| |
Adventurers,
Some here at LUGNET are not too happy with postings put in this group
recently. That is unfortunate. A few individuals have deemed that all of us
are not discussing things 100% lego at all times. Should I be searching for
another forum that would be less constrictive, less exclusive, and more
understanding of posts put up by individuals that want to discuss lego in all
its aspects, not just the nuts and bolts of it. Lego is half construction and
half artistry, and some here at LUGNET seem to be pushing for a format that
concentrates on the former, as is their right. It is also the right of
individuals to concentrate on the later. Discussion of anything not strictly
relating to the construction of models is frowned upon within individually
themed discussion groups by some. I had thought that LUGNET was for everyone
and every idea but that is proving not to be a ubiquitous ideology. So am I
to search for a group posting format that will allow for all ideas to be
discussed, no matter how far out they may be, with equanimity? If individuals
want to discuss anything - creative sources for ispiration, historical
contexts for lego set ideas, building and customization tips, reviews of
products, CAD work, etc. they should be allowed. I think that LUGNET may be
a bit slanted toward those individuals who want to design, experiment in
robotics, and revel in all things relating to engineering (judging by posting
numbers). I see nothing wrong with this as long as there is no exclusion of
other ideas. Not everything should have to be 100% lego. I dare say that TLG
doesn't discuss 100% lego in their own meetings. The addition of the Star
Wars theme proves that TLG does have outside interests. Why can't LUGNET
users? Speak out or be silenced. Those who didn't like the direction this
posting group was taking spoke out to let their opinions be heard. I am doing
the same. Everyone that posts here should also.
Play well and cheers to all,
Mark L
|
|
| |
Mark Lindsey wrote:
> Some here at LUGNET are not too happy with postings put in this group
> recently. That is unfortunate.
Hi Mark,
I was watching that Adventurers movie thread in .General myself with
some irritation, since I am not interested in it at all and it really
didn't belong there.
The thing about Lugnet is not that it excludes certain types of
discussion, but that it directs discussion into focused areas, so that
people only see what they ask to see. There are plenty of areas for
discussions not related to lego - see the offtopic groups - as well as a
myriad of focused groups for any type of Lego discussion. If you feel
that there isn't a suitable group for what you want to discuss, you can
ask Todd about creating one - he has donw it before for special
requests, if there was support for the idea (ie more than 1 person
interested!).
> So am I
> to search for a group posting format that will allow for all ideas to >be discussed, no matter how far out they may be, with equanimity?
If that's what you want, it already exists, as RTL: but Lugnet was
created partly because that fact about RTL - that almost anything goes -
caused a desire for more focused groups.
Kevin
--
Email: kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com
Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/default.html
|
|
| |
Kevin Wilson wrote:
> Mark Lindsey wrote:
> > Some here at LUGNET are not too happy with postings put in this group
> > recently. That is unfortunate.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I was watching that Adventurers movie thread in .General myself with
> some irritation, since I am not interested in it at all and it really
> didn't belong there.
>
> The thing about Lugnet is not that it excludes certain types of
> discussion, but that it directs discussion into focused areas, so that
> people only see what they ask to see. There are plenty of areas for
> discussions not related to lego - see the offtopic groups - as well as a
> myriad of focused groups for any type of Lego discussion. If you feel
> that there isn't a suitable group for what you want to discuss, you can
> ask Todd about creating one - he has donw it before for special
> requests, if there was support for the idea (ie more than 1 person
> interested!).
>
> > So am I
> > to search for a group posting format that will allow for all ideas to >be discussed, no matter how far out they may be, with equanimity?
>
> If that's what you want, it already exists, as RTL: but Lugnet was
> created partly because that fact about RTL - that almost anything goes -
> caused a desire for more focused groups.
>
> Kevin
> --
> Email: kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com
> Web page:
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/default.html
Mark, If you got a "smack on the hand" by Todd, don't worry about it. We all get smacked occasionally. He is most often correct. We should
stay focused, as hard as it sometimes is. If I sometimes go off on a tangent (as I sometimes do), I always try to remember to relate the
topic to LEGO before finishing the post. If I can't relate it to anything in LEGO, then I shouldn't be posting it there. That's why
Adventure shows are not OK, but minifigs with Boobs are OK. (Go figure!)
But if you want to go off on any general tangent, then you should be posting it to RTL. The whole reason for having LUGNET is to get away
from the mayhem and nastiness that often occurs in RTL. I guess that RTL is sort of a mature refuge for LEGO topics. And occasionally we
get reminded of that by Todd (and others). And yeah we all get into a huff when that occurs. But you get over it.
Stay the course....
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Mark Lindsey writes:
<snip well thought out commentary>
Mark,
I don't think most people have a big problem with the topics you've been
discussing. I think people have had a problem with >where< you've been
discussing them. As an example, the thread(s) about Adventure movies. I
personally think its just fine to be talking about that in .adventurers, but
it should not have bleed over into .general.
On the other hand, I can see what some other people have been saying, too.
The last little while, I've been mostly ignoring .adventurers, because while I
like the theme, the topics and discussion there have gone way past my interest
level. Let me hasten to point out that its not wrong or abnormal - I ignore
.space, .robotics, and .cad, too (well, for the most part). That's the great
thing about LUGnet - you aren't forced to wade through dozens of posts about
things you aren't interested in to read about the things you are looking for.
Todd, I think a call may in order to review the charters for the themed
discussion groups. I did a quick skim through a few of them, and the only one
that includes anything other than strict discussion of the product is
.starwars - .castle, .space, and .adventurers all have only "LEGO SYSTEM
(Space™) products" as a guideline, where it's fairly obvious that in all three
groups, there's a whole lot of other discussion going on. I would suggest
that the charters for the themed groups are changed to be more similar to the
starwars charter:
LEGO®/Star Wars®: products, licensing issues, fanaticism, etc.
$0.02
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Mark Lindsey writes:
> Adventurers,
> Some here at LUGNET are not too happy with postings put in this group
> recently. That is unfortunate. A few individuals have deemed that all of us
> are not discussing things 100% lego at all times. Should I be searching for
> another forum that would be less constrictive, less exclusive, and more
> understanding of posts put up by individuals that want to discuss lego in all
> its aspects, not just the nuts and bolts of it. Lego is half construction and
> half artistry, and some here at LUGNET seem to be pushing for a format that
> concentrates on the former, as is their right. It is also the right of
> individuals to concentrate on the later. Discussion of anything not strictly
> relating to the construction of models is frowned upon within individually
> themed discussion groups by some. I had thought that LUGNET was for everyone
> and every idea but that is proving not to be a ubiquitous ideology. So am I
> to search for a group posting format that will allow for all ideas to be
> discussed, no matter how far out they may be, with equanimity? If individuals
> want to discuss anything - creative sources for ispiration, historical
> contexts for lego set ideas, building and customization tips, reviews of
> products, CAD work, etc. they should be allowed. I think that LUGNET may be
> a bit slanted toward those individuals who want to design, experiment in
> robotics, and revel in all things relating to engineering (judging by posting
> numbers). I see nothing wrong with this as long as there is no exclusion of
> other ideas. Not everything should have to be 100% lego. I dare say that TLG
> doesn't discuss 100% lego in their own meetings. The addition of the Star
> Wars theme proves that TLG does have outside interests. Why can't LUGNET
> users? Speak out or be silenced. Those who didn't like the direction this
> posting group was taking spoke out to let their opinions be heard. I am doing
> the same. Everyone that posts here should also.
>
> Play well and cheers to all,
> Mark L
I think perhaps you've gotten the wrong impression! Everything you've been
mentioning can (and should!) be posted to LUGNET, it's just a matter of posting
it to the right place... Part of the reason that LUGNET exists is to allow
people to easily siphon out things they don't want to read. Some people may not
want to read historical tidbits-- some might not care about inspiration-- some
might not care about robotics-- some couldn't care less for Star Wars... and
for these people, other forums are messy. They have to read through ALL the
messages to get the information they want, rather than JUST get the stuff that
interests THEM... That's part of what makes LUGNET such a great place!
For instance, I'm not a big CAD person... Neither am I a big robotics person.
They're interesting, and I'd like to get into them at some point, but for now,
Most of the information isn't of any help to me. But I do love Castle, for
instance. So on any other forum (Ok, RTL) I'd have to wade through all the CAD
and robotics posts (and all the auction stuff, and the junk that gets posted
there) in order to get to the posts that really interested me. So LUGNET has
the ingenious feature of sub-groups! So if I'm only looking for Castle stuff, I
just read the Castle sub-group, and I don't have to bother reading the other
sub-groups that don't interest me.
The problem I've been having is that a large majority of posts to
lugnet.adventurers haven't necessarily had much to do with the group itself.
That's usually fine if it's just a message here or there, but when it gets to
be too much, then we're back to something like RTL-- it defeats the purpose of
sub-groups entirely.
The things you've shown concern for: "creative sources for ispiration,
historical contexts for lego set ideas, building and customization tips reviews
of products, CAD work". All of these have homes on LUGNET (lugnet.build,
lugnet.cad, lugnet.off-topic.fun, etc.) In addition, many of these can be
placed into the subgroups of their relative themes. (Like lugnet.adventurers)
The problem gets to be when a topic moves too far away from its original
intent, and should be placed elsewhere.
The big part of it (for me) has been the 'greatest adventurer movies' threads.
I don't think it's actually going AGAINST the LUGNET rules, but I think the
appropriate place for this should be lugnet.off-topic.fun, instead of
lugnet.adventurers. A lot of the conversation seems to be what movies people
like and dislike, as opposed to how each movie relates to Lego... Hence, I'd
put it in off-topic. And again, when it's just a couple messages here and
there, that's ok, but it's really gotten out of hand in my mind.
The other thing is the 'who has the most posts' idea. To quote an earlier
message you posted:
> Help us out here. We need your ideas, input, pictures of creations and
> general banter and repartee in order to make this the most lively and
> entertaining posting group on lugnet. • And later in the same post:
> Don't let Starwars continue to dominate. Last week we had very close to the
> same amout of posts they did. And certainly we can beat out the castle and
> space groups.
That's certainly not what LUGNET is about. It's not about making
lugnet.adventurers the biggest and best newsgroup. In fact, it's rather the
opposite. If one group gets too large, there is often the need to subdivide it
further, so people can read only what interests them.
But perhaps the most annoying thing is related to the last point. Things like:
http://www.lugnet.com/general/?n=8931
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/fun/?n=3299
The 1st one didn't seem to have anything to do with Adventurers, but you
cross-posted it there, I assume just so to aid your cause of 'beating' the
other groups.
The 2nd one annoys me even more, though, because someone had already
appropriately moved the thread to lugnet.off-topic.fun, and you cross-posted
your reply back to lugnet.adventurers...
Anyway, the main point is: Don't try and 'beat' other newsgroups. If you do
that, generally you run out of really good ideas quickly, and you end up
milking each idea for all it's worth, just to get a few more posts up. And
these posts turn into a bunch of fluff that people have to wade through in
order to get to the real meat of the group. In other words, it starts to defeat
the purpose of LUGNET-- it turns into a less organized jumble of messages.
Like I said before, if you want to encourage people to post more often, try and
inspire them-- that's what works best, I think. If you have really interesting
ideas, suggestions, etc., by all means post them! But if your messages are
fluff, consider posting them somewhere else (not as in off of LUGNET, but in
another group, particularly lugnet.off-topic.*)
At any rate, I'm not trying to discourage the nature of your posts... In fact,
I like having someone who's enthusiastic about all these topics... I'm just
requesting that you post your ideas a little more appropriately.
Thanks,
DaveE
(followups to lunget.admin)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Kevin Wilson writes:
> I was watching that Adventurers movie thread in .General myself with
> some irritation, since I am not interested in it at all and it really
> didn't belong there.
That is a very legitimate complaint, and for that I am sorry. I will be more
attentive to this in the future.
>
> The thing about Lugnet is not that it excludes certain types of
> discussion, but that it directs discussion into focused areas, so that
> people only see what they ask to see. There are plenty of areas for
> discussions not related to lego - see the offtopic groups - as well as a
> myriad of focused groups for any type of Lego discussion. If you feel
> that there isn't a suitable group for what you want to discuss, you can
> ask Todd about creating one - he has donw it before for special
> requests, if there was support for the idea (ie more than 1 person
> interested!).
Thanks for the suggestion. I had thought that my original topics were focused
enough, but as is often the case the subsequent discussions sometimes went
wildly in all directions. I guess I then took the criticism of some a little
too personally. Finally when those in the discussions with me didn't voice
support or any opinions at all I got upset. This is after all just a Lego
site and nothing of global interest is decided here. For that reason I was
upset that some made a big deal about my threads, but by the same token I
shouldn't let it bother me.
Thanks,
Mark L
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Gary R. Istok writes:
> Mark, If you got a "smack on the hand" by Todd, don't worry about it. We all • get smacked occasionally. He is most often correct. We should
> stay focused, as hard as it sometimes is. If I sometimes go off on a tangent • (as I sometimes do), I always try to remember to relate the
> topic to LEGO before finishing the post. If I can't relate it to anything in • LEGO, then I shouldn't be posting it there. That's why
> Adventure shows are not OK, but minifigs with Boobs are OK. (Go figure!)
I hear you. I think that I was more upset by the fact that the complaints
came in while those in the discussions with me were silent. All of my
original posts were lego-related and my intentions were noble, as you say
sometimes things do get out of hand. And when a large number of people start
responding to items that are not within the appropriate listing group people
get annoyed and rightfully so. Still I must defend everyone's right to decide
what is and what is not lego related. And I think that my original post of
the greatest adventure movies to make lego sets from was amply lego worthy.
TLG thought Star Wars deserved consideration and it did in fact become a
theme, so why is LUGNET reluctant to discuss any others? If subsequent posts
strayed how can I be responsible? I need to think on this some more.
Play well,
Mark L
> Stay the course....
>
> Gary Istok
Thanks Gary, I will.
Cheers,
Mark L
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, James Brown writes:
> Todd, I think a call may in order to review the charters for the themed
> discussion groups. I did a quick skim through a few of them, and the only one
> that includes anything other than strict discussion of the product is
> .starwars - .castle, .space, and .adventurers all have only "LEGO SYSTEM
> (Space™) products" as a guideline, where it's fairly obvious that in all three
> groups, there's a whole lot of other discussion going on. I would suggest
> that the charters for the themed groups are changed to be more similar to the
> starwars charter:
> LEGO®/Star Wars®: products, licensing issues, fanaticism, etc.
>
> $0.02
>
> James
> http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
I must agree. I will abide by the charter but it seems only fair to be able
to relate a wider group of topics to a specific Lego theme.
Mark L
|
|
| |
Mark Lindsey <markwars@fcmail.com> wrote in message
news:FKoLC4.84B@lugnet.com...
> Adventurers,
> Some here at LUGNET are not too happy with postings put in this group
Ok, Personally, I wasn't into the adventurers movie thing that was floating
around, but then I exercised my 'don't read that section' prerogative and
moved on.
it's not like people are posting for sale stuff, talking about the latest
news thing or what not. It was an interesting idea to compare the fun
adventurer theme to some of our favorite movies.
I've discovered that in any forum, whether it be legos, model trains,
astronomy, marine fish, etc. There is always some Johnny (or Jane) come
lately that takes offense and whines.
I'd say F&*K em, but we don't run this. It's one thing to post openly on a
forum that you think it's inappropriate but another to whine away to the
admins and not post your complaint publicly.
The sad part is it takes one or two whiners to destroy something anymore.
It was a simple thread, it ran it's course and it's finished. Ignore
threads you don't find interest in, and move on.
Sheesh.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Mark Lindsey writes:
> In lugnet.adventurers, Gary R. Istok writes:
> > Mark, If you got a "smack on the hand" by Todd, don't worry about it. We all • get smacked occasionally. He is most often correct. We should
> > stay focused, as hard as it sometimes is. If I sometimes go off on a tangent • (as I sometimes do), I always try to remember to relate the
> > topic to LEGO before finishing the post. If I can't relate it to anything in • LEGO, then I shouldn't be posting it there. That's why
> > Adventure shows are not OK, but minifigs with Boobs are OK. (Go figure!)
>
> I hear you. I think that I was more upset by the fact that the complaints
> came in while those in the discussions with me were silent. All of my
> original posts were lego-related and my intentions were noble, as you say
> sometimes things do get out of hand. And when a large number of people start
> responding to items that are not within the appropriate listing group people
> get annoyed and rightfully so. Still I must defend everyone's right to decide
> what is and what is not lego related. And I think that my original post of
> the greatest adventure movies to make lego sets from was amply lego worthy.
> TLG thought Star Wars deserved consideration and it did in fact become a
> theme, so why is LUGNET reluctant to discuss any others? If subsequent posts
> strayed how can I be responsible? I need to think on this some more.
>
>
> Play well,
> Mark L
>
> > Stay the course....
> >
> > Gary Istok
>
> Thanks Gary, I will.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark L
Mark....
Not one to sit idly by (well...not -usually- <grin>), a relevant thought
occurs to me. I took the list you assembled to be a matter of research
into -sources of inspiration- for those of us who are interested in this
theme, and not as simply {chatter|traffic} that most of the people who
whined ^H ^H complained about said list. It occurs to me that the
designeers of this theme must have watched at least the Indiana Jones
films, else I doubt that they would have selected to do the work involved
in producing the theme. This is not to say that the printed page may have
influenced them as well <grin>.
Second point: I trimmed this response to the this group specifically
because this is some validity in not permitting it to 'slop over' into
.general, IMO. That much I do agree with.
In any case...you did a good job of assembling the list (minus one
error <smile>), and I have a couple of week-ends of most enjoyable video
now programmed as a result. Thank you, sir.
Cheers,
Roger
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Roger D. Parks writes:
> Mark....
>
> Not one to sit idly by (well...not -usually- <grin>), a relevant thought
> occurs to me. I took the list you assembled to be a matter of research
> into -sources of inspiration- for those of us who are interested in this
> theme, and not as simply {chatter|traffic} that most of the people who
> whined ^H ^H complained about said list. It occurs to me that the
> designeers of this theme must have watched at least the Indiana Jones
> films, else I doubt that they would have selected to do the work involved
> in producing the theme. This is not to say that the printed page may have
> influenced them as well <grin>.
Thanks, you see my point perfectly.
>
> Second point: I trimmed this response to the this group specifically
> because this is some validity in not permitting it to 'slop over' into
> .general, IMO. That much I do agree with.
We agree entirely on this as well.
> In any case...you did a good job of assembling the list (minus one
> error <smile>), and I have a couple of week-ends of most enjoyable video
> now programmed as a result. Thank you, sir.
Thanks for your well timed and well put words Roger. I am glad you liked the
list.
Play well,
Mark L
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Tom Boucher writes:
> Ok, Personally, I wasn't into the adventurers movie thing that was floating
> around, but then I exercised my 'don't read that section' prerogative and
> moved on.
>
> it's not like people are posting for sale stuff, talking about the latest
> news thing or what not. It was an interesting idea to compare the fun
> adventurer theme to some of our favorite movies.
>
> I've discovered that in any forum, whether it be legos, model trains,
> astronomy, marine fish, etc. There is always some Johnny (or Jane) come
> lately that takes offense and whines.
>
> I'd say F&*K em, but we don't run this. It's one thing to post openly on a
> forum that you think it's inappropriate but another to whine away to the
> admins and not post your complaint publicly.
>
> The sad part is it takes one or two whiners to destroy something anymore.
> It was a simple thread, it ran it's course and it's finished. Ignore
> threads you don't find interest in, and move on.
>
> Sheesh.
This is the first post that made me laugh all day. Thanks for the levity Tom.
Mark L
|
|
| |
I thought the whole thing was suffering from topic drift and I had stopped
answering on the parts I thought were drifting (TV = Movie). That's why I
thought Todd shunted it over to general (which I don't read). I don't have a
big problem with that (got to tease Todd unmercifully).
As to the Adventurers movie theme being appropriate to this board - again, I
wouldn't have seen it had it been posted anywhere else. And that would have
been a shame. I don't want to go on an Adventurer's like Safari to hunt these
things down. Either the topic should be broader to include all discussions
that are on the Adventurer line, split it into "Lego Adventurer bits and pieces
only" and "Adventurer related", or a cumbersome "Hey, go over *here*" message
on the Adventurers forum (which could be a bad precedent given the number of
"for sale" messages that appear in the theme forum).
I really enjoy Mark's enthusiasm for the adventurers line. Talking endlessly
about which tan piece appears in which set bores me after awhile (needs to be
done, of course). I'd hate to see that joy and sense of fun squashed.
Bruce
In lugnet.adventurers, Mark Lindsey writes:
> Adventurers,
> Some here at LUGNET are not too happy with postings put in this group
> recently. That is unfortunate. A few individuals have deemed that all of us
> are not discussing things 100% lego at all times. Should I be searching for
> another forum that would be less constrictive, less exclusive, and more
> understanding of posts put up by individuals that want to discuss lego in all
> its aspects, not just the nuts and bolts of it. Lego is half construction and
> half artistry, and some here at LUGNET seem to be pushing for a format that
> concentrates on the former, as is their right. It is also the right of
> individuals to concentrate on the later. Discussion of anything not strictly
> relating to the construction of models is frowned upon within individually
> themed discussion groups by some. I had thought that LUGNET was for everyone
> and every idea but that is proving not to be a ubiquitous ideology. So am I
> to search for a group posting format that will allow for all ideas to be
> discussed, no matter how far out they may be, with equanimity? If individuals
> want to discuss anything - creative sources for ispiration, historical
> contexts for lego set ideas, building and customization tips, reviews of
> products, CAD work, etc. they should be allowed. I think that LUGNET may be
> a bit slanted toward those individuals who want to design, experiment in
> robotics, and revel in all things relating to engineering (judging by posting
> numbers). I see nothing wrong with this as long as there is no exclusion of
> other ideas. Not everything should have to be 100% lego. I dare say that TLG
> doesn't discuss 100% lego in their own meetings. The addition of the Star
> Wars theme proves that TLG does have outside interests. Why can't LUGNET
> users? Speak out or be silenced. Those who didn't like the direction this
> posting group was taking spoke out to let their opinions be heard. I am doing
> the same. Everyone that posts here should also.
>
> Play well and cheers to all,
> Mark L
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> I thought the whole thing was suffering from topic drift and I had stopped
> answering on the parts I thought were drifting (TV = Movie). That's why I
> thought Todd shunted it over to general (which I don't read). I don't have a
> big problem with that (got to tease Todd unmercifully).
>
> As to the Adventurers movie theme being appropriate to this board - again, I
> wouldn't have seen it had it been posted anywhere else. And that would have
> been a shame. I don't want to go on an Adventurer's like Safari to hunt these
> things down. Either the topic should be broader to include all discussions
> that are on the Adventurer line, split it into "Lego Adventurer bits and • pieces
> only" and "Adventurer related", or a cumbersome "Hey, go over *here*" message
> on the Adventurers forum (which could be a bad precedent given the number of
> "for sale" messages that appear in the theme forum).
>
> I really enjoy Mark's enthusiasm for the adventurers line. Talking endlessly
> about which tan piece appears in which set bores me after awhile (needs to be
> done, of course). I'd hate to see that joy and sense of fun squashed.
>
> Bruce
Thanks for the kind words Bruce. I feel better after having read some of this
afternoon's comments. The bottom line is that I love the Adventurers theme
and I only want to share that love with others. I am glad to know some of you
out there realize that.
Cheers,
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Gary Istok <gistok@umich.edu> writes:
> Mark, If you got a "smack on the hand" by Todd, don't worry about it. We
> all get smacked occasionally. He is most often correct. We should stay
> focused, as hard as it sometimes is.
I don't think I said anything except a brief note via email to about 5 or 6
people (at once) and said,
TSL> ok guys, time to take this off-topic thread out of .general"
TSL>
TSL> --Todd
I don't have any problem with movie lists being discussed in .adventurers as
long as the discussion is still with LEGO in mind -- i.e., toward the
"greater good" of inspiring creativity, learning about history, or anything
which enhances people's enjoyment of the Adventurers product line,
especially anything which helps give people building ideas. I'll edit the
themed-group charters on the webpages to make this more explicit.
The problem was that the movie-list thread doesn't belong in .general --
especially when it spins away from building ideas and gets into the finer
points of the movies themselves...then it belongs in .off-topic.fun or
something.
(For that matter, this thread doesn't belong in .general, either -- it
belongs in .admin.general because it's about LUGNET and not about general
LEGO topics.)
> If I sometimes go off on a tangent (as
> I sometimes do), I always try to remember to relate the topic to LEGO before
> finishing the post. If I can't relate it to anything in LEGO, then I
> shouldn't be posting it there. That's why Adventure shows are not OK, but
> minifigs with Boobs are OK. (Go figure!)
>
> But if you want to go off on any general tangent, then you should be posting
> it to RTL.
