 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | Eric, Either contribute something useful to the discussion or go jump in a lake. (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Nick Goetz
|
| | | | | Was that comment intended to be useful or are you jumping? ;-) -Nick Frank Filz wrote in message <38AC6C11.4DAA@minds...ng.com>... (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) In what way was my post not a useful contribution? I'm seriously trying to determine at what point someone has shown themselves to be enough of a violator of T&C to warrant disciplinary action. You say that you would support action against (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Lorbaat (<Fq3IoE.53M@lugnet.com>) wrote at 22:33:50 (...) Perhaps there isn't one. Larry has commented on the relative informality of proceedings here, and perhaps most people are just happy to let things go if the person (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) violator (...) Because it contributed NOTHING to the discussion. This one does. I'll respond below. (...) repeat (...) what (...) Ok, I'll detail what my response to Scott's latest post is. I don't remember all of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) I think it's always a bad idea to close your eyes to history. (...) I agree with Todd's current policy on cancels. I think that publicly pointing out that a post is incorrect (which ALSO ends up in the permanent record of Lugnet) is all that (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) I agree, and I also tend to think that forcing or recommending cancellation of misplaced announcements would only encourage an increase in misplaced announcements because the perceived damage (and thus the risk) is lower. Plus, I think there (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) permanent (...) Well, my thoughts on this are: I think the "attractive nuisance" factor will be lower with deleted posts. People who repeatedly abuse the system still need to be dealt with. The reasons I think (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I totally agree. Cancellation as a moderating technique, used consistently, worked extremely well in the IBM environment. It's been 5 years since I was there but I ran some fairly controversial FORUMs and had to use the heavy hand of (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38AE1C47.71263742@v...er.net>... (...) Well true. But being ToSsed would be just as effective for keeping things in control I think (if someone is ToSsed they will no longer be able to abuse the system). (...) I (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Because the latter is not exercising editorial control. I am not an expert on liability law but you may want to research (and I'm not sure where to send you, exactly) into the different takes that Prodigy (which did exercise editorial control) (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | Just a general thought: One problem we have in this whole discussion is that there are two separate (but related) issues on the table, which unfortuanately are currenlty tightly coupled. The first issue is Scott's mis-post. The second issue is how (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | (...) It isn't going to make me leave, although it does mean that sometimes I don't bother submitting ideas or problems.. which perhaps isn't a bad thing depending on the quality of my ideas ;-) (...) I'd like to help too, that's why I thought (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) don't (...) depending (...) want (...) that (...) Actually, there seems to be momentum for a panel, or at least Todd has started to agree it might be a good idea. Check out: (URL) and the replies to it. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) (URL) This is from over 6 months ago - I think the seed of the idea came from Todd in the first place :) Of course, whether that means Todd thinks it is a good idea *now* or *later*, I'm not too sure.. (...) I have - in fact one of the four (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) This has to come from Todd, we can't self organize this. Further I'm not sure groups are the right way to go, perhaps a mailing list? (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think there are two main issues: 1) Is this a good time to start a LUGNET panel to deal with regulatory issues? I think that quite a few people think that it is - most importantly though - does Todd? My interpretation of the various hints (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Use something like onelist. The mails are available forever. (note, I said something LIKE onelist... actually Todd has the technology to do this, I think, without going outside his own sandbox) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38AF34B1.B4C22D8F@v...er.net>... (...) if (...) might (...) some (...) I agree mailing list is the best way. Perhaps we should start tossing more concrete ideas of how decisions will be made, what kinds of things (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't have a strong opinion either way, as it will only directly effect panel members anyway - but is the move towards a mailing list a desire for privacy? I always thought that newsgroups gave better structure and reference abilities, so if (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) panel (...) privacy? I (...) abilities, (...) when (...) be (...) powers? (...) means (...) takes (...) concensus (...) Well the idea of consensus is that you try and reach an agreement that everyone can (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I agree with the concept of concensus, but there isn't always a "right" way to go about something - there will be times when someone will never feel comfortable with a certain compromise. Rather than have a panel continually reiterate their (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) On the other hand... I personally think the panel should present a united front. This is why I think that the idea of appeals is not such a good one. Once something is being talked about by "the panel", it's pretty clear the T&C have been (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | Actually, thinking on - in the majority of occurances - would deliberation be necessary? If a panel member replies to a mis-placed one-off auction announcement, with a note saying "Please don't do this, etc, etc", and cc's or cross-posts this to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38B0CAA9.25214679@v...er.net>... (...) built (...) Sounds like several times what I have... You must be pushing close to a million pieces if you haven't exceeded that... (...) Nah, I'm the one who probably should (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think you said it about right -- it's not wise IMHO to try to push people into thing, but rather to be available to help set things up when the time is right. (...) I tend to think that anything which can't be discussed openly in an open (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Ray Sanders
