| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Wayne McCaul wrote:
> > If you feel
> > that sections of the community are useless then don't subscribe to them. What is
> > so difficult about that?
>
> Wayne, I don't know if your question is meant to be rhetorical to the general
> members, or if it's directly specifically at me. If the latter, then
> unfortunately it reads like you missed the point of my post (or I failed to make
> it well). I was not at all presenting an argument for/against the .Lavender
> issue. I was simply trying to point out that LUGNET's policy has long been to
> allow non-LEGO discussions as well as subdivions of newsgroups based on
> non-LEGO-related considerations, and to compare reactions to the creation of
> such newsgroups, both past and present. And further, to propose that those who
> disagree with the existence of non-LEGO discussions on LUGNET should consider
> the question I typed in the Subject line of my post: "Is LUGNET what you really
> want?" It was an attempt to provide something "meaty" for all to think about /
> discuss. Sorry for any confusion. :]
Replying to myself..., and Wayne, again. ;]
Wayne upon re-reading my post and your reply, it dawned on me that perhaps you
were in fact addressing my question, "Is LUGNET what you really want?", with
your view being yes, and to those that it's no, why can't they just skip the
parts they don't like? If that's the case, I'm sorry I didn't catch your angle
the first time. Sorry for any confusion (take two) :]
KDJ
______________________________
LUGNETer #203, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
