| |
Frank Filz wrote in message ...
> I disagree that there is little harm in creating new groups. While I am
> definitely a compartmentalized dork, I also realize that I will really only
> look at a limited number of groups (probably about 20 on a regular basis). • So
> if there is too much compartmentalization, I will not read a lot of stuff.
I disagree, I don't feel that LUGNET is over-compartmentalized at this
point, and I find it easier to add groups I want to read to my newsreader
and ignore other groups, than to wade through extremely busy groups like
Castle, which I don't read because most of it is not that interesting to me,
and which seem to act as a catch-all for several subjects.
> So my question again is do we really need a group to discuss Pern in? Right
> now, I say no. If a long discussion develops and there seems to be a wide
> interest in it, and folks feel like it isn't just a side bar discussion, • only
> then does it need a new group.
It isn't just to discuss Pern, but fantasy subjects generally.
I think the most valid negative so far has been the question of whether
people who are right now discussing fantasy in Castle would move/copy to
build.fantasy, or would we end up with discussion in 2 places. I've asked
people in Castle to comment on this suggestion.
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW shopping mall kit, 1328 pieces!
http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-mall.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWN Lego Building contest results:
http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/TContest.htm
BrickLink Lego parts store: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
The Guild of Bricksmiths(TM): http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) Well, .castle certainly is busy, and that may be a good reason to split it. What I am trying to push though is to make sure we think about the split, and not just create a new group based on one small (currently) thread. (...) This is a real (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) are (...) as (...) I disagree that there is little harm in creating new groups. While I am definitely a compartmentalized dork, I also realize that I will really only look at a limited number of groups (probably about 20 on a regular basis). (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
