 | | 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 Rescinded their memberships?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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: spam blocking
|
|
(...) Cool. Thanks! Jason Spears | (URL) BrickCentral> | (URL) MichLUG> | (URL) CLB> (22 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
I've had time to read and reread and reread this post and I'd like to add a few comments further, if I may. "Teddy Welsh" <ewelsh@wsc.ma.edu> wrote in message news:I40H0H.1yKv@lugnet.com... (...) No one is unwelcome at Lugnet, not even Richard (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people, lugnet.org)
|
| |
| | Re: spam blocking
|
|
(...) Yes Todd - but the problem was that the spamblocks were not always in the domain name, and did nothing to stop spam for those with 'catch-all' email accounts. But it looks like you fixed the problem from your other post, so I guess it does not (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: spam blocking
|
|
(...) Turns out it was just a one-line change to implement this. --Todd (22 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: spam blocking
|
|
(...) Actually, the spamblocks you see in the web interface are added on-the-fly when the page is shown to you. If you click "reload" several times, you'll see several different spamblocks. --Todd (22 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
