 | | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) -snip- That's pretty funny. However, please respect the work of other builders. I am sure this model took hours of hard work for Hiron to create. Did you get the builder's permission to re-post their work? Also, please do not post profanity on (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) -snip- May I ask if these rules are still being honored? Or are the members of this forum prey to dogs and trolls? I have several complaints. Paid Member #1051 (19 years ago, 21-Sep-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about a call for a contest
|
|
(...) Hi all: I know that some of the names have changed in the interim, but I wondered if I might re-raise this question. Specifically, the question is as follows: If I call for a contest adhering to an official theme (say, Blacktron) but (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) Indeed. Classic-Castle played an excellent one this year. Re-did the whole site in a Classic Space motif. Great fun. But I'm not sure any of these sites had posted an April Fools joke by trying to hide it in policy changes/stuff. I know (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) Well, I do now feel a bit of a goose for thinking it was. I thought there were many clues in the post, but it turned out I was entirely wrong. (...) No, there hasn’t been such a case to my knowledge. However, I point out that in (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) Jan-Albert van Ree - NL (...) A Policies and Procedures document has been drafted by the LUGNET (note the capitalization) Admin Team, as we said we would in the post I referenced. It has been given to the Review Committee that we chartered. (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) ... (...) That's not an answerable question. I don't know why Lar included names of countries, but let's not make it into an issue. As for the truth vs. spoof, even I don't know. (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) I've been waiting for a couple of days for someone to jump out from behind a tree and yell "Gotcha!"... ...but that hasn't happened, so I guess it isn't an April Fools joke after all. Which leaves me wondering, do the six named (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
As mentioned (URL) here>, the LUGNET administration team has been working on a Policies and Procedures document (sometimes called the P&P for short) that will help clarify to everyone what the various roles and responsibilities related to LUGNET (...) (19 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about a call for a contest
|
|
(...) Excellent! Thanks for the response and for giving my question a thorough going-over. I appreciate whatever answer you Admin folks come back with, sometime between April and June. Dave! (20 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about a call for a contest
|
|
(...) Good questions, Dave! I've raised this with the Admin team... We'll mull this over and get back to you with an answer with our usual alacrity(1)... this contest doesn't start for a month or two I hope?(1) ++Lar XFUT to just .terms 1 - that's (...) (20 years ago, 29-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Question about a call for a contest
|
|
Not sure in which .admin forum this belongs; please FUT as appropriate. I'd like to call for a simple contest involving clone bricks and I wondered if it would be appropriate to make announce it in .build.contests, in .build.mecha, in .announce, in (...) (20 years ago, 29-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Thanks for thinking of me. :) It's an oversight. Mostly these days I'm busy with the new baby and with work, but I'm also keeping the lugnet servers up to date and helping with the administrative issues when I get a chance. As things calm (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Clarification: Matt Miller is on this list, but doesn't appear on the admin.general sidebar, is there a reason for that, or is it just an oversight? ROSCO (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
(...) And, whereas I agree with you that no one is immune to theToS of LUGNET, please show where Larry violated that in the specific wording of his post. Again, just becaouse you don't like what was said, doesn't mean what was said violates the ToS. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
(...) Sorry but being an administrator means you should be a step above the crowd in terms of you behavior. Just be cause you are taking the moment off doesn’t mean the standards should be lowered. To (Loosely) quote the Policy update “They are not (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Ken Nagel wrote: <snip> (...) Whereas I think I can see both sides of this issue, 1- Larry wasn't posting as an admon, he was posting as a user of LUGNET, justlike the rest of us, and 2- by the very fact that he mentioned o.t.fun (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org.niltc, lugnet.org.us.clb, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
On Tuesday the 18th I extended a simple invitation for people to Visit NILTC’s next show: (URL) was responded to by Larry Pieniazek, The curator for lugnet.trains thus: (URL) copy came from the library who is very excited about this show. I would (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org.niltc, lugnet.org.us.clb, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
|
(...) This sort of highlights something that I wonder about. Are smaller, out-of-the way groups more suitable for otherwise questionable behavior? With things like off-topic.debate, it's skipped by default, so there's less chance that (say) a kid (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Frank Filz wrote: <snip> (...) No! There's no one here like that!! We're all one big happy family! ;) Dave K (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
"Christopher Masi" <cjmasi@*nogarbagepl...e*rcn.com> wrote in message news:IA4uH8.I2t@lugnet.com... (...) A few points: First, by that logic, the announcement groups should be open to discussion. Also, people should feel free to conduct all the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yes, I understand that, and I am probably alone in my opinion, but I think that if an initial post is important enough to be placed in a given group, then the thread should live in that group. I am not a fan of having to chase discussions (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Sorry that you don't follow lugnet.admin.terms. It's generally considered bad ettiquette to post to someplace and ask for an e-mail response because you don't read that forum... Perhaps someone else will forward this to you if you don't stop (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Kelly J. McKiernan wrote: [snip] (...) Is the following reason, really a good reason for discontinuing sn individual's access? I would have thought that the best way to stop "a should be dead thread" is by not responding to it. Why not let people (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) snipped the state I am in (...) And to you. (...) Np, just looking for clarity. (...) Yes, I fully understand that wishful thinking, but considering I'm here posting while fully loaded on New Years, and to quote Mick "You can't always get what (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) [snip] So I guess that means you're hoping the "increased presence" is just making the policy more obvious to newbies and forgetfuls? ROSCO (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Happy New Year, Janey... Sorry if my answer was a bit cryptic there! What I am trying to say is that if the new policy means that people act more in accordance with the ToS than they have in the recent past, it may well be that no time outs (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) This actually makes no sense to me then (and yes, please bare with me, since I have 40 ounces of Bailey in me, being the New Year et al, plus the added affect of various "smokebles"..... )..... I have only one question then........ Why bother (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) "more of presence" ?? Did you mean higher probability or something similar? If so... Not necessarily. (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Does this post and the new process and authorising of said reminder, not imply that their will be more of presence of it being used? Respectfully requested Janey "Red Brick" (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Nick Kappatos wrote: Snipped some smack... Good smack always trumps a poorly thought out insult. My disclaimer: Theoretically all post are hypothetical. (pinched that from a forum that puts our idea of insults to shame) (...) (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) 1) You have some nerve to speak your piece on back-room pornograpers. I know back-room pornographers, sir; you are no back-room pornographer. Too long has the plight of the BRP gone ignored. BRP's work in our schools, our churches, our (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Repost with updated formatting to avoid FTX display bug, ironically enough... (...) Hello Marc, The perceived absence of clear guidelines, and lack of consequences for poor behavior, have already had a chilling effect on LUGNET discussion. That's (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
What follows below is MY OPINION and should not be confused with Official LUGNET Policy. (...) I'd say (unofficially) that anything and everything you say and do on Lugnet goes on your permanent record. Dealings between you and the Administration (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I don't think we have one of those. If we do, I don't know where it is. If I were pressed to name everyone that ever got a timeout, it would be from memory and incomplete. I don't know that we need one, though. (...) I don't think you have one (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yeah, now that I think about it, I guess that makes sense. But does a Timeout go on one's "permanent record?" If not, then a 72-hour appeal process wouldn't be of much use against a 24-hour Timeout. But if a Timeout does remain as a blot on my (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I think part of the reason why is that an appeal process would probably take longer than a suspension in the first place. Most suspensions would be in the range of 24 hrs to 72 hrs (1 day - 3 days) - and an appeal process (which would require (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Hey Marc, I see that you have been reading my posts. Any particular reason why you refuse to acknowledge the facts and you refuse to stop insulting both myself, and the admins of CSF and CC? And to put those quotes in context: "I respond to (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote: <snip> (...) In situations such as these, I often consult 'the oracle'... Judge Payton: "Judges are bound to interpret the Constitution within the strict parameters of the text itself. The Constitution (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) The part that questions whether FTX is allowed specifically. Images, as they appear in FTX are definitely ALLOWED by that rule, because you are not posting a binary image, as the TOU specifically indicates not to do, you are posting a URL to (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I'd say it's a matter of intent. "Smack" and banter = OK, so long as it's clear to smacker and smackee that it's all in fun, not a serious slam. And as long as it's not scatalogical or profane (remember, that's what email's for!) I wouldn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Um, as I understand it the truth is always a defense against charges of libel. So you should be OK. Or are you saying he's not actually those things? I get so confused. (1) More seriously, and this is a real problem that I don't know the real (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Keith Goldman wrote: <snip> (...) What????? These new rules mean that we can't lay down the smack??? K, I'm a changin' my vote! ;) Dave K (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
This could be the beginning of the end for me... "Making disparaging remarks about the personal integrity of others merely to make a point" So I can't call Soren Roberts the smelly village idiot, with all the integrity of a back-room pornographer? (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) What part of the TOU is ambiguous? It says "It is a condition of your use of the discussion groups that you do not: (X)" - meaning that if you do X then you may not be allowed to use the discussion groups. Are there any other parts of the TOU (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Possibly prohibited. I don't see it that way, even without clarification (...) I saw the cite the last time, thanks. I do appreciate the re-citation just in case I didn't see it (although I responded directly to it), but I think the quote of (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) snip (...) I was referring to the fact that FTX and images within posts are prohibited by the (URL) TOU>. A reasonable person who has been posting to LUGNET for years might know that the TOU is badly out of date and no longer reflects reality. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Seems to me like it might be a good idea. Probably ought to go on the list of things to look into post code freeze and I'll so recommend. (...) I think that might be a bit strongly worded... "remiss" sounds so pejorative. (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) We have not developed one. Hopefully there won't really be a need but if there is, (that is, if someone gets timed out and then sends a note to the admins contesting the decision) we would either look at it again, ad-hoc, or develop one. We (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) If they don't receive a note because of an inadvertant TOS violation (forgetting to update their email), is there an email address they can contact you (collectively) on? If so, that email should probably be included on the 441 message page. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Agreed. There are a number of relatively small things that need clarification, revision, expansion or elaboration. But I think these are all at the margins, the main thrust is clear. (...) I scratched my head about this for a bit, as I wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Admins - Thanks for posting this outside of .admin so that everyone sees it. The Terms of Use need to be updated to reflect this new policy as well as some other changes. For example, both your post and my reply are against the TOU: 8. (do not) Post (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yes, I know. But Todd has been notably absent from LUGNET, and Suz completely so, for quite some time and anarchy has prevailed. Hopefully this new power to be wielded by the TT can do some good. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of appeal process? For example, if Lar doesn't think that his hypothetical 24-hour Timeout is appropriate, can he request a review of the decision, or is the decision considered to have been reviewed (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) As do I, but realistically, it will need to happen at some point, as we've all seen increased instances where something like this will be necessary. I don't think the "threat" of a timeout is sufficient, the actuality of it will need to be (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I believe that LUGNET should have this right as well. Almost every other usergroup or discussion board I read has the ability to ban posts from users or IPs. Administrators in some of these other boards do not seem to adhere to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) I would like to thank the LUGNET Transition Team, those listed here as well as those not listed, for their continued efforts on behalf of the AFOL Community. I also hope that the mere mention of this new policy and consequences (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Sure, np - I wasn't trying to second-guess, just to guess what it was actually set to, since news-by-mail doesn't reflect that, and I wasn't feeling adventerous enough to look up the msg itself on the server. (...) Right, the process seems ok, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Kelly set .terms on purpose, by the precedent that Suz set when she announced ((URL) the "New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups", not by mistake. I've reset the FUT there to keep things together (there is already another followup there) (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) The ability to give time outs has been there (and has been used, in rare cases) for a long time. What has changed is the process for doing so and who is authorised to do it. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Finally! Good move. Should've been done long ago. Hopefully this will restore civility to LUGNET. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
LUGNET administration has always had the ability to temporarily or permanently suspend the posting privileges of a user or member. In the past this has been only very rarely used. The mechanism for doing so was such that only Todd (or for a time, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.announce, lugnet.general, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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® (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) Perhaps we could have implictly undestord code word substitutes for certain rude words. For example blasphous exclaimations could be replaced by "MegaBlok" and of couese, the word in question by "bley" (also a four letters) or the alternative (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) LOL Fat chance with Richard hopping about. ROSCO (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Rats! I was just nuking the popcorn and getting comfy in my Laz-E-boy, preparing myself for the 'entertaining posts' to come... ;p Admins, you're doing a bang-up job. Thankfully, from what (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) Not *that* passionate, in my view and in the view of the other admins as stated here: (URL) I'm not advocating usage of profanity in (...) Dave subsequently requested a cancel of the post, and reposted without the profanity. As for John's use (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) And whereas I'd agree on a moral ground, having been a person who doesn't like to use profanity in everyday discourse, I do think that things said in o.t-d can get a little passionate. I'm not advocating usage of profanity in every post, but, (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Profanity again
|
|
Looks like the problem has returned: (URL) Dave! could have made this comment in a more appropriate manner. Besides, John could have meant "frick'n" instead of the other f-word. Adr. (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | profanity
|
|
