 | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| (...) Whoa, a second. You have sniped Ian and my thoughts together as if they were all mine. The above was Ian was talking about whether TLC's plan to try and create an online community for kids was a good idea. *I* think it would be better for (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| . (...) Sorry about that, I was on a slow computer with a sparratic scrolling procedure. Don't worry, I'm on a different comp. now. For here, Ive snipped everything but your last comments. (...) Unfoutunately there is no place like that that I know (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| (...) Correct -- it's not an adults-only thing and never was intended to be. It does probably happen to appeal more to AFOLs than to JFOLs, but that doesn't mean it's adults-only by nature. --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| "Jonathan McKay" <vebble2669@aol.com> wrote in message news:Fysxz3.BD0@lugnet.com... (...) an (...) for (...) Why should there be any other place? Lugnet is fullfilling the role it was designed for, for all applicable ages. (...) no (...) posting (...) (24 years ago, 6-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| (...) lol Tim, I'm sure you would have turned out okay without LUGNET:-) (...) You and kids like Bram and Shiri are the exceptions, not the rules. Todd has not created hard and fast rules concerning age, but I foresee a potential conflict in the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| "John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:398E663B.602A1E...est.net... (...) even (...) and (...) high (...) this (...) :) I'm not saying that I would wind up on the street all messed up without Lugnet, now ;) (...) has (...) say, a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
| |