Well, no, that's not right. RTL is for LEGO and compatible building
systems, it's not for going off on any general tangents. There are plenty
of other groups out on Usenet designed for general tangents.
> The whole reason for having LUGNET is to get away from the mayhem
> and nastiness that often occurs in RTL. I guess that RTL is sort of a mature
> refuge for LEGO topics. And occasionally we get reminded of that by Todd (and
> others). And yeah we all get into a huff when that occurs. But you get
> over it.
Here, there's the .off-topic.* hierarchy for things non-LEGO:
lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands
lugnet.off-topic.debate
lugnet.off-topic.fun
lugnet.off-topic.pun
lugnet.off-topic.geek
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.admin.general]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, "Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> writes:
> I thought the whole thing was suffering from topic drift and I had stopped
> answering on the parts I thought were drifting (TV = Movie). That's why I
> thought Todd shunted it over to general (which I don't read). I don't have a
> big problem with that (got to tease Todd unmercifully).
No, I wanted to shunt it _away_from_ lugnet.general, not _over_to_
lugnet.general... (are you teasing again? ;-)
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.admin.general]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, "Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> writes:
>
> > I thought the whole thing was suffering from topic drift and I had stopped
> > answering on the parts I thought were drifting (TV = Movie). That's why I
> > thought Todd shunted it over to general (which I don't read). I don't have • a
> > big problem with that (got to tease Todd unmercifully).
>
> No, I wanted to shunt it _away_from_ lugnet.general, not _over_to_
> lugnet.general... (are you teasing again? ;-)
>
> --Todd
>
> [followups to lugnet.admin.general]
Oh gawd - there's a lugnet.admin.general and a lugnet.general. Whatever.
Please tell me *you* are teasing!
Bruce
(I'm teasing...*this* time)
|
|
| |
Mark Lindsey <markwars@fcmail.com> wrote:
> Wars theme proves that TLG does have outside interests. Why can't LUGNET
> users? Speak out or be silenced. Those who didn't like the direction this
> posting group was taking spoke out to let their opinions be heard. I am doing
> the same. Everyone that posts here should also.
Hmmm....
There are several .off-topic groups. Most of the stupid threads
(sorry, but that's what I think of them as) end up being moved to
.off-topic.fun. I never read the Adventurers Movie thread, which I
assume this is about, mainly because I have no interest in it.
Some things get moved over more quickly than others. Some not
quickly enough for some people, myself included sometimes.
Such is life. You may want to discuss silly things, and sometimes
so do I, but I try to keep my off-topic discussions in the off-topic
structure. Maybe you should too.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
| |
Mike Stanley wrote:
> Mark Lindsey <markwars@fcmail.com> wrote:
> > Wars theme proves that TLG does have outside interests. Why can't LUGNET
> > users? Speak out or be silenced. Those who didn't like the direction this
> > posting group was taking spoke out to let their opinions be heard. I am doing
> > the same. Everyone that posts here should also.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> There are several .off-topic groups. Most of the stupid threads
> (sorry, but that's what I think of them as) end up being moved to
> .off-topic.fun.
Lighten up, Francis;-)
-John
> I never read the Adventurers Movie thread, which I
> assume this is about, mainly because I have no interest in it.
>
> Some things get moved over more quickly than others. Some not
> quickly enough for some people, myself included sometimes.
>
> Such is life. You may want to discuss silly things, and sometimes
> so do I, but I try to keep my off-topic discussions in the off-topic
> structure. Maybe you should too.
>
> --
> The parts you want and nothing else?
> http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
> Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
> http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Mike Stanley writes:
> > There are several .off-topic groups. Most of the stupid threads
> (sorry, but that's what I think of them as) end up being moved to
> .off-topic.fun. I never read the Adventurers Movie thread, which I
> assume this is about, mainly because I have no interest in it.
>
> Some things get moved over more quickly than others. Some not
> quickly enough for some people, myself included sometimes.
>
> Such is life. You may want to discuss silly things, and sometimes
> so do I, but I try to keep my off-topic discussions in the off-topic
> structure. Maybe you should too.
I would direct you to this post by Todd.
http://www.lugnet.com/adventurers/?n=381
As for your opinions, they are your opinions and mine are mine. I am just
glad we both have a forum to say just that.
Cheers,
Mark L
|
|
|
