 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
