 | | 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)
|
