| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
How would you esplain it?
I noticed something interesting, I think.
Google has a lot of freely available statistics about usenet traffic and usage patterns, on a group by group basis, going back a long ways. Some groups, like rec.woodworking, are statistically stable. The average number of posts per day for rec.woodworking now is roughly what it was seven years ago. But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. |
How would you esplain it?
salmobytes wrote:
I noticed something interesting, I think. snip But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. I think it's all Wolfgang's fault. In fact, you could call it the *Wolfgang Effect*. -- Ken Fortenberry |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 22, 2:31 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: salmobytes wrote: I noticed something interesting, I think. snip But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. I think it's all Wolfgang's fault. In fact, you could call it the *Wolfgang Effect*. Not Fortenberry's Fault? :-) Frank Reid |
How would you esplain it?
How what why. People got sick of all the nonsense, and simply stopped posting. TL MC |
How would you esplain it?
Flytyer37 wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:31 pm, Ken Fortenberry wrote: salmobytes wrote: I noticed something interesting, I think. snip But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. I think it's all Wolfgang's fault. In fact, you could call it the *Wolfgang Effect*. Not Fortenberry's Fault? :-) Well, I've been here from the beginning but we didn't see Sandy's mass exodus until soon after Wolfgang showed up. Coincidence ? ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
How would you esplain it?
Speaking of; "How would you esplain it?"
Who are these kids from Southern Illinois??? Upset in the makings. -tom |
How would you esplain it?
On 22 Mar 2007 12:14:10 -0700, "salmobytes"
wrote: I noticed something interesting, I think. Google has a lot of freely available statistics about usenet traffic and usage patterns, on a group by group basis, going back a long ways. Some groups, like rec.woodworking, are statistically stable. The average number of posts per day for rec.woodworking now is roughly what it was seven years ago. But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. Most of the good guys have left.... Peter, Willi, Tom Brown, Wally, Zimbo, Paul G., the western boys (Bruiser/Bouncer/Dan'l/Snoop/John H.), Flyfish, Handyman, Frank Sr., Choc, Mr. Epps, helllll.... even the two lawyers don't post much any more, nor does RW. That leaves you, JR, Frank Jr., Joe F., Tim, Riverman, Forty, and some new folks, but you are outnumbered by the ****ers/moaners/political posters. I'm surprised there *is* a roff. Forty! Turn out the lights when you leave. d;o) |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 22, 12:14 pm, "salmobytes" wrote:
But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. Lack of new blood. Newbies come in, see all the BS and wisely head elsewhere. Those of us too dumb to leave either ignore or killfile the BS generator. - Ken |
How would you esplain it?
On 22 Mar 2007 13:42:44 -0700, "
wrote: On Mar 22, 12:14 pm, "salmobytes" wrote: But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. Lack of new blood. Newbies come in, see all the BS and wisely head elsewhere. Those of us too dumb to leave either ignore or killfile the BS generator. - Ken And Ken J. Forgot the Good Ken. |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 22, 3:02 pm, wrote:
Troll. Perhaps my original post was a troll of sorts. But I didn't see it that way. I do think what I noticed is an interesting trend. Usenet is less popular in general, partly due to the relatively recent proliferation of interactive blogs and website forums. So maybe that's the explanation. But I doubt it. Google statistics show various newsgroups rise and fall in popularity, almost like the weather. But the downward trend on roff is at least 2 maybe 3 years old and steady, like a blue run the ski hill, it's all downhill with very few bumps. |
How would you esplain it?
On 22 Mar 2007 12:14:10 -0700, "salmobytes"
wrote: I noticed something interesting, I think. Google has a lot of freely available statistics about usenet traffic and usage patterns, on a group by group basis, going back a long ways. Some groups, like rec.woodworking, are statistically stable. The average number of posts per day for rec.woodworking now is roughly what it was seven years ago. But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. Troll. I'd offer that there are lots of reasons. As to ROFF specifically, boredom with ROFF, tired of what they see as the bull****, spending time on what they see as more "civil" forums, etc. But simply comparing one NG to another isn't really a complete view. In my eight or so years around here (this is now the only NG or other "forum," fishing or otherwise, in which I'd say I even semi-regularly participate), there have been lots of comings and goings, and some seem to always be leaving and never coming back, time after time after time. IAC, are _all_ rec. hierarchy NGs stable except ROFF? If not, there is likely all sorts of explanations for those changes, including ROFF's changes. Heck, USENET isn't as big a portion of online, um, communication as it once was - think of the changes over the last seven years with regard to the 'net. TC, R ....and heck, there's not nearly as many AOLers and WebTVers "discovering" that new, wonderful thing called newsgroup websites... |
How would you esplain it?
