This group

A a year or so ago I mentioned I'd noticed,
(on Google's group statistics) that several key groups
I occasionally read, like comp.lang.php, rec.boats.buidling
and rec.woodworking, were doing well. Their average
number of posts and readers was holding steady, pretty
close to what they were 5 years ago. But rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
was down 80 percent (and that was a year ago). It's probably even more
anemic now.
I've been seeing the same unchanging name list here for several years
now.

In that post I implied, somewhat indirectly, the constant taunting
from
Fortenberry had something to do with it. Several others said
they thought it had more to do with competition from moderated
forums, like the Washington Fly Fishers and many others.

Perhaps the two (competition from forums and acid reflex disease
caused primarily by Fortenberry) are two sides of the same coin.
Fortenberry's constant pain-in-the-ass baiting would be erased by
the moderator at those forums. Fortenberry couldn't exist there
even if he wanted to. The level of discussion is an order of magnitude
more informative and well educated too. Perhaps as a result
(of his absense, and others like him).

I still log in and read this group once or twice a week. But the
frequency
I do read this group will continue to dribble off, principally because
of the
group's current cyber bully jerk. If you go back and review the
group's posts,
over the past year or so, you'll see there are still a fair number
of reasonable, helpful participants. But there is seldom a week
goes by without a **** storm. And Dangleberry is not only always
in the thick of it, he is usually it's starting point.

It will be interesting to see how much longer the group's few
remaining
responsible readers last. There is an undeniable downhill spiral
in progress. The numbers cannot be disputed. The readership here
is now tiny compared to 5 or so years ago.

"salmobytes" wrote in message
oups.com...
A a year or so ago I mentioned I'd noticed,
(on Google's group statistics) that several key groups
I occasionally read, like comp.lang.php, rec.boats.buidling
and rec.woodworking, were doing well. Their average
number of posts and readers was holding steady, pretty
close to what they were 5 years ago. But rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
was down 80 percent (and that was a year ago). It's probably even more
anemic now.
I've been seeing the same unchanging name list here for several years
now.

In that post I implied, somewhat indirectly, the constant taunting
from
Fortenberry had something to do with it. Several others said
they thought it had more to do with competition from moderated
forums, like the Washington Fly Fishers and many others.

Perhaps the two (competition from forums and acid reflex disease
caused primarily by Fortenberry) are two sides of the same coin.
Fortenberry's constant pain-in-the-ass baiting would be erased by
the moderator at those forums. Fortenberry couldn't exist there
even if he wanted to. The level of discussion is an order of magnitude
more informative and well educated too. Perhaps as a result
(of his absense, and others like him).

I still log in and read this group once or twice a week. But the
frequency
I do read this group will continue to dribble off, principally because
of the
group's current cyber bully jerk. If you go back and review the
group's posts,
over the past year or so, you'll see there are still a fair number
of reasonable, helpful participants. But there is seldom a week
goes by without a **** storm. And Dangleberry is not only always
in the thick of it, he is usually it's starting point.

It will be interesting to see how much longer the group's few
remaining
responsible readers last. There is an undeniable downhill spiral
in progress. The numbers cannot be disputed. The readership here
is now tiny compared to 5 or so years ago.
While you do make a few valid points, You have overlooked something. You
can't lay this all on Fortenberry. Mr. Mike Conner has been the one that
WILL not let things go and WILL not let then Die. He has belittled a number
of people and when called on the carpet and asked a direct question he goes
off on a tangent and attacks people. So while you may have the problem
identified, you have the wrong person Identified. If you go back and read a
few posts from me in the last 4 days in response to Mr. Mikes out of control
attacks, you will see more than just me asking him why he must continue to
attack after he states on many occasions that he is done. But yet when asked
why if he is done does he continue all he does is Call names, insult and
just simply make himself look like a pre-teen baby throwing a temper because
he didn't get his way.. Well Maybe its time to grow up and act his age
instead of a little boy. For someone of his age you would think that would
be easy to do.

Rick

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

salmobytes wrote:
A a year or so ago I mentioned I'd noticed, ...
snip
Dangleberry ...

What a pantload. I've been posting to roff since before there
was a roff and I've noticed that the folks who get the most
agitated are the ones who are "legends in their own minds".
That would include George Gehrke, His Loony Mikeness and you.

Your animus towards me goes all the way back to when Gehrke
thought he had roff wrapped around his little finger and a
collection of "junk yard dogs" to cheer him on. Neither of
those things were ever true but that was Gehrke's perception,
demented as he was. There was, and apparently still are, a
few who would blame Gehrke's loss of reputation on roff from
"Wise Uncle George" to "Huckster Extraordinaire" solely on me.
As much as I'd like to take credit for that it was Gehrke's
own doing.

Now you want to blame me for what ? Declining readership of
roff ? The decline of Usenet newsgroups ? The post-movie
decline in fly fishermen ? The kidnapping of the Lindbergh
baby ? LOL !!

Take your silly fairy tale somewhere else, nobody with any
sense around here will believe a word of it because we all
know it's Wolfgang's fault ! LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry