Meat loaf and archiving

[email hidden] (AlleyGator), if that's their real name,

Quoted message said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

And, puh-lease! Could you start putting a space between your responses and
what you're responding to? Makes it a lot easier for folks. 🙂

Sorry. My reader automatically differentiates between the 2 with ">>"
on each quoted line. Guess I thought that was the way it always
worked. You know I'm gonna forget. But I'll try.

Thanks! 🙂
Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

[email hidden] (AlleyGator), if that's their real name,

Quoted message said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

And, puh-lease! Could you start putting a space between your responses and
what you're responding to? Makes it a lot easier for folks. 🙂

Sorry. My reader automatically differentiates between the 2 with ">>"
on each quoted line. Guess I thought that was the way it always
worked. You know I'm gonna forget. But I'll try.

Thanks! 🙂
Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Monsur Fromage du Pollet said:

"Mash" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

snippage...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pud? is that you?

--
No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal.
Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 7.3, 5.5, 5.6 mmol
Continuing to be Manitoban

Nope. But I wish it was.

Mary

Monsur Fromage du Pollet said:

"Mash" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

snippage...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pud? is that you?

--
No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal.
Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 7.3, 5.5, 5.6 mmol
Continuing to be Manitoban

Nope. But I wish it was.

Mary

It certainly seems to be accepted that *recipes* as such can't be
copyrighted, only the written expressions of them. Even if you did
come up with a new recipe (how about my Davidson plum jam on a mealy
muffin fried in whale blubber?) you could only copyright the literary
form in which you express it (which is why I'm keeping it secret 8-).

Cheers, Phred.

That's right, you can only copyright the accompanying text, and the
compilation thereof, NOT the actual recipes.

And I've made fried muffins topped with all sorts of jams, I'm sure
plum included... go to any Dunkin Donut joint and see people scoffing
em, they even have special uniforms to wear for the purpose and those
fanatics wear weapons, they'll shoot you for even looking at their
fried dough... they realize how intolerant they are, is why they keep
to themselves 'round back sitting in their strangely painted vehicles.
I used to fry those toast-r corn muffins in bacon blubber. But then
zillions of people have fried blobs of dough/batter in all its
variations containing all manner ingredients... I happen to like corn
batter conch fritters with tabasco jelly.

http://www.tabasco.com/taste_tent/cooking/pepper_jelly_recipe.cfm

Last night to accompany my pasta dinner I prepared a bowlful of anchovy
zepole... fried in corn blubber... tried em dipped in tomato sauce
(tomato jam?) but they were better a ju... didja ever have zepole
prepared with tinned flat anchovy fillets minced and stired into the
batter... very yummy... I bet not, but I bet I'm far from the first.
Next time I'll make em with saw-seech n' onyons.

Sheldon

Sheldon said:

It certainly seems to be accepted that *recipes* as such can't be
copyrighted, only the written expressions of them. Even if you did
come up with a new recipe (how about my Davidson plum jam on a mealy
muffin fried in whale blubber?) you could only copyright the literary
form in which you express it (which is why I'm keeping it secret 8-).

Cheers, Phred.

That's right, you can only copyright the accompanying text, and the
compilation thereof, NOT the actual recipes.

Jayzus are you dim. The "the accompanying text, and the compilation
thereof" *is* the recipe. When a recipe has a descriptive headnote, a
title, a list of ingredients, directions, endnotes or footnotes, that
entire package *is* the recipe. It seems in your frantic opacity that
you think the ingredient list is the recipe with everything else somehow
decorative or non-essential. How, uh, smart...

Quoted message said:

And I've made fried muffins topped with all sorts of jams, I'm sure
plum included... go to any Dunkin Donut joint and see people scoffing
em, they even have special uniforms to wear for the purpose and those
fanatics wear weapons, they'll shoot you for even looking at their
fried dough... they realize how intolerant they are, is why they keep
to themselves 'round back sitting in their strangely painted vehicles.
I used to fry those toast-r corn muffins in bacon blubber. But then
zillions of people have fried blobs of dough/batter in all its
variations containing all manner ingredients...

