 | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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: A letter to Todd
|
|
(...) Todd, You probably wanted to just let this blow over, but I bet you could have spun the change more aggressively and avoided the uproar. I read your note. I didn't like it. I waited. I think that after reading your stuff -- but only when (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
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: A letter to Todd
|
|
(...) True, point taken - I was more to borrow a word "grated" that the reply had really nothing to do with the post - I know it would be impossible to keep people posting a reply to it, and posting that would only make people reply more - which it (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Yea, I don't think you can determine that, and thus I don't think that idea would work. I wonder how many people would actually object to someone getting a cut when they find a good price on an item? I certainly am willing to give the buyer a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) I have read through most of this thread and I totally agree with Todd on this. I also see the issue of AFOL to AFOL discussions in the .lego section a little more clearly now. This seems very simple and a very good idea to me. Discussions (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
