 | | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) And darn it -- Murphy's Law -- embarrassing case in point -- I forgot to set the followups on the above post to lugnet.admin.nntp. Please, if you reply to the above post, manually direct your reply to lugnet.admin.nntp and not to both that and (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | (...) What about in the most recent case (What Kids Want: Not Juniorization thread which I started) when I was actually posting more toward Employees of TLC then AFOLs. I guess the point is: How do we handle comments and questions (rethorical though (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct —Timothy D. Freshly
|
| | | | | | "Mike Petrucelli" <lordinsanity@usa.net> wrote in message news:G9r77D.Dor@lugnet.com... (...) [snip] (...) of (...) questions (...) who (...) I understand the desire to keep the lugnet.lego.direct newsgroup focused. However, I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | What about in the case of where one person wishes to discuss further or add info that they feel is relevant to someone's post, when it is clearly possible that additional info could benefit the discussion at hand? It would feel a bit frustrating to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) This is a good point... this (reply restriction idea) will stop threads from getting longer (arguably keeping them on-topic), but will encourage threads getting wider, which may well cause a clarity loss. James (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
