LUGNET NNTP Server & Clients : 1517


Administrative / NNTP / 1517

Why these news groups were created —

Todd Lehman

Long ago, when lugnet.people was created, the idea of subgroups was entertained. Possible subgroups envisioned at the time included Kids, Teens, Parents, and NSLOs. At the time, LUGNET was still small, and it was felt that creating these subgroups (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.announce, FTX) !!

Re: Why these news groups were created —Rob Hendrix

<MAJOR SNIPPAGE> (...) </MAJOR SNIPPAGE> A suggestion to help encourage the religious aspects LEGO and LEGO collectors would be to make a .religion group. Another group that could have a necessity here is a .politics group. If it's not only about (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Ross Crawford

(...) If you make a serious suggestion to implement those groups (and any others you feel would be useful), I'm sure it would be considered. I'm also sure the response to such a suggestion would be taken into that consideration, just as I assume it (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Kevin Wilson

Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) Call me soppy, but I choked up reading this bit. Todd - thanks. A lot. Kevin (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Eric Smith

(...) So if LUGNET is religion neutral, why can't it be sexually neutral too? If you don't see a need for a religious-oriented group, it follows that there's no need for this type of group either. You talk about how people can simply not look at (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Ross Crawford

(...) The difference being that there was a request for the lgbt group. (...) They are only on the front page because ENOUGH LUGNET MEMBERS THOUGHT THEY WERE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO HIGHLIGHT THEM!! It is not because the group is there. The whole (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

(...) And I completely concur--there were 8 new NG's, and yet one is getting all the attention. If people weren't pointing at it, or highlighting it, or yapping about it, nobody would have noticed it. There is no elephant in the livingroom--all this (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Lee Meyer

(...) [SNIP] (...) [SNIP] (...) That right Dave, only one group us getting attention - nobody asked people their opinions or requested the other seven. 'Leave it alone/Life goes on/get over it.' - you libs (ie your West Wing marathon clues me in on (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

(...) Well, if Todd didn't implement the group, and there was an uproar about that, I'd chime in and say *exactly* the same thing. But you don't know that about me.(1) It's Todd's backyard--if he says that the group gets added, the decision is made (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Lee Meyer

(...) [SNIP] (...) Like you really have to point out to anyone you're a socialist. I figured that out already from the way you're telling everyone to sit down, shut up and live with it. And apparently you don't read my posts to thoroughly - my last (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Tim David

(...) I can't see the direct link between socialism and 'telling everyone to sit down, shut up and live', sureley thats just a measure of intolerance, not how left or right you are. ( I will admit that those at the far right and the far left tend to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Gregory

(...) LUGNET currently has 2,500+ members. I've seen many times where a post has gotten on the LUGNET front page with just a single person spotlighting it. One person spotlights a gay post, and everyone who comes to LUGNET for the first time could (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Ross Crawford

(...) Yes, he does. I was simply pointing out that the posts don't get there by themselves. BTW I think only posts in .announce can get there with only 1 spotlight, anything else seems to require 3 or 4. I have, in fact, noted in the past that (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Richie Dulin

(...) Something can make it to the front page with only one spotlight? Sure: as long as those other 2,499+ members aren't spotlighting something else. If you don't want to see something on the front page, then spotlight something else! Spotlight (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) That's as logical as to conclude from one left-handed murderer that all lefties are murderers. And who would take the opinion seriously of somebody who comes to that conclusion? Bye Jojo (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Gregory

(...) I didn't say it would be logical for newcomers to assume that; just that they might (notice the word "could"). (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Jason Coronado

(...) man, oh man, have you crystalized my thoughts! i agree with everything you have just said. lugnet is just another facet of e-society (or society, for that matter) that the homosexual agenda has permeated (as if we are not bombarded with it (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Jason, we'll know when you've been "bombarded with it" enough when you accept homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable alternative to the majority sexual preference. Until that time, you need more exposure...even re-education. Chris (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Jason Coronado

(...) re-education? oh, i see...anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda is "uneducated". nice retort. i think i've heard that one before in elementary school: "if you don't play my game, then you're stupid!". perhaps you need more exposur to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Look Jason, I can't help it that you're wrong. I can't help it that you grew up in an abusive (if only mildly) environment. And I didn't say you were uneducated -- I said you were educated wrongly. We're not playing a game here. You're talking (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Jason Coronado

