 | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Tony Hedglen
|
| | | I apologize to you and you still accuse me of things. The only confusion I have is you. Do you think the club is a business or a club? I’m not in the club to make money; I’m not in the club to support a certain group. I’m in the club to have fun. (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Tony, please allow me to express my perspective, as a disinterested third party: In the above snippet you point out that the church (by definition, I think we'll agree, a religious institution) would like the club (a group of individuals of (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Good example Dave! (1) I'll go a lot farther than that. I wouldn't even think to *ask* such a thing because I understand that it's not appropriate for a club (as a club) to be seen as espousing a particular view. This distinction is totally (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Bang! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Heh! I really only use it in my signature, since I seldom refer to myself mid-sentence in the 3rd person! Dave! (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Tony Hedglen
|
| | | | | | (...) I will reply to you. Dave! I don’t know where you came from. The questions I asked were for Larry not you. You jump in here like you’re a part of something. If Michlug decided to put a show on for the KKK. I would not go. I’m not going to make (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Tony: As you may be aware, anyone on LUGNET can become involved in any discussion on LUGNET, within the strictures of the relevant posting groups. Since .debate is an off-topic forum, and since the .debate is about larger issues than your club (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Tony Hedglen
|
| | | | | | Still my point is your jumping in a debate with no knowledge of what is happing. You do not have a history of being a member of Michlug and having to deal with issues, which I’m referring to. So you’re starting a debate out of ignorance. THIS IS NOT (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Then you undeniably don't realize what I'm debating, either. Once again, I couldn't care less about MICHLUG per se; I'm discussing the problem of implicit endorsement by a club, not all of whose members share the same attitudes, interests, or (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Tony Hedglen
|
| | | | | | | | Okay Dave, Now let’s talk about freedom. Clubs in the United States are FREE to do what they wish. If the club is a private club then it should be FREE to endorse what ever it chooses. If the club wants to reject members it has every right to do so. (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) That is right. However, I have seen at least 3 people post saying that they are not 100% about MichLUG _as a club_ doing this show. This is not limiting your options, go form Mich_Cath_LUG if you really want to, that would acchive the same (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Tony Hedglen
|
| | | | | | | | | | James, the point has been all messed up. My point was that I thought Larry was trying to dictate what the cub can or cannot do. I WAS NOT debating on the use of the Michlug “logo”. I have said many times that I don’t care if the “logo” is there or (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I'd disagree with that one...the reason why I moved it to .debate was to take it out of being a single club issue. The fact is that _all_ clubs have the same potential problem, and as such, I felt it belonged outside of .michlug, and in (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) *Now* we're getting somewhere, and you may be surprised to learn that on this point you and I are in complete agreement! A non-guvmint-funded club is absolutely free to accept or reject members as it sees fit; it can refuse membership on basis (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | I am trying to let this all slide by, because, by my read of the traffic in .michlug, there is a consensus among the MICHLUG members that have spoken up on the specific issue. That consensus is exactly what I hoped it would be... It is not (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Tony Hedglen
|
| | | | | | (...) I will apologize once more to you Larry. I didn’t realize you were voicing your opinion about this. I took it as ordering the club to do something. Some how I wish we could vote on whether or not we should use the Michlug “logo”. But before we (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) This time your apology is indeed appropriate and I accept it, thank you. I'd prefer to let this go now. (...) So far our club has operated on consensus rather than formal structure. That seems to work (and seems to be the preference of the (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Tony Hedglen
|
| | | | | | All right informal is fine with me. I’m glad this is coming to an end. I would like to thank everyone for they’re patience in this matter. I defiantly agree to keep this informal in order to keep the club together. I also thank everyone who is still (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —James Brown
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tony Hedglen writes: <snip> I think you're misreading Larry here - although to be fair, Larry does seem to have an anti-christian bias. BUT! That's not what he's saying. He is saying that the club should not *AS A CLUB* (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) looking for a non-Scientologist. Hmm... Dave! (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Can we dig into that a bit? What anti-christian bias? :-) Seriously. I'm not biased. At least I don't *think* I am. From this cite: (URL) selected the def I think applies: 2. Usage Problem. a. A preference or an inclination, especially one (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Sure. :) (...) Hmm. Bias is perhaps the wrong term for it - I've never seen you reacting to a christian in a neutral environment, so I can't accurately call it bias, I suppose. More after the definition... (...) Dictionary.com's definition (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Warning, semantic slicing and dicing ahead. :-) (...) I would agree except to say that it should read "is not valid for me" or "I cannot accept it as valid within my framework". I acknowledge that others do find it valid. I judge *them* only on (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Hmm, OK. I'm not certain that the distinction is relevent most of the time unless you're actually in a debate about perceptions of reality, but I'll grant it to you anyway. :) (although taking this any farther is *really* splitting hairs) (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
