| |
I DO NOT support or agree with the above letter.
I DO support the notion that you are in fact a big wank.
Iain Hendry (23), Toronto (Ontario, Canada), ~$500 pre-'04, ~$500 post-'04. I
think LEGO is fun!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Iain Hendry wrote:
> I DO support the notion that you are in fact a big wank.
You shouldn't look at your mirror while posting on LUGNET...
René
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Iain Hendry wrote:
> I DO NOT support or agree with the above letter.
>
> I DO support the notion that you are in fact a big wank.
Ok that was TOTALLY uncalled for. And why the heck is your reply spotlighted?!
-Bryan
Changing newsgroups cuz this kinda crap doesn't belong in dear-lego or color.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Iain Hendry wrote:
> I DO support the notion that you are in fact a big wank.
To quote a previous post I made:
"A little more civility and politeness and a little less vitriol go a long way
to having people respect your opinion instead of writing you off as a ranting
troll."
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Iain Hendry wrote:
> I DO support the notion that you are in fact a big wank.
Y'know, what you wrote was o.k. Iain, an' actually kinda funny.
But in general, it seems like rtlToronto is against any attempt to resolve the
color issue that is paramount to some people.
I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely discontinues
their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
Then, when rtlToronto throws a hissy-fit and empowers the world to take action
to return the creativity to Lego, i'll be the first to say...i'll say Ha! ...and
stuff... aw crap, i just actually wouldn't care what you guys would do. I'd
simply see this as your crusade and wish you well, no matter how much posting
you do on the issue. But what i wouldn't do is crap on the people who care about
something, those trying to make a change. God, people make me so frustrated...
I just wanna kick some ass!
I'm moving to Germany where all the kewl people are,
--==Richard==--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Iain Hendry wrote:
> I DO NOT support or agree with the above letter.
>
> I DO support the notion that you are in fact a big wank.
>
> Iain Hendry (23), Toronto (Ontario, Canada), ~$500 pre-'04, ~$500 post-'04. I
> think LEGO is fun!
Lets be nice here!
- big wank, "eh" would have been kind Canadian thing to write as it would
leave it up for debate or disagreement. I see no "facts" to support Ben being a
"wank".
-Patrick
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Patrick S. O’Donnell wrote:
| |
I see no “facts” to support Ben being a”wank”.
|
That word is slang and has several meanings.
- to m******ate. --
- an act or instance of m******ation.
- something which belies self-indulgent or egotistical behaviour
- a person exhibiting self-indulgent behaviour; a wanker.
- wank off, (used imperatively) go away;
- wank on, to talk at length.
- wank oneself, to maintain an illusion; deceive oneself.
(From the Macquarie Dictionary of Slang, my emphasis)
I can’t think of any one word that describes Ben’s letter and the attitude
behind it than “wank”.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Richard Noeckel wrote:
> But in general, it seems like rtlToronto is against any attempt to resolve the
> color issue that is paramount to some people.
>
> I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely discontinues
> their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
> Then, when rtlToronto throws a hissy-fit and empowers the world to take action
> to return the creativity to Lego, i'll be the first to say...i'll say • Ha! ...and
> stuff... aw crap, i just actually wouldn't care what you guys would do. I'd
You know what we'd do if they discontinued Mindstorms? We'd say "Gee, that's a
shame" and go one with our lives, without whining like a bunch of petulant brats
who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
We wouldn't write "open letters" to the CEO's of large toy companies to get them
to revert to decisions already made across multiple product lines and millions
of dollars of inventory.
We wouldn't make flagrant accusations of Lego employees of being untruthful and
demanding resignations from people we have a passing knowledge of.
We wouldn't continue flaming along this stupid topic for several months on end.
And for the love of god, we wouldn't throw a "hissy-fit" about something Lego
did. We'd deal. We'd go buy Basic Stamps or Fischertechnik or Meccano. Or
maybe we'd go and have dinner with our loved ones, play with our children, hang
out with our friends and do something else other than draft a eight page screed
against the tint of little plastic blocks. We'd live with it. And we'd go on
with our lives instead of picking at it like a six year old picks at scabs after
scraping himself on the jungle gym at lunch.
It's done, it's over, they're dead. Deadheads realize Jerry Garcia is gone; and
these people are the most wacked out, trippin high, pot smoking people anywhere.
Why do AFOLs continue to live in some sort of fantasy world where they think
their clever little petitions and posts will do anything constructive!?
> you do on the issue. But what i wouldn't do is crap on the people who care about
> something, those trying to make a change. God, people make me so frustrated...
You know why you're being "crapped on"? It's because people who really dislike
this colour change and making a fuss about it are ruining it for those who
couldn't give a flying frick in a rolling donut. There's countless opportunities
being lost with Lego for interesting projects, there's precious credibility
damaged after years of trying to build a rapport with the company.
There's a large part of this "community" who doesn't really give a damn about
the colour change, or didn't like it but have resolved themselves to deal with
it. We sit and wait while it blows over so we can hear about new stuff like
Lego Ambassadors or Roadshow 2005 or whatever's coming down the pipe. There's a
spotlight being wasted on people whining, when it could be on cool new projects
AFOLs are doing or how we could increase the AFOL-Lego Company connection. But
meanwhile, we're burning it away on the vocal minority.
That's why I'm incensed about this: Stop ruining it for the rest of us.
Every rtlToronto dinner I go to, I hear stuff like "Did you see so and so's post
about colour change in .whateverthehell? It had 150 replies!" I'm sick of it.
I'd rather hear about Steve's Balls than to hear about these topics we've
rehashed so many hundreds of times over and over. It's because we could be
doing something more useful or interesting, but we're all to busy rubbernecking
about this ongoing slop-fest on what "horrible injustices Lego has done to us
this week". It's time to change the discussion topic. Change the channel!
Calum
|
|
| |
"Richard Noeckel" <shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Y'know, what you wrote was o.k. Iain, an' actually kinda funny.
> But in general, it seems like rtlToronto is against any attempt to resolve • the
> color issue that is paramount to some people.
I think you'll find that in general (obviously I can't and won't speak for
everyone in our group) the people of rtlToronto are far more laid back and
have more of a desire to "have fun" then to panic over a 2-shade Panatone
difference in a colour. It's a toy. It's a children's toy.
I will now honestly try to see this from their side. To facilitate this I
will use examples of some things that I also enjoy passionatley.
"Oh my god! They turned on the trim brake on Raptor at Cedar Point!
NO!!!!!!!! Now it will go so slow!!!"
"They put seatbelts on all the Mondial rides at Canada's Wonderland!
NOoooooo!!!! I'll never ride another Mondial ride again! I am so
offended!"
"They swapped out all the YAN grips for Poma Omega grips on the Express Quad
at my local resort! NOooooO!!"
"They discontinued Linear Guided Drive type DFM and replaced it with a
horrific DFM-B! It is so ugly! Noooo!!! Now my pick and place
applications are forced to look ugly!"
Honestly, I would just die.
Oh wait, no I wouldn't. Because you know what? I'd open the front door and
realize that there is more to life than this.
> I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely • discontinues
> their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
It pretty much has been discontinued, and life went on. I am happy with the
sets I have, and I continue to enjoy them. Technic is a shaddow of its
former self, and I accept that and moved on. It's not my decision, and I
have other interests in life.
> I just wanna kick some ass!
Cool! Meet me at the rock at 5.30! ;)
> I'm moving to Germany where all the kewl people are,
...and there you will find the best flatrides in the world. Enjoy!
Iain
|
|
| |
Calum Tsang wrote:
> Calum
TWELVE SIDED DIED!!!!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
>
> You know what we'd do if they discontinued Mindstorms? We'd say "Gee, that's a
> shame" and go one with our lives, without whining like a bunch of petulant brats
> who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
>
> We wouldn't write "open letters" to the CEO's of large toy companies to get them
> to revert to decisions already made across multiple product lines and millions
> of dollars of inventory.
>
> We wouldn't make flagrant accusations of Lego employees of being untruthful and
> demanding resignations from people we have a passing knowledge of.
>
> We wouldn't continue flaming along this stupid topic for several months on end.
>
> And for the love of god, we wouldn't throw a "hissy-fit" about something Lego
> did. We'd deal. We'd go buy Basic Stamps or Fischertechnik or Meccano. Or
> maybe we'd go and have dinner with our loved ones, play with our children, hang
> out with our friends and do something else other than draft a eight page screed
> against the tint of little plastic blocks. We'd live with it. And we'd go on
> with our lives instead of picking at it like a six year old picks at scabs after
> scraping himself on the jungle gym at lunch.
snip
> You know why you're being "crapped on"? It's because people who really dislike
> this colour change and making a fuss about it are ruining it for those who
> couldn't give a flying frick in a rolling donut. There's countless opportunities
> being lost with Lego for interesting projects, there's precious credibility
> damaged after years of trying to build a rapport with the company.
>
> There's a large part of this "community" who doesn't really give a damn about
> the colour change, or didn't like it but have resolved themselves to deal with
> it. We sit and wait while it blows over so we can hear about new stuff like
> Lego Ambassadors or Roadshow 2005 or whatever's coming down the pipe. There's a
> spotlight being wasted on people whining, when it could be on cool new projects
> AFOLs are doing or how we could increase the AFOL-Lego Company connection. But
> meanwhile, we're burning it away on the vocal minority.
>
> That's why I'm incensed about this: Stop ruining it for the rest of us.
>
> Every rtlToronto dinner I go to, I hear stuff like "Did you see so and so's post
> about colour change in .whateverthehell? It had 150 replies!" I'm sick of it.
> I'd rather hear about Steve's Balls than to hear about these topics we've
> rehashed so many hundreds of times over and over. It's because we could be
> doing something more useful or interesting, but we're all to busy rubbernecking
> about this ongoing slop-fest on what "horrible injustices Lego has done to us
> this week". It's time to change the discussion topic. Change the channel!
>
> Calum
Calum,
I agree with you on this completely.
I have found myself reading the rtl board because it's now the most entertaining
of all the LUGNET boards! The current color change flame in new clothing has
become something of an old, bad joke to me, and I feel, like you , that this has
hurt us and our credibility more than anything else.
I am a graphic artist and only been building actively since 2000, when I
discovered LUGNET and woke from my dark ages...which means that I had other
interests then (drawing and watercolor) and should anything happen with my LEGO
hobby(and I can say that it's a pretty strong hobby now!), I have a lot more
interests to look at and play with.
There's a lot more important things to be concerned about.
Joe Meno
.space paparazzi, NCLUG Administrator
|
|
| |
So what if people complain?
What you call petulant brats, I call passionate enthusiasts.
It’s all relative.
And more so, in the end, what’s worse…
Those who complain, or those who complain about the complainers.
At least these people have a cause, even if it’s simplistic or unrealistic.
What’s your cause? To limit the world of useless banter… now that is truly a
pedantic vigil to embark upon.
This stuff about people going on about their lives is also funny.
Only LFB and a select few others have avoided this puddle of mud.
You and I are as guilt as Rene and Ben to some degree.
Except, I think you take it a bit more serious.
Anyways…
Phase-one complete, rtlTornoto has been corrupted by the color scandal.
It no longer exists as a safe haven from the madness.
Initiate Phase-two, get Chris to change his last name from Magno to Mango!
Peace,
--==Richard==--
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Richard Noeckel wrote:
> > But in general, it seems like rtlToronto is against any attempt to resolve the
> > color issue that is paramount to some people.
> >
> > I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely discontinues
> > their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
> > Then, when rtlToronto throws a hissy-fit and empowers the world to take action
> > to return the creativity to Lego, i'll be the first to say...i'll say Ha! ...and
> > stuff... aw crap, i just actually wouldn't care what you guys would do. I'd
>
> You know what we'd do if they discontinued Mindstorms? We'd say "Gee, that's a
> shame" and go one with our lives, without whining like a bunch of petulant brats
> who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
>
> We wouldn't write "open letters" to the CEO's of large toy companies to get them
> to revert to decisions already made across multiple product lines and millions
> of dollars of inventory.
>
> We wouldn't make flagrant accusations of Lego employees of being untruthful and
> demanding resignations from people we have a passing knowledge of.
>
> We wouldn't continue flaming along this stupid topic for several months on end.
>
> And for the love of god, we wouldn't throw a "hissy-fit" about something Lego
> did. We'd deal. We'd go buy Basic Stamps or Fischertechnik or Meccano. Or
> maybe we'd go and have dinner with our loved ones, play with our children, hang
> out with our friends and do something else other than draft a eight page screed
> against the tint of little plastic blocks. We'd live with it. And we'd go on
> with our lives instead of picking at it like a six year old picks at scabs after
> scraping himself on the jungle gym at lunch.
>
> It's done, it's over, they're dead. Deadheads realize Jerry Garcia is gone; and
> these people are the most wacked out, trippin high, pot smoking people anywhere.
> Why do AFOLs continue to live in some sort of fantasy world where they think
> their clever little petitions and posts will do anything constructive!?
>
>
> > you do on the issue. But what i wouldn't do is crap on the people who care about
> > something, those trying to make a change. God, people make me so frustrated...
>
> You know why you're being "crapped on"? It's because people who really dislike
> this colour change and making a fuss about it are ruining it for those who
> couldn't give a flying frick in a rolling donut. There's countless opportunities
> being lost with Lego for interesting projects, there's precious credibility
> damaged after years of trying to build a rapport with the company.
>
> There's a large part of this "community" who doesn't really give a damn about
> the colour change, or didn't like it but have resolved themselves to deal with
> it. We sit and wait while it blows over so we can hear about new stuff like
> Lego Ambassadors or Roadshow 2005 or whatever's coming down the pipe. There's a
> spotlight being wasted on people whining, when it could be on cool new projects
> AFOLs are doing or how we could increase the AFOL-Lego Company connection. But
> meanwhile, we're burning it away on the vocal minority.
>
> That's why I'm incensed about this: Stop ruining it for the rest of us.
>
> Every rtlToronto dinner I go to, I hear stuff like "Did you see so and so's post
> about colour change in .whateverthehell? It had 150 replies!" I'm sick of it.
> I'd rather hear about Steve's Balls than to hear about these topics we've
> rehashed so many hundreds of times over and over. It's because we could be
> doing something more useful or interesting, but we're all to busy rubbernecking
> about this ongoing slop-fest on what "horrible injustices Lego has done to us
> this week". It's time to change the discussion topic. Change the channel!
>
> Calum
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Mark Jordan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Patrick S. O’Donnell wrote:
| |
I see no “facts” to support Ben being a”wank”.
|
That word is slang and has several meanings.
- to m******ate. --
- an act or instance of m******ation.
- something which belies self-indulgent or egotistical behaviour
- a person exhibiting self-indulgent behaviour; a wanker.
- wank off, (used imperatively) go away;
- wank on, to talk at length.
- wank oneself, to maintain an illusion; deceive oneself.
(From the Macquarie Dictionary of Slang, my emphasis)
I can’t think of any one word that describes Ben’s letter and the attitude
behind it than “wank”.
|
1st, Funny how you can’t spell out masterbate & masterbation - IT’S NOT EVEN A
SLANG WORD! 2nd, I still see no facts (only opinion) that Ben is a wank.
-Patrick
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Joe Meno wrote:
> I have found myself reading the rtl board because it's now the most entertaining of all the LUGNET boards!
Drop by .space or CSF, Joe...we miss you. ;)
-Gil
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Gil Shaw wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Joe Meno wrote:
>
> > I have found myself reading the rtl board because it's now the most entertaining of all the LUGNET boards!
>
> Drop by .space or CSF, Joe...we miss you. ;)
>
> -Gil
Give it up Gil.
all your members belong to US now.
(screams)
RTL!!!
um no wait.
maybe thats WHY people now hang out here.
actually there are about a MILLION reasons people like RTL.
just off the top of my head:
Elitist, pretentious, narrow-minded, pertinacious,
unsupportive, self-serving and self-important clique,
that acts above the rest of the community, has no
desire to be part of the greater community and will
deplete your passion for the brick.
YEP, I STILL think that would make a great T-shirt. Calum, when can I expect to
be able to by the first one.
HINT to other LUGS.
you want a nice lug, you want people to follow your lug, HIRE ME to hang out in
your group.
BUT WAIT
theres more, if you order now, I will throw in, absolutly FREE, your very own
Calum.
now what would you expect to pay for this? $100, $300, $500.
NO, all this could be yours for the LOW
LOW
Price of
---------------------------------------
(Oh look, a horse.... MUST ...
NOT..... BEAT !!!! )
Too late.
----------------------------------
Joining me in my (ToS compliant) quest to find the spirit of my "inner child"
Let the fun begin.
Chris
(thinking a 4 letter word sig file starting with K would be cool here)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
...
Calum, just wanted to say that I completely agree. Your post actually made me
fire up a browser, find your post in the web interface, log in, go back to the
post, and spotlight it. That's how much I agree.
I don't read most of the LUGNET wilderness outside of RTL and .geek, but every
time I just get a whif of "color" anything, it pisses me off.
|
|
| |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:04:25AM +0000, Calum Tsang wrote:
> I just realized something...Strong Bad uses Pine, my favourite email program!
>
> http://peach.mie.utoronto.ca/people/tsangc/nglcl/sbusespine.jpg
>
> Wow, nice to know I'm in good company!
Pft. He's just using Pico to edit the mail. He might be using a same
mailer, like mutt. All the cool kids use mutt!
:)
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
>
> Give it up Gil.
>
> all your members belong to US now.
>
> (screams)
>
> RTL!!!
Bah! A thousand curses on your sumobot infested value structures! I mock your
Red Rockets, tallest freestanding structures, Bloor Diners, Brunswick Houses and
algorithmically-dictated humour! A pox...a pox I say!
;)
-Gil
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> >
> > Give it up Gil.
> >
> > all your members belong to US now.
> >
> > (screams)
> >
> > RTL!!!
>
>
> Bah! A thousand curses on your sumobot infested value structures! I mock your
> Red Rockets, tallest freestanding structures, Bloor Diners, Brunswick Houses and
> algorithmically-dictated humour! A pox...a pox I say!
>
> ;)
>
> -Gil
I don't think Gil reads this group, much, or he'd just say:
"May you sumo for eternity with bley-haters."
But, even I wouldn't say that...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
<snip>
>
> Joining me in my (ToS compliant) quest to find the spirit of my "inner child"
>
>
> Let the fun begin.
>
> Chris
>
> (thinking a 4 letter word sig file starting with K would be cool here)
Hey Chris--is that a chip on your shoulder or are you just happy to see LarF+F+
(didn'tknow how to actually get the symbol right...)
Dave K
-stirring the pot...atoes...
-dead horse? flog flog flog...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> > >
> > > Give it up Gil.
> > >
> > > all your members belong to US now.
> > >
> > > (screams)
> > >
> > > RTL!!!
> >
> >
> > Bah! A thousand curses on your sumobot infested value structures! I mock your
> > Red Rockets, tallest freestanding structures, Bloor Diners, Brunswick Houses and
> > algorithmically-dictated humour! A pox...a pox I say!
> >
> > ;)
> >
> > -Gil
>
>
>
> I don't think Gil reads this group, much, or he'd just say:
>
> "May you sumo for eternity with bley-haters."
>
> But, even I wouldn't say that...
Good thing Steve cause !THAT's! a NASTY curse!
maybe a more appropriate curse (against me) would be along the lines of
"May all your posting privileges be canceled by admins with no DUE PROCESS."
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
<snip>
> Good thing Steve cause !THAT's! a NASTY curse!
>
> maybe a more appropriate curse (against me) would be along the lines of
>
> "May all your posting privileges be canceled by admins with no DUE PROCESS."
>
>
> Chris
Yep, it is, indeed, a chip...
;)
Dave K
-flog flog flog...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Joining me in my (ToS compliant) quest to find the spirit of my "inner child"
> >
> >
> > Let the fun begin.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > (thinking a 4 letter word sig file starting with K would be cool here)
>
> Hey Chris--is that a chip on your shoulder or are you just happy to see LarF+F+
> (didn'tknow how to actually get the symbol right...)
>
> Dave K
> -stirring the pot...atoes...
> -dead horse? flog flog flog...
hi dave
:)
For the life of me I dont knw what your talking about?(1)
(wink)
:)
:)
:) <--- everyone see's these RIGHT?
Chris
1. http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/test/foo/?n=341
AND
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=50022
but more specifically this:
"... We'd prefer not to have to hand out more timeouts than we *already*
have had to hand out lately." L.P
I could go on about Due Process to.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
<snip>
> I could go on about Due Process to.
"Hey you! I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder!! Go on! Do it!
C'mon--what are you, some kind of wuss or something??? Do it! Knock that chip
off!!"
<knock>
"I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU KNOCKED THE CHIP OFF MY SHOULDER!!!!!!!!! I go sulk
now..." :p
I want my king back!!!!!
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I could go on about Due Process to.
>
> "Hey you! I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder!! Go on! Do it!
> C'mon--what are you, some kind of wuss or something??? Do it! Knock that chip
> off!!"
>
> <knock>
>
> "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU KNOCKED THE CHIP OFF MY SHOULDER!!!!!!!!! I go sulk
> now..." :p
>
> I want my king back!!!!!
>
> Dave K
DAVE,
For such a smart and NICE guy, I cant belive you dont "get this."
I do not deny that "I dared" something to happen.
!~BUT~!
thats NOT a valid reason to abuse a trust.
As I have said before, where does this kind of thing end? if I can be silenced
at the whim of admins, (cause I "dared' - and clearly against there own self
imposed rule set) then prove to me that this same thing wont happen again??
------------ EXAMPLE-----------
(and its sad that I have to quantify this cause i fear it might be taken as a
request)
HEY (ADMIN), I "double dare" you to cancle EVERY POST I have ever written since
day one.
then what dave? sure 90% of my stuff goes away, but what about the 10% of
USEFUL stuff that was actually good.
Prove to me that the "system" has checks and balances to prevent that abuse.
my point. IT DOSEN'T
----------------end example------------
I hope today is slow casue I want to do this all day!
:)
Chris
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.color, Calum Tsang wrote:
> I was going to make a comment about that, which was that I didn't think the
> thread should be hijacked, personally. That's why if you look, I haven't posted
> to Ben's original message.
OK.
> I think the idea of such a petition is stupid and
> potentially damaging to everyone as a group
This is where I disagree. I believe open letters are a valid form of
communication with any companies and institutions.
Also I don't share the fear of many Lugnetters that such a letter (given it's
polite and rational) would damage anything for the AFOLs as a whole. At least
AFOLs have been whining and complaining and mourning all the time, and most of
this time LEGO listened to them, may it be openly in person of LEGO employees
being present in Lugnet disussions or fan events, or may it be silently, them
simply reading what that crazy crowd in that internet newsgroups was talking
about again.
And what happened? The AFOLs complained and TLC reacted. They gave us Legends
(which I personally am not too thankful for, but most of you are), they gave us
BULK, they gave us the opportunity to participate in the designing process of
products (My Own Creation, Factory (or how is that miniscale building thing
called?)), they even beefed up their liaison with the community, in spite of the
constant whining and mourning. They certainly won't stop all this just because
they possibly don't appreciate an open letter like the one Ben posted.
> Indifference is one thing, but what I'm claming is that
> the actions of the few (those who are angered by the colour change) are starting
> to affect the rest of us. Going to the company with such a letter paints all
> AFOLs, regardless of language, as a bunch of whiners. Accusations and blame
> against folks like Jake means less opportunities for us.
Well, I don't know how Ben's letter reads to someone whose mothertongue is
English. I didn't find it too impolite or whining. I agree that speaking in the
name of "the AFOLs" is not correct, but speaking in the name of the undersigned
shouldn't be a problem. And if they (TLC) think the undersigned are whiners,
well then. I can live with that. It's a company we are speaking about, not some
human being on whose appreciation I set much value. In terms of personal
relationship that is, as for the customer-company-relationship I agree that it
is not unimportant. However, I don't see the latter relationship suffer from an
open letter like the one forming this thread's head.