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I, as well, feel this is important. If you are saying something, then it should be visible. If not concurrent with the event, then soon there after. I believe the Federal Reserve does this for some decisions (Fed Funds rate, etc). They (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed. But I think that one has been resolved, more or less, in that it appears that Todd has indicated that he would like for some sort of commitee to form. (...) Right. (...) Here, we disagree again. I think the T&C are perfectly valid as (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Valid, yes in that they are internally consistent. But broken in that they prevent things that are reasonable and necessary. (...) But I in fact said that cancellation DOES work and IS effective as a control technique. I then pointed out that (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38B05490.B7C062B8@v...er.net>... (...) stand. I (...) in (...) slip-up) (...) indicate (...) Also at least partly broken in that they rely on Todd's interpretation that a "sealed bid auction" is not an auction (at (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It's an or-best-offer sale. On the internet, sure, there's little difference, but it is a valid sale type. (...) Umm, because it's in no way a sealed bid auction? EBay sends you updates telling you when someone outbids you, shows you a history (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) that (...) itself (...) difference, (...) auction (...) the (...) Well, if you bid, you generally get zero (if your offer wasn't good enough) or one update notice. Either an outbid notice or a "you won" notice. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I personally think that SBA's are enough of an auction that they shouldn't be in .BST. However, I've sort-of come around to agreeing with Todd on allowing them there, for a couple of reasons. First being that there really isn't a sufficient (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ok ok ok wait wait stop. I *don't* think that SBA's should be allowed in .buy-sell-trade. What I've always been trying to say is that an SBA is mathematically equivalent to a plain old regular OBO sale. In other words, SBA's that are conducted (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | James Brown wrote in message ... (...) be (...) allowing (...) and (...) mostly (...) the (...) in (...) provide (...) I happen to agree. In fact, if OBO's become relegated to lugnet.market.auction, then the only things which would be acceptable (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Can you provide an example of something they prevent that is reasonable and necessary? (...) I didn't say you thought that they didn't work in any possible circumstance. I didn't say that *I* thought they didn't work in any possible (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: When is an auction reference outside market.auction OK? —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Heh. That irony wasn't lost on me. :D eric (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I'm frankly sick of reading all this, but just because I'm not posting doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. My opinion, briefly: Scott has a history of this, but I am inclined to believe he just might have made a quick, poorly worded post (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Your (b) sounded reasonable. (...) OK, this has become a Real Problem. --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) [...] (...) I would be willing to be on this panel. Frank (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Me too. Don't expect to see much posting from me the next week, though, we are closing, packing packing packing... moving moving... unpacking unpacking... In fact, factoring will probably fall behind a bit too. (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I did a bit of back-reading on this topic, especially: (URL) I get the feeling that: a) Todd expects some form of LUGNET community regulation. b) Todd is *waiting* for us to self-organise, in the spirit that such an endeavour should happen as (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) There's a problem with this. The theoretical panel has to inherit "power" from Todd. Right now, Todd is the only admin. Not only that, but he's the owner. I'm sure we've all seen posts that read, "Well, I might not agree, but it's Todd's (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yep, point (b) was an extension of point (a).. see below. (...) Yep, I didn't mean to sound in any way disrespectful, as in assuming authority from Todd. What I meant is that I don't think that Todd is going to say "This is what is going to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Oh, I didn't mean to imply that was what you were trying to say. I was just trying to point out one of the roadblocks to the community actually self-organising. (...) Totally agreed. (...) True. But we've taken several steps- someone suggested (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Probably creating a new group... oooh say, admin.council would raise visibility ;-) Richard (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Heh. It suuure would. eric (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | Eric says that we can't wrest authority away from Todd. Yes, I agree. However... If we come up with a clear proposal, well thought out, that's workable and that allows for some veto by Todd in extremis, I believe he will vest us with that authority. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I've been following this discussion with interest, it's very informative to watch a community go through a growing pain (which Lugnet is currently doing, IMHO), even a community I'm part of. Mostly just stating that I strongly concur that (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'll happily second Frank (if he's willing!) :) Richard (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) Not sure I want to necessarily chair the council, currently I have time because things are directionless at work, but that seems to be changing. I guess I do have time to see this thing started, and once (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | All in favor? I think Frank just got himself a chair. (1) Rereading my post 2 refs back it looks like I was saying I'd be chair if asked. What I actually meant was I'd be a committee member if asked. 