 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
| |
