General Discussion : 41865


General / 41865

Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Tim Courtney

(...) Yes - I'm pleased that it seems there are plenty of others with a broad focus, I wasn't expecting quite the level of response the thread has gotten. (...) In any community, people are excluded because the group or elements of the group push (...) (22 years ago, 15-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Schwanke

A better question would be, why do people come (...) got (...) Well, I discuss religion with respect to Legos because my spiritual relationship to Christ is the focus of my life and EVERYTHING else is secondary. If it were possible I wouldnt take a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Tore Eriksson

I went the other way once in a Sunday morning service some time ago. I made a parable using an ordinary LEGO brick, a LEGO minifig gun, and a 100% compatible 2x4 clone brick. I asked some children to point out which one was not a Lego part, and of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) Let me understand you teaching... You mean that you were convincing children that they belonged in church? (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Schwanke

No he was basically showing dont judge a book by its spiritual cover. Its a sad an unfortunate thing that todays churches are regularly filled with people who look and act and seem like the nicest people around but in fact are anything but saved. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Tim Courtney

Hi David - (...) Snipped a good illustration :-) (...) I think it would be appropriate with followups set to lugnet.people (which I've done to this message). It would also be appropriate in lugnet.off-topic.debate, though from experience I seriously (...) (22 years ago, 20-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) I was, in fact asking this question because I don't approve of children being dragged to church by their parents. Religion (or absemce of) should be a decision that we make alone, without the parental influence. We all know that people believe (...) (22 years ago, 20-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Matt Hein

(...) Wait a moment here...with the logic you're advocating you claim: Parents shouldn't drag their children into situations they may not be competent to decide for themselves. With such logic, you can also bring this argument to say that kids (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Stefan Garcia

First off, I'm joining in here because I agree with part of Terry's opinion. I'm not speaking for him, I just hate it when this kinda thing happens. I don't know him and am speaking only in regards to this particular topic. Now then... (...) I think (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Matt Hein

(...) Of course kids need an education or society would be generally uncultured, but I really don't think someone...oh say, ten years in age, should possess the legal right to deny to go to church, or for that fact, any legitimate social situation. (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) After they've been brainwashed since they first could understand words, you mean, by being forced to attend church up til then? We chose not to do that to our children. They can decide for themselves once they're old enough but for now we are (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) Well, thank you, Lar, in the name of all Québécois, all BL shop owners, etc etc, to not judge them because you don't agree with me. Although this time, I do agree with your moral choice not to force religion onto your children. That was very (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper writes: <snip> (...) I can take much, I can ignore many things, But Terry, You *are* Canadian. You said you have a Canadian passport. Why? Becaouse You *are* Canadian. Your hatred against anything you don't (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: I don't hate canadians. I am just not one. I don't have any prejudices against them, I am just not one. I'm not black either. Call me a racist because I say so. If you define identity, I mean the one (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Koudys

(...) Trivia as to Quebec history aside (I bet I know more about Winona history than you do by the simple fact that I live there), the facts haven't been refuted--every single time your little separatist movement starts talking, your, and the ROC, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: ROFLMAO!!! You don't know squat about my province, your whole post was a big confused mess. First, we were forced in the Constitution in 1867. I presume your Anglo-Canadian don't tell you these facts (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

La belle province —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper writes: <snip> I dunno, Quebec doesn't seem all that oppressed to me, but I only have an outside view. Consider yourself lucky you're "stuck" with a country that would probably at least let you secede (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Pedro Silva

(...) I noticed the examples you gave were from nations where democracy was inexistent at the time of the breakup. So I ask: is a democratic nation immune to separatism? I mean, not the sociological phenomena in itself, rather the effective (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Doesn't Texas every once in a while talk about being 'separate' or is that just a figment of my imagination... Just wondering... Dave K (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Nope. They're the only (?? (1) ) state that joined by treaty after being an independent republic rather than being an original founder (that ratified the constitution as the means of joining) or a state formed from unorganised territory that (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —David Koudys

(...) K, my misremembery--I thought I read somewhere about a decade ago that there were some Texans talking about forming a 'separatist' movement... (...) That is, until, as some Canadians talk about, Canada becomes the 51st state. Is Puerto Rico (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Whoops! I meant "nope" as in "nope, you're not misremembering", sorry about that. Texans talk about separatism more often than most, for sure. (...) More like 51st through 64th or whatever, one state for each province/territory I would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —John Riley

