From: Daniel Casquilho <danielc@e...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:11:26 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Subject: [GZG] Back to Lurk
Well Jon has spoken. Enjoy your emails folks! dafrca
[GZG] Back to Lurk
From: Eli Arndt <emu2020@c...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:24:58 -0700
Subject: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
John has spoken? [quoted original message omitted]
From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@e...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:28:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [GZG] Back to Lurk
> Eli Arndt wrote: > John has spoken? See, that's why they call it a signal-to-noise ratio. Yep. GZG-Jon chimed in earlier.
From: Eli Arndt <emu2020@c...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:32:08 -0700
Subject: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
I have to say the death of the forum is a bit disappointing. I find using the list very difficult for any long-term goals or projects. [quoted original message omitted]
From: Jaime Tiampo <fugu@s...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
> I have to say the death of the forum is a bit disappointing. I find It's not dead. Now that things are back on track with communications it's being retooled.
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:09:18 +0100
Subject: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
> John has spoken? Yes, I did chip in to try to explain any confusions, but I did NOT dismiss the idea of a forum... I just said that I'd like the list to continue as it has done, but if a forum could happily coexist alongside it then that would be fine with me.... but I'm not going to decide anything until I've had time to look properly at all the mail and consider what everyone's opinions on this are. :-) Jon (GZG) > _______________________________________________
From: Magnus Alexandersson <m96maal@m...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:19:15 +0200
Subject: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
ons 2006-07-12 klockan 08:09 +0100 skrev Ground Zero Games: > Yes, I did chip in to try to explain any confusions, but I did NOT I find the 150+ mail hysteria both sad and entertaining. Forums are an excellent compliment, not a contender. Now get outside in the sun while I wade through all this unthreadable mail. Just my 0.02 SEK. Take care,
From: David Rodemaker <dar@h...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:40:00 -0500
Subject: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
> I have to say the death of the forum is a bit disappointing. I find It's not dead. Now that things are back on track with communications it's being retooled. Jaime ---- Good. I never did get an email letting me finish signing up for the forum - despite the fact that I don't tend to like them for discussion. That being said, where I do see fora as having a strong use is for posting errata, rulings, images (new mini's), ship designs or the like, and FAQ's. AAR's would have a natural space there as well I think.
From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:01:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
Jaime said: > It's not dead. Now that things are back on track with communications "We can rebuild it. Make it faster, stronger, better. Give it steel wool. A bionic "baa"..."
From: Jaime Tiampo <fugu@s...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: [GZG] Back to Lurk
> Good. I never did get an email letting me finish signing up for the Taht was due to an error in the email configuration, which I fixed but it's not retroactive. All accounts were manual activated as I posted