 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tamyra Teed
|
| | | 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —John Rudy
|
| | | | | 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? —Matt Hein
|
| | | | | | | 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? —Troy Cefaratti
|
| | | | | | (...) 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? —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) 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? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) 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? —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) I dunno, but I don't think it's too inappropriate: (URL)There really is no reason that it should "go with the territory"... FBTB (...) I don't know, I don't frequent the FBTB forums too often. I don't have a feel for FBTB readers. We're acting (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | "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)
|
| | | | |
