topic, they can be applied to
just about any situation and go especially well with an assortment of
baked goods on hand. Flaming on the other hand is an abuse of newsgroup
netiquette and can have you reported to an ISP or Google.
And remember, if you must post binaries, please do so to an officially
sanctioned binary group and then post a link to the pron in the group
where you want to demonstrate your "skills in the kitchen".
You are right though, you shouldn't let your kiddies touch the internet
with a 10 foot pole unless it has been filtered.
> --oTTo--
>
>
Are you oTTo from oTTo's bakery and coffee shop in Rochester MN?
All the best,
CM
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #84506 ] |
Mon, 30 May 2005 16:38 |
|
"C Mason" <luser [at] example.net> wrote
> > Hi. I am another recent lurker in this chatroom.
> >
> >
> Hi, I was lurking here on the internet too and happened to find this on
> google.
Right. If, by mistake, you put a worm on a hook and tie
that hook to a bit of fishing line that happens to be on
the reel of your fishing pole...
> >>>I'm assuming that "rec.food.baking" stands for Recreational Food Baking...
> >>
> >>Not quite. Rec is Recreation, nor recreational.
> >
> >
> > Not quite, the wikipedia web page says Rec is for "recreational activities".
>
> Which is just a long, overly verbose way of saying "recreation". So the
> penultimate poster was technically correct, although marks should be
> deducted because they didn't check their facts before posting nonsense
> to unsenet (as one should always do).
We're watching you.
> Are you oTTo from oTTo's bakery and coffee shop in Rochester MN?
I am every oTTo.
--oTTo--
I'm not in any Rochester
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #84507 ] |
Tue, 31 May 2005 10:31 |
|
[snips]
No cluons were harmed when C Mason ! wrote:
> So the polite thing to do if you must post about professional
>matters on a rec group is label your posts, e.g. [OT](pro baker)...
ITYM "Master Baker". I'm Kneading My Dough, right now, IYKWIM. AITYD.
Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #84508 ] |
Mon, 30 May 2005 22:12 |
|
"Mark Edwards" <Mark-Edwards [at] comcast.net> wrote
> > So the polite thing to do if you must post about professional
> >matters on a rec group is label your posts, e.g. [OT](pro baker)...
>
> ITYM "Master Baker". I'm Kneading My Dough, right now, IYKWIM. AITYD.
I was going to make a joke about putting my loaf in the oven later
tonight, but I thought betterer of that half-baked idea.
--oTTo--
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #85110 ] |
Tue, 31 May 2005 21:11 |
|
"Otto Bahn" <GoAheadKissMyAss [at] Blew.Devels.com> wrote in
news:d7fs0q$1rb$1 [at] gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
> "Mark Edwards" <Mark-Edwards [at] comcast.net> wrote
>
>> > So the polite thing to do if you must post about
>> > professional
>> >matters on a rec group is label your posts, e.g.
>> >[OT](pro baker)...
>>
>> ITYM "Master Baker". I'm Kneading My Dough, right now,
>> IYKWIM. AITYD.
>
> I was going to make a joke about putting my loaf in the
> oven later tonight, but I thought betterer of that
> half-baked idea.
>
Well, as long as you aren't paying that oven, or recieving
payment for filling it, you aren't baking that loaf on a
professional basis.
--
TeaLady (mari)
"I keep telling you, chew with your mouth closed!" Kell the
coach offers advice on keeping that elusive prey caught.
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #85114 ] |
Wed, 01 June 2005 23:02 |
|
>Yes, but if they do something recreational for a profession, what do
>they do in their spare time?.
If you never had any aptitude for baking or any form of food
processing( whether technical or craftsmanship) but was just forced to
train in it for the purpose of earning a living ,then its likely that
will be your mindset. But if you did it out of keen interest and it
has become a part of your life and had enjoyed practicing it from the
start as a hobby and it became your profession later; then the
purpose of practicing such trade(or profession) has dual benefits:: It
provides a sense of creative expression and a means of earning a
living. .
People in various professions who worked just for the keep, usually
feel the drudgery in their jobs and seldom find enjoyment in it. That
is maybe the reason they lurk( and even post) in the newsgroups to as a
form of outlet for their work related stress.And the nature of their
post shows the nature of their troubled life, They become net
troublemakers/, ,craving for attention, .posting petty unrelated
topics and replies.
>So the polite thing to do if you must post about professional matters on
>a rec group is label your posts, e.g. [OT](pro baker), so people know
>your comments are coming from someone who does baking for a living and
>not for the enjoyment which may or may not be part and parcel of your
>work place environment (i.e. bakeries).
I think there is no need for such. Only egocentric people do that,
Supposing If you are a professional baker (or food technologist , chef,
etc.) and in your free time enjoying,is the pleasures that internet
can provide( e.g.newsgroups) and you come across somebody who pose a
question that incidentally you know the answer, why should you prevent
yourself from giving light to a particular topic?
Just because you are not paid for that? But The internet is not paying
you either to use it as a pastime..
As long as it does not jeopardize your business or employment( whatever
be the case) then you have not done anything illegal.
Therefore ....If you are in a cookery related newsgroups
Helping somebody is the same, either its an old or feeble person to
cross the street or just a hapless cooking enthusiast looking for
answers to his/her cookery related questions.
Roy
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #85115 ] |
Wed, 01 June 2005 23:08 |
|
"Roy" <rbasan7 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:111765YHBT9725.742531.137810 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Yes, but if they do something recreational for a profession, what do
> >they do in their spare time?.
