Subj : Dog 'n' pony To : Dale Ross From : Michael Grant Date : Sat May 12 2001 12:07 pm Hello Dale. 12 May 01 12:30, you wrote to me: DR>>> If you cannot live within this network then yes get the hell out DR>>> of it. Cr a new network that you can live in. Problem is that DR>>> your new network would fail miserably. >> >> Guess what, Dale? I *am* an administrator in another FTN network, >> and it's far from failing. In that network, we don't hold people's >> mail hostage to a set of outdated standards. DR> Is this the best that you can do? No; in fact, I'm also a hub in three other networks. None of those other nets have an echomail hub that censors echomail the way you do. DR>>> It is not going to make a difference to them. Users as a whole DR>>> never were interested in "joining" FidoNet. In the prime time of DR>>> FidoNet I had far mo users than points. That was true with EVERY DR>>> BBS in this Net. Probably true with EVERY Net in FidoNet. >> >> Did you ask them? DR> I asked EVERY user. Why do you think I had so many points? If they could set up as points, why not full nodes? >> It's most likely they were afraid to inquire about it, as many >> sysops back then were either silent, or even downright discouraged >> many users from even trying to join Fidonet. DR> Maybe in your Net. Not in our Net. Every sysop was active in all the DR> local echoes. Each system had many points as well as users. We did a DR> lot of recruiting from the user base. And now the user base is largely gone; so where do we do our recruiting today, Dale? >> I know something of this, as I was a user myself back then. In fact, >> a big argument ensued in this very net when a sysop tried to set me >> up as a point. It caused that sysop to quit Fidonet. DR> Good for you. I know a LOT MORE about it. I was user that became a DR> co-sysop and a point that became a full-blown node. All of this DR> through the recruiting of local sysops. I was active in recruiting new DR> sysops/points and users. All of this, I have done as well. Do you think you are unique in that? DR>>> For most of us I am certain that means the messages they send are DR>>> in a for that everyone in the network can receive. That is a hell DR>>> of a stretch from and where we were 10 years ago. >> >> I see no major problems of that nature with the programs that are >> being used today in Fidonet, and neither do the vast majority of >> other mail hubs in Fidonet. Why do you therefore feel the need to >> use a filter on the echomail? DR> Excuse me but you were just a few short days ago advocating radical DR> changes so that new users could come in. Develope new standards and DR> damn to the systems that did not keep up. No, I was *not* advocating what you ASSume I was advocating. I was advocating /embracing/ new ideas, and accepting them, provided they don't cause major problems for the network. You on the other hand resist any such change, and want to hold every member to outdated standards, as evidenced by your constant complaints about things you see as a problem, but which cause exactly ZERO problems for any other sysop in Fidonet. DR> I do not filter Echomail. I would bet a dolloar to a doughnut that if DR> you carry the exact same load that I carry then yes you pass more DR> messages through your system. The difference being that dupes never DR> make it through my system and they do on yours. And every sysop who uses a tosser uses dupe detection, so what if a few slip through? Dupes are largely caught, even by my system without running NoBogus, and they are *not* a major problem in Fidonet. DR> Nope. You apparently have no idea of what users want. I came into my DR> first contact with FidoNet as user while FidoNet was still small. I DR> saw the boom of users in the early 90's and the boom of new systems in DR> the nodelist. I had an active user base of close to 1000 users in DR> 1993-95. At the peak I had MAYBE a couple of dozen points. Might I suggest that your view of what users want is tainted by your personal experiences? Fidonet today is a different thing than it used to be, and the world around Fidonet is a /much/ different thing today than it used to be. The fact of the matter is, you don't have a *clue* about what today's users want, as it's a very different thing from what they wanted back when you were a user. If you are so deluded that you think you know what users today want, when they are abandoning Fidonet in droves because of views such as yours, then it's no wonder Fidonet is dying. Pull your head out of the sand and take a look beyond your own little world for once. DR> Yes my DR> system was far from being the largest in FidoNet, the region or even DR> my Net. I know what other systems had and I know what the user DR> reaction was to being asked about joining FidoNet. New users were DR> greeted with a bulletin about joining the BBS, being a point and being DR> a full-blown Fido system. Those same bulletins existed for every DR> system that read bulletins and were ALWASY downloaded with SQK DR> packets. So what? the success of systems in the past is not going to return if we keep doing what we did back then. The world has changed, Dale. FIDONET NEEDS TO CHANGE, TOO. >> Dale, *IT DOESN'T MATTER* how long any member of this network has >> been around. Fidonet is lucky just to have anyone interested enough >> to still want to be a part of this network, especially when it means >> having to put up with all the elitist bullshit on a daily basis like >> you so readily display in spades with your attitude. DR> It most certainly matters if you are going to have ANY perceptive DR> about bringing new systems into the network. A past way of doing things that no longer works today is going to help recuit new members? Stop sniffing the naptha, Dale. DR> Do you know ANYTHING about market research? If you have little to no DR> information about the history of a product and the past reactions to DR> marketing that product to a group of people, how the hell do you DR> expect to be successful today. Hoola hoops used to be popular with teenagers in the past. Do any teenagers want hoola-hoops today? The teenagers of today want different things than the teenagers of the past. Yet a large producer of hoola-hoops in the past, Hasbro, is still around today; why? Hasbro changed with the times, and looked for different targets. It's not different than what's happening in Fidonet today. If Fidonet doesn't change with the times, it'll go the way of the hoola hoop. DR> This has nothing to do with any elitest attitude. That is DR> simply your way of twisting things around. It is very much elitist. The very fact that you don't recognize it as elitist proves that you don't even understand what elitisim is. DR>>> In the prime time of our network us were not that interested in DR>>> actually joining the network. What makes you think that things DR>>> are any different today? >> >> A shrinking nodelist means Fidonet has to think of some new ideas to >> attract members, as the old ideas are clearly proving unpopular. DR> Wrong. How about finding ways to KEEP what we already have? Systems DR> are not leaving FidoNet because it is hard to join or it is some elite DR> group. These sysops are already a member of the "elite group". The attrition rate amongst those running older software is not different from the rate of systems running newer software. The software and standards are not the reason Fidonet is dying. If a person really wants to participate, they'll find software that will do it for them, that's proven by the fact that there are still occasionally new nodes joining, when the software necessary is getting damn hard to find. If their older software develops problems, most are very grateful if someone can suggest newer software than can fix their problems for them. Anyhow, what's this got to do with reality, except for what you ASSume I advocate? I connect with sysops via POTS who are using long-abandoned BBS packages & tossers, and I connect with systems that are ION and gate newsgroups. None of these sysops have any problems whatsoever co-existing with each other, and my making allowances for those who want to use newer software has not caused any downlink of mine running older software to shut down. Therefore I do not feel the need to harrass the sysop running newer software to strictly adhere to the current FTSC standards. >> In the heyday of Fidonet, there were plenty of people wanting to >> join Fidonet; no so today, as the world has changed and Fidonet has >> proven less attractive than the alternatives. It's a matter of >> simple survival now. DR> In the heyday of FidoNet there were FAR more users that wanted to use DR> FidoNet. We picked up a SMALL percentage of those users as full-blown DR> systems and points. The users left, which gave the sysops less DR> incentive to be here and they leave. That's the point, Dale. If you understood that, maybe your attitudes would change. We need to get the users back, and only then will the new sysops follow. The only way to get users back is to try new ideas that make Fidonet more attractive than it currently is. If we remain stubbornly resistant to that change, we are doomed. DR>>> BBSes have not been accepted as suitable for FidoNet DR>>> communications. The mailer function of the BBS has been accepted. >> >> BBS editors are not sutible for Fidonet communications? What about >> those BBSes that have a built-in tosser? DR> The BBS by itself if not. You have to transoport the message once it DR> is created. HTTP is NOT good for TWO communications. NNTP however DR> would be. Do you understand HTTP technology>? The mailer alone is not suitable for Fidonet communications, either. It needs *.PKT files to