(...) Puerto Rico occasionally holds referendums to decide whether to remain a territory (technically a commonwealth) or become a state. I found this on the web as an example: (URL) fairly sure PR would benefit greatly from becoming a state. In the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not sure what you mean by immune in this context. Some democratic nations have resisted mightily. The US Civil War was at least partly about separatism. Other democratic nations have not resisted (Czechoslovakia seems to have peacefully (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Dave Schuler

(...) True, but the US was hardly even partly democratic at the time (except on paper)! Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Less democratic, yes. Less free (at least in the free states anyway)? Arguable. (Free society == democratic society) == false (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Dave Schuler

(...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Whoops! That's the one I meant to delete. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Dave Schuler

(...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of personally restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Pedro Silva

(...) Well, in a democracy the people get to self-determine already - so one can argue about the use of having two states in similar circumstances taking similar decisions, when this only works to double institutions. The more states there are, the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Terry Prosper

(...) No oppressed socially, but politically. Our rights as humans are well respected, if that's what you mean. No problem there. (...) Yep, that's 100% true. We don't consider ourselves as martyrs. We are pretty happy about our situation, even if (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —David Koudys

Where to begin... (...) K, let's start here--Every elected PM in my lifetime (and most PM's before that) came from *one* province--guess which one. Political oppression? Where? (...) You consider yourselves 'speaking for Quebec' and at the same time (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ya, I was wondering about that myself. Why is it that in all the other provinces, signs are in two languages but in (at least in some parts of) Quebec, they're only in one (french). I'm not talking about shop signs and suchlike, I'm talking (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: La belle province —David Koudys

(...) Actually I've never seen an English road sign in Quebec, but then again, I haven't been looking for one. (...) Like a woman, we're a mystery. (...) It means that, for most, you think a little harder before you hop in a car and drive to (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Koudys

(...) I was hopeing that you'd catch me on the Upper and Lower Canada in 1867--then I could go into why I love Winona's history. So the simple idea that you missed the historical fact that Upper and Lower Canada ceased to exist at the beginning of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Matt Hein

(...) Then what would these children do, should they not be forced into church? Hang around at home with a babysitter? Sounds kind of anti-social to me. I wouldn't throw it to brainwashing, since constant preaching 'you will believe' would just (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) Sports? Playing with friends? Name the social activity you want, it's there for your kids to do during church time for you. (...) Matt, do you really think that if you were born in India form Hinouist parents, you'd be a christian today? Oh, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Matt Hein

(...) Dang, you're burning the midnight oil, Terry. (...) POVwise, I think it's a noble prospect to hold belief in such a religion. In fact, I have nothing against hinduists, buddhists or whatever the religion may be, so long as it involves (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) I don't care. I just didn't like your first reply. As an atheist, I too often feel that the general attitude of people is to allow people to talk about god, but if someone says God doesn't exist, then he's accused of every sin. It's unfair. We (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Koudys

(...) I have no problem whatsoever with *anyone* saying what they believe, except... God is a --how did you put it? Oh right... admonished for bad language. If we can have a confluence of ideas without one being asserted as 'Upper' and others (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Stefan Garcia

(...) What is it with you and being social? :^P (...) There is plenty of stuff to prove the bible wrong. They're called fossils and really old rocks. -Stefan- (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Rick Clark

(...) <snip> Have you spoken to other adults who were given that option as children? My understanding is that the problem with this approach is that the child then has no foundation from which to base his decision. I don't have a source, but (...) (22 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that's actually true. After all, the best "brainwashing" is one in which the victim thinks there was no undue influence whatever. (...) I suspect there are no such people anywhere on the earth, (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Stefan Garcia

(...) Why is going to church a legal issue? That's about doing what your parents make you do (Yes, I know about emancipation age and so forth). (...) Glad to see you agree here with having a reason to eschew church. And most people we're talking (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) Here Stefan, judge by yourself if I was intolerant of simply trying to keep religion out of BL since, IMHO and many others' too, it's not the place for that : (URL) you can read the whole thread and see that many others felt like me, while (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Stefan Garcia

