 | | Re: Clue
|
|
Shiri Dori wrote in message ... (...) seemed (...) It sounds like everyone has forgotten what .general is for... oh well, it does mean that I spend less time in front of the computer. *sigh* Paul LUGNET member 164 (URL) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) I think that would be super-confusing, especially from browsing a list of groups. :) What's wrong with .build.minifigs or .fun.gaming or .fun.activities for the sort of thing linked to above? Or even .general ? --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Another possibility would be to populate lugnet.fun with a newsgroup. The links above certainly could be posted to all of the groups Todd mentions, but I can see some advantage to having a lugnet.fun for stuff people aren't sure how to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
Uhmmm... How about "lugnet.silly"? ;-) Franklin (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Yeah, that might be good. Although it'd have to be clear that it's not for off-topic silliness. (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Nothing, except that people -- even completely reasonable people *grin* -- seem drawn to post lego-related fun in .off-topic.fun. (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Nothing's *wrong* with either of the groups. But I would think it excessive xposting, because I could be posting to tons of "suitable" groups. It seemed to me most appropriate in .org.cw, where Scar is well known; and off- topic.fun, because (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) I'll take that as a compliment? <grin> Yeah, o-t.fun seems like a "natural" place for silliness and fun... it's just not really obvious that off-topic.fun is for <emphasis> OFF-TOPIC <\emphasis> fun. Because there isn't a place for on-topic, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Actually, in some ways, I don't think lugnet.general is very necessary any more. We have lugnet.build for discussing techniques. We have the theme groups for discussing things which are of primary interest to folks in a particular theme. We (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Definitely. These groups summarize pretty much everything that is discussed in lugnet.general, and IMHO are neccessary, or for the very least good ideas to decrease the volume of posts in .general. I agree with Frank, .general should be for (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | .general (was Re: Clue)
|
|
(...) That's an interesting suggestion. Of course, traffic would certainly die out pretty quickly in any given group, but it would eventually become a nice historical record of what people thought about the sets in a given year. (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Perfect. --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
(...) Disagree. There will always be odd-ball discussions with nowhere to go but .general. (...) I agree with all of these. Especially if the homepage for .parts had a crosslink to .db.inv. Steve (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clue
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <7h54ls05eh2m9ub4j24...ax.com>... (...) Well, I did say that I didn't think it was VERY necessary anymore. I guess in some ways, what I'm saying is that half the discussion in general would be better off in another (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
