 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: New Group Proposal - LUGNET.LEGO.QA
|
|
(...) Yah I wanted to say lugnet.lego.q&a but I have a feeling special characters might be a problem. I was just trying to think of something short and sweet, I really don't care what it is called if it were to come into exsistance. Eric Kingsley (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: New Group Proposal - LUGNET.LEGO.QA
|
|
(...) The only thing that I'd suggest is making the name a little more clear. At first glance I thought it would be for QA (quality assurance) issues, like the infamous Tan bricks with black swirls, percieved degradations in tolerances, etc. Maybe (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | New Group Proposal - LUGNET.LEGO.QA
|
|
Now we all know about the recent restrictions possed on LEGO employees posting in an official capacity (which I agree with). Now this suggestion does not address all of the issues people against the idea might have but it does IMO address one of the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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 (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: I can't access LUGNET through nntp today
|
|
(...) I think it's doing ident lookups... and I think the reason you have to wait 30 secs or so is cause you're dropping the auth packets and not rejecting them... so it's waiting for an answer. if you modified your firewall to reject connections to (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) LOL! And I didn't mention slime or rampant running. :) John Hansen (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: I can't access LUGNET through nntp today
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3ab0c9d3.115224...net.com... (...) the (...) Yes, it does. This is a small log from my firewall, (Cisco PIX 515) where you can see that the nntp server needs a TCP connection on port 113 (auth (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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. (...) (24 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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
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 (...) (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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
