| |
In article <Go10A7.4BG@lugnet.com>,
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote:
> Hey Y'all:
>
> What has happened to Lugnet? Where is everyone? I don't pay attention to
> the stats, but I think that frequency of posting must be at an all time low.
> Am I wrong about this? The place is as quiet as a morgue. I keep bumping
> into some of the other ghosts, but it still seems VERY slow around here...
>
> And I don't just mean for a Friday night/Saturday morning, when only the
> members of Insomniacs Anonymous are up. It seems slow in general to me,
> esp. during the last week or two. I noticed this because I engage in very
> few online activities except those surrounding the news and construction
> bricks.
>
> Why is it so silent here? Is it our political situation? Is it the economy?
> Is it the paucity of good design in the forthcoming 2002 sets? Xmas blues?
> What?
My posting was greatly reduced when we switched to the email
verification system. :^P
~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Sandlin writes:
> In article <Go10A7.4BG@lugnet.com>,
> "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Y'all:
> >
> > What has happened to Lugnet? Where is everyone? I don't pay attention to
> > the stats, but I think that frequency of posting must be at an all time low.
> > Am I wrong about this? The place is as quiet as a morgue. I keep bumping
> > into some of the other ghosts, but it still seems VERY slow around here...
> >
> > And I don't just mean for a Friday night/Saturday morning, when only the
> > members of Insomniacs Anonymous are up. It seems slow in general to me,
> > esp. during the last week or two. I noticed this because I engage in very
> > few online activities except those surrounding the news and construction
> > bricks.
> >
> > Why is it so silent here? Is it our political situation? Is it the economy?
> > Is it the paucity of good design in the forthcoming 2002 sets? Xmas blues?
> > What?
>
> My posting was greatly reduced when we switched to the email
> verification system. :^P
Same here :)
jt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh writes:
> In lugnet.general, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > In article <Go10A7.4BG@lugnet.com>,
> > "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Y'all:
> > >
> > > What has happened to Lugnet? Where is everyone? I don't pay attention to
> > > the stats, but I think that frequency of posting must be at an all time low.
> > > Am I wrong about this? The place is as quiet as a morgue. I keep bumping
> > > into some of the other ghosts, but it still seems VERY slow around here...
> > >
> > > And I don't just mean for a Friday night/Saturday morning, when only the
> > > members of Insomniacs Anonymous are up. It seems slow in general to me,
> > > esp. during the last week or two. I noticed this because I engage in very
> > > few online activities except those surrounding the news and construction
> > > bricks.
> > >
> > > Why is it so silent here? Is it our political situation? Is it the economy?
> > > Is it the paucity of good design in the forthcoming 2002 sets? Xmas blues?
> > > What?
> >
> > My posting was greatly reduced when we switched to the email
> > verification system. :^P
>
> Same here :)
Strangely enough, my frequency went *up* after we switched to
verification. That was not, however, the reason why. My posting
is back down in the last few months, however, because I've been
totally buried under work.
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Strangely enough, my frequency went *up* after we switched to
> verification. That was not, however, the reason why. My posting
> is back down in the last few months, however, because I've been
> totally buried under work.
Likewise - it's midterms here, the strike we had is over so it's back to
business for good til the end of the semester.
Plus it's no help that I'm on a different timezone than everyone else! It
makes it hard to start discussions as easily. I always reply too late!
-Shiri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Shiri Dori writes:
> In lugnet.general, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > Strangely enough, my frequency went *up* after we switched to
> > verification. That was not, however, the reason why. My posting
> > is back down in the last few months, however, because I've been
> > totally buried under work.
>
> Likewise - it's midterms here, the strike we had is over so it's back to
> business for good til the end of the semester.
>
> Plus it's no help that I'm on a different timezone than everyone else! It
> makes it hard to start discussions as easily. I always reply too late!
Me too! By the time I get home it's evening in California so everyone who
posts from work has gone home. The upside is that loc.au is just getting
going, and they're one of the more entertaining local groups to lurk in. Which
reminds me-- hey Rosco, if you're reading this, a student of mine is visiting
his grandmother in Perth for the holidays and has promised to bring me back a
jar of Vegemite for extra credit! Which I think I'll enjoy a bit more than
slogging through the "0 = 1" proof he submitted to me the last time he wanted
some extra points.
Maggie C.
x-posted to loc.au because it DOES contain the word Vegemite
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron writes:
> In lugnet.general, Shiri Dori writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > Strangely enough, my frequency went *up* after we switched to
> > > verification. That was not, however, the reason why. My posting
> > > is back down in the last few months, however, because I've been
> > > totally buried under work.
> >
> > Likewise - it's midterms here, the strike we had is over so it's back to
> > business for good til the end of the semester.
> >
> > Plus it's no help that I'm on a different timezone than everyone else! It
> > makes it hard to start discussions as easily. I always reply too late!
>
> Me too! By the time I get home it's evening in California so everyone who
> posts from work has gone home. The upside is that loc.au is just getting
> going, and they're one of the more entertaining local groups to lurk in.
Hmmmm...
> Which
> reminds me-- hey Rosco, if you're reading this, a student of mine is visiting
> his grandmother in Perth for the holidays and has promised to bring me back a
> jar of Vegemite for extra credit!
Hah! Sounds like you're turning into another "Big V" junkie!! Anytime you've
got some Technic for sale, I'm happy to pay in yucky brown yeast extract[1]!!
> Which I think I'll enjoy a bit more than
> slogging through the "0 = 1" proof he submitted to me the last time he wanted
> some extra points.
When I was a kid, I had a book with about ten different ways to do that -
make an incorrect assumption, and you can prove anything (maybe someone can
even prove Vegemite tastes bad!)
