LUGNET NNTP Server & Clients : 386


Administrative / NNTP / 386

Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —

Todd Lehman

FYI, a filter was installed today on the news server to accept lego.com postings (i.e., LEGO Company employees using their official email address) in the following groups only: lugnet.lego lugnet.lego.announce lugnet.lego.direct (essentially the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

So Ashley can no longer post in the legoland thread? If so, I do not see why not - he gave us good information and it would not belong in any other threads - and it was official lego(land) information. And what about the lego guy posting in the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) Yea, what about LEGO employees responding to questions in other groups for official purposes? What about lugnet.announce.lsahs? What prompted this change? Frank (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Thomas Garrison

(...) What about (URL) (Actually, I think Todd forgot, and has been busy. . .he's always busy, and seems to have acquired a great many more news messages to read. But this is potentially important.) TWS Garrison (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) On the flip side, what about (URL) seems you picked the somewhat nicer of the 2 posts. That thread has been thrashed to death. Was this what started it off? Mark P. mfuss903@aol.com (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) Hmm, looks like Todd started to change his mind... Actually, if nothing else changes, I would lobby very strongly for TLC being able to make announcements in lugnet.announce.lsahs. What would be really cool is if they started posting the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) This is important, yes, and we should talk about options that best enable dissemination by LEGO of such information. I would not be opposed to deleting the lugnet.announce.lsahs group and moving its content to lugnet.lego.announce or some new (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) I'd recommend lugnet.lego.shop.announce (or just lugnet.lego.shop - though that might invite discussion about LEGO shopping avenues. Hmm, I just had an idea. Set one or more lugnet.lego.xyz.announce groups, which only TLC can post to. Then (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Dave Low

(...) Good idea Frank. Have you seen this post? (URL) hope Todd can sort out the multiple identity crisis so there's less of this messiness. --DaveL (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —John Neal

I'm weighing in here on Frank's post because I think he's onto some good ideas. I think Todd is on to some good ideas, too, and here's why I think so. The beauty of .lego.direct is that it is a place where we *know* TLC (LD) is listening. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Sophie

One time I kinda complained to TLC, I was a little concerned that when you are recieving the Mania Magazine, it is all Adverts and hardly any MOC's, what's the point of this except as a way to generate more hype and previews! That's ok with me but, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Abner Finley

(coming out of the cave hearing all the nose going on Lugnet....sheesh taking a step outside smelling the roses...seeing the LEGO private jet taken off back to Bilund ) This is my second post to lugnet ever since LUGNET came online. Besides the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Dan Jezek

(...) This is kinda OT: What about that daluland arabian castle set, very similar to 6074 that you won on eBay last year? (URL) that a fake? There was a lot of discussion about this set and I don't recall anyone ever confirm this was a real genuine (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

LEGO set 6074 / Daluland #708 —Abner Finley

(...) To answer your question. The set #708 Daluland Castle set is a fake. More like a copy/clone of LEGO set #6074. From the box size and design to the elements. All the elements are almost the same as #6074 or equal to #6074. It kinda makes me (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.castle)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) Agreed! I know Todd has requested some input in this regard: (URL) request which I've yet to have voiced my input on (although the message has been open on my desktop since it first appeared). (...) I was going to reply to this that I don't (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I like the format of lugnet.lego.foo only for official postings, with automagic duplication into lugnet.lego.foo.d (iscussion) because I think it is more clear than anything else would be. But then you have a .lego.* group that we're al (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) The lugnet.lego.foo for official posts and lugnet.lego.foo.d for discussion format doesn't work naturally with Lugnet. The reason is how groups are coalesced in the web view. I think it is valuable that it be easy to see just the official (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) One quick thing I haven't mentioned in much detail yet: the way groups are coalesced currently in the web view will probably always be a default view, but there will be other views (customizable) and folders to store personal article (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) Sounds good, and when complete, will probably make the actual structure mostly irrelevant, which is good because a hierarchical tree can never properly represent the associations between different things, and the associations which are (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Absolutely. --Todd (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) According to someone who worked for Ashley at LEGOLAND California, Ashley doesn't actually work for LEGO anymore. If other LEGO employees wish to post there officially, we'll reexamine the issue. (...) Try not to think of it as a restriction (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) But if someone from TLC is willing and able to answer a question in the theme areas in an official capacity, why not let them? If they are only going to be allowed to post in the lugnet.lego hierarchy, we definitely need to keep the chatter (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can you elaborate on what you mean by "sanctity"? I'm sensing that there's some problem here that you're more aware of than some of us. It may be that it's too sensitive to go into, so that's fine if that's the case. But my perception was that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —

Jake McKee

(...) I for one would be interested to hear the details on this... neither Tomas or I are really sure what happened to cause this change. (...) This is extremely awkward. When I first came to LEGO, I actually asked Todd about getting a secondary (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct) !

