 | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in article <FqB4M3.KH4@lugnet.com>... (...) suggesting (...) be (...) become (...) to (...) still (...) I've (...) easy (...) blatantly, (...) job, (...) Well, using that logic, if the best person (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) That's a good point. Where I was going with this is that by encouraging people to post when and where they find old sets or significantly discounted sets it would make it easier for others to find the same. However, I think the above example (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Can this possibly be worth the opening amount ?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) have (...) whole (...) True, of course to some extent, I was just pulling your leg. It does point out though that many posts operate on several layers, and it can be hard to pick the best group for the post. I (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Can this possibly be worth the opening amount ?
|
|
(...) I dunno...depends on what (if any) other stuff comes up. Discussion of extra details of the auction (the "information holes" I was referring to), I'd put those in .auction. Discussion of whether to sell a collection whole or in parts, I'd put (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Can this possibly be worth the opening amount ?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) depend (...) selling (...) work (...) Hmm, per recent discussion on guidelines, wouldn't lugnet.market.theory have been better? Thinking more on the lines of where market discussions should happen, someone who (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Groups for years (was: Re: New group suggestion)
|
|
(...) Well, groups do stick around, so the 'new' designator wouldn't be fitting after a certain point. I was thinking if ever there were groups for product line years, they oughtta parallel the DB, since this'll be set up for browsing by year anyway (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) Well, yah, hmm, that's a good point. Who's gonna flog a crummy deal in .shopping? OTOH, .shopping was also set up for discussing any old retail experience -- i.e, anything from FOTW's to GOOB's to ragging on FAOS's alleged high pricing or (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) be (...) allowing (...) and (...) mostly (...) the (...) in (...) provide (...) I happen to agree. In fact, if OBO's become relegated to lugnet.market.auction, then the only things which would be acceptable (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) On a hunch: It's because, especially in a small community (which Lugnet still is), democracy doesn't necessarily bring the best people to the table. I've worked with a number of small special interest groups(1), and it's very easy for an (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Ok ok ok wait wait stop. I *don't* think that SBA's should be allowed in .buy-sell-trade. What I've always been trying to say is that an SBA is mathematically equivalent to a plain old regular OBO sale. In other words, SBA's that are conducted (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
