 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| "Teddy Welsh" <ewelsh@wsc.ma.edu> wrote in message news:I40H0H.1yKv@lugnet.com... (...) Great idea! And while we're at it, I'd like to suggest the following groups be made to further separate people away from the reason why we come to lugnet in the (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people, lugnet.org) !
| | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) So, by that logic, there should only be one group, right? Because every group splinters us into sub-topics of LEGO discussion. We should start by getting rid of lugnet.trains.org.msltc, because -- after all, why would a bunch of people who (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| Here we go... "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I458x9.19Bn@lugnet.com... (...) I am trying to show the *unimportance* of splitting off for social status reasons. Yes, lugnet.org.msltc *IS* a group, but it is a group of (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Rob, I know that you are trying to point out that it would be absurd to have a bunch of groups like that, however I do believe that any group that chooses to self identify and is genuinely interested in community building should be allowed to (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people, lugnet.org, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Sure. They are a group of people who share an interest in LEGO, trains (perhaps), and happen to be gay, instead. I see the difference. It's trivial. The main difference that I see is that in one case, you benefit from the subdivision and in (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| |
