Subject:
|
Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:08:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2079 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> Note that there are certain signature requirements here (name, rank, serial
> number :-) for when making official posts; no one should sit around
> wondering if a given post is official or unofficial.
An official post requires a certain stationary (aka email address domain)
and a particular signature with specific elements in it. Have I understood
you correctly? Is this actually documented anywhere? This would seem to
suggest that lacking a proper signature a message is unofficial regardless
of the stationary upon which it is written.
> Here's a good metric: If it comes from lego.com and it's signed Jacob McKee
> Senior Product LEGO Direct, you can be darn sure that the post is official.
I, as you might have guessed, don't care whether a post is official or not.
I'm trying to encourage you to spell out exactly what makes you consider a
post official (and, if posted in an unofficial location, somehow damaging to
the spirit of Lugnet).
So if Jake posts via his yahoo.com email address in the .train newsgroup
that there is still time to enter the Lego Train contest you would not be
upset at all? Unofficial marketing is okay? Again, to make sure you
understand me here, I'm not assuming anything. I'm trying to obtain from
you clear statements regarding what is allowed and what is not.
> > If Tomas ever mentions Bionicles in the Bionicle newsgroups
> > (regardless of his email address) don't you think it's just about as
> > official as it would be when he posts via his lego.com address?
>
> Think of a lego.com (or bionicle.com, legomindstorms.com, etc.) email
> address like official stationery.
So you are definitely stating the policy that people who work for Lego can
post messages containing any content they wish so long as it
a) doesn't come from their lego.com email address, and
b) doesn't end with a signature stating their credentials (name, rank, et al)
Correct?
> Can you imagine Brad Justus making
> official statements from a yahoo.com mail account?
My imagination is apparently bigger than you imagine. Sure. To me, content
is everything. If the message contains an official statement it is official
whether it is written on toilet paper or official Lego stationary. Content
totally trumps conveyance.
> > Had Jake and Tomas posted in response to the latest MOC a
> > "that's so cool" message using their lego.com address would a "yesterday's
> > events" of that sort have caused this precipitation?
>
> Perhaps even more so. Yes.
The web interface (which I use exclusively) makes the email address entirely
irrelevant to the "official-ness" of a post. It doesn't show on the screens
that list the messages. It's separated from the message body in a manner
that makes it hardly noticeable. The eye settles immediately on the
lighter-shaded message body and ignores the message header almost entirely.
The email address of a poster is even more obscured when reading the posts
using Microsoft's Outlook Newsreader. While I'm sure other news readers
vary, the Outlook newsreader doesn't show the email address of the poster at
all.
You could, of course, also hide the email address (make it part of the
"href" attribute but not the content of the <a> tag) and there'd be even
less of a reason to worry about which email address a person uses to post a
message containing "official" Lego statements.
Thanks for considering my ill-gotten thoughts.
John Hansen
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
| "John Hansen" <JohnBinder@aol.com> wrote in message news:GAIqxs.73o@lugnet.com... (...) content (...) official (...) Content (...) Really? So you put just as much value in an article that is published in the Ridgemont High Student Newspaper as the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
| (...) That's hard to judge until a few months have passed. I have a very good feeling about this. (...) It's impossible to answer that question completely, since it's a fuzzy thing. However, we should trust that Brad and his people will do the right (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
232 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
