Subject:
|
Re: LUGNet Chat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:52:43 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cjc@newsguy.!Spamless!com
|
Viewed:
|
970 times
|
| |
|
|
Perhaps a Princess.... <sarah@eskimo.com> wrote:
> You create a character, put descriptions on yourselves, build
> locations, etc on a MUSH. Personally, the reason I hang out on a MUSH
> as opposed to IRC even when all I want to do is talk, and not just
> roleplay a character, is because of the caliber of people who tend to
> hang out there. I've been on IRC a few times. NONE of those times have
> I been impressed with the people who hang out there.
Hrmmm. Interesting. I guess, in a sense, you could say that our
private IRC network ends up having all of the chat benefits you
mention without the game aspect.
I know what you mean about not being too impressed by just general IRC
folks. I don't know when the last time I got on a public server was.
We've got 6 servers, 5 in the US, 1 in Europe, and a regular crowd of
about 100 people or so, mostly computing professionals of one type or
another with a smattering of people in the gaming press. At least 3
Legomaniacs in the bunch too. :)
I just got a perl question answered there in about 10 seconds. Kinda
cool. :) Not just answered, either - a fully workable script for
what I wanted to do, explanation and all.
Wonder if I should be directing followups to .off-topic.fun? Not
quite as easy (for someone who doesn't remember the exact group name)
with slrn as in Agent, I'm afraid. Forgive me. :)
--
Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials
http://www.lugnet.com/lsahs/ (discontinued thru Holiday season)
800-835-4386 (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 ext 222 (S@H Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
| (...) The game aspect is entirely optional, and is not needed or relevant for a Lego chat. I would suggest that a talker would be sufficent (no creatures or objects) as this would also be lighter on system resources. I guess private IRC is more (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
| (...) Ditto. All this talk about "talkers" vs "IRC clients" is kinda silly to me. I think there is no denying that IRC is more popular and more common. I don't know everything about the net, but I've played on my share of MUD's (always found them (...) (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
| (...) What about using a telnet socket-based talker? Telnetting to lugnet.com:4000 or whatever is simpler for most people than finding and setting up an irc cliet. I tend to find that telnet chat rooms are more personal and friendly than irc - (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
