 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Safety (was: Why these news groups were created)
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) (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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) Thank you, Lar. JOHN (20 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
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)
|
