 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Nope. There are at least two issues here with the original post, its followup, and the responses. It is useful to keep them separate and many in this thread have but not all. 1. Was the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Wasn't he way ahead of his time?? (...) Few minor issues, no need to get someone's knickers in a knot over. Just maybe rethinking certain things. (...) I appreciate the work the LUGNET admins do for all of us. Just wanted to say that here. Why (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Replies to posts gone awry
|
|
I've been tempted to reply to many of the threads in this post: (URL) by John Heins. John erroneously cross-posted this to market.shopping. The previous post /loc/uk/?n=7787 by Mark Calladine arguably could have been cross-posted there, but John's (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) If the admins were correcting as often as the "community" has been of late, I think it would be in such a way as to avoid the noise of our current method. I don't mind the community action. What I *do* mind is the fallout created (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Do you think that if “the admins” were still playing the role they used to here they would be stepping in and “correcting” quite as much? I worry about the *potential* for Todd’s apparent inactively to be used as an excuse to throw a little (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
