Subject:
|
Re: IBLTC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:17:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
463 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > > Can this include clubs which don't call themselves LTC's but exhibit layouts
> > > at train shows, like VLC?
> >
> > I don't see why not, NELUG, NALUG, and NCLUG members have all expressed
> > interest and all do train shows. I don't see why "LTC" in your name would
> > be a prerequisite of membership.
>
> I would tend to agree, I suspect Steve's intent was to be inclusionary not
> exclusionary. But if any of the following are true, I would think that the
> club may not have a compelling need to belong (other than for informational
> reasons):
>
> - The club has a subclub or affiliated club that IS an LTC (c.f.
> WAMALUG/WAMALTC)... in that case why would WAMALUG need to help? WAMALTC can
> do fine on its own. There is membership overlap anyway.
> - The club has stated they have no interest in trains, never have, never
> will. (not very likely, but a hypothetical)
>
> If a club doesn't have a compelling need to belong, should it? Belonging
> implies work.
If this gets off the ground, it seems fairly likely to me that it will
either claim to be (or even more likely, be perceived as) speaking for all
LEGO train displayers - at which point there is a certain responsibility for
the org to give any displayer opportunity for input. So yah, about the only
groups that don't need to be allowed are groups that don't display LEGO trains.
As an aside, I've got a mild preference for IOLTC, and a stronger preference
for avoiding anything obviously controversial. IBLTC has proven to be so.
I would also say that belonging doesn't necessarily imply work, but it
certainly implies agreement and approval. I suppose the 'work' is
contingent on what exactly this uber-LTC is aiming to accomplish. ATM, it
seems like what's being proposed is a fairly informal place to discuss
meta-issues, and a shortcut phrase to give other organizations the
understanding that there is a larger community doing this (LEGO trains).
Not much work involved or implied, so far.
Correct me if I'm mis-understanding, neh?
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: IBLTC
|
| (...) I would tend to agree, I suspect Steve's intent was to be inclusionary not exclusionary. But if any of the following are true, I would think that the club may not have a compelling need to belong (other than for informational reasons): - The (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
