 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
