 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
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 (...) (24 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)
|
|
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, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
