 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) (URL) Just because you find content in other areas to be objectionable is no excuse to lay it at their feet. (...) Whoops, I spelled it wrong. It's "sexiteria". I was watching the TESB commentary when I typed this, so I couldn't just pop in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) The ages I've seen posted by LUGNET users generally range in the 18+ range, but a few have posted ages in the 13-18 group, and a few others have posted in the under-13 group (I can think of at least one person from each of the non-adult age (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Please. Go do a search for "oral sex", for instance, and you tell me. (...) I'll take your word for it, because I think you made it up;-) (...) That's not quite fair to say. I have always been a little uncomfortable discussing adult topics on (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) How do you know this? Are you only considering members or posters? What about all of the people who use LUGNET as an online resource? And BTW, membership on LUGNET is most certainly not "free". (...) That is purely opinion with no basis on (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) WHAT GRAPHIC CONVERSATIONS?!?!?!? LUGNET is not a sexetorium. The LGBT group (and again, it's pretty clear that your vocal objection to All Things Off-Topic stems from the addition of that group) is not a place for LGBTs to announce and (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) LUGNET is a free, mostly self-regulating community of FOL's, primarily of the A- variety, but with a few T- and K- types thrown in as well. Putting stricter systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of conversation in so-called (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
"Jesse Alan Long" <kiraya_malzant@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:I45MzA.1yKA@lugnet.com... (...) LEGO HAS (...) would (...) that on (...) being (...) God (...) Suzanne, (...) with (...) a (...) also have (...) life. (...) the (...) was (...) (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.org)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Please. Even the poster thought that the subject matter was getting (URL) too blue>(note his post script), but the admin apparently (URL) didn't>. (...) Well, let's be clear that the whole matter is entirely subjective anyhow... (...) Well, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Your whole argument seems to revolve around the idea that LUGNET will now have, or already has, inappropriate "adult content" in the NG. If that is the case, that's a violation of the TOS: (do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) It's all useless. LGBT people can't seem to feel accepted in society unless they subdivide themselves into therapy groups. I'll still accept them, lavender bricks or not, and look upon their creations with the same eyes (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people, lugnet.org)
|
