 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Dave Low
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —John Neal
|
| | | | | 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. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Sophie
|
| | | | | | | 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, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Abner Finley
|
| | | | | | | (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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Dan Jezek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | LEGO set 6074 / Daluland #708 —Abner Finley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Absolutely. --Todd (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
