TZUTC: -0600
MSGID: 2088.fido_fidogaze@1:123/115 26457e58
REPLY: 2:292/854 0f2d450e
PID: Synchronet 3.19c-Linux master/8c963b6a0 Jan  7 2022 GCC 5.5.0
TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Linux master/8c963b6a0 Jan  7 2022 GCC 5.5.0
BBSID: PALANT
CHRS: ASCII 1
-=> Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-

 DC> Would you prefer that those echoes be killed off, and FidoNet take
 DC> yet another step closer to the grave?

 WD> I wonder ... how much is still alive ... that's a different
 WD> question than 'How many sysops are listed?" ... "How many still
 WD> participate?" ... I think a lot fewer than we expect ...

Probably, yes.

 WD> There are whole regions with dysfunctional RCs ... nets with
 WD> dysfunctional NCs ... that is the reality. Nothing's being done
 WD> about it and if I dare raise the issue I'm the bogey-man that
 WD> needs to mind his own business.

Yes, that sucks and I'm not sure how that can be fixed.  Maybe some 
people need to be fired and new ones installed.  But...., that's not the 
issue under discussion here in this thread.  It's related, sort of, but 
not the focus of my question above.

 DC> Perhaps they'll be revived, now that it's under "new ownership".  Why
 DC> would you not want that to happen?  What have you got to lose?  Nobody
 DC> is asking you to do anything.  Perhaps you should hush up and let others
 DC> do things that are in the best interests of FidoNet.

 WD> OK ... I'll hush up and see how successful a publication the
 WD> Fidogazette is not going to be. Janis tried but other than
 WD> crossposting some messages from echoes and re-hashing old
 WD> material, not that much really happened.

Okay.  Perhaps it's lack of success was (at least partially) due to 
Janis.  I guess we'll see.  My point was to ask you to at least give it 
a chance to get off the ground without belaboring things with a person 
that you clearly have a negative history with.  That doesn't help.

 WD> The real problem is 'lack of contributors', 'lack of exciting
 WD> things' ... the same issues which confronts Fidonews. It's "the
 WD> people's publication", but if the people does not contribute then
 WD> it just does not happen.

No argument with that.  I'll make a "new year's resolution" to see if I 
can contribute, and to encourage others to as well.

 WD> At the moment I see no indicator for change. But you know what,
 WD> prove me wrong. I do not expect the new 'self appointed'
 WD> ownership is going to change a whole lot.

Fair enough.  A chance to try is not asking too much.

 DC> For such a long-standing and (supposed) proponent of FidoNet, you sure
 DC> do seem to hate it.  Perhaps that's just your personal bias and grudges
 DC> showing through?

 DC> Do us all a favor and go be a ZC, leaving the administration of an echo
 DC> and a publication to those who actually do try to help FidoNet be better.

 WD> 'The administration of an echo' ... hmmm ... how difficult must
 WD> it be? I run a number of international echoes ... mever must I
 WD> act, even hardly ever do I publish any rules.

It's not usually difficult, no.... but sometimes the participants can 
make the moderator's job harder by just carrying on and on for no good 
reason.  Let's give it a chance.

 WD> But as said before ... prove me wrong.

I hope "we" can do that.  Take care.



... Strip mining prevents forest fires.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
SEEN-BY: 1/120 123 14/0 15/0 18/0 200 90/1 105/81 106/201 116/116
SEEN-BY: 120/340 123/0 25 40 115 126 131 160 180 190 200 755 134/101
SEEN-BY: 135/300 138/146 153/250 7715 154/10 222/2 226/30 227/114
SEEN-BY: 229/110 200 307 424 426 664 700 240/1120 5832 249/206 317
SEEN-BY: 249/400 250/1 266/512 275/100 282/1038 292/854 299/6 300/4
SEEN-BY: 301/1 317/3 320/219 322/757 342/11 200 396/45 633/280 640/1321
SEEN-BY: 712/848 2320/105 3634/0 12 15 27 50 119
PATH: 123/115 3634/12 153/7715 229/426