 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he CAN be a good contributor (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed to voice your opinions. Sorry, Larry, I can't agree with that. (...) ...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post limit. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | I *said* they had flaws and were thought starters... so you'll see a smiley behind every one of my responses, I'm trying to be funny in them. I suggest you post some ideas of your own, I'm trying to get some brainstorming going... (...) Why not? (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:>>Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed (...) I'm not yet a member (mainly because most of my posting has been to OT rather than LEGO-specific contributions), (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Actually, those two are great ideas, IMHO. I wonder how many people that aren't members post updates about their LEGO eBay auctions on Lugnet, and never give back to the upkeep of Lugnet... I hadn't ever thought of that before. And the admin (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) That's a good point. It hadn't occurred to me because I don't usually get ensnared by a debate until it's already in .debate! Maybe we should have off-topic.debate.pure and off-topic.debate.spill. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | Call me elitist... (and I don't think I'm 100% disagreeing) (...) I'm not. That is, I'm not for enabling *everyone* to be a member. There are certain people I would be happy to see not join, heck, not even participate here. There are only a handful (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) they (...) Mmm. That'll teach me to go around not qualifying my statements. Clearly, I don't think that the rules should be mutated too much to encourage everyone (coughMatthewMoultoncough) to join up- on the other hand, if subtle changes to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Thanks for the restate. Yes, coughcough was just who I was referring to. Restated that way, I agree 100%. ++Lar (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well that could be handled by having two groups. One for conducting auction business (soliciting bids) and one for asking questions about auctions. Then you just TOS quickly anyone who regularly manages to "announce" their auction in the Q&A (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, as soon as I can come up with an idea that I myself can't pick apart on 1000 levels, I will. Unfortunately, thus far I've been unsuccessful... (...) Yeah, but that's the default way of "winning" an argument or flamewar on Usenet. :D (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) <puts facilitator hat on> No no... post your ideas, no matter how wacky, as long as they haven't been posted yet. That's brainstorming. Even if you know there is a flaw in idea E1 and E2 of yours, and in L1 and L2 of mine, someone may come up (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) The recent history of .debate is certainly that the types of shouting matches have little chance of being productive, however, I will point out that back some time ago, the "Libertarian" debate DID have real productivity. It DID change (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Hear, hear! Though I don't expect that I'll switch to Libertarianism or Christianity any time soon, I have learned a good deal about those two views. That, for me, is the primary reason for participating in .debate (that, and getting the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | (...) Only post via the web interface? NO THANKS. I've posted maybe a total of 5 times via the web interface (and only because I was in a training class, not on any of my computers). Broken. (...) Then people would just watch the branches to make (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I wasn't clear enough. I was looking for some brainstorming on possible solutions first before we trotted out the sharpened knives to rip holes in the ideas. All the ones i posted were dreamt up in about 5 minutes total to act as thought (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | (...) How about the following? (to be added to the TOS?) *Only members can start new threads in .debate, or .market. No new tech stuff required, just include your Lugnet member number in your sig. If you forget, someone will remind you. If you try (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Ya, the default is to omit .off-topic and .admin noise: (URL) and limiting .debate posts from showing in any search (except explicitly (...) That would be a bit trickier but might come almost for free since it already filters out groups not in (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmm. Something that I've noticed for a while not, but not cared enough to mention before this is... The skip filter only works on the highest level, and goes away as soon as I drill down into a sup-group. (ie: I have .debate filtered out, but (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | You forgot one moderating method: Use the password checker, and only accept messages which passes a certain limit of security (or a modified version of the checker, with a specialized dictionary). Seriously, if you have a group with 'free speech', (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Larry, you really are a conceited. I'm happy for you to refer to me however you want - as I am pretty thick skinned. The positions I adopt are, often, more about educating myself than spamming this group with my philosophy on life, the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Can the two of you please take all of this offline to private email? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Scott is free to email me whatever he likes, but I feel it is important that I and others continue to use .debate to discuss the larger topic of what makes a good .debate and a good .debater as and when appropriate. I think it's an important (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) What I meant was the personal jabs that keep going back and forth. --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Uselessness of .debate —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Another day. Another contradictorily ironic post from Larry. Another conceitedly snide remark from Larry. What will tomorrow bring? Christmas!! (...) I really am trying: (URL) A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
