Subject:
|
Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 May 2000 20:04:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
664 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Let's please not make a big deal about this. Scott used the wrong tense
> > of a verb, that's all, and as a result he accidentally made a false
> > statement.
>
> I have no intention of getting involved in semantics here, but I'd just
> like to say that I 100% did not mean that LEGO 100% funds LUGNET. If anyone
> thought that this is what I meant - oops.
I knew what you meant, and I didn't think you meant 100% funding. It's just
very important to me to correct an ambiguity for something so important.
In my mind, your statement "Lego funds Lugnet" (false) implied that LEGO
has funded, funds, and continues to fund (at least in part) LUGNET -- and
that simply isn't true.
Rather, LEGO (or more accurately, BradJ on behalf of LEGO) has made a one-
time financial contribution. There may be more in the future, or there may
not. Brad has said (I quote from memory) "...and I think it won't be the
last," which implies that there _may_ be more in the future, but at this
point, Brad's contribution is the first, the last, and the only contribution
from LEGO. Thus, it isn't correct to say "funds" in the present tense.
If, on the other hand, LEGO were to begin making periodic or even sporadic
but multiple contributions, then I believe it would be correct to say "funds"
as in "does fund," with details of course. To date, the total membership
payments and all other donations (including Brad's) account for somewhere
between 7% to 9% of what it has cost (in time, resources, and labor) to get
LUGNET to this point so far. That isn't to say we aren't incredibly grateful
for what has been contributed financially by others, but until the membership
numbers are up in the thousands, it's still done at great personal sacrifice
(but a labor of love, naturally! :).
> What this shows that words can very easily be interpreted in different ways
> by different people, and it is important to be clear and unambiguous. :-)
Indeed! :) :)
Best,
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
| (...) That you know it's between 7 and 9% implies that you are using a labor rate for your time... would you be willing to share what that nominal rate is? (Just an idle curiousity question. I suspect that to many of us, the intrinsic WORTH is of (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
| Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FuM8At.4sJ@lugnet.com... (...) as (...) fund (...) LUGNET. (...) Todd (...) of (...) statement. I have no intention of getting involved in semantics here, but I'd just like to say that I 100% (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
43 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
|
|
|
|