> Well, that's ideally what should have happened. Maybe the Germans are better
> behaved, who knows. :)
Hm. That's probably why I am trolling around on Lugnet ....
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
<snip>
> HEY (ADMIN), I "double dare" you to cancle EVERY POST I have ever written since
> day one.
>
> then what dave? sure 90% of my stuff goes away, but what about the 10% of
> USEFUL stuff that was actually good.
>
> Prove to me that the "system" has checks and balances to prevent that abuse.
>
> my point. IT DOSEN'T
>
> ----------------end example------------
>
>
> I hope today is slow casue I want to do this all day!
>
> :)
>
> Chris
And whereas I agree that the potential is there, I do not usually fall for the
'slippery slope' situation--if we're having a good time in o.t.foo and someone
locks out your account in the spirit of 'good fun' (and it really really was
'cause I laughed, therefore, as the colour issue people state, if I believe it,
everyone must believe it and therefore it must be true and indisputable!!) then
the 'checks and balances' of the system do not apply. FOr example, if you were
in rtlT and you 'double dared' an admin to do it, even if Janey sent the admin a
pic of her cleavage (whether she did or didn't last time, I'll not presume ;) )
it wouldn't have happened.
Much like the Fight Club--what happens in the Fight Club, stays in teh Fight
Club--you broke rule number 1!
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > HEY (ADMIN), I "double dare" you to cancle EVERY POST I have ever written since
> > day one.
> >
> > then what dave? sure 90% of my stuff goes away, but what about the 10% of
> > USEFUL stuff that was actually good.
> >
> > Prove to me that the "system" has checks and balances to prevent that abuse.
> >
> > my point. IT DOSEN'T
> >
> > ----------------end example------------
> >
> >
> > I hope today is slow casue I want to do this all day!
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Chris
>
> And whereas I agree that the potential is there, I do not usually fall for the
> 'slippery slope' situation--if we're having a good time in o.t.foo and someone
> locks out your account in the spirit of 'good fun' (and it really really was
> 'cause I laughed, therefore, as the colour issue people state, if I believe it,
> everyone must believe it and therefore it must be true and indisputable!!) then
> the 'checks and balances' of the system do not apply. FOr example, if you were
> in rtlT and you 'double dared' an admin to do it, even if Janey sent the admin a
> pic of her cleavage (whether she did or didn't last time, I'll not presume ;) )
> it wouldn't have happened.
>
> Much like the Fight Club--what happens in the Fight Club, stays in teh Fight
> Club--you broke rule number 1!
>
> Dave K
Dave are you ready for this.....
I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
~COULD~ get me banned!
NOW to be fair. this person was NOT an admin (rather someone in the know) but
I have no reason to disbelive this person. For obvious reasons I wont e-mail
and "tell."
So dave. splain me THAT!
I will re-reply to your mesage again.
BUT I thought I'd put this out as an FYI.
Chris
|
|
| |
>
> I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> ~COULD~ get me banned!
>
> Chris
I don't think they'd really do that...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> >
> > I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> > ~COULD~ get me banned!
> >
> > Chris
>
> I don't think they'd really do that...
oh really?
HOW many people so FAR have been given a time out?
~I~ dont know.
other than the people involved and the "banisher" anyone keeping score?
SO FAR, all i have is a line or two from admins SAYING they have "handed out WAY
too many"
and ME!
DAMN! work calls. stay tuned cause I have a belly full for dave!
Chris
-timed out- no due process
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> So dave. splain me THAT!
>
> I will re-reply to your mesage again.
>
> BUT I thought I'd put this out as an FYI.
>
> Chris
I have an issue with two things--one--if it's a "Psst Chris--don't talk about it
or you'll get banned" thing then I wouldn't listen, and since I've received no
such e-mail (and I'm the main part of this conversation) I would be highly
suspect
2- nowhere in the TOS, that I know of, does it say we can't talk about things
like this--where's the TOS violation?
3 (yes, that's one more than stated, but there are 10 kinds of people in the
world, those who know binary, and those who don't) I dare someone to ban me from
rtlT! :p
Dave K
-bring it on!
-have I made any TOS violations lately? Have I used the 'f' bomb? Have I
insulted anyone and called 'em a 'wanker'? Seriously, rtlT--where all the cool
kids hang out--leave those others out there beyond the gate, where there'll be
weeping and gnashing of teeth on the colour issue.
-perhaps I should investigate the ESL issue--two people, in two months, start a
thread that ends up as a 'whinefest'-- one about not understanding that when
someone says that 'this limitation is due to a finite amount of colour' doesn't
explicity mean that this is a 'promiss' that has to be held to the end of time,
and another the other day that states that 'all AFOL's hate the new colours' but
has since retracted that statement,
Anyway, musing ends now.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > >
> > > I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> > > ~COULD~ get me banned!
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > I don't think they'd really do that...
>
>
> oh really?
>
> HOW many people so FAR have been given a time out?
>
> ~I~ dont know.
>
> other than the people involved and the "banisher" anyone keeping score?
>
> SO FAR, all i have is a line or two from admins SAYING they have "handed out WAY
> too many"
>
> and ME!
>
>
> DAMN! work calls. stay tuned cause I have a belly full for dave!
>
> Chris
> -timed out- no due process
Great Googley Moogley!!!
Hey Chris! I have an Idea--why don't you go join Ken and Richard 'Ben' who also
have inordinately large chips on their shoulders and you guys can form a club
for those people who are pissed about the inconsequential happenings here at
LUGNET!
(or have I gone too far on that one...)
Dave K
-laying the smack down since '67
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
<snip>
>
> Dave K
> -laying the smack down since '67
Oh look! I can still post!
For crying out loud! It was off-topic.foo!!!!!
If you want to get your knickers in a knot over something, try guys who spill
ice tea on people's laps at restaurants!!
Waittaminit...
I'm still pretty sorry about that one, btw...
Dave K
|
|
| |
David Koudys wrote:
> > Dave K
> > -laying the smack down since '67
>
>
> Oh look! I can still post!
At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
(Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean) I'm surprised to hear that
anyone has gotten banned.
If something that obvious doesn't get you a time out I don't know what
does. Well other then Chris' plight.
Derek
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > HEY (ADMIN), I "double dare" you to cancle EVERY POST I have ever written since
> > > day one.
> > >
> > > then what dave? sure 90% of my stuff goes away, but what about the 10% of
> > > USEFUL stuff that was actually good.
> > >
> > > Prove to me that the "system" has checks and balances to prevent that abuse.
> > >
> > > my point. IT DOSEN'T
- snip -
> Dave are you ready for this.....
>
> I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> ~COULD~ get me banned!
>
> NOW to be fair. this person was NOT an admin (rather someone in the know) but
> I have no reason to disbelive this person. For obvious reasons I wont e-mail
> and "tell."
>
> Chris
Chris,
To my knowledge, this portion of the discussion is not a problem, and I don't
believe there has been anything called out that you or Dave have written to
cause a timeout. (Although the language is starting to get tinged with blue,
please keep an eye on it.) There have been flagrant ToS violations elsewhere
that are being dealt with.
We've discussed "public" vs "private" notification of timeouts. This is a valid
concern. Initially we decided upon private because a timeout was a chance to
give somebody a chance to reconsider an offensive post or set of posts. It
wasn't meant as public chastisement.
In light of the concerns voiced here, maybe it's time to revisit that. Is a
public punishment that's out in the open preferable to a private period of
"quiet time"? If you (generic you, not necessarily Chris or Dave) were, in the
heat of the moment, contemplating posting something that would result in
temporary loss of posting privileges, would a public pronouncement of your
timeout be sufficient to cause you to rethink and rewrite the post?
The last thing I think anybody wants is a perception that LUGNET administrators
sit in a star chamber somewhere, scanning posts for ToS infringement, fingers
poised over a big red button. We're just trying to keep up, and keep the place
civil.
FUT set to lugnet.admin.general.
- Kelly McKiernan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
> The last thing I think anybody wants is a perception that LUGNET administrators
> sit in a star chamber somewhere, scanning posts for ToS infringement, fingers
> poised over a big red button. We're just trying to keep up, and keep the place
> civil.
>
> FUT set to lugnet.admin.general.
>
> - Kelly McKiernan
See!!!!
Seriously, people better start realizing that LUGNET, but most especially, rtlT,
is a really cool place to hang out.
And again, I reiterate--what happened in o-t.foo should have stayed in o-t.foo,
and it was *all* in good humour (and you did dare him!)
So, in the imortal words of, well, many many people--
GET OVER IT!!
I want my King back!
Dave K
|
|
| |
Well said.
Good, bad or otherwise, the color change issue is destroying this community,
and that's a shame. Lugnet used to be so much fun.
Adrian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
> (Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean)
It depends on which 7 words you mean. I have seen a number of words used here in
rtlT that I personally do think are inappropriate.
> I'm surprised to hear that
> anyone has gotten banned.
It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
correct. But it has been noticed and action is being taken.
|
|
| |
Calum,
Your my new favorite poster!!!
Fire up that grill and flame away! Maybe we can burn this color thing to ashes.
Great post I just wish I could write something half that good.
Eric Kingsley
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
>
>
> > At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
> > (Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean) • >
> It depends on which 7 words you mean. I have seen a number of words used here in
> rtlT that I personally do think are inappropriate.
Type "7 words" into google and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.
Google knows what I'm talking about. Google knows all.
> It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> correct. But it has been noticed and action is being taken.
This seems to lead to:
-people like me feeling nothing is being done
-people like Chris feeling they are being abused
-people not understanding what is appropriate
-more people quietly being timed out because they post by example.
Derek
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> correct.
You've spent too much time dealing with NDAs. Seriously, did you agree to not
discuss whether or not, in general terms, timeouts had been handed down? No,
wait -- you wouldn't be able to discuss whether you agreed to not discuss it.
Sheesh.
Steve
|
|
| |
This is a repost with cleaned up quote text.
In lugnet.color, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hm, browsing through this Letter-to-CEO-thread I see those who agree to the
> letter and disagree to the colour change just saying "I agree to the letter",
> name, age.
I was going to make a comment about that, which was that I didn't think the
thread should be hijacked, personally. That's why if you look, I haven't posted
to Ben's original message. I think the idea of such a petition is stupid and
potentially damaging to everyone as a group, but the original poster requested
only petition signatures, not discussion.
> OK, people are reading a post like Ben's Letter to the CEO, they think "Oh what
> a whiner, grey is dead, why doesn't this guy get over it!" Now they could simply
> skip the post and move on to the topics they are interested in and that are also
> highlighted on Lugnet's front page: No flame, no hassle, no nothing.
Well, first, I think the original post requested no discussion, just sign your
name below if you agreed. Fine with me. I don't agree, but everyone knows my
opinion, so I didn't post into the thread.
I'm only posting now because someone (Richard) decided to bring this debate to
our doorstep (into our NG) and blame us directly (rtlToronto) of ridiculing
those who act on this colour change. Iain is entitled to his opinion. (I think
Ben is an incredible builder and I thank him for his contributions, but I too,
agree the man is a wank for posting such a thread) To tell us to butt out of
criticising those who may inadvertendly offend us is inappropriate. People
shouldn't hijack the thread, but we will not stop our commentary on this issue
overall.
But from a different perspective, "just skipping" ignores the fact that such
discussions are destructive to this community. Let me explain...
> So if this large part of this "community" really wouldn't care they could as
> well get over the posts of those who care. And if they didn't like the colour
> change why would they attack those who at least _try_ to do something to change
> it back? If this attempt to do something shows any effect to the better it was
> also for the better of them (OK, that's a bad sentence, pardon my English).
>
> Otherwise - I repeat - they could just skip the topic.
No, I get your drift, your English is dead on. The problem is that skipping the
topic is not an answer: Indifference is one thing, but what I'm claming is that
the actions of the few (those who are angered by the colour change) are starting
to affect the rest of us. Going to the company with such a letter paints all
AFOLs, regardless of language, as a bunch of whiners. Accusations and blame
against folks like Jake means less opportunities for us.
