Subject: Jews have no monopoly on potato pancakes + FAQ
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
From: penmart01 at aol.como (Sheldon)
Date: 15 Dec 2001 18:05:23 GMT
--------
December 12, 2001
So Much Like a Crepe, So Perfect for Hanukkah
By JOAN NATHAN
YEARS ago when I was in the Ardèche region of France, north of Midi and south of Grenoble, I stopped at a tiny restaurant on the side of a winding mountain road. The waiter ushered me to a table where three other people were already seated. After we tasted the local charcuterie and a daube de boeuf, a crisp, paper-thin potato pancake the size of the entire plate was placed on the table. Almost as thin as a crepe, this "crique" was absolutely delicious. I said to myself, "I have found the ultimate latke."
Although Americans use the word latke, a term that comes from the Ukrainian and Yiddish, Jews have no monopoly on potato pancakes. "Almost every European country that uses potatoes has a latke," said the cookbook author Paula Wolfert. "They just don't call it that." Latkes became popular in America because they are served at Hanukkah, a relatively minor Jewish holiday that happens to come at Christmastime.
For years I tried to find versions of a crique. I asked chefs and searched cookbooks but almost no one had heard of it. Then, one day last summer, Daniel Boulud said he wanted to make a regional version of a latke for my PBS television show, "Jewish Cooking in America."
Mr. Boulud grew up in St. Pierre de Chandiers, not far from Lyon. The potato was introduced to that area around 1540 by a Franciscan monk from Toledo, and was eaten by the poor. It began to be common elsewhere in France in the 18th century.
So it should have been no surprise when Mr. Boulud announced that he was going to make crique Stephanoise, a dish he learned to prepare when he apprenticed at Nandron, a restaurant that was in Lyon. "When I first tasted a latke," he said, "I thought it was a crique." He said the word crique comes from croustillant galette or crunchy pancake.
Carefully, Mr. Boulud demonstrated how to shred baby Yukon Gold potatoes (he also recommended German Butterball) by hand on a mandoline, sprinkling them with salt to bring out the juices, adding chives, eggs, fresh parsley and black olives, waiting a minute, and then pressing out the liquid. Covering a hot frying pan with oil, Mr. Boulud gently spread the potato mixture around the pan and pressed the pancake down with a fork as it cooked so that it was never more than one-eighth of an inch thick. When the edge started to turn brown he flipped the pancake, as big as the pan.
"The trick is to gently cook them on the outside until they are crispy on the edges and slightly soft in the middle," he said. Then he made another batch, making tiny criques in ring molds (no misshapen pancakes at this restaurant).
While these gorgeous flourless pancakes were sizzling, making my mouth water, he explained that you can vary the crique by grating celery root, pumpkin or acorn squash into it or serving it warm with goat cheese or with arugula and smoked meat on top. As he garnished the crique with smoked salmon and chives, I thought that I just wanted to eat them plain. But then it would not be Restaurant Daniel.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
---
NY Times Rights and Permissions FAQ
[excerpt]
Q May I post New York Times articles in a newsgroup environment?
A Posting a New York Times article in a non-commercial newsgroup environment for the purpose of discussion is permitted if it is not possible or practical to link to the article on our website. It is not permitted, even in a newsgroup environment, to create an archive of New York Times articles. New York Times articles posted in compliance with this policy shall include the following copyright and permission notice:
(c) 2001 The New York Times Company. Reprinted by Permission
If the discussion group is email based, only the URL may be distributed with a link back to the article on our website. Other than distribution through the "Email This Article" feature on our website, email distribution to discussion groups of New York Times articles requires our permission.
The "Email this Article" feature on our website is located on the pages of most articles. You have our permission to use this feature to send New York Times articles to your list serve.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
From: John Schiaparelli (Johnschiap at rogers.como)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:32:09 GMT
--------
So tell us, why wasn't it "possible or practical" to post the URL only, as the first sentence clearly says? Are you A) displaying your lack of reading comprehension skills or B) just showing that you really don't care about copyright, even though you claim to cite it? Inquiring minds want to know... <g>
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:48:51 GMT
--------
John Schiaparelli wrote:
>So tell us, why wasn't it "possible or practical" to post the URL only, as
>the first sentence clearly says?
In order to read other-than-homepage articles from NYT, one has to register. The food section is not accessible to those who have not registered, which probably includes a lot of people who participate in this food-related newsgroup. Therefore it is not practical, at the least, for many to have access to the article without it being posted here rather than the URL.
From: orwell at home.com (orwell)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:29:08 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
>In order to read other-than-homepage articles from NYT, one has to
>register. The food section is not accessible to those who have not
>registered, which probably includes a lot of people who participate in
>this food-related newsgroup. Therefore it is not practical, at the
>least, for many to have access to the article without it being posted
>here rather than the URL.
Why is it not practical? It took me less than 30 seconds just now to register and be reading an article in their "members" section. It probably takes less time for someone clicking on a link.
From: Priscilla Ballou (vze23t8n at verizon.net)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:42:34 GMT
--------
orwell wrote:
> Why is it not practical? It took me less than 30 seconds just now to
> register and be reading an article in their "members" section. It probably
> takes less time for someone clicking on a link.
And registering is totally free.
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:00:54 GMT
--------
Priscilla Ballou wrote:
>And registering is totally free.
Not totally :> The price is that you have to give them an e-mail account.
But aside from that, the concept of requiring possibly dozens of people to register to participate in a discussion on latkes on rfc is sufficiently "not practical" to fulfill the requirements set forth by the NYT thereby answering John's question and allowing him to get on with his life rather than dogging Sheldon for posting NYT articles.
From: orwell at home.com (orwell)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:57:01 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
>Not totally :> The price is that you have to give them an e-mail
>account.
Please.... you want the benefit of their article, you should be willing to give something in return. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... even on the internet.
>But aside from that, the concept of requiring possibly dozens of
>people to register to participate in a discussion on latkes on rfc is
>sufficiently "not practical" to fulfill the requirements set forth by
>the NYT
You keep repeating that it's not practical. Why is it not practical? Because it takes 30 seconds of time? Where is the impracticality of that? How is it even inconvenient? In fact, by going to the article directly, you might get more information... side bars... related articles.... even photos.
And if that were the ONLY article/URL sheldon ever posted, you might have a point. But, if memory serves correctly, he "quotes" from the NYT on a regular basis. So it's not "dozens of people" registering to read one article. It's dozens of people registering to read dozens of articles from the NYT site.
From: Peter Aitken (paitken at CRAPnc.rr.com)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:22:42 GMT
--------
orwell wrote:
> You keep repeating that it's not practical. Why is it not practical? Because
> it takes 30 seconds of time? Where is the impracticality of that? How is
> it even inconvenient? In fact, by going to the article directly, you might
> get more information... side bars... related articles.... even photos.
No one seems to have noticed that the NYT policy exception is for situations where it is impractical to *post* the URL, not when it is impractical to *follow* the URL. Thus, the exception does not apply here.
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:38:33 GMT
--------
Peter Aitken wrote:
>No one seems to have noticed that the NYT policy exception is for situations
>where it is impractical to *post* the URL, not when it is impractical to
>*follow* the URL. Thus, the exception does not apply here.
No. The policy exception is when it's impractical to *link* to the article. Since the website intecepts browsers of people who have not registered, it is impossible for them to get to the article from the posted url and hence no link can be made.
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:24:06 GMT
--------
orwell wrote:
>Please.... you want the benefit of their article, you should be willing to
>give something in return. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... even
>on the internet.
Sheldon is clearly registered and is the only one who needs to be registered, as he is the only one who "wanted" NYT article because he felt it was pertinent to the latkes discussion. The rest of us shouldn't have to register to read the NYT on the web or a print copy left on the train.
>You keep repeating that it's not practical. Why is it not practical? Because
>it takes 30 seconds of time? Where is the impracticality of that? How is
>it even inconvenient? In fact, by going to the article directly, you might
>get more information... side bars... related articles.... even photos.
If anyone wants that stuff they can register and go to the site. If they don't want to register it's their choice. Some people choose not to register for every website that requests it.
