Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:57:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5662 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, John Neal wrote:
| |
How do you know this? Are you only considering members or posters?
|
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 groups).
| |
What about all of the people who use LUGNET as an online resource?
|
Well, if they’re only reading LUGNET, and never actually leaving footprints on
it, there’s really no way to tally their age demographic.
| |
And BTW, membership on LUGNET is most certainly not “free”.
|
I meant free-political, not free-economic. I can see how that could be read
either way, though.
| |
| |
Putting stricter systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of
conversation in so-called “on-topic” areas is as likely to drive users away
as it is to make parents somehow see an improvement in kid-safeness.
|
That is purely opinion with no basis on fact.
|
Really? There have already been those who have quit over the formation of the
LGBT group and the new/old color arguments. There are also those who have
repeatedly toed the line of decorum (John even claimed that there are a number
of people who constantly violate the TOS with no repercusions). New
restrictions and censorship will not be welcomed with open arms by every single
member, and there is a very real possibility that people would quit if they were
put in place.
| |
But you are ignoring the converse benefit-- that OT groups would then be able
to relate as adults without the fear of being inappropriate around younger
FOLs. The statement “We are all adults here” will finally be true. There is
a great desire, I believe, for many AFOLs to be able to relate to other AFOLs
on a strictly adult basis-- NO KIDS.
|
There are a lot of people who have expressed their preference to relate to other
FOLs as adults, but not necessarily restricted to AFOLs. It has been noted on
more than one occassion that there are a number of TFOLs and KFOLs who are
mature enough to pass as adults, while there are also a number of AFOLs who are
not. On paper, an age limit might seem the most sensible determiner, but in
practice, maturity is what really matters, and there’s not an objective and
unbiased way to regulate that.
| |
So far, this type of exclusive interaction has not been made available on
LUGNET. What if that is the type of LUGNET experience I want? Who
cares about that? Because so far, it is only been the illusion of it.
|
Do you really want that, or are you just playing devil’s advocate? I can see a
legitimate argument for walling off some groups (primarily .o-t.d, but not
.o-t.c-b/g/f/t or any of the .people groups) based on the idea that they are
already inappropriate for kids, but I wouldn’t want to see an area set up where
things are pointedly allowed to get more out of hand than they already do.
Think about it. What sorts of things would be more permissible in an R-rated
section? Graphic sexual content? If I was here to see that, I’d be surfing
porn sites instead. Vulger language or violent outbursts? What’s the sense in
setting up an adults-only area so adults can act in a completely childish
manner?
| |
So, because we can’t make the entire net safe, we shouldn’t try to make it
safe at all. Sorry, don’t buy it.
|
No, what I’m saying is that since we can’t make the entire internet safe, we
shouldn’t pretend we’re making this little section of it safe unless we’re
actually accomplishing what we’re claiming to have done. To date, there is no
foolproof means of sorting out the adults from the minors, so no area of LUGNET
should be set up to allow more inappopriate exchanges to take place.
| |
| |
You’ve been the most vocal opponent of the formation of an LGBT group,
which, regardless of whether it’s true or not, pretty much makes this look
like a further attempt to suppress the LGBT minority by shutting them behind
closed doors.
|
Please don’t single them out because you know that that is not what I am
saying.
|
Really? So you’re proposing that the discussion of clone brands, geek topics,
fun stuff, puns, kids, and teens, as well as the ability to do test posts should
be locked off securely away from where they could possibly warp the minds of
children everywhere? Sorry, don’t buy it. If you want .o-t.d locked off from
underaged viewers, just concentrate on that one group. Don’t try to lump all of
.o-t and .people in with it.
So you still haven’t presented any legitimate reasons why they shouldn’t be
allowed access to the .LGBT group. The only two strong arguments you’ve come up
with are that LGBT=Sin (which falls kinda flat in the face of scientific
evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a physiological state, not a choice)
and that the .LGBT group will be chock full of inappropriate graphic sexual
content (which has thus far proven not to be true).
| |
Really? Transgendered kids? Never heard of it myself.
|
Yes, really. Being transgendered doesn’t require surgery or hormone treatment.
All it requires is a strong desire to be a member of the opposite sex. I met
someone at college who says he’s felt like he should have been born a girl since
early childhood. He feels strongly enough about it to refer to his gender as a
birth defect.
| |
| |
It’s been pretty well established that you are in the minority in your
assumption that a simple statement of sexual orientation equates with
publishing Penthouse Letters,
|
Even if that were true, are you saying that that view doesn’t deserve
respect?
|
No, it doesn’t, but you should still be free to put your own foot in your own
mouth.
| |
| |
and that the TOS prohibit posting the graphic descriptions that you can’t
seem to stop seeing in your head.
|
Helloooo?? For the Nth time, it’s not about me, Dave.
|
When you started protesting the formation of an LGBT group, one of your main
points was that graphic sexual content has no place here, and that merely
admitting homosexuality must needs conjure up images of what goes on in their
bedrooms. None of the rest of us seem to have that problem, which means that
that is indeed all about you.
| |
Would you give me a break? LUGNET isn’t about providing support for
victims, it’s about LEGO. LEGO Users Group Network.
|
It’s about LEGO Users. That’s the whole “community” angle popping up there.
| |
If someone wants to start a LUG for lgbters, they should DO it, and not
pretend that there is anything magical about a simple subgroup on LUGNET!
|
Maybe they will. Maybe they should. It’d make it a lot harder for people to
justify ostracizing them from the community.
| |
None of those people, AFAIK, exist. And if they do, then I’m sorry, that’s
the way it is. But you don’t seem to be shedding any tears for those who’d
like LUGNET to be strictly about LEGO. Their views don’t seem to matter,
and so your compassion for the disenfranchised rings hollow to me.
|
They’ve still got skip-filters. And, theoretically, the discretion to stay out
of any threads that obviously don’t pertain directly to the LEGO experience. So
no, I’m not shedding any tears for them. It’s not like they’re being forced to
read every message that they might find objectionable, and expecting them to be
able to excercise common sense is not placing an unfair burden on them (one
would think the fact that various groups have been placed in the .off-topic
group would be bells, whistles, and blinking warning signs enough to get that
point across). Not like forbidding LGBTs to ever even mention the fact that
they live a different lifestyle would be on LGBTs.
| |
Why would you suppose that? Are you implying that LUGNET is inhabited by
people who are only friendly for fear of violating TOS? ?
|
No, I’m implying that having a section that’s pointedly off-limits to minors
leans a bit more towards unfriendly than friendly. And I’m stating it outright,
so I’m not really implying it, either.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
