Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet.lego.direct and its charter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:44:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
362 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
>
> 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?
I'd like to know about this as well. The signal-to-noise ratio is
just too low in that group now. I've resigned myself to avoiding
the thing completely as it now seems to be a complete waste of
bandwidth. About all I find there is bickering over why TLC isn't
catering to our every whim.
By contrast, it seems that the traffic in the .dear-lego group is
very low..., unless it's cross-posted on messages that end up in
.lego.direct.
I've asked on several occasions for clarification of the charter
for these groups but not much has come of it. To me the bulk
of the material going into .lego.direct (and particularly the
volume) is inappropriate by the charter. But without a moderator
I guess that's to be expected.
Sorry if I sound pessimistic..., I'm trying to bait responses ;]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
