This group
 

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:39:43 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
salmobytes wrote:
A a year or so ago I mentioned ...
whine snipped

...
IAC, I have a coupla-three questions: who makes you read this NG, who
forces you to reply, and perhaps most importantly, why are they forcing
you to post replies that serve no purpose whatsoever other than to stir
the same ****pot you claim drives off the people you claim to lament
losing? And whatever the alleged cause and/or effect, why do care about
any of it?

Yeah, it's interesting to me that the "legendary" fly
fishermen like His Loony Mikeness and Pittendrigh find
other forums to be more educated, more informative, more
civil etc. etc., yet here they remain whining about the
downfall of roff.

Why is that ?

Um, well, hence my question to Sandy...

Anyhoo, I've never seen Sandy toot his own horn, so to speak, so I'm not
sure where your "legendary" comment comes from as to him. In fact, I've
not purposefully ignored him (but if he wrote something in a thread that
did catch my attention...), and other than the apparent, um, slapfight
betwixt y'all, I don't recall any real "shtick" or anything
controversial from him.

I would offer that to blame some decline in posts on any one person is
pretty silly, but hey, if that's his opinion... I did see Tom's comment
but that wasn't Sandy making claims; while I don't know how Tom or
anyone else could really know how one of us unknown FFers had
contributed more to the sport than another unknown, I would accept Tom's
word that when Sandy opens his mouth with regard to FFing, he knows of
what he speaks - again, EMMV.

TC,
R

This group
 

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:09:02 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:26:39 -0000, salmobytes
wrote:

Yes, Mike has contributed too. Ken kept him at
a frenzy rate as best he could. Out of control
posts from all such sources would simply be
erased in a moderated forum. I hesitate to mention the names of the
forums
I prefer to read these days. I wouldn't want to cause
those moderators any more work than they already have.

I've jumped into these spats occasionally too (like now).
The increasing frequency of these never-ending **** storms
may or may not be related to the downhill spiral in readership.
But I think it is.

Three points:

1. I believe it is impossible to have a "moderated group under the
rec domain.

Unless it has changed recently, there are a number of moderated groups
in the rec.* hierarchy - IIRC, alt. groups aren't moderated, but ???

2. Fortenberry has been here since this place started. How could it
be "successful" and then "unsuccessful" when he hasn't changed in the
12 or so years I have known him.

3. You want a fly fishing news group to exist, don't moderate it.
That would be a death kiss.

There are apparently lots of moderated, successful groups and forums if
you define "successful" as solely the fact that a reasonable number of
people participate. And I'd offer that under that standard, ROFF is a
successful newsgroup.

There is nothing different about roff in 1997 or 2007. It is the same
place, rough and tumble, and it will continue to be rough and tumble.

Sandy is right about a decline in the number of posts to ROFF - that's a
easily-checkable fact. But so what? I'd offer that in the last 60
days, there has been a significant jump going solely by the numbers -
heck, Connor seems never to post a single reply, so that alone has
contributed to the sheer number of posts. Again, so what? Heck,
someone could set up a 'bot to post ten replies that simply say
"Automatic Reply" to every post, and the numbers would really increase.
Yet again, so what? I mean, is someone getting a fee on each post or
something?

TC,
R

This group
 

"salmobytes" wrote in message
ups.com...

two points occur to me, Sandy:

First, this IS far different from any moderated forum,
and those who participate here prefer that.
Second, where can one locate data to determine the
number of READERS? I could be able to figure out the
number of posters, but that is far different.

ROFF is what it is. And, IMO, that isn't a bad thing,overall.
Tom

This group
 

wrote in message
...
while I don't know how Tom or
anyone else could really know how one of us unknown FFers had
contributed more to the sport than another unknown, I would accept Tom's
word that when Sandy opens his mouth with regard to FFing, he knows of
what he speaks - again, EMMV.

TC,
R

The first magazine article I read of Sandy's was, IIRC, in
Fly Tyer around 1981 or so. Since then, he has published more. He is known
as one of the West's most innovative
tyers, and is generally held in VERY high regard by most
serious professional and amateur tiers.
OTOH, Fortenberry discovered Fawn Lake.
Take your pick as a knowledge base.......
Tom

This group
 

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:26:08 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
while I don't know how Tom or
anyone else could really know how one of us unknown FFers had
contributed more to the sport than another unknown, I would accept Tom's
word that when Sandy opens his mouth with regard to FFing, he knows of
what he speaks - again, EMMV.