And, as ever, the long-demented Shecky Pencilneck doesn't know the
difference between a description of a technique and a recipe. Lessee...
frying batter in fat is a series of techniques. By contrast, this is a
*recipe* for a specific product:

Navajo Fry Bread
Yields: about a dozen and a half rounds.
2 cups oil for frying
4 cups all-purpose flour
1 1/2 tablespoons baking powder
1 tablespoons salt
2 1/2 cups warm milk
In a large heavy bottomed frying pan, heat 1 inch of vegetable oil or
lard to 365°F. In a large mixing bowl, combine flour, baking powder,
salt and milk; mix well. When the dough has pulled together, form it
into small balls and press and pat them flat; about 1/4-inch thick. Put
3 or 4 at a time into the hot oil. When the rounds become golden on the
bottom, flip them over to do the same. Drain on paper towels and serve
hot with honey and butter.

See? Technique description - fry bread dough in oil. Recipe? Look above.

Quoted message said:

I happen to like corn
batter conch fritters with tabasco jelly.

http://www.tabasco.com/taste_tent/cooking/pepper_jelly_recipe.cfm

<LOL> No matter what you've done, Sheldon did it first, bigger, wider,
fancier, greasier, healthier, richer, fussier, smarter, tastier...

And he can provide a web site to, um, prove it...

Quoted message said:

Last night to accompany my pasta dinner I prepared a bowlful of anchovy
zepole... fried in corn blubber... tried em dipped in tomato sauce
(tomato jam?) but they were better a ju...

Could that possibly be "au jus" screwed up like his usual foolishness?
And doesn't "jus" mean juice in French? What "ju" did he mean? The corn
oil? Does our resident culinary wizard think that "a ju" means with no
juice? Did he make up a new language? Are his meds still sitting on the
kitchen counter...?

Quoted message said:

didja ever have zepole
prepared with tinned flat anchovy fillets minced and stired into the
batter... very yummy... I bet not, but I bet I'm far from the first.
Next time I'll make em with saw-seech n' onyons.

Uh, sure. But try to remember it's not a new thing. No such thing as a
new recipe in 5000 years. Got it.

Idiot.

Pastorio

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Mash' said:

I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my recipes,
without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all were "my"
recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time to share. Some
were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like to get credit once
in awhile.

The attributions became a non-issue to me when I lost all of my personal
recipes. I'm so thankful that I did mass recipe postings while sitting up
all night with insomnia. And that they were archived. I'm gradually
re-acquiring them.

We post recipes to share with others. It's cool when they associate the
recipes with you, but so what if they don't? Are you writing a cookbook?

Carol

My thoughts on not archiving recipes are that somewhere someone is going
to archive. That tag means nothing because each time someone sees a
recipe, they may or may not save it. I am grateful for each tried and
true recipe posted. I try them and if we don't like the dish, it gets
tossed. As far as getting credit for recipes, yes it is nice. If you
don't want to share them (a pity) don't post them. Once they are
posted, you have no control over how they are used.

Actually under old Usenet rules, the X-No-Archive: yes was started so
not all posts would be archived. This gave posters a choice on whether
they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is
still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of
operating Usenet.

My biggest beef, and I will be showing my knowledge of Usenet, is some
people began archiving recipes and then charging for them through their
recipe collections. I have no problem freely sharing recipes but what
gets my craw is seeing someone financially benefit for all the efforts
put in by people who freely post.

At least trying to use the X-No-Archive: yes should slow down this
process.

Mary

Serendipity said:

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

snippage...

My thoughts on not archiving recipes are that somewhere someone is

going

Quoted message said:

to archive. That tag means nothing because each time someone sees a
recipe, they may or may not save it. I am grateful for each tried

and

Quoted message said:

true recipe posted. I try them and if we don't like the dish, it

gets

Quoted message said:

tossed. As far as getting credit for recipes, yes it is nice. If

you

Quoted message said:

don't want to share them (a pity) don't post them. Once they are
posted, you have no control over how they are used.

Serendipity <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Mash' said:

I've asked for no archiving because I found too many of my
recipes, without attribution, all over the net. Granted not all
were "my" recipes but they were recipes I tried and took the time
to share. Some were "my" recipes which I freely share. I just like
to get credit once in awhile.

The attributions became a non-issue to me when I lost all of my
personal recipes. I'm so thankful that I did mass recipe postings
while sitting up all night with insomnia. And that they were
archived. I'm gradually re-acquiring them.

We post recipes to share with others. It's cool when they
associate the recipes with you, but so what if they don't? Are
you writing a cookbook?

Carol

My thoughts on not archiving recipes are that somewhere someone is
going to archive. That tag means nothing because each time someone
sees a recipe, they may or may not save it. I am grateful for each
tried and true recipe posted. I try them and if we don't like the
dish, it gets tossed. As far as getting credit for recipes, yes it
is nice. If you don't want to share them (a pity) don't post them.
Once they are posted, you have no control over how they are used.

Just like children...once they are grown and out in the real world,
there's no controling them. But who'd want to? If a recipe of mine was
good and people enjoyed it, that's the point. If people like the recipe
and also modify it's even better. I'm not the only one with ideas, their
idea might make my recipe better and I'm for better recipes.

If food was just fuel to me I'd live on dog food. But food is more than
fuel to me therefore I like sharing and modifying recipes.

--
No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal.
Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 7.3, 5.5, 5.6 mmol
Continuing to be Manitoban

Mash said:

This gave posters a choice on whether
they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is
still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of
operating Usenet.

Ummm, Google's done what?

Brian

In article said:

Actually under old Usenet rules, the X-No-Archive: yes was started so
not all posts would be archived. This gave posters a choice on whether
they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is
still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of
operating Usenet.

My memory is different. The "X" in the header indicates it is NOT a
standard USENET header; so there's no obligation at all on operators
of news servers to acknowledge it. AFAIK it was conceived as an
"instruction" to Google specifically (or perhaps Deja News
originally?) rather than with any expectation it would be obeyed
universally.

In any case, as someone previously mentioned, if a response quotes all
the stuff you didn't want archived, it will get added to the pile
anyway. So it's pretty much a wasted effort AFAICS.

Quoted message said:

My biggest beef, and I will be showing my knowledge of Usenet, is some
people began archiving recipes and then charging for them through their
recipe collections. I have no problem freely sharing recipes but what
gets my craw is seeing someone financially benefit for all the efforts
put in by people who freely post.

Pretty trivial concern compared with all the [censored] who benefit
financially by now restricting access to all the wild places I could
freely enjoy as a child!

Quoted message said:

At least trying to use the X-No-Archive: yes should slow down this
process.

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

Here's something from the government.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.pdf

MK

Ginny Sher said:

Quoted message said:

Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)

Well then... I hope you might consider a disclaimer when you post

your

Quoted message said:

recipes so that the rest of us know it's not the whole story... :-P

Ginny

Nah, he's kidding. First imagine that he came up with something good
on his own, now imagine him trying to suppress telling us all about it.
Not possible in a thousand years. -aem

Gal Called J.J. said:

One time on Usenet said:

Mash wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This gave posters a choice on whether
they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

operating Usenet.

Quoted message said:

Ummm, Google's done what?

My reaction as well -- has something happened other since Google
purchased Deja News? Yes, I'm a bit behind on tech news...

Nothing that I know of, other than roll out the new interface to their
existing service, just in time for the hoardes of homeless AOLers to
land there.

Brian

Sheldon said:

Michael L Kankiewicz said:

Here's something from the government.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.pdf

Yup, exactly what I said...

Nah. Not what you said. You still think that the combination of
ingredients and instructions are a recipe and can't be copyrighted.
You're dead wrong. It says...

"Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or
prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection."

This would be *only* the ingredient list - the "formula" or materials
involved. They go on to say:

"However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial
literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when
there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a
basis for copyright protection."

Quoted message said:

recipes per se cannot be copyrighted...
only accompanying text and compilation thereof, MAYBE.

As has already been explained and as detailed in the Copyright Office
page, the headnotes, title, ingredient list, instructions, endnotes -
together - *are* the totality of the recipe. As for the *may* that's
listed on the web site, it's a legalism to make sure that the odd case
is covered.

Quoted message said:

You wanna include about how yer momma would prepare Fried Goobers for
Sunday dinner special for Aunt Betty Lou's lesbian daughters, that part
MAY be copywritable, but not the actual recipe (the list of ingredients
and basic procedure)... before the procedure can be copyrighted first
there'd need to be a patent on Cooking, there is none... you can't
patent fire.