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tim Courtney

Jake McKee <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message news:GA91n9.735@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) This concerns me too, I'd appreciate knowing reasons for this change. I can understand confusing a lego.com address with an official post, and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) And a ROYAL pain in the rear - are we all to wade through the posts under the lugnet.lego to find the one post we are looking for? If they are talking about trains, masks, or whatever - then they should be able to post in that thread just like (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) Maybe, as Frank Filz said elsewhere in this thread, it would be a good idea to keep the chatter in the lugnet.lego.* groups down. (...) It's not a matter of personal vs official posts, really. It's a matter of where LEGO is invited to (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) Is it really a good thing if someone at TLC happens to have TLC records which allow them to answer one of the "Dear Gary" posts, and they are allowed to share that information, to not allow them to directly respond to the original question? (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) They can answer the question. They just can't answer it in a fan forum. Which *is* a good thing, because when you see it there will be no doubt that it is 100% Official LEGO position. (...) No, I am saying that I would prefer to see fans only (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes indeed. Of course it doesn't work 100% reliably (1), leaves no trace, and provides no opportunity for anyone else to comment, offer workarounds, etc. where that would be a helpful thing to do. Seriously... this blocking of posts to .admin (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tim Courtney

(...) "That Larry guy, he just keeps trying to give money, I wish he'd go away." ;^) I've noticed the lost mail thing too, and the response rate. I remember he once said that he prioritized messages and replied to those, and still some got lost (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Hakan Tandogan

(...) Well, if that's the case, them I'm being ignored for wanting to give money away, too ;-) Or, at least, to get Todd to collect that 50$ I sent him half a year ago.... (...) Regards, Hakan (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This HAS to be an oversight on Todd's part. I can't imagine he did that on purpose. So I wouldn't worry about it unless it stays that way. But it seems clear to me that Todd acted in haste for some reason, it's not like him to overlook a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Would that really happen? if this was the only place for them to answer questions, the mass amount of posts in this thread would be staggering. Plus, if they do answer a question there would be some follow-up in the direct thread - there would (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —William R. Ward

(...) If this policy is to continue, let me make another suggestion to help with this: there's always lugnet.lego.announce - encourage LEGO employees to post there. Todd, I think it was probably a bad idea to institute this policy without discussing (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (Hey, I'm a technologist so I often propose technical solutions to social problems) How about a way from the web interface for members to have one of several precomposed sigs to choose from? That way when I am posting to make an official Guild (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Ross Crawford

(...) Only help for the web interface, though. What if they wanna post using e-mail or nntp? (...) ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) What may have confused people is if they were looking to some existing problem that this is supposed to be solving. It's actually not about solving a problem. It's about avoiding dilution of what the community is. LUGNET discussion groups were (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp) !!

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Note that I think this allows you to "change" an address but does not give you an easy way, from one browser, to create two posting identities (which both link to the same real human being, and which both clearly show a way to contact that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Nothing really in particular. Yesterday's events were certainly a catalyst, however. (...) I filled out the news-posting setup form... (URL) for each of my email addresses, and then I change the setup in my newsreader (and then back again) if (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) Could you please point in the direction of "yesterday's events"? I think I missed it, and I would like to see just what is being discussed here. Thanks, Fredrik (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Walsh

"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrdae6mnom2.fsf....uio.no... (...) Take a day off and a brew-ha-ha erupts! I just read through the thread using this link: (URL) prefer a news reader interface but don't (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) I just thought I'd point out Mike's post as something to consider. Mike has repeatedly mentioned to me that he likes to just stay clear of the pissing matches (which this could turn out to be one of the larger ones). I will contradict one (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

ME TOO —Christian Gemünden

(...) Usually, I am not the buy who steps in for a "mee too" (as this is mostly useless On Lugnet when talking about MOCs or new products. However, as this is a really important subject for the entire philosophy of Lugnet, I had to emphasize Mikes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: ME TOO —Mark Rideout

(...) Just to get my "vote" in, I want to say a "me too" to this as well. I believe it is not in my best interest to have this restriction in place. I think we should hear other (more) people's feelings on this as well. It is interesting that the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: ME TOO —Tim Courtney

(...) I have to put in a hearty 'mee too' with you, Christian. (...) Its lost value for me too. I prefer open communication, and not every post of theirs at a lego.com address outside of lego.* groups can be considered a marketing agenda. Give me a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: ME TOO —Tom Heverly

I've been skimming the posts about this issue, and maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that if LEGO didn't want its people posting on lugnet, they woud take care of that at lego. Often you hear about people workgin at such-and-such and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: ME TOO —Andrew Lipson

ME TOO. The more postings from Lego employees anywhere on lugnet the better. Their signal to noise ratio is unusually good. (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce

(...) To further your own analogy: Why don't you use your work e-mail here? Probably because LUGNET is part of your "home life" and not your "work life". Your employeer may (or may not) want their name associated with LUGNET. Your employeer may even (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't think anyone has any issues with the desire to be clear about whether a post is personal opinion or an Offical Statement. But that can easily be done without restricting where posting happens, and in fact WAS being done, the T&C (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce

(...) Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like that big a deal to change your e-mail address back and forth to indicate official vs personal. It's just as easy to do that as to include a disclaimer when posting personal items. But, truthfully, I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Walsh

"Mike Faunce" <mike@faunce.com> wrote in message news:GABnBu.GK5@lugnet.com... (...) [ ... snipped ... ] (...) [ ... snipped ... ] When I first participated in LUGNET I did use my work e-mail. I started using a different e-mail address because all (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce

(...) But, they are different than most. Their work life and home life (assuming they are AFOLs) coincide. I guess I've been on the other side. In the last two jobs I've had, one of my employeement conditions was that I not use my work e-mail in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) OK, so this makes what - 3 people that *understand* this? Compared to the vast majority that do not *applaud* this action, hmmm. (...) So that makes this an un-official post and should we disregard it? You have *no* official capicity here in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Kingsley

(...) I would not go assuming that. Just because the "vocal majority" does not like this right now does not mean that only 3 people agree with Todd. Remember one of the dynamics of Newsgroups is that people that disagree with a situation are much (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) True. We don't know the actual number of agree/disagree/undecided. Probably never will. My gut tells me more disagree, though, at least for now. Yours may differ. (people tend to think others agree with them) But irrelevant, ultimately. It's (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) done to LEGO employees posting with their LEGO account, as far as I can see. I was interested in learning what "yesterday's event" was, which apparently triggered the above change. (...) So if I understand this correctly, the announcement of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) "Yesterday" in this context is wednesday last, I think, as the filter was put in place Thursday, I think. I know for a fact that the train contest reminder was posted after the filter was put in place, based on correspondence. I speculate it (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Exactly. The ultimate tipping point was the Bionicle thread on Thursday, but the tipping point isn't really relevant. Rather, it was a sudden realization based on recent events (not the events themselves) that we'd totally forgotten to put (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) was a Good Thing. Particularly in light of some of the less than rosy incidents that have occurred between TLC and LUGNET in the past[1]. You are right that TLC is a company and the things they do are for business purposes, not primarily the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Jude Beaudin

(...) Todd, Are these Lego individuals members of LUGNET? (I know Jake is) And if so have you provided them with an alternate means of posting? (such as a different e-mail address through the web interface or from home) As long as you do not revoke (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) I haven't looked. The member listings are here if you're curious: (URL) (I know Jake is) And if so have (...) If a LEGO Company employee is also an AFOL, yes, they certainly _can_ post in an unofficial capacity (i.e., as an AFOL on their own (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) But not easily. They have to go toggle settings every time they want to post in a different mode than they last posted. And they can't even easily *discuss* it in admin.nntp because you blocked access to it unless they jump through hoops to do (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) That has been answered- (URL) while you were composing your post, though, so it's no wonder you hadn't seen it. eric (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed it was. Thanks. I considered posting that our posts crossed and that an answer had been given, but thought it merely would be clutter. It is not an answer that "satisfies" me but my satisfaction is unnecessary. ++Lar (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Yes, I'm aware of that unfortunate side-effect. (...) Brad has our telephone number if he has administrative issues or concerns or sees a compelling need for LEGO to be able to communicate with us there. (...) No one thing in particular. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Christian Gemünden

(...) Well, this "side-effect" (as you call it) has just caused the first trouble in the technic.bionicle group! An AFOL tried to reply to one of my postings, but since he has an *@america.lego.com address it wouldn't let him so I had to do that for (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Yup, exactly, and it's extremely easy to post a link to the official LEGO response just about anywhere. It happens all the time now with web stuff, and it happens often in the Italian local groups that someone there will post a link to an (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

First, I want to say I may regret replying to this post, I see everybody has left it alone so far - its kinda scary being the one breaking the ice, lol. In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) I personally do not think they would (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) (URL) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Wow, after a long day of reading and writing papers for school - that one made my head spin, lol - let me see if i understood it correctly: We can post there, but we can not repspond to another one of our posts? And, As long as there is a lego (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Dan Jezek

(...) This is a little ironic. For years the community tried to get TLC involved and to participate and now it's trying to keep them out. There has to be a reason for this which we (the end-users of Lugnet) will most likely never know. I sort of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Roy Gal

Here's a snippet from Todd's original post: (...) Something that Lego (TLC) did "made it apparent" that these boundaries needed to be reclarified. Well, no one in this thread, except Todd and maybe someone from TLC, knows what horrible thing (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Roy Gal

Sorry to clutter things up with separate posts: Another issue is the fact that many LUGNET members have paid good money to become members. I think those people's voices MUST (at least a strong should...) be heard on this issue. We paid in part to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tim Courtney

(...) Good point! Something that someone mentioned to me today but I forgot about since then. I'm a paying member and that should say something. I'm also sure other large contributors (unfortunately due to my financial state, I was only able to give (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Dan Boger

(...) I wholehartedly disagree. you decided you want to donate some money to lugnet, great. I think of it as paying for services I _already_ recieved from lugnet... I don't think we're stockholders that can set policy, or even need to be consulted. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) I am glad you have gotten more out of Lugnet than you paid for, thats a good thing. But, without us, there would be no lugnet, I am assuming that the webhosting is not free - and that the membership fees were to help keep Lugnet going - true (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tim Courtney

(...) I agree with most of what you said, but read the thread, we already _have_ gotten a reason. -Tim (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tim Courtney

(...) Difference in philosophy, then, I guess. I in no way intend to diminish the service Todd and Suz have done to the community - I appreciate their efforts greatly and a lot of people have benefitted. The fact that this site exists doesn't give (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Roy Gal

Dan, I think it is a question of representation. It appeared to me when I paid money that I was becoming a member of LUGNET, whatever that means. The description of membership does not call the payment a 'donation' ; it is a payment of what you (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I hear the sentiment but I have to come out and say this: You pay (to become a member) which gives you right to use LUGNET in whatever form or shape it is in, subject to your not violating the ToS, not for the right to influence that form or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tom Stangl

Todd, I simply can't agree with this - you're basically relegating any AFOL that gets lucky enough to be hired by TLG to Second Class Citizen status, even though they are STILL AFOLs, just their employer has changed. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Ross Crawford

(...) gets (...) they (...) I totally disagree with this. They are still free to post anywhere using a non-lego.com address. They're still the same person. Just as I choose to post using my personal rather than my professional address. It makes it (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) I think the problem is that you will have to wade through many, mny posts looking for the few lego posts there, realsitcally the persantage of Lego posts vs non-lego people posts have to be about 1 to every 2000 - would you want to wade (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —James Brown