ROSCO
[1] Of course, it's the brown that's yucky, not the yeast extract!!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Sandlin writes:
> My posting was greatly reduced when we switched to the email
> verification system. :^P
>
> ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
Me too!
Verification sucks. And just think, I'll have to verify this post as well :-(.
It's not even like that many people we're being impersonated.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steven Lane writes:
> In lugnet.general, Mark Sandlin writes:
>
> > My posting was greatly reduced when we switched to the email
> > verification system. :^P
> >
> > ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
>
> Me too!
>
> Verification sucks. And just think, I'll have to verify this post as well :-(.
>
> It's not even like that many people we're being impersonated.
Police stink. It's not like that many people are being robbed.
I agree 100% that it's a pain to have to do the verification, but put that
blame where it belongs - on the jerk(s) who were abusing all our trust,
instead of with the people who stopped them from doing it (as easily).
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.general, Steven Lane writes:
> > Verification sucks. And just think, I'll have to verify this post as well :-(.
> >
> > It's not even like that many people we're being impersonated.
>
> Police stink. It's not like that many people are being robbed.
Yeah but the police don't hassle me for my I.D. EVERY day!!
> I agree 100% that it's a pain to have to do the verification, but put that
> blame where it belongs - on the jerk(s) who were abusing all our trust,
> instead of with the people who stopped them from doing it (as easily).
I agree the person(s) was a total jerk. But he's probably gone now anyway.
Why not have verification for the month following a strike, then revert to
normal.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general (and 1 other group), Steven Lane wrote:
> In lugnet.general, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Steven Lane writes:
>
> > > Verification sucks. And just think, I'll have to verify this post as • well :-(.
> > >
> > > It's not even like that many people we're being impersonated.
> >
> > Police stink. It's not like that many people are being robbed.
>
> Yeah but the police don't hassle me for my I.D. EVERY day!!
if it bothers you that much, why don't you just post via the web interface?
no verification there?
> Why not have verification for the month following a strike, then revert • to
> normal.
I doubt that will happen.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steven Lane writes:
<snip>
> I agree the person(s) was a total jerk. But he's probably gone now anyway.
> Why not have verification for the month following a strike, then revert to
> normal.
>
> Steve
Unforunatly he hasn't gone away, he still post to R.T.L every once in awhile
and makes claims that he will be back to LUGNET. So what can you do, it's a
hassle but these kind of jerks make lots of things in life that way.
jt
|
|
| |
In article <200112101317.fBADHSS27446@void.peeron.com>,
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote:
> if it bothers you that much, why don't you just post via the web interface?
> no verification there?
Because those of us who use newsreaders can sort through and view
messages WAY faster than we could with the web interface. Unfortunately,
the verification stuff throws a monkeywrench in the gears, so I tend to
post less frequently than I did before.
~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger writes:
> if it bothers you that much, why don't you just post via the web interface?
> no verification there?
I don't know about that Steven, but this one would rather read in a
newsreader. Unfortunately, this means that to start a reply on the web
requires going through the process of:
Press [H] to display the headers (I'm using Forte Agent).
Select'n'Copy the message id.
Open a browser.
Type in the url http://news.lugnet.com/[newsgroup]?n=[messageid]
Hit Enter
Wait while the message (and all the accompanying web-iage) is retrieved
Hit Reply
This isn't brain surgery, and you even memorize it after awhile. But it's a
lot harder than just clicking the Reply button.
Not that I want verification to go away. But it's a pain to read with a
newsreader, and reply via the web.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger writes:
> In lugnet.general (and 1 other group), Steven Lane wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, James Brown writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, Steven Lane writes:
> >
> > > > Verification sucks. And just think, I'll have to verify this post as • well :-(.
> > > >
> > > > It's not even like that many people we're being impersonated.
> > >
> > > Police stink. It's not like that many people are being robbed.
> >
> > Yeah but the police don't hassle me for my I.D. EVERY day!!
>
> if it bothers you that much, why don't you just post via the web interface?
> no verification there?
I do post via the web interface but I'm not a 'paid-up' member so I can't
sign in.
> > Why not have verification for the month following a strike, then revert • to
> > normal.
>
> I doubt that will happen.
>
> Dan
|
|
| |
"Steve Bliss" <partsref@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Go5DH7.In2@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, Dan Boger writes:
> > if it bothers you that much, why don't you just post via the web • interface?
> > no verification there?
>
> I don't know about that Steven, but this one would rather read in a
> newsreader. Unfortunately, this means that to start a reply on the web
> requires going through the process of:
>
> Press [H] to display the headers (I'm using Forte Agent).
> Select'n'Copy the message id.
> Open a browser.
> Type in the url http://news.lugnet.com/[newsgroup]?n=[messageid]
> Hit Enter
> Wait while the message (and all the accompanying web-iage) is retrieved
> Hit Reply
>
> This isn't brain surgery, and you even memorize it after awhile. But it's • a
> lot harder than just clicking the Reply button.
>
> Not that I want verification to go away. But it's a pain to read with a
> newsreader, and reply via the web.
>
> Steve
I use Outlook Express to read LUGNET as I personally find the web interface
painful to use. The verification process is realtively simple. If I want
to reply to a message, I hit the "Reply" button in OE just like I always
have. Once my message is composed and sent I check for new mail in Outlook
where I almost always have a confirmation e-mail from the LUGNET server. I
reply to it with an "X" in the box and I am done. No need to invoke the
LUGNET web interface for anything.
It is one extra step that I didn't used to have to do but I am more than
willing to do that to keep NNTP access to LUGNET. If it went to an only web
interface I doubt I would post very much if at all.
Now if only I could convince Dan Jezik to support NNTP for the Brickbay
forum ... ;-)
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
http://www.nclug.net - North Carolina LEGO Users Group
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=mpw - Brick Depot
|
|
|