You can't just say "skip that", because it affects all of us.
> Oh, BTW, on www.1000steine.de there is - of course - the same Letter to the CEO
> (in German) in two threads open for disussion and for signing. There are about
> 120 replies to the letter, all of them simply saying "I agree", name, age. No
> flame, no hassle, no nothing. Those who do not agree simply do not sign the
> letter, or they use the second thread open for discussion. (No flame there,
> either, though.)
Well, that's ideally what should have happened. Maybe the Germans are better
behaved, who knows. :)
Calum
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
> > > (Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean)
> >
> > It depends on which 7 words you mean. I have seen a number of words used here in
> > rtlT that I personally do think are inappropriate.
>
>
> Type "7 words" into google and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.
>
> Google knows what I'm talking about. Google knows all.
I know which ones you mean too. But I'll say that I personally don't like the
milder ones either, I think they show lack of imagination. I am in the minority
on the Admin team, so A-- gets a pass and B---- seems to fit the sitch, and S---
gets used more than a bit, and P--- ... well I ran out of rhymes. But I'd prefer
that none of those got used either.
> > It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> > timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> > concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> > correct. But it has been noticed and action is being taken.
>
> This seems to lead to:
> -people like me feeling nothing is being done
> -people like Chris feeling they are being abused
> -people not understanding what is appropriate
> -more people quietly being timed out because they post by example.
All valid concerns. There is internal discussion about changing the policy and
there is a sub thread in admin.general discussing it. If you have an opinion,
comment there (if it's more than what you said already, that is... you pointed
out drawbacks. There are also advantages...)
XFUT admin.general
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Calum Tsang wrote:
<snip>
> Well, that's ideally what should have happened. Maybe the Germans are better
> behaved, who knows. :)
>
> Calum
Wow! I just got a feeling of deja-vu all over again!
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> > timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> > concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> > correct.
>
> You've spent too much time dealing with NDAs. Seriously, did you agree to not
> discuss whether or not, in general terms, timeouts had been handed down?
No I didn't.
In fact I already said elsewhere that some had. And, it's causing some very
unfortunate confusion: http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12077 ... someone
has made an invalid assumption there, and forgotten that we don't censor, we can
only request cancels which users are free to ignore, and if they do, all we can
do is decide if the ignoring merits a timeout or lengthening of an already
planned on.
> No, wait -- you wouldn't be able to discuss whether you agreed to not discuss it.
Er, oops! Forget I said anything. (more and more thinking that the current
policy about this (which I advocated) needs to change...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
[a bunch]
Hey Calum,
To be fair, when there "was" a lot of ranting on LUGNET about the colour change,
some of us recommended that those folks instead do something constructive about
it, for example, write a letter. I've seen a few proposed letters go by, I
believe as a result. While I may not necessarily agree with their intent or
content, I do give them kudos for attempting to do something "active" about
their concerns, rather than their continuing to rant all over LUGNET. I only
post this because your post makes it sound like that's not a fair compromise.
Regards,
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
Dear Calum: I disagree with you entirely.
> We'd say "Gee, that's a shame" and go one with our lives, without whining like a bunch of petulant brats who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
Really? I think some people wished for the color issue to go away, didn't get
their wish, and whined like petulant brats.
> We wouldn't write "open letters" to the CEO's of large toy companies to get them to revert to decisions already made across multiple product lines and millions of dollars of inventory.
Nobody asked you to write any such letters. But don't slander the right of
others to do so.
> We wouldn't make flagrant accusations of Lego employees of being untruthful and demanding resignations from people we have a passing knowledge of.
I don't recall ever having done such a thing. But you're right, those who do so
are wrong.
> We wouldn't continue flaming along this stupid topic for several months on end.
Most of the flaming has been done by people who are opposed to people opposed to
the color change. They are the ones most prone to using foul and derogatory
languange.
> Why do AFOLs continue to live in some sort of fantasy world where they think
their clever little petitions and posts will do anything constructive!?
Because most things in this world were achieved by people who took a stand for
the ideas they believed in, no matter how trivial, or how unpopular their
opinion.
> God, people make me so frustrated...
The world would be simple if everyone had the same opinion, wouldn't it?
> You know why you're being "crapped on"?
Yes, because certain poeple can't tolerate opinions that differ from their own.
> It's time to change the discussion topic. Change the channel!
Be my guest. Nobody forces you to read postings related to the color change.
Don't blame others for what you choose to read. But let me (and others) watch
this channel if we prefer.
No hard feelings from my reply I hope (plastic bricks aren't worth them). This
reply is written in the spirit of debate. So cheers!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
>
> Nobody forces you to read postings related to the color change.
Maybe not, but some people keep shoving it under our noses by cross-posting it
to innappropriate groups and spotlighting it.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
FOr example, if you were
> in rtlT and you 'double dared' an admin to do it, even if Janey sent the admin a
> pic of her cleavage (whether she did or didn't last time, I'll not presume ;) )
> it wouldn't have happened.
>
> Much like the Fight Club--what happens in the Fight Club, stays in teh Fight
> Club--you broke rule number 1!
>
> Dave K
Mister David Geoffrey Koudys (in my strictest teacher voice) leave my cleavage
out of this discussion! Thank you very much! Trust me, a punishment from me
will be worse then any admin can do.
Janey "Leaning forward, Red Brick"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> some of us recommended that those folks instead do something constructive about
> it, for example, write a letter. I've seen a few proposed letters go by, I
> believe as a result. While I may not necessarily agree with their intent or
> content, I do give them kudos for attempting to do something "active" about
> their concerns, rather than their continuing to rant all over LUGNET. I only
> post this because your post makes it sound like that's not a fair compromise.
Okay, but there's a way to go and write a letter, and there's one that fans the
flames even more. Posting a petition list almost invites commentary, however
unjustified.
It's not just this latest petition thread, which in fact, could have been a lot
tamer, but plenty of others which start the churn again and again. I'll give
you the most insignificant of examples: The use of the word "bley". In our
group, we've actively tried, at the suggestion of Derek, not to use this term,
because it gives credence to the whiners. Yet everytime people use the word
"bley", it continues to perpetrate the stigma of what happens. It's like
rubbing it in, long after the wound has closed.
Calum
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> Dear Calum: I disagree with you entirely.
Hey, that's fine by me!
> Nobody asked you to write any such letters. But don't slander the right of
> others to do so.
Unless it affects me and our group. Your letters to Lego whining about the
colour of bricks paint EVERY AFOL. Some of us don't want to make a fuss,
because it's not enough of an issue in our minds.
> I don't recall ever having done such a thing. But you're right, those who do so
> are wrong.
You see that? That's me making a statement about all colour change people: In
my mind, all colour change whiners are also Jake-haters too. I take it you are
against the change, but don't hate Jake?
Now think how quickly I made that association (incorrectly) between these two
groups, and then think, about the average brand manager, regional event
coordinator, CEO, whatever in Lego. Will he or she know these factions so
intimately that the won't paint us all in the same light?
I can just see the briefing now:
"Well sir, you've got the colour change petitioners on this side...they want to
go back to the old colours"
"And then you've the people who hate me personally and wish me dead"
"There's a fraction of a fraction of people who don't mind the grey...but the
flesh colour has got to go"
"And then there's these guys in Toronto...uh...they're just a bunch of button
pushing, brick disturbers"
Someone inevitably will say:
"Ah, screw these weirdos. I can't keep'em straight. They're worse than
Trekkies. Let's ditch our support for Roadshow 2005: We can't be bothered
whoever they are to have them disrupt our event schedule."
And all the hard work we've all put into building relationships is GONE. How
eager is someone like Jake to come to BrickFest with cool new set releases when
people flame him online? Would we get invites for worldwide Mindstorms events
in Denmark? Would we ever get train posters or AFOLs comic books again?
> The world would be simple if everyone had the same opinion, wouldn't it?
No, that's true. Certainly there are different strokes for different folks.
The part that bothers me though, is when your (and I'm not saying you,
specifically) opinion and actions start to affect others.
> No hard feelings from my reply I hope (plastic bricks aren't worth them). This
> reply is written in the spirit of debate. So cheers!
No, not at all!
Calum
|
|
| |
> Some of us don't want to make a fuss,
I understand that. But fussing at fussers makes you fussy too.
> That's me making a statement about all colour change people: In my mind,
> all colour change whiners are also Jake-haters too. I take it you are
> against the change, but don't hate Jake?
Why on earth should I hate Jake? He had nothing to do with the color change.
And for that matter, I don't HATE the color change or TLC. I do dislike the
color change though, mostly for reasons of compatibility. And just for the
record, I have not written to TLC or lost any sleep over greys or bleys. In
fact, I don't think I've ever written anything about the colors before. But all
the fussing from the anti-fussers brought me out of hibernation.
> The part that bothers me though, is when your (and I'm not saying you,
> specifically) opinion and actions start to affect others.
I may be wrong, but the only adverse effect of the color debate that I'm aware
of is the silly (though I must admit, entertaining) bickering on Lugnet. I'm no
prophet, but I predict none your dire scenarios will come to fruition.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
>
> "And then there's these guys in Toronto...uh...they're just a bunch of button
> pushing, brick disturbers"
"Brick Disturbers" ??? !!! ???
That would make an awesome t-shirt. Or pastiche...
|
|
| |
> Maybe not, but some people keep shoving it under our noses by cross-posting it
> to innappropriate groups and spotlighting it.
>
> ROSCO
They shouldn't cross-post it to inappropriate groups (assuming they have done
so, I haven't been paying attention), I agree. But my point remains the
same...just because someone posts something doesn't mean that you have to read
it...much less reply to it. You can't extinguish a fire by adding fuel to it
(please note my masterful English language skills).
Cheers, Tanvir.
|
|
| |
Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> They shouldn't cross-post it to inappropriate groups (assuming they have done
> so, I haven't been paying attention), I agree. But my point remains the
> same...just because someone posts something doesn't mean that you have to read
> it...much less reply to it. You can't extinguish a fire by adding fuel to it
> (please note my masterful English language skills).
Ah Yes the classic I'm Not Touching You, finger in the face routine.
You can't possibly be annoyed by that.
Derek - I've got a few more logs to burn.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Richard Noeckel wrote:
>
> I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely discontinues
> their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
> Then, when rtlToronto throws a hissy-fit and empowers the world to take action
> to return the creativity to Lego, i'll be the first to say...i'll say Ha!
It's okay. I wish for bad things to happen to the members of rtlToronto on
pretty much a daily basis.
But then everything I see Calum, I look in to his dreamy eyes and that hateful
feeling goes away. Sigh.
But then they come up with a competition like Connect 4 or Robot Pipe Racing or
Mindstorms Tax Filing and I want to kill them again. Gr!
But then if you draw Calum in a comic without puples in his eyes it kind of
bothers him in a funny way. Haha!
Sined,
Greg Hyland
Defending rtlToronto Champion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Greg Hyland wrote:
> In lugnet.color, Richard Noeckel wrote:
> >
> > I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely discontinues
> > their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
> > Then, when rtlToronto throws a hissy-fit and empowers the world to take action
> > to return the creativity to Lego, i'll be the first to say...i'll say Ha!
>
> It's okay. I wish for bad things to happen to the members of rtlToronto on
> pretty much a daily basis.
>
> But then everything I see Calum, I look in to his dreamy eyes and that hateful
> feeling goes away. Sigh.
>
> But then they come up with a competition like Connect 4 or Robot Pipe Racing or
> Mindstorms Tax Filing and I want to kill them again. Gr!
>
> But then if you draw Calum in a comic without puples in his eyes it kind of
> bothers him in a funny way. Haha!
>
> Sined,
> Greg Hyland
> Defending rtlToronto Champion
Yep--pretty much the funniest strip--"I know--the contest was a HUGE success!!"
