 | | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
"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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) A good thing (if the posts are clearly marked.) :-). However I am not sure what a suitable disclaimer wording would be. I also suggested having a seperate group for speculations of the 'Article from tommorow' type nature so that people reading (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
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: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa41e91.189907...net.com... (...) (.loc.au.vic), (...) per (...) think (...) Even (...) yep, basically I think that would work well _with .loc.au_ other countries may vary. (...) in (...) (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
