Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet.lego.direct and its charter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:19:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2698 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
> After reading the .lego.direct charter, I was unclear if this message
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1854 was appropriate for the group.
> Further digging led to http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=6 where I
> concluded that message #1854 was not appropriate due to its use of a
> "tabloid-like" tone.
>
> I have no quarrel with good, thought-out complaints, but IMO (and as far as
> I can tell about Lugnet in general), a subject line like "Lego's Dirty
> Trick" has no place in such a group, and it is ultimately self-defeating to
> the community, especially when it's the .direct group. I found the message
> to be reactionary and completely negative, despite what the author might
> think about how it might spur TLC onto more productivity. If I were in a
> position of reading .direct posts for TLC, posts like that would make me
> think that the group was not mature enough for primetime.
>
> Given the tenuous state of the AFOL relationship with TLC, could
> .lego.direct's charter be enhanced/clarified to include the spirit of the
> group found in message #6?
Hmm... after reading http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27635 maybe my idea
ain't such a good one.
Oh well... it's just a bunch of plastic toys. What was I thinking anyway? :-P
-Tom McD.
when replying, to avoid non-stickage, use Pam on your spam.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Lugnet.lego.direct and its charter
|
| After reading the .lego.direct charter, I was unclear if this message (URL) was appropriate for the group. Further digging led to (URL) where I concluded that message #1854 was not appropriate due to its use of a "tabloid-like" tone. I have no (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