After a while, though, CalumBall isn't as much fun and just gets kinda mean and
nasty--likewhen you're playing Dodgeball in school, and you're the last one left
on one side, and all the kids on the other side are just taking pot shots at ya,
and taunting ya... not very nice :(
Dave K
-eh, whatrya gonna do...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, David Koudys wrote:
> > But then everything I see Calum, I look in to his dreamy eyes and that hateful
> > feeling goes away. Sigh.
I don't think I've ever heard me described that way. Sigh!
> > But then they come up with a competition like Connect 4 or Robot Pipe Racing or
> > Mindstorms Tax Filing and I want to kill them again. Gr!
Mindstorms Tax Filing has to be the funniest thing I have ever heard. Next
month, we're doing RCX fractal rendering.
> > But then if you draw Calum in a comic without puples in his eyes it kind of
> > bothers him in a funny way. Haha!
Grr! Square opaque eyes, grr!
> After a while, though, CalumBall isn't as much fun and just gets kinda mean and
> nasty--likewhen you're playing Dodgeball in school, and you're the last one left
> on one side, and all the kids on the other side are just taking pot shots at ya,
> and taunting ya... not very nice :(
You do know most of the time I'm responding only because you guys expect it,
right?
Calum
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Richard Noeckel wrote:
> > But in general, it seems like rtlToronto is against any attempt to resolve the
> > color issue that is paramount to some people.
> >
> > I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely discontinues
> > their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
> > Then, when rtlToronto throws a hissy-fit and empowers the world to take action
> > to return the creativity to Lego, i'll be the first to say...i'll say Ha! ...and
--lots of stuff deleted ---
Calum et al,
I think the main concern here seems to be that the sending of this letter will
harm you, by affecting TLC's view of you/our AFOL community?
I, personally disagree with the tone, and therefore will not "sign" this
version.
However, I don't think the letter, even as it is, will have any adverse affects.
What could happen?
True, the arguing is a lot of wasted bandwidth both online and off, but it's not
that hard to ignore. We know this issue effects certain folks quite emotionally
-- that is quite evident. From my experience, telling someone to 'get over' an
emotional issue.. usually doesn't help... and seems to usually just make the
response even worse. Some of us need therapy [including me]. We need some time
and a venue for greiving the loss. Some folks need to greive more publicly than
others. Please let them.
-Ken
-- whose managed to stay out of the fray mostly and grieve in solitude, yet has
finally contributed to the wasted bandwidth :-(
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Calum Tsang wrote:
>
> You do know most of the time I'm responding only because you guys expect it,
> right?
>
> Calum
:::Warning, this is a personal attack!:::
No one will ever really love you Calum!
(Except maybe for your parents)
But aside from family, you will never be truly be loved.
This is true, and we all know it.
I don't care if i get banned, or if Lugnet implodes with all the negative karma.
But this whole situation is nevertheless fun for two sick reasons:
1. Insanity is interesting, and it's got me posting again.
2. And, Calum will never get laid...
These are undeniable truths.
live with it!
--==Richard==--
;)
P.S. And hey, if Chris, and a buncha German guys are gonna get banned, then this
is not the kinda place i wanna be in!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Richard Noeckel wrote:
(...the stuff that Richard writes.)
Richard, that post was HOT. With every word I read, I feel the passion growing
in my loins. Please continue turning me on.
Love,
Iain
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Richard Noeckel wrote:
> > But in general, it seems like rtlToronto is against any attempt to resolve the
> > color issue that is paramount to some people.
> >
> > I really, really, honestly do hope that one day TLG completely discontinues
> > their Robotic line, and replaces all Mindstorm and Technic with Bionicle.
> > Then, when rtlToronto throws a hissy-fit and empowers the world to take action
> > to return the creativity to Lego, i'll be the first to say...i'll say Ha! ...and
> > stuff... aw crap, i just actually wouldn't care what you guys would do. I'd
>
> You know what we'd do if they discontinued Mindstorms? We'd say "Gee, that's a
> shame" and go one with our lives, without whining like a bunch of petulant brats
> who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
Amen!
Snipped the whole long thing, but I agree with every word you wrote. And thanks
for the spotlight, guys & gals, you helped me notice this post. It's not worth
my time to slog through the garbage going on here anymore. I want to have an
*adult* hobby, thankyouverymuch.
-Tim
|
|
| |
>
> Ah Yes the classic I'm Not Touching You, finger in the face routine.
> You can't possibly be annoyed by that.
>
> Derek - I've got a few more logs to burn.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that by posting on lugnet, I was pointing a finger
in anyone's face. Please forgive my ignorance! Perhaps that explains all the
foul language and ill will coming from the anti-bringbackoldcolors camp. I
promise that in future, before I post anything, I will first make sure that no
one disagrees with my viewpoint, lest they think that I am wanting to pick a
fight and start hurling expletives in my general direction.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> > Maybe not, but some people keep shoving it under our noses by cross-posting it
> > to innappropriate groups and spotlighting it.
> >
> > ROSCO
>
> They shouldn't cross-post it to inappropriate groups (assuming they have done
> so, I haven't been paying attention), I agree. But my point remains the
> same...just because someone posts something doesn't mean that you have to read
> it...
And my point remains the same - if someone posts a message titled "Open letter
to the CEO of the LEGO Company / Call for your signs!" to lugnet.trains, and I
happen to be browsing lugnet.trains, I am going to assume that the letter is
something to do with LEGO trains, and so I will click to read it. Are you
suggesting I should instinctively know which posts in lugnet.trains have been
posted there mistakenly?
> much less reply to it.
Well that's a different thing altogether.
> (please note my masterful English language skills).
Your grasp of the language seems fine to me :)
I've FUTTED to .admin.general because I think the rtl guys are probably sick of
it all by now, and it is really irrelevant to most of them, I think.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> >
> > Ah Yes the classic I'm Not Touching You, finger in the face routine.
> > You can't possibly be annoyed by that.
> >
> > Derek - I've got a few more logs to burn.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that by posting on lugnet, I was pointing a finger
> in anyone's face. Please forgive my ignorance! Perhaps that explains all the
> foul language and ill will coming from the anti-bringbackoldcolors camp. I
> promise that in future, before I post anything, I will first make sure that no
> one disagrees with my viewpoint, lest they think that I am wanting to pick a
> fight and start hurling expletives in my general direction.
I thnk we really have to stop misinterpreting people around here. Maybe there's
an ESL thing going on, but I know I'm not in the 'anti-bringbackoldcolours'
camp. I would definitely state, for the record, that if TLC chose to bring back
old grey, I wouldn't shake my fist and stomp and rant and rave, "TLC shouldn't
have broguht back those old colours!!!"
All the power to them if they do, but, again, all the power to them if they
don't. I also think that, whilst you may not know Derek, I know him to be a
pretty even tempered sort of fellow. So ytou lumped Derek in with all those
mean nasty profane individuals who used bad language.
Which brings up, in concrete terms, the point that Calum made earlier when he
stated that this tirade from many people 'in either camp' will more than likely
be seen by the execs at TLC as representative of *all* AFOL's. Right or wrong,
they probably will get the idea that no matter what they do, the 'AFOL
community' will react badly. I mean, we're guilty about painting everyone not
on our particular side of this issue with the same brush--you just did it in
your post--"foul language and ill will coming from the anti-bringbackoldcolors
camp" you grouped us all together.
If we do it amongst ourselves, why would we think that the execs at TLC wouldn't
group all AFOL's together? Serioulsy, if all they ever hear coiming from the
AFOL community is bitchiness--
"We don't like the new colours! It was the worst mistake you ever made!"
"We don't like you breaking your promiss--you cna'tre-release the 10152!"
"We don't like the juniorization! Those are stupid ricks and you have to stop
making them!!"
"We don't like Bionicle! They don't click in with the rest of our pieces! It's
not real LEGO and you have to stop making them!!"
I mean, I've been here for years and every one of these issues turned out to be
a bitchfest. Every last one of them, and every time, a petition or a letter or
a "Jake! You must listen to our bitching and relay it to those in charge and if
you don't, you should be replaced with someone who will!!"
Over the years, what has TLC heard from us, the supposed AFOL?
Yep, I wouldn't listen to us, either.
So I say a kind word. I say that Jake's doing a pretty good job for the
community. I say that, whatever TLC does from now on, that will not, nor
cannot, diminish the enjoyment I've had for 37 years playing with my LEGO
collection. And for that I'm labeled, as is everyone else who took a stand
against the obsessed folks that believe they know better than the execs at TLC,
a 'brown noser' or a kiss-up to TLC.
Well, again I'll mention that I've had a run-in with TLC's legal department.
Sure it was a long time ago, but I still have the documentation. Kiss-up? I
don't think so.
But I won't presume to tell the multi-national corporation what they should or
should not do. I will make, and have made, polite suggestions. And the
original posted letter was not a polite suggestion, it was, in my mind, a
demand. A demand from people who have stepped over the line from hobby and time
filler to obsessed.
When I hear the rationale--'the pieces don't match with my existing pieces!!
THey must change them back! Bley sucks and will signal the end of my involvement
with my hobby!'
Well, I have bley and they fit exactly the same way with my collection as any
other piece. The colours don't match? Well, either did Orange or purple the
first time it showed up. But you can't buy new 'old grey' anymore? Well, I
can't buy an '86 Prelude brand new anymore, either, and, in my mind, that was
the best car ever produced by the Honda corporation--had the nicest lines of any
vehicle ever. Am I picketing the Honda corporation to bring it back?
Obsessed. Take a step back, go outside and get some air, and phrase you concern
politely, without maliciousness or sarcasm, especially if you want them to even
consider the request.
As for somethig I've always wanted to state since this colour issue first began,
and especially after the 10152 issue--you're not going to buy anywith the new
bley?
Fine--more for me and those of us who like LEGO as a hobby. TLC isn't going to
lose out on my purchases--they're getting more.
Dave K
-yes I was getting snippy towards the end of that rant. Eh, whatrya gonna do
|
|
| |
Hm...
I used to be extremely fanatic about LEGO, but I've long ago gotten to the point
that taking Lego seriously at all would mean getting depressed over it.
I just don't care enough about the toy these days to give a...eh, this is a
public forum. If the products were good, I'd buy them. They aren't, but you
won't see me losing any sleep. I do miss the old days, and know how anybody who
wants those days back feels and why they'd take action. Me? I don't bother
thinking about it anymore. Maybe in 2004 I spent $60 on Lego, and a lot of that
was Brinklink. I haven't even bought any of the 2004 Star Wars sets, and I used
to be so enthusiastic that I've acquired 40 Stormtroopers and designed an
enclosed rebel hangar housing 6 fighters. I think a company has to make a lot
of mistakes to utterly destroy that in a person, but I think that they've
managed.
I'm pretty apathetic about it. I actually love Lego enough to still check up on
these forums and browse brickshelf a few times a week, aside from toying with it
a bit for an hour here or there every few days. But I really do have to keep it
a trivial hobby in my mind, because if Lego meant as much to me now as it once
did, I'd be crushed. Sometimes I'd like to think things were tolerable, but the
color changes couldn't be pardoned.
But I don't care enough any more to argue about it.
--Josh
|
|
| |
Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> > Ah Yes the classic I'm Not Touching You, finger in the face routine.
> > You can't possibly be annoyed by that.
> >
> > Derek - I've got a few more logs to burn.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that by posting on lugnet, I was pointing a finger
> in anyone's face. Please forgive my ignorance! Perhaps that explains all the
> foul language and ill will coming from the anti-bringbackoldcolors camp. I
> promise that in future, before I post anything, I will first make sure that no
> one disagrees with my viewpoint, lest they think that I am wanting to pick a
> fight and start hurling expletives in my general direction.
The point is this topic was brought into the .rtlToronto forum. The
members that use the .rtlToronto forum by it's very nature will both
read and comment on what's posted in this forum. I do believe that is
what it is for.
If this topic hadn't been brought into our forum, it is quite possible
that none of us would have commented on it. We are quite tired of it.
But someone chose to bring this topic into our forum and I assume they
did so because they wanted us to comment on it.
You will note that we replied too, and further commented on this topic
within our forum.
Now you come along and suggest that we shouldn't read or reply to
messages posted in our forum. Why would we have a forum if not for that
purpose.
