| |
Hm. Dan, your point is valid, I think, but not what Larry was referring to.
To my way of thinking, the buildings -should- have been (but were not) posted
to lugnet.trains. They were instead posted to lugnet.trains.org (among
others). Larry's point is that the bulk of the message does not refer to
train organizations.
OTOH, I can think of two reasons why it was appropriate there.
1) The un-snipped Spamcake Diner line that I included at the bottom of this
message. This was directed to all train organizations. That seems to make the
message appropriate to the lugnet.trains.org newsgroup. If responses had been
made to this comment, they would have been very inappropriate in
lugnet.build.
2) John referred to the TCLTC layout, and perhaps wanted to post to
lugnet.trains.org.tcltc. Since that newsgroup does not yet exist, it does
seem administratively correct to post to lugnet.trains.org, which is the next
most specific group in the hierarchy.
BTW, Can I set the FUT of this post to lugnet.deadhorse?
And to keep this from ending up in lugnet.admin, here's my contribution to
the actual thread
Wow. Very nice, John. But surprisingly similar to a building I just finished.
Quit that! ;-)
Rick C.
dan parker wrote:
> Actually, Larry, it can be viewed as most appropriate of John Neal to post
> to .train. I kindly direct you to model rr mags which routinely feature
> articles on buildings related to train layouts. As John is a regular
> trainbuilder, surely this underscores much of his fine work. Without
> knowing his intents, he may be evaluating how this structure supports an
> area on his layout.
> Awesome work, btw, John!
> dan parker
>
> In lugnet.trains.org, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> ....all know this isn't a trains.org topic...
> In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
> I still think it would be neat if every LTC had a Spamcake Diner on its
> layout!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
2 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