send. It needs messages to put into those *.PKTs. A Fidonet setup needs /three/ programs to work in concert; editor, tosser, and mailer. Given that, why can't a BBS based solely on HTTP, perhaps with CGI or Java apps integrated as well, make the messages, then a tosser designed specifically for the task, perhaps even built into the program, regularly toss those messages and then a mailer such as Argus send them? It's entirely possible; it's just that it hasn't been done yet. Yet suppose this is accomplished, and the HTTP package makes a funny MSGID, or displays something a little differently than we're used to, but the messages still can be transferred without causing any major problems. Should we immediately ban the use of such a package, when it might increase the popularity of Fidonet as a whole, until it meets all specifications? DR> We knew YEARS ago that things would be abandoned. Long about DR> 1997-1998 I knew that the choice of BBS packages was going to be slim DR> pickings in the future. I am not sure what that has to do with *.pkt DR> and doing away with it. There you go ASSuming again. I do not in fact advocate doing away with *.PKT, and in fact I think it's a very efficient means of moving mail. The point I am making is that *.PKT may not always be around, as something new and easier to use might come along and prove very popular; and if that happens, we ought to embrace that. If people at that point still want to use *.PKT, it can still be accomplished with the use of programs that will convert formats, just as at one time *.QWK based networks were gaining in popularity, and so programs were made to convert *.PKT to *.QWK packets. If we remain stubbornly adhered to the *.PKT standards though, such progress becomes impossible. >> And if Fidonet changes to the point where Squish will puke? DR> Talk about elitist attitude. All I read out of you is how we need to DR> forget about all the older systems in FidoNet. Screw that and take DR> that attitude to another NetWork. Try answering the question. Suppose things do change? What do we do about Squish? Try actually thinking of practical solutions, instead of just saying "GTF out if you don't wanna do things /my/ way". DR> I will do what I can to keep the nodes that we have in FidoNet. I DR> have friends that I know will leave DR> FidoNet if any such changes occurred. Would they leave if you pointed out that they could use a newer program with ease, or can use a simple program to convert their messages? DR> You think the Y2K thing hurt us. DR> What you propose would nail the final nails into the coffin. Really? Blue Wave readers crapped out in Y2K; but one of our members, Dale Shipp, was nice enough to make a fix for the problem, and Blue Wave is making a comeback. Progress does not mean that older programs need to be abandoned; it just takes a little bit of accomodation to fill everyone's needs. The difference is that I see /possibilities/, and think of /alternatives/, while you dream of the past and ASSume I mean drastically changing the way things are done. Drastic change will not solve this network's problems, but gradual evolution can. It can't if we close the door to new possibilities, though. DR>> >> Contemplate it's navel until it dwindles to a few stragglers DR>> >> running anc DR>>> software? DR>>> That's right. >> >> I figured that'd be your view. DR> DAMN RIGHT it is my attitude. I care about the nodes we have in DR> FidoNet and I care about keeping them, unlike yourself. You care about keeping the older nodes in this network without helping them to change with the times, at the expense of attracting newer nodes. How is this going to save Fidonet? As the network dwindles to almost nothing, even those running older software that are completely comfortable with their setup and don't need to change a thing will eventually leave. OTOH, I care about attracting as many new nodes as possible, while still doing the best that I can to help those running older software. If they really care enough about Fidonet, they'd be willing to run a extra program or to look at new programs in order to remain active in Fidonet; and I'll be there for *every single* downlink of mine to help them accomplish that. I don't toss nodes out just because they want to do things differently than I do; and that goes both ways. No one node is more important than another, regardless of their choices of software or how long they've been in Fidonet. >> Censoring is censoring, and that is what you did. It is still >> irresponsible and immoral to censor the echomail. The only thing >> with you that is bent is your egomaniacal attitude. DR> You are wrong. What I did and what I continue to do is GOOD. Keep believing that, and Fidonet will keep dying. --- GoldED+/386 1.1.4.5 * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE: WelComE To ThE AsYluM! (1:134/11) .