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Most of the good guys have left. ... Those you named were your contemporaries, the roster of roffians is ever changing, always has been. You wouldn't recognize some of the earliest posters to roff who dropped by the wayside, folks come and go constantly. Part of it is just the nature of Usenet newgroups, I mean let's face it participating here is a monumental waste of time. Which is fine by me, that's part of why I come here, to waste time when I should be writing, but it's still fundamentally wasting time. At some point most folks without a lot of time to waste quit wasting it here. Perfectly normal. I'm surprised there *is* a roff. Forty! Turn out the lights when you leave. d;o) Hell, I'm surprised there's still Usenet newsgroups. They're way more trouble than they're worth to ISPs and I'm astounded at how many ISPs still bother with them. -- Ken Fortenberry |
How would you esplain it?
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:13:05 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Hell, I'm surprised there's still Usenet newsgroups. They're way more trouble than they're worth to ISPs and I'm astounded at how many ISPs still bother with them. They have to have the binary groups for downloaders, so they keep our conversational groups on because it's not much space, effort, or cost for them to do so and it looks so good when they can point to us when complainers whine about the 'Net only being good for porn, I understand that most ISPs don't really bother with newsgroups the past few years. They farm them out to big providers. -- r.bc: vixen Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
How would you esplain it?
On 22 Mar 2007 13:59:02 -0700, "salmobytes"
wrote: On Mar 22, 3:02 pm, wrote: Troll. Perhaps my original post was a troll of sorts. But I didn't see it that way. I do think what I noticed is an interesting trend. Usenet is less popular in general, partly due to the relatively recent proliferation of interactive blogs and website forums. So maybe that's the explanation. I'd agree that it's a part of it, sure. But I doubt it. Google statistics show various newsgroups rise and fall in popularity, almost like the weather. But the downward trend on roff is at least 2 maybe 3 years old and steady, like a blue run the ski hill, it's all downhill with very few bumps. And I'd offer it's what those who have "left" see as the bull****. But here's the thing, IMO: picture, if you will, a fish camp. There are 30-40 folks sitting around shooting the breeze, and all of a sudden, two folks decide to start boxing. Neither "jumped" the other, it's mutual combat, entered into willingly by both parties. Why would anyone feel "forced" to join in? Watch it if you wish, ignore it if that's more your taste, and join in if you'd like, but no one is forcing anyone to choose a option. Same thing here. Heck, here, if one can't simply ignore the virtual boxing match, they can literally keep their seat and with a few keystrokes, put up an electronic wall so that the whole thing is all but invisible to them. And of course, there's really not all that much _strictly_ FFing related that the same 50-100 folks can talk about for years on end, and really, that'd be boring as hell. IMO, it's natural that everything under the sun gets at least some coverage. And I say this knowing full-well my own role in the overall nonsense of this place - the downright humorless nastiness (and no, I don't mean Mike) of, um, certain posters may well scare off those with too-thin skins. Tough **** - wrong as he may or may not be, no one is or can force anyone to read what they don't want to read, and if they can't control themselves, that's on them, not ROFF or any poster(s) to it. TC, R |
How would you esplain it?
