 | | ? —Richard Noeckel
|
| | | ? (URL) Why... (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: ? —Rick Hallman
|
| | | | | (...) For warning, not for younger viewers.... Rick (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Brickshelf Pic —Dave Johann
|
| | | | | (...) I was wondering the same thing myself. Things like this should not be on Brickshelf. -Dave (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf Pic —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) And the best way (1) to deal with them is to very quietly drop a note to Kevin Loch about it. He's fast at fixing those sorts of things, the pic would be gone and the user banned in a jiffy. 1 - Of course when I say "best way" what I mean is (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf Pic —Dave Johann
|
| | | | | | | (...) I agree. This is why I shot off a note to Kevin as soon as I spotted this. I replied here simply because my email has been mildly flakey, so Kevin might not have gotten it and this is the second-best solution for contacting him AFAIAC. As I (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | ? —Richard Noeckel
|
| | | | | | Some answers to your questions; Why general: because I posted a general question. Why post the link: because by saying that there’s an issue in Brickshelf would cause people to flood over there to see what's amiss. (By saying there’s a fire in (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) A simple "How do I contact the Brickshelf administrator?" would have produced the required information fairly swiftly. And discussing the "Why?" belongs much better here in .debate. ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) That raises a good point. The logical place to look for contact info specific to a site is typically the site's "front door", in this case www.brickshelf.com (contrast with LUGNET(tm) which has a clear way to contact admins on the front (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, it looks like problem solved...but you are right (and not trying to compound the issue by "slapping richards hand", as several hands already did) I totally agree with Lar on the info at hand....sure there was a problem that needed to be (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Q Re: ? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | "Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message news:GruEy2.EHG@lugnet.com... (...) Yeah. The whole thing is a tricky situation, lets let that part of it die and work to come to an agreement on how to effectively deal with situations (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? — Suzanne D. Rich
|
| | | | | | (...) Good point, indeed. Last night I sent mail to Kevin about this image URL. Even I first went to the brickshelf homepage, didn't see a mail address, and took one from a post he made here a couple days ago. The message bounced! [1] (...) Doh! (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Excellent! May I suggest that if he's willing, a group to discuss Brickshelf(tm) might be a good idea too. Not sure where to slot it in the hierarchy though. Discussion about Brickshelf seems to happen in various places now (.publish, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Totally inappropriate pic link given with no warning whatever. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Yes, why indeed... I would posit that you would have served the entire community a lot better by dropping a note to Kevin about this pic instead of posting a link to it to ***.GENERAL***, for goodness sake, with nary a word of warning that (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | ? (Shooting the messenger) —Richard Noeckel
|
| | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) I did what I could to make a bad situation better. I didn't know what else to do but knew that resolution was needed. I just wanted to find help, and didn't know how else to do it. Seemed like the best "common sense" at that (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) —Richard Noeckel
|
| | | | | | | Why’d I leave the post in .general & .admin? Honestly, because a general-community outline is needed for these type of situations. We’re the ones that’ll likely encounter these incidents first, so we should have some measures in place. Because (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I can leave everything else alone (cause others have already summed up my view) except this. Posting a link of vulgar pornographic content DOES NOT EVER belong on LUGNET. Its along the same lines of posting vulgar words in the .general group, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) — Suzanne D. Rich
|
| | | | | | | | | | For the Record: (...) [snip] (...) I agree. and that goes for -any- group, not just general. -Suz (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) However, what's posted on Brickshelf is nothing to do with Lugnet. Kevin's the admin of Brickshelf, his email is publically available, he generally acts fairly quickly to issues re protocol on his sight - look at how fast the avatar "problem" (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Semi-publicly. It's hard to find his personal email on the site, as was noted. He reminded me offline that webmaster@brickshelf.com works (as it does for MANY MANY websites) but I would reply that this convention is not necessarily known all (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) Nah, don't hide because of one silly newsgroup tripup. The eyeball-biting monkey shall surely gnaw this too into oblivion by the time the morning sun rises. I can't speak for anyone else, but I understand the good intent. (Which of course begs (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) —Dave Johann
|
| | | | | | | (...) And we applaud you for that. (...) Now you know what else can be done to fix the problem. (...) I, for one, think you did the right thing. Too many inappropriate things have sat on Brickshelf without anyone speaking out. This is wrong. It's a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? (Shooting the messenger) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Richard, Don't get uptight. Just learn from your error and move on. Scott A (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? Shooting the messenger as he walks away in the huff ;) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Richard, Don't get uptight. Just learn from your error and move on. Scott A (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? Pot calling the kettle black. —Jim Schifeling
|
| | | | | | Put up or shut up. Everyone that reposted the link and jumped down his throat needs to apologize to Richard for doing the same thing he did. Now there is some common sense. (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Jim Schifeling
|
| | | | | | Sorry for the double post but I would like to soften the tone of this entire thread by saying I'm glad Larry & Scott agree on something. (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: ? —Sarah Mather
|
| | | | | First post of the year... How sad that you had to post this link... If you ignore the morons, they will go away. But if people continually post the links to the trash posted on Brickshelf, then the people get EXACTLY what they want... fame. (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: ? —Richard Noeckel
|
| | | | | | I just asked why… T’was simply a question on the reasoning behind such a creation. (...) And surely your comments only exasperate the situation! I posted for purposes of resolution… For administrators action… And for clarification on why the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? — Suzanne D. Rich
|
| | | | | | Please argue privately, or at least move to off-topic debate. And, thank you for NOT reposting the URL via quote. others please take note. -Suz (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: ? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | (...) Why did you have to post that link? I expect to see that sort of crud a lot in my travels through the Internet--it's part of the background noise. But not here, sorry. Larry's suggestion was a good one---when you see that stuff, tell Kevin. (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: ? —Gary Blessing
|
| | | | that link is dead now. Someone mind telling me what it was? I'm curious as to whats got the comunity in an uproar. Gary Richard Noeckel <Shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GrtDzC.L11@lugnet.com... (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | I answered Gary's question via email so as not to give more reference to it publicly. -Tim "Gary Blessing" <blessing@icefog.net> wrote in message news:GruopH.5I5@lugnet.com... (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) Undoubtedly, there was an attachment to that email -- right, Tim? Don't be greedy with your lego porn(?), send it also to me! I have never seen one of these offending items -- what can it be? Nekkid people and bionuckles? That always makes my (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: ? —Julie Krenz
|
| | | | | | (...) It had nothing to do with Lego. It involved a child. Julie (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Yikes! The Frog opposes all things involving participants that cannot legally consent. I am sorry if my levity offended anyone, I had no idea of the seriousness of the matter when I last posted on this subject. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:Gruurp.4x7@lugnet.com... (...) Nope, the email did not include an attachment. It didn't even include a complete description of the image, it was so gruesome. No worries on the levity (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ? —Julie Krenz
|
| | | | | | (...) No offense, I knew where you were coming from on your post. Julie (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ? —Gary Blessing
|
| | | | Thanks Tim. Gary Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:Grus11.GJ9@lugnet.com... (...) it (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
