Those CH mods really make it tough sometimes - (sigh)

With the advent of LTH, I have truly been able to let go of any and all frustrations regarding CH, lowered my blood pressure, and derived additional value from cruising both sites. I respond to queries on CH when I think I have something to add, but save my orig. posts for LTH, where the discourse is more relaxed. A classic win-win.

So today I'm scrolling on CH and there's a new thread asking for quick dinner recipes for the work week. (The OP recently read "The Surrendered Wife" whatever that may be, and has decided to start improving the quality of family dinners as a result.) I scan the half dozen responses and all seem to be on topic and helpful. No flames, no internal debates. Just recipes and general suggestions.

In the middle of this brief and uncontroversial thread, is a stern warning from the mods to "talk about food please." No reference to any flames, or deletions or inappropriate behavior. Nothing to clue in the reader as to what the problem is.

So I post a very polite query asking what it is they have a problem with, as all the posted responses seem to be about food.

Within minutes, my query is gone. I check my email. No direct response either.

Sometimes using CH is like being a subject in a psych experiment where you're just randomly zapped for no reason and can't therefore modify your behavior to avoid future zaps. Leading to neuroses and twitchiness.

In the meantime, there's this nice highly chow-centric piece in the Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/dining/22VEND.html

Wow, it's amazing to me that they can write this article with no mention of Chowhound.

I mean, the Arepa Lady is practically Chowhound's patron saint.

I cannot remember the source but perhaps CH posters should say,"Moderators,we don't need no stinkin' moderators."

I think it may be "Treasure of Sierra Madre," but I could be way off.

Pacino, Scarface.

No way. Much older.

Hi,

The conversation on this issue just travelled over to the CH Site Board where someone is demanding the thread be removed. Sometimes it is not easy to identify what sets people off.

Regards,

Was it on the Chicago board?I did not see it.

Mrbarolo is right. At least according to Ebert. Or sort of right.

"Note: Bogart starred in two movies where nobody actually said their most most-repeated lines. Nobody says "Play it again, Sam" in "Casablanca," and in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," Alfonso Bedoya, as the bandit leader, never actually says, "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" He says, "We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges."


http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovi ... madre.html

So does that mean that it's really Blazing Saddles that the line comes from, since it's misquoted correctly in that movie before Scarface?

(The OP recently read "The Surrendered Wife" whatever that may be, and has decided to start improving the quality of family dinners as a result.) I scan the half dozen responses and all seem to be on topic and helpful. No flames, no internal debates. Just recipes and general suggestions.

It seems as though there is a post missing, one that compared the surrendered wife approach to Stepford wifes.

Given what I know about the book of the same title by Laura Doyle I'm not surprised by the brouhaha resulting from its mention. I understand it to advocate submission, the whatever you say dear kind, of wives to husbands. That being said, I do admit that I have not read the book.

Thanks for the info.Movies?I am online too much.

I just caught up to some of the debate on the CH site talk board. Apparently the full flame war broke out after I had posted my query on the orig. thread, where, as C2 noted, a flaming response had been deleted, thus making the mods' plea for restraint incomprehensible.

I have to say, as a relatively progressive fellow with a wife who is not about to surrender, that all the huffing and puffing over the OP's "offensive" "proselytizing" seems a bit over the top. Even if the OP was not merely being inocently enthusiastic about her new lifestyle, but deliberately idealogical and evangelical - how much would it hurt to just respond to the food question, or walk away? It wasn't hate speech. All she said was she read the book and it changed her life. Sure, it wasn't a chow book, and maybe she could have just left that part out, but in the end, so what? She did ask a genuine chow question. Couldn't people just answer or scroll onward?

If it isn't the mods going off on posters, it's posters going off on each other.

Thank goodness for LTH.

Hi,

I was just reading the Site Board over at CH, after 3 days they pulled the entire thread. The CH Moderator commented they had allowed 3 days for people to vent but now it was back to Chow

Regards,