 | | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I note that the same lugnet user is again advertising in lugnet.robotics; (URL) no action has obviously been taken since this person last advertised in this news group a few weeks ago, am I to take it that this group is now available for (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) I agree. Further while I think some tolerance is appropriate for non LUGNET(tm) users, (and I veer way out into the hypothetical here) someone who is a LUGNET user but posts commercial stuff that way as a loophole exploitation should be called (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I understand that some postings on lugnet.robotics arrive via the lego-robotics@crynwr.com service and I think that is a valuable connection which should be retained despite the slim possibility that it may result in a breach of the terms and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) I think the intent is that it is not, unless the group specifically allows it. See this thread (this is a post from the middle... but it has a proposed clarification in terms that seemed to be well received and that addresses this very point) (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I recently noticed an unabashed advertisment placed in the robotics group and I've been trying to figure out if advertising is appropriate or not in those kinds of groups (as opposed to the market areas). The terms of use state; Discussion Group (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification, Richie... I confess when I penned that screed I hadn't gone and checked the charter, I was working from memory. But I think you'd agree that a loc group has a more well defined set of users than a non specific (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek writes: [snip] (...) .loc.au has been tolerant of such posts (i.e. the natives don't complain). However, such posts are definitely not techically allowed. This was confirmed in July (see (URL) ) and as recently (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: MY CUSTOM MODELS NOW FOR SALE!!
|
|
(...) Except for (URL) of course. Cheers Richie Dulin (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Market Terms Modification (Was Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct)
|
|
(...) I like it 100%. It is more concise than I could write, too. __Kevin Salm__ (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
(...) probably needed is a parallel to 11 that deals with non auction "offers for sale" posts, ne? (...) How about something similar to this: (11a?). (do not) Post offers or announcements of items for sale, offers to buy, wanted notices, offers to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
Alas... (...) true. (...) Do folks have any suggestions for re-wording of number 11 of T&C: (URL) you come up with something concrete and reasonable, I'll only need to edit the text and write an announcement to publish an update. right? But if it (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
(...) I would point out that currently posting any market posting other than an auction posting anywhere within Lugnet is not against the TOS. It is against the clear desires and directions of the admins and the community (so a post or e-mail asking (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) That seems a bit heavy-handed. Omitting information that is useful or helpful or necessary to others is annoying, but not subject to any negative action, IMO. I don't like posts that only give me half the story or omit crucial details any more (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) This area of my query was in relation to it occuring repeatedly by the same person...once is OK, twice: maybe they need to be informed that this sort of information is needed, and if they do it a third time, maybe time-out isn't such a bad (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) While it's true that omitting locale from sale information is a practice to be discouraged, I'm not sure it fits the intended definition of "unhelpful posts" that was given. At least not in my view it doesn't. It's hard to see how someone (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) Just a minor query on this...will this new policy prevent people in their .loc.??? groups posting messages using what is considered normal language in their own countries, but that others in different countries may not appreciate, or will it (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) Sad don't you think that we all can't act like Adult Fans Of LEGO... But if you act like a naughty child, so be it for your punishment. Negative comments in discussion to a personal nature DO nothing to establish a point and just demoralize (...) (22 years ago, 27-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) I agree with the new policy about 80-90%. It's just too bad it came to this; having to negatively sanction unfriendliness in the once-Friendliest Place On the Web. There's also a lot of grey area when it comes to arbitrary connotations like (...) (22 years ago, 25-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes: [lots of snipping. sorry] Well, I think this is an excellent idea, and it's about time a new TOS policy was enacted. The time out idea is quite feasible, in my opinion, and I really think this new policy (...) (22 years ago, 24-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
Effective immediately, the LUGNET administration is enacting a new policy aimed at cutting down on bickering in the newsgroups. We understand that emotions and impulses can come into play when things get heated. In times like that, it's often (...) (22 years ago, 24-May-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.admin.terms) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Spam. Yet another matter of internet life, and yet, how I can't stand it! Thankfully, the lugnet FAQ and the TOS prohibit spamming, so I hopefully won't have to see any of it here. Linking this to the main market page would definitely be a (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Ditto. (...) Well we've had discussion in the past on whether behavioural things ought to be FAQ entries or what, but if these guidelines seem well received, even if not codified as formal rules, linking to them from the main market page and (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) I like these. I wouldn't change a thing. All types of posts seem to be covered. Well thought out, Frank. How to implement is another matter. Certainly, if these guidelines are to be implemented as rules, they could be listed or linked on the (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Hmm, good question. First it is probably worth exploring when repeat postings are acceptable, so some thoughts on that: A second post about an auction on a site such as eBay may be made during the final 24 hours of the auction. Note that due (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
I agree that seeing the repeated posting is irritating. How would you word such guidance? (looking for suggestions) Also, note that the Marketplace idea I had would create an ideal place for (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Wow, he waited a whole 9 days this time... I suppose in some ways once a week or so is ok, but in thinking about the new TOS for market posts, it might be worth thinking about giving a bit more guidance and frequency of posting. FUT: (...) (22 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) S@H specials would also not belong in .shopping if it is for places with a retail outlet. What is the difference between The Vault and S@H? (...) There may need to be a place to discuss issues with BrickLink and general discussion of brick (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) .b-s-t (...) operation, (...) I had always assumed that .shopping was for reports for / from stores with actual physical retail operations (storefronts), and that everything else went into .bst. Todds comments about The Vault seem to refute (...) (22 years ago, 20-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) From whom? Hopefully not an admin. (...) it. I just did, in fact. .brickshops clearly (to my way of thinking) is about operations, not flogging. It's another group just like .shipping and .services and .theory While the hood is up on the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) posted (...) Tom - as far as I know there has been no official answer as to the proper place to post BrickLink sales info. I think we're getting closer to a ruling :) (URL)To me, .brickshops is more about discussing the running of brickshops, (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
And yet a further question - I used to post all my Brickbay info in b-s-t. I hadn't posted for months, added some sets, some discounts, some parts, so I posted in b-s-t. I got a private email telling me I shouldn't do that, to post to .brickshops. (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) I think that's pretty big of you to apologise and I commend you for it. My take on this is that despite fairly clear statements (those that Kevin dug up, for example) there's still room for confusion, because the charters could admit of some (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
I stand corrected and apologize. I should have done some research on this. -Jon -- | The Galactic Shipyard - (URL) My Lego Creations - (URL) Attack of the Bricks - (URL) Salm" <kdsalm@dreamscape.com> wrote in message news:Gur14H.CwM@lugnet.com... (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) I have just done a bit more digging and found that Todd Lehman spelled out the usage of .shopping by vendors and The Vault in particular --> (URL) few messages later, Frank Filz gives his insight as to the distinction between .b-s-t and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
XFUT: lugnet.admin.terms (...) Hi Jon. According to the charter for .market.shopping [1] these types of announcemnts are allowed and should not be problematic. Here is exactly how the charter for .shopping reads: ++CHARTER/PURPOSE: (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" Display Lego Figures!! 6 different types!
|
|
(...) Yup, I was just about to do so. but thanks for pointing it out. -Suz (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" Display Lego Figures!! 6 different types!
|
|
This message has been posted repeatedly over the past several days, in violation of the LUGNET terms of service. Please stop. --Bill. XFUT: lugnet.admin.terms (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS
|
|
(...) I agree, Frank. I'm working on eliminating the holdup now. Expect an announcement about this soon. -Suz LUGNET Admin (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS
|
|
<rwebb@enohspamaltavista.net> wrote in message news:Gpxx64.3FL@lugnet.com... (...) for (...) Or perhaps lugnet.people-who-ac...ugnet-turn ing-into-usenet? At least that's what my post was. Taking the previous posts as a hypothetical situation and (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS
|
|
Hi all I think I need to reply to this with more than "sorry". My first thought was that two words ought to suffice. But where's the proportion in all of this ? Yes, I've posted to the .market tree before, BUT have never really digested that (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) This is too bad. If he's been following LUGNET for this long, he does [most likely] know better. This is exactly the attitude we DON'T need on LUGNET - people flaunting the charters and disrespecting other groups for their financial gain. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
This is a pretty good example of how telling people where to post stuff doesn't do much good. I don't know Ronan myself, but I think he has been around for quite some time. The People listing shows that he has been a lugnet member since 23-Nov-2000. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) I second this wholeheartedly. (...) Too bad its taken this long. It should have been changed a while ago. -Tim (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) There has been talk for ages about changing the TOS to disallow market posts outside the .market hierarchy (presumably they would remain ok in org groups as those groups desire, and shopping tips would remain ok in the .loc groups), and Suz (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
|
(...) I guess his opinion on the matter is different. All posts are not always going to be shunted to the optimal topic header and that's OK. All the moderation, curating, good intentions or FREAKING OUT in the world is going to change that. If it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
|
(...) Um, why? That is, why forward this particular post rather than making a statement along the lines of "hey general readers, there's a discussion that you ought to read and it starts here [cite to head of tree]" ?? Should everyone forward posts (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) One reason someone may want to post about BB sales would be if they are having a set time frame sale or maybe free shipping for a short period of time only. That would not show up in the wanted emails or the search. Julie (23 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
|
(...) Which then determines whether people actually read the group (and thus whether it merits existence). After all, I can think of no Earthly reason why anyone would want to read BrickBay sales info (since Dan has done a great job with the search (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
|
(...) Just what posts belong in .brickshops has been discussed before with no official conclusion: (URL) way I, and some others, interpret the charter of .brickshops is that it is for discusion of brickshops (*mentioned* in the charter) and not for (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) 1. I set follow-ups to admin.general: (URL) Tamara replies to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general: (URL) I replied to Tamara's post without noticing the FUT & I apologise: (URL) James gives me a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Liquidation World Lego
|
|
(...) Hmm, me thinks (URL) needs to be updated. Someone using NNTP would not easily be able to find this. This raises an interesting question, how do we keep apprised of changes in the TOS? How does someone coming in fresh find all the TOS (they get (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Liquidation World Lego
|
|
See the following posts (URL) under the main header. Rose "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3C1E05A4.970C6D...ing.com... (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
Hmm.. this is interesting. Are you saying that you did not write this: "Ban him. Scott A FUT lugent.admin.general x-posted to .general, as this is an issue which concerns us all... or at least is should." (...) Personally, I think Scott should be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Liquidation World Lego
|
|
(...) Actually I've got a question about that. Is it really against the TOS for these types of requests? I know folks have often asked here for people willing to buy this or that which is on limited distribution. No on the other hand, if you have no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
(...) If you mean this: (URL) don't think you have apologised. (...) You would have no right to do that if that situation did arise. Further, where in the ToU does it say its OK make threats here? What is one to think of you? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Ignore who is involved. A member has broken the rules. He is threatening to do the same again. Either he should be removed, or the rules should be changed. (...) I can't agree with you. Take a look at who continually tries, and often succeeds, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Larry, by your own measure, you are a bare faced liar. Calling me a "liar" without being willing to justify it in any way does nothing but emphasis that point. You are deluded. You need help. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Possibly. It's a very grey area. (OBDisclaimer: I'm only really arguing this to refine my understanding of what the ToU might mean in a fairly grey area.) (...) It is unreasonable to hold Lugnet's ToU to any authority beyond Lugnet, so the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I believe you are incorrect. First, if it's against the spirit of the ToU for a spammer to harvest email addresses against the will of the participants, it's against the spirit of the ToU for an UNspammer to harvest a single email address (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I refuse to support the banning of one member of Lugnet over a dispute with another member of Lugnet unless both parties are banned together. So I think you should be more careful of the things you are seeking to achieve because you will end (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you're both wrong. I just reveiwed the terms of use, and there is nothing in there about e-mail addresses, except the requirement to have a valid one in your posting ID. So if you still feel that Larry violated your privacy, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Dave sums it up: (URL) did what he did *knowing* it breaks the ToU here. He did what he did *knowing* it was a violation of my privacy rights. He did what he did in his usual belligerent manner: ==+== See, I march to my own metronome, and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
My My, someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.... I normally stay out of debate, I don't need anymore crap in my life, though you brought this into the public forum where I do read, and of course, I had to go back and look at the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Something needs to be done. All of our e-mails are displayed here based on trust. If members here feel they have the right to abuse that trust, what sort of place will this become? This person has taken my details from this forum, and used (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
(...) Arguably it is not. I don't think it's in the letter but it violates the spirit as it's a misuse of an email address. I apologised on forum and I will apologise again here. What I did was wrong, never mind that my motive was to be helpful, and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
I wonder if Todd &/or Suz intend that members should use the e-mail addresses of posters in this way? I expect not. Is it even within the TofU? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) We tend to post notices of retail sales in .loc.au, with trading / auctions/ etc going in .org.au (where the charter specifically allows it). (...) I agree. The theme groups should be for discussing things other than trading etc. However the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) I know that the .loc.au crowd enjoys having sale announcements in .loc.au and .org.au (the latter, especially, IIRC), so maybe a blanket restriction from the theme groups (including .general) would be called for. I honestly don't find b-s-t or (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) Offhand. . .exactly two years, (URL) with perhaps increasing resolution over time. And I agree that a clarification of the TOS[1] would still be a good thing. TWS Garrison [1] Personally, I'd prefer a change to ban on all (...) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) Could someone please point out the item in the TOS which prohibits non-auction buy/sell/trade posts out of non-market groups? As far as I'm concerned, currently, such posts are allowed. Todd had posted many times that such is allowed, though (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Legos role in Anti-terrorism
|
|
(...) I'm assuming she was pleased to hear of LEGO in a rather odd place and pleased to hear that Joseph can participate. (as are many of us I am sure (1) ) I suspect she overlooked the para you cited rather than endorsed it per se. I think your (...) (23 years ago, 4-Nov-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: I've got some imperial soldiers for sale again!
|
|
(...) wrto market posting had been discussed to death, but I don't remember seeing them change. I do think this is a good idea, just want to make sure the rules are crisp. Frank (23 years ago, 3-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: I miss the old LUGNET...
|
|
Ok, Larry you raise good points and I will keep them in mind for the future. I hope to be respectful to other groups and I will abide by the TOS in the future. Thank you for being straight up with me. I can always trust you to see it as it really (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: I miss the old LUGNET...
|
|
(...) Perhaps whoever the curator for lugnet.newbie is could go through some of the posts there and put together a faq on the topic. General netiquette is a starting point but Things Are Different Here(tm), at least a little bit. (...) I don't think (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
(...) First of all, since you have posting right here in Lugnet, you already declared that you agreed on this TOS before, and of course you supposed to read it before accepting. If this is not the case, its certainly your own problem. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | A note to jesse long, amongst others
|
|
dude, ive never heard of you before.. im a castlehead and rarely leave that newsgroup, but for somereason i found this message line today and have read it all. here are some thoughts ive had, hopefully they'll help somewhat. 1) 'netiquette' is not (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Todd, can you please deal with this
|
|
To all who read this, The post I am refering to has foul language and the link should not be followed without you being warned. Todd, Can you please address the situation of the following post: (URL) I feel extremly excessive language has been used (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) Perfectly agreed. -Shiri (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Tim Courtney writes: I'll end my discussion of this by saying I agree (...) Here here. Jake -- Jake McKee AFOL LUGNET Member #211 (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) Consider this the help you claim you need.... 1. Go to (URL) and read. 2. Click on "New User" at the bottom of the page 3. When you click "New User", you will be taken to (URL) This page offers a numbers of things, including: - Complete (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) No idea if it's true or not, but in one thread or another I believe Jesse said that he posts from a library computer via the web interface, where nothing can be installed... I haven't followed closely enough to know if he's subsequently (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
(...) I have some problems with the rules (and apprently have possibly violated some rules without my knowledge). The first problem is, why should we respect the laws of Massachusetts? Not every person from Lugnet is from Massachusetts so we should (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL from Lugnet.