>
> If you never had any aptitude for baking or any form of food
> processing( whether technical or craftsmanship) but was just forced to Y
> train in it for the purpose of earning a living ,then its likely that H
> will be your mindset. But if you did it out of keen interest and it B
> has become a part of your life and had enjoyed practicing it from the T
> start as a hobby and it became your profession later; then the
> purpose of practicing such trade(or profession) has dual benefits:: It
> provides a sense of creative expression and a means of earning a H
> living. . T
> People in various professions who worked just for the keep, usually H
> feel the drudgery in their jobs and seldom find enjoyment in it. That
> is maybe the reason they lurk( and even post) in the newsgroups to as a H
> form of outlet for their work related stress.And the nature of their A
> post shows the nature of their troubled life, They become net N
> troublemakers/, ,craving for attention, .posting petty unrelated D
> topics and replies.
>
> >So the polite thing to do if you must post about professional matters on
> >a rec group is label your posts, e.g. [OT](pro baker), so people know
> >your comments are coming from someone who does baking for a living and
> >not for the enjoyment which may or may not be part and parcel of your
> >work place environment (i.e. bakeries).
>
> I think there is no need for such. Only egocentric people do that,
> Supposing If you are a professional baker (or food technologist , chef,
> etc.) and in your free time enjoying,is the pleasures that internet
> can provide( e.g.newsgroups) and you come across somebody who pose a
> question that incidentally you know the answer, why should you prevent
> yourself from giving light to a particular topic?
> Just because you are not paid for that? But The internet is not paying
> you either to use it as a pastime..
> As long as it does not jeopardize your business or employment( whatever
> be the case) then you have not done anything illegal.
> Therefore ....If you are in a cookery related newsgroups
> Helping somebody is the same, either its an old or feeble person to
> cross the street or just a hapless cooking enthusiast looking for
> answers to his/her cookery related questions.
How much time did it take you to write all that?
--oTTo--
"When people say, 'Have a nice day!' they don't always mean it."
-- Anne Frank
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #85116 ] |
Thu, 02 June 2005 02:08 |
|
In rec.food.baking and alt.religion.kibology, Roy (rbasan7 [at] hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> [...blah blah blah...]
>
> Helping somebody is the same, either its an old or feeble person to
> cross the street or just a hapless cooking enthusiast looking for
> answers to his/her cookery related questions.
You're mean. Just because old people are all old and feeble and stuff
is no reason you should try to relocate them all to the opposite side
of your street.
Also, why are you talking about cooking? Rec.food.baking is for baking.
Cooking is over in rec.food.cooking. There's no rec.food.frying, so
don't try to talk about making your own KFC or the Internet Police will
arrest you before you've even finished asking what the Colonel's eleven
secret herbs and spices are.
-- K.
(At least one of them is fish scales.
Now you know why they're secret.)
P.S. Does anyone know how they get the bones into the Animal 57
before frying it?
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #85117 ] |
Thu, 02 June 2005 05:46 |
|
kibo [at] world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) wrote in
news:kibo-0106052008110001 [at] 10.0.1.2:
> P.S. Does anyone know how they get the bones into the
> Animal 57 before frying it?
>
After being "processed" into a non-living state, and has been
set in forms representing the various shapes needed, and before
the "meat" gels, they press simulated calcium-based "bones" into
the carcass pieces. Different forms get different "bones".
Which is what makes eating KFC so fun - trying to find the 1
"breast" shape that has a "thigh bone" in it !
--
TeaLady (mari)
Sunshine is not conducive to the efficient work environment.
Therefore all access to the outdoors shall be limited to those
persons who perform non-productive tasks, and managers.
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #85118 ] |
Thu, 02 June 2005 07:30 |
|
TeaLady (Mari C.) (spressobean [at] yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> James "Kibo" Parry (kibo [at] world.std.com) wrote:
> >
> > P.S. Does anyone know how they get the bones into the
> > Animal 57 before frying it?
>
> After being "processed" into a non-living state, and has been
> set in forms representing the various shapes needed, and before
> the "meat" gels, they press simulated calcium-based "bones" into
> the carcass pieces. Different forms get different "bones".
I'd love to see the fancy machine they use to take the bones out
again before they make the popcorn chicken.
Someone should invent popcorn popcorn. You'd pop some corn, then
chop it up into little bits, then batter the bits and deep-fry them.
But would popcorn chicken fried steak be a popcorn-chicken-style
fried steak, or a popcorn-style chicken fried steak?
> Which is what makes eating KFC so fun - trying to find the 1
> "breast" shape that has a "thigh bone" in it !
This one time I was eating at KFC and I found a drumstick with an
entire horse in it. But it turned out to be just an animal cracker
so when I asked the manager whether he thought I should sue him
he said no.
-- K.
Is there a recipe for making
Necco wafers at home from common
household porcelain ashtrays?
|
|
|
| Re: rec.food.baking (meta) [message #86089 ] |
Thu, 02 June 2005 14:43 |
|
James "Kibo" Parry <kibo [at] world.std.com> wrote:
>This one time I was eating at KFC and I found a drumstick with an
>entire horse in it. But it turned out to be just an animal cracker
>so when I asked the manager whether he thought I should sue him
>he said no.
I would have fixed the last word of this post for you but then I'd've got
all shotten and stuff. So I didn't but now I have to watch out for
metameatTerri and her paragun, I think.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd [at] vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 08:00:09 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.16391 Sekunden |
