 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Sadly the children tend to be the ones using the most unacceptable vernacular. (...) Yeah.. sure let the fox guard the henhouse. (...) As me Pappy used to say.. Sic' Em Boys! (...) I think we should give Lar a large Lego Bat to enforce the ToU (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: ?<snip> (...) I won't speak for others, but I believe that the admins have the right and responsibilty to enforce the ToU. It is, after all, your house--should your ToU in your house require all people (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The current process is unweildy, but it's what we've got now. This issue, among others, is helping to define what the policy and process *should be* rather than what they are right now. But as it stands, that's what it is, and that's what we (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote: <snip> (...) I'm more than willing to give Larry the benefit--when passions are high, things get said in 'the heat of the moment'. That said, the consistant way in which the issue is overlooked and in (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) What a class act... I suppose the Admins will tell us that Larry's post doesn't technically violate the new (URL) posting guidelines>: Repeated abusive language or personal attacks, i.e. bringing more heat than light to a discussion... also (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !!
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Ken Dowd wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> As a Christian, I used to 'take offense' to OMG. But over the last decade, I write (and say), "Oh My Goodness!" so that's how I choose to read OMG now. You'd have to do something pretty (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Interesting point - the difference between profanities and vulgarities. Here on Lugnet mild instances of taking God's name in vain occur seemingly without making a blip on the radar. But, personally, I find a post like, "OMG! That MOC is (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Deep down I'm extremely worried about the future of this website. When we have an issue like this, where well intentioned people (not me, mind you--I have an apparent issue realizing where I screwed up) who point out very valid concerns about (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Bingo! This one didn't seem to raise any eyebrows at all, but drop an f-bomb and you're banned until you recant. The enforcement mechanism obviously needs some tweaking : ) Like David K. said instituting a filter is about as even handed as we can (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Bye. Just remeber, the loss is entirely yours. I'm just curious, do you have a driver's licence? If so, when you got it, you agreed to obey all of the traffic laws, including the speed limit. So, if you get caught for speeding, are you going to stop (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Still a violation and not just *my personal* interpretation. We already covered this the last time JoJo pulled this stunt. Quoting that word will not be tolerated. The rules are what they are. LUGNET is run the way it is run. Do not violate (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, the relevant part from (URL) is this: "His attempt to run around the suspension by posting exclusively in admin.general..." Len identifies Richard's choice to post exclusively in admin.general (which he was explicitly required to do) as (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Your interpretation. If the >'s were still in the post, and I didn't do any editing at all, and the entire post appeared with mine, then where does that get us. Furthermore, you are ignoring the greater issue where we say "Profanity bad! Must (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) One message from Larry is "all hell"? Tempest/teapot. Mountain/molehill. Though AFTER your post, a pale rider on a pale horse trotted by followed by with his entourage, which I suppose qualifies. :-) (...) I must say that I regard the (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) This post was a violation of the ToS, regardless of where it was posted, even if only to admin.general (URL) it occured after he was warned that he needed to comply with the ToS or else. Hope that clears up your confusion. (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) True but irrelevant. You quoted, which was your choice. Therefore it was your action, your transgression. All else is smoke. (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, I was responding to the phrasing in (URL) this post> in which you wrote If you refuse to acknowledge that the ToS applies to you (a la Marchetti), then you will be suspended until you acknowledge it. I inferred from this (perhaps (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) And you very well know as a libertarian that one is not responsible for other people's actions. If someone sprays grafitti on a wall, yet I take a picture of that, I am not responsible for the grafitti. Just as if I quote a person who has (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) IMHO, I think the policy is fine. IMHO again, I think the problem that keeps popping up has to do with the (enforcement) mechanism. Seperate the policy from the mechanism. Examine each seperately. Look for alternative ways of enforcing the (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I agree that one can write Carlin's 7 words on the internet(s--for Dubya fans out there). That said, if I was the owner of a website and this website allowed other pepople to post stuff, and one of my rules was that no 'foul language' can be (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) He said the H-word! He said the H-word! Pick up the stones! (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) LOL, this is so cultural. I have had a lot of contact with youth from the Swedish equivalent to Assemblies of God. They would never ever take the Name in vain or mention the opposite of Heaven if they aren't talking about that final (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) ...and I thought I was a cynic! ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Shame on you. (Re: Bye, bye LUGNET & hello world.... )
|
| (...) Essentially, that sounds like a highly subjective judgment. This thread makes it apparent that a number of members have concerns about the Admins' judgment in this area. I think we would be prudent to reconsider our whole approach to this (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Wait, wait! Where's the "I love LUGNET" post. Bring it on...*that* will make all the bad things go away... -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Hear, hear. And perhaps that would cut down on the 'censorship whiners.' LUGNET is privately owned, it is NOT the public square. I really wish people would get over themselves. Anyways, it's not like I read in-depth enough for this to effect (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect. Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip would be taken care of most of the time. I (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) I second that, Jason. Lugnet is one of the last forums on the 'net where admins don't moderate posts directly. Fortunately, direct editing hasn't been needed often. But in some cases, it was needed. Ofcourse, asking the poster to do it himself (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) A chat site that my wife used to use had a similar profanity replacement program, it replaced the words with amusing alternative that sometime gave a clue to the original word. However, with a bit of testing it was obvious that: A: There were (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) if/when? Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins. I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I wrong in this assumption? M (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
| | | | | Forced voluntary self-censorship?
|
| So its not censorship but "voluntary" self-censorship backed up by force? In short, this is like a gouvernment that says: "Oh, we are not going to torture you. AI is against this, and we need the good image. But we won't release you from prison (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I like how you are "asked" to do something, but yet if you do not reply, or do not agree to what is being "asked" you are suspended. So, what is the point of asking? Why not say the plain and simple truth - "look, we delete your post of you (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I have no immediate problem with lugnet's rules. And for that manor I have no problem with the implementation of censorship here. I only object to the claim that it's not censorship. (...) Well the admins, mostly Larry, have stated repetedly (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) LUGNET *was* too peaceful for too long. It's about time. The place is starting to feel normal again. -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) You aren't considering how "heavy" the enforcement it is for the admins. I think that the particular model selected by Lugnet is unecessarily tough for the admins, and this example illustrates that. (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) (URL) I do>. The post you replied to wasn't necessarily me speaking as an admin, although I can see how you might make that mistake. Your point is taken that admins need to be crystal clear when they are speaking "for" LUGNET. (...) I don't (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) From a site listing Carlin's 7 words: "So far we can still write them on the Internet, at least until the thought Nazi's finally get their wish and reduce the limits of content to that which is suitable for two year olds." Food for thought. M (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Fair point. Kelly is having some tech problems though, so please forgive if he just signs at the bottom till we get that fixed. (not speaking officially here, I haven't yet in this thread.) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: When speaking as an official representative of LUGNET, please make it clear by using the special symbol that Todd and others use. You presume we all know who you are and that is an invalid assumption. (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) K, you are sooooo talking to the wrong guy about this one. If it were up to me, right now every bridge, every overhead sign, everything along the highway system, would have a photo radar installed. Give me 10 grande to install the first,then (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) This is something people need to really think about. I have a gut feeling that all the admins (with perhaps the exception of Todd) are having these feelings. Big question: Do you folks want Lugnet to continue and prosper? Or do you want to (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Bring on the Calum post!!!!!! Those are the best part of these things! Dave K (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Hi Lenny! (...) In fact there is no explicit 'no cursing' policy. All there is on 1000steine is the usual 'net etiquette', everybody is held to try to be pleasant and polite. Of course no illegal content is allowed in any case. Most of the time only (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Do you insist on a speeding ticket every time you speed, or else repeal of all speeding laws? This "sometimes the admins spot it and sometimes they don't" is a red herring in my view. We spot what we spot, and we spot what people bring to our (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I'll 3rd that suggestion. I don't mean that as any sort of "please go" but simply to agree that Rene, Ben, Axel, Holger, etc. are great guys and it's often fun explore new online communities. Also, I've heard nothing but good things about (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Willy, I'd like to 2nd Ben's suggestion. If Lugnet isn't your cup of tea, then 1000steine might be. I've met Rene and Ben in person and both are excellently nice guys. Ben, Are you meaning to say that 1000steine doesn't have a 'no cursing' (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Jojo, Maybe you could explain to me why you have a problem with the rule, and then why you have a problem with us enforcing the rule. Your spitefulness seems to be coming out of nowhere - as if you demand the right to use curse words and (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| I was going to respond by saying you're a big drama queen. But, at the time I'm writing this, 10 people have spotlighted your post and made it headline one. It currently rests over Joe Meno's very outstanding accomplishment at LEGO®Palooza. Thats (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) I think this would make Lugnet a better place. And so I say "Please moderate me!" -Jason (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Kelly, I think you misspelled "poopstorm." Anyway, that reminds me: when the posting authentication stuff went in a few years back, the architecture underneath was such that a post goes through "stages" of life: submitted, pending, then live (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Ciao Willy! Kopf hoch, laß Dich nicht ins Bockshorn jagen! Ja, diese Zensur hier ist perfide und albern, und grundsätzlich solidarisiere ich mich mit Dir*. Aber diese Praktik sollte Dich nicht daran hindern, weiterhin in dieser Gemeinschaft aktiv zu (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru' would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#. The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5. Dave K (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) That's my sticking point too... we can technically put a filter in place, but that won't stop people from going around it. If they are going to violate the ToS, they're going to work at it. It's more a matter of understanding that rules are in (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Perhaps rather than removing (or editing) the posts, the posts containing potentially offensive verbage should be quarantined. That is, insert a warning page in front of the post indicating that the moderators have determined that it might (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Hello Terry, Larry is really a great guy once you get to know him. Yes, he can be brash at times, but he means well. Lord knows I've had my disagreements with Larry, but we work through those and we are the better for it. (...) Larry brings a (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote: -snip- (...) Hey Dave, Thanks for the thoughtful responce. The effort has been to fully enforce incidents of cursing, regardless. I've suggested a few times in enlisting more people as 'Mods' for whom (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking myself, actually. But how do we solve the legal liability problem? No other site seems to care about it as much, but part of why this policy is the way it is, (IIRC from the discussions back (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Censorship (was Re: Bye, bye LUGNET)
|
| (...) I can only speak to the ease of implementation, but I believe it should be pretty simple. Maybe 3-4 files that will need to be edited, assuming we don't get fancy and allow custom filter-word-lists. (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote: <snip> I want it known that I wrote this before Larry posted his tirade!!! ;) I was just slow in the composition so it shows up after his rant... Dave K (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote: <snip> (...) *cough* /toggle filter on *cough* ;) Yes times change, but what word out of Carlin's 7 is appropriate now to post on LUGNET as opposed to when they first came out? Simple--none. Not one of (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) That's almost the issue. I think the issue is that the admins say it's 'asking' when in fact it's 'forcing'. Yes, you can choose not to cancel your post, and leave LUGNET forever, or you can give in. It's like saying "I'm not robbing you, I'm (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote: -snip- (...) I'm not sure if he was demanding special treatment, as much as he just ignored the rules and then said the rules shouldn't apply (whether to him specifically or to the whole of lugnet). The point (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Terry Prosper wrote: <snip> (...) must... resist... cliche... (...) For the most part--k, for 99 percent of the part, I think Larry is a guy who steps up and does what he thinks is better for the community. At least he (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| I'm writing this as a user of Lugnet, not particularly as an Admin. I'm writing this way to get the reactions of other users in this concept. == If Lugnet has added 'no cursing' to the ToU for the expressed purpose of making this site friendly to (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) That's exactly right. The note he posted excerpts from was not the first note, or even the second, but rather the third. The first note merely asked if he meant to use the word choices he used, and asked if he wanted to cancel. What I got back (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Taking no sides here, as I do not know the person, but Chris, with all due respect, your post is insulting to me. I use this word as I please and I do not feel less intelligent because of it. "Maybe you should study a little"? What are you, (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) As much as I dislike the condemnation of single words without context, given the society in which we live, there are certain words to which this applies. (...) Larry's email is not indicative of a zero-tolerance approach to the issue. On the (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The policy itself is not intended to "cease offensive content" - see the following post for a more detailed explanation. (URL) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I thought maybe it was a either a "term of art" or a non-American English usage with which I'm not familiar. I still don't really get the point of its usage. (...) There is an important difference (at least important to Todd). It is at least (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [snip] (...) The goal behind the new policy is that we modify people's behavior so that some people don't get offended and leave, but the policy and its implementation is making people leave. Is this a good thing? Kevin (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Censorship (was Re: Bye, bye LUGNET)
|
| Forgot to answer this portion in previous post... (...) I think we'd all agree the current process is inherently inefficient and completely human-driven, and appears somewhat arbitrary. Nobody is arguing that something far better needs to be (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The admins are in the business of issuing value judgments, so I contend that any decision that they make can spark shouts of favoritism which is why this should be, at the very least, marginalized as a factor in a judgment if not disregarded (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) All day I've been trying to remember something--this reminds me of a movie I saw years ago-- (URL) - or the Gentle Art of Japanese Extortion Basically there were these 'not quite thugs' that would 'not quite intimidate' people into paying them (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [ snip ] (...) Not really - I think I understand pretty well your argument about language, and have no problem with it. (...) It's difficult to judge things like this accurately when the entire sequence of events isn't presented fully. Willy's (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I see your point, but I would not want to filter this one, for obvious reasons. (...) You don't need a foolproof language filter, nor can it be made 100% foolproof either, IMHO. When you take out the 'foolproof' requirement, this sort of (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) umm... I think you underestimate just how fast the lugnet server hardware is and that the posts are already indexed to be searchable. This url (which has been sanitized) found all occourances of one of 7 dirty words in 0.2 seconds. To get them (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Dear Willy, might I invite you to spend more time at the www.1000steine.com/forum ? That is now in fact one of the friendliest places in the internet and has a more professional administration as I would dare to judge. At least nobody there (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) It's your choice to accept LUGNET's rules as censorship. It's also my choice to disagree with that interpretation. It is what it is. - snip - (...) There has never been any intent to lie, and I don't see where it is a lie. The most direct (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) My post here should probably be in its own new posting, but I'll say it here for emphasis. It high time we created an explicit group just for gripes and complaining. For those that wish to read the gripes, they can log into that area, (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Woah, I just realized this was going to lugnet.general, and not to lugnet.admin.general. Should probably change the FUT! (...) Yep. There's a kazillion ways to get around it, and I'd probably just prefer it if the system caught casual accidental (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Posting problem
|
| (...) Wow, that is very weird. Can you give a pointer to the message that did post correctly? (...) Hmm, that's disturbing. I wonder if some hidden translation is happening on the From line somehow/somewhere which is confusing the known-name lookup. (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Posting problem
|
| I just attempted to reply to a FTX message. FTX was selected as the message format. I clicked Preview and then Send, and got the error message about making sure posting setup has been done, I've received the e-mail, etc. I tried to repost, no dice. (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (murfl)
|
| (murfl) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.org.it.itlug, lugnet.general) !!
