[Glastonbury] list name

[Kelvin McNulty]

I do not have any problem with the filtering. I filter on the To: address, and 
all the messages drop neatly into a folder that I have called GLUG... maybe 
that's why it was called LUGOG... I've noticed for quite a long time that the 
user group acronyms are interesting, starting with BEEBUG for BBC micro 
users... the one that's just so apt, even though I'm not sure if it really 
exists, is MUG...

Happy with status quo, but happy to change...

Best,

Kelvin

On Saturday 13 December 2003 15:14, Nick Irwin wrote:
> On Saturday 13 December 2003 12:38, Martin WHEELER wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Sean Miller wrote:
> > > Q: Why is this list called [glastonbury] rather than [LUGOG] ?? I am on
> > > another list with the same name (a Glastonbury generic list) and it is
> > > causing havoc with my filtering.
> >
> > Likewise.  (I'm on six different Glastonbury lists; most containing the
> > name in full.)
> >
> > I think the explanation is that when Steve first set it up, it made
> > perfect sense from the uklinux *national* LUG point of view -- each
> > group goes under the name of its own locality.
> > And if you live in Auchtermuchty for example, the group then has a
> > meaningful name.  (Whereas LUGoG would be meaningless.)
> >
> > From the *local* point of view, however, the name is just tautological
> > excess, liable to cause confusion.
> >
> > Changing the name probably means setting up a whole new list; attempting
> > to transfer the archives and membership details; and deleting the old.
> >
> > I don't mind doing this -- but only if the whole list is in agreement.
> >
> > Comments or suggestions anyone?
>
> I personally don't have any filtering issues with the name.
>
> I do however, think that the change to LUGoG would be a sensible one, but
> since it isn't causing me problems I don't want to put you to too much
> trouble.