 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) True, that. All sites have their troublemakers, or those who don't play well together. I mentioned Lugnet because unlike all other sites mentioned, there is no active moderation here - the only recourse is murfling, which happens rarely and (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I now stand with egg on my face. I had you confused with Mark Pappenfuss. I did a quick scan before posting but wasn't as thorough as I ought to have been. My most sincere apologies for not being more careful and thus casting unfair (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) The word has been adopted by the AFOL community (or some of us anyway) and is used in a more general sense to refer to the actions of admins or other personnel of any website. It's a great word, useful and colorful, and more descriptive than (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) To Kelly's point, making the observation about the site *members* always will give you your exceptions. I'm not sure why Kelly chose to specifically mention Lugnet, but you could just as well have said BZPower, FBTB, JLUG, Classic-Castle, (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) Please provide links to my previous applicable comments so I know what you're referring to. Also, let's define "standard of maturity." I'd call it "Play Well," which is something anybody can do - if they so choose. Not everyone does so choose. (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
