 | | Re: Todd and Eric's attitude (was Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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: A letter to Todd
|
|
(...) Todd was not making an assuption. As certain people here have made a rather big point of lately, Todd and I talk offline frequently- about a great variety of topics, including LEGO and Lugnet. Recently, while talking offline, the subject of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) I agree that it would be a little presumptuous to dictate to TLC too much about _how_ dealings should occur (as in expecting unreasonble things to happen), but it's not presumptuous at all to dictate (or let's say specify) _where_ official (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) That's a great way of explaining it. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) Absolutely. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A letter to Todd
|
|
(...) I'm with you on that. My only regret on this is not having made things clear to Brad and his people ahead of time. I have sent an apology and I hope there are no hurt feelings. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A letter to Todd
|
|
(...) I second that! And add Suzanne's name there too! :] (...) Yes Mark, they do have "some real power". I'd rather not drag this major incident up, but I feel it is relevant---some may have forgotten it, and others may have never heard about it: A (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
