I do understand, sir. I've been surfing the wild and woolly waters of the
freelance world again, and it sucks up a substantial amount of time.

No, we're not moving anywhere. I just wanted everyone to be aware of how
widespread the issues are. As time permits, I may experiment with other
platforms for conversation, but not any time soon.

I suppose Gravity may have diluted use somewhat, but I don't really think
so. There's a healthy group there that benefits from the Gravity audience at
large, and previously unexplored conversations and users. I'd rather our
style of debating become prevalent across multiple sites, if possible,
meaning the quality of the conversation that occurs. Once I hit some
breathing room for personal projects, Fran, I'll be sure to let you know
about the next idea.

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote:

> Although the time I spend on on-line forums has gone down considerably
> since I decided to start blogging myself around six months ago, I
> remain very interested in what's going on here. This has more to do
> with the particular hard-core group of users, many of whom I have
> genuinely come to treasure and cherish over the past years.
>
> Looking back over the past few months, I suppose I have been spending
> a good portion of the time I'd probably otherwise have been here on
> Gravity. It has its plusses and minusses with respect to ME here on
> Google Groups. One result has been that it has somewhat fragmented the
> core group here. While I'll be sticking around on Gravity, it doesn't
> really replace ME. If you're planning on trying yet another forum
> format, Chris, I'd certainly be interested. It's just - given a busy
> life - " ... so much to do, so little time ..." :-)
>
> Francis
>
> On 5 Jul., 19:59, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > http://ejohn.org/blog/google-groups-is-dead/
> >
> > For those of you who have been watching the onslaught of SPAM across all
> > groups. I have found no effective method to control it, and have been
> > getting spoofed spam messages from many of you.
>

Reply via email to