|
|
 | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) Yes, I agree with that as a general principle. I do think this one was already over the line though. But I'm massively compartmentalised. Should a "is this here instead of there?" post/question precede a forceFUT? I dunno. It's possible to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Profanity and bowdlerization
|
| The LUGNET admins have talked about this topic and reached the following consensus. We're inclined to go with a strict interpretation of the ToS. The ToS was put in place in order to give LUGNET a certain flavor, and we'd like to retain that flavor. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: New Users Guide: Call for Volunteers
|
| (...) Hey Lenny, I've got a Few ideas. First, the personal webpages are a hugely underused feature of Lugnet. On the front page there is a button for how to go about making a personal page, but there is no master list (or at least none that is (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) I agree, I'm not sure. I assumed it would belong in .nntp, just because we're talking about threading, and how it should work... But looking at the nntp charter, it's not clear if it belongs there or not. (...) Heh, whatever I think of bashing (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) The fact that past threads became debates doesn't mean that talking about NASA is OT for .geek. I'd recommend judging each thread by it's own contents, not by the history of the subject. (...) Regardless if anyone actually replies to the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| There is some confusion in my mind about whether this topic belongs in .general or .nntp... read the charter for general and it's on topic there. Plus that's where every other admin post is. So FUT to both I guess. (...) Whether it was already a (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| This is a reply to both Kelly and Steve (close by in the tree) and the FUT is set to just admin.general (...) I don't know what's proper. We're experimenting. I hope people won't get too upset about it, till we get it right. I did an experiment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) Had further thoughts about this - are there guidelines about recognizing at what point a thread should be rerouted into a different group? This particular thread, IMO, is pretty harmless (now), but I can see how (URL) threads can deteriorate>. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) I think the topic of 'right level of notification/intervention' is worthy of public discussion. IMO, in this specific instance, the intervention was unnecessary. I hadn't read any 'debate' into the discussion, and any time 'NASA' and 'budget' (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity Question (was Re: American Idolatry)
|
| (...) It's not censorious, it's a condition of usage. No censorship is involved. (...) My personal preference is no. An administrative answer is, stay tuned. Personal preference again: Hold off till the answer comes down. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
|
