Hard to say; they're certainly a force to be reckoned with.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > New members would be good Chris - but could the cyber-world survive if > Gabby and her sister got together in the same space? > > On 31 Dec, 00:51, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > *laughing* No, not what I meant at all, but then, you knew that. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:43 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You mean, use the G+ community as an advertising channel? Good idea. > Would > > > you want to write the promo texts? Anyone? > > > > > 2012/12/31 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > >> As with Gravity, it would provide a path for additional conversations, > > >> and a path for new members to find their way here. But, if it's not > > >> something that anyone wants, don't bother. :D > > > > >> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:18 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>> Hi Chris, as I said, I reserved the name space, that's all. The > > >>> community thing is still going on here. No one seems interested in > moving > > >>> and Google still allows to use the groups functionality, which is > much > > >>> better suited for our purpose of discussing things. Or do we miss > > >>> something? Except you, of course. ;) > > > > >>> 2012/12/30 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > >>>> Gabs, what's the link to your community on G+? > > > > >>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM, gabbydott <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > >>>>> Google+ Communities < > http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/communities/>are out now. > > > > >>>>> I've had a quick look around and wanted to inform you that I > blocked > > >>>>> the community name "Minds Eye". I thought it might be useful if > one day we > > >>>>> decide to move there - or, if we are made to move there. I doubt > that > > >>>>> anyone of you would want to move there right now, everything is > still very > > >>>>> chaotic over there. But before we get too exclusively bubblish we > > >>>>> might consider to keep that option in mind. > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > >>>> -- > > > > >>> -- > > > > >> -- > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > --
