| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> And please, please, put down your blow torches and step away.
> :-|
Indeed. For the record, it is exactly this kind of immaturity that drove me
away from LUGNET in the first place.
What immaturity? Not Jake's. I don't trust anyone whose motivation is to
sell me something. It's a knee-jerk reaction. He has acted exactly as I
would expect someone in his position to.
Not Suzanne's. Frankly, I think she did more or less the right thing.
Since the beginning she and Todd have done their best to limit the impact of
salesmen on LUGNET. And by the "beginning", I mean the founding of LUGNET,
not the start of LEGO Direct's interest in communicating on it. Through
their diligence the LUGNET community has been saved from becoming the giant
spam-dump that LEGO-related USENET newsgroups devolved into.
The immaturity I'm talking about is that of the LUGNET community. You might
think that Suzanne's post was unnecessarily harsh, but why are you so quick
to slam her? Are you all so eager to have salesmen running all over LUGNET
that you will immediately take their side, without having all the facts?
I'm surprised that in all of this *more* people haven't slammed LEGO Direct
in general and Jake specifically. Jake, who proudly touts his connections
to LUGNET and the fan community in general, was more than happy to throw
both under the bus in order to strongarm the LUGNET admins into doing
something that he has been told, time and time again for over a year now,
will not happen. And you all rush to his defense simply because Suzanne
chose to express her outrage at this in the strongest possible terms? You
should be ashamed of yourselves. Her outrage was based entirely on the harm
that Jake was causing to you, the LUGNET community. A community she has
helped to nurture from an idea into well-established reality. A community
that is largely free to all users (in case you're too ignorant to realize
it, the tiny donation that is asked for in return for a membership- which is
not even needed to post and take part- is nowhere near enough to pay for the
site).
I think that those of you who were so quick to bash Suz for doing something
in your interest ought to meditate long and hard on who is really damaging
the community, and perhaps apologize for sticking your collective noses into
something that, almost by definition, you don't have all the facts on. And
if you find yourselves unable to live with how LUGNET is administered- hey,
it's a great big internet, and competition makes everything better. That's
why we have anti-trust laws. So go on out there and make your own online
LEGO community and run it however you want.
What's that? Don't want to deal with the headaches, expenses, and so on
that go with running an online community? Then sit down and shut up. Please.
Thanks,
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
| (...) In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras writes: (...) Well, I certainly see that now.. :-( After my posting yesterday, I had to return to my job, where there are no computers. So, not until 6 p.m., when I got home, did I receive my accumulated (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
134 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
