 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Walsh
|
| | | "Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrdae6mnom2.fsf....uio.no... (...) Take a day off and a brew-ha-ha erupts! I just read through the thread using this link: (URL) prefer a news reader interface but don't (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) I just thought I'd point out Mike's post as something to consider. Mike has repeatedly mentioned to me that he likes to just stay clear of the pissing matches (which this could turn out to be one of the larger ones). I will contradict one (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | ME TOO —Christian Gemünden
|
| | | | | | (...) Usually, I am not the buy who steps in for a "mee too" (as this is mostly useless On Lugnet when talking about MOCs or new products. However, as this is a really important subject for the entire philosophy of Lugnet, I had to emphasize Mikes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ME TOO —Mark Rideout
|
| | | | | | | (...) Just to get my "vote" in, I want to say a "me too" to this as well. I believe it is not in my best interest to have this restriction in place. I think we should hear other (more) people's feelings on this as well. It is interesting that the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ME TOO —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) I have to put in a hearty 'mee too' with you, Christian. (...) Its lost value for me too. I prefer open communication, and not every post of theirs at a lego.com address outside of lego.* groups can be considered a marketing agenda. Give me a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ME TOO —Tom Heverly
|
| | | | | | I've been skimming the posts about this issue, and maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that if LEGO didn't want its people posting on lugnet, they woud take care of that at lego. Often you hear about people workgin at such-and-such and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ME TOO —Andrew Lipson
|
| | | | | | ME TOO. The more postings from Lego employees anywhere on lugnet the better. Their signal to noise ratio is unusually good. (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | | (...) To further your own analogy: Why don't you use your work e-mail here? Probably because LUGNET is part of your "home life" and not your "work life". Your employeer may (or may not) want their name associated with LUGNET. Your employeer may even (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I don't think anyone has any issues with the desire to be clear about whether a post is personal opinion or an Offical Statement. But that can easily be done without restricting where posting happens, and in fact WAS being done, the T&C (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like that big a deal to change your e-mail address back and forth to indicate official vs personal. It's just as easy to do that as to include a disclaimer when posting personal items. But, truthfully, I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | | | | "Mike Faunce" <mike@faunce.com> wrote in message news:GABnBu.GK5@lugnet.com... (...) [ ... snipped ... ] (...) [ ... snipped ... ] When I first participated in LUGNET I did use my work e-mail. I started using a different e-mail address because all (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But, they are different than most. Their work life and home life (assuming they are AFOLs) coincide. I guess I've been on the other side. In the last two jobs I've had, one of my employeement conditions was that I not use my work e-mail in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, so this makes what - 3 people that *understand* this? Compared to the vast majority that do not *applaud* this action, hmmm. (...) So that makes this an un-official post and should we disregard it? You have *no* official capicity here in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) I would not go assuming that. Just because the "vocal majority" does not like this right now does not mean that only 3 people agree with Todd. Remember one of the dynamics of Newsgroups is that people that disagree with a situation are much (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) True. We don't know the actual number of agree/disagree/undecided. Probably never will. My gut tells me more disagree, though, at least for now. Yours may differ. (people tend to think others agree with them) But irrelevant, ultimately. It's (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) done to LEGO employees posting with their LEGO account, as far as I can see. I was interested in learning what "yesterday's event" was, which apparently triggered the above change. (...) So if I understand this correctly, the announcement of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) "Yesterday" in this context is wednesday last, I think, as the filter was put in place Thursday, I think. I know for a fact that the train contest reminder was posted after the filter was put in place, based on correspondence. I speculate it (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Exactly. The ultimate tipping point was the Bionicle thread on Thursday, but the tipping point isn't really relevant. Rather, it was a sudden realization based on recent events (not the events themselves) that we'd totally forgotten to put (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