(...) I can see that other's did feel that way, though I suppose that if it was their store, they have the right to do that unless management says otherwise. Just don't give them your business if you feel that way. -Stefan- (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) You are entitle to your opinion, but it's not a load of carp. School community groups, social gatherings or extracuricular activities are necessary to the good devellopment of a child. Sports, Plaing games, having fun, learning Life's lessons, (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) The survival of the human race despite its own stupidity. (Okay, I guess that is kind of subjective) I have a better question for you. Why does lighting occur. Everyone I ask tells me the theory of how it occurs, but no one can tell be why it (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes: <snip> (...) Amen to that! As for your questions still unanswered, like lightning and evolution... 100 years ago, Men didn't understand the first thing about many things that we can now explain (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Indeed. (...) You see my problem is that science has yet to answer 'Why' anything happens. There are lots of good theories on how things happen but not one single answer as to why. It is my observation that people believe by analyzing things (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler

(...) Mike--are looking for a metaphysical, over-arching "reason" behind the universe? What if there simply isn't one? Science isn't in the business of determining "why" things happen in this transcendent sense, nor should science be required to do (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: I would like to offer a formal apology to ot.debate and to Maggie C. in particular for this line: (...) Except! What am I, the product of home-schooling?!? [1] Dave! [1] Actually, home-schooling has (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Maggie Cambron

(...) Wow, Dave! I was about to pounce, er, post but you did it for me! Must be a Higher Power at work! And I *did* notice an uncharacteristic carelessness in your general construction of that post-- so yep, I would say it's bedtime! Maggie C. (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Mike Petrucelli

(...) answer (...) feeling (...) How do we know there isn't one? (...) But that does not explain 'why' it happens, only how. And know you don't need to explain the details of electron bonds and such, I know the theory and have seen it work (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Terry Prosper

(...) Mike, form my POV, if GOD would have given us free will, he'd be the dumbest creature in the universe... For argument's sake, let's pretend what the Bible says is true. Free will to the ones who killed his son? To the ones who disobeyed to him (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler

(...) But the crux of my question: "what if there isn't a reason behind the universe?" I'm not, at this point, saying conclusively whether there is or isn't one; I'm asking what would be the impact to you if there weren't a reason. Here's another (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —John Neal

(...) Sorry to be a buttinski here, but I just thought of something. What about the odds angle? Sometimes coincidences are too great; that is, that the odds of something happening a certain way are way beyond normal expectation. Say, for instance, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Given the right conditions (and we are talking about an incomprehensibly high number of planets with varying conditions), it may well be that the odds against life happening somewhere are the longshots. Atoms and molecules like to form certain (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler

(...) Hey, all are welcome! (...) Bruce addressed this already, but I thought I'd throw in my view as well. The first is the problem of precedent: when you estimate the odds of a bus accident, you can base it on known occurrences under similar (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Thomas Stangl

(...) I suppose they can suggest it to those predisposed to believing in a Greater Being, yes. But when you consider the # of stars in just our galaxy, and the # of planets that they can have (we find more and more every year, and as our technology (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —David Koudys

(...) That would be analogous to asking "by what chemical (...) If we were to look at it from an opposing angle--how is the assessment that there *is* a God "behind the scenes" inferior to the view that the universe is there all by itself? Science (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Matt Hein

(...) Exactly. (...) And how so? Religion serves several of the same merits as the aforementioned activities, including social interaction, faith in one's self and morality, which, outside of the church and its parables, might prove difficult to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Stefan Garcia

(...) Sports are NOT a necessary part of life. -Stefan- (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) :-) Care to start a debate over that? Judging by my waist line, I'd say it is, because I'm going to live a lot shorter if I don't get in shape before the age of fifty! We could argue that nothing really matters, that apart from eating and (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Tore Eriksson

(...) //...// (...) Excuse me, sir! I agree to most of the things you say, but what is this mixing of politics and religion? Do you really think that being left-winged is equal to being an atheist or what? /Tore A Christian, anti-liberal and (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Sean Devolites

(...) OK. I usually don't get into debate, but this isn't the place to talk about religous beleifs. I'm glad you have an opinion, but I for one, am 14 years old and have been an official member of my church for a year now. I don't have a problem (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Sean Devolites writes: snip (...) Then you are not dragged, you go willingly. Good for you. Your post is well phrased and very polite, Sean. You are very mature and I agree to your opinion that it is not the place to talk (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

(...) Oh, Hi David. After reading the follow-ups on this thread, I realized you were that seller I greeted with a request to keep religion out of BrickLink a few months ago. Matt has used this incident as a way of "prooving" that I don't respect (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Schwanke

(...) me (...) I think I'll just pray that you dont flame me for praying for you. :) Or maybe I should pray for the flame war? I have seen people come to Christ because of them. :) After that 8month several thousand post discusion/flamewar I was (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Tim Courtney

(...) Hi David - It's definitely not appropriate for lugnet.general, and might not be appropriate for fun.community, but .people should be OK. Hope this helps! -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Thank You Tim (was Re: For some Lego is a religous experience.) —Adrian Egli

"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:HDs1JE.zuF@lugnet.com... (...) would (...) its (...) Tim has got it right- fun.community and .people sound fine to me but no doubt about it- please don't post on .general* My own advise, if (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: Thank You Tim (was Re: For some Lego is a religous experience.) —David Schwanke

(...) in, (...) Well I dont preach dogma. I speak about a personal saving faith that is individual to each person. But thank you for removing general. I wasnt sure on it. In general (pun intended :) I leave the group decisions up to other people. I (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Terry Prosper

I decided no to read further than the first 2 lines. Respect is mutual. I offered a real friendly hand-shake, you answered back with god-talk, exactly what you know offends me. That's real nice of you. It just shows your level of respect for others' (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Dave Johann

(...) Unfortunately, Terry, many folks can't have an intelligent conversation without refering to god in some way shape or form. They feel that there is a guiding force in their lives that they MUST push down other folks throats 24/7/365. I feel (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Nathan Todd

Hi, Please don't take this as an attack... Just a different opinion : ) (...) I wouldn't say this is particularly fair. (Define intelligent conversation : ) ). The reason many Christians talk about God/Jesus so much is because He is their guidance, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Schwanke

(...) After (...) It is unfortunate. Though I dont feel it is desperate I do have a built in need to talk about God that God has placed within me and as such getting to know me inherrently involves putting up with some level of it. If you really (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Schwanke

I do want to apologize for one thing. When I wrote that post with all the smileyes I was acting under the assumption that you would be comfortable with some friendly poking and jesting about the subject. Obviosly I was mistaken and you take this (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Rick Clark

In lugnet.general, David Schwanke writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Paul, for example [1]... ;-) [1] Acts 23:6 (22 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Nathan Todd

(...) SNIP (I agree here to but have to cut my quotes.... (...) Well said. I agree, God Bless You, Nathan (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <and a bunch more witnessing> Please consider setting FUT somewhere else, it's starting to veer away from general interest, IMHO. I set FUT to ot.d but that may not be the right place to be, I dunno. (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —David Schwanke

I'm too newb to know what FUT is so if someone wants to enlighten me I'll make any adjustments that I can. We already briefly had the discussion about the locations of these discussions and it was generally sugested that lugnet.people and (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler

(...) Heh. That used to mess me up, too. It means that you will tag your message to send Follow-Ups To another posting group. (...) In fairness to the readship, it's not yet a debate because you haven't yet moved to off-topic.debate. (...) It's a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Maggie Cambron

(...) I'm not as compartmentalized a dork here as some, but with every post I read in this thread I only restrain myself from saying "take it to ot.debate" for the same reason given to you by others and by Dave! (...) The whole thing does belong (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Tim Courtney

(...) Abednego, I think. When I was a kid, I was taught a little mnemonic; "shake the bed, make the bed, and to bed we go." Innocent then, but now I think it could have other implications ;') The Rev. might get a kick out of that one... I wonder (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Larry Pieniazek

(...) .debate doesn't suffer fools gladly, no. If you just waltz in there and tell people you have some Good News for them, you're not likely to get a warm reception. (...) and some silliness, and you have the common sense to tell which is which, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —David Schwanke

Well. I am not looking for a big heavy discussion. If the participants arent going to be friendly then I am not intersted and that is the general vibe that I hear about it. I am also not interested in deep theological discusions. I didnt come here (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —David Schwanke

Ohh, that was "you guys" not you specifically. Didnt mean to aim that at one person. :) Also wanted to mention as i am sure it will come up.. I am not worried about the defensability of my faith. I have no 'need' to defend it. Christ can defend (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Dave Schuler

