 | | 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)
| |
