RE: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

At 11:51 AM 5/02/01 +1100, David Kempe wrote: > > How about we put a voting thingy on the website? :) > >yaya voting thingy! Seconded - the voting things, that is -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

Crossfire wrote: > > > If you're posting socially, then make sure you have a [social] in your > subject. etc. [snip] > > Make a slug-social or slug-chat mail address that shares a common subscriber's list with [EMAIL PROTECTED], so the same people get sent the messages, but have the serv

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

Howard Lowndes was once rumoured to have said: > The only downside to this is that the newbie will most likely be unaware > of this protocol. Document it with along with the "Before you post to this list" notes. Also, people would probably implicitly pick up on it with sufficent traffic running

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

> The only downside to this is that the newbie will most likely be unaware > of this protocol. Dare I say "56K"? Two lists gives you a choice in that regard too. *shrug* - Jeff -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://linux.conf.au/ -- "The ability to procrastina

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

The only downside to this is that the newbie will most likely be unaware of this protocol. -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates "...well, it worked before _you_ touched it!" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Crossfire wrote:

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

Jeff Waugh was once rumoured to have said: > > > > I agree with this sentiment, but see this as being the precise reason why > > SLUG should not be fragmented. > > Trouble is, we have a pretty heavy list already, and all the time people are > getting more and more annoyed with the casual fun st

RE: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

> How about we put a voting thingy on the website? :) yaya voting thingy! dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

> I agree with this sentiment, but see this as being the precise reason why > SLUG should not be fragmented. Trouble is, we have a pretty heavy list already, and all the time people are getting more and more annoyed with the casual fun stuff (the bits they think are a waste of time, whilst othe

RE: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

> Subject: RE: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists. > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > > This is a funny one -> almost every time this has come up, > we've kind of > > > half agreed not to, because of the list s

RE: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

> > On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > This is a funny one -> almost every time this has come up, we've kind of > > half agreed not to, because of the list splitting aspect. I > certainly agreed > > with that for a long time, but... ;) > > I have always been reserved about splitting the l

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

I agree with this sentiment, but see this as being the precise reason why SLUG should not be fragmented. -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates "...well, it worked before _you_ touched it!" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Rodo

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Jeff Waugh wrote: > This is a funny one -> almost every time this has come up, we've kind of > half agreed not to, because of the list splitting aspect. I certainly agreed > with that for a long time, but... ;) I have always been reserved about splitting the list. With slug-c

Re: [SLUG] On the topic of new lists.

> Just to throw another controversial topic onto the new mailing list > debate. Go on then, complicate the issue! ;) > Could we get a slug-chat or slug-social list if we do end up creating > another one? This is a funny one -> almost every time this has come up, we've kind of half agreed not