(...) Just for the record, that's more of an honorary appellation than a formal title of office. Dave! (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Richard Marchetti

(...) I motion we create the office of "The Pudd'nHead Dave!" -- it's much more vulgar that way. Don't forget the use of the definite article in the formal title. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Steve Bliss

(...) "Abenib... Abeb... Adeni... "I'm Ben" :) Steve (22 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Tim Courtney

(...) I need to watch more veggies, I'm gettin rusty. -Tim (the pirate who doesn't do anything) (22 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Veggie Tales!! Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. —David Koudys

(...) Josh and the Giant Wall was the best outta all of 'em. Anything that infers Holy Grail gets my vote! Dave K (22 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Veggie Tales!! Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. —Tim Courtney

(...) Oh yeah! My favorite characters are the French Peas - I mean, Freedom Peas ;-) Won't you join me in my irritating little song? -Tim (22 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Veggie Tales!! Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. —Steve Bliss

(...) I think _Rack, Shak, and Benny_ (sp?) will always be my favorite. But the Monty Python references in _Josh and the Big Wall_ are wonderful. Gotta love the French Peas; "Zhjane! Stops zees crrrazy t'ing!" Steve (21 years ago, 25-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Mike Rayhawk

(...) My personal feeling is that there are some unwritten rules that strongly *discourage* talking about a LEGO model that someone posts. I certainly have the impression that no matter how well-intentioned, if there is a single sentence in a (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating (was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Tim Courtney

Hi Mike - Great comments! (...) Yep. I think it's not too cool when people are afraid to post constructive criticism. I think though, people only get upset at posters when they say something blatantly negative about a model - which discourages (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating (was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Michael Arrighi

(...) Hi Tim, I've been reading this post with fascination and hope I'm not replying too late. First, thanks for bringing up such an interesting topic! For me, LUGNET is a great way to catch up on Lego-related news, and I consider myself a member of (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating (was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community) —Kirby Warden

(...) Ummm...no, that would be me. (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

The "LUGNET community" vs. the "LEGO community," and computer literacy —Tim Courtney

(...) Hi Michael - (...) Not at all! In fact, I think as this thread continues, we're getting better and better responses, getting down to the meat of things. (...) There are many LEGO fans which fit that description. More than half of my train club (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: The "LUGNET community" vs. the "LEGO community," and computer literacy —Thomas Garrison

(...) Okay, I've read this several times, and I still don't get it. How is the setup for LUGNET posting confusing? Links from the main page ((URL) and from a page that appears each time you post through the Web interface take you to (URL) page is (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: The "LUGNET community" vs. the "LEGO community," and computer literacy —Tim Courtney

(...) Keep in mind, people who just discover LUGNET, or who do not participate in the newsgroup discussion are going to visit (URL) You scan the front page and what do you see? A link to LUGNET membership. MANY I have talked to have confused (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

posting setup —

Todd Lehman

(...) That's a really good point. We should make this a lot easier to find. (...) This would be ideal. All the sign-up and set-up stuff is sorely overdue for a rework. I'll be giving this some serious attention in May when I get back from San (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: posting setup —Tim Courtney

(...) Yep, I've noticed (in fact, I think I was a catalyst, from some recent mails) ;-) Thanks for this! (...) I would much appreciate a feature to easily be able to post from multiple addresses! When I fanned out, and added a brickmedia.com and an (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: posting setup —

Todd Lehman

(...) Portland actually. Steve says: "Yours are too small." --Todd (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.trains)

Re: posting setup —Tim Courtney

(...) No love for the 1.5-wides? Aww. Engineer Max (oh the resemblance: (URL) "watch 6-wide Thomass get rammed by bulky 8-wide cars." (URL) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.trains)

Re: posting setup —Tim Courtney

(...) Doh! Typo...funny one at that. -Tim (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.trains)

Re: posting setup —David Laswell

(...) I agree, and with good reason. Until just now I was under the impression that a paid membership WAS required. After seeing the link to the membership sign-up page, it never even occured to me that it wasn't required for posting. I've even had (...) (22 years ago, 27-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: The "LUGNET community" vs. the "LEGO community," and computer literacy —

Todd Lehman

(...) I agree. Let's all keep this in mind over the next few weeks as the setup/sign-up stuff on LUGNET is overhauled and keep our collective eyes out for points of confusion. (...) I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The core purpose of LUGNET (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: The "LUGNET community" vs. the "LEGO community," and computer literacy —Tim Courtney

