Joanna,

Newsgroups participation could easily be argued to be down because every
question about a topic (especially orchids) can be answered instantaneously
now by just Googling the question... no one has to wait 24 hours anymore for
a response from someone in the newsgroup. Even emailing overall on the net
is declining... everyone prefers IM-ing now. We all want instant feedback
and RGO (among many other newsgroups) is becoming an information dinosaur.
It's evolution.

Mick

Believe what you like. I will always resist muggings on this or any
forum. It is hard to TOS a hit and run flamer but easy to TOS a
regular. On some forums viewers run 200 views to one poster or more.
Who knows why they only lurk, but, they are there. IMHO one mugging can
move hundreds to abandon this forum. Besides, I CANNOT stand idly by
and watch a hit without defending the hitee. Not in me. If this forum
finds Mr. Fournier's antics acceptable I will move on, no big thing.
The web is full of forums, and asyou say everything is now known about
orchids, no questions left, just a place to bicker.
Joe T

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1994 243 219 195 206 222 192 332
1995 350 205 265 314 359 362 337 371 426 348 313 511
1996 464 419 429 506 472 369 422 441 463 380 452 465
1997 502 512 508 470 527 446 452 256 380 427 423 475
1998 527 449 510 460 588 674 568 682 576 746 961 939
1999 997 1053 957 1135 1068 815 1036 1107 1366 991 933 641

2000 1026 785 941 1156 790 764 1007 1014 869 1182 884 860

2001 1238 1174 1123 799 822 897 1005 1070 896 1282 956 1044

2002 909 808 972 845 725 537 541 498 710 556 744 798
2003 784 807 605 651 612 658 813 783 850 529 757 627
2004 908 758 708 719 517 525 575 567 601 548 723 619
2005 543 443 607 480 450 334 426 477 363 448 493 396
2006 372 298 444 492 417 441 313 180


J Fortuna wrote:
Joe T,

Sorry, but I don't believe that the lower posting rates in RGO are due to
violations of TOS.

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/ is a tool that allows one to search
for all kinds of interesting statistics about this newsgroup. Among other
things, you can find out there that RGO has been much less active this year
than last year -- for example: using August 1, 2006 to get the statistics
for a year, last year there were 5533, and this year only 2968; in contrast
using August, 1, 2001 to get statistics for a year, 12158 "this year"
(meaning Aug 1, 2001 back to Aug 1, 2000, I think). And yet in February 2001
there was a message to this forum entitled "Why are people so mean on this
forum". I think you will find reading through the archives that this group
has actually become much more tame and friendly to newbies over time rather
than the opposite. RGO used to have some ferocious flame wars, and yet
during those days the number of messages was much higher.

Mick Fournier has been a member of this forum since Jun 19 1997, and in this
time he has been exceedingly rude at times, exceedingly funny at other
times, and given useful information at other times, and sometimes even all
three of these at once, but you cannot blame the declining participation in
this forum on Mick's behavior because then this forum would have had it's
lowest turnout years ago, when Mick's tirades were really ugly. Believe it
or not, Mick seems to have calmed down significantly over the years, and he
is no longer nearly as rude as he used to be. Just read the archives in
groups.google.com searching for group:rec.gardens.orchids author:fournier if
you don't believe me.

So there must be another explanation for decline in participation in this
forum. How about the fact that newsgroups in general are an old mode of
communication? I have not been able to find statistics for all of
Usenet/Newsgroups but I bet that the overall numbers have declined over the
years.

Joanna


"jtill" wrote in message
oups.com...
The point is, violations of TOS harm this forum and drive away posters.
I think Mr. Fournier has violated the TOS and wish he would quit doing
that. Years ago I watched RGR Flamed till it was ruined. There are folk
that turn to RGO for help and discussion, that is what they should get.
We all, Experts and Newbies, should provide that. Simple, polite
corrections should should stop OT posts.
Did I make that clear?
Joe T
The data I used came from GOOGLE.


J Fortuna wrote:
RGO posts, author Mick Fournier, July 2000, 21
RGO posts, author Mick Fournier, July 2000, 1

I do not know the orchid sales of Mick Fournier during that time, and
whether or not they have shown a steady growth.