And you don't need to. Sheldon doesn't seem to know the difference
between patents, trademarks and copyright. Shocked, I am. Study time:
<http://www.uspto.gov/>

Ingredients *and* directions *are* a copyrightable recipe according to
the Copyright office.. "where a ... formula is accompanied by
substantial literary expression in the form of ...directions"

In copyright law, the entire work is covered - as a unit - and isn't
separable into pieces, some of which are copyrighted and others are not.
So if the entire recipe includes "substantial literary expression in the
form of an explanation or directions," it's covered as a single work.
The ingredient list can be used by others if the "substantial literary
expression in the form of an explanation or directions" differs
substantially from the original. It's the same thing as saying the
specific entire work is covered, but the components (words, punctuation,
lists, cliches, etc.) can be reused in a substantively different
expression. Without violating copyright. Maybe.

Quoted message said:

Anyone with a proprietary recipe (secret formula) (ie. Coca Cola), and
wants to *fully* protect it has but one (1) choice, DON'T WRITE IT DOWN
AND DON'T TELL ANYONE... if more than one (1) person knows it is NOT a
secret... do NOT even think about copywriting a proprietary formula.

This is a mishmash of garbled thinking. The ingredient list of Coke
can't be copyrighted *without* the directions. With the directions,
copyright *automatically* takes effect when it's written. You literally
can't stop it. It's not in the control of the creator. What is in that
control is registering it. In doing so, it exposes the information for
others to adapt and alter to get around the copyright.

But copyright doesn't prevent anyone from changing the directions and
making it their own. It only offers some protection against someone
stealing the *exact words*, in that same order, used in the original
recipe. Copyright isn't about the content of the expression, it's only
about the words and form used to express the ideas.

Like all ignorant people, Sheldon seems to think that when something is
copyrighted, somehow you can't use that information or change the
details to avoid infringement. That's the important word in copyright
law - infringement.

Quoted message said:

This copyright subject has been scrutinized here previously, many times
over the years, there are always a few pontificating pinheads who are
incapable of "getting it".

<LOL> Oh sure. Listen to Sheldon who can barely make coherent sentences
without violating somebody else's copyright and has never had anything
culinary published anywhere that had an editor. (If he had, we'd know.
He'd make sure of that.)

As opposed to the several people (including me) who have published
literally thousands of articles and who, for their own safety and income
need to know the details behind these issues. Editors and corporate
attorneys make damn sure that columnists understand enough applicable
law about copyright, libel, contractual obligations, exclusions and all
the rest of it to protect the business.

Sheldon's a fat, old guy standing on the sidelines of a football game
telling the players how to do it on the field, never having been out
there himself.

Quoted message said:

Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even with
my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)

Which only serves to document what a total and utter [censored] he is. As
though he has to "win" and gain some sick ascendancy even when there
isn't a contest. "Secret ingredients" as though life is about fooling
everyone around him. Schoolyard [censored].

Sick, sick, sick...

Pastorio

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Sheldon' said:

Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even with
my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)

You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?

Would you be surprised...?

Pastorio

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Sheldon' said:

Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)

You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?

Not those. But then no one follows those exactly anyhow, proven by all
who have reported back saying they didn't do this, that, or the other,
and still it came out great... that's the mark of a great recipe, it
only requires replication (close approximation, as an echo), not
duplication (copied precisely).

Sheldon

Ginny Sher said:

Quoted message said:

Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)

Well then... I hope you might consider a disclaimer when you post

your

Quoted message said:

recipes so that the rest of us know it's not the whole story... :-P

Ginny

Anything posted here is disclamer enough.

I only omit the parts I know you can't/won't do.

Sheldon

Bob (this one)' said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Sheldon' said:

Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even with
my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)

You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?

Would you be surprised...?

Surprised? Dunno. Disappointed? Definitely.

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Sheldon' said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Sheldon' said:

Sheldon (who often omits mentioning his secret ingredients and
procedures, which is why after eating my food you wonder why even

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my giving you the recipe you can't replicate it exactly)

You didn't do that with the RFC cookbook, did you?

Not those. But then no one follows those exactly anyhow, proven by all
who have reported back saying they didn't do this, that, or the other,
and still it came out great... that's the mark of a great recipe, it
only requires replication (close approximation, as an echo), not
duplication (copied precisely).

Thanks, kiddo. You've restored most of my faith in human nature. There
are always a few people out there who are totally lacking in integrity. I
hate to think that very many of them are here in RFC (even though I know
better).

Pollyanna
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon