 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) (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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) "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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) (URL) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
"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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
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
|
|
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: ME TOO
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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" <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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: ME TOO
|
|
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: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) "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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: ME TOO
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
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
|
|
(...) [...] (...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) Guys, take it off-line, please. James (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
"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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Official vs. unofficial postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
