 | | Re: Lar's hoppers —John Neal
|
| | | I think sequestering the puns off into their own group where they can't torture anyone such as Mike is a mistake. Therein lies their beauty, interspersed between the normal day-to-day blather, like a ray of light, shimmering down on an otherwise (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lar's hoppers —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) That's one wayya lookin' at it. Another way is the marvelous mischievousity (is that word?) that a dedicated .pun group affords. I imagine it as a prankish sort of group -- in the same spirit of marking up movie posters with moustaches or (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lar's hoppers —Jesse R. Long
|
| | | | John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:372735FE.FAEDE9...est.net... (...) torture (...) down on (...) in an (...) But it would be nice not to have to download 70 messages to see that 50 of them are a pun-fest. I don't mind an (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lar's hoppers —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Well, maybe you're right, but there's is something worse than downloading a bunch of puns... downloading complaints about them;-) Anyway, Jesse, you should do what I did-- get a DSL line and the point becomes mute [1]. Well, gotta go down and (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lar's hoppers —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) We can't get ADSL here, btw, but that isn't the point. I read news primarily on my Linux box at work, so I get the benefit of our 6 T1s and our new DS3 (about 54mb total, not counting our pipe to I2 and other national labs), so speed isn't the (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lar's hoppers —John Neal
|
| | | | | | Hey Mike- If my posting offends you, well EXCUUUUSE ME! Sorry, I couldn't resist:-). But seriously, I'm just having fun, which is for what I thought this group was intended. Sounds like people's idea of fun is pretty diverse (duh), so rather than (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Original purpose of .off-topic.fun —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, sort of yes and sort of no. Just as .off-topic.debate wasn't created just for the sake of having debates, .off-topic.fun wasn't created just for the sake of having fun. Rather, .debate was created for having debates about stuff and .fun (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) No? Unless you want 3 dozen .off-topic groups for each type of off-topic conversations, it seems a little silly to split them up like that. I'd say off-topic.fun could be a catch-all until enough traffic in a specific kind of subject warrants (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | | | (...) But doesn't that make geeky posts easier to identify? Yet I guess the problem is that if a geeky post morphs into a punfest, that makes it hard to identify. Maybe it's better netiquette (that I need to practice) to change the subject to be a (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Geek posts usually are easy to identify. Mostly pun-filled threads, though, seem to be moved over from other groups. My point is that if some people think there is enough traffic to warrant .geek (not (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Thinking of both. --Todd (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Original purpose of .off-topic.fun —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh, definitely agreed! But I just think it's good to have a structure/plan in mind so that when a group's time does come, a switch can simply be thrown to turn it on. Otherwise without a structure in place, things grow a bit too organically (...) (26 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lar's hoppers —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) This was my main problem when I started ranting about the puns. I used to read every message posted to this group. I'd see an occasional pun or three, but that was it. Now, no matter what the subject line, chances are, if I don't read the (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