Joe T, what point were you trying to make with these RGO stats?

Joanna

PS: the RGO posts, author Mick Fournier stats quoted above are based on a
search using http://groups.google.com/advanced_search (I don't know what
you
were using for your stats Joe T, but groups.google.com returns only 241
results for RGO for 2000, and only 41 in July 2006 -- although I think
groups.google.com returns threads as results and not individual messages,
so
that might account for the difference in our stats.

"jtill" wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
RGO posts, July 2000, 1007.
RGO posts, July 2006, 313.

Orchid sales during that time have shown steady growth.

Joe T
Baytown

Joe,

I can't stand ass-wipers like you. Go screw yourself.

Mick

For what its worth, the first thing I did on seeing the original post
(before anybody had even responded to it) was to check out the thief's site
to see if any of my pictures were posted there. And for what it's worth
again I had no idea that the mere mention of pictures could bring Mick out
with his bloody chainsaw spinning. I though actual pictures were needed.
This is new. New is exciting.

How have you determined how many people lurk and their response to the
things they have read? How do you know they leave if they have never made
their presence known? Jtill, this is an honest question. I have always
wondered if there is a way to know how many people are really lurking since
I have seen so many people on this newsgroup try to claim them and their
responses during times of conflict. If you don't use your voice, Lurkers,
it seems somebody else will.

How do you determine the difference between a lurker and a doppelganger who
comes out of nowhere to express an opinion and is never heard from again?
(A doppelganger is a regular poster who has disguised his/her identity for
whatever narcissistic reason makes sense to them at the moment.) Lets vote
on it....

I think there is a spike in posting numbers whenever there is a flame war.
When I look at those number below I can remember during periods of highest
posting a spectacular 18 or so month flameout that saw some of the heaviest
participation this newsgroup has ever seen. But these were mega-flamewars
and not an exchange of orchid information.

And just subtracting the posts of one particular heavy poster from these
numbers and I don't see a real spike at all....

What is a TOS? Doesn't it have something to do with a persons service
provider? Did you contact Mick's service provider and what was their
response? This is not a new threat to Mick if my memory serves me
correctly. And there has been a pattern to his response in the past, but we
shall see, I suppose if anything new comes of this.

What to do in a newsgroup when even the flame wars are repeats of
repeats.... sigh.

And finally, FWIW, could this be the flame war we have not had in so many
months. How do you all start these things? Honestly. I keep trying but
can't seem to ignite one on my own and frequently when I try to join one in
flagrante delicto it just seem to die out quickly...like I peed on it or
something. But I do keep trying. Maybe this time it will be different....

Al

PS. And oh yes, I have one more thing to add. During one flame war I
actually received an order in the mail with a check and a hand written
apology from someone who thought the way I was being treated on this
newsgroup was rude. It made me feel kind of creepy because I though the
person taunting me was kind of clownish and not to be taken seriously and
this is one reason why I steer clear of advertising or selling on this
newsgroup and for this reason you rarely see me post my URL,
(orchidexchange.com) posted here even when I have a spectacular 20% off sale
going on.

Have a great thread. This could be good!

And PPPPPS. If you are researching my participation you will get very
skewed results. I have changed my name and email address several times. My
aliases don't show up in that very interesting link Joanna provided.


"jtill" wrote in message
oups.com...
Believe what you like. I will always resist muggings on this or any
forum. It is hard to TOS a hit and run flamer but easy to TOS a
regular. On some forums viewers run 200 views to one poster or more.
Who knows why they only lurk, but, they are there. IMHO one mugging can
move hundreds to abandon this forum. Besides, I CANNOT stand idly by
and watch a hit without defending the hitee. Not in me. If this forum
finds Mr. Fournier's antics acceptable I will move on, no big thing.
The web is full of forums, and asyou say everything is now known about
orchids, no questions left, just a place to bicker.
Joe T

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1994 243 219 195 206 222 192 332
1995 350 205 265 314 359 362 337 371 426 348 313 511
1996 464 419 429 506 472 369 422 441 463 380 452 465
1997 502 512 508 470 527 446 452 256 380 427 423 475
1998 527 449 510 460 588 674 568 682 576 746 961 939
1999 997 1053 957 1135 1068 815 1036 1107 1366 991 933 641

2000 1026 785 941 1156 790 764 1007 1014 869 1182 884 860

2001 1238 1174 1123 799 822 897 1005 1070 896 1282 956 1044

2002 909 808 972 845 725 537 541 498 710 556 744 798
2003 784 807 605 651 612 658 813 783 850 529 757 627
2004 908 758 708 719 517 525 575 567 601 548 723 619
2005 543 443 607 480 450 334 426 477 363 448 493 396
2006 372 298 444 492 417 441 313 180


J Fortuna wrote:
Joe T,

Sorry, but I don't believe that the lower posting rates in RGO are due to
violations of TOS.

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/ is a tool that allows one to
search
for all kinds of interesting statistics about this newsgroup. Among other
things, you can find out there that RGO has been much less active this
year
than last year -- for example: using August 1, 2006 to get the statistics
for a year, last year there were 5533, and this year only 2968; in
contrast
using August, 1, 2001 to get statistics for a year, 12158 "this year"
(meaning Aug 1, 2001 back to Aug 1, 2000, I think). And yet in February
2001
there was a message to this forum entitled "Why are people so mean on
this
forum". I think you will find reading through the archives that this
group
has actually become much more tame and friendly to newbies over time
rather
than the opposite. RGO used to have some ferocious flame wars, and yet
during those days the number of messages was much higher.

Mick Fournier has been a member of this forum since Jun 19 1997, and in
this
time he has been exceedingly rude at times, exceedingly funny at other
times, and given useful information at other times, and sometimes even
all
three of these at once, but you cannot blame the declining participation
in
this forum on Mick's behavior because then this forum would have had it's
lowest turnout years ago, when Mick's tirades were really ugly. Believe
it
or not, Mick seems to have calmed down significantly over the years, and
he
is no longer nearly as rude as he used to be. Just read the archives in
groups.google.com searching for group:rec.gardens.orchids author:fournier
if
you don't believe me.

So there must be another explanation for decline in participation in this
forum. How about the fact that newsgroups in general are an old mode of
communication? I have not been able to find statistics for all of
Usenet/Newsgroups but I bet that the overall numbers have declined over
the
years.

Joanna


"jtill" wrote in message
oups.com...
The point is, violations of TOS harm this forum and drive away posters.
I think Mr. Fournier has violated the TOS and wish he would quit doing
that. Years ago I watched RGR Flamed till it was ruined. There are folk
that turn to RGO for help and discussion, that is what they should get.
We all, Experts and Newbies, should provide that. Simple, polite
corrections should should stop OT posts.
Did I make that clear?
Joe T
The data I used came from GOOGLE.


J Fortuna wrote:
RGO posts, author Mick Fournier, July 2000, 21
RGO posts, author Mick Fournier, July 2000, 1

I do not know the orchid sales of Mick Fournier during that time, and
whether or not they have shown a steady growth.

Joe T, what point were you trying to make with these RGO stats?

Joanna

PS: the RGO posts, author Mick Fournier stats quoted above are based
on a
search using http://groups.google.com/advanced_search (I don't know
what
you
were using for your stats Joe T, but groups.google.com returns only
241
results for RGO for 2000, and only 41 in July 2006 -- although I think
groups.google.com returns threads as results and not individual
messages,
so
that might account for the difference in our stats.

"jtill" wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
RGO posts, July 2000, 1007.
RGO posts, July 2006, 313.

Orchid sales during that time have shown steady growth.

Joe T
Baytown

On 17 Aug 2006 09:24:05 -0700 in .com jtill wrote:
Believe what you like. I will always resist muggings on this or any
forum. It is hard to TOS a hit and run flamer but easy to TOS a
regular. On some forums viewers run 200 views to one poster or more.
Who knows why they only lurk, but, they are there. IMHO one mugging can
move hundreds to abandon this forum. Besides, I CANNOT stand idly by
and watch a hit without defending the hitee. Not in me. If this forum
finds Mr. Fournier's antics acceptable I will move on, no big thing.
The web is full of forums, and asyou say everything is now known about
orchids, no questions left, just a place to bicker.

