 | | Re: The LEGO Racers theme should have its own newsgroup.
|
|
(...) Even though Bionicle had the 'Technic' label once, it still has its own newsgroup here. Plus most of the Racers sets are in no way Technic as pointed out in another post in this thread. So IMHO 'Racers' MORE than deserves its own newsgroup. (...) (21 years ago, 6-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: The LEGO Racers theme should have its own newsgroup.
|
|
(...) I would say the answer is "no"... (URL) seems like they're just being more selective with using that title. -Paul D. (21 years ago, 6-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: The LEGO Racers theme should have its own newsgroup.
|
|
(...) The Technic name still exists on the boxes of 2003 sets such as 8454, 8455, 8453, 8438 etc. Now, if ALL Racers sets were Technic flavored, there would be no point in having a separate newsgroup (just as there is no point to have a World City (...) (21 years ago, 6-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The LEGO Racers theme should have its own newsgroup.
|
|
(...) Maybe. I think 'Racers' is a branding thing that LEGO has choosen to do. To explain, sometime around the beginning of the 2002 set year, LEGO deleted the Technic moniker from most (possibly all) set boxes. Various Bionicle sets, which had (...) (21 years ago, 6-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: password reset request
|
|
(...) Is there any way I could get a reset before 2004? Please? (21 years ago, 6-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | The LEGO Racers theme should have its own newsgroup.
|
|
Granted, many sets of theme are Technic flavored (those with mostly technic parts), and many are slighly Town flavored (those with a minifig, pull back motor and mostly bricks/plates). But the theme still hasn't got its own LUGNET newsgroup, and (...) (21 years ago, 6-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions) !
|
| |
| | Re: Who is in charge of what? (not a curator question)
|
|
(...) Thomas Garrison and I are data base administrators. Not sure who the others are. I believe there are other areas of administration that people other than Todd have. Frank (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Who is in charge of what? (not a curator question)
|
|
(...) From the top of my head and not meant to be an exhaustive list (I agree that a consolidated list of people/things would be good) There are no moderators per se, because LUGNET is not a moderated system, posts only get cancelled (barring (...) (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Who is in charge of what? (not a curator question)
|
|
Is there a page, list or anything that will tell us who is in charge of the different aspects of Lugnet, and what they can do? I know Todd has been looking to delegate some duties here, and I have no idea if he has or has not, and if he has then to (...) (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Changing Email Addresses
|
|
(...) Hey Kevin, Thanks for the note--and no, I hadn't tried that, because of precisely what you mentioned. I had expected that there would be another way to do it but apparently there isn't! I must think over this. best LFB (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) I think it would be instructive for you and everyone else that is concerned about this matter (all 3 of you :-) ) to review Todd's original (URL) post> especially the last sentence: "However, in the process I expect you in turn to respect the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) wisdom? (...) You know, I've been wondering the same thing for about 2 weeks now. He must be on Ridilin or something... I have never seen such straight, to the point, and tactful posts from him before! I had always assumed he was one of the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) Hear Hear! Dave K -'Tis amazing, inn't it that Scott has become the voice of rationale and wisdom? :) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
I'm disappointed that MC's constructive post has been used as and excuse for axe grinding by the usual suspects. Scott A (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) Why must the painfully obvious constantly be pointed out to you? A. Because this is the only newsgroup I can currently reply to. B. Because it *IS* an administrative matter. But while we are here... Why the devil does it matter to you or Lar? (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Marchetti wrote: (snip) (...) "Letter of the TOS"? Really. Tell me how exactly your post is anywhere near on topic for .admin. Grow up. JOHN (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) I completely agree he was rabble rousing and fully aware of it. Also arguably as egregious with its "in your face" attitude was his flaunting the fact that he was posting with a dead email address and not providing a good one. But I saw no (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) That's pretty funny coming from you, Lar. You are absolutely the biggest baby in this sandbox and I think everyone knows that fact -- you have stated as much to me via private emails in the past. Sadly, neither this site nor real life is a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) I would vigorously dispute that. In fact I already have, and the person I disputed them with was satisfied that what I was getting at was that Richard acknowledge that he erred, acknowledge that he doesn't get a pass because he's an Angry (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Information War (actually re: seriously)
|
|
(...) Hop Frog cannot answer you because he has been banned. BTW, about the ban... what I would have suggested is a blanket ban with a definite time frame. He obviously posted knowing full well he was in violation of the TOS so a ban is in order. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