>And if that were the ONLY article/URL sheldon ever posted, you might have a
>point. But, if memory serves correctly, he "quotes" from the NYT on a regular
>basis. So it's not "dozens of people" registering to read one article. It's
>dozens of people registering to read dozens of articles from the NYT site.
Ah, so the real issue is Sheldon.
From: Peter Aitken (paitken at CRAPnc.rr.com)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:30:50 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
> Sheldon is clearly registered and is the only one who needs to be
> registered, as he is the only one who "wanted" NYT article because he
> felt it was pertinent to the latkes discussion. The rest of us
> shouldn't have to register to read the NYT on the web or a print copy
> left on the train.
A completely invalid comparison because a print copy left on the train has been paid for. I feel that the ability to read the NYT, the nation's best newspaper, on the web for the trivial effort of registering is one of the great deals of all time. Trying to avoid this seems like an exceptionally cheesy attitude.
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:52:05 GMT
--------
Peter Aitken wrote:
>A completely invalid comparison because a print copy left on the train has
>been paid for.
Not by the person reading it. Furthermore, the person who bought it could have done so anonymously at a newstand.
>I feel that the ability to read the NYT, the nation's best
>newspaper, on the web for the trivial effort of registering is one of the
>great deals of all time. Trying to avoid this seems like an exceptionally
>cheesy attitude.
What are you talking about? Sheldon *is* registered. He may very well subscribe to the print version too.
Let's not stop at people who don't want to sell their e-mail addresses to NYT and their "associates." Maybe you would agree that people who read the NYT on the web rather than supporting it by paying for the print copy are being cheesey.
From: Pat Meadows (pat at meadows.pair.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:57:27 GMT
--------
Peter Aitken wrote:
>A completely invalid comparison because a print copy left on the train has
>been paid for. I feel that the ability to read the NYT, the nation's best
>newspaper, on the web for the trivial effort of registering is one of the
>great deals of all time. Trying to avoid this seems like an exceptionally
>cheesy attitude.
Yes. Further, what's going to happen if enough people keep violating the terms set by the NY Times, is that they're going to require that people pay to read their articles, or kill the site altogether - thus spoiling it for all of us who really enjoy being able to read one of the world's best newspapers FREE and delivered instantly to our homes.
Reading articles directly from the website site exposes one to the advertisements which are (hopefully - although probably not completely) paying for the website - just as buying a paper copy of the newspaper exposes one to the ads it carries. TANSTAAFL, as anyone older than about eight years should realize.
Circumventing this is stealing from the NY Times: it's circumventing their means of getting revenue.
Besides being a violation of their copyright and, hence, illegal.
Cheers,
Pat
From: Cuchulain Libby (cuchulain at satx.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 19:20:07 GMT
--------
Peter Aitken wrote
> I feel that the ability to read the NYT, the nation's best
> newspaper, on the web for the trivial effort of registering is one of the
> great deals of all time. Trying to avoid this seems like an exceptionally
> cheesy attitude.
Now Peter you went and made an indefensible point. I sub to the daily NYT digest, so Sheldon's c/p notwithstanding, I can follow the links thereto. But you left out 'Liberal' between 'best' and 'newspaper'. A nit to be sure, but this whole thread is nits.
From: orwell at home.com (orwell)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:50:53 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
>Sheldon is clearly registered and is the only one who needs to be
>registered, as he is the only one who "wanted" NYT article because he
>felt it was pertinent to the latkes discussion. The rest of us
>shouldn't have to register to read the NYT on the web or a print copy
>left on the train.
The logic behind that escapes me. Harry is the only one who "wanted" the book, but since he took the trouble to photocopy it and bring it to the meeting, it's ok if we read the parts he is pointing to?
>If anyone wants that stuff they can register and go to the site.
They don't have that option. No one has supplied them with the url to the article.
> If they don't want to register it's their choice. Some people choose not
>to register for every website that requests it.
That certainly is their right.... They don't have to register. But, then again, they shouldn't use the material on that site.
>Ah, so the real issue is Sheldon.
The real issue person Ais taking property from person B and giving it to person C without permission of person C. The only reason his name came up is because he is person A in this discussion.
