 | | Re: lugnet.alphateam
|
|
(...) I mean that with a lowercase "t" -- town and not necessarily Town. --Todd (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.town, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.alphateam
|
|
(...) I just double-checked the Alpha Team set numbers, and noticed that they're in the 677x range. That says they're not necessarily Town (which is 6300-6699) and also that it's probably going to be short-lived. But then again they're almost (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.town, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) If you do this, please create a newsgroup (lugnet.lego.direct.talk perhaps) where such AFOL-AFOL messages are encouraged to be sent. --Bill. (24 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Sorry I've got no real opinion on this... (...) I'd rather have things stay the same, and move anything that is not a *straight* sale /trade to .auction (stricter rules for the .b-s-t group) Perhaps make additional group(s) for places as ebay (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) definitely add these three if for no other reason than to give us somewhere to boot people who keep posting this cr*p in our other ng's (...) well, i like monitoring only one ng, buy-sell-trade, but even if split up (which it really should) it (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: New Bulk Ordering Newsgroup?
|
|
Todd: My apologies for not getting back to you sooner - I'm catching up on my reading today. (...) Well, really just general discussion of the bulk products. I don't think that everything that is said about bulk bricks really needs to go to Lego (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Dave Low <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> wrote in message news:G9t0tt.5BE@lugnet.com... (...) (.loc.au.vic), (...) 1 per (...) think (...) level. >> > Even if we get our LUGs in the .org hierarchy (below), I think we still >> >need state groups (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I think that lugnet.debate would be useful for on-topic controversy (eg perennial faves "does Lego encourage violence?", "why are all minifigs yellow?", "how much does juniorisation suck?"). It should be a default skip-filter though, as should (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I agree with Ross. Archive all sub-state groups, retain loc.au.xxx (state-level groups), allow posting at state-level groups (for "who's booking the meeting hall?" type questions). .org.au seems to be working okay for organisation/market (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
<snip> (...) praise. (...) Go ahead you've got my vote on both. <snip> (...) Perfect, I'd subscribe to it in a New York minute! <snip> There was a thread a couple months ago about possibly reorganizing the (...) Actually I think that doing this (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) In some groups, the amount of traffic can matter more. But after reading how Todd Lehman set up lugnet.lego.direct, it matters less. Consider the lugnet.scala group: it has almost no traffic, but it serves to allow discussion regarding a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Nonononono, nobody would be required to post raving praise to .rave; the rave area would just be safe haven for raving -- a place where you can't (shouldn't) be chastised for saying nice things, or where you can go to always read nice things. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) (I like Paul's) OR havesome/wantsome OR have/want OR outgoing/incoming OR outbox/inbox OR heressome/needsome OR helpyerself/gimme OR gottago/lookinfer :-) -Jon (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I'm not sure it would be a good idea to add either of these groups. On the surface it seems great...but I see a potential let-down. When I read discussions in Lugnet, it seems to me that positive and negative conversations add to the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Hello Todd, hello everybody, (...) Go ahead and do that. In the case of Germany, I have wondered from the very beginning, how we three or so online AFOLs in the Stuttgart area should fill a newsgroup. Traffic in the loc.de newsgroup is currently (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