(...) easier (...) Hmm, actually you're arguing the other side here... All of the official LEGO posts being in one place makes them *easier* to find than is the current state. James (still on the fence...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) How does it relegate them to second class citizen status? They are still more than welcome to post anywhere they want, using a non-LEGO address. And given Yahoo, Hotmail, etc, it's neither hard nor expensive to obtain a second email address (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My goodness, how many times does this need to be repeated? It's easy to get an email. Easy, but irrelevant to the argument. I have 5. So what? It's HARD to toggle posting settings here. You minimise that as being something that technically (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) You're absolutely right, Larry...you're absolutely right. And thanks for acknowledging the last portion of that above. But let's try really hard not to assume that the current state of web posting will necessarily still be the case in the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tom Stangl

(...) But you did the steps in the wrong order, and that's my major beef. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Larry, what you wrote above to Eric is kind of insulting, and I think it's backwards. Eric and I happen to see eye-to-eye on a lot of things and it's one of the reasons that we're friends. We also happen to disagree on a lot of things, and I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Two points: 1. I'm not particularly bothered if what I said to Eric comes off as kind of insulting. He has a few "kind of" insults coming as he's been rather rude to a number of people on this and other occasions. 2. Nevertheless, if you take (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —

Todd Lehman

(...) Further unsolicited discussion is not going to change things. (Discussion was never invited in the first place.) Those who disagree are entitled to their opinions but should understand that it is impossible to please everyone. There are no (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thanks. I think it's time for everyone to step away anyway, some things are being said that probably are more divisive than they ought to be. The rest of this post is meta, that is, it is about how communication happens here, rather than (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Todd, Eric is way out of line in many things, to a few different people, from what **I** have **seen** you have only agreed with him, and followed up on it yourself (do I need to point out the thread? Because this is *true* and not a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mark Papenfuss writes: <snip> Mark... drop it. Let it go, man. I let Eric get under my skin and I shouldn't have. This isn't about personalities or insults, it's about what's right for the fan community and what's right for (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Ka-On Lee

(...) Wow finally some good stuff came out of this mass. This should be the 204th message of this thread - Is it a record for Lugnet? Thanks for the link LP! (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's probably some kind of record if you define the category narrowly enough so nothing else qualifies. But it's not the largest thread ever, or even the largest admin related thread, I don't think. (and that, I think, is a good sign) (...) (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) I haven't made any personal attacks. Sorry. I made an observation based on the evidence at hand, one which I beleived- and still beleive- was true. In retrospect, there was no reason to post it, I simply should have stopped engaging in a (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss

(...) What evidence? I would LOVE to see what evidence you have or had. And FYI, words are not prrof -we come from different places - so we use different words. Plese visit this post, it was for you: (URL)eric (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) The tone and vocabulary of every post you make. As you said elsewhere, that's the only evidence I have of anything about you, and it strongly indicated to me that you were not an adult. Which, BTW, is not an insult. Beleive it or not, there (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Ah, that is where you are mistaken. Here, (URL) that may jog your memory. If I am a 13-year-old, then I was 7 hen i had a son - now that would have been something. You can not judge somebody by words they use, I think Scott Chambers put it (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) You are obviously correct, of course; I didn't remember that incident. (...) Again, I never said I thought you were 13. Please stop indicating that I did. (...) Well, it wasn't meant as one. There is nothing wrong with being young and not (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —James Brown

(...) Guys, take it off-line, please. James (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) Actually, I never said that. Perhaps you should go back and read more closely what I've said and what I haven't. I said that savvy NNTP users could follow a thread through several newsgroups. I've never said anything about the ease of (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —David Eaton

(...) I'm not sure which way I'll go on this one. For the most part, I don't see any harm to *LUGNET* or its members for Lego Reps to post 'officially' to other groups. I only really see potential harm for TLC, or the reps themselves. (...) I rather (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Petrucelli

(...) I have read through most of this thread and I totally agree with Todd on this. I also see the issue of AFOL to AFOL discussions in the .lego section a little more clearly now. This seems very simple and a very good idea to me. Discussions (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) That's a great way of explaining it. --Todd (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —John Hansen

(...) [...] (...) The problem this email address filter does not (and cannot) solve and actually exacerbates is the "is this an official voice of TLC or not" problem. Presuming it becomes simple for Jake and Tomas to post using their secret AFOL (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) That's hard to judge until a few months have passed. I have a very good feeling about this. (...) It's impossible to answer that question completely, since it's a fuzzy thing. However, we should trust that Brad and his people will do the right (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Unless you sign YOUR posts as "news admin" or something similarly official, I certainly do wonder when they are official or unoffical, so yes, I agree. ++Lar (23 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Official vs. unofficial postings —

Todd Lehman

(...) I've been giving this a lot of thought, and upon your recommendations, Larry, I've decided to change the way I post. I haven't decided on an official LUGNET admin sig yet, but for starters I'll definitely be making the 'From:' header be an (...) (23 years ago, 25-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think that's a great idea. (...) You *could* do that. but I think the message is more important than the package. What matters more to me is the signature rather than how it got posted... (...) I'm not sure I would do that. I think you need (...) (23 years ago, 25-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —John Hansen

(...) An official post requires a certain stationary (aka email address domain) and a particular signature with specific elements in it. Have I understood you correctly? Is this actually documented anywhere? This would seem to suggest that lacking a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce

"John Hansen" <JohnBinder@aol.com> wrote in message news:GAIqxs.73o@lugnet.com... (...) content (...) official (...) Content (...) Really? So you put just as much value in an article that is published in the Ridgemont High Student Newspaper as the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you're totally correct. In the general case, that is. Just not in this case In this case, if Jake, for example, posts something from a personal address and says "this is the real deal" I am only infinitesimally less likely to trust its (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —John Hansen

