| |
Soren
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Soren Roberts wrote:
> <<http://www.maj.com/gallery/Lazarus/misc/Macros/sand.jpg>>
What an incredibly crass blast of bad taste, even more so than anywhere else in
this thread. I'm really disappointed to see that posted here under your name,
Soren.
If this is emblematic of where LUGNET is heading, I want no part of it.
LFB
(followups trimmed)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Soren Roberts wrote
:
(snip)
I have to agree with L.F. Braun.
Crass, rude, and NOT kid-friendly.
Please consider not posting items that would be offensive to children. Would
your sister/mom/grandmother/aunt /wife/girlfriend/significant other approve of
that graphic and comment?
Paul Sinasohn
speaking only for myself.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Paul Sinasohn wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Soren Roberts wrote
:
(snip)
I have to agree with L.F. Braun.
Crass, rude, and NOT kid-friendly.
Please consider not posting items that would be offensive to children. Would
your sister/mom/grandmother/aunt /wife/girlfriend/significant other approve
of that graphic and comment?
Paul Sinasohn
speaking only for myself.
|
No Paul, you are not speaking only for yourself. It’s a safe bet that
you are speaking for virtually all women. I’d say much of the righteous
indignation in this thread is misplaced.
And I also agree with LFB, Lugnet sure ain’t what it used to be. It’s a shame.
Maggie C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
> In lugnet.build.mecha, Soren Roberts wrote:
> What an incredibly crass blast of bad taste, even more so than anywhere else in
> this thread. I'm really disappointed to see that posted here under your name,
> Soren.
>
> If this is emblematic of where LUGNET is heading, I want no part of it.
Often in the past we have lamented the sort of "fringe group" stigma attached to
LEGO as an adult hobby. An air of "geekiness" or "nerdiness" seemed to linger,
no matter how many dazzling sculptures or mosaics or train layouts are
displayed. We still seem to wrestle with the notion that LEGO is a "kid's toy,"
and I think many of us have be conscious of sideways glances as we've perused
the new items on the shelf.
I'm not a big LEGO buyer anymore, but people who know me know that I'm no
stranger to that same toy aisle, and I likewise get a little bit of that "you
like to play with what?" vibe.
Still, we persevere. Our community includes numerous tightly-knit groups and is
always eager to rally around someone in need. We unanimously condemned the
recent largescale theft and reselling of expensive LEGO sets from Target etc.,
and with one voice we have expressed support and cameraderie when members of
LUGNET (or their loved ones) have passed on.
Our political, social, and spiritual views run the whole spectrum, yet somehow
even those of us who disagree most strongly can find common ground in the
exchange of ideas and the sharing of MOCs. We are not without flaws, but we
know that we can be better than the stereotype.
The stereotype envisions the AFOL as an immature loner unable to engage in
healthy social interaction. Perhaps he lives in his parents basement, and
perhaps he's even held a woman's hand other than his mother's. The stereotype
meshes neatly with the Comic Book guy from The Simpsons, a rude and sarcastic
misfit, misanthropic and misogynistic with little to recommend him outside of
his collection.
I am pleased to know that the stereotype is very often wildly incorrect.
And I am disappointed to see the stereotype is sometimes embodied so negatively
and so totally that long-standing members of LUGNET look back fondly to the time
when we were a much smaller group but had a much bigger sense of community.
Those days were good. Are those days gone?
Some days it's difficult to conclude otherwise.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Paul Sinasohn wrote:
| |
I have to agree with L.F. Braun.
Crass, rude, and NOT kid-friendly.
|
If children young enough to be harmed by that image actually read lugnet in
meaningful numbers I will eat a hat. With your choice of garnishes.
| |
Please consider not posting items that would be offensive to children. Would
your sister/mom/grandmother/aunt /wife/girlfriend/significant other approve
of that graphic and comment?
|
Well, I haven’t got a sister, I’m not married, the girlfriend list would be
mostly on the side of finding it quite funny, I’m not currently on speaking
terms with my mother, and my grandmother would go into shock - but she also goes
into shock at the idea of gay men marrying, so I consider her to be a less than
reliable moral indicator.
| |
Paul Sinasohn
speaking only for myself.
|
I appreciate your concern, but I find it interesting that you would complain
about a mildly sarcastic reference to a body part which I find beautiful and
natural, and not to Sophie’s repeated and laughable threats of physical violence
in this same thread. I consider those far more harmful to children.
