|
|
 | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) Mark, you posted a message to a public discussion group (several actually). If it was not meant to be an open letter, then perhaps you should have sent it directly to Todd via email. I do not think it was appropriate of you to inform Henry (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
| Some thoughts from a loyal but non-member Lugnet participant: I believe I understand where Todd is coming from here, and I think that generally, the idea makes sense. Corporate involvement DOES dilute a true fan-based newsgroup. For an extreme (...) (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: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) Uh oh. Now the uproar is going to continue because you're only allowed to profane on LUGNET if you're in the good graces of the powers that be. And you're not. So I predict your posting privs will be yanked and you'll scream about being (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
| (...) 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)
|
|
