Re: Is this list still going?

["cat K." <cat@b4udw3rk5.com>]

and miss out on scintilating conversations like this? no thanks!


regards

█▄▀▄▀  cat K.
█▀▄▀▄  B 4 U D W 3 R K 5 _
▄▄▀▀▀  +1 (929) 601-BAUD

> On 14 Nov 2025, at 12:29 PM, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> 
> You are welcome to unsubscribe if you don't like this list.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14 2025, cat K. wrote:
> 
>> have been, who wrote, past tense. this topic is the only traffic the list has
>> seen since April. I get info and updates by carrier pigeon more frequently.
>> 
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> █▄▀▄▀  cat K.
>> █▀▄▀▄  B 4 U D W 3 R K 5 _
>> ▄▄▀▀▀  +1 (929) 601-BAUD
>> 
>>> On 14 Nov 2025, at 10:38 AM, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2025-11-13, cat K. wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I maintain a Gopher presence (several if you're keeping score) but I
>>>> wasn't on this list. I joined the list because of this topic to ask;
>>>> why is this Gopher mailing list - ostensibly THE Gopher mailing list -
>>>> the single worst representation of Gopher space going?
>>>> 
>>>> Gopher is currently better represented on TikTok than this list and
>>>> it's embarrassing. who is list for except for people who
>>>> want-to-but-never-will use Gopher, people who used-to-but-now-don't
>>>> use Gopher and people who just subscribe to mailing lists out of some
>>>> bizarre tech FOMO?
>>>> 
>>>> this list has less traffic than your mom's OnlyFans, it's cringe.
>>> 
>>> Lists not having too much traffic isn't bad. It may even be good or
>>> excellent and mean that when there *is* traffic, it's related to the
>>> topic, and people stay subscribed because of that.
>>> 
>>> It's also not fair to describe this list as "people who
>>> used-to-but-now-don't use Gopher", specs and features have been
>>> described in this list, people who wrote clients are on this list too,
>>> and I've already recognized names in replies to this thread from people
>>> who do run gopherholes.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Nuno Silva
>>>