 | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Good point. If you infer that I was invited you would be correct... It's not my place to reveal who else Todd invited, it's Todd's, so you'll have to take my word for this, but I do know who he invited, at least in the first round, and I would (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) Hmm, that's a very interesting example -- totally perfect for .buy-sell-trade as is, but (if there were a .shopping.hot group or somesuch) possibly borderline between that and .b-s-t (although .b-s-t would still certainly be perfectly fine). (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: About auctions and newsgroups
|
|
(...) Ya, discussion was always meant to fall under analysis. I'm not sure what kind of auction discussions aren't analytical of the auctions, but I suppose it should be added just for clarity's sake. OK, it now says: lugnet.market.auction - Auction (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | About auctions and newsgroups
|
|
The current running topic (generally referred to as 'what to do about auctions') got me to thinking. Most of the controversy has to do with misposted auction announcements. Those seem to fall into two types. One where the poster put it the wrong (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) Another example would be my post about the stack of Belville 5870s I found (URL). I put it in market.b-s-t because I was pretty sure that I would be selling them. I believe that this one would meet the 'extremely (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
