| |
In lugnet.general, Paul Hartzog writes:
> hey out there,
>
> I am officially recommending in this post
> that todd create
>
> lugnet.design
>
> for in depth artistic and stylistic
> design threads, urls, etc
>
> (could be considered .build but
> have you LOOKED in there lately?...)
OK, I'll bite... What is wrong with .build? Maybe you arn't going into the
subgroups of build? There is .build.arch for architecture, and .build.mecha
for Mecha etc.?
Sorry but just suggesting a group without expaining Why it is a good idea and
only including some obscure referance doesn't help much.
So please, when suggesting groups provide background as to why you think its a
good idea and why other groups don't fit. These things arn't obvious, even if
you think they are. Sound reasoning goes a long way to helping Todd decide if
a new group is needed or not.
I mean have you LOOKED in .admin.nntp lately? ;-)
Follow-ups to .admin.nntp
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | lugnet.design
|
| hey out there, I am officially recommending in this post that todd create lugnet.design for in depth artistic and stylistic design threads, urls, etc (could be considered .build but have you LOOKED in there lately?...) all who agree plz reply so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