(...) Conveyance, as I used it, is the mode of submission. Lugnet is the publisher of all posts herein. Posts may be submitted by authors on a variety of paper types (aka email address domains). The author of a piece determines credibility far more (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —John Matthews

I haven't been following along very closely. Thanks for clearing up the brouhaha for me! Build On! John Matthews (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Lou Zucaro

(...) Since I've been out of it for a while, can you elaborate on what changed for the worse and how? Thanks... Lou (23 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —William R. Ward

(...) How about this: allow them to post as long as it is crossposted to at least one lugnet.lego.* group. That allows the train or legoland type announcements to go there, and also appear in the lugnet.lego.direct. You could even automate it so (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) Why allow them to spread marketing-type announcements all over Lugnet? I don't get it. eric (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —William R. Ward

(...) Some people posted that they were annoyed that they'd have to read lugnet.lego.direct in order to find announcements that had previously been in the train or legoland groups. I was trying to address those concerns. FUT: lugnet.admin.nntp (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) No, I understand that. I guess the question was more "why do we as a community want that?" I know I don't. I'd rather see them restricted. I'm glad, for example, that Jake's Train Contest announcement did *not* go in lugnet.trains, but rather (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Why do feel that that post does not belong in trains? I agree it belongs where it was posted - but it should also be in trains. I see no reason why it would not belong in trains... it was about trains and would appeal o the train people - (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Kingsley

(...) lugnet.trains, (...) I totally disagree. That post has no place in .trains IMHO. It was a marketing post and just like I agree with .market posts not being in the theme groups I agree that direct LEGO marketing posts don't belong in the theme (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tim Courtney

(...) xpost to lego.direct, so employees can reply. Eric - I have mixed feelings about your statement, and I'm sure there are people on both extremes. I think its great that LEGO is posting their stuff here, afterall, we're a consumer market too. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss

(...) So you are saying the train people would not be interested in this post? It is about trains so, according to the TOS, it belongs in the trains group. I do not see how it is purley marketing - they are not trying to sell us anything, it is a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tim Courtney

(...) Well, I don't think LEGO can step on toes easily by posting here, but there are other ways they can. That's another facet of the relationship, one that I've discussed briefly with Direct too. They have a good attitude, and part of what they (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) No one said that they cluttered up threads. They do have the ability to clutter up newsgroups, however: (URL) posts to lugnet.general and lugnet.dear-lego. I'd rather not have to wade through these kinds of posts to see MOCs, etc. eric (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That explicit statement may have been Mark's straw man rather than a real statement, but I got that implication from things that have been said here. (...) One man's trash is another man's treasure. I didn't see all of those posts as clutter. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) That's a curious way of phrasing it. I'll assume you just chose poorly. But to clarify, this wasn't a suggestion I made, or in any way my idea- it took me as much by surprise as everyone else. I just happen to think it was a *good* idea. So, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Gary Istok

I am as bewildered as anyone else here..... I thought that there wasn't enough interaction between LD and LUGNET as it is. And I certainly would like someplace within LUGNET where we (LUGNET folks) could interact freely with TLC in a total forum, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Ray Sanders

There seems to be some issue here. The Eric's (two of them) have posted elsewhere, and have been found to 'get it' by the admin-fig. The presence of TLC on lugnet has had some 'minor' positive effects. One case in point, that I doubt would have (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley

(...) Well I may be mistaken but I think that Todd and Suz may feel a bit betrayed by LD. The one example that comes to mind is the T-Shirt Thread. (URL) a few months later got to this response from LD: (URL) I think Got Suzanne upset: (URL) you (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley

(...) First, yes train folks would be interested. Just as they would be interested if someone had a MetroLiner for sale, that doesn't mean the post should be in .trains . Second, it is purley marketing, the contest is free to join but don't think (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tim Courtney

(...) I have to ask, so what? We want to buy their product, and as long as the groups aren't saturated with marketing (which they aren't), I see no problem. (...) Again...your point is? I don't care if LEGO is about making money, in fact, I want (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley

(...) I think Todd explained things pretty well here: (URL) if you want my *personal* reasons to know what "my point" was I will tell you. 1. Time = Money The time I have to dedicate to reading LUGNET is somewhat limited. I am not interested in what (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Dave Low

(...) A very brief response -- I'm still digesting all this. I agree concerning contests, sale items etc. I think the matter of the Bionicle masks is a little different. Tomas Clark responded to direct questions/speculation from fans. This was (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Frank Filz

(...) So you would prefer to hear about the Fort Legoredo's from some AFOL posting that he just found out that S@H got a bunch in and he just bought them all? What is different from Brad telling us "hey Shop at Home got this pile of nice sets" and a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tim Courtney

Yep, its a me too post. I couldn't have said it better than Frank. I think that stuff like S@H announcements, and the DYA example, suggests a double standard. Unless, I am misunderstanding something... -Tim Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman

(...) Tim, it is a double standard. OF COURSE it's a double standard. And that's a GOOD THING in this case. Let me elaborate so that you understand. The charter of lugnet.lego.announce includes "LEGO Direct announcements," which means it is free to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —John Hansen

(...) So we'd love to have Walmart.com start posting here about Lego sets they have available? Or KBKids or Amazon or ZanyBrainy? If anyone would be here for one reason only (i.e., our money) it would be retailers who happen to sell Lego sets. They (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman

(...) The difference is collossal. One is a company acting opportunistically to dump obsolete stock and the other is a community of like-minded peers sharing information. Please don't think that anyone is saying that LEGO shouldn't be allowed to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss

(...) So do not open the posts, you have every right to pass them over. (...) WHOA! Are you honestly trying to tell us that: A) Lego would not have been able to sell these sets outside of Lugnet? I very much doubt they would have any prob selling (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Jude Beaudin

(...) The only part of LUGNET that has the mandate of opening the lines of communication between LEGO and it's fans is .lego.* So here we have the owner of LUGNET wanting to reinforce this, which is not that far off of a debate about people (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman

(...) We seem to be having a very major communications problem here. Obsolete stock is a manufacturing and retail sales term that basically means something that's not in production anymore and is sitting around in the warehouse or shelves taking up (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss

(...) But still, they are not trying to sell us anything - and they do not have to try to sell us anything, we buy Lego no matter what. this goes to whats below also. (...) Do you want them to go bankrupt? I know it will never happen - That is the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) As the other Eric posting to this thread, I can say that I certainly don't want LEGO to go away, either! I'm very glad they want to participate in Lugnet, and I'm very happy that they want to announce special deals and sales... but I'm also (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —James Stacey

I'm quite new to the Lugnet community so I'm not up on structure and procedure, (I didn't know Lego were active participents) but this is obviously a topic that has got a lot of people going. would a vote be possible in a case like this where (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley

(...) First, welcome to LUGNET!!! We really are a friendly bunch most of the time :-). As for your question I think I would say it is highly unlikely a vote would happen. LUGNET is privately owned by Todd Lehman and Suzanne Rich which means what (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman

(...) Money. They're a business. Don't ever forget it. --Todd (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —John Hansen

(...) Todd, you make it sound as if you think that is evil. "Never forget they're after your money." You are after our money too. You aren't evil. Maybe they want us to play with and enjoy owning Lego bricks. Would you prefer they were a non-profit (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman

(...) John, I never implied or insinuated that it was evil or that there was anything wrong with it. It's simply a fact that's worth being aware of. Ah, for the good old days online back in 1994 when life as a fan was so simple, and the community (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) On the surface, yes, it sounds that way. But I doubt he meant it that way. For whatever reason, some people here need to be constantly reminded that not everyone who works for LEGO is a LEGO fan. They aren't all bringing home bricks every (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Examples have been given. That you choose to ignore them is your choice but doesn't change what reality actually is. Switching identities is a PITA. Try it. So the net effect of this new rule is that when an answer to a question asked in a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) Wow, you're on a big reality kick today. Interesting. Anyway, without getting all needlessly philosophical, you wouldn't mind pointing out where those examples are, would you? I can't think of any example that's been given that really (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tim Courtney

(...) Yes, on both counts. -Tim (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) Given what I know of Brad, I find it difficult to picture him going home at night and puzzling over the best way to shape up his MOC. I work for an internet sevice provider. I like the internet. Were I in a customer-facing part of the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Given what I know of Brad, I don't find it difficult at all. Not in the slightest. Maybe you don't know him that well. Or maybe you're a better judge of people, even with less data to go on, than I am. I don't think Brad really wants his (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) Gah. Fine. I'll concede the point on all four of them. It makes no difference to my real point- which is that the (possibly temporary, until a workaround is designed/found) inconvenience of four people is nothing compared to the strengthening (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Frank Filz

(...) Gee, I'm glad my inconvennience doesn't matter, nor Larry's, nor anyone else who thinks it's going to be a pain to find the official answers to questions (should they ever come under the new world order).... Perhaps I should switch to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) How are you going to be inconvenienced? If, as I suspect, you are going to say that you are going to be inconvenienced because you use an NNTP reader to read Lugnet posts, and somehow this is going to make it hard... stop right there. I have (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Frank Filz

(...) Yes, I can follow it. It is an extra step to do so. One also has to realize that there might be a post in another group (since we aren't following a follow-ups header here - remember, the hypothetical question being asked is being asked in the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) D'oh. You're right. Hmm. Replying to a post causes a "references" header to be inserted. There must be a way to use that to find replies to a post... Of course, this all assumes that you wouldn't just sub to the lugnet.lego.* groups. Since the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Frank Filz

(...) I'm not sure any newsreaders (besides Lugnet's web interface) use that fact, but if the newsreader fully indexes the whole news spool, it could easily present the user with all the replies to a given post. (...) I doubt it. Mostly because I (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) Well, if you're going to play around under the hood of a newsreader... :D (...) Hmm. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it's not as though LD has really been all that forthcoming up to this point, anyway. IMHO. Questions asked in their (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The Bionicle thread is a perfectly good example. That theme group was in sore need of some official answers, in that group. One of the key askers of questions has already posted to this thread in support of the ability to get answers put where (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin

(...) Why was the group in need of official answers *in that group*? If the people in the group were really seeking official answers, no doubt they would have been posting in lugnet.lego.direct- after all, I've seen plenty of posts asking quesitons (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —John Hansen

(...) by restricting Lego employees posting using their company email address to the .lego.* groups. It assumes it. It accepts it as factual without any argument whatsoever. Todd writes: "LUGNET discussion groups were founded for fans to talk to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes! 100%! What John wrote above captures the essence of all of this splendidly. A true voice of reason. I couldn't have said it better myself. John gets it. Thank you, John! (And Frank Filz too, who also gets it and has made many excellent (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —John Hansen

(...) LOL! And I didn't mention slime or rampant running. :) John Hansen (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss

(...) So, Can we all take a look at the study you have done on all lego employees? I have yet to see any examples of how they clutter, dilute or otherwise do anything negative in any way. Jake is a fan, if I am not mistaken he is a member of Lugnet. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman

(...) Mark, in the future when you misquote me and completely mischaracterize what I said and meant, I would really appreciate it if you would be courteous enough to provide a link to what I actually said. For example: (URL) I said was that it is "a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Frank Filz

