|
|
 | | Re: Brickbay subgroup again
|
| (...) I like this idea. (Brickshelf has an .announce subgroup) (...) I like this idea even better! (Brickshelf, unlike Brickbay, isn't likely to get competition...) However, for this to work, Dan has to be able to make time to post stuff. He may (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: UKLTC has arrived
|
| (...) Maybe that's what I'm getting at-- exactly *what* is he forming, and *why*? To me, LTCs are not virtual; in fact, they are quite the opposite. Instead of LTDs hanging out together online, it is LTDs hanging out together *in public*, sharing (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: UKLTC has arrived
|
| (...) Kyle, you hit the nail right on the head. When I conceived of the ELTC, I invited people to join knowing that membership is their choice. I intended ELTC to supplement LUGNET, not replace it in any way (God knows my website-making skills are (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: UKLTC has arrived
|
| (...) Speaking purely as a noser spectator here ;] I don't see the problem in somebody "unilaterally" forming a group. Sitting around and waiting for a group of people to build consensus on how to form a group is like, well, sitting around and (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: UKLTC has arrived
|
| I'm glad you mentioned that, Huw, because I was thinking the same thing. I also was wondering about utilizing such a wide-scoping name-- Sam, have you discussed this with anyone, or is this some sort of unilateral move? Personally, I feel that if (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jun-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: UKLTC has arrived
|
| "Sam Hastings" <samjh@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GEs6zt.A1x@lugnet.com... (...) Personally I fail to see the benefit of these 'breakaway' Yahoo discussion groups. I am perfectly happy talking with US Lugnetter's about all aspects of LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jun-01, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Brickbay subgroup again
|
| I know this has come up before, but I'd like to request a new group dedicated to BrickBay. Since BrickBay has its own discussion forum, this would likely be limited to shop announcements and BrickBay status, for instance when it is offline or (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 3033 inventory
|
| (...) Yup, quite a few people have done this in the past. For example: (URL) also remembering seeing a post from somebody who did a statistical analysis using a large number of tubs to look for variations. It linked to a web site with pretty bar (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jun-01, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 3033 inventory
|
| I do not know if there is a inventory for this set but if you have brought one of these sets and think that someone has got to it before you here are the amount of each brick, cheers black blue green red white yellow 1x1 20 40 12 40 40 40 1x2 28 60 (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jun-01, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Invoice for Brickbay Order #16688
|
| I can't get in touch with him mmmm, I might have to cancel the order... -- Michael Please reply on medwards@ukonline.co.uk Lugnet Member# 151 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lego Magazines from the Past (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Invoice for Brickbay Order #16688
|
| i was wondering why you posted personal info on other guy in here. hope other guy isnt too upset. -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Michael Edwards" <medwards@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:GEIqyI.5qH@lugnet.com... (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Supporting RFC1738 URLs
|
| Hi, I noticed that the URL in the article below (URL) not get recognized as a an URL, even though it follows the standard set in RFC1738. Well, only the first part of the URL gets recognized. See the section "APPENDIX: Recommendations for URLs in (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Membership
|
| (...) You are correct. ;] It's pretty nifty. KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Membership
|
| (...) You are correct. I joined about 2 months ago (member #1000) and received my password by email one day after Todd received my payment via Paypal (I don't know if he is always so quick though). Ken (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Membership
|
| (...) Ditto. I'm not stressing over it since it seems to make little difference to anything. As Larry P says, the sign-in password is the main thing. Kerry (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: I'm back...
|
| (...) good point - guess web posting is easy to put a password on... nntp should be doable, though I've never played with it... as for email, guess the authorization email back to the sender method would work... Dan (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: I'm back...
|
| (...) One problem with any kind of opt-in security or member-only security, is that it does not protect the *community*. While spoofing someone's id does damage to that one person, it also damages the entire community. And if anyone can be spoofed, (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: I'm back...
|
| (...) Of course, once authenticated as anybody, you can post as anyone else with ease, neh? (23 years ago, 29-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
