 | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —James Brown
|
| | | (...) IMHO, this would be the better choice, to meld well with the current architecture. .moc.announce is counter-intuitive with what's currently in place. May I suggest that if an .announce.moc group is set up that it does not boost posts into the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | (...) Not that my opinion counts for anything (since I haven't found the time to build a darn thing lately), but if I may, I would like to chime in with my support for the idea of lugnet.build.announce for strictly LUGNET-wide MOC announcements, for (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | "Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message news:GpDzIt.Ltw@lugnet.com... (...) fairly (...) content (...) across (...) made (...) Hey, I'm for it! -Tim (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Cool LUGNET MOC of the Week (was: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | (...) An addendum to this idea of mine (I can't shake it...it's a good idea, so it's rattling around in my head...): If there were a lugnet.build.announce, everyone with a new MOC of any genré would post their MOC announcement there and in their (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
