 | | Re: Dot view parameterizable?? (Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) Not entirely sure of what I am talking about here, but would not the delay be caused by more processor time, which is something that we want to get away from? Anyways, you can always choose to view the dots when they are suppressed. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) How about the following? (to be added to the TOS?) *Only members can start new threads in .debate, or .market. No new tech stuff required, just include your Lugnet member number in your sig. If you forget, someone will remind you. If you try (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree. I think it is possible to involve Christianity in the debates without the thread quickly heading for the gutter. But the reality is that the way threads go in .debate, the visibility of Christianity is what I'm complaining about. The (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, my post seems to have shut down some of the pointless shouting, and there seems to be some interesting debate starting to creep from under the rocks it dove for cover behind... I'm still going to let it chill for a while and see if this (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I assume you mean "informally" in that for example, Frank sends me a note telling me to cool it... or vice versa. (because if you mean formally we're back to a moderator/council/review thingie) I think that's a good idea. More... I think it (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, I just went through the 24 posts that make up this thread at the time that I noticed it. Hmmm. I've been disappointed with the debates of late too, and maybe I'm partly to blame, but I think it's really only the past couple months that (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) (nitpick) Some christians. I'm not preaching, and I can't be the only christian who's stearing clear. (...) I'm not sure if I'm one of the folks you're talking about, but I've certainly dropped .debate from my reading. It's gone way downhill (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hmm. Something that I've noticed for a while not, but not cared enough to mention before this is... The skip filter only works on the highest level, and goes away as soon as I drill down into a sup-group. (ie: I have .debate filtered out, but (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ya, the default is to omit .off-topic and .admin noise: (URL) and limiting .debate posts from showing in any search (except explicitly (...) That would be a bit trickier but might come almost for free since it already filters out groups not in (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Thanks for the restate. Yes, coughcough was just who I was referring to. Restated that way, I agree 100%. ++Lar (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well that could be handled by having two groups. One for conducting auction business (soliciting bids) and one for asking questions about auctions. Then you just TOS quickly anyone who regularly manages to "announce" their auction in the Q&A (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) they (...) Mmm. That'll teach me to go around not qualifying my statements. Clearly, I don't think that the rules should be mutated too much to encourage everyone (coughMatthewMoultoncough) to join up- on the other hand, if subtle changes to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree, I'd be sad to see it go. But what I'm really sad is that as far as I'm concerned, it's gone now. A year ago I really enjoyed .debate. The past few months, the time for a thread to deteriorate into one of the two recurring shouting (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Call me elitist... (and I don't think I'm 100% disagreeing) (...) I'm not. That is, I'm not for enabling *everyone* to be a member. There are certain people I would be happy to see not join, heck, not even participate here. There are only a handful (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) That's a good point. It hadn't occurred to me because I don't usually get ensnared by a debate until it's already in .debate! Maybe we should have off-topic.debate.pure and off-topic.debate.spill. 8^) Dave! (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) <puts facilitator hat on> No no... post your ideas, no matter how wacky, as long as they haven't been posted yet. That's brainstorming. Even if you know there is a flaw in idea E1 and E2 of yours, and in L1 and L2 of mine, someone may come up (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Actually, those two are great ideas, IMHO. I wonder how many people that aren't members post updates about their LEGO eBay auctions on Lugnet, and never give back to the upkeep of Lugnet... I hadn't ever thought of that before. And the admin (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hear, hear! Though I don't expect that I'll switch to Libertarianism or Christianity any time soon, I have learned a good deal about those two views. That, for me, is the primary reason for participating in .debate (that, and getting the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) The recent history of .debate is certainly that the types of shouting matches have little chance of being productive, however, I will point out that back some time ago, the "Libertarian" debate DID have real productivity. It DID change (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, as soon as I can come up with an idea that I myself can't pick apart on 1000 levels, I will. Unfortunately, thus far I've been unsuccessful... (...) Yeah, but that's the default way of "winning" an argument or flamewar on Usenet. :D (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
