Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26!Jack.O'keeffe
From: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: who is this guy?
Message-ID: <13103@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 90 02:14:07 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/26 - SoundingBoard, Pittsburgh PA
Lines: 34
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 9473

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

 BW> I guess clarification is in order.

Clarification appreciated.  I totally agree with you.  So totally
that I've made a point of studiously avoiding the non-FidoNet nets.
I suppose that's why I missed your point the first time.

 BW> I am an extremely strong supporter of narrow topic, specific
 BW> support groups.  And will continue to create conferences . . .
 BW> The fragmentation that I was refering to is seperate unconnected
 BW> support groups existing on FidoNet, AlterNet, RelayNet, SmartNet,
 BW> InterLink . .  In my opinion all those do is stroke the ego's . .

We see the same phenomena in the non-electronic support networks, and
for much the same reasons.  Eventually there will come a shakeout and
the most effective networks will be the survivors.  I suppose that AA
is the classic model for this.

Are you contemplating startup of ESGNet then, Butch?  If so, would
it be the solution, or just a compounding of the problem?  Possibly a
solution could be found in a system of gateways that would enable the
closely focused suppoprt groups to co-exist on a number of the nets.

Keep on posting here, Butch.  I'm interested in your ideas, and the
ESG conferences can benefit from your experience.

... Jack.

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org