 | | Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4
|
|
(...) Mark, When you signed up, one of the things you agreed to is that you would not post auction announcements/update...flogs/spam in groups which do not explicitly welcome auctions in their charters. As you are well aware, only (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
(...) This is a Good Thing. (...) I've requested this before, but I think it got lost somewhere in the noise of .admin.general: when you make changes to the ToUA, could you post either a follow-up or a Supersede to the original ToUA? The reason is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
(...) As much as I hate doing this... Me too. I think it'll lead to less misunderstanding. -Shiri (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
(...) Good. This makes a lot of sense. (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
All, It's long been a point of confusion in the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement, (URL) or not non-auction market traffic is permitted or verboten in non-market groups. The agreement doesn't specifically state that non-auction flogs (i.e., (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.announce) !
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
I don't mind very short pointer type posts if it is specific to the theme- based group (eg "got some train stuff for sale, see...). I just hate the 5 million re:s. SteveB (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Auczilla XI
|
|
(...) Certainly don't want to stirr up trouble, but I would assume that this thread really doesn't belong outside of lugnet.market.auction (in some ways even more so than an actual auction announcement, because this has extremely little value to (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) A suggestion for this future (based on some comments I've seen on rec.toys.lego recently) -- what about creating sub-market groups corresponding to the major non-market groups? lugnet.market.buy-se...ade.castle (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) I don't know if there's going to be an official process for a vote for this in the future, but if you're just interested in straw-poll type numbers, you can add me to the people who think this change would be for the best. eric (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: C'mon already...
|
|
(...) I suppose if I had a choice, this group would be what I'd prefer, but e-mail would certainly be fine too. --Todd (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
I'm posting from tree view so just picked one to hang my post on. First let me say that Frank's proposed guidelines/rules are better this iteration than ever, he's really getting good at it! (...) I think this one is... and I'll tell you why. A (...) (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: C'mon already...
|
|
(...) On that note, I'm thinking that Richard's request would have been better suited for email, no? But in case you can't be reached that way, is this the group you'd prefer people try for last ditch admin-ish contact, or a different one? Or is it (...) (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) Yes, please do make this change. Almost anything that increases consistency and reduces the need for judgement is a good thing, IMHO. While you're at it, perhaps some of the other changes batted around recently that almost gelled could be (...) (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) Great! It would, really. -Shiri (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) Posting for-sale notices outside of the .market area isn't currently verboten by the written rules of LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement per se, but flogs posted outside of the .market area are still frowned upon by many people. And the .trains (...) (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) {some snippage} (...) Todd, I cannot agree with you here. Auctions have competition when multiple bidders are present--this may not happen in all auction cases. And when some bidders have more money, desire, etc to buy with than others--well (...) (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) of (...) original (...) to (...) Perhaps something on the lines of: ---...--- Posts offering items for sale, trade, auction, or "wanted" posts, or anything else related to "market" type activities are (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) spaceship (...) that's (...) other (...) different (...) Gotta agree with Todd here, but a counter example which is probably ok is something like the following: : Check out (URL) for pictures of the huge (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I can only speak for myself here, I'd find that extremely annoying, if that's all the post said -- especially without a more explicit pointer to the other list. Yet, even with a more explicit pointer, it wouldn't sound any different to me as a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I suppose it depends on what standard one sees as being doubled. Normally the term applies to cases where there shouldn't be a double standard, like sexes or races. In this case, if the standard is "selling" or "flogging," then, yes, it's a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) "I desperately need a few 2x4x3 flibber-globbits (any color) for spaceship I'm working on. If you've got some, check out my post in .market.bst." Ok in .space? (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) Yup, I agree. I was mostly speaking to the .theme groups, I suppose. They are more inherently discussion - the .loc groups are a different mammal, in several ways. (...) Well, ok. I've noted which groups I feel are appropriate below... (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) For the record, I agree with Mike on this one. (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
<frank's well thought words snipped> (...) or (...) I do not pretend to speak for everyone. The problem for me is that I can not discernbetween trade/sale/auction posts. They are all the same to me. I attribute a value to a set I want, if I can get (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) Not really. Seller run auctions create more traffic because of the constant updates, but ebay auction announcements are usually a single or 2 shot deal. Many B-S-T posts fall in that level of traffic. Yet, many people seem to dislike ebay (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I think there is, and I chose that word/phrase because I thought it would indicate that it is a potentially charged issue. People are forbidden to post auctions to any group but .market.auction. People can post "I'm selling this ..." messages (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
<snipped much text that I completely agree with> (...) Precisely. I dislike seeing b-s-t posts in theme-NGs just as much as I dislike auction posts (1). I'd be happy to add anything, but Mike said it all. -Shiri (1) I do not completely dislike them, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) traffic (...) exist, (...) to (...) I think there is a "double standard" in that auction posts are singled out as particularly bad. This is not necessarily a bad thing (we also have a "double standard" on (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: C'mon already...
|
|
(...) no... (...) yes. (URL) I request that the ban be lifted. Not because I have anything to say in that (...) The block is now removed. --Todd (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | C'mon already...
|
|
Todd: Don't you think that my continuing to be banned from "Dear-Lego" is sort of overkill? I did already ask to have my full lugnet posting privileges reinstated, but perhaps you did not notice...wasn't the ban to be lifted upon my request? I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Reminder: auction announcements in .market.auction only
|
|
Sorry. :-) "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Fsv926.EE4@lugnet.com... (...) explicitly (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
guito <guito@guito.dhs.org> wrote in message news:slrn8f6lu7.ebp....ome.com... (...) solicitations. (...) As of _now_ there have been 102 posts to .auction and 103 to .bst in the last 7 days. If you add to that the trade posts dotted around all the (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I disagree that there is a "double-standard" (but that's just wording), but I agree that it would go a long way toward eliminating gray areas -- if the boundaries could be defined clearly (which I'm very skeptical of). Some things to figure (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Reminder: auction announcements in .market.auction only
|
|
(...) Reminder: Auction announcements should go only into groups which explicitly allow for them in their charters (currently only .market.auction). (URL) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) Auctions create a lot more traffic than regular sales. At least thats what I've always thought was the reason (it's the reason why I don't read RTL anymore, anyway). They clutter up a newsgroup. Maybe Todd feels the same way? (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) <snipped bits> (...) I generally try to avoid "me too" posts, but wanted to do so here, and add some reasoning. I agree with Mike. My personal preference is to not see any market traffic unless I go looking for it.(1) Also, if the double (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) messages (...) aren't (...) I keep being amused in a confused kind of way by this seeming double standard. Let me demonstrate how this bst vs auction double standard sounds to me. Some (maybe a lot, maybe just a few really "valuable") people (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: FT: King's Castle 6080
|
|
(...) Right, sorry. -Shiri (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: FT: King's Castle 6080
|
|
(...) That's not actually true. Only auctions are verboten outside of the .market .auction group by the Terms of Use Agreement. Non-auction solicitations aren't strictly verboten by the Agreement, but generally they're frowned upon by most people. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Horizontal scrolling while posting? (was: Re: whoop de doo)
|
|
(...) Hmm, that sounds very odd. What screen resolution do you run at (640x480?) and what font size do you use (higher than 12 pt?)? --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Good. All understood and completely clear in my mind. Now I simply have to adjust my lugnet HTTP viewing habits away from the nested/compact thread display view to the linear/all thread view. Now, if I could just figure out how to adjust the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) d'OH!!! My bad! Now I see what was causing you the confusion! The "compact" and "brief" thread views aren't supposed to have the "Submit Ratings" button on them. The thread display routine doesn't currently check what display mode it's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Okay, my problem is not me and it is not a browser problem (Netscape v4.51). The problem is that I have been using (for months) the nested/compact thread display. I guess to make this Submit All rating feature work, I need to switch to the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) nono -- it's not useless at all -- what the button simply means is "apply all of the radio button selections currently visible on this HTML page." (...) You -can- rate messages one at a time, but it's not required, no. (...) It can be used for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Disagree. (...) This is not so. If you click on the submit button, whether it's for one post or for a whole tree worth, whatever ratings you have set will be reapplied (unless it's a very large tree, as I said before), because you do a POST. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Okay, I think I understand. So, right now the submit ratings button on a thread display page is useless and serves no purpose, as I understand you. I guess we are all resigned to submit individual ratings on a per-message basis (not a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Hmm. There actually isn't any next-post icon in the light blue band. Do you mean that you clicked an underlined number in the light blue band to proceed to the next message? If so, that causes an HTTP GET request, not an HTTP post request. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before (...) I do not know why Alan did what he did, but there may be reason. I will concede that 83 messages is a bit excessive, however. Anyway, I just used Alans (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Susan -- thanks. Very Interesting. --Todd (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) If it helps you figure it out any, I think Alan was trying out the technique mentioned in this post: (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before the string of 108 messages started.) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) :) thanks (...) If it were thousands, I sure would. I'd probably ask you first, even. :) But I can definitely see the possibility of someone not even thinking twice about posting several dozen short messages to a .test group. In between (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Ahh, but you're special. No doubts in my mind that if you or DanB or JeremyS (for example) had done it, you'd've had a good solid reason. And if you weren't just bored and playing around, I'll bet you'd mention ahead of time that you were (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Step 1 is to disable his posting ability to that group ASAP -- nobody needs to post 108 messages -- many all the same exact copy -- to test any of those things shown above. If it turns out later that Alan had a legitimate reason to do what he (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
(...) Ewwww... (...) No, but it is a Fight Club!!! Now where's Brad Pitt, I want to bash his face in! ;-) ~Nathan (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
In the end, this is all moot. I'm keeping the pics to myself, and should have never brought it up. As a webmaster of sorts, it's very easy to jump out and say "look what I've got!" I should have gone to LEGO and asked, like I am doing now. If LEGO (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
(...) The reasoning is simple: The LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement (URL) anyone to post information which infringes upon the privacy or publicity rights of others. If you ask LEGO, I think you'll find that they view any and all "leaks" as unauthorized (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) If it isn't anonymous (ie - LUGNET reads the posting cookie, or the person submitting the problem post has some other form of identification), and only one mail is sent per problem post.. then I agree. Or rather, just something to stop someone (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: figuring out prices
|
|
(...) heheh... no wonder I couldn't find it before... Thanks for creating it! :) Dan (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: figuring out prices
|
|
(...) lugnet.market.appraisal --Todd (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: figuring out prices
|
|
Dan, (...) Hmm... Well I would say, like all my Futuron sets would go for, their price to me is... priceless! :) Scott "No help at all" Sanburn ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | figuring out prices
|
|
Well, I'm not sure where I should ask my question, so I'm asking here. The thing is we got a bunch of lego from a friend of Jenn's, and in it we (think) we have a few 1970's sets. We're wondering what they might be worth, but we'll never sell them. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) be (...) Hrmmmm - some people (who say things they shouldn't be saying here, according to their agreement to the T&C) might think it is spam that they get an automated response reminded them that they shouldn't be saying things like that? My (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can we define flogging?
|
|
(...) I think auctions get special treatment as an RTL reaction... auctions were the most obvious "hated" traffic, so they were singled out. Now that they're out of the way, some (most?) people are now expressing a similar distaste for any market (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) Well, no, not if it's worded nicely. Now, if a 'repeated' offender would get the same message over and over again - now that would be spam. But a 'repeated offender' as such would be needed to be dealt with differently... Is there a way to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) That sounds like a good idea. The only problem that I can see is that some people might view the automated message as spam (even though it's not). Is anyone reading this besides you and me? Some more comment would probably be helpful here. -- (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can we define flogging?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) quasi-market-related (...) transactions. (...) whatever (...) cash. (...) From a market perspective, these types of posts probably belong in buy-sell-trade. I think it is reasonable to ask in shopping "could (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can we define flogging?