People know this is a hot topic for us. If you're going to stick your
finger in our face, we'll grab it and twist it off.
If you don't like what we post in our forum, don't read it. No-one is
forcing you to. But don't expect us to just ignore something that
brought into our forum.
Derek
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Iain Hendry wrote:
> In lugnet.color, Richard Noeckel wrote:
>
> (...the stuff that Richard writes.)
>
> Richard, that post was HOT. With every word I read, I feel the passion growing
> in my loins. Please continue turning me on.
>
> Love,
>
> Iain
=)
Dude, you've got a lot of pent-up emotion towards me....
Lets go over to lugnet.people.lgbt and get it on!!!
Have your way with me, but just get it outta your system.
;)
No, but seriously...
You're creeping me out.
It's kewl though.
Peace,
--==Richard==--
|
|
| |
> I also think that, whilst you may not know Derek, I know him to be a
> pretty even tempered sort of fellow. So ytou lumped Derek in with all those
> mean nasty profane individuals who used bad language.
It's true, I don't know Derek. I'm sure he's a nice guy. For all you know, I
might be too. But Derek's last post wasn't "nice." My response was
commesurate.
> you grouped us all together.
You criticize me, and yet you call me "obsessed", and lump me with quite a few
groups of "obsessed" people.
> Serioulsy, if all they ever hear coiming from the AFOL community is > bitchiness AFOL community is bitchiness--
Really? Is that all they hear? Or perhaps that's all you've heard? In recent
weeks, besides writing in favor of greys, I have also written in praise of Jake
and of several new sets. But I guess you weren't interested in any of those
posts.
> Obsessed. Take a step back, go outside and get some air, and phrase you
> concern politely, without maliciousness or sarcasm, especially if you want
> them to even consider the request.
Actually, I've never bothered TLC about the bleys. I don't expect them to
listen to me or to do anything that they don't want. However, they are a
business, and I am their customer, and as such I'll express my opinion about
their product on this site if it pleases me to do so, as long as the
administrators do not object to it.
I have never been "malicious" with my posts. I'm sorry if you've thought so.
However, my last post WAS (intentionally) sarcastic. However, as stated before,
my response was commesurate.
> you're not going to buy anywith the new bley?
That's your assumption, which is incorrect.
> Fine--more for me and those of us who like LEGO as a hobby.
I do too, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here. Just because I disagree with
you on an issue doesn't change that.
> TLC isn't going to lose out on my purchases--they're getting more.
More power to them, and to you.
> Dave K
> -yes I was getting snippy towards the end of that rant.
You're entitled to. Peace - Tanvir.
|
|
| |
> People know this is a hot topic for us. If you're going to stick your
> finger in our face, we'll grab it and twist it off.
Ouch.
> If you don't like what we post in our forum, don't read it. No-one is
> forcing you to. But don't expect us to just ignore something that
> brought into our forum.
>
> Derek
It wasn't "just" posted on your forum. It was highlighted as "top story" on the
homepage of this website. I am not a member of your forum, but I am a member of
lugnet, and replied as such. If you don't want outsiders invading your space,
please see that it is not spotlighted in the future. Otherwise, some
troublesome guy like me might come along. As for me, I promise not to bother
anyone here any more, and do apologize if I've given anyone grief. Cheers -
Tanvir.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> If you don't want outsiders invading your space,
> please see that it is not spotlighted in the future.
Unfortunately it is not possible to stop anyone from spotlighting any post they
want to, so that request is pointless.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
Thank you, Calum, for putting so eloqently how mony of us feel about this
ridiculous letter. Last time I checked, Lego is still a toy, not a commodity to
be traded on the stock market.
It's a toy, either build with it or don't, but quit whining about progress you
can't change. The color change is not up for debate. It's over and done with. If
you don't like it, I can list a thousand other hobbies for people to dabble in
so as not to be fed up with this one.
Now excuse me while I check out a spotlighted MOC or two.
-Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> > I also think that, whilst you may not know Derek, I know him to be a
> > pretty even tempered sort of fellow. So ytou lumped Derek in with all those
> > mean nasty profane individuals who used bad language.
>
> It's true, I don't know Derek. I'm sure he's a nice guy. For all you know, I
> might be too. But Derek's last post wasn't "nice." My response was
> commesurate.
>
> > you grouped us all together.
>
> You criticize me, and yet you call me "obsessed", and lump me with quite a few
> groups of "obsessed" people.
I did say we were bothguilty of it. So there you are.
>
> > Serioulsy, if all they ever hear coiming from the AFOL community is > bitchiness AFOL community is bitchiness--
>
> Really? Is that all they hear? Or perhaps that's all you've heard? In recent
> weeks, besides writing in favor of greys, I have also written in praise of Jake
> and of several new sets. But I guess you weren't interested in any of those
> posts.
And you weren't interested in any of my posts that were not 'kissups to TLC' or
me stating that I wasn't in the 'anti-colourchange' camp. So we're both doing
it--where, in the end, does that get us? You can'tcry 'foul' on me when you're
doing exactly the same thing.
>
> > Obsessed. Take a step back, go outside and get some air, and phrase you
> > concern politely, without maliciousness or sarcasm, especially if you want
> > them to even consider the request.
>
> Actually, I've never bothered TLC about the bleys. I don't expect them to
> listen to me or to do anything that they don't want. However, they are a
> business, and I am their customer, and as such I'll express my opinion about
> their product on this site if it pleases me to do so, as long as the
> administrators do not object to it.
As will I. As long as we're both agreed on this. My contention, however, is
that if you want to make your point to TLC, do it in a polite respective manner.
> I have never been "malicious" with my posts. I'm sorry if you've thought so.
> However, my last post WAS (intentionally) sarcastic. However, as stated before,
> my response was commesurate.
As were some of my posts. Again, we do the same thing, so no harm, no foul :)
> > you're not going to buy anywith the new bley?
>
> That's your assumption, which is incorrect.
It was a general 'you' directed to folks who said that they weren't buying new
'bley' sets--I've seen numerous posts stating somehting like 'Purchases before
2004--$2000.00 +, Purchases after 2004-- $4.97" It wasn't directed specifically
at you, but to the generalized 'I hate bley' colour group, which is what this
thread is all about.
>
> > Fine--more for me and those of us who like LEGO as a hobby.
>
> I do too, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here. Just because I disagree with
> you on an issue doesn't change that.
Again, it wasa general 'you'.
>
> > TLC isn't going to lose out on my purchases--they're getting more.
>
> More power to them, and to you.
So we agree on somehting.
> > Dave K
> > -yes I was getting snippy towards the end of that rant.
>
> You're entitled to. Peace - Tanvir.
Later
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> > People know this is a hot topic for us. If you're going to stick your
> > finger in our face, we'll grab it and twist it off.
>
> Ouch.
>
> > If you don't like what we post in our forum, don't read it. No-one is
> > forcing you to. But don't expect us to just ignore something that
> > brought into our forum.
> >
> > Derek
>
> It wasn't "just" posted on your forum. It was highlighted as "top story" on the
> homepage of this website. I am not a member of your forum, but I am a member of
> lugnet, and replied as such. If you don't want outsiders invading your space,
> please see that it is not spotlighted in the future. Otherwise, some
> troublesome guy like me might come along. As for me, I promise not to bother
> anyone here any more, and do apologize if I've given anyone grief. Cheers -
> Tanvir.
We in rtlT have control over what is spotlighted? Wow!
We in rtlT have control over who bringswhat thread into our NG? That's great!
We in rtlT have control over who can post in this NG? Perfect!
That'll make things much better for us--nowif someone wants to forward us the
manual for LUGNET usage that details how to do these things, it'd be
appreciated...
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Tanvir Mahtab wrote:
> > > People know this is a hot topic for us. If you're going to stick your
> > > finger in our face, we'll grab it and twist it off.
> >
> > Ouch.
> >
> > > If you don't like what we post in our forum, don't read it. No-one is
> > > forcing you to. But don't expect us to just ignore something that
> > > brought into our forum.
> > >
> > > Derek
> >
> > It wasn't "just" posted on your forum. It was highlighted as "top story" on the
> > homepage of this website. I am not a member of your forum, but I am a member of
> > lugnet, and replied as such. If you don't want outsiders invading your space,
> > please see that it is not spotlighted in the future. Otherwise, some
> > troublesome guy like me might come along. As for me, I promise not to bother
> > anyone here any more, and do apologize if I've given anyone grief. Cheers -
> > Tanvir.
>
> We in rtlT have control over what is spotlighted? Wow!
>
> We in rtlT have control over who bringswhat thread into our NG? That's great!
>
> We in rtlT have control over who can post in this NG? Perfect!
>
> That'll make things much better for us--nowif someone wants to forward us the
> manual for LUGNET usage that details how to do these things, it'd be
> appreciated...
>
> Dave K
K, that was a little too snarky, even for me.
I apologize.
Dave K
-note: no admin or anyone else e-mailed me to tell me to rethink my post. I
just read it again and realized that it really was too snarky.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> K, that was a little too snarky, even for me.
It was funny though. And made the point.
> I apologize.
>
> Dave K
> -note: no admin or anyone else e-mailed me to tell me to rethink my post. I
> just read it again and realized that it really was too snarky.
Apology accepted on behalf of just me. But we're still not mailing you the
instruction manual. (because there isn't one!)
|
|
| |
Hello!
> We wouldn't continue flaming along this stupid topic for several months on
end.
Hm, browsing through this Letter-to-CEO-thread I see those who agree to the
letter and disagree to the colour change just saying "I agree to the
letter", name, age. Those who do not agree to the letter (and possibly agree to
the
colour change?) and feel annoyed by the topic are calling others "w*nk*rs"
and tell them to "f**k *ff" and the like. So who is bringing up the flame?
> Why do AFOLs continue to live in some sort of fantasy world where they • think
> their clever little petitions and posts will do anything constructive!?
Probably because LEGO is a toy that enriches the fantasy of the kids and the
fantasy of some adults as well. Maybe some people's fantasy was enriched a
little too much. :-)
Oh, and writing an actual letter to an executive is (in my humbly opinion)
still more constructive than sheer discussing the matter in an internet forum,
while attacking such a letter is rather destructive and while ignoring the
matter that obviously concerns quite a lot of people is simply... nothing, but
it's OK.
> You know why you're being "crapped on"? It's because people who really • dislike
> this colour change and making a fuss about it are ruining it for those who
> couldn't give a flying frick in a rolling donut.
Why is that?
OK, people are reading a post like Ben's Letter to the CEO, they think "Oh what
a whiner, grey is dead, why doesn't this guy get over it!" Now they could
simply skip the post and move on to the topics they are interested in and that
are also highlighted on Lugnet's front page: No flame, no hassle, no nothing.
Instead that they click on "reply" (like I did now...) and write "Oh, you are
such a whiner, grey is dead! Why don't you get over it?" and with that the
thread they don't like is double as big as it was before. Other people stumble
over it, they agree to those who do not agree to the original post (which is
their right), they highlight the posts with the "w*nks" and the "f**k-*ffs"
and the whole issue is brought to a boil and messes up the whole of Lugnet.
> There's a large part of this "community" who doesn't really give a damn • about
> the colour change, or didn't like it but have resolved themselves to deal • with
> it.
So if this large part of this "community" really wouldn't care they could as
well get over the posts of those who care. And if they didn't like the colour
change why would they attack those who at least _try_ to do something to change
it back? If this attempt to do something shows any effect to the better it was
also for the better of them (OK, that's a bad sentence, pardon my English).
Otherwise - I repeat - they could just skip the topic.
> Every rtlToronto dinner I go to, I hear stuff like "Did you see so and • so's post
> about colour change in .whateverthehell? It had 150 replies!"
Yeah, and 100 replies are from those who don't want to read about the topic.
Clever.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
> Oh, and writing an actual letter to an executive is (in my humbly opinion)
> still more constructive than sheer discussing the matter in an internet forum,
> while attacking such a letter is rather destructive and while ignoring the
> matter that obviously concerns quite a lot of people is simply... nothing, but
> it's OK.
