 | | Re: Bad news for NASA —Kelly McKiernan
| | | | (...) Hmm, thought I was on topic for .geek, but you're right, it was starting to become a debate. I agree the followup on this should go to .debate. (...) I saw part of that thread, but hadn't read it in a while - I had a hard time with some of the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA —Kelly McKiernan
| | | | | (...) Had further thoughts about this - are there guidelines about recognizing at what point a thread should be rerouted into a different group? This particular thread, IMO, is pretty harmless (now), but I can see how (URL) threads can deteriorate>. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | This is a reply to both Kelly and Steve (close by in the tree) and the FUT is set to just admin.general (...) I don't know what's proper. We're experimenting. I hope people won't get too upset about it, till we get it right. I did an experiment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA —Dan Boger
| | | | | (...) The fact that past threads became debates doesn't mean that talking about NASA is OT for .geek. I'd recommend judging each thread by it's own contents, not by the history of the subject. (...) Regardless if anyone actually replies to the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | |
