 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