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:01:37 GMT
--------
orwell wrote:
>The logic behind that escapes me. Harry is the only one who "wanted" the
>book, but since he took the trouble to photocopy it and bring it to the
>meeting, it's ok if we read the parts he is pointing to?
Harry is pointing to a photocopy of a book?
>>If anyone wants that stuff they can register and go to the site.
>
>They don't have that option. No one has supplied them with the url to the
>article.
The NYT website is easy enough to find.
>> If they don't want to register it's their choice. Some people choose not
>>to register for every website that requests it.
>
>That certainly is their right.... They don't have to register. But, then
>again, they shouldn't use the material on that site.
Sheldon is registered, so it's ok if he uses the material on the site.
>>Ah, so the real issue is Sheldon.
>
>The real issue person Ais taking property from person B and giving it to
>person C without permission of person C. The only reason his name came up is
>because he is person A in this discussion.
Person C gave permission. Sheldon included it with the posting.
From: orwell at home.com (orwell)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 07:33:09 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
>>The real issue person Ais taking property from person B and giving it to
>>person C without permission of person C. The only reason his name came up is
>>because he is person A in this discussion.
>
>Person C gave permission. Sheldon included it with the posting.
I correct myself... Person B has to give permission... they are the only ones who own the rights. Sheldon would be person A in the example above... the person taking without permission.
From: Charlie L. Gifford (saiga at concentric.net)
Date: 15 Dec 2001 23:11:53 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
> But aside from that, the concept of requiring possibly dozens of
> people to register to participate in a discussion on latkes on rfc is
> sufficiently "not practical" to fulfill the requirements set forth by
> the NYT thereby answering John's question and allowing him to get on
> with his life rather than dogging Sheldon for posting NYT articles.
Precisely. I have no desire to register. Sheldon made it very easy for me to enjoy the article. No time or effort involved for me and I thank Sheldon for presenting an article that I would otherwise have missed.
From: Peter Aitken (paitken at CRAPnc.rr.com)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:23:34 GMT
--------
Charlie wrote:
> Precisely. I have no desire to register. Sheldon made it very
> easy for me to enjoy the article. No time or effort involved
> for me and I thank Sheldon for presenting an article that I
> would otherwise have missed.
God forbid that you should put any effort into anything.
From: Charlie L. Gifford (saiga at concentric.net)
Date: 16 Dec 2001 01:37:23 GMT
--------
Peter Aitken wrote:
> God forbid that you should put any effort into anything.
Yes, of course. Sheldon was kind enough to not only draw my attention to an interesting article but also provided it for my use. There are things that I may desire to put effort into but it certainly wasn't necessary this time. It was at no cost in time or effort for you when Sheldon provided this information - so what's it to you. You have wasted my time in your silly attempt to make a genuinely helpful gesture into something bad. I really don't understand why one would make himself appear ridiculous by such a position. It seems pointless to the extreme.
From: John Schiaparelli (Johnschiap at rogers.como)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:52:20 GMT
--------
Doesn't the Times have the right, as the copyright holder, to determine how its property (that's what a copyrighted article is) is used? "Convenience" doesn't enter into it. It might be "convenient" for someone to lift your wallet rather than go to an ATM themselves. So it's okay, then. There would be almost no time and very little effort in registering and reading the article at the website. I also note that he has posted the same thing 4 times in three hours without addressing the issue himself. So is just making it "easy" for more people or is he just flouting the rules the Times has set up for use of their property?
From: EHS (me at nospam.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 01:37:39 GMT
--------
John Schiaparelli wrote:
> Doesn't the Times have the right, as the copyright holder, to determine how
> its property (that's what a copyrighted article is) is used? "Convenience"
> doesn't enter into it.
Do you have any comments to make on the subject or are you just trying police this newsgroup? I haven't *plonked* in ages, but I guess it's time to do so now since you have nothing "foodie" to discuss.
Happy Holidays,
Ellen
From: Charlie L. Gifford (saiga at concentric.net)
Date: 16 Dec 2001 01:45:00 GMT
--------
John Schiaparelli wrote:
> Doesn't the Times have the right, as the copyright holder, to determine how
> its property (that's what a copyrighted article is) is used?
