Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- From: David Kennedy <davidkennedy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:34:00 +0100
On 29/4/07 22:52, Nigel Eastmond wrote:
In article <eastend-4CCC6E.21440329042007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
eastender <eastend@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <0001HW.C25A38210007F943B019F94F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ian Robinson <junk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
However I don't think there is a bar to new posters to the group who contribute becoming regulars. Joining the "clique" if you like. Always assuming that's what they want to do. It isn't always the case.Being a Mac user is being part of a clique in any case. But like all groups there are 20% who talk and dominate and 80% who lurk and shuffle around in the background. That aside, posting a basic technical query here usually has a result - saved my bacon more than a few times.
E.
I am essentially an 'outsider'. But I have used this NG since oh, 1992 or so. It's just I don't have the time to post frequently. Frequent posting is often the key to an NG.
Rubbish.
--
David Kennedy
http://www.anindianinexile.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- From: Nigel Eastmond
- Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- References:
- Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- From: Kit
- Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- From: Ian Robinson
- Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- From: eastender
- Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- From: Nigel Eastmond
- Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- Next by Date: Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- Next by thread: Re: Is this group really as clique as it appears?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