(...) i actually grew up in a loving environment that taught me that right and wrong are absolutes and nothing is relative. believing that has kept me out of trouble many times. And I didn't say you were (...) on the contrary--i'm not talking about (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) Then you've been lucky not to have been exposed to reality, since you have been given such an inadequate set of tools for dealing with it. If you are in a position to save either one innocent person or a pair of innocent people from certain (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Andrew Engstrom

(...) Sir, I see from your post that you have a child. Consider this: According to your reasoning, parents (you) must hate their (your) children because they are disobedient, poop in their diapers, write on the walls, and get the flu at the most (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) I beg your pardon? Do you actually hate these actions when performed by a child? That strikes me as a dangerous lack of self-control on the part of a parent. Wall-writing, diaper-pooping, and flu-getting are parts of being a child; a person (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Andrew Engstrom

(...) Sir, I do hate (or strongly dislike) the results of these actions. Can you honestly tell me that you enjoy (or would enjoy) painting over permanent marks on the walls, changing poopy diapers, and scrubbing vomit out of the carpet, in and of (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —James Powell

(...) hmm..."superstition-N. 1. Belief in the suernatureal;irrational fear of the unknwon. 2. Pracice, belief or religion based on this" "Natural-N 1a. Existing in or caused by nature. (skipped a few) 8.Physically existing." OED Therefore, from a (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Andrew Engstrom

Allow me to say: 1. It is the connotation of the word "superstition" that is unfair, not the strict definition itself. All book knowledge must be tempered with common sense. Othewise, I would not argue with your point here. 2. Everything is opinion (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —James Powell

(...) Yes it is tempered with common sense. What you are saying (that god exists, that he will punish gays) is not proveable. Therefore, you have a superstition that this is what will happen. No proof, no evidence in favour of it. If you have (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

Andrew, Two things: First, you're absolutely right in calling me one of the people stating opinion as fact. And I do know that I'm right. And please believe me when I tell you that I wish, more than almost anything else, that I was skilled enough at (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Insisting to have one's way at the undue expense of even a single person is bad, even if you're part of the majority. Figuring out who is bearing the greater burden is the tricky part, and in this case, preventing a group to speak freely of (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) That's not how you phrased the point, initially. You presented these actions in the context of a baby's actions, and that's how I addressed them. If you wish to change the question at this time, then you must either address or cede the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Ross Crawford

(...) This brings up an idea that has been through my head on several occasions - if you use the definition "part of nature" for natural, then what can be defined as unnatural? After all, everything on this earth has been created by nature, either (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Tim Courtney

(...) Well, everything that exists operates within the laws of nature, that doesn't mean it was created through natural processes. The natural ingredients and know-how that create a chemical concoction are natural, but the concoction itself isn't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Natural (was: Why...) —Ross Crawford

(...) Well, that's how I was leaning too, ie natural = occurs without human intervention. However, I have often heard the argument Dave used above, which seems to contradict that, or at least not fit it exactly. And I don't think I've ever seen a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) The term has invested with the connotation that I don't think it should have, honestly. In practice, the word tends to mean "altered by human intervention," but this definition is valid only if we declare that humans are not part of nature, or (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think your definition makes a lot of sense but the problem is that it doesn't give a distinguishing metric. (I've used that to great advantage when arguing against those that argue against "artificial flavours" for example). That said, what (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) I may be misunderstanding you, but are you identifying the lack of a point of distinction (between natural and unnatural or natural and artificial) as the problem? I'm not clear on this objection, I'm afraid. (...) Yeah, I guess it's a matter (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

It's only natural (Was Re: Why these news groups were created —Larry Pieniazek

(...) A problem for the other side, I guess, but yes, a problem. I know what the organic crowd is trying to get at, they'd rather not see manufactured banana flavourings in their milkshakes for example, and I know what the "homosexuality isn't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: It's only natural (Was Re: Why these news groups were created —Ross Crawford

(...) Well the only musical reference that comes to mind is the song "It's Only Natural" by Crowded House. Did they have an album of that name too? ROSCO FUT: .o-t.fun (20 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: It's only natural (Was Re: Why these news groups were created —Ross Crawford

(...) Which is on the album "Woodface" IIRC. ROSCO (20 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Frank Filz

(...) This is sort of how I feel. Of course it does seem to make unnatural a less useful term. Even supernatural is a difficult term, though it's use to separate God from God's creation (assuming you accept the existence of a creator god, or a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) **snip** (...) Here's a sweetheart of a quote that I can believe I forgot to mention: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You're citing Jefferson? You consider him "good company"? I'll have to remember that. :-) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) I've approached Jefferson several times with sure-fire business propositions, but he never returns my calls. Something about "entangling alliances." Dave! (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Yes, until they try to dictate the behavior of others based on their own sense of morality. You can be a homophobe all you want, but the line is crossed when you try to restrict them from having the same freedom to participate that heteros (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Andrew Engstrom

(...) Agreed, sir, but my point is simply that these people feel this way, whether they are being oppressed or not, and that is what they are reacting to. (...) Again, I agree, but in every case in life (not just this), a judgement call has to be (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Macro-Evolution" is a term used by pseudo-scientists. Inasmuch as evolution is merely change within a species over a very long time to the point that that species can no longer produce viable offspring with a former member of the same species (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) The line should always be drawn based on who is attempting to oppress another, not on whose view is "correct". That's the difference between preventing oppression and allowing the majority to oppress the minority. (...) Knowing that you're (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) A word in defense of this statement; Andrew offers this as an example of me asserting that I have access to infallible truth. At face value, I can see how my statement can be interpreted that way, though it is not an interpretation with which (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Jason Coronado

(...) reality, my good friend, does not always determine what is right and what is wrong. needless to say my children will know about the "reality" of homosexuality sooner than i ever did. but to say that, "homosexuality, kids, is a part of society (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —James Powell

(...) Perfect example of how laws have changed as regards to murder. At one time, it was acceptable to offer a duel to a party who insulted you. If one or the other of you died (was murdered), there was no criminal penalty. Both of you went into it (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) Tell me this: Is an action "right" because God says so, or is it "right" regardless of what God says? If the former, then it's an arbitrary moral system. If the latter, then God is subordinate to morality and therefore he's not supreme. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Things that are clearly wrong are those things that clearly harm others. Like abuse and neglect of children. Not like consensual sexual activities. Homosexuality isn't right because it's part of society, it's right because no one is harmed. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's exactly what I mean. Maybe it's not even your parents' fault. I'm willing to give that. Maybe they just didn't know better -- and now you don't. But it's still wrong. And raising kids, teaching them untruth as if it were truth, is (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) So at least you are against Death Penalty. Nice to hear that! Bye Jojo (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Jason Coronado

(...) alright, let me throw everything out on the table: i am a Christian conservative. i am pro-family (that is marriage between a man and a woman), pro-life (the right for an unborn, helpless child to live), and i adhere to the best of my ability (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) This "stay the course" attitude is laudable in some circles but is rightly recognized as irrational stubbornness by others. Can you conceive of any circumstance that would cause you to modify your views? Can you imagine any circumstance under (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

(...) Let me likewise then throw everything on the table-- I'm a Christian. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that humanity, as stated in Genesis, was put here to be stewards of the planet and, when we get out there, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not actually sure what happened. (...) What exactly did God say? Not being perfect, yourself, how do you know He said it instead of some guy with a pen? (...) Without questioning what you BELIEVE God thinks or wants, and knowing that you (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Let's Party!" -Dionysus Though I suspect you meant Jehovah... ;-) -->Bruce<-- Green-Eyed Devil's Advocate (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Jason Coronado

Re: Why these news groups were created —Ray Sanders

(...) Well said Todd. (...) May peace be unto you as well. Ray (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Edward Welsh

A big public thank-you to you, Todd, and the LUGNET Transition Team. I have subscribed to people.lgbt as a mailing list--my first! [LDrawPart 3004:373] -Teddy p.s. I guess I have a Yellow Brick Road to build now! (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Lee Meyer

In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman wrote: SNIP (...) SNIP As these new groups now exist, I feel no need to continue the debate about them. I do want to point out the fallacy that Todd espouses here about being religious-neutral and religious beliefs (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —David Eaton

