 | | All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | Who's got all the loc.uk.* groups subscribed? If so would it be possible to send a message to all of them like this: Subject : We are not here! Body: Due to the size of the UK LEGO Online community we have decided that all messages by concentrated (...) (26 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | | On Tue, 11 May 1999 22:31:40 GMT, Carbon 60 uttered the following profundities... (...) I am. I will. Though there are and have been no messages for weeks. (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | | | | On Wed, 12 May 1999 17:57:22 GMT, Richard Dee uttered the following profundities... (...) Done, though now I get to download it 150 times, and Todd might not be to pleased with it! (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | | | | | On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:02:29 GMT, Richard Dee uttered the following profundities... (...) I tried to cancel those that did get through, but rejected. But that statement above says it all. I though it *could* have been wrong, and should therefor not (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Sanjay D'Souza
|
| | | | | | | | | Richard Dee wrote in message ... (...) Let's hope this happens...You've been posting too many on topic, thought provoking posts recently...and that really bugs an off topic thought revolting person like me. Sanjay (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Technically, you did break a rule of the LUGNET Terms of Use. But I think it's obvious to everyone here that you had no malicious intentions; your actions were with decent and innocent intentions. I wrote a script to go through and cancel all (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | | | | | On Thu, 13 May 1999 07:39:26 GMT, Todd Lehman uttered the following profundities... (...) Quite true. There was no malicious intent. But knee-jerk reactions, bad results. You did somewhere comment on how many posts. There was an attempt to do it all (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Sarah Heacock
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ah! That would explain why I only got a handful instead of the veritable FLOOD of posts I was expecting when I saw you say it. [PS todd, is there any way to post via email? My first thought was "no, stop, don't do that!" but I have not kept up (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes, of course. :) If you send mail to <lugnet.loc.uk@lugnet.com>, your message will appear in the lugnet.loc.uk group, provided that your emailer is configured with the same name/email settings as your newsreader (or, more precisely, provided (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Let's see. I'll do my best to interpret what I think Richard is suggesting: Combine or split Net gain ===...=== ======== Channel Islands & IOM -> CI&IOM -1 London -> North London & South London +1 Reading & Windsor -> Berkshire -1 Exeter & (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | | | | | | On Fri, 14 May 1999 21:02:14 GMT, Todd Lehman uttered the following profundities... (...) I've been busy preparing for a trip, so haven't devoted the necessary time to research completely. Upon my return, I will provide a list which I think might be (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon H. Young
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's what it looks like Richard is suggesting... (...) *nod* See below. (...) counties you listed were "rationalised" (unitarised?) a couple of years back. For example, Humberside no longer exist... the southern part was (re-) joined with (...) (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I haven't checked it that closely - I wouldn't be surprised though! (...) I've being trying to find this information everywhere as this is my idea for the loc. groups. (...) Right, much get more information on this. (...) I reckon we have (...) (25 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Richard & Simon, Please do not do this; please do not spam all the UK groups with a message like this -- there are too many loc.uk.* groups (83) for this to be a reasonable solution. Anyone who cares to know will either easily figure out all (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, this post obviously wasn't heeded. >-( I was patient enough to see that Richard did apologize for doing this though. His neck is in Todd's hands now, so I'll let Todd deal with him. However, is there any way to clean up the traffic page in (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) No (sorry) the best I can do is to delete all of the spammed messages, but I can't reset the article counts in the ng's or else it will screw up peoples' newsreader counts. --Todd (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Actually, I think I may to have to figure out a way to revert the article counts all back to 2 after all, in order to clean up this situation most properly. Check out what happened: (URL) all of the numbers to the right of the names were blank (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, I've thought about this more, and there's really nothing I can do (that's 100% safe) to correct the problem with the article counts. They simply permeate the system too deeply, and it would take many hours of grueling fancy-footwork to (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Naw, nobody's in trouble... Richard and Simon were just trying to be helpful. I just reckon there are much cleaner solutions. --Todd (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | | | On Wed, 12 May 1999 22:32:31 GMT, Duane Hess uttered the following profundities... (...) I deeply regret my actions. There were far-ranging implications which I hadn't even thought about. I feel even more deeply regretful for anyone who might have (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Please do not spam all the UK groups with a message like this. Anyone who cares will easily figure out that the bulk of the UK traffic is happening in the loc.uk group, and if they choose to post there, that's fine. But I don't want people to (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | | | (...) 1) It's not SPAM - that's unsolicited commercial e-mail, this has no monetary value whatsoever. 2) I don't want newbies going to local groups seeing that no-one posts there and therefore thinking that there is no UK LEGO Community and not (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | | | (...) How does this look to those who subscribe via E-mail? With all of the posts that Richard did, I would consider this as SPAM especially as I watch it fill up my inbox. (...) I think that is best left to Todd, since he is head honcho around (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'll try to get them all deleted before the daily digests go out. If anyone is receiving the groups via e-mail in an instantaneous way, I'm afraid the damage has already been done and their inboxes will already have been flooded. --Todd (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Spam doesn't have to be commercial to be spam. In Usenet, what Richard did is a particular type of spam known as "excessive multiposting" (although I haven't looked yet to see whether it was a single crossposted message or the same message (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah - but I think it is a bit different in the US. I've only been to the USA once - and I don't know if other people have found the same thing - so tell me if anyone else disagrees... but one of the overwhelming things I found in the USA was (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Sarah Heacock