John, I believe this is covered on the site. It also specifically mentions the use of their intellectual property on Usenet. Sorry I can't direct you to the exact place. While there may be little time or effort in registering and reading the article at the website it was a whole lot easier to read Sheldon's post. You and other's responding to Sheldon's innocent post seem to be more concerned that it was Sheldon who posted rather than the content of the post itself. How can this make any difference to you? What is the horrible infraction that brings all this attention? Why should you care if I would rather have immediate gratification than spend a few moments getting the information at another site?
From: Peter Aitken (paitken at CRAPnc.rr.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 02:04:00 GMT
--------
Charlie wrote:
> John, I believe this is covered on the site. It also
> specifically mentions the use of their intellectual property
> on Usenet.
Because some people have principles and try to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. You seem concerned only with your immediate convenience and, in your own words, "immediate gratification." As long as something is convenient for you, that's all that matters, and the fact that copyright laws and ethical principles are violated matters nothing to you. I really believe that you do not understand this, but that does not make it any the less true. You have a chance to learn something here but I strongly suspect that you will avoid it at all costs.
From: Charlie L. Gifford (saiga at concentric.net)
Date: 16 Dec 2001 09:36:09 GMT
--------
Peter Aitken wrote:
> Because some people have principles and try to conduct themselves in an
> ethical manner. You seem concerned only with your immediate convenience and,
> in your own words, "immediate gratification."
I see. Well I have said that the issue of copyrights is addressed on the NYT site. The post that Sheldon made and posts that others have sent our way which included similar articles from the NYT seem to be perfectly fine. Yes, I am concerned with my convenience. My time is valuable to me. Also valuable to me are laws and ethics. I see no reason to do other than use the information offered to me. I have learned something here but it may not be what you seem to desire.
From: darvell349 at aol.com (Naomi Darvell)
Date: 16 Dec 2001 03:47:17 GMT
--------
C.L. Gifford wrote inter alia:
>John, I believe this is covered on the site. It also
>specifically mentions the use of their intellectual property
>on Usenet. Sorry I can't direct you to the exact place.>>
Here are the URLs:
http://www.nytimes.com/info/help/copyright.html
http://www.nytimes.com/info/help/agree.html
And here's one of a number of sites dealing with copyright on the internet:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
> While
>there may be little time or effort in registering and reading
>the article at the website it was a whole lot easier to read
>Sheldon's post.
Motives on either side apart, legally no one has the right to post copyrighted material to Usenet without permission.
From: MH (bastzine at worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 03:12:57 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
> Not totally :> The price is that you have to give them an e-mail
> account.
And trust me, you will get lots of spams from registering. The entire point that most of you are missing is that the one and only reason John is protesting against this is because Sheldon posted it. If anyone else had done it, it wouldn't be an issue.
From: Pat Meadows (pat at meadows.pair.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 01:04:12 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
>In order to read other-than-homepage articles from NYT, one has to
>register.
Those who wish to read the articles from the NY Times can easily register at the website: it's completely free and takes about half a minute.
From: MH (bastzine at worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 03:10:51 GMT
--------
John Schiaparelli wrote:
> So tell us, why wasn't it "possible or practical" to post the URL only, as
> the first sentence clearly says?
Excuse me, John but I LIKE having the complete story printed in here. Let's make a bet that you would have said NOTHING if anyone other than Sheldon would have posted this. Stop being such a troll.
From: John Schiaparelli (Johnschiap at rogers.como)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 03:59:19 GMT
--------
MH wrote:
> Excuse me, John but I LIKE having the complete story printed in here.
It is nice that you like it, but the Times does set rules for use of their content, ruels that Sheldon ignores. There's lots of things we'd all "like" but that doesn't mean we should get them by hook or by crook.
>Let's
> make a bet that you would have said NOTHING if anyone other than Sheldon
> would have posted this.
That's moot since he is pretty much the only one who posts entire articles clipped from other sources on a regular basis.
> Stop being such a troll.
The troll posts from an AOL account. The troll has posted the same thing four times. The troll thinks he's above the rules, rules that he posts along with the article. The troll sits back and watches what happens. I bit, for sure, but I didn't do the trolling.