But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. this place originated as a cybersapce bar room, where folks who were originally attracted by an obvious common sporting interest sat and relaxed, just bull****ting about fishing and lifeitsownself, at the end of the fishing day, as friends do after the same activity in real life. but we came to know each other too well, and began to care more about our opinions of life beyond our sport than our place inside that sport, and we became a perfect example of the axiom that familiarity breeds contempt. this evil is made so much easier to engage in by the distance of the medium. in short, the inability to understand that if we failed to isolate our differenting political views from our common love of this marvelous craft, we would be doomed to destructive infighting, has brought us to our present wholesale calamity. it truly saddens me when i consider how much pleasure i have received from my time on the water and in places close thereto with those of you who have become such bitter enemies in this virtual pigstye. i would give several shiny nickels to be able to start all over again, and spend a couple weeks immersed in the vastly different gifts of personality and sporting talent that all of you bring to the amazing places where trout live, from montana to maine, and from wisconsin to the old north state. truth is, i wouldn't go to another clave on a bet. i deal with too much combativeness on a day to day basis as it is. anyway, each of you with whom i have fished have my respect and friendship. i have always enjoyed my time on the water with you. your friend in the old north state wayno |
How would you esplain it?
|
How would you esplain it?
web based discussion groups - most people have gone to web based forums
where they can post jpegs, have avatars and post cutesy little animated emoticons. Text based news feed is for old farts -- Some of my angling snaps: http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH "salmobytes" wrote in message ups.com... I noticed something interesting, I think. Google has a lot of freely available statistics about usenet traffic and usage patterns, on a group by group basis, going back a long ways. Some groups, like rec.woodworking, are statistically stable. The average number of posts per day for rec.woodworking now is roughly what it was seven years ago. But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. |
How would you esplain it?
On 22 Mar 2007 19:26:45 -0700, "
wrote: But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. this place originated as a cybersapce bar room, where folks who were originally attracted by an obvious common sporting interest sat and relaxed, just bull****ting about fishing and lifeitsownself, at the end of the fishing day, as friends do after the same activity in real life. but we came to know each other too well, and began to care more about our opinions of life beyond our sport than our place inside that sport, and we became a perfect example of the axiom that familiarity breeds contempt. this evil is made so much easier to engage in by the distance of the medium. in short, the inability to understand that if we failed to isolate our differenting political views from our common love of this marvelous craft, we would be doomed to destructive infighting, has brought us to our present wholesale calamity. it truly saddens me when i consider how much pleasure i have received from my time on the water and in places close thereto with those of you who have become such bitter enemies in this virtual pigstye. i would give several shiny nickels to be able to start all over again, and spend a couple weeks immersed in the vastly different gifts of personality and sporting talent that all of you bring to the amazing places where trout live, from montana to maine, and from wisconsin to the old north state. truth is, i wouldn't go to another clave on a bet. i deal with too much combativeness on a day to day basis as it is. anyway, each of you with whom i have fished have my respect and friendship. i have always enjoyed my time on the water with you. Whoa... I guess I'd have to say I like and respect "you," at least as far as the online wayno as much as anyone around here, but **** down a stick and say grace, "bitter enemies?!?!?!" Are ya drinkin' bad whisky, man? What possible nonsense heresabout could warrant anyone being such on the basis of the shtick on ROFF? Folks go on and on about all the contention around here, but geez, why take it seriously, if you feel the need to read such at all? ROFF ain't life, and life ain't ROFF. Oh, sure, they might cross paths and dance a bit on occasion, but anyone who truly confuses the two really needs to step back and take a breath or two. IMO, ROFF is something like a fraternity house meets backwater roadhouse - lots of bull****, lots of fun, but at the end of the day, the majority of the gracious plenty ration of bull**** is transcended by the underlying camaraderie of the thing. IOW, it ain't all real...what's real is, well, what's real... TC, R PS: Mumsy told me a funny...well, truth be told, Mumsy told Settlesworth and he told me... Did ya hear the one about the lawyer who found a conscience? Yeah, no one else did, either... your friend in the old north state wayno |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 23, 3:26 am, " wrote:
SNIP your friend in the old north state wayno http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roffrs3.jpg So many things, once treasured, now crumbled into dust mayhap they withered so because they must? too late to turn the tide and make amends naught left, but to sadly raise a glass, to absent friends.................. TL MC |
How would you esplain it?