(...) Ok, I can understand that, but the way I generally parse the sentence is "a lot more buzz, which happens to be genuine" rather than your intended parsing of "buzz which is a lot more genuine". Do you see the subtle difference? If someone seems (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Christian Gemünden

(...) Sorry Todd, but you seem to say that in a negative tone and I don't see a reason for that! We all know that LEGO is a company and therefor wants to make money [1]. But what's wrong with that? Remember that LU(gnet) is a place for LEGO USERS so (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) theme (...) I'm certainly confused. A few months ago people were citing the Cluetrain Manifesto and begging for LEGO to talk to us. Now we want to box them into one little space on LUGNET because all LEGO wants is (gasp!) money. I certainly (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Roy Gal

Just to add another point: I don't usually read LUGNET postings off the web site, but get some of the groups as daily email digests. I like seeing announcements for limited items at LSAHS in the market newsgroup. But now, I will never see these (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Have you actually tried this process to see what a PITA it is? I suspect not. Once you try it, consider what it would be like to have to do it several times a day or more. I doubt you've considered that either. Computers *exist* to make things (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley

(...) I know this isn't perfect but I would lit to make a suggestion. First changing setups for the web interface is a PITA, I agree with Larry on that. I did just try something using NNTP using Netscape 6 however that makes it very easy to do. In (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.admin.nntp, Eric Kingsley writes: <snip NS 6 multiple identity info> Thanks for digging. Did you evaluate whether it shares "which threads and which messages have been read" across "identities"? If it does, it's broken and needs to be (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley

(...) Well of your two choices I would say it's broken. Although I don't totally agree with that statement. Here is more info on Netscape 6... (URL) (...) Remember I am Eric, not Eric. I know its hard to tell the difference. Maybe I should adopt a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Dan Boger

(...) I wasn't going to get into this, but why is it so hard? I've done it - you just set up your newsreader as your personal identity (since not a lot of people use news for work), and mail in your "official" messages... not hard at all, is it? Dan (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —James Brown

(...) It is very difficult indeed for those of us who don't have access to standard NNTP ports through a company firewall. Darn tricky, at that point. I don't know if this applies to the LEGO folks or not, but it's something to consider. James (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tom Stangl

I can say this - if Todd continues to make this a less and less friendly place to be (and relegating AFOLs that happen to work for TLG to Second Class Citizenship IS less friendly, not to mention asinine), if TLG does an endrun around LUGNET, I'll (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman

(...) Tom, 1) This doesn't relegate anyone to "second class citizenship." 2) If this had been done one year ago, at a time when Brad was the only LEGO employee posting here (and posting to .dear-lego and .lego.direct only), I guarantee you that not (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Arnold Staniczek

(...) Um, I still remember a time when a LOT of AFOLs here complained about the lack of communication between Lego and us. Now, we should be happy that some people of Lego Direct actually answer our questions. The particular question on the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

My Point Of View !!! —Christian Gemünden

(...) Yes, the latest LEGO train posting might have been a marketing post, but it's been an extremely interesting one! I have never seen an uninteresting posting from any LD employee so far. And even it would be pure marketing, I'd still rather (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Thomas Garrison

(...) But since when has there been a ban on "marketing" posts in theme groups? Note that the post in question does not advertise any buying, selling, trading, or auctions--which are the activities typically prohibited from theme groups. The item (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Not necessarily. If someone in the trains group (for example) feels that something a LEGO employee posted about trains was relevant to a particular train discussion, don't worry -- you'll still hear about it. It's also a lot more genuine buzz (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) That has to be the lamest excuse I have heard. No post can be "put in your face". People have a choice as to what threads they want to read and not to read. What is the difference between Jake posting a message and JimJoeBob posting the same (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you're rationalising away the significant roadblocks you have erected. ++Lar (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) So can they not post in the Dear Lego thread? If not then that just adds onto the list of things that makes no sense to me. Or am I reading this wrong? Mark P Who is still waiting for an example of how Lego 'clutters' up threads (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) The lugnet.dear-lego newsgroup was created for open letters to LEGO from its fans -- like "Dear Santa" but about LEGO instead of Santa Claus. --Todd (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) So was that a no? (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —

Todd Lehman

(...) Correctomundo. --Todd (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) BUT - when kids write a letter to Santa, there will be no response because there is no Santa (hope I did not burst any bubbles) - and when we write a letter to Lego we would like a response because the can (well, were) able to reply - they (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) If you really care about a response, you can post it in lugnet.lego.direct. Lugnet.dear-lego has always been for letters you don't really expect/want/need an answer to. It predates LEGO's presence on Lugnet by... well, shoot, a couple years, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not under the new proposed rules, unless you hang it off some unrelated post by an LD person. (...) September 28 1998 was the formation date for dear-lego, from the group header. December 1999 was when Brad showed up (1) My math gives me 1 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) I don't know where you're getting that. (URL) is said about who can start a thread, only who can follow up to a post. (...) Oh, dear, I estimated incorrectly. My point still stands at 1 year 3 months- the group has nothing to do with expecting (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Yes! 100%! What Eric wrote above captures the essence of all of this splendidly. A true voice of reason. I couldn't have said it better myself. Eric gets it. Thank you, Eric! (And Eric Kingsley too, who also gets it and has made many excellent (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) "Voice of reason" or just a voice agreeing with you? ( I don't usually associate rhetoric like "run rampant" (and "slime trail", not that Eric said that) as the voice of reason, but hey, that's just me.) Call the question. I think the points (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) I think it's already been called and answered. I wouldn't imagine that this is going to change, I don't see any reason or need for Todd to post yet again saying that just because you demand it of him. eric (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Cite, please. (...) Me neither, stubbornness tends to work that way in the face of resistance, but the debate can drag on endlessly nevertheless. (...) See above. I'm not demanding anything, merely suggesting that time has come for Todd to say (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) At a rough guess, I'd say that: (URL) a clear indication that despite all the ranting, Todd isn't changing his mind. (...) Jeez, ++Lar, I didn't see it as praise- or anything else that would "go to my head". I guess if I had some kind of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —James Brown

(...) Adding another voice, not that it will change things... (...) Todd, I think Larry is laying the rhetoric fairly thick here, but if you scrape it off, I have to agree with him. I'm still of two minds wether or not it "matters" that LEGO people (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) A big resounding ME TOO! (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tim Courtney

(...) Unfortunately, me too. Did I me too this already? I forget...and since there are no convenient dots, I can't easily tell. -Tim (feeling rather lazy) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz

(...) Oh yea, the dreaded "thread has gotten so big the web interface is difficult to use" problem. That actually is one of the things which keeps me using NNTP - Netscape doesn't give up the ghost and stop threading when the thread reaches some (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tim Courtney

(...) I use NNTP at school, in fact, I have Outlook Newsreader open now, but something never works right so it downloads new headers automagically. At school it works, but I'm at home now and it doesn't. Anyways, that shows you that I'm lazier. :-) (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Given the suddenness of it, I think I might be too and, actually, I wrote Brad Justus a personal apology for not having given him and his people a heads-up. (...) I agree with you. Hang in there, things will look up soon. --Todd (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Do tell. Seriously, what makes you think that? ++Lar (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) I second that notion! Please, what makes you think this? And was it Lego coming here that made Lugnet "less fun"? what was it? That is the one million dollar question. Mark P. mfuss903@aol.com (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Not at all. (...) The arguing. --Todd (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) Trust me. OK? --Todd (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK. ++Lar (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tom Stangl

The only way things will look up is if you come to your senses and drop this idiotic idea. If I have to hit 2 or more groups to read ONE thread, I'm not going to come here anymore. And your wish for structure will force this. You just made (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

Bravo Tom, bravo - very well put! Mark P mfuss903@aol.com (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

I understand, but can we make it better? —Tony Priestman

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Todd Lehman (<3ab2f0a6.152546955...gnet.com>) wrote at 05:06:00 (...) The severe nature of the original post certainly took me aback, and I think that's part of what has fuelled this debate. I started off in the 'this is a Very (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) So the 2 Erics are the only people that gets it?? Man you must be so happy :)!!! I think they are spewing malarky - LEGO is not talking to us, a few AFOLS that work for lego are talking to us. LEGO can not talk to anybody - they are a company, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Dan Boger

(...) you know, you're not trying to convince anyone, you're just ranting... I seriously doubt Todd is going to change his mind on this anytime soon, so I think we should all let this die for a while, and see how things turn out... Dan (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) I am not trying to convince anybody of anything -I am just looking for *real* answers. What is being served to us is swine, nothing more. Mark P. mfuss903@aol.com (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin

(...) Spoken, truly, like someone who has no idea how the Real World works. Sometimes I forget that not everyone on Lugnet is an adult. eric (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Eric - I am truly disturbed by this, and I am taking it personally. There is no need for any personal jabs. What I said was sarcastic, and If you could not see that then I do not know what to tell you. My point is simple: You (as a group) keep (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce

(...) If you want to write a letter to TLC that they can read and respond to, why would you do it on LUGNET? Why not go to (URL) and do it there? Isn't that what that site is for? Why should LUGNET provide time, space, hardware, bandwidth, etc. to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

NNTP vs Web Interface (was Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Frank Filz

I've been thinking about another aspect of this whole thing. Unless I misread something and TLC will not be allowed to reply to a post which is posted to a non .lego area, what this really amounts to is yet another example of discrimination against (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: NNTP vs Web Interface (was Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I know it's a bit inside out... but talk to Sproat and look at avid. Details are hazy but it may be of some help to you. (not to me, I swore off NNTP and do web exclusively, but yes, I agree with you, I feel it is another anti NNTP development (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: NNTP vs Web Interface (was Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Dan Boger

(...) from what I remember about avid, it just gives you the last x articles, starting from article number y... when you do with that data is all up to you - it does give you all the headers, so you could track msgids of threads that wander about, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Andrew Lipson

(...) Hmm. Personally, I think this is entirely misguided, in the following sense: if you're going to restrict postings at all, I'd much rather see less _non_-Lego employee traffic in e.g. lugnet.lego.direct. What exactly is the problem you think (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) You'll get to see that. --Todd (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Robin Sather

Some thoughts from a loyal but non-member Lugnet participant: I believe I understand where Todd is coming from here, and I think that generally, the idea makes sense. Corporate involvement DOES dilute a true fan-based newsgroup. For an extreme (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman

(...) I agree that it would be a little presumptuous to dictate to TLC too much about _how_ dealings should occur (as in expecting unreasonble things to happen), but it's not presumptuous at all to dictate (or let's say specify) _where_ official (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Robin Sather

(...) <rest snipped, same points expanded upon> I did not know this. Perhaps many others didn't either. Certainly it paints a different picture and helps me to see your viewpoint a little clearer, Todd. If this is in fact the case, then I support (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —David Zorn

(...) To Todd, Thanks for this explanation. I hope that everyone reads it. I've clipped it only a little in hopes that more people will find it and read it. Based on that post, I have changed my mind and support your decision. I suspect it helps (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)