General Discussions about LUGNET : 1530

Administrative / General / 1530

1529 | 1531

Subject:	Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general
Date:	Sat, 1 May 1999 22:36:48 GMT
Viewed:	3406 times

In lugnet.off-topic.fun, johnneal@uswest.net (John Neal) writes: > 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. 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 was created for talking about "fun stuff" -- like which Linux box to buy, or cereals to mix together, or what makes a good April Fool's prank on your younger brother. But IMO it's perfectly OK to use the .fun group just for having plain silly bandwidth-wasting fun, even if it doesn't mean talking about "fun stuff" -- so long as it doesn't get too carried away and become about as fun to read as .off-topic.test. But as the .off-topic.fun group tilts more toward the silly direction, it's certain to bum out old-timers who remember when it happened to be used primarily for geeking -- for example: http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.off-topic.fun:43 http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.off-topic.fun:70 http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.off-topic.fun:38 http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.off-topic.fun:100 This is why we need the .off-topic.geek group. --Todd > Sounds like people's idea of fun is pretty diverse (duh), so > rather than folks having hard feelings, I would be in favor of some sort of > change where geeks can talk shop, etc and humorists (challenged and not) can > blather on without fear of alienating folks such as Mike and Jesse. How > about .hahafunny, and .weirdfunny [1]? *And* .spam for Tommie Mac;-) > > [1] Geek humor;-)

Message has 4 Replies:

		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 (...) (27 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 (...) (27 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)

		Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun
(...) Thinking of both. --Todd (27 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 (...) (27 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:

		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 (...) (27 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

33 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact