 | | Re: Clue —Frank Filz
| | | | (...) 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 —Shiri Dori
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Matthew Miller
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Steve Bliss
| | | | | (...) 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 —Frank Filz
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | | |
