 | | 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 (...) (24 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. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: I can't access LUGNET through nntp today
|
|
(...) if it's sending back a RST ACK that means the port is closed on your workstation, and that's all the server wanted to know... since from your earlier log didn't mention anything about resets being sent back to lugnet, I just assumed it was (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I can't access LUGNET through nntp today
|
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:3AB27414.909030...ron.com... (...) that (...) 30 - (...) Dan, thanks for your suggestions! Unfortunately, rejecting connections to port 113 is exactly what I am doing now. (See, I usually don't (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