I agree that posting the image was an act of poor judgment, but for entirely
different reasons.
Soren
|
|
| |
| |
And I am disappointed to see the stereotype is sometimes embodied so
negatively and so totally that long-standing members of LUGNET look back
fondly to the time when we were a much smaller group but had a much bigger
sense of community.
Those days were good. Are those days gone?
Some days it’s difficult to conclude otherwise.
|
I see this sort of comment with fair regularity and it makes me sad. Not because
I wish for these supposed “good days” but because it means people have already
reached the stage where they are forgetting/rewriting the past.
I’ve been around Lugnet since almost the beginning (lurking for at least the
first couple of years) and remember RTL from as far back as 1998. I think there
was a lot more sharing of ideas and conversation between themes etc. in the
early days. But that was mainly because there were a lot fewer people.
What I do NOT remember is an absence of fights. As far back as I can remember
there have been flamewars, public disagreements, complaints, time outs and other
forms of ‘nastiness’. They tended to die off a bit quicker (maybe) but that was
mainly because there were less interests at stake (ie. people who would have a
problem with one side or the other).
Here are some old examples I just dug up. They aren’t all neccessarily flamewars
but they certainly point towards them. The first post in lugnet.general is made
on the 28th September 1998.
“I find it a little sad that one HAS to
clarify obvious witticisms in order to avoid a flame war! Ho Hum...“ - Jan 1999
Swearing AND bad ldraw part design -
Apr 1999
Naughty threading - Nov 1999
Lots of relevance to the current
situation (and even longer) - Feb 2000
So it looks to me like the flamewars started pretty darn soon after Lugnet did.
I can understand people not liking flamewars. Personally I just ignore them if I
feel I should or participate in them if I feel I should but everyone is entitled
to their own opinion on things. I just can’t understand why people claim that
the “good ‘ol days” didn’t have them.
Something to think about.
Tim
PS. Posted to .people since that seems to be the best place for it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.people, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
And I am disappointed to see the stereotype is sometimes embodied so
negatively and so totally that long-standing members of LUGNET look back
fondly to the time when we were a much smaller group but had a much bigger
sense of community.
Those days were good. Are those days gone?
Some days it’s difficult to conclude otherwise.
|
I see this sort of comment with fair regularity and it makes me sad. Not
because I wish for these supposed “good days” but because it means people
have already reached the stage where they are forgetting/rewriting the past.
I’ve been around Lugnet since almost the beginning (lurking for at least the
first couple of years) and remember RTL from as far back as 1998. I think
there was a lot more sharing of ideas and conversation between themes etc. in
the early days. But that was mainly because there were a lot fewer people.
What I do NOT remember is an absence of fights. As far back as I can remember
there have been flamewars, public disagreements, complaints, time outs and
other forms of ‘nastiness’. They tended to die off a bit quicker (maybe) but
that was mainly because there were less interests at stake (ie. people who
would have a problem with one side or the other).
Here are some old examples I just dug up. They aren’t all neccessarily
flamewars but they certainly point towards them. The first post in
lugnet.general is made on the 28th September 1998.
“I find it a little sad that one HAS
to clarify obvious witticisms in order to avoid a flame war! Ho Hum...“ -
Jan 1999
Swearing AND bad ldraw part design -
Apr 1999
Naughty threading - Nov 1999
Lots of relevance to the
current situation (and even longer) - Feb 2000
So it looks to me like the flamewars started pretty darn soon after Lugnet
did.
I can understand people not liking flamewars. Personally I just ignore them
if I feel I should or participate in them if I feel I should but everyone is
entitled to their own opinion on things. I just can’t understand why people
claim that the “good ‘ol days” didn’t have them.
Something to think about.
|
Well, all right.
