 | | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
It seems to me that a new group for hot availability items (good price, unusual offering, etc) is not really necessary. It seems to me that that is the purpose of shopping. Of course a cross post to buy-sell-trade that a particular person is willing (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I personally think that SBA's are enough of an auction that they shouldn't be in .BST. However, I've sort-of come around to agreeing with Todd on allowing them there, for a couple of reasons. First being that there really isn't a sufficient (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) delicate (...) large (...) forth (...) citizen (...) I think Allan was suggesting voting on who the council members were. This might be reasonable, but perhaps is best handled the way many organizations handle (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <FqB237.Aqu@lugnet.com>... (...) that (...) way (...) something (...) also (...) Ooops, I guess I should have been a bit more clear in my questioning. I meant that it seems as though the selection (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) that (...) itself (...) difference, (...) auction (...) the (...) Well, if you bid, you generally get zero (if your offer wasn't good enough) or one update notice. Either an outbid notice or a "you won" notice. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Whoops, that probably sounds contradictory. What I mean is that stuff should IMHO be discussed openly in the .admin.council group -- there shouldn't be any hush-hush secret stuff going on in the background. If something's being discussed (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
Thanks Todd. I'll go ahead and just re-setup myself. I was just trying to avoid bugging you, if possible. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) No, it's not intended to be a private council, unless someone takes something off-line personally on their own accord unofficially. Anyone is still also welcome to participate in the discussions (offering opinions, raising concerns, making (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
(...) I think that is the only way just now, maybe if posting confirmation was hooked into the membership cookie then that would cut down some of the need to re-register.. Maybe having to verify requests for posting privelidges is the safest way to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
(...) When someone fills out the news-posting setup form a second time with the same information, it's not really a drag on the pass-through process -- those events just show up as "oh, btw, this happened" but not as to-do's requiring attention. (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
Todd, is there any way to re-obtain the cookie with our posting information besides re-registering? If there were some automated way to do it, it might cut down on your mail and administrative duties. :) (I am sure that would be a good thing) If I (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Track Designer newsgroup?
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. What I think is needed is a group for exchange of files similar to the dat newsgroups and a group for further development etc. Maybe with such low traffic they may be one group to start with. Just a thought. (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in article <38B07471.4ED1A93E@v...er.net>... (...) Ummmmm...... isn't 'appointing' a council somewhat contrary to the way that Todd has always run LUGNET? (at least so far as I've seen in the last year+) It (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Self Organization (was Re: Self Organisation
|
|
(...) Well I *did* say "most". :-) But yes, I consider myself highly regarded by at least one member of the community. Me. FUT off-topic.fun (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) that (...) base (...) to (...) I did not mean to infer, but I did assume it to be the case. (...) You include yourself in this? :-) I must admit, I find this whole development rather interesting. I anticipate that, if LUGNet continues to grow, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
