Hello Nicholas!

18 Dec 20 18:56, you wrote to me:

 NB> THIS
 NB> This is exactly why Fidonet is dying at a rapid rate.

It has long been a principle of FidoNet that new innovations be implemented in 
a backwards compatible way.

 NB> We still have quite a few people developing for this technology. And a
 NB> couple willing to take things further. For fuck's sake why are there
 NB> people trying to hold them back every chance they get? People calling
 NB> out software for being "buggy" just because it's newly updated and
 NB> they don't use it. THAT'S HOW ADVANCEMENT WORKS! How about try it,
 NB> test it, and give feedback on what can be improved!

I have tried most of the available packages at one time or another.

 NB> It's seriously sad as fuck around here. I've taken long hiatuses from
 NB> posting just because I knew arguments would ensue I didn't give a shit
 NB> to be involved with. I'm a big fan of currently developed software,
 NB> and have multiple systems (some not on Fidonet) running here to test
 NB> software and enjoy the fact that my hobby when I was 15 years old (am
 NB> now going to be 40 next month - and I don't care to hear how long any
 NB> of you have been here) is still progressing (albeit at an alarmingly
 NB> slow pace, pretty much due to the FTSC and or a select few people that
 NB> apparantly want Fidonet to just die already).

So you are advocating changing things without regard for maintaining 
compatibility with existing software?

 NB> If you want Fidonet to die, or you don't care any more, or you want to
 NB> run down every new idea (even if it's actual code!) brought forth..
 NB> turn your system off or redirect your IP addresses elsewhere.. We
 NB> could probably gain more interest and enthusiasm without you.

I personally welcome the discussion that Maurice started, and Alexey has now 
joined in on.  In fact, I am giving serious consideration to implementing some 
form of this in MBSE.

Andrew

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707