1 - Seriously... step one in organizing a (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I've been watching this discussion over the past few days. Mainly because my name popped up in a proportion of the posts - the reasons for which are clear. It is apparent to me that if .council is to work (ie discuss, deliberate, arbitrate, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Good point. If you infer that I was invited you would be correct... It's not my place to reveal who else Todd invited, it's Todd's, so you'll have to take my word for this, but I do know who he invited, at least in the first round, and I would (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) that (...) base (...) to (...) I did not mean to infer, but I did assume it to be the case. (...) You include yourself in this? :-) I must admit, I find this whole development rather interesting. I anticipate that, if LUGNet continues to grow, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Self Organization (was Re: Self Organisation —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Well I *did* say "most". :-) But yes, I consider myself highly regarded by at least one member of the community. Me. FUT off-topic.fun (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in article <38B07471.4ED1A93E@v...er.net>... (...) Ummmmm...... isn't 'appointing' a council somewhat contrary to the way that Todd has always run LUGNET? (at least so far as I've seen in the last year+) It (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, it's not intended to be a private council, unless someone takes something off-line personally on their own accord unofficially. Anyone is still also welcome to participate in the discussions (offering opinions, raising concerns, making (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Whoops, that probably sounds contradictory. What I mean is that stuff should IMHO be discussed openly in the .admin.council group -- there shouldn't be any hush-hush secret stuff going on in the background. If something's being discussed (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | | Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <FqB237.Aqu@lugnet.com>... (...) that (...) way (...) something (...) also (...) Ooops, I guess I should have been a bit more clear in my questioning. I meant that it seems as though the selection (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) On a hunch: It's because, especially in a small community (which Lugnet still is), democracy doesn't necessarily bring the best people to the table. I've worked with a number of small special interest groups(1), and it's very easy for an (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | | | James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in article <FqB4M3.KH4@lugnet.com>... (...) suggesting (...) be (...) become (...) to (...) still (...) I've (...) easy (...) blatantly, (...) job, (...) Well, using that logic, if the best person (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Well, they can. But why? More on this below... (...) Hmm. I think you missed the gist of my point. People who want to do it are not necessarily the same people that Todd & Suzanne want doing, or are comfortable working with. (...) I'm not (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in article <FqB9J7.Hos@lugnet.com>... (...) in (...) want (...) which (...) their (...) nomination (...) the (...) are (...) I caught your point entirely. I've cut our conversation from above and (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I think that may have been a misunderstanding though - the thread was trying to nominate someone who would recieve ideas on what the council should do, how it should work, how it should be planned. But I agree - things are moving fast - the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Ok. Looks like it was me who misunderstood. :) I guess I'm just coming at this from a perspective of "why vote if we don't have to?" The .council group is an open forum, so everyone is still able to bring an opinion forward; IMHO, Todd's just (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Think of it as an external 'nother brain (this time a collective one) making recommendations taken very seriously rather than purely acting on behalf of. Think of it as what happens in a corporation or organization when someone is hired to (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) delicate (...) large (...) forth (...) citizen (...) I think Allan was suggesting voting on who the council members were. This might be reasonable, but perhaps is best handled the way many organizations handle (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) As would I. I guess we'd be two ends of a spectrum. :D eric (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | (...) I'm not going to answer your whole letter, I don't participate in .auction and won't get involved too much, but let me get these straight: (...) What bickering exactly do you mean? I don't really see what you're talking about, unless it's on (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | (...) I think he's talking about the discussions on the map and stuff I was having with Craig. I must admit, at times, we didn't sound totally pleasent. :( Anyway (and Craig, I'd e-mail this to you if my server wasn't down), I've decided to wait (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | (...) and (...) I'm glad you decided that. Craig and Pawel can't really explain exactly what they have without the graphics (1) and the rest. It's obviously going to be something bigger than we can imagine without it, so it's best to wait and see (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Craig Hamilton
|
| | | | | | (...) i mutually saw fit to continue privately. :-) jeff honors me with his patience and cooperation. his (sometimes harsh) criticism keeps me on my toes, and is as an important contribution to Castle World as shiri's faith, wisdom, and constant (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | (...) and (...) I (and others) need to be careful about what we write, because it may not seem harsh at the time of writing. (...) "...a three hour tour..." :) *fwap* *fwap* *fwap* Okay, okay! I'll stop quoting annoying songs! :) (...) Yeah, me too! (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah, just make sure it's constructive criticsm! (Gosh, I hate how that sounds in English...) (...) Thanks! I can't help sticking in some wise-cracks here and there, in real life I don't get much chances to shine... I'm normally overlooked as (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Ravi Mohan
|
| | | | | | snip (...) Floria???.where's that well my first ever bona-fide castles creation is under way.its a dark dingy cave but hey its mine(my creation not my room but it is kinda dark in there.... ravi (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | (...) I meant Florida... I seem to make many typos lately... (tired I guess) (...) LOL! Let us know when you have pics! -Shiri (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Ravi Mohan
|
| | | | | | (...) Well it could take a while-my dads confirmed that he's getting a digicam-only hasn't said when. I'm also gonna be tied up cleaning up a pristine but dusty (ambiguity alert) 5590 which a bouch from a friend @ school-its model team but it was (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I must have missed the clearing up, then. All I saw was some pretty harsh words, or maybe they seemed more harsh than they were, in light of all this other mess. Still to harsh for LUGNET, imo. (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | (...) You're right. I thought they were too much as well. Which was why I wrote this: (URL) which Jeff answered with an apology about the harsh words he had said: (URL) replied to that with an apology as well: (URL) hope this won't repeat itself (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | |
