 | | Re: Canceling posts?
|
|
(...) My understanding of the process is that you sent a note to the admins with a precise reference of the post you want cancelled (A URL to it is best, it cannot be ambiguous what post you need cancelled) and a statement that clearly asks that it (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Canceling posts?
|
|
Who do I cancel a post made to lugnet via the web based interface? There are some older postings of mine that I would like to remove if possible. Alex (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) This is the sort of talk that makes me think that maybe there's no point in posting anything. (...) Yes, the discussion about the correction/rebuttal should excuse itself from the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) There is NO reason for a rebuttal to guidance, ever, unless you think there's an issue with the guidance. The proper response to guidance, *unless you think there is an issue* is "thanks, I'll keep that in mind". Nothing else. See Shiri's post (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | RE: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) I do not think guidance is inappropriate. I think dragging guidance out to more than 1 or 2 posts to the point where it becomes a huge argument is inappropriate. (...) My reply was obviously misunderstood...I did not mean "yelling" literally. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes: <snip 'cause I had to, not that I wanted to> (...) This is definitly 'big picture'!! Nicely said and done, Frank! Dave (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) I certainly agree that there seems to be a lot more "correction" and related noise. I think there are a few problems here. - The Lugnet admins have not had a lot of time recently to do the administrative stuff they used to do. This has (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lost
|
|
(...) you need to log in. you do that by clicking on the "Sign In" icon at the top of most LUGNET pages. You will need your member number, and your password. If you lost your password, write to admin@lugnet.com with your member number, and we will (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) I have a higher regard for the intellect of those who have expressed a view on this. This is about what is best for this community - not branding. Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) I'd much rather have unauthorized posts expire after a week or so, perhaps with a reminder a couple of days before they do. That's the way I'm leaning twards right now - not saying that it'll be implemented anytime soon, of course :) Dan (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | New member having trouble paying
|
|
Hi, I often get requests from users who see my email on the Links page. I have been unable to help this new Lugnet member. Attached is his message. If someone has suggestions could they email Walter and Cc: me so that I know for next time. Cheers, (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Are you saying that those who think Larry is wrong (I'm not saying I do) are not showing a "responsibility towards the community"? Are you saying they don't care? Are you saying Bram does not care? I've read their posts, it looks to me like (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) It is posted when it is composed, or at least I press the "post" button. ;) Perhaps "post" can be changed to "submit" and "authorise" changed to "post"? Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
Why am I still up? Working on NILTC stuff for this weekend. Burning the candle at both ends again... :-\ "Kyle Beatty" <carbunicle@appleogue.net> wrote in message news:GsA9p0.9I1@lugnet.com... (...) I think people choose for themselves not to allow (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Your points are well-taken, but even as someone who hasn't had opportunity to be corrected, I get the distinct feeling that the playground isn't really all that open or fun. It doesn't take very many well-intentioned shots across too many (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