I think the thing that bothers a large number of people is that it's impossible to
ignore. There was a group created for discussions on this subject. If someone has
an interest in reading and posting on this, they should read lugnet.color.
This type of discussion should not be in lugnet.general
or lugnet.lego
or lugnet.dear-lego
or lugnet.space
or lugnet.castle
or lugnet.starwars
or lugnet.trains
or lugnet.color
or even lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
It's true, there may be people in these groups who want to discuss that subject, but
they should go to the correct news group. Posting to all the above groups will
cause people who DON'T want to talk about it, to feel compelled to make their
opinion known.
Of course, if you don't like what people in the rtlToronto group have to say, just
ignore it.
|
|
| |
Johannes 'Jojo' Koehler wrote:
< Stuff we've heard before >
In principal I agree with what you are saying. However I take exception
to where you are saying it. You need to pay attention to the forum you
are posting to.
I've already laid the smack down on one person for trying to tell us
what we can and cannot discuss in our own group.
http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/rtltoronto/?n=13134
Don't make me do it again.
:-)
Derek
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> > We wouldn't continue flaming along this stupid topic for several months on
> end.
>
> Hm, browsing through this Letter-to-CEO-thread I see those who agree to the
> letter and disagree to the colour change just saying "I agree to the
> letter", name, age. Those who do not agree to the letter (and possibly agree to
> the
> colour change?) and feel annoyed by the topic are calling others "w*nk*rs"
> and tell them to "f**k *ff" and the like. So who is bringing up the flame?
>
>
>
Hey JoJo!
I think both sides of this flame war are guilty of this. To various degrees
there are worse offenders, but when people rightly pointed out that this
disparaging letter would do more harm than good, they were shouted down. I
think, for the most part, I've tried to actually deal with the issue of hte
letter instead of attacking the person, so bring this to me--the petition,
whilst developed under supposedly the best of intentions, will do, in my
opinion, more harm to the tenuous relationship between the AFOL community and
TLC.
> > Why do AFOLs continue to live in some sort of fantasy world where they think
> > their clever little petitions and posts will do anything constructive!?
>
> Probably because LEGO is a toy that enriches the fantasy of the kids and the
> fantasy of some adults as well. Maybe some people's fantasy was enriched a
> little too much. :-)
And I personally believe that certain individuals have taken theri LEGO hobby
and crossed over the line into obsession. Ranting to a multi-billion dollar
industry and stating that they 'the worst mistake ever' and that they 'must
change back' is arrogant to the extreme, and shows little to no consideration or
understanding of any business endeavour. Furthermore, as stated by myself and
those whom I consider to be 'true' fans of the brick, this type of petition will
more than likely alienate the execs at TLC from us, the AFOL.
For if you are a fan, you will work with the best of efforts to facilitate an
understanding with TLC--it's not 'kissing up' or 'brownnosing', it's adults
getting along in the fashion of adults--working towards a mutually beneficial
goal, which this petition fails to do on so many levels. Adults don't go on a
tirade when a multi-national corporation changes the colour values of a plastic
brick. Aduylts should voice their concerns in an adult manner, and let the
decision rest in the purvue of the business executives--and this has already
been done numerous times. TLC knows how the AFOL feels about the colour change.
Rehashing the decision ad nauseum will just create animosity between the
community and the execs at TLC, and the execs will be less inclined to listen to
this community in the future.
> Oh, and writing an actual letter to an executive is (in my humbly opinion)
> still more constructive than sheer discussing the matter in an internet forum,
> while attacking such a letter is rather destructive and while ignoring the
> matter that obviously concerns quite a lot of people is simply... nothing, but
> it's OK.
ANd I agree--but it's been done. TLC knows where the colourt change people
stand on teh issue of changed colours. But, and here's the part that people
don't seem to be understanding--just because they didn't 'revert' back to the
colours does not automatically mean that they didn't hear you. If I recall
correctly, Jake stated they took our 'suggestions' under consideration but the
colour change is staying. Done. Move on. Rehashing now is obsessive behaviour
and will embitter our relationship with TLC. Basically you're (this is a
general colour camp 'you', not a JoJo 'you') screwing this up for those of us
that want to continue with our chosen hobby.
>
>
> > You know why you're being "crapped on"? It's because people who really dislike
> > this colour change and making a fuss about it are ruining it for those who
> > couldn't give a flying frick in a rolling donut.
>
> Why is that?
Think I've stated that--the colour camp is souring the relationship between the
true Adult fans of LEGO and TLC.
> OK, people are reading a post like Ben's Letter to the CEO, they think "Oh what
> a whiner, grey is dead, why doesn't this guy get over it!" Now they could
> simply skip the post and move on to the topics they are interested in and that
> are also highlighted on Lugnet's front page: No flame, no hassle, no nothing.
However, this petition was going to be given to TLC. This fact I am very much
against, therefore I've stated that I am not in favour of this letter. It
stated that it represents AFOL's. I'm an AFOL and it didn't represent me.
Further, on receiving this petition, it is my contention that the execs will
have yet one more concrete example that the AFOL community isn't worth litening
to, for no matter what they do, the AFOL community will whine, threaten,
boycott, etc. So again, why would TLC listen to this community? I certainly
wouldn't if I were in their place.
> Instead that they click on "reply" (like I did now...) and write "Oh, you are
> such a whiner, grey is dead! Why don't you get over it?" and with that the
> thread they don't like is double as big as it was before. Other people stumble
> over it, they agree to those who do not agree to the original post (which is
> their right), they highlight the posts with the "w*nks" and the "f**k-*ffs"
> and the whole issue is brought to a boil and messes up the whole of Lugnet.
No, the issue started when some bright people pointed out the issues with the
letter. Again, if someone has the freedom to post such a letter, others have
the right to point out the issues with the letter as they see 'em, espoecially
if this letter could, and more than likely will, do damage to the relationship
between the AFOL community and the company that provides us with the basic
building blocks of our hobby.
>
> > There's a large part of this "community" who doesn't really give a damn about
> > the colour change, or didn't like it but have resolved themselves to deal with
> > it.
>
> So if this large part of this "community" really wouldn't care they could as
> well get over the posts of those who care. And if they didn't like the colour
> change why would they attack those who at least _try_ to do something to change
> it back? If this attempt to do something shows any effect to the better it was
> also for the better of them (OK, that's a bad sentence, pardon my English).
>
> Otherwise - I repeat - they could just skip the topic.
And those who still dislike the decision about the colour change can come to the
understanding that their voice has been heard, yet TLC has still pursued their
chosen course, and stop rehashing it, perhaps we can start developing a better
rapport with TLC such that they will be more inclined to listen to the AFOL
community regarding future decisions.
>
> > Every rtlToronto dinner I go to, I hear stuff like "Did you see so and so's post
> > about colour change in .whateverthehell? It had 150 replies!"
>
> Yeah, and 100 replies are from those who don't want to read about the topic.
> Clever.
Nope, those 100 replies are good people standing up for what they believe to be
right. Bad things happen when good people don't stand up and say something.
This very issue shows this in crystal clear clarity--the colour change camp
wanted this to go through without a hitch, without discussion, and wanted to add
yet another concrete example to the growing list of why more than likely TLC is
probably ignoring this community. And 'we' (general we) called 'you' (general
you) on it. We've pointed out that this issue has been discussed before, that
it was managed before, that it was dealt with before, that it was broght to the
attention of TLC execs before, that, in the end, TLC wasn't going to revert back
to the old colours. Yet it was still brough up as a very poorly worded
petition.
I would have *no* issue with someone writing a "professional" letter for TLC
execs to consider, a polite petition to get one's point across regarding the
colour issue. I wouldn't necessarily sign such a petition for, and again this
is my personal opinion, the execs already know our stance and why rehash it--you
say your peace and you move on with your life, whether they implement your
suggestion is entirely up to them--if the did--great. If they didn't, however,
revisiting it the second time, the third, forth, and, probably by now, the 15th
time, will get you nowhere. Oh wait, it will get you somewhere--it will
embitter those very people who can actually do something about it towards your
cause.
The definition of insanity is pursuing the same course of action over and over
again, yet expecting a different result each time. You know where that
definition gets used alot--when applied to obsessive or compulsive
personalities.
I'm just saying...
>
> Bye
> Jojo
Take care,
Dave K
-boy I love Sports Night...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Ken Koleda wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> I think the main concern here seems to be that the sending of this letter will
> harm you, by affecting TLC's view of you/our AFOL community?
That's one of the more prominent. Others could include discouraging newcomers
to the hobby, painting Lego enthusiasts to the general public in a bad light,
etc. But since we're intrinsically linked to the Lego Company (there are no
other sources of Lego) yes, this is my major concern.
> However, I don't think the letter, even as it is, will have any adverse affects.
> What could happen?
I think I've gone over this before. For isolated enthusiasts, not a heck of a
lot. But for large groups, such as large LTCs, etc, it could mean:
-Losing the opportunity to do cool events jointly with Lego. eg, Roadshow.
-Missing out on Fan-Company projects like Lego Magazine models (which our group
has participated in), My Own Creation (James Mathis and Daniel Siskind's models)
etc.
-Not having support/materials such as... eg, Event Kits, AFOL magazines, Train
Posters, direct mailing support for train shows.
-Less participation in Fan events such as BrickFest: eg, Brad Justus giving
keynote talks, product prerelease unveilings etc.
...just to name a few. Note, pretty well all of this has been mostly the work
of Jake. And while not every colour change poster dislikes Jake (a
generalization I made incorrectly), I don't believe the comments from certain
peanut gallery members in regards to our Community Liaison help.
I certainly wouldn't want to be called a liar, then turn around and push
initiatives inside the company on behalf of such folk.
Now, would these things disappear? I don't know. I personally see the link, I
don't know if everyone agrees with me or not.
> and a venue for greiving the loss. Some folks need to greive more publicly than
> others. Please let them.
a) People may grieve (or whine)
b) We may mock them for this and tell them to get over it.
c) Others may say, "you shouldn't criticise them"
But the same provision for a) should cover the provision for b) which is what c)
was complaining about.
Calum
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> In principal I agree with what you are saying. However I take exception
> to where you are saying it. You need to pay attention to the forum you
> are posting to.
OK, to get things straight: The post you just answered to was a re-post because
the original post was cancelled for it contained some bad words (quotations of
Duane Hess' bad words) that are **ed in this re-post.
The original posting that's been cancelled was an answer to a post by Calum
Tsang who on his part posted it to rtlToronto. When I re-posted my message I
simply did it the same way as I did it before: I clicked "reply" on Calum's
posting. But now my re-post didn't get drowned in thousands of posts like it did
the first time so now you actually read it :-) I did not mean to poisen your
happy rtlToronto community with my posting, it just happened to get posted to
rtlToronto.
If you feel the need of revenge you are gladly invited to post some spam
messages to http://news.lugnet.com/loc/de/ in return for my unasked posting to
rtlToronto ;-)
Sorry and bye-bye, Toronto!
Jojo
|
|
| |
Johannes 'Jojo' Koehler wrote:
< A good point >
Ok I understand what happened. Sorry for jumping on you. I've just
been frustrated by this topic being jammed into our forums, then people
jumping us for discussing it.
Additionally the ridiculous system of forcing people to cancel messages
because of what they quoted is wreaking havoc. I'm now starting to get
as frustrated with this as Chris is.
I am very happy when people that are not normally part of our group post
here. And I think everyone else here is too. I enjoy their incites
into our discussions. I do, however, have a problem with people saying
we shouldn't be discussing something in our own forum.
All are welcome to post here. Please do. However we discuss anything
and everything here. I think we all try very hard to keep our
discussions within our own group so that people who don't want to listen
to us can filter us out. This makes it very annoying when someone comes
in and tells not to discuss something. Which happened several times in
this particular thread.
Derek
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> Johannes 'Jojo' Koehler wrote:
>
> < Stuff we've heard before >
> In principal I agree with what you are saying. However I take exception
> to where you are saying it. You need to pay attention to the forum you
> are posting to.