RalphH wrote:
web based discussion groups - most people have gone to web based forums where they can post jpegs, have avatars and post cutesy little animated emoticons. Text based news feed is for old farts. Old farts and woodworkers apparently. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
How would you esplain it?
salmobytes wrote:
I noticed something interesting, I think. Google has a lot of freely available statistics about usenet traffic and usage patterns, on a group by group basis, going back a long ways. Some groups, like rec.woodworking, are statistically stable. The average number of posts per day for rec.woodworking now is roughly what it was seven years ago. But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? You've gotten about what I expected in responses to this bit of trollery. So here's my take: First, as to rec.woodworking -- have you actually looked at the content of those posts? On any given day you have tons of spam, repeat questions about what's the best [insert power tool here] to buy, pleas for links to free plans for everything under the sun, debates on whether Norm Abrams is really the anti-christ or just another Jewish carpenter, questions on what sort of stain should be used on cherry, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Despite the naysayers (many of whom seem to be magically coerced to continue following ROFF, despite their wailing and moaning about how horrible it is, btw), I'd still rather waste my time over here than at "the wreck". As to the volume of posts, I would venture that the core group is smaller in ff'ing than woodworking, and I'd expect the newcomers are fewer as well. Stats are pretty much meaningless as an indicator of "value", and "value" itself is only measureable by the individual; what's old hat to you might be new and interesting to me. But such is "life" on Usenet. The folks on the woodworking group have been moaning about how the quality of the group has gone downhill since before I first started following it (1996?). Many folks left and went to moderated bulletin boards when they got tired of all the "newbies" and the deterioration of what they saw as "their group". I've sampled those forums, and frankly I don't care for the forced politeness that comes with them. FWIW, I was a participant in an old Bitnet forum called Allmusic", that was active in the late 80's and early 90's, and once it was turned into an invitation only forum, it died a quick death. It turns out that the activity generated by dumb newbies ("aolusers" in those days) was a big part of what kept the "community" together. Some of what I've seen here is pretty ugly, and I don't really understand why folks who have shared time on the water together (seemingly as friends) would treat each other as mortal enemies around here, but that's life on newsgroups. Many of us say things here we wouldn't in person. As for the regulars from the past who are mostly absent, I'd like to think that they are out on the water, and that they simply don't have time to "waste" on ROFF. I know I'd like to be in that boat (no pun intended) more often than I seem to manage. So, my point in this whole rant? Nothing, really. Just that a newsgroup is what you (the general "you") make of it. If you want ff content, post some. If you don't want arguments and ****ing matches, don't participate in them. But don't moan and whine about the nature of the group if that's your sole contribution to it. Chuck Vance (move along ... nothing to see here) |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 23, 1:46 pm, Conan The Librarian wrote:
So, my point in this whole rant? Nothing, really. Just that a newsgroup is what you (the general "you") make of it. If you want ff content, post some. If you don't want arguments and ****ing matches, don't participate in them. But don't moan and whine about the nature of the group if that's your sole contribution to it. Chuck Vance (move along ... nothing to see here) This has often been stated, but it is simply not true. It is more or less impossible for anybody to post here without being abused or insulted.Always by the same people. Most people quite rightly see absolutely no point in allowing themselves to be treated in such a fashion, most especially as regardless of what outrages are perpetrated, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. This is the main reason most of the old guard have left, they were simply sick of the abuse. Newbies who wander in here, and there used to be a large number, mainly do so because they want to hear something about fly-fishing, As soon as they see that there is practically no fly-fishing, just contentious bull****, and mainly off-topic, they leave and go elsewhere. This is quite apart from those who are insulted or abused on their first post or two. I have no doubt that the vast majority never even post at all, they take a look, and leave. Extreme bad manners, vituperation, and general ignorance are the order of the day on this group, and that can not be changed by a few sensible people, or even more than a few. It can only be changed if those responsible could somehow be forced into complying with normal manners and decency, but they can not. They simply continue to ruin this group with impunity. Fortenberry and Dean have actually stated they only come here to waste time and entertain themselves by insulting and abusing others. Why should any sensible person put up with that? The analogy to a bar is also completely wrong. In a bar, those two would not survive for five minutes before being given the bumīs rush.They come here specifically to misbehave, because they would not be allowed to do so anywhere else, those few remaining have become inured to this, and as long as they themselves are not targeted they either ignore it, or even join in with the slagging when the fancy takes them. This group is practically dead as a result. MC |
How would you esplain it?
