 | | Re: Lar's hoppers —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Nature of .off-topic.fun —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lar's hoppers —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | .off-topic groups —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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: .off-topic groups —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: .off-topic groups —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmmmm... :( (26 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: .off-topic groups —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Jesse R. Long
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