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I dunno. I guess it depends on where you have relatives and how well-traveled in the US you are. I have family in both South Carolina and Texas -- and I am in Washington (state) -- so I don't feel that either Texas OR SOuth Carolina is (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Why there are so many UK groups —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) On the other hand, to someone living in Boston, events transpiring 4000 km away in San Francisco typically seem a hundred times closer than events transpiring only 400 km away in Montreal. (...) But in the USA, where petrol is (terribly (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Acknowledged. I'll work out a plan (like Richard is) and see how it fits together then do a vote or something so everyone is more or less happy. (...) I can understand Northern Ireland being seperate because it is only linked by boat and plane (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Sanjay D'Souza
|
| | | | | | | | | Carbon 60 wrote in message <373F416C.6134A01C@b...ot.com>... (...) in (...) to (...) ;-) I think it's disgusting how many foreigners there are in a newsgroup dedicated to the Best of British. Maybe there should be a Lugnet.loc.uk.foreigners (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Pamela Fryer
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Pardon me for imposing when I do not reside in the UK (hubby is UK transplanted to Michigan USA though - does that qualify?). My lugnet history - I lurked around before subscribing around February. I originally read the posts in the various (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Do you fall in the 107% time (Formula 1 based gag)? (...) Well there lies the problem we have here - I'm based near Birmingham BTW. (...) I don't know really but the opinion of many people on this group is for the zero-policy and have no (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: All UK Groups subscribed? —Sarah Heacock
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Even if a foreigners group was set up, I would still be posting and reading this one. Why? Because I am not interested in being separated out from where the real traffic is but, rather, reading what is going on in ALL the Lego locations out there. (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Kinda defeats the objective of a local group really :-) It'll be a bit like RTL. (...) That's watching Premiership Football with a pint down the pub - warm beer - ugh! A nice cold pint of Carling or WorTHIMGton (it's a man THING). You have got (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Sanjay D'Souza
|
| | | | | | | | | | Carbon 60 wrote in message <374073C7.CF87E266@b...ot.com>... (...) Does it? a lugnet.loc.uk.foreigners would be great for people outside of the UK who wished they lived in the UK to talk about things that happen in the UK that they wished happened (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think Richard may have been suggesting the removal of certain groups, which is an extremely drastic measure and only a last resort if all else fails. What newcomers really need the most help with is: - Learning about the existence of the (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I may have missed this already but: Couldn't the "locations" page be redesigned to show groups and subgroups in an outline format that would better define main and subgroups like subdirectories in DOS or Explorer. UK - London - Lancaster USA - (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) [Pardon me for the apparent harsh tone -- it's not actually harsh -- what follows is a very serious question, not a wise-crack...] How could someone possibly find a tiny local group and manage to post to it, yet not realise that there is a (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Very easily I'd say - that's happened to me at first. When I was new to lugnet one of the first things I did was look for local groups near to me - I found the section for my part of the UK - I think it was the London list and found it was (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) OK, so crossposting is one way that people can find the big group from the smaller groups. BTW, do you remember why you never bothered to check out the main loc.uk group initially (don't worry, no one is going to laugh or criticise...just want (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | In article <MPG.11a66ea25894cd6...gnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> writes (...) Yes, this is good. Possibly a bit more prominence could be given to the links in the top left, but it shows you where the action is :-) (...) This is useful (...) (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes, it is - but bear in mind in my case it was only a chance crossposting, and it happened quite a while after I joined lugnet. (I can't remember how long after, but you can probably easily find out by looking at the gap between when I (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Well, the main UK group doesn't actually cover the same areas as the smaller groups -- it does geographically, to some extent -- but not topically. That is to say, the smaller groups are for super-localised discussions (where something is so (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes and yes. (...) But there's no text that even indicates the numbers are related to the sizes of the discussion groups :) (...) Ah - but what is the correct way of using the groups? If most people in a country are happy with how they are (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) OK. Using the groups "correctly" or "incorrectly" is not a good word-choice then. More accurately would be "using or not using the groups to their full advantage." --Todd (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Simon, Any thoughts on how the introductory postings could be improved? Here's how message #1 starts for (just to pick one at random) Dover, Kent, England: --Todd ___...___ Welcome to lugnet.loc.uk.en.kt.dov, a LUGNET discussion group. (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) My own suggestion would be something like this. Roughly what I've changed is to remove the technical-looking lines and replace them by more friendly sounding information. At the same time, though, I think the info should be in the pages (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Neil Ford
|
| | | | | | | | | Taking just a small part of Todd's post... On Thu, 13 May 1999 06:24:16 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote: [snip] (...) [snip] I fully imagine that someone will eventually work out that lugnet.loc.uk is the place to be, but it can take (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Neil Ford
|
| | | | | | | | Taking just a small part of Todd's post... On Thu, 13 May 1999 06:24:16 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote: [snip] (...) [snip] I fully imagine that someone will eventually work out that lugnet.loc.uk is the place to be, but it can take (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Sarah Heacock
|
| | | | | | (...) It certainly is spam. It does NOT have to be commercial in nature in order to be spam. In fact, back when I played on the MU*, we would call ourselves "spammed" when we were listening to two different places through two different puppets, and (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | On Wed, 12 May 1999 19:38:59 GMT, Todd Lehman uttered the following profundities... (...) Too late. Sorry. Though I did stop two of them in time. (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| | | | |