TC,
R

The first magazine article I read of Sandy's was, IIRC, in
Fly Tyer around 1981 or so. Since then, he has published more. He is known
as one of the West's most innovative
tyers, and is generally held in VERY high regard by most
serious professional and amateur tiers.
OTOH, Fortenberry discovered Fawn Lake.
Take your pick as a knowledge base.......

I gotta say that I don't generally go for such broad subjective
statements on such a diverse thing as FFing, especially when there
really is no way to verify them - sorta like your view of checking on
_readers_ of ROFF. IAC, as I said, I'd certainly take your word in
"vouching" for his knowledge. As to Ken and Fawn Lake, based on what I
read in the Battle of Fawn Lake (thankfully, not all of it), I suspect
that at least some of it was shtick, but ???

And as to Ken and Sandy, um, interaction...well, I'm sure they are both
delightful young ladies and as soon as they get used to having their
monthly visitor, they'll be just like Paris and Nicole again...

TC,
R
....currently dealing with tropicalstormus interuptus - we could actually
use the rain, and thus far, not even puddles...

Tom

This group
 

This group
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote:
while I don't know how Tom or
anyone else could really know how one of us unknown FFers had
contributed more to the sport than another unknown, I would accept Tom's
word that when Sandy opens his mouth with regard to FFing, he knows of
what he speaks - again, EMMV.

The first magazine article I read of Sandy's was, IIRC, in
Fly Tyer around 1981 or so. Since then, he has published more. He is known
as one of the West's most innovative
tyers, and is generally held in VERY high regard by most
serious professional and amateur tiers.
OTOH, Fortenberry discovered Fawn Lake.
Take your pick as a knowledge base.......
Tom

I didn't know we were talking about "knowledge bases".

Anyone who issues threats of physical violence on a Usenet
newsgroup, as Pittendrigh did, should be considered a nitwit.
I've met him and I can confirm, he's a nitwit. You may hold
him in generally high regard but that opinion is far from
universal among the fly fishing folks where he lives. Many
consider him a pathetic weenie wannabe.

As for Fawn Lake all I discovered is there is no Fawn Lake.

--
Ken Fortenberry

This group
 

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:08:17 -0400, Jeff wrote:

wrote:
As to Ken and Fawn Lake, based on what I
read in the Battle of Fawn Lake (thankfully, not all of it), I suspect
that at least some of it was shtick, but ???


nah...not even close. you're a keen observer, but you missed that one.
ken did do a bit of equivocating (from his initial "there is no fawn
lake" to "it's an unfishable mudhole"), but no shticking. He didn't
tell the truth and he's shtuck with his lie. g

Since having enough info to offer a more in-depth opinion on the Battle
of Fawn Lake than I already have would require, well, acquiring that
info, I'll take your word for it...

jeff (likewise, the bad weather in eastern nc this morning kept me from
more pleasant encounters with the puppy drum, but tomorrow's a new day)

Good luck with the fishing,
R

This group
 

This group
 

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:59:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Jeff wrote:
wrote:
As to Ken and Fawn Lake, based on what I
read in the Battle of Fawn Lake (thankfully, not all of it), I suspect
that at least some of it was shtick, but ???

nah...not even close. you're a keen observer, but you missed that one.
ken did do a bit of equivocating (from his initial "there is no fawn
lake" to "it's an unfishable mudhole"), but no shticking. He didn't
tell the truth and he's shtuck with his lie. g

Since having enough info to offer a more in-depth opinion on the Battle
of Fawn Lake than I already have would require, well, acquiring that
info, I'll take your word for it...

Years and years worth of shtick but I was hoping to get one
more roffian contingent to hike all the way up to that mass
of unfishable weeds just for one last laugh. Someone suggested
I should open a concession stand up there. ;-)

Since having enough info to offer a more in-depth opinion on the Battle
of Fawn Lake than I already have would require, well, acquiring that
info, I'll take your word for it...

TC,
R