 | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed?
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
