 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) What about (URL) (Actually, I think Todd forgot, and has been busy. . .he's always busy, and seems to have acquired a great many more news messages to read. But this is potentially important.) TWS Garrison (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) On the flip side, what about (URL) seems you picked the somewhat nicer of the 2 posts. That thread has been thrashed to death. Was this what started it off? Mark P. mfuss903@aol.com (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) Hmm, looks like Todd started to change his mind... Actually, if nothing else changes, I would lobby very strongly for TLC being able to make announcements in lugnet.announce.lsahs. What would be really cool is if they started posting the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) This is important, yes, and we should talk about options that best enable dissemination by LEGO of such information. I would not be opposed to deleting the lugnet.announce.lsahs group and moving its content to lugnet.lego.announce or some new (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) I'd recommend lugnet.lego.shop.announce (or just lugnet.lego.shop - though that might invite discussion about LEGO shopping avenues. Hmm, I just had an idea. Set one or more lugnet.lego.xyz.announce groups, which only TLC can post to. Then (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) Good idea Frank. Have you seen this post? (URL) hope Todd can sort out the multiple identity crisis so there's less of this messiness. --DaveL (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
I'm weighing in here on Frank's post because I think he's onto some good ideas. I think Todd is on to some good ideas, too, and here's why I think so. The beauty of .lego.direct is that it is a place where we *know* TLC (LD) is listening. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
One time I kinda complained to TLC, I was a little concerned that when you are recieving the Mania Magazine, it is all Adverts and hardly any MOC's, what's the point of this except as a way to generate more hype and previews! That's ok with me but, (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(coming out of the cave hearing all the nose going on Lugnet....sheesh taking a step outside smelling the roses...seeing the LEGO private jet taken off back to Bilund ) This is my second post to lugnet ever since LUGNET came online. Besides the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) This is kinda OT: What about that daluland arabian castle set, very similar to 6074 that you won on eBay last year? (URL) that a fake? There was a lot of discussion about this set and I don't recall anyone ever confirm this was a real genuine (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | LEGO set 6074 / Daluland #708
|
|
(...) To answer your question. The set #708 Daluland Castle set is a fake. More like a copy/clone of LEGO set #6074. From the box size and design to the elements. All the elements are almost the same as #6074 or equal to #6074. It kinda makes me (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.castle)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) I like the format of lugnet.lego.foo only for official postings, with automagic duplication into lugnet.lego.foo.d (iscussion) because I think it is more clear than anything else would be. But then you have a .lego.* group that we're al (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) The lugnet.lego.foo for official posts and lugnet.lego.foo.d for discussion format doesn't work naturally with Lugnet. The reason is how groups are coalesced in the web view. I think it is valuable that it be easy to see just the official (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) Agreed! I know Todd has requested some input in this regard: (URL) request which I've yet to have voiced my input on (although the message has been open on my desktop since it first appeared). (...) I was going to reply to this that I don't (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) Absolutely. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) One quick thing I haven't mentioned in much detail yet: the way groups are coalesced currently in the web view will probably always be a default view, but there will be other views (customizable) and folders to store personal article (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) Sounds good, and when complete, will probably make the actual structure mostly irrelevant, which is good because a hierarchical tree can never properly represent the associations between different things, and the associations which are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
