LUGNET NNTP Server & Clients : 1537


Administrative / NNTP / 1537

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)