 | | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Mark - While I happen to personally agree with the point you are trying to make (to an extent), from an administrative perspective, I don't agree with the way you're trying to make it. Being combative with Lenny isn't going to get you any (...) (22 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Again Leonard - I never said it was off topic for the group it was in. Why you keep going back to this point is truly beyond me. Please understand this simple point. My point, again, was the group ITSELF is in the wrong place. As anal as some (...) (22 years ago, 30-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) John, I cant help but point out that you are describing your opinions. It seems to me obvious that each individual parent must be able to decide what is appropriate and safe for their children, and that the parents themselves must enforce this (...) (22 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) If it is built out of LEGO-- yes. (...) Do you suppose that I'd be so pedantic to suggest otherwise? Seems like .admin might be a good exception. And .test might fit under that hierarchy as well... (...) Ha, you weaken your argument by your (...) (22 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) But what about when someone shows their wedding cake topper? Is that on-topic? If so, it is ok that it presents sexual content? Do the admin groups remain adult only because they're off-topic also? You have not provided a good reason why (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
