 | | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
|
(...) Maybe your mail is being bounced silently on the way in or out? I sent you a complaint via email when you posted the second time but got no reply, leading me to believe you never saw it or your reply never made it back to me. (...) Read the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) Yes. Or maybe just lugnet.build... the announce is a bit redundant, perhaps. (...) It's not the low volume per se, it's the pithiness. Posts that appear there are indeed breaking news. When I want breaking news I would like to review .announce (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) Well, lugnet.bulid.announce would be more appropriate in that case. No need to create a new top-level hierarchy. Do the brickshelf and LSAHS subgroups bother you in the web interface? Probably not, but only because of their volume of traffic. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Shop At Home catalog Engine Shed
|
|
(...) If someone feels that a post in a .lego group has relevance to a particular theme or group (whether it be train or castle or what-have-you), why shouldn't they cross-post it? If that someone happens to be a LEGO employee without posting (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
"Ben Ellermann" <ben_289@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpDuBw.50H@lugnet.com... (snipped newsgroup comments, see what Larry just wrote) (...) can (...) Hey, that's ok. We don't expect new people to be up to snuff on all the norms around here. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) Me too. Note please that this doesn't necessarily have to be Todd and Suz. (or Steve or Jen or Dan) There are other people who would be willing to take some of the load if empowered to do so. As James Brown said, administration is not (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) I thought of a similar idea yesterday (lugnet.moc)after reading about this problem. Lugnet.announce.moc would be great because it would allow us to post all new MOC's together and in their respective newsgroups. Then a person who visits lugnet (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
"William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:m2advvcf1p.fsf@...rds.net... (...) I agree. I was reading the 'top 1000 noisemakers' thread, one of them referenced back to a post where Todd compiled a list of posters in the .cad groups. It (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) Lugnet has gotten by just fine without moderators, but that's because historically the admin(s) have been there to step in and say "don't do that" and even delete messages if needed. If it is expected that admins will continue to play a less (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