|
|
(...) this is the type of twisting of words that is common from JAL. This is exactly why diplomacy does not work. We have tried being nice, and he isn't stopping. (...) JAL has only argued more when we practically begged him to share his MOCs with (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: My assesment of the JAL situation
|
|
(...) I guess I simply picked the wrong place to say the message, whether setting an example or not but you sent the profanity as well and you should have known better as well. I also used the profanity that I used as an illustration that I do not (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | My assesment of the JAL situation
|
|
I thought my posts on this situation were over... After cooling down a bit, responding to some email, and re-reading my correspondence with Jessie which he has chosen to make an example of me with, I'll offer these words. It is Jessie, not I, not (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) You seem to want to keep the arguement going, Mladen, otherwise you would stop the arguements. Without the arguements, what would you do with your miserable life? Where do you live, anyway, Mladen? Maybe over in where you live, more children (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
"Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message news:GHLwqD.HsH@lugnet.com... (...) offensive (...) son of a (...) Lugnet. (...) response, and I (...) below... (...) <snip> I do not care what context it was in, I just had my 9 year old (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
-snipped J.A.L.'s usual BS- (...) And what creations have you shown us here on LUGNET? None. You can't install MLCAD on your computer and build your models on the computer. What are you, 20 years-old? Wow, I know young teenages who can run MLCAD on (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) Why argue any more online? Does any person on Lugnet even KNOW exactly what started this arguement? I think that constructive criticism (which I have been trying to do very strongly to most people online) should be allowed on Lugnet. I believe (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) DO NOT EVER put those words in my mouth. For the record, I did not say the phrase Jessie stated. I may have used profanity in my messages, but as others can attest (I will not put them on the spot like Jessie has put me on the spot) I was not (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) Thank you. After just ending my email 'correspondence,' if you could call it that, with Jessie, and reading these posts, I am rather upset. For those curious, I took my conversation with Jessie to email because I did not want it to continue on (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) I decided to let that slide in the context it was said...but you are correct, Tom. <snip> (...) E-mail, too, has failed...sadly. I've been privvy to some of the mail, and it hasn't worked any better than words here. But Tom, this IS a public (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) My name is JESSE, Tom, not JESSIE. Jessie is from Team Rocket and I am NOT from Pokemon, Tom. I was merely showing you what Tim Courtney was saying in a post offline AND these people have used words similar to those I said AND I was proving a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
**Note** I have censored Jesse's post with "@@@"'s to cover the offensive words.. In lugnet.people, Jesse Alan Long writes: <snip> (...) As well is NOT ALLOWED on Lugnet, this is uncaled fo at any response, and I am offended that you choose to have (...) (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: A Confession and an Apology
|
|
(...) <snipped my daughter's sitch> I got a note offline from a well known RTLer who chooses to remain publicly anonymous for privacy reasons, and therefore has chosen not to post here. This person is willing to reveal identity to administrative (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: A Confession and an Apology
|
|
(...) ( AAAARGGG, I'm gonna half to have dictionary.com running non stop if this maddness doesn't cease, LOL! ) around privacy (esp. for (...) Depends on your own personal opinion... (...) Sounds like my house! (...) One way to do this would be to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: A Confession and an Apology
|
|
(...) I think Matt touches on an interesting "quandary" around privacy (esp. for younger folks) First off, folks are welcome to tell me "this isn't a big deal so stop worrying". Because they may well be right!!! My daughter, who is 11, has an email (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: All your Yellow Pod fins ... everywhere?
|
|
(...) I read it pretty closely but missed the tie in to org.michlug... can you help me find it? Thanks! That would help explain why it was appropriate to that group. In Eric's story, he points out that his use of the web is recent. So I agree with (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: All your Yellow Pod fins ... everywhere?
|
|
(...) That's probably because people recognized that that post was appropriate for each of those newsgroups. (...) filter (...) I find it very disrepsctful to snip out Eric's very heartfelt story about how he came to find others who share his hobby (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