From: orwell at home.com (orwell)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 07:42:39 GMT
--------
MH wrote:
>Excuse me, John but I LIKE having the complete story printed in here. Let's
>make a bet that you would have said NOTHING if anyone other than Sheldon
>would have posted this. Stop being such a troll.
I certainly can't speak for John, but there are those of us who have had our own copyrighted material used without our permission and who object to it on principal.
From: Pat Meadows (pat at meadows.pair.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:34:55 GMT
--------
MH wrote:
>Excuse me, John but I LIKE having the complete story printed in here. Let's
>make a bet that you would have said NOTHING if anyone other than Sheldon
>would have posted this. Stop being such a troll.
All right: I'm the person who first objected to this. I didn't know Sheldon at all at that point and had nothing whatsoever against him. (Note that that was *before* he started a thread entitled 'Pat 'Ignorant Bitch' Meadows in my honor.)
I objected to it because it's the sort of thing which ruins a great resource for all of us. One or two bad apples...and it's a shame.
The NY Times *is* a great resource, it's one of the world's great newspapers, and freely available to all who can be bothered to spend the 30 seconds registering.
Incidentally, I have been registered at the NY Times for over three years: and have not received ONE spam on account of it in all that time.
Usenet itself also used to be a great resource, freely available to all. I say 'used to be' because it's been all but killed by people who can't be bothered with ethics and courtesies (spammers and trolls).
Cheers,
Pat
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 17:49:47 GMT
--------
Pat Meadows wrote:
>I objected to it because it's the sort of thing which ruins
>a great resource for all of us. One or two bad apples...and
>it's a shame.
The NYT policy itself "ruins" it for you. They specify conditions under which articles can be posted on newsgroups and Sheldon fulfilled those requirements. Right now you're promoting how easy (and hence, practical) it is to register while sweeping the privacy issue under the rug.
>The NY Times *is* a great resource, it's one of the world's
>great newspapers, and freely available to all who can be
>bothered to spend the 30 seconds registering.
Those who really care about the NYT should pay for a print subscription.
>Incidentally, I have been registered at the NY Times for
>over three years: and have not received ONE spam on account
>of it in all that time.
Martha is correct about the spam. I am also registered. I have a second account which I wasn't using for anything and used that to register for the NYT, opting out of the advertising. All of a sudden, spam city.
Besides, if you really cared about the future of the NYT on-line, you would embrace its spam and patronize its advertisers to ensure its financial health. Why foist the burden of supporting your reading on people who don't want to register? If it does fail it will be because the advertising didn't generate enough revenue, which will be YOUR fault, not because Sheldon posted 100 articles on rfc.
>Usenet itself also used to be a great resource, freely
>available to all. I say 'used to be' because it's been all
>but killed by people who can't be bothered with ethics and
>courtesies (spammers and trolls).
And killed as well by people who register invalid complaints on a newsgroup. If you wanted to follow all usenet propriety and ethics, you should have sent your complaint to Sheldon by e-mail.
From: orwell at home.com (orwell)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:16:57 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
>And killed as well by people who register invalid complaints on a
>newsgroup. If you wanted to follow all usenet propriety and ethics,
>you should have sent your complaint to Sheldon by e-mail.
Just curious, but does that apply to any non-food related comments? If all of the flames, attacks, counter attacks, personal asides, OT discussions and "corrections" go to email, this group is going to have about 20 posts a day, as opposed to the 100+ which are the norm.
Hmmmm.... doesn't sound like a bad idea.
From: sue at interport dotnet (Curly Sue)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:18:21 GMT
--------
orwell wrote:
>Just curious, but does that apply to any non-food related comments? If all of
>the flames, attacks, counter attacks, personal asides, OT discussions and
>"corrections" go to email, this group is going to have about 20 posts a day,
>as opposed to the 100+ which are the norm.
>
>Hmmmm.... doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Exactly!
From: orwell at home.com (orwell)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:38:56 GMT
--------
Curly Sue wrote:
>Exactly!
Now all we have to do is keep EVERYONE from rude off topic posts and we'll be set....
:;sigh:: it was a good idea while it lasted.