(...) [...] (...) Cool. (...) A good goal for LUGNET to have. What I'm trying to get to is this; I believe, based on what I've heard coming out of discussions with many different types of LEGO fans, there are (sometimes quite valid) perceptions (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: The "LUGNET community" vs. the "LEGO community," and computer literacy —David Schwanke

"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:HDJoDL.156p@lugnet.com... (...) documentation (...) joining (...) I wasnt sure where to put this but since it came up here I thought this might work. I am an NNTP posting fan so when I found (...) (22 years ago, 20-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)

Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating —Mike Rayhawk

(Speaking of sugar coating... After reading through this post again I can see that there's bits in here to offend probably every single person who reads it. What can I say? I can only advise the casual reader that if you find yourself strongly (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating —Jennifer L. Boger

Quoting Mike Rayhawk <rayhawk@artcenter.edu>: [snipped everywhere] (...) Why didn't this ever occur to me?! I might have to print some up and keep them in my wallet! Man! Year's wasted! Now if only I could come up with some sort of easy format "joke (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating —Larry Pieniazek

(...) See movie-comics.com, in the archives.. one of the characters, IIRC, was a guy who just holds up signs with emoticons and internet abbreviations like LOL. Pretty funny (one of my fave bits of the comic actually) HTH! (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It gets worse: Lego, computer message boards, gaming. The last is damning! No emoticons to soften that. Happy? (which comes off as snippy for those who don't realize I'm a long-time gamer, which illustrates the problems with the written word) (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —Tim Courtney

Snip a LOT... Wow, I just posted, but Bruce, you put it far better than I could have, I think! :-) -Tim (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —Mike Rayhawk

(...) lol I was hoping someone would pick up on that! It's like the triple crown of geekdom. (...) Well no, you're one of the people I view as ignoring the criticism and going straight to jumping on Tom. Nothing wrong with that, since you seem to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I just got a huge 5' by 9' green indoor/outdoor carpet for a Fantasy Rules! miniatures battle with Lego. Geek, geek, geek. Still, I could ratchet it up one more notch by using a game actually designed for Lego (which I keep meaning to do). (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —John Henry Kruer

(...) Hey, don't discriminate on age! :) Though, some younger teenagers tend to go through mood swings in which they alternatively moan about how bad the world is and then suddenly respond to evey MOC posted in the past month or so. Also, some less (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious geekdom —Mike Rayhawk

(...) You have no idea just how high the scale goes, you should see some of the things people have showed me over the years. I was pretty impressed by the Palm OS BrikWars calculator, and then there was a guy who made a Java app that let you play (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —John P. Henderson

(...) Dare I point out that some people <gasp> post MOCs of Dr. Who and Star Wars models.... eeyaaah! I feel the sudden need to run out, grab a cheap light beer, and watch a football game while grunting at other "non-geeky" men. Maybe that will cure (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —Tim Courtney

(...) I tried that strange liquid you refer to as 'cheap light beer' once. Blech. Gimme an import - does that make me more geeky? -Tim (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —Thomas Stangl

(...) Oh, come now. Read all my posts on Lugnet. Not just the ones in .debate or just this thread, ALL of them. Then come back and tell me I like to see how much trouble I can stir up. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating —Thomas Stangl

(...) I've flamed very few people on Lugnet. Maybe you just have a sore spot because you were one of them? (...) Well, we agree on something else. I find you too obnoxious for words too. Of all the people on Lugnet I ignore, Scott is the #1 on the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating —Tim Courtney

Hi Mike - (...) Well, I'm not offended by any of it :-) I think it's all good stuff moving the discussion forward. (...) LOL! (...) I'm not offended in the least. I've long known that, ever since starting to LEGOfest even way back to 1999. I think (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating —Thomas Stangl

(...) Yay, great, a Believer!... (...) Hrm, uh, er, maybe not... (...) Yay, he Believes again!... (...) Nevermind, he's degenerated into calling me insane... NOTE: ;-) END NOTE. I'm politically incorrect, but progressive (I consider Political (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)

Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I don't give people the full art-school style firm, no-nonsense critique - which I'm perfectly capable of doing, having come up through the Long Beach State illustration program and have had as many as 10 artists working for me on software (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)