(...) I can live without the profanity. Scott A (20 years ago, 17-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) (URL) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) I don't nkow how to change it, that's why I didn't. If you could tell me how... (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) I fully agree with Dave!. Keep all the clone info inside OT.Clones rather than holding too strict to the TOS and making things un-smooth. If it's that bad to post a non-market group (hey, it's worked just fine for ages!), then why not create a (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) It's certainly something that can be discussed. The Lugnet transition team will be exploring this issue some. Todd and Suzanne had expressed a desire for all market posting to occur in the lugnet.market hierarchy, but there has long been (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) I know that this is correct by the letter of the TOS, but can we put it to a vote, at least? I think both purists and clone-fans alike would be well served to allow clone auction info in OT.Clones, rather than letting them get lost in the (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) Please confine auction announcements to lugnet.market.auction per (URL) the Terms of Use> (See Discussion Group Terms and Conditions item #11). Auctions of clone brand products are allowed in lugnet.market.auction so long as they are (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I agree. But under the circumstances what else could I do? Scott A (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Me too. Where are we, anyhow? I don't think I've ever been here before. (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) The day after I said I'd check out the FUT and I didn't. Eh, whatever. For my money, forwarding things out of o-t.d to 'admin-whatever' is much like running to the teacher on the playground during recess--Getting the 'grown up' figure to (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) This is the point where debating loses its 'joy' for me. Can we please leave the 'directed at specific individuals' and the 'could be misconstrued but I'll take it in the worst posible way' attacks out of o-t.d (though I'm sure someone'll dig (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
Can anyone tell me exactly what this is achieving? Is there any sort of aim to these attacks on me? Is this “constructive” Don? Should I just ignore him? Is his behavior acceptable? Is he obsessed by me? Should I be flattered by the attention? (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) You called me a liar. All I'm asking is that you either justify that or apologise. It is that simple; it is a matter of etiquette. This is the last time I intend to ask. (...) Have you read your posts over the last 48 hours? At one point 7 out (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: (snip) I explained what happened, I admitted fault, and I apologised for it. If it doesn't fit the format of the apology you want, or doesn't fit the facts as you imagine them to be, tough. Take it or (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
Emmmm .... un'anima buona che lo traduca in italiano? grazie ... Giuliano (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | over the edge
|
|
Personally, I think the language used in this post is over the edge of what should be tolerated. (URL) post may be cancelled by the time anyone is a postion of authority reads this, but the f-word is being used rather blatently. Ray (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting the Newness Out;-)
|
|
(...) XFUT to admin.terms Changing people's FTX code can apparently be done without it being detectable (in the web interface), unless you do a reply or view original/raw form to see the underlying FTX. (an eyeball view of John's original post and (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Spam
|
|
(...) No, it certainly doesn't. The reason it got in is because it came in through the lego-robotics@crynwr.com mailing list gateway, and LUGNET's news server trusts the mail gateway not to forward spam. Russell has a sign-up filter (or something) (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Matrix:Reloaded " & "X2 :X-Men United" available in DVD now
|
|
(...) Hm. Something tells me this doesn't belong here. Of course, as long as it is, I figured I'd have a little fun with it. I suspect my version will be received a bit more graciously than the original... (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) his work. I (...) Well let's hope the Gaston Gazette does not find out. ;) (...) I must be paranoid; I thought it was I who was being baited. But, I admit, I should not have responded. :( Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Plagarism is not; copyright infringement is. (...) Scott, I advise you to please stop baiting Larry eand to read this as well: (URL) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Sinner: repent ye because ye have sinned! The "sin": Larry [2003]: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is reported to have replied, "And he has so (...) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) I am not in disagreement with what you say Frank. I had to do a bit of thinking and reading group charters before I offered my suggestion. Personally, if I were trying to sell something I would not want the announcement lost in Off-Topic (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Hmm, this is one of the things which needs to be clarified. Recent direction has suggested that all buy/sell/trade/auction traffic occur in the market groups (and org groups as specifically allowed by charter). I went looking for discussion on (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Reference: (URL) for asking before posting. At this time, the Charter for market.buy-sell-trade does not allow for non-Lego items. However, you can trade all kinds of goods in exchange for Lego. The group ot-clones has been set up to (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) How 'bout a .robotics.ads or .robotics.buy-sell-trade? :-) TJ (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It might also help to initiate discussion within the group. .robotics is effectively an external group, and to some extent should set it's own charter (of course if it sets a direction which is incompatible with Lugnet then it might be time to (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It's not my place to say for sure, but I don't think so. I know Suz is very busy right now (weddings and their aftermath tend to do that) and may just not have had a chance to fire off a note. As I said in my last reply, I think perhaps (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