From: Peter Aitken (paitken at CRAPnc.rr.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:24:55 GMT
--------
Pat Meadows wrote:
> Usenet itself also used to be a great resource, freely
> available to all. I say 'used to be' because it's been all
> but killed by people who can't be bothered with ethics and
> courtesies (spammers and trolls).
Bravo, Pat, well said.
From: EHS (me at nospam.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:49:47 GMT
--------
Sheldon wrote:
> December 12, 2001
> So Much Like a Crepe, So Perfect for Hanukkah
> By JOAN NATHAN
Thanks for posting this article, Sheldon. We've been making our .98 bag of russets go a long way this past week or so by using our little pro plus and shredding them to create a variety of wonderful "potato pancakes" using methods that range from traditional matzo and egg bound latkes served with applesauce, to galettes with sour cream, chives and smoked salmon to a pansized rustic pancake with grated apples and carmelized onions. They've all been wonderful. It's amazing how many "pancakes" can be made with three medium sized potatoes. I especially like the creaminess of the inside, balanced with the crunchy outsides. In the summer we make them with Yukon golds and zucchini, with fresh basil/tomato concasse and ooh boy are they good with a nice fresh grilled fish.
As for the other's diatribes of the appropriateness of posting NYT's articles, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the article and think NYT's staff would have no problem with it. They're just trying to find fault with you, as you are well aware. Pish tosh, you provided their own disclaimers and that's enough for me.
Thanks!
Ellen
From: Pat Meadows (pat at meadows.pair.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:02:08 GMT
--------
EHS wrote:
>As for the other's diatribes of the appropriateness of posting NYT's
>articles, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the article and think
>NYT's staff would have no problem with it. They're just trying to find
>fault with you, as you are well aware. Pish tosh, you provided their own
>disclaimers and that's enough for me.
We know how the NY Times feels about it. They have provided a statement of how they feel about it on their website.
From:
http://www.nytimes.com/info/help/copyright.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Notice
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
All rights reserved.
All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company.
------------------------------------------------------------
If the person posting them has obtained their prior written permission to do so, then it's ethical and legal. If he hasn't, it's neither.
Cheers,
Pat
From: AthenryYank (AthenryYank at eircom.net)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:33:19 -0000
--------
I'm so glad that somebody else was interested in the article itself and the fascinating possibilities it can open up to one who is interested in further exploring potato pancakes! Thank you, Sheldon, and the NY Times, for pointing my imagination in new directions. I have been in love with potato pancakes since I was a freshman in college in 1966 and first tried Latkes (with sour cream) at Corky and Lenny's Delicatessen in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Later, in Muerren, in the Swiss Alps, I first set fork to Roesti, the Swiss version. I am delighted to have been introduced to yet another variant of such an 'old friendship'.
The ensuing distended and bloated discussion, was a chore to plough through, as I searched in vain for reactions from others, who found this article as entertaining as I. Why take the man to task for sharing some excellent, new information (to me at least) on an old favourite? Did he not also share a bushel of apricot yummies with us very recently?
Thank you, Sheldon. You brightened up a cold morning on the west coast of Ireland. And thanks to Ellen, too, for breaking into a total snooze of a discussion, ignoring the exciting content of the original (and repeated) posting!
Paul in Galway
From: Alistair Gale (alistair at caribsurf.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:12:48 -0400
--------
EHS wrote:
>As for the other's diatribes of the appropriateness of posting NYT's
>articles, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the article and think
>NYT's staff would have no problem with it. They're just trying to find
>fault with you, as you are well aware. Pish tosh, you provided their own
>disclaimers and that's enough for me.
Are (honest) NYT web subscriptions available outside of the US? The last time I checked (3 years ago) you had to have a US snail-mail address.
If they still require US addresses then their own policy permits posting the article to usenet since a non US resident cannot read their subscription web pages by following the URL.
(Master criminal that I am, I used my sister's NYC address and ZIP. Hope she appreciates the extra junk mail.)
From: Alistair Gale (alistair at caribsurf.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:51:35 -0400
--------
Alistair Gale wrote:
>Are (honest) NYT web subscriptions available outside of the US? The
>last time I checked (3 years ago) you had to have a US snail-mail
>address.
I just checked again, they allow non-US subscribers to register now.