 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tom Stangl
|
| | | Todd, I simply can't agree with this - you're basically relegating any AFOL that gets lucky enough to be hired by TLG to Second Class Citizen status, even though they are STILL AFOLs, just their employer has changed. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) gets (...) they (...) I totally disagree with this. They are still free to post anywhere using a non-lego.com address. They're still the same person. Just as I choose to post using my personal rather than my professional address. It makes it (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) I think the problem is that you will have to wade through many, mny posts looking for the few lego posts there, realsitcally the persantage of Lego posts vs non-lego people posts have to be about 1 to every 2000 - would you want to wade (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) easier (...) Hmm, actually you're arguing the other side here... All of the official LEGO posts being in one place makes them *easier* to find than is the current state. James (still on the fence...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) How does it relegate them to second class citizen status? They are still more than welcome to post anywhere they want, using a non-LEGO address. And given Yahoo, Hotmail, etc, it's neither hard nor expensive to obtain a second email address (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) My goodness, how many times does this need to be repeated? It's easy to get an email. Easy, but irrelevant to the argument. I have 5. So what? It's HARD to toggle posting settings here. You minimise that as being something that technically (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) You're absolutely right, Larry...you're absolutely right. And thanks for acknowledging the last portion of that above. But let's try really hard not to assume that the current state of web posting will necessarily still be the case in the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) But you did the steps in the wrong order, and that's my major beef. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Larry, what you wrote above to Eric is kind of insulting, and I think it's backwards. Eric and I happen to see eye-to-eye on a lot of things and it's one of the reasons that we're friends. We also happen to disagree on a lot of things, and I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Two points: 1. I'm not particularly bothered if what I said to Eric comes off as kind of insulting. He has a few "kind of" insults coming as he's been rather rude to a number of people on this and other occasions. 2. Nevertheless, if you take (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Further unsolicited discussion is not going to change things. (Discussion was never invited in the first place.) Those who disagree are entitled to their opinions but should understand that it is impossible to please everyone. There are no (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thanks. I think it's time for everyone to step away anyway, some things are being said that probably are more divisive than they ought to be. The rest of this post is meta, that is, it is about how communication happens here, rather than (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) Todd, Eric is way out of line in many things, to a few different people, from what **I** have **seen** you have only agreed with him, and followed up on it yourself (do I need to point out the thread? Because this is *true* and not a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mark Papenfuss writes: <snip> Mark... drop it. Let it go, man. I let Eric get under my skin and I shouldn't have. This isn't about personalities or insults, it's about what's right for the fan community and what's right for (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Ka-On Lee
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Wow finally some good stuff came out of this mass. This should be the 204th message of this thread - Is it a record for Lugnet? Thanks for the link LP! (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It's probably some kind of record if you define the category narrowly enough so nothing else qualifies. But it's not the largest thread ever, or even the largest admin related thread, I don't think. (and that, I think, is a good sign) (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) I haven't made any personal attacks. Sorry. I made an observation based on the evidence at hand, one which I beleived- and still beleive- was true. In retrospect, there was no reason to post it, I simply should have stopped engaging in a (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) What evidence? I would LOVE to see what evidence you have or had. And FYI, words are not prrof -we come from different places - so we use different words. Plese visit this post, it was for you: (URL)eric (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) The tone and vocabulary of every post you make. As you said elsewhere, that's the only evidence I have of anything about you, and it strongly indicated to me that you were not an adult. Which, BTW, is not an insult. Beleive it or not, there (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) Ah, that is where you are mistaken. Here, (URL) that may jog your memory. If I am a 13-year-old, then I was 7 hen i had a son - now that would have been something. You can not judge somebody by words they use, I think Scott Chambers put it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) You are obviously correct, of course; I didn't remember that incident. (...) Again, I never said I thought you were 13. Please stop indicating that I did. (...) Well, it wasn't meant as one. There is nothing wrong with being young and not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Guys, take it off-line, please. James (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Actually, I never said that. Perhaps you should go back and read more closely what I've said and what I haven't. I said that savvy NNTP users could follow a thread through several newsgroups. I've never said anything about the ease of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure which way I'll go on this one. For the most part, I don't see any harm to *LUGNET* or its members for Lego Reps to post 'officially' to other groups. I only really see potential harm for TLC, or the reps themselves. (...) I rather (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
