 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
I think the reason Jake is more apt to respond to the questions on FBTB is due to the nature of that forum: it's like a reading time for the children where he is treated like Superman. The preadolescents dote on Jake. Also, from my observation of (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Isn't it against the rules to do so, though? Or is it just against the rules for Jake to ask in his post that someone do it but OK if someone figures out that it needs doing on their own? I'm admittedly confused about it. (...) There really is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I think you're right. Besides, quite often when someone from TLC posts something important, it's quickly forwarded to the appropriate groups (if necessary) by Lugnet readers. It's also nice to know that all posts from TLC's employees (about (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
"Jeff Stembel" <aulddragon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Gx9EIE.L17@lugnet.com... (...) about (...) official (...) anywhere, I (...) absolute (...) complaining (...) so (...) then (...) face by (...) forum (...) forums, (...) love to (...) (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) In my opinion this is the key point moreso then limiting where TLC employees can post. I can understand the limits. I believe it was established so that it could be determinied if a person was posting AS an employee of TLC opposed to just (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I really have to agree, limiting where they can post was one of the absolute most unwise policies instituted here. It makes the newsgroups extremely unwelcome to Lego representatives, and why would we do this after complaining quite vocally (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Rudy writes: [snipped,] [source message] (...) I guess I'll third Tamy here... This is an interesting situation, butnot one that seems to be overly long and complex. In simplicity, I think there's one soultion to this (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
I'll second Tamy here. LUGNET has become downright beligerent in it's treatment of TLG Staffers. Restriction is unfair, and tantamount to segregation. "You work at LEGO, so you can only use these drinking fountains..." This isn't fair to TLG or the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
Not to be nasty, though if I were LD or Lego, I'd be a little miffed about being controlled as to where we can post.. and only able to post from official Lego addresses.. and if FBTB is giving them free access to answer anywhere, I don't blame them (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
Jake, Why are you answering people's questions on FBTB, but not LUGNET? I ask because the lugnet.lego.direct group was created for open dialogue, yet LD's posts are now rare and limited to marketing announcements. -Suz Suzanne Rich LUGNET Admin (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