I don’t really care about flame-wars because they’re self-evidently juvenile and
they tend to involve the same flamers over and over again. I myself have
lamented what I will refer to as Rhinoceros Dominance (search for “middens” if
you want to see what I’m talking about), but my recollection is that most of the
protracted shouting matches went on in the “hidden” forums rather than playing
out on the front page. Also, though LUGNET was smaller back then, the
signal:noise ratio was much higher, so a spat between to mechophiles could go
unnoticed in a flood of other, more productive posts. Often LUGNET goes a half
an hour or more without a new message being posted, so when someone posts a
“you’re a stinker” diatribe, it tends to linger.
Additionally, those halcyon days didn’t support FTX, so it was less likely that
someone would hotlink a an image broadcasting his colorful grasp of anatomy.
I’m not blindly nostalgic. I recall the early days, warts and all. But, in
terms of proportion, LUGNET has become wartier and wartier as time has gone on,
and I’m not sure that it’s a welcome trend.
|
|
| |
| |
Well, all right.
I don’t really care about flame-wars because they’re self-evidently juvenile
and they tend to involve the same flamers over and over again. I myself have
lamented what I will refer to as Rhinoceros Dominance (search for “middens”
if you want to see what I’m talking about), but my recollection is that most
of the protracted shouting matches went on in the “hidden” forums rather than
playing out on the front page. Also, though LUGNET was smaller back then,
the signal:noise ratio was much higher, so a spat between to mechophiles
could go unnoticed in a flood of other, more productive posts. Often LUGNET
goes a half an hour or more without a new message being posted, so when
someone posts a “you’re a stinker” diatribe, it tends to linger.
|
Hi Dave,
You make a good point about the signal:noise ratio 1. With that I agree. I’m
not sure that the dramas were so much in hidden forums as there was enough
masking but either way I agree with your point.
I would be worried if I saw ‘proper’ posts being drowned out at the moment but
fortunately I don’t. For example I posted an MOC two days ago which got lots of
responses so I’m not too concerned ;)
| |
Additionally, those halcyon days didn’t support FTX, so it was less likely
that someone would hotlink a an image broadcasting his colorful grasp of
anatomy.
|
We did have a few people who were a lot more kid-unfriendly (if you’re into that
sort of thing). Had someone posted hardcore porn I would share that concern but
that hasn’t happened yet and I doubt it ever will.
| |
I’m not blindly nostalgic. I recall the early days, warts and all. But, in
terms of proportion, LUGNET has become wartier and wartier as time has gone
on, and I’m not sure that it’s a welcome trend.
|
I think the analogy is more that the face has shrunk so the warts are denser ;)
I do trust that you’re not being blindly nostalgic. Partially because I’ve seen
your posts over a long period of time and have no great reason to suspect you of
being self-blinding and partially because you took the time to respond in a
reasonable and thought out manner. I just find it a bit untruthful when I see
posts worded like yours that seem to imply that old lugnet was somehow less
unfriendly.
Please don’t take my earlier post (or this one) as a criticism or an attack. It
was more me just trying to add some different perspective to the ‘new vs. old’
chestnut.
Tim
1 There’s some interesting observations that can be made on the signal:noise
ratio of the various posters in the latest drama
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Dave Schuler wrote:
> The stereotype envisions the AFOL as an immature loner unable to engage in
> healthy social interaction. Perhaps he lives in his parents basement, and
> perhaps he's even held a woman's hand other than his mother's. The stereotype
> meshes neatly with the Comic Book guy from The Simpsons, a rude and sarcastic
> misfit, misanthropic and misogynistic with little to recommend him outside of
> his collection.
I wasn't really aware this stereotype existed until now.
For the record, I'm independent, reasonably polite, and perfectly capable of
healthy social interaction - I just don't see Eric as a fit person to waste it
on. And yes, I have done considerably more than hold hands with women other than
my mother. Misanthropic I'll have to concede.
To be fair, you may not have been referring to me. Were you? I can think of one
person in this thread who fits all of those descriptions to a T.
> And I am disappointed to see the stereotype is sometimes embodied so negatively
> and so totally
Well, I love a good passive-aggressive insult as much as anybody, especially
inaccurate ones, but I think you're missing the larger error on both sides.
In retrospect I concur that I shouldn't have posted that image - nothing gets
people riled up like sex, especially questionably sexual humor. And Lugnet being
so quiet these days, I could hardly count on it being missed. It's been removed.
Everyone who responded, you might have been better served to send a quiet
private email indicating your offense and requesting that I take down the image.
