To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.nntpOpen lugnet.admin.nntp in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / NNTP / 646 (-20)
  Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
 
I haven't been following along very closely. Thanks for clearing up the brouhaha for me! Build On! John Matthews (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
 
  Re: A letter to Todd
 
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Eric Joslin writes: (eric j) (...) Debating? I said many times I was not debating with anybody, if it was a debate, then I would have moved it into the debate thread. Maybe this was your first mistakes (of a few) in assuming (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
 
  Re: A letter to Todd
 
(...) They were taken from random threads, at the time I posted it there were appx. 175+ posts to that thread - and you see the small range the quotes were taken from - 475 thru 524 -and that includes whatever non topical posts were made in the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
 
  Re: A letter to Todd
 
Hmmm. Quite a way to get involved in this, and thus far I have been kind of nuetral...rather been juggling opinions for the past few days, pretty good persuasive writers here :) But, I somewhat believe this right here is the core of the debate and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
 
  Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
 
(...) Actually, I never said that. Perhaps you should go back and read more closely what I've said and what I haven't. I said that savvy NNTP users could follow a thread through several newsgroups. I've never said anything about the ease of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
 
  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)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR