Subject:
|
Re: What's all this about?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:39:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
710 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Santosh Bhat writes:
> > [1] SYDLUG - my suggestion to resolve the Studs/Slugs debate, It might be
> > boring, but it isnt ambiguous.
>
> This is just silly.
Silly ? Possibly.
Petty ? Possibly.
Important ? Possibly.
> I was the biggest proponent of 'Studs' for all the reasons we have
> disccussed so many times. We talked about this and sorted it months and
> months ago. However I am not at all interested in defending it forever - I
> leave the field to the SLUGs. (I'll be over here in the corner just
> building Lego and MB models and websites ;-)
At the time it was discussed, I thought it was a trivial matter and not worth
arguing about for the sake of a casual group of Lego wranglers.
Maybe it was all a bit hastily done. Richard proposed it, James and Pete.C
supported and a lot of people didn't say too much.
Amongst a group of AFOLs, I think Studs is a great tongue in cheek name and
very fitting, I can see why Richard proposed it.
But outside AFOLs, the joke has to be explained which defeats the purpose.
Since that time the BUGs, MUGs and HUGs have come into being, do we see a
naming convention happening here ? (Not of course always relevant)
Three incidents got me thinking...
1.The W4K show, when I mentioned the name of our group to the manager when
arranging the show, he seemed concerned until I explained what it meant,
he needed to know in case parents asked.
2.At the W4K show, the female manager printed off a 'STUDS Lego Show' and
stuck it to the table for her own amusement.
3.The AFOLs I met at Parramatta TRU, who when questioned about Lugnet made
disparaging remarks about the name. Maybe it was my scary post-nightshift
persona that had them concerned.
Names of groups that hope to attract new members should be as bland as possible
SLUGs,SydLUG,NSWLUG... whatever.
Richard has done a great job with the website and being the shopfront for the
group and put in a lot of work, which I'm sure everyone is grateful for.
If we want to be a standalone closed group, we can call ourselves The loyal
knights of the cubic brick or something similar, it isn't important.
But if you want to grow, you need to appeal to all tastes, and possibly be as
bland as a clownburger with/without special sauce.
pete.w (takes ball and bat and stands on the boundary)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What's all this about?
|
| I think you should call yourselves the STUDS and then run adverts like "Join the STUDS. Phone XXXXXXXX" in the personal columns of the newspapers to attract new members :-) I work for the Cooperative Research Centre for Enterprise Distributed (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What's all this about?
|
| (...) This is just silly. I was the biggest proponent of 'Studs' for all the reasons we have disccussed so many times. We talked about this and sorted it months and months ago. However I am not at all interested in defending it forever - I leave the (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