I was happy to do so, as you can see.
Instead, you chose to respond publically, which makes us all equally guilty of
clogging up the server with noise posts.
Soren
|
|
| |
In lugnet.people, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Well, all right.
I don’t really care about flame-wars because they’re self-evidently juvenile
and they tend to involve the same flamers over and over again. I myself have
lamented what I will refer to as Rhinoceros Dominance (search for “middens”
if you want to see what I’m talking about), but my recollection is that most
of the protracted shouting matches went on in the “hidden” forums rather than
playing out on the front page. Also, though LUGNET was smaller back then,
the signal:noise ratio was much higher, so a spat between to mechophiles
could go unnoticed in a flood of other, more productive posts. Often LUGNET
goes a half an hour or more without a new message being posted, so when
someone posts a “you’re a stinker” diatribe, it tends to linger.
Additionally, those halcyon days didn’t support FTX, so it was less likely
that someone would hotlink a an image broadcasting his colorful grasp of
anatomy.
I’m not blindly nostalgic. I recall the early days, warts and all. But, in
terms of proportion, LUGNET has become wartier and wartier as time has gone
on, and I’m not sure that it’s a welcome trend.
|
Why is it always implied that newer members are largely to blame for LUGNET’s
decline? It seems to me that more often than not, newer members are even more
uncomfortable here than you vetrans. LUGNET more than any other LEGO fan site,
seems to be driven by elitism. Not unlike a fanclub, senior members oftem place
themselves above and beyond the newbies. In turn, membership has dropped
significantly in the past few years. Look how few members LUGNET has lured into
the fold over the past four months.
From my limited experience here, I find that this place is simply too
inhosbitable to all but the most fanatical of fans. This thread is a shining
example of the elitism and hostility that is all too frequent in this fandom.
Still, vetran users would prefer to point the blame elsewhere, rather than take
it upon themselves to act more cordial towards their fellow fans. Heck, just
typing this reply is putting me on edge.
At the end of the day, LUGNET has simply become less relevant to the AFOL
community. Casual fans seem to have moved on to other forums, specializing in
certain niches (classic-castle, FBTB etc.), rather than listening to the long
winded diatribes of the LUGNET hardcore. Now, it seems that this is simply a
site to vent. When a MOC is profiled, a few of you vetrans may indulge
yourselves by typing a short review, but such a need is easily filled by other
sites (MOCpages for example). Less accomplished builders quickly find out that
nobody here even cares about their mediocre MOCing. Most of these types won’t
stick around for long. So, is it any surprise that there isn’t alot of traffic
around here?
Later.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Soren Roberts wrote:
| |
I appreciate your concern, but I find it interesting that you would complain
about a mildly sarcastic reference to a body part which I find beautiful and
natural, and not to Sophie’s repeated and laughable threats of physical
violence in this same thread. I consider those far more harmful to children.
|
I’ll admit that I haven’t read the entire thread, so I haven’t seen those
threats. When I get a chance, I’ll find them and respond appropriately.
Paul Sinasohn
speaking for myself
|
|
| |
In lugnet.people, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
We did have a few people who were a lot more kid-unfriendly (if you’re into
that sort of thing). Had someone posted hardcore porn I would share that
concern but that hasn’t happened yet and I doubt it ever will.
|
Well I think this comes
pretty close, but I suppose that’s subjective.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Dave Schuler wrote:
> I am pleased to know that the stereotype is very often wildly incorrect.
>
> And I am disappointed to see the stereotype is sometimes embodied so negatively
> and so totally that long-standing members of LUGNET look back fondly to the time
> when we were a much smaller group but had a much bigger sense of community.
>
> Those days were good. Are those days gone?
>
>
>
> Some days it's difficult to conclude otherwise.
It seems so.
I just came back (again) after a year of being on leave, Just clicked on top of
the highlight list,
BAAAAMM!
Guys, what did you do to this place? what really is changed?..
And Eric, I remeber you from the old days of Lugnet, as one of the best
creators, and one of the creators that I most admire.
Please stop it. Your rants and such is perfect reputation killers.
I didn't wanted to step in but this sentences below makes me do it:
"long-standing members of LUGNET look back fondly to the time when we were a
much smaller group but had a much bigger sense of community"
Selçuk (#4)
|
|
| |
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Joel Midgley wrote:
> In lugnet.people, Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > Well, all right.
> >
> > I don't really care about flame-wars because they're self-evidently juvenile
> > and they tend to involve the same flamers over and over again. I myself have
> > lamented what I will refer to as Rhinoceros Dominance (search for "middens"
> > if you want to see what I'm talking about), but my recollection is that most
> > of the protracted shouting matches went on in the "hidden" forums rather than
> > playing out on the front page. Also, though LUGNET was smaller back then,
> > the signal:noise ratio was much higher, so a spat between to mechophiles
> > could go unnoticed in a flood of other, more productive posts. Often LUGNET
> > goes a half an hour or more without a new message being posted, so when
> > someone posts a "you're a stinker" diatribe, it tends to linger.
> >
> > Additionally, those halcyon days didn't support FTX, so it was less likely
> > that someone would hotlink a an image broadcasting his colorful grasp of
> > anatomy.
> >
> > I'm not blindly nostalgic. I recall the early days, warts and all. But, in
> > terms of proportion, LUGNET has become wartier and wartier as time has gone
> > on, and I'm not sure that it's a welcome trend.
>
> Why is it always implied that newer members are largely to blame for LUGNET's
> decline?
I see no such implication in anything Dave wrote here.
> LUGNET more than any other LEGO fan site, seems to be driven by elitism.
Huh? Not that I have anything against elitism, but LUGNET doesn't seem to
even have any mechanisms for an elite, aside from background stuff
(whether or not a set is put in the Guide, what color background all posts
have in the Web interface, etc.). Arguably, the list of member comments
on sets in the Guide is in order of membership[1], but there's nothing
else that communicates "This guy's comment is important, but you can
ignore these other guys." My newsreader just gives me a list of recent
posts in any newsgroup, not any indication that the elect have dictated
that a few posts must be read, but the rest are by unworthy peasants.
There is a (blessed) absence of continuously updated information with each
post telling me how long the poster has been around and how many posts he
has made.
> From my limited experience here, I find that this place is simply too
> inhosbitable to all but the most fanatical of fans.
Okay. I have no idea how LUGNET is inhospitable to casual fans[2]. I
need to know how if I am to make it less so.
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.morfydd.net/twsg/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
[1] And if there is a LUGNET elite, is Laura Gjovaag (#80) in it but Kelly
McKiernan (#2626) not?
[2] I've heard that it's inhospitable to the technically inept but a) I
don't care and b) I know more than enough technically inept fanatical Lego
fans to know that that's not the issue here.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Soren Roberts wrote:
| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Paul Sinasohn wrote:
| |
I have to agree with L.F. Braun.
Crass, rude, and NOT kid-friendly.
|
If children young enough to be harmed by that image actually read lugnet in
meaningful numbers I will eat a hat. With your choice of garnishes.
|
Soren, one is a meaningful number where that is concerned. But the bad-taste
quotient in general was really my particular lament--not having children or
being an actual small child, I’ll leave that outrage to those who may.
| |
| |
Paul Sinasohn
speaking only for myself.
|
I appreciate your concern, but I find it interesting that you would complain
about a mildly sarcastic reference to a body part which I find beautiful and
natural, and not to Sophie’s repeated and laughable threats of physical
violence in this same thread. I consider those far more harmful to children.
|
I think you’re missing something. The point is that those other threats being
broached are not only being addressed with due unction, but they’re also not
especially surprising. The crux of my comment was that I expect better from
you, from a knowledge of your posting history. Just because someone’s out there
making threats and acting badly does not mean that it’s suddenly OK to be just a
little less crass.
While I accept, sadly, that some denizens of these waters seem to be unable to
control themselves, it really bothers me much, much more when someone I have a
very positive impression of stoops to such a level. Otherwise, what would be
the point of fussing?
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
***snip
| |
one is a meaningful number...
|
***snip
***snip
| |
addressed with due unction, but they’re...
|
***snip
| |
The crux of my comment...
|
Not to make sport of all this, Lindsay, but I can’t help noticing a vaguely
eccliesiastical flair to this post. Are you undergoing a rebirth of some kind?
Dave!
|
|
|