(...) I can't say I agree-- by saying that, you're absolutely forcing LUGNET into a position of choosing a religion by arguing that something that's *unreligious* is a religion in and of itself. Hence, you could argue that nothing ever was (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Lee Meyer

(...) Hi Dave, the point I was trying to make was that when you deal with a topic that has moral/religious implications (such as homosexuality), if before the discussion has even begun, you state that religious factors will not be taken into (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —David Laswell

(...) Why not? Jesus did. Who did he hang out with all the time? The Scribes? The Pharisees? Or the people that they had labeled Sinners™? Which group are you representing right now? (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Jennifer Clark

"Lee Meyer" <leemeyer1@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:I4DGG3.yz4@lugnet.com... (...) separate (...) that (...) that is (...) LUGNET (...) If one were to base Lugnet decisions on faith, which faith system would one choose as the basis for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) There are no moral implications in the issue -- except for the immorality of behaving in a hostile manner toward a harmless minority, of course. (...) Out of curiosity, would it be more or less hostile to your particular religion if Todd (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Under your morality, perhaps. I recognise that different people hold different moralities, and under other moral systems, there may well be moral implications here. However I also hold the (somewhat unpopular and somewhat hard to prove (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, sure. I think that compared to at least some of the implications of "life affirming," I this that satisfaction of preference is a better metric of morality. What generates more satisfaction/happiness, rather than what generates more (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I guess it depends on the definition of "life affirming", as I don't see more life as necessarily better life. Being happy is very life affirming. But ya. (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote: <snip> (...) Don't certain faiths hold the average bovine in high esteem? Would that necessitate that all topics of conversation regarding having a 'LEGO Buildfest and BBQ at Biffs Place' be inherently a (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Some can. Like my father for example - who is a United Methodist Minister, and has been for the past 15+ years. He is a respected member of the Christian Community in Daytona Beach - and a friend of the Bishop for the United Methodist Church (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —David Eaton

(...) Just a quick aside, pretty much anything has implications in some religion or other. Lego altogether is an affront to the Amish I'm sure, since they don't even believe in using such technical marvels as buttons, let alone plastics and the (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Too Froody Zaphod (was Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is ) —Alfred Speredelozzi

(...) Oh man, we're really gonna need a towel. (...) Don't Panic! :p -Alfred (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Too Froody Zaphod (was Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is ) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote: <snip> (...) Did you sass that hoopy Alfred? He's a really cool frood who knows where his towel is... Dave K (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —David Laswell

(...) I'm not an atheist. I'm not even an agnostic. And yet I was one of the people lending strong support to the formation of some sort of LGBT-based group. (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is —Dave Schuler

(...) Uh, Lee? How do you define religion, exactly? Dave! (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Kyle D. Jackson

Todd, just a non-partisan comment here to say thank-you for making this post. Whether they agree or disagree with its content, I hope all the readers appreciate the fact that you provided some kind of "official statement". As a long time (albeit (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Rob Limbaugh

In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman wrote: <SNIP> (...) By taking the premise of this site and adding specific adult themed groups, you've opened the door for what so many parents cringe about the internet. Now, thanks to this unilateral decision, we (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX) !

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That hasn't happened. (...) And? (...) He said the Transition Team debated it. Isn't Tim a part of that group? (...) (URL) That could happen anyway.> (...) There are no adult-oriented newsgroups on LUGNET. (...) Probably because those won't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Rob Limbaugh

In lugnet.admin.nntp, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: SNIPPED useless/pointless commentary from both sides (...) Our kids are taught indifference. Part of that is by not teaching them to inappropriately label people (regardless of who wants the label). (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

(...) And I would concur with the general idea about assigning labels leads to the depreciation of folks. That said, here's a thing--hypothetical-- Gay person wants to talk about his gayness in relation to his hobby. Either he wants to ask advice on (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Frank Filz

