Subject:
|
Lugnet clone handling? (was: Re: LEGO clone auction)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:38:07 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs%StopSpam%.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
1106 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > Hmm.. This IS perplexing.
> >
> > Todd Lehman wrote:
> >
> > > Like the rest of the site, the .market.* hierarchy is for LEGO® brand
> > > toys.
> >
> > <charters snipped>
> >
> > That means that my post about the availability of tee shirts was OFF
> > TOPIC there! Yikes. Is that what you intended?
>
> I think Lego FAN items (web site announcements, tee shirt sales, events,
> alternative RCX software, etc) do belong in the normal groups. Non-Lego
> building systems belong in the clone-brands group. Modifications of Lego
> bricks and inclusion of non-Lego materials when Lego has no real
> alternative I would think would be generally appropriate in the regular
> groups (though the line might be different in various groups, I can see
> the robotics and possibly trains areas being more lenient than other
> areas).
I don't follow the philosophy behind excluding anything clone from the
normal hierarchy of groups. It seems like everything would be easier if
the charters were taken a little loosely and only when someone was being
problematically off-topic would they be pushed off to post somewhere
else. Really, I think the names of the groups are good enough
indicators of what's supposed to be there and the topics discussed
(maybe with a few groups as exceptions) should be (and will be, anyway)
a little fuzzy but centered on the intended topic.
If there is a good argument for why I'm wrong (I mean better than "this
is owned by Todd and Suzanne and they can do whatever they want" - which
I agree with totally) I would appreciate hearing it.
Also, as for use of the market groups for clones, I would rather have
them in the normal market groups than doing market stuff in non-market
groups. It doesn't affect me since I won't read the clone groups, and I
won't buy the clone parts, but from a newsgroup-use purist standpoint, I
think this would be better. And from a community-building standpoint,
having people who use clones and Lego(tm) building bricks feel like
they're being ostracized is counterproductive.
Reflected in some recent and historic posts is a seemingly neurotic
aversion to clone bricks. What is the origin of this? I'm not
interested in MegaBlocks because
they feel cheap and sort-of smoosh together instead of snapping together
like Lego, but it seems that for some Lego is the religion competing
against others. What's the deal?
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO clone auction
|
| (...) I think Lego FAN items (web site announcements, tee shirt sales, events, alternative RCX software, etc) do belong in the normal groups. Non-Lego building systems belong in the clone-brands group. Modifications of Lego bricks and inclusion of (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
