This group

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.

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. ...

Ok, put up or shut up time. Go back and review the roff posts
for the last year, pretend you are fair-minded moderator and
count the number of my posts you would erase. Do the same
thing for His Loony Mikeness and post the numbers.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:39:34 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

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. ...

Ok, put up or shut up time. Go back and review the roff posts
for the last year, pretend you are fair-minded moderator and
count the number of my posts you would erase. Do the same
thing for His Loony Mikeness and post the numbers.

I'd offer that all NGs are "moderated" unless someone is somehow
"forced" to set up a newsclient, subscribe, read, reply, etc. I'll
decide what I wish to read and how or if I reply, thank you vary much.

OTOH, if one were to apply typical NG moderator definitions/standards,
I'd not be surprised in the least to find that 75% of the posts to ROFF
since day one wouldn't make it past a such a moderator...including many
which sparked no real controversy...and this very thread...which is
precisely the reason I've no interest _at all_ in such a forum.

HTH,
R

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:39:34 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Ok, put up or shut up time. Go back and review the roff posts
for the last year, pretend you are fair-minded moderator and
count the number of my posts you would erase. Do the same
thing for His Loony Mikeness and post the numbers.

Great challenge.

Dave

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.

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 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.

The latest spat with Connor is nothing new. He has been doing that
for several years. Remember when Gehrke was alive? It was the same
thing. Believe it or not, some people are amused by Connor's antics,
just as they were with Gehrke's.

Dave

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

"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