(or put "this is a repost with some content changed" when reposting things...
just like Calum did)
> I've already laid the smack down on one person for trying to tell us
> what we can and cannot discuss in our own group.
Please don't lay any smack down on JoJo for reposting, after cleaning up the
quoted text that got him a timeout. Lay it on me, instead, because I
*encouraged* him to repost it, since I thought the message was worth preserving
for the historical record.
But don't lay it on me either, please, because laying smack, except in fun and
where it's clear it's in fun, isn't appropriate anywhere on LUGNET. Even in your
own special group.
Certainly if you have issues with the general process of asking people to cancel
things that contain inappropriate content, and encouraging them to repost
essentially the same material, sans problems, or if you have issues or concerns
with anything else to do with the administration process, that's a valid topic
for discussion. Just not here, please, as it belongs in admin.general. Which is
where this post has been XFUTted to, if you want to discuss it further.
Hope that helps.
Larry Pieniazek
for the Admins.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
> But don't lay it on me either, please, because laying smack, except in fun and
> where it's clear it's in fun, isn't appropriate anywhere on LUGNET. Even in your
> own special group.
<snmip>
> Larry Pieniazek
> for the Admins.
Oh we'll be layin' the smack down for whomever we choose... no worries there.
rtlT is known as the smack daddy of 'em all!
smack smack smack!!!
Who shall get smacked first? Any volunteers?
Speak up, don't be shy...
"All your smack are belong to us"
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> Oh we'll be layin' the smack down for whomever we choose... no worries there.
>
> rtlT is known as the smack daddy of 'em all!
>
> smack smack smack!!!
>
> Who shall get smacked first? Any volunteers?
I volunteer!!!!!!
> Speak up, don't be shy...
PICK ME! PICK ME!!!
> "All your smack are belong to us"
>
> Dave K
Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > Oh we'll be layin' the smack down for whomever we choose... no worries there.
> >
> > rtlT is known as the smack daddy of 'em all!
> >
> > smack smack smack!!!
> >
> > Who shall get smacked first? Any volunteers?
>
> I volunteer!!!!!!
>
> > Speak up, don't be shy...
>
> PICK ME! PICK ME!!!
>
> > "All your smack are belong to us"
> >
> > Dave K
>
> Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
What kind of no good for nuttin' flannel wearin' rusty pickup drivin' country
hick d'ya think i am???
Oh wait, all those are true!
I just laid the smack down on me! Ouch!
Well, maybe not too much ouch...
Dave K
-putting bandaids on owies since January '05
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> >
> > > Oh we'll be layin' the smack down for whomever we choose... no worries there.
> > >
> > > rtlT is known as the smack daddy of 'em all!
> > >
> > > smack smack smack!!!
> > >
> > > Who shall get smacked first? Any volunteers?
> >
> > I volunteer!!!!!!
> >
> > > Speak up, don't be shy...
> >
> > PICK ME! PICK ME!!!
> >
> > > "All your smack are belong to us"
> > >
> > > Dave K
> >
> > Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
>
> Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
>
> What kind of no good for nuttin' flannel wearin' rusty pickup drivin' country
> hick d'ya think i am???
>
> Oh wait, all those are true!
>
> I just laid the smack down on me! Ouch!
>
> Well, maybe not too much ouch...
>
> Dave K
> -putting bandaids on owies since January '05
Wow Dave,
I must say, I'm very disappointed in your obvious SLOS (sexist limits on smack).
Then you give yourself a smack job??? I don't think you are allowed to do that
publicly. Calls in the SUITS, and charges Dave with a bit of IPS-SO (indecent
public self smack offenses.)
Watched the SUITS force him to get the sign of the evil tattooed (also know as a
red brick tattoo)
Come on, I know there is just a little tiny bit of you that wants to crush my
annoying, boisterous, indulgent, hippy freak, tree hugging ways. Let that
little devil out to play.
Wink.
Janey "Awwwww Dave's a real sweetie, Red Brick"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> Wow Dave,
>
> I must say, I'm very disappointed in your obvious SLOS (sexist limits on smack).
What about...
Sticky Lounge...Outrageous Sister !
Sickness Looms, Ominous Symptoms.
Saucy Lugnet Outrages Sailors.
Suppository Lozenge...Output Soon.
> Then you give yourself a smack job??? I don't think you are allowed to do that
> publicly. Calls in the SUITS, and charges Dave with a bit of IPS-SO (indecent
> public self smack offenses.)
another bit of IPS-SO...
Irate Postal Service - Significant Order.
Ineffective Pathetic Swings - Struck Out.
Itchy Pelvis Scratched - Shocked Onlookers.
Inactive Porch Swing - Sit On !
I'm Perverse Sadly - (a) Strange One.
I Posted Successfully - Sadly Off-topic.
> Watched the SUITS force him to get the sign of the evil tattooed (also know as a
> red brick tattoo)
Not the SUITS !
System Usage Involves Time Suckage.
Sign Up ? It's Terminal Sgt. !
Single Use, If That's Sufficient.
Silent Union, It's Tricky Sometimes.
Swollen Udders In Ticklish Situation.
Sounds Uninteresting ? I Think So.
pete.w
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> >
> > > Who shall get smacked first? Any volunteers?
> >
> > PICK ME! PICK ME!!!
> >
> > Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
>
> Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
I thought David would be good at laying down the smack.
Guess I was wrong.
Steve
- keeping it simple -
|
|
| |
> >
> > Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
>
> Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
That aint no woman, that's just Janey...
(smack)
-Rob A>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> > >
> > > Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
> >
> > Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
>
>
> That aint no woman, that's just Janey...
She's more of a woman than YOU'LL ever be...
Er wait, maybe that's not quite the smack I thought it was!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
> > >
> > > Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
> >
> >
> > That aint no woman, that's just Janey...
She aint no womman? She looks like a womman, she has all the right curves for a
womman... she talks like a sailor though...
Hmmm...
> She's more of a woman than YOU'LL ever be...
>
> Er wait, maybe that's not quite the smack I thought it was!
I dunno--I've seen Rob's legs...
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Pete White wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> > Wow Dave,
> >
> > I must say, I'm very disappointed in your obvious SLOS (sexist limits on smack).
>
> What about...
> Sticky Lounge...Outrageous Sister !
> Sickness Looms, Ominous Symptoms.
> Saucy Lugnet Outrages Sailors.
> Suppository Lozenge...Output Soon.
YAY! Peter, I was hoping this would pull you out of the woodwork.
Sinful Language On Suspension
Secret Lives Open Suspicions
> > Then you give yourself a smack job??? I don't think you are allowed to do that
> > publicly. Calls in the SUITS, and charges Dave with a bit of IPS-SO (indecent
> > public self smack offenses.)
>
> another bit of IPS-SO...
> Irate Postal Service - Significant Order.
> Ineffective Pathetic Swings - Struck Out.
> Itchy Pelvis Scratched - Shocked Onlookers.
> Inactive Porch Swing - Sit On !
> I'm Perverse Sadly - (a) Strange One.
> I Posted Successfully - Sadly Off-topic.
Intentional Posting Serves Some Others.
Introspective Punishments Survives SUITS Oppression.
> > Watched the SUITS force him to get the sign of the evil tattooed (also know as a
> > red brick tattoo)
>
> Not the SUITS !
> System Usage Involves Time Suckage.
> Sign Up ? It's Terminal Sgt. !
> Single Use, If That's Sufficient.
> Silent Union, It's Tricky Sometimes.
> Swollen Udders In Ticklish Situation.
> Sounds Uninteresting ? I Think So.
>
> pete.w
Something Usually Interrupts Talking Seriously
Somewhere Useful Interrogations Tempts Serenity.
Nice to see you are still around.
Janey "BTWBS, Red Brick"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> > >
> > > Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
> >
> > Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
>
>
> That aint no woman, that's just Janey...
>
> (smack)
>
> -Rob A>
LOL, Wow, much too kind..... Calum has dreamy eyes... Dave is King of the
Flannel, Iain is the cute one, and Janey gets..... "that aint no woman!" Oh how
the truth hurts, how ever will I sleep tonight?
Rob don't you have a stacker you should be working on?
Janey "But she's always a woman to me, Red Brick"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Janey "Hit me with your best shot, Red Brick"
> > > >
> > > > Awwww, i can't go hittin' no woman!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > That aint no woman, that's just Janey...
>
>
> She aint no womman? She looks like a womman, she has all the right curves for a
> womman... she talks like a sailor though...
Me? No way.... I am innocent I tell you, innocent! (I exclaim as they make me
walk the plank.)
Hey, wait Dave, don't be giving all those jolly tars on the hearts of oak a bad
name.
Janey "On the jack stay, Red Brick"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Ken Koleda wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
>
> > I think the main concern here seems to be that the sending of this letter will
> > harm you, by affecting TLC's view of you/our AFOL community?
>
> That's one of the more prominent. Others could include discouraging newcomers
> to the hobby, painting Lego enthusiasts to the general public in a bad light,
> etc. But since we're intrinsically linked to the Lego Company (there are no
> other sources of Lego) yes, this is my major concern.
>
> > However, I don't think the letter, even as it is, will have any adverse affects.
> > What could happen?
>
> I think I've gone over this before. For isolated enthusiasts, not a heck of a
> lot. But for large groups, such as large LTCs, etc, it could mean:
>
> -Losing the opportunity to do cool events jointly with Lego. eg, Roadshow.
>
> -Missing out on Fan-Company projects like Lego Magazine models (which our group
> has participated in), My Own Creation (James Mathis and Daniel Siskind's models)
> etc.
>
> -Not having support/materials such as... eg, Event Kits, AFOL magazines, Train
> Posters, direct mailing support for train shows.
>
> -Less participation in Fan events such as BrickFest: eg, Brad Justus giving
> keynote talks, product prerelease unveilings etc.
>
> ...just to name a few. Note, pretty well all of this has been mostly the work
> of Jake. And while not every colour change poster dislikes Jake (a
> generalization I made incorrectly), I don't believe the comments from certain
> peanut gallery members in regards to our Community Liaison help.
>
> I certainly wouldn't want to be called a liar, then turn around and push
> initiatives inside the company on behalf of such folk.
>
> Now, would these things disappear? I don't know. I personally see the link, I
> don't know if everyone agrees with me or not.
Calum,
I agree that there potentially *could* be some loss of support to the AFOLs from
TLC. That's hard to predict, but... presumably as often is said, TLC is
business. Presumably, the support/attention the AFOLs get form them is viewed
as a good business decision. I just can't see them writing off the AFOLs as a
result of some nasty letter writing.. or massive whining by a few. It's
possible they get many more nasty-grams from Joe-Q-parent on topics like bent
stickers in sets.
On-the-other-hand, if the support to AFOLs is simply insignificant to them, then
perhaps the extra grief they get from working with us could, I suppose, tip the
balance. Too many unkowns on this aspect.
> > and a venue for greiving the loss. Some folks need to greive more publicly than
> > others. Please let them.
>
> a) People may grieve (or whine)
>
> b) We may mock them for this and tell them to get over it.
>
> c) Others may say, "you shouldn't criticise them"
>
> But the same provision for a) should cover the provision for b) which is what c)
> was complaining about.
>
> Calum
On this last part though, I think the disconnct is in a). While it's hard for a
lot of AFOLs to see this as other than whining... the response or feelings
thatoccur must be a spectrum and on the extreme end it is more akin to grieving
a deceased loved one. Okay, maybe not quite that much, but close.
If you can accept that the whining is part of the grieving process...
then is it helpful or "proper" [for lack of a better term] to criticize people
that are grieving?
I prefer the consolation approach.
1- There will be boatloads of used light gray, dark gray and brown hitting
bricklink for years. The lasg time on that must be like 6-10 years..before kids
give it up and it hits garage sales. Quality used brick can be found.
2- There is a practical limit to how much lego an AFOL can use in a lifetime. {I know this is hard to believe, but I am convinced -- okay, maybe).
BTW, I've told people [in real life] to "just get over it." If I recall
correctly it has never worked, not a single time. Sometimes it resulted in
physical pain to me too! :-)
-Ken
|
|
|