I was wondering,
why not restore ROFF? Get it back on track to being a good group for fly-fishing. I believe if everyone makes an effort it can be done. fwiw, -tom |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 22, 10:26 pm, " wrote:
this place originated as a cybersapce bar room, where folks who were originally attracted by an obvious common sporting interest sat and relaxed, just bull****ting about fishing and lifeitsownself, at the end of the fishing day, as friends do after the same activity in real life. Pretty much what mfitons says echoes my thoughts. While noting that KF's reasonable issue that ROFF did not originate as a cyberspace bar room, I'd insert my opinion that while rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is undeniably nothing more than a binary Usenet construct, the oft-lamented ROFF was indeed something more than that. But except for wayno's disinterest in another Clave, what he said. Joe F. |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 23, 3:44 pm, wrote:
BULL**** SNIPPED This group is practically dead as a result. Then why are you here, you pompous, full-of-**** windbag? Dickie MC To see you pull the rug out from under your own feet. When this group dies, you and Kenny will have nowhere to misbehave. People who run them wont allow you on to any other fishing groups. MC |
How would you esplain it?
|
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 23, 2:58 pm, Conan The Librarian wrote:
BTW, did you ever wonder why it is that folks who would normally argue with each other over whether the sky was blue, all seem to be of one mind when it comes to you? I know ... they're all stupid and arrogant arseholes, and you're not to blame for any of it. Well if you know they are stupid and arrogant arseholes why are you asking me dumb questions? Perhaps you should ask the 80% who have left, and the others who are doubtless about to, what they think? Chuck Vance (and if you think it's bad here, I can't imagine what would happen to you on a political newsgroup) This is the practically the only Usenet newsgroup I have used, apart from a couple of UK fishing groups. I am not interested in political newsgroups, or indeed any others. Bye....................... MC |
How would you esplain it?
salmobytes typed:
I noticed something interesting, I think. Google has a lot of freely available statistics about usenet traffic and usage patterns, on a group by group basis, going back a long ways. Some groups, like rec.woodworking, are statistically stable. The average number of posts per day for rec.woodworking now is roughly what it was seven years ago. But traffic to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is roughly 80% less than it used to be. Do we have fewer fly fishermen? Or are they.....well. What is it? How what why. I would offer that fewer new people are taking up fly fishing in proportion to the amount of time that passes since the release of "the movie." However, has anyone else noticed the advertisers have now decided to have a fly fisher in every freakin' ad on T.V.? I've only seen one ad where it looks like they hired someone who actually knew how to cast, and the others were just actors told to wave the rod in the air. In one in particular, the guy casts just like a bait caster, extending his arm straight out in front of him. But I digress. . . there's no reason to panic or mourn, or to attach some hidden meaning. ROFF is a shape-shifter diversion for those of us who care it to be. Some get hung up in the more potent discussions, and others can't seem to divert their eyes from the train wrecks and yet complain about the view. When someone asks a well framed and thought-out fly fishing question of the group, good advice is usually given. The fact that there are many times more than one right answer to a question, and that we can all be quite, well, opinionated makes for the pepperiness in the pot. The bottom line is those with thicker skins will stay, survive, and thrive while those with thinner skins will move on. For those reading this who have not been to a ROFF clave, have no fear and attend one at your earliest convenience. These boys and girl(s) are like big cuddly teddy bears when they don't have their computer monitors to shield them. ;-) -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
How would you esplain it?
|
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 23, 7:19 am, "Tom Nakashima" wrote:
I was wondering, why not restore ROFF? Get it back on track to being a good group for fly-fishing. I believe if everyone makes an effort it can be done. fwiw, -tom Sounds like a good idea to me Tom. How did that Smokey Robinson song go? "If you feel like giving me a newsgroup of eclosion (or what was it?), I second that emotion." |
How would you esplain it?
Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote: Bye....................... Where have we heard that before? LOL !! That's the second goodbye today already. -- Ken Fortenberry |
How would you esplain it?
|
How would you esplain it?
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:19:44 -0700, "Tom Nakashima"
wrote: I was wondering, why not restore ROFF? Get it back on track to being a good group for fly-fishing. It never was or will be such a thing - it was, is, and always will be a group for flyfish_ers_, not flyfish_ing_... I believe if everyone makes an effort it can be done. Oh, Lordy, not the fabled EVERYONE... fwiw, R fwiw, -tom |
How would you esplain it?
On 23 Mar 2007 06:39:50 -0700, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 22, 10:26 pm, " wrote: this place originated as a cybersapce bar room, where folks who were originally attracted by an obvious common sporting interest sat and relaxed, just bull****ting about fishing and lifeitsownself, at the end of the fishing day, as friends do after the same activity in real life. Pretty much what mfitons says echoes my thoughts. Ever hung out (for any length of time) in a (good) bar that didn't have it's share of fights, fisticuffs, and other melodrama? Or even a family. Heck, I'd offer that a bar (or family) without such wouldn't be much of a bar (or family)... TC, R While noting that KF's reasonable issue that ROFF did not originate as a cyberspace bar room, I'd insert my opinion that while rec.outdoors.fishing.fly is undeniably nothing more than a binary Usenet construct, the oft-lamented ROFF was indeed something more than that. But except for wayno's disinterest in another Clave, what he said. Joe F. |
How would you esplain it?
Tom Nakashima wrote:
I was wondering, why not restore ROFF? Get it back on track to being a good group for fly-fishing. I believe if everyone makes an effort it can be done. Just what, exactly, do you propose everyone should do ? I mean, make an effort to do what, exactly ? -- Ken Fortenberry |
How would you esplain it?
On Mar 23, 10:29 am, "Tim J."
wrote: These boys and girl(s) are like big cuddly teddy bears when they don't have their computer monitors to shield them. ;-) ....And the Balvenie bottle is half empty. :-) Joe F. |
How would you esplain it?
Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tom Nakashima wrote: I was wondering, why not restore ROFF? Get it back on track to being a good group for fly-fishing. I believe if everyone makes an effort it can be done. Just what, exactly, do you propose everyone should do ? I mean, make an effort to do what, exactly ? Jack Nicholson/President Dale: "Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?" -- HTH, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
How would you esplain it?
Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed: Tom Nakashima wrote: I was wondering, why not restore ROFF? Get it back on track to being a good group for fly-fishing. I believe if everyone makes an effort it can be done. Just what, exactly, do you propose everyone should do ? I mean, make an effort to do what, exactly ? Jack Nicholson/President Dale: "Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?" Hey, whaddya gonna do, nice college boy, eh? Didn't want to get mixed up in roff, huh? Now you wanna gun down Mike Connor. Why? Because he slapped ya in the face a little bit? Hah? What do you think this is the Army, where you shoot 'em a mile away? You've gotta get up close like this and - bada-BING! - you blow their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit. -- Ken Fortenberry |
How would you esplain it?
Try to stay on the topic of fly-fishing.
If there is a post not related to fly-fishing it could be addressed as "OT:" I feel as people cruise through the newsgroups and are interested in fly-fishing, if they see the in-fighting & name calling, it just turns anglers away. Some of these anglers might have some good advice to bring to ROFF. Eliminate the name calling and finger pointing. Everyone has the right to an opinion. The name calling and finger pointing is useless, doesn't solve anything. I feel if everyone could make an effort here, become a little more courteous to one another, it could be a start to restoring this newsgroup, after all, we all have the same interest of fly-fishing. Ken, a few questions to you, since you're one of the originals of this newsgroup. Are you happy with the current ROFF newsgroup? If not, what changes would you like to see in this newsgroup? If you were a new angler and cruised into ROFF, what would be your first reaction after reading some of the post? fwiw, -tom "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Tom Nakashima wrote: I was wondering, why not restore ROFF? Get it back on track to being a good group for fly-fishing. I believe if everyone makes an effort it can be done. Just what, exactly, do you propose everyone should do ? I mean, make an effort to do what, exactly ? -- Ken Fortenberry |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter