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

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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

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.