 | | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Ahh, but Leonard - you missed the point. I never said it did not belong on Lugnet, and I never said it did not belong in .people - did I? (...) I think you are also missing the entire point of Lugnet and posting messages to Lugnet -- Lugnet it (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Ahh, but Mark.. you missed the charter of lugnet.people: "lugnet.people– All about LEGO® people (enthusiasts, fans, maniacs, collectors, builders, etc.)" And since Todd is clearly a "LEGO people" - any post about Todd should be on-topic for (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Todd, As much as I wish you luck on your search - can you explain why this does not belong in off-topic? I draw your attention to the group charter of off-topic: "Off-topic (non-LEGO®) discussions" - this is what your post was, non-LEGO® (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Which is just as well, because I didn't. (...) Ah, I just bought the set tonite. So, in fact, you were actually referring to a word that the Futurama writers made up:-) (...) No, just all completely off-topic. (...) Why this fixation on the (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Exactly. Hundreds if not thousands are directed to LUGNET via word of mouth (at train shows alone). What would they care about topics not relating to LEGO? (...) Quit? Rescinded their memberships? How do you know that? (...) I said the TOS (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
