 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree that everybody has different thresholds of what they consider to be appropriate and inappropriate. That is precisely why I would stay away from those type of arguments and simply categorize everything off-topic as being "adult". (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) What do you mean by "sexual" content? Is mentioning that you have a wife sexual? Is a guy mentioning that he has a boyfriend sexual? Is you mentioning that you have a kid sexual? Is a woman mentioning tha she is pregnant sexual? Is mentioning (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Ref upgrade?
|
|
(...) There are problems with Partsref. The counts on the keywords list are, at best, approximate. The search is inaccurate. The biggest problem is that it hasn't been updated in over 2 years. To address your direct concern: the most stable way to (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Mark, You replied to a User's post[1] with a rationale for why the particular newsgroup belongs on another part of LUGNET. The post in question is perfectly on-topic for the newsgroup it is placed in, fully within the Charter of that group (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Parts Ref upgrade?
|
|
OK. Today I was looking for the 4x4 turntable in the parts ref. So I type in "turntable" thinking its a fairly uncommon word in LEGO parts, and his enter. I get 1 part in the result: (URL) think "Hmmmm thats strange", so I go look up the part (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
