On 10-Oct-2010, "monroe, of course" > wrote:

> Gene > wrote:
>
> > snip
> > >There's just not enough traffic on usenet anymore to support this as
> > >well as it used to be. So people make entertainment where they find
> > >it, with the bullshit you dislike.
> >
> > Perhaps.
> >
> > >
> > >Now, if all the complaining lurkers actually participated the signal
> > >to noise ratio would automatically go down and maybe even attract some
> > >new good blood.
> > >
> > Perhaps they are not participating because they want to learn about Q
> > an not get sucked into a play ground of people (some) who do more back
> > biting than Q'ing.
> >
> > BTW, the noise is higher than the signal of late.
> >
> > >I suppose I must have a high bullshit tolerance, because you are not
> > >alone complaining that something drives you away that I see as simple
> > >noise. Sometimes even entertaining noise.
> >
> > Well I did sat it is sometimes entertaining. But it is a waste for
> > time and off topic.
> >
> > >I don't think your, and others, complaints are really on target. Do
> > >you seriously think a moderated group would attract more traffic? If
> > >you believe that, and that the real problem is in-fighting. Well, I
> > >have a bridge to sell you.
> >
> > I am not concerned with attracting more traffic. And yes, I do feel I
> > am on target i.e. my complaint.
> > >
> > >One very good thing that would improve the signal to noise ratio?
> > >Lurkers participating.
> > >
> > That is not going to happen till people feel welcome. In order for
> > that to happen they need to feel like they will not be attacked when
> > they participate. Remember, they see all. They see how others are
> > treated.
> >
> > >People such as yourself instead of trying to reinvent something,
> > >simply refresh it with renewed participation.
> >
> > Yea. The last time I did that I was at constant war with someone who
> > later admitted that he mistook me for someone else. He said he was
> > sorry bout it, and it is no longer an issue.
> >
> > But I am trying again now. But reading what I have over the last week
> > or so, well, I can't say I have lots of faith.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Duh.
> >
> > BTW, answering a question from a lurker with any "DUH" in your
> > response will drive them away. Sarcasm is not lost on lurkers, nor me.
> > I fully knew when I posted this subject that there would be those that
> > felt that the entire idea was a threat to take away their potential
> > fun. Just saying.
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> There'll always be wars,DUHs,and clueless n00bs who need spanking.
> Yes,Usenet IS dying.That's sad and all but,<shrug>...
> I'll personally admit to lurking more than I should,but,participating in
> threads with:
> uber-narsty political infighting,
> constant sock-puppet armageddons with rec.food.cooking idiots,
> and (J.C.on.skates)weather reports from Armpit,Flori-Texa-stan don't
> exactly garner my interest<knowhutimeanvern?>.
> These,hence and sadly,give me,ergo,Nothing To Say!
> **** the profanity police. F-,M-F-,S- and A-hole are perfectly good
> words. Smoke 'em if ya gottem. Kids don't belong here IMO-they belong in
> the kitchen on DishDetail.
> MY main peeve,IAGAS,is the incessant "Me,too" and "Amen Bro" and "Yeah"
> posts that are eversomuch more noise-y than signal-y.
> It doesn't improve the group one whit to followup Every Stinkin' Post
> when you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to contribute to them. Group members
> who do so AREN'T adding anything to ""participating"".
> As to moderating? I trpl-canine-dare you to find ANYONE that's
> masochistic enough for such an unthankful and useless job.
>
> monroe(on-and-off since '97,proudly sockpuppet-free for the *compleat
> entirety* of that)


Wish you would come back Monroe.

--
Brick (Kinky is using a feather.
Perverted is using the whole chicken.)