(...) Is it truly an irrelevant detail? If it was, wouldn't that NOT create discrimination? True, on a day to day basis, for the most part, we don't care if any individual is LGBT, married, single, straight, young, old, or whatever. But Lugnet is (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Well, maybe it should be. (...) Maybe the purpose of LUGNET shouldn't be to create a community, but rather be a resource center for all things pertaining to LEGO. Boards are useful for communication among AFOLs, and many AFOLs have come to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) However, if certain people are uncomfortable posting in .general groups, or certain people are uncomfortable reading about certain things in .general groups, shouldn't there be sub groups made to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Uncomfortable posting what exactly? (...) That's my point. Why should there ever arise that kind of situation? If it is on-topic, what could possibly be the problem? (...) I assume you are talking about on-topic subjects that would belong in (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

(...) "Hi! I've made a new moc! It's a train car and it's all rainbow coloured! It's somethign I decided to be creative with, and I wanted a symbol of my homosexuality." Tell me how that would be received in .general, or .moc or anything not .lgbt. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Well, are you talking about discomfort for the poster or the group reading the post? To assume that everyone in .general is a "homophobe" is a bit extreme. If don't care for his post, he will never know about it if I post nothing in reply. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Rob Hendrix

(...) Egg-fricking-xactly (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

(...) Whereas I agree with the sentiment, as in 'Wouldn't it be nice if we all could just... get along...'--a real world example: People compartmentalize all the time. I rarely talk about my LEGO hobby to folks at work, with family and friends, and (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) John, it seems like the sum of your point is that there should be nothing on LUGNET that isn't directly about LEGO. If that's right, why do you contribute to .o-t.d? It seems a little off. Chris (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Because I am presenting a case to the admin, and also for the fact that I have decided to no longer contribute or participate in any group on LUGNET that is publically off-topic (I now have them skip-filtered in the meantime) But you are (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Eaton

(...) I disagree. To attempt NOT to create a community, you can't really have post-to-able boards, but instead something more like MOCpages or BrickShelf where there's room to post Lego creations, but no back-and-forth communication. Hence, asking (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) But you are talking about LEGO related questions, not personal questions. I have no problem with LUGNET boards that very specifically relate to LEGO. It's all of the personal stuff that I am questioning. (...) But they didn't get together (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Frank Filz

(...) Absolutely. The folks outside of my local LUG that I associate the most with are all friendships developed in .debate. I also wanted to add a comment to those who might wonder what does religion have to do with Lugnet: My previous post in this (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Frank, I totally honor and agree with everything you wrote-- we can't separate ourselves from ourselves and must be let to be who we are, but we can separate those real discussions that take place from the public. I don't believe that that (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) no more tiptoeing around expeletives? and you want to protect the children from .lgbt postings? Please clarify Dave K (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) I'm talking about making .people groups and other OT groups {private} and only accessible by 18 yo members. [JOHN] (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Koudys

(...) Ahh. That clarifies. That said, I'm 37 and I don't swear. I have seen 13 year olds swear like sailors--Just as there are teenagers who believe that they should have access to .lgbt. Are the teenagers to be excluded? Dave K (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Not the 18 and 19 year old ones;-) Teens always believe that they should have access to adult things! Just ask my 17 year old daughter about my Jeep Wrangler! Younger teens would have access to a new, Super-Friendly™ LUGNET, and adults would (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Frank Filz

(...) And what about someone under 18 who is just coming to grips with their LGBT sexuality who happens to feel like he's finally found a community here at Lugnet that he can trust to talk about it? Do we deny that individual the opportunity to grow (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) And what about a parent who wishes that their children not be exposed to these types of discussions that occur in public groups on LUGNET? (...) Yes, for the same reason that we accommodate people who'd rather those types of topics not be (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Parents who use the internet as a babysitter need to get their collective heads out of the clouds and get interested in what their kids are doing. The internet isn't safe, and it never will be without strict governmental control. And you know (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) There have always been bad parents, and there always will be bad parents. But that doesn't release Todd from choosing to make LUGNET completely kid-safe IMO (...) Exactly. Which is why we all need to take the responsibility on ourselves to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Neither does it obligate him. Parents need to start taking paying attention to what their kids are viewing online, and every attempt to make the internet kid-safe only reinforces their false beliefs that there is nothing that their kids can (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Of course not. All I'm saying is that if he wants LUGNET to be "kid-friendly", steps need to be taken to make it that way because I think it is getting too adult-oriented in certain areas. (...) Exactly. And when they do check out LUGNET and (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) LUGNET is a free, mostly self-regulating community of FOL's, primarily of the A- variety, but with a few T- and K- types thrown in as well. Putting stricter systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of conversation in so-called (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) How do you know this? Are you only considering members or posters? What about all of the people who use LUGNET as an online resource? And BTW, membership on LUGNET is most certainly not "free". (...) That is purely opinion with no basis on (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) The ages I've seen posted by LUGNET users generally range in the 18+ range, but a few have posted ages in the 13-18 group, and a few others have posted in the under-13 group (I can think of at least one person from each of the non-adult age (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Exactly. Hundreds if not thousands are directed to LUGNET via word of mouth (at train shows alone). What would they care about topics not relating to LEGO? (...) Quit? Rescinded their memberships? How do you know that? (...) I said the TOS (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Safety (was: Why these news groups were created) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure it is. I don't know anyone to have been harmed by it. Chris (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Tim David

At SIXTEEN a person can be married (in this country anyway (Britain)) You have to have a pretty good idea of sexuality for that (well hopefully anyway!) Tim (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Yeah, there will always be exceptions WRT to maturity below the age of 18 (and above, for that matter!), but 18 happens to be really convenient because every member stated truthfully that they were 18 or older when they signed up for LUGNET, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Firstly, yes, that would more-or-less work for existing usership, but new users would be free to lie all they want. Second, everything I've seen says that making a pointedly "adults only" section is just going to make the situation worse, as (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) I think it has always been thusly (that one could lie about their age). (...) I don't follow what you mean. The objectionable content would be masked from underage viewing. JOHN (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Parents won't always see it that way. Consider how they'd react if LUGNET proudly advertised that it had a gigantic porn library that was only accessible by those who signed up as being 18+. Setting up a section that's only accessible by (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Parents won't always see anything in any particular way, so I don't follow your logic here. (...) Consider how they'd react if LUGNET proudly advertised that it had a gigantic porn library that was accessible by anyone. I don't understand your (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Parents could look at it as securing all objectionable content away from their childrens' eyes, or the could look at it as a website that has content that's objectionable enough that kids shouldn't be using it at all. (...) Simply applying the (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) For .admin.nntp: LUGNET has to abide by certain societal restrictions for the sake of liability. In that sense, John's perfectly right. For .o-t.debate: Screw them! Parents withholding what it means to be human by shielding their kids from (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Fine. Now we know your position on the subject. Some, however, may want to take a different position WRT to parents who are deciding whether to allow their kids to use LUGNET. (...) As I have said before: clarity. You have stated your view. I, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Eaton

(...) Yep! Any way you slice it, once you let people start talking to each other in a back-and-forth manner, you're going to get community development. If you let people ask Lego-related questions and give Lego-related answers, I guarantee you that (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Rob Limbaugh

In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote: SNIP (...) Well put! (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Tim David

(...) I know that this is a small part of your argument but I fail to see the relevance of blocking parts of Lugnet to under 18 year olds. people under 18 can be 'Lavender' (I can't remember the acronym off the top my head!) Tim (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Actually, it is my whole argument:-) I know that 18 is rather an arbitrary number, but here in the US it is considered to be THE age at which adulthood begins legally (except to drink alcohol, but that is another topic altogether) JOHN (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Or to get married. Or for consent. Or, often, to be tried and punished as an adult. And lets not forget that most kids are officially taught sex-ed as early as jr. high, so that puts them in their early teens. Of course, "gay" gets thrown (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) That's not the point. What are you saying? That because someone can legally get married at age 16, adult content on LUGNET should be made viewable by a 7 year old? Because a 17 year old knows about same-sex relationships, a 10 year old should (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dan Boger