|
|
It depends on what the definition of "flogging" is. Sorry, couldn't resist! :) Scott S. F.U.T. off-topic.fun or debate ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Can we define flogging?
|
|
(...) Rephrased statement: There are many more types and classes of non-auction market transactions than there are types and classes of auction transactions. (...) Heh heh! And how do you define that "plus whatever" part? :-) "Hey, TRU has this set (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
(...) Really? Not in my opinion. Auction: Seller is selling something to the highest bidder. Sale: Seller is selling something for a set price to the first (?) person willing to pay the price. Yeah, auctions are different from sales, in execution. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
(...) I share this opinion. When I want to read market related posts I'll read the market groups. "Buy this from me" posts in themed groups bother me just as much as "I'm auctioning this" posts do. I've never understood the distinction. And frankly (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
(...) This would be my personal preference - no market postings outside the .market hierarchy that aren't fairly clearly for non-market purpose. BUT, I'm aware that other people don't feel that way. Here's some of my reasoning, in no particular (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
(...) I suppose even black & white are shades of grey. :-) Scott A (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
(...) The distinction between auctions and regular sales is bigger and clearer than the distinction between regular sales and other quasi-market-related things -- such as someone posting about a sale they found somewhere and then offering to buy & (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
<snipped> (...) 1. Whatever happened to the themed market group idea? 2. I do not think sale posts should be in theme groups if auction posts are not, as the distiction between the two is often not 100% clear to me (and others?). I'd leave them in (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
(...) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we also need to clarify the position of non-auction market posts in non-market groups since everytime someone points out that perhaps a market post might be in the wrong place, someone jumps up (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Knights treasure Carrier 6044 and others
|
|
(...) The LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement, (URL) no requirement one way or the other regarding the place of regular sales postings. Only auctions are verboten by the LTUA. However, it's generally considered good netiquette not to spam theme groups (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Book: The World Of Lego Toys
|
|
(...) ^^^^^^^ (...) ^^^^^^^^ (...) Kevin: Reminder: It is a condition of use of LUGNET that auction announcements be posted to .market.auction ONLY. Please take a few moments to review the Terms of Use Agreement: (URL) to lugnet.admin.terms] (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) It wasn't a call, it was a prediction -- a doubt. (...) It's seeming more and more like it would be a useful feature to be able to flag an article and have some sort of gentle automated note sent to the poster as a conern. (To avoid followups (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: You wouldn't want one of these landing at your Airport!
|
|
I'd rather people didn't say it or any other swear word here. My kids do indeed say it, but that doesn't mean that I approve, nor does it mean that they don't know that it's wrong, because they do. There's no need to hurry up the growing up process (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Can you say *** on Lugnet?
|
|
(...) Hey, Todd, it's your web site, so it's your call. (...) Personally? I'm not offended. Most likely, the kids won't be offended, either. However, somewhere out there there's a stick-in-the-mud parent who would be offended, and who would deprive (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.admin.terms
|
|
(...) I meant to say, "...to avoid increases of political nature as the community continues to grow." There is growing concern[1], for example, that things have started to become too political here. Whether or this is the case, or whether or not it (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | New newsgroup lugnet.admin.terms
|
|
A new newsgroup lugnet.admin.terms has just been created for discussions, questions, and issues relating to the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement, (URL) the surface, it seems kind of silly to have a whole newsgroup/mailing list devoted just to a (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
TERMS OF USE FOR LUGNET.COM OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS lugnet.com ("LUGNET") is a privately owned Internet site designed and run primarily for the benefit of those who enjoy building with, discussing, collecting, buying & selling, trading, and (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | ------( Welcome to lugnet.admin.terms )------
|
|
Welcome to lugnet.admin.terms, a LUGNET discussion group. CHARTER/PURPOSE: lugnet.admin.terms (group): LUGNET Terms of Use: discussions, questions, issues, transgressions, etc. lugnet.admin.* (hierarchy): LUGNET-specific groups (about LUGNET) OTHER (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
