 | | Re: How about a my.netscape-style RDF for portals?
|
|
(...) I must chime in here... 'though it cert'nly isn't going to be at the top of his priorities now, I suppose. (uh-oh... Jeremy, you're steeling my a's 'gain, huh? ;-) <snip> That would be great... whoa. That would be just *fabulous*. I can't wait (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a my.netscape-style RDF for portals?
|
|
(...) (even though I know Todd is a particularly busy person, and has many other probably more important hot-item issues to work on...) Me too! I'm getting more and more excited about the potential for a portalized LUGNET, since we're starting work (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
(...) True - but that would take a lot of combined effort. The question is, do we need a temporary solution *until* there's a permanent, searchable db? (...) Uh, probably he has other things on his mind right now, see (URL) (...) Yeah - they don't (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
(...) You didn't mention FUT, so I'm ignoring this bit. (...) I'd rather not see db.inv's charter changed. I think a new group would be better. Actually, the true, proper solution is a queryable database. Maybe that's why Todd Lehman is staying out (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Geoffrey Hyde wrote: (about the various groups under discussion) (...) The thing is, all the groups (.cad.dat.parts, .db.brictionary, .db.inv, and .db.scans) are very clear-cut in their purposes, and none of them are in (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | How about a my.netscape-style RDF for portals?
|
|
It would be neat if you served up the same kind of first-few-post views from each LUGNET group as an RDF so that they could be added as channels. (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3t6mms4nv2q1fgv...4ax.com... (...) They'd probably be covered with the one cent GST adds to that because of rounding up to the nearest cent. :) (...) spell*) (...) was (...) Perhaps, but (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cancelling Posts?
|
|
Quoting a post posted six months ago .... Has a facility for cancelling posts via the web interface been implemented? I wrote in this post that I go fire up a newsreader when I want to cancel a post, but my NNTP access has become so dicey that I no (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux
|
|
(...) Either would be good. I could come up with advantages of either way. I have a preference for appending the .marketplace groups to the theme hierarchies for ease of reading via the web interface. On the other hand, placing them all within a (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux
|
|
(...) I (...) after (...) P. (...) both (...) who (...) I remember that. There was a lot of discussion about it. (...) The (...) calls (...) always (...) website (...) All right. My memories of this are rather foggy, I guess. This sounds like a good (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux
|
|
(...) I don't remember flatly rejecting it, but I remember a lot of opinions on both sides of the issue -- people who think it would be a good idea and people who think it would be a bad idea. More likely (and I lean toward thinking perhaps it's (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux
|
|
(...) I think market.theme was preffered over theme.market, but none were seen as being better than the existing setup. As user numbers increase I expect things will change... but who knows when the numbers will begin to justify that? I suppose (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux
|
|
(...) I thought we took this already to a conclusion a few months ago. AFAIR, I think Todd flatly rejected it. I think it is a good idea, but it is me after all, and I am weird. I'll let the all-mighty Todd craft the ever elegant answer to your (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | compartmentalized dorks redux
|
|
Hi ... I'm a compartmentalized dork ... :^) I'd be surprised if this hasn't been suggested, but why not have a lugnet.castle.marketplace, a lugnet.space.marketplace, lugnet.starwars.marketplace, etc? This is a subtly different idea than having a (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
Uh... duh. I said XP, but didn't. :-) (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
XP .db.inv (...) <snip> I agree. Hmmm... I'm thinking something along the lines of slightly changing the charter for .db.inv (or alternatively, creating a new group). If the charter was changed from... (...) to, for example... : lugnet.db.inv: : (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
(...) And what about the import tariffs? (...) Let's see... You posted to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.db.brictionary, lugnet.db.inv, and lugnet.db.scans. The charters for these groups are (actually, were, since I just jumped back to message: (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: fa New Lego Parts - Many Yellow Slopes
|
|
(...) You are correct - I just zapped it. It was a complete mistake, my previous post was an auction post posted from .technic, but to .auction. I must have forgot I was still logged on to that group. Sorry Scott A (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: fa New Lego Parts - Many Yellow Slopes
|
|
(...) I don't think this should go in lugnet.technic. Fredrik (26 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
And here in Aussie, we'd probably get 10% added onto that for GST because it's a 'service'. :) I think I should officially ask Todd Lehman (*invokes 'summon god' spell*) so that we may *all* have somewhere to post parts queries. How far off was I (...) (26 years ago, 10-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
