 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
ouch. I saw this and was so appalled I just had to reply. I don't know Jake, but to see Suzanne make assumptions about his character and his motivations is shocking. The tenor of Jake's verbage is clear and professional. By contrast, the tenor of (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes: [...] (...) Thank you, Jake. I just wanted to confirm my suspicion.[1] Such a lack of maturity from one who's actions reflect on The LEGO Company is very disappointing. But, your 'using' of this community is (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) you (...) Couldn't agree more... (...) [SNIP] (...) numerous requests to change this policy (...) After so many postings have been asking for that change, I just wanted to give my vote for the 'status quo'. TLC can never be part of the AFOL (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) No problems! Thanks for your response! [snip] (...) One suggestion I'd make - to respond to such questions, please just create a new thread in .lego.direct, referencing the original post (and quoting any pertinent text to make things clearer (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes: (snip) Just a few things I wanted to express... First off, I have extreme respect and appreciation for what the Lugnet administrators have done. I'm sure the job is a thakless one, and I wanted you all to (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