Bah, get over yourself. If it weren't for the occasional well
crafted flame, I'd have tossed USENET years ago.

I attribute the lower posting rates to USENET due to
1) The marginalization of USENET by ISPs. It doesn't make sense
to carry net news when it just increases your costs and your
odds of being sued by RIAA or MPAA.
2) The September that finally ended. AOL and its ilk caused a lot
of folks to abandon USENET, and replaced them with thin skinned
whiners.
3) The Trotskyesk reinvention of USENET as blogs and web forums. Why
accept a flame archived for all to see when you can just censor it
yourself? Need to astroturf a bit? Do it without publicly visible
logs.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1994 243 219 195 206 222 192 332
1995 350 205 265 314 359 362 337 371 426 348 313 511
1996 464 419 429 506 472 369 422 441 463 380 452 465
1997 502 512 508 470 527 446 452 256 380 427 423 475
1998 527 449 510 460 588 674 568 682 576 746 961 939
1999 997 1053 957 1135 1068 815 1036 1107 1366 991 933 641

2000 1026 785 941 1156 790 764 1007 1014 869 1182 884 860

2001 1238 1174 1123 799 822 897 1005 1070 896 1282 956 1044

2002 909 808 972 845 725 537 541 498 710 556 744 798

You know that correlates quite well with the post 9/11 layoffs
and the takeoff of blogs and most ISPs giving up on providing USENET
themselves.

2003 784 807 605 651 612 658 813 783 850 529 757 627
2004 908 758 708 719 517 525 575 567 601 548 723 619
2005 543 443 607 480 450 334 426 477 363 448 493 396
2006 372 298 444 492 417 441 313 180

And let's be honest, nearly the entire representation of folks with
sufficient clue to track down the TOS of the poster's ISP and the poster's
news service can be found as regular posters to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.

Plus, Mick isn't as big of an asshole as I am.
--
Chris Dukes
"The key to effective management is properly timed hovering."

oh lucky you. If only I saw the same.

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...

"Mick Fournier" wrote and I snipped:

Even emailing overall on the net is declining... everyone prefers IM-ing
now.

The decline in email may have more to do with the fact that spammers are
now being put behind bars. I am getting much less spam then I was a few
years ago while receiving more statements and 'faxs' via email.

"Mick Fournier" wrote and I snippped:

Newsgroups participation could easily be argued to be down because every
question about a topic (especially orchids) can be answered
instantaneously now by just Googling the question...

Most googled orchid culture questions will return a thread from our group on
page 1 or 2. Anyone googling 'orchid photo theft' will not find much useful
in RGO and move on.

"J Fortuna" wrote and I snipped:

..

So there must be another explanation for decline in participation in this
forum. How about the fact that newsgroups in general are an old mode of
communication? I have not been able to find statistics for all of
Usenet/Newsgroups but I bet that the overall numbers have declined over
the years.


RGO is available from several different gardening site. You do not have to
have a newsreader or even know what Usenet is to be part of RGO.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:47:22 -0400 in Pat Brennan wrote:

wrote in message and I'm in a
snipping mood:

3) The Trotskyesk reinvention of USENET as blogs and web forums. Why
accept a flame archived for all to see when you can just censor it
yourself? Need to astroturf a bit? Do it without publicly visible
logs.

Hey Chris,

Years ago when I used to post at work, I could add something to my post and
dejanews would not archive it. Do you know if that option is still
available now that Google is doing the archiving?

Well, X-noarchive: yes
in headers or first line of body is supposed to work.
But I'm of the mindset that that's just a flag to put it in a database
to be available for a fee. Plus I have dim memories of running a
news server for an employer where all employee posts with the
X-noarchive header were retained should management request them
for review.

One of the great failings of x-noarchive was that anyone could
post a followup that appeared to quote the entire text, but
contained something completely different.

--
Chris Dukes
"The key to effective management is properly timed hovering."

"Mick Fournier" wrote and I snipped:

Even emailing overall on the net is declining... everyone prefers IM-ing
now.

The decline in email may have more to do with the fact that spammers are now
being put behind bars. I am getting much less spam then I was a few years
ago while receiving more statements and 'faxs' via email.

wrote in message and I'm in a
snipping mood:

3) The Trotskyesk reinvention of USENET as blogs and web forums. Why
accept a flame archived for all to see when you can just censor it
yourself? Need to astroturf a bit? Do it without publicly visible
logs.