(...) Your whole argument seems to revolve around the idea that LUGNET will now have, or already has, inappropriate "adult content" in the NG. If that is the case, that's a violation of the TOS: (do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Please. Even the poster thought that the subject matter was getting (URL) too blue>(note his post script), but the admin apparently (URL) didn't>. (...) Well, let's be clear that the whole matter is entirely subjective anyhow... (...) Well, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) WHAT GRAPHIC CONVERSATIONS?!?!?!? LUGNET is not a sexetorium. The LGBT group (and again, it's pretty clear that your vocal objection to All Things Off-Topic stems from the addition of that group) is not a place for LGBTs to announce and (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Please. Go do a search for "oral sex", for instance, and you tell me. (...) I'll take your word for it, because I think you made it up;-) (...) That's not quite fair to say. I have always been a little uncomfortable discussing adult topics on (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) (URL) Just because you find content in other areas to be objectionable is no excuse to lay it at their feet. (...) Whoops, I spelled it wrong. It's "sexiteria". I was watching the TESB commentary when I typed this, so I couldn't just pop in (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Which is just as well, because I didn't. (...) Ah, I just bought the set tonite. So, in fact, you were actually referring to a word that the Futurama writers made up:-) (...) No, just all completely off-topic. (...) Why this fixation on the (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Frank Filz

(...) What do you mean by "sexual" content? Is mentioning that you have a wife sexual? Is a guy mentioning that he has a boyfriend sexual? Is you mentioning that you have a kid sexual? Is a woman mentioning tha she is pregnant sexual? Is mentioning (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Yes, I agree that everybody has different thresholds of what they consider to be appropriate and inappropriate. That is precisely why I would stay away from those type of arguments and simply categorize everything off-topic as being "adult". (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Frank Filz

(...) But what about when someone shows their wedding cake topper? Is that on-topic? If so, it is ok that it presents sexual content? Do the admin groups remain adult only because they're off-topic also? You have not provided a good reason why (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) If it is built out of LEGO-- yes. (...) Do you suppose that I'd be so pedantic to suggest otherwise? Seems like .admin might be a good exception. And .test might fit under that hierarchy as well... (...) Ha, you weaken your argument by your (...) (20 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Leonard Hoffman

(...) John, I cant help but point out that you are describing your opinions. It seems to me obvious that each individual parent must be able to decide what is appropriate and safe for their children, and that the parents themselves must enforce this (...) (20 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) I fully acknowledge that, Lenny (thus the "IMO";-) (...) I thought it took a village...:-) Look I agree that parents are the final arbiter of matters WRT to their children, but also remember: not all parents are good parents. Of course it is (...) (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This seems like a good summary of your position on this topic. Do you agree? If not, is there a better one? Is there anything significant on this proposed change that you feel hasn't been brought to light yet? If this is a good summary and (...) (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Yes. (...) Thank you, Lar. JOHN (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip) (...) I just wanted to drive home my point one more time before I leave this topic. I see a definite distinction between LUGNET the LEGO resource and LUGNET the AFOL community. That's not to (...) (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Dave Schuler

(...) Oh, won't someone please think of the children?!? This is the same panic-driven slippery-slope reasoning that is used to justify all kinds of anti-gay action, so it's fitting that it should pop up here as well. It's pointless scaremongering to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) I am not against creating 1,000s of subgroups. But as a result of doing this, it has created in my mind the need to sequester those groups from....THE CHILDREN. Yes, you can jest if you like, but there has already been a backlash against the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Ross Crawford

(...) From the main page: Where minds connect: You are not alone! LUGNET is home to thousands of LEGO fans of all ages. We are a community which never sleeps — and has been called "the friendliest place on the Internet." So it seems it has always (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) Well, the first line is "where minds connect". I agree with that assessment. Now, I'm not really sure what being "home to thousands of LEGO fans of all ages" means. Certainly many people come to LUGNET to connect, but is it really a "home"? (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It's kind of funny, but I think that kid-friendly is an awful term for the suggestion that John is propsing. Kid-hostile is closer, but a single term for kid-we-don't-trust-y...-take-part would be better. I don't know, but if my kids found a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —John Neal

(...) The point is, Chris, is that that decision should be up to the parents to decide, not you. If Todd wants LUGNET to be for everyone, it must cater to the lowest common denominator, and that is about a 7 year old. (...) Good stuff???? Are you (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —David Laswell

(...) Our kids are taught difference, whether we intend it to happen or not. When I was growing up, I remember one of the most common playground insults (along with being stupid or throwing like a girl) was to call someone gay. (...) Discrimination (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

Re: Why these news groups were created —Adam Saunders

In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman wrote: SNIP I think that it's pretty cool we get a Kids news group, seeing as how I'm a kid. I think it's fine if your gay or whatever, but I think my Mom would get mad at me if see me looking at the LGBT group. (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)