| | | | | Re: lugnet.loc.us.ca.sd curator
|
| (...) My number is 2487, and I'm alrady a curator for SanDLUG (URL) as well. Thanks, Mathew Clayson (21 years ago, 24-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.curators, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.us.ca.sd, FTX)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.loc.us.ca.sd curator
|
| (...) According to the list of Curators available at the admin.curators sidebar (URL) here>, there is no curator for that group. What's your member ID#? -Lenny (21 years ago, 24-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.curators, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.us.ca.sd, FTX)
| | | | | lugnet.loc.us.ca.sd curator
|
| Who is the curator for lugnet.loc.us.ca.sd, San Diego California? If there is none, I'd like to do so. I'd like to set up some links to local AFOL groups in the area and a LL link in the sidebar. Mathew Clayson (21 years ago, 24-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.curators, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.us.ca.sd, FTX)
| | | | | Brick Convention requesting LUGNET newsgroup
|
| The organizers for the (URL) Chicago House of Bricks> would like to request the creation of the group: lugnet.events.houseofbricks (URL) Information about the event>. Also, in conjunction, we would request that (URL) Felix Greco> and (URL) Jason (...) (21 years ago, 23-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Posting setup (was Re: LDraw.org Contributer Agreement Status
|
| (...) I do to. I wish I had the time and inclination to write an NNTP client that would post via the web (it should be quite feasible). It would of course have to fill in the Lugnet login form for you to get the cookie (or figure out how to "borrow" (...) (21 years ago, 21-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Posting setup (was Re: LDraw.org Contributer Agreement Status
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...e.DOT.com> wrote in message news:IC4IE7.H1E@lugnet.com... (...) I wish it was like that for NNTP... :\ Rob (21 years ago, 18-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Posting setup (was Re: LDraw.org Contributer Agreement Status
|
| (...) Yes, if you are a member and you are signed in, as in that case you can be configured so that you do not get the confirmation email, your posts are accepted as is, with the email as configured the last time you went through posting setup (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Confusion updating email addresses
|
| (...) I think you are right. I get it confused and the only way I keep it straight is that I have put bookmarks in for all the key pages. (...) The current admins (and yes, this ought to be somewhere) are Todd, Frank, Lenny, Larry, Kelly (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Confusion updating email addresses
|
| (...) I'm glad you've found our thread. Hopefully the email thing is a knit and can be easily solved. I'd have for that to get in the way of the license process.. Please consider agreeing with our new license. Thanks, Kevin (21 years ago, 18-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Confusion updating email addresses
|
| (...) Larry, as I specified in my email to you, I updated my email address prior to posting. However, I did so via my profile page - it's been literally YEARS since I've had to go through the post setup page. IIRC, the last time I did so, that page (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Contributer Agreement Status
|
| (...) Because you hadn't yet went to the URL I pointed to, and/or no human had yet approved it. Reminder, this is it: (URL) and you should remember, there will be a lag, a human has to look at it and decide if it's valid. (...) Here's a hint back, (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: LDraw.org Contributer Agreement Status
|
| (...) For example: (URL) (just the one I picked off the top of my head) Those people that are getting mail but ignoring Orion... why? This is important. The impact to the entire community will be somewhat negative, we may have to run with two (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: LUGNET forum software?
|
| (...) I believe that it's running custom code that Todd wrote on top of a slightly modified OS nntp server. Powered by perl! (21 years ago, 16-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | LUGNET forum software?
|
| I'm sure this has come up before, but I can't find it in the mass of posts. What is the software that LUGNET uses to run the discussion boards? Is it off the shelf, custom, or somewhere in-between? Thanks, James Wilson Dallas, TX (21 years ago, 16-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Any chance someone can reset my password?
|
| (...) Which admins have you sent mail to so far? Thanks! (21 years ago, 2-Feb-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
