 | | "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | In a recent (and active) thread entitled "This is irritating" in RTL, it's been suggested that "Lugnet was designed for compartmentalised dorks" and that "[it's] for the dorks who can't make up [their] own mind whether to read a posting or not" and (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Andreas Stabno
|
| | | | | (...) As an active Lugnet reader, I must disagree with the irritating thread. LUGNET allows me to read only those messages that I want without wasting time on insignificant irritating threads. Keeping some sort of order in the jungle of messages (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | (...) What are the chances of seeing something like this? Personally, I'd like to see even *more* than that, with perhaps: lugnet.marketplace.pieces lugnet.marketplace.sets lugnet.marketplace.castle (.space, .town, .technic, .robotics, etc) with (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) It's interesting -- this particular person who posted those comments actually has been using the LUGNET groups for over a year and has posted more than 100 times. I don't want to speak for him, but you can read his opinions directly, courtest (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah, and he's whining about someone pissing in his Wheaties now like a "dork" as he calls it just like he made a fool (and a hypocrite) a while back when he ranted about how evil Larry's consortium to acquire train parts was and how it was (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Let's not go there... Mark's a friend of mine, even when we have our differences, and a good trading partner, and I hope to get to meet him someday if I ever get to go to OZ. I think it's best that we keep the discussion focused on the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Huh? I suppose they mean beacause of the hierarchical structure. I'd say no, because I see a lot of the same names in different groups. Thus, the people can't be too "compartmentalised". (...) Quite the opposite, it's for people who do know (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Well, um, that's hooey, to be polite about it. Lugnet is a well-designed site that offers people the option to read what they want to, and ignore things they aren't interested in. Quite frankly, if the only internet forum for Lego was RTL, I (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Julie Krenz
|
| | | | | (...) compartmentalised? Sure, but that's a good thing. dorks? No Way! Geeks, yes, but that's just a fun term, not derogatory. and (...) No, no. It's a place for people to pick and choose what facet of Lego they want to read about or post to. Much (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) And a big "mee to!" on this. Thanks bunches, Todd & Suz! Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) Some may prefer the anarchy of RTL over the sensibility of LUGNET. I call them "cluttered dorks". Personally, I enjoy the structure that comes with LUGNET. I'm more than willing to pay the small price of organization to be a part of this (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | | (...) Well, I've never been on RTL, but I've been lurking on lugnet for almost a year, and I just started posting about a month ago, and I love it. I found out so much info reading this site. When sets were coming out that I would have missed, etc. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree. I usually try to browse all the way through each day's postings at the top level of the hierarchy to see what's going on. If a group that I'm interested in has a lot going on, then I will drill down into a particular newsgroup for (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Travis Yanke
|
| | | | | (...) Just wanted to say that I have only been on Lugnet for about a month and I really like it. Never have used/seen RTL, but I like how I can read what I am interested in and not go through all kinds of extra stuff. And there are plenty of (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) I don't share that view, nor care if a few random losers do. And you're not constantly doing that. Probably a couple of disgruntled weenies who were offended that they were told they needed to follow some rules rather than spew their drivel (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Tony Kilaras
|
| | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message <382c5d58.131081710@...et.com>... (...) Never mind the stupid thread, any plans on importing rec.toys.lego and alt.toys.lego to Lugnet (for the sake of completeness)? Maybe even going a step beyond and having past (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) *That* IMO would be a huge mistake. There's needs to be a public NG like RTL out there for the masses where they can swear, veer way off-topic, and go unchecked. For folks who are willing to abide by some simple rules of order and conduct, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, I don't entirely disagree with Mark's opinions. I disagree with the words he used to express them, but not completely with their underlying "core." I do agree that it is, IMHO, somewhat unfortunate that theme-specific auctions are (...) (25 years ago, 14-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message <382dfeff.238016940@...et.com>... (...) How about in a test theme or two allow auction announcements ONLY. Follow-ups must and updates would still have to go to lugnet.market.auction. Make it clear that it is an (...) (25 years ago, 14-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | | (...) Ironically, #2 is the reason that I think they should be left out of the theme groups. Ben Roller (25 years ago, 14-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Andrew Lynch
|
| | | | | | Another option, I suppose, would be to have sub-groups in each theme that are for sales purposes. I realize that this will muddy the neat structure somewhat, but it will allow someone to view sales and auctions that are specific to the themes that (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Joseph Morrison
|
| | | | | (...) As a long time lurker on Lugnet I'd like to chime in as well that I find myself coming here rather than RTL more and more. I enjoy RTL just for completeness sake, just to see if anything interesting is cooking, but when I need to do some (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | (...) Well I certainly don't agree with the RTLer's comments. For me, the compartmentalization of LUGNET is one of its best features. Each "compart" acts as an index. Sorry, but its a dork that doesn't use an index when searching for something. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:382c5d58.131081...net.com... (...) about (...) Certainly not at this extend. Even I think the existance of both .pun and .fun is a bit stretch, I think the logic that lying under the current (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) I haven't actually read this whole thread, just a bit here and there, but I'll put in my $.02: ---RTL Theory--- RTL is great for people with lots of time and lots of bandwidth. When I had access to a newsserver, and I was in school with a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "compartmentalized dorks"?? —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | (...) I happen to disagree as well. I happened to find LUGNET first and then RTL and I would have to say that I have only ever really checked RTL a couple of times and I simply don't have the time to sift through the posts there to find what (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