Hey Chris,

Years ago when I used to post at work, I could add something to my post and
dejanews would not archive it. Do you know if that option is still
available now that Google is doing the archiving?

Pat

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:31:08 -0400, "Pat Brennan"
wrote:

RGO is available from several different gardening site. You do not have to
have a newsreader or even know what Usenet is to be part of RGO.


Now that is the archive I would like to shoot down. Why should some
other group reproduce our discussion as their own material?
Periodically we get e-mail from someone who has read this "archive" as
a live post on a garden forum.

They are also the reason our posters are down. There must be 6-10
forums that purport to cover the subject of orchids and each tries to
act as if they are the ONLY source of reliable information. We even
had a kid in the OS start one and complain because we did not want to
sign in and be monitored.


SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids

Joe,

I can't stand ass-wipers like you. Go screw yourself.

Mick

Al,

You're right... by the time you get involved in a hot thread it is nearly
too late and already on the way out, but I will help out RGO on this one.
WE will re-energize this thread to make it a real scorcher. I love heated
threads (as all orchid vendors do) because the hotter the thread the hotter
the buying juices that rise up in the RGOers. My sales always go up in
these "times of trouble/confrontation"... and you know what I am talking
about Tonto.

Mick

PS, I am confused... is www.orchidexchange.com having a spectacular 20%
off sale right now this minute?

Chris,

I think you are trying to dethrone me.

Mick

========================

wrote in message
g...
On 17 Aug 2006 09:24:05 -0700 in
.com jtill
wrote:
Believe what you like. I will always resist muggings on this or any
forum. It is hard to TOS a hit and run flamer but easy to TOS a
regular. On some forums viewers run 200 views to one poster or more.
Who knows why they only lurk, but, they are there. IMHO one mugging can
move hundreds to abandon this forum. Besides, I CANNOT stand idly by
and watch a hit without defending the hitee. Not in me. If this forum
finds Mr. Fournier's antics acceptable I will move on, no big thing.
The web is full of forums, and asyou say everything is now known about
orchids, no questions left, just a place to bicker.

Bah, get over yourself. If it weren't for the occasional well
crafted flame, I'd have tossed USENET years ago.

I attribute the lower posting rates to USENET due to
1) The marginalization of USENET by ISPs. It doesn't make sense
to carry net news when it just increases your costs and your
odds of being sued by RIAA or MPAA.
2) The September that finally ended. AOL and its ilk caused a lot
of folks to abandon USENET, and replaced them with thin skinned
whiners.
3) The Trotskyesk reinvention of USENET as blogs and web forums. Why
accept a flame archived for all to see when you can just censor it
yourself? Need to astroturf a bit? Do it without publicly visible
logs.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1994 243 219 195 206 222 192 332
1995 350 205 265 314 359 362 337 371 426 348 313 511
1996 464 419 429 506 472 369 422 441 463 380 452 465
1997 502 512 508 470 527 446 452 256 380 427 423 475
1998 527 449 510 460 588 674 568 682 576 746 961 939
1999 997 1053 957 1135 1068 815 1036 1107 1366 991 933 641

2000 1026 785 941 1156 790 764 1007 1014 869 1182 884 860

2001 1238 1174 1123 799 822 897 1005 1070 896 1282 956 1044

2002 909 808 972 845 725 537 541 498 710 556 744 798

You know that correlates quite well with the post 9/11 layoffs
and the takeoff of blogs and most ISPs giving up on providing USENET
themselves.

2003 784 807 605 651 612 658 813 783 850 529 757 627
2004 908 758 708 719 517 525 575 567 601 548 723 619
2005 543 443 607 480 450 334 426 477 363 448 493 396
2006 372 298 444 492 417 441 313 180

And let's be honest, nearly the entire representation of folks with
sufficient clue to track down the TOS of the poster's ISP and the poster's
news service can be found as regular posters to
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.

Plus, Mick isn't as big of an asshole as I am.
--
Chris Dukes
"The key to effective management is properly timed hovering."