 | | Re: Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?)
|
|
(...) banned (...) No, I attacked her conduct. As the LUGNET Admin, she should be following a higher standard. Stooping to this level was completely out of line, and deserved a strong response. Please keep this in lugnet.admin.general, where I set (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?)
|
|
And then you turn around and attack Suz personally, I think you should be banned also. All you really needed was your first paragraph.. Tamy (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?)
|
|
(...) Her post sure seems to be in violation of the rules: (URL) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?)
|
|
Todd, Dan, etc.: This user, "LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> is engaging in personal attacks. Please disable her access until she is ready to apologize for this wholly inappropriate response. XFUT: lugnet.admin.general (Suz: You have lost the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) As many as will fit? What form did you want answers to this to take? (...) The mockups and the current page both have fine small print, but I wouldn't go much smaller. (...) In the blue Newsgroups sidebar. Move the 'newsgroups' header to the (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
The redesign looks good. For logged in users, how about links to that user's My Collection and Lugnet Homepage? I like to use (URL) as my "portal page" to the rest of Lugnet, but right now the quickest way from there to my My Collection page, which (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting to the future......
|
|
(...) Oh ok I see, I thought that it would be going of an East coast time zone. So that was my reasion for concern. By the way I live on the West coast. Dave (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting to the future......
|
|
(...) What time zone are you in? LUGNET server uses GMT for internal times. If you're in Pacific or Mountain that seems about right to me. (I forget if eastern is 6 or 5 off GMT at this very instant and am too lazy to look it up even though it's (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Posting to the future......
|
|
I just posted to LUGNET.Trains and noticed it said that I posted it on Saturday June 8th at about 4:30am. And its still only Friday the 7th about 9:30pm. So I just thought I would brind this up so someone else nows about it. Dave PS I hope this is (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) While I agree with the above, PLEASE enable a return after typing to start a search - I HATE sites that have a text entry box and hitting return at that point will do nothing. On a sidenote - I use the (URL) Search, have it set to the Search (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
<snipped> This is truely an interesting subject. Can a fan related site become too professional? I feel not, because the things that make commercial sites look so much like commercial sites are the adds, the cluttered look and the flashy elements. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) OH, yeah, here is my authentication: Jude, Here is a copy of the message you posted to lugnet.robotics... --LUGNET Server ___...___ |Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics |References: <Gx6x4M.K99@lugnet.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020604....frii.com> (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) That is what I don't get. I only post via the web. I do not like having to authenticate. <g> Could it be a result of the robotics mailing list? Why would a bounce have the same date/time stamp as my posted message? Jude (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) that can't be right? if you look at the message the server bounced at you, it has an html copy of the message, etc - seems like it was an email sent to the mailing list? or am I misunderstanding here? Dan (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) I think it was a fine design. I was simply offering an opinion from a different point of view. I took from her original post that she was showing the mock-up in case anyone wanted to offer an opinion. I'm not sure she was actively soliciting (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
Well, I don't want to come off as overly combative on this issue but I think Suz's design was fine and absolutely heading in the right direction. Keep in mind that the screen shot she posted first was a screen shot of her whole screen (the browser, (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) But I did post via the web. Jude (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) yah, proper "vacation" programs should know not to respond to "bulk" mail. Unfortunately, some of the more common implementations are not so smart. (...) that is because that mail server (I think it's exchange?) does not reply to mail (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Screwy email for Server
|
|
I posted this message to robotics (URL) got two out of office replies. This I understand why but I wish people would put an exception for subscriptions. grrrrr But why did I get the message below from the Lugnet Server? Jude Message: From: LUGNET (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) Ooops, sorry...... didn't mean to give that impression. There's nothing wrong with good design; quite the contrary. I was simply trying to suggest that the design I saw there appeared somewhat too business-like. Perhaps I can clarify with (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
