 | | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) Hmm, a group like that could certainly be a lot of pun. Actually, I think people have secretly been lusting after this for months. Would you call it lugnet.off-topic.pun or lugnet.off-topic.puns or lugnet.off-topic.fun.pun or (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) I like this name of the choices. Not everything that is in off-topic.fun is necessarily funny. It's the intent that matters, people posting there are TRYING to be funny. Some of us are just better at it than others. So puns belong with fun. If (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) I like #1 the best. Puns aren't always fun. Even if they're funny. Steve (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) I thought it was 'fun', as in 'light', as opposed to 'serious'. Not necessarily 'light-weight', and definitely not 'lite'. Steve (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) Well, lusting after it might be a stretch. Hoping and praying that I won't ever have to read another one again might be more accurate. :) (...) I like the first one. Please make it happen as quickly as possible. (...) I can put up with that if (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) I have a reader with advanced rules functionality. I'd warn everyone that if this happens any real mail they want me to receive may fall victim to a rule like "* from lar@ctp.com > trash" :) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Nature of .off-topic.fun
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's probably more accurate. The name was chosen at the same time that .off-topic.debate was -- it's the juxtaposition of the two that help give them their respective characters. Here are their charters: lugnet.off-topic.fun (group): (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) How advanced can it be, if it can't tell pun-mail from real mail? Steve (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
I think sequestering the puns off into their own group where they can't torture anyone such as Mike is a mistake. Therein lies their beauty, interspersed between the normal day-to-day blather, like a ray of light, shimmering down on an otherwise (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) I have to say I'm not for it... yet. IMO, there isn't enough traffic yet. And it really isn't that lego specific. But if you're looking to someday have LUGnet be an ISP :) then it might be warranted for future growth. (Also, it's difficult to (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) If wonder if that doesn't set an uncomfortable precedent though. It would be confusing if .pun(s) went under .fun but .geek didn't. A lot of geeking is fun and a lot of puns aren't. So the cleanest thing (in my mind) would be either Forced (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) That's one wayya lookin' at it. Another way is the marvelous mischievousity (is that word?) that a dedicated .pun group affords. I imagine it as a prankish sort of group -- in the same spirit of marking up movie posters with moustaches or (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) I don't think we need a pun group. I don't think, but I could be wrong, that the original requestors were serious. Puns are going to occur all over the groups anyway. You'd be forced (by some disgruntled posters) to "police" puns in other (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) Meant to add: off-topic.nlso - a place to kvetch about the other half :') (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) LOL!!! "kvetch" is such a great word -- and almost onomatopoetic! Ah, the cryptic fun that could be had with a group named lugnet.off-topic.kvetch.nlso -- looks like someone bumped their forehead on the keyboard to make that name. :) --Todd (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) I don't think we need it, either. Not by a longshot. But it could still be lot of fun. We can even print it out on rolls of toilet paper and send it to Mike every couple of weeks. (...) Nahhh, just 'cause there's a .pun group, doesn't mean (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) Oops, forgot to give an obligatory reference to an earlier post: (URL) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) Hmmm, does a toilet paper printer jam require the use of a plunger? :') (...) the only danger I can see is unwanted puns turning into flame wars. (...) I assumed incorrectly and thought it would invite all sorts of quotes. I cna live with it (...) (26 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) You're wrong. I was serious. (...) Definitely a go. (...) Works for me. (26 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) Hmmmm... :( (26 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
(...) Mike's having his own personal pity party here, folks. Either way, if .off-topic.pun is created or isn't created, Mike loses. :-) We'll have to create lugnet.off-topic.pity for this. ;-) --Todd (26 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: .off-topic groups
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1191017bd9e...net.com... (...) You're missing a few, like .grammar, .jingoism, and .rant (with rant.random, also known as the "dear lego" of off-topic posts). Jesse -- ___...___ Jesse The (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:372735FE.FAEDE9...est.net... (...) torture (...) down on (...) in an (...) But it would be nice not to have to download 70 messages to see that 50 of them are a pun-fest. I don't mind an (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) Well, maybe you're right, but there's is something worse than downloading a bunch of puns... downloading complaints about them;-) Anyway, Jesse, you should do what I did-- get a DSL line and the point becomes mute [1]. Well, gotta go down and (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) This was my main problem when I started ranting about the puns. I used to read every message posted to this group. I'd see an occasional pun or three, but that was it. Now, no matter what the subject line, chances are, if I don't read the (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
(...) We can't get ADSL here, btw, but that isn't the point. I read news primarily on my Linux box at work, so I get the benefit of our 6 T1s and our new DS3 (about 54mb total, not counting our pipe to I2 and other national labs), so speed isn't the (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
|
Hey Mike- If my posting offends you, well EXCUUUUSE ME! Sorry, I couldn't resist:-). But seriously, I'm just having fun, which is for what I thought this group was intended. Sounds like people's idea of fun is pretty diverse (duh), so rather than (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
|
|
(...) Well, sort of yes and sort of no. Just as .off-topic.debate wasn't created just for the sake of having debates, .off-topic.fun wasn't created just for the sake of having fun. Rather, .debate was created for having debates about stuff and .fun (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
|
|
(...) No? Unless you want 3 dozen .off-topic groups for each type of off-topic conversations, it seems a little silly to split them up like that. I'd say off-topic.fun could be a catch-all until enough traffic in a specific kind of subject warrants (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
|
|
(...) But doesn't that make geeky posts easier to identify? Yet I guess the problem is that if a geeky post morphs into a punfest, that makes it hard to identify. Maybe it's better netiquette (that I need to practice) to change the subject to be a (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
|
|
(...) Thinking of both. --Todd (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
|
|
(...) Oh, definitely agreed! But I just think it's good to have a structure/plan in mind so that when a group's time does come, a switch can simply be thrown to turn it on. Otherwise without a structure in place, things grow a bit too organically (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Geek posts usually are easy to identify. Mostly pun-filled threads, though, seem to be moved over from other groups. My point is that if some people think there is enough traffic to warrant .geek (not (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
