 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
Now there's a topic worthy of off-topic.debate! (...) I agree! Parents should feel comfortable, knowing that no topics contained herein will harm their children. It is a very serious shame that many parents are so confused aout right and wrong and (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Don't try and turn this into a homophobic issue. Topics WRT to sex are inappropriate for a family-safe site like LUGNET (save off-topic.debate) (...) You can respect the desires of some parents who don't wish their children exposed to these (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) I think the point was that why should sexual orientation of any kind be a topic on a LEGO hobby site such as LUGNET. I believe it's the love of LEGO that has brought us together on here, beyond that I don't think we need to single out folks (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Agreed 100%. -Tim (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) (note that my agreement with James is my own opinion and shouldn't be confused with the collective opinion of any groups I represent or am part of) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) John, I have mixed views on this but I'm pretty sure Ed is a nice guy who would not want to offend anyone and he would make sure all his posts fell within the ToS. So before we talk about what is "family-safe", why not cancel your posts which (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Don't try and turn this into a genophopic issue. Sex is a family-safe topic. The only reason such discussion doesn't belong here is because the owners say so. (...) I'm not willing to reduce myself to the lowest common denominator of thought (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) I happen to not understand why the homosexual AFOLs would want to ghettoize themselves that way either. And I'm not going to cry about it if there's no support for creating such a club. It doesn't affect me particularly. AND, I think it's (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) I had a conversation with fellow rtlTers about this very thing-- "Hey, what if some gay person showed up at our train show?" Who cares? "What if he or she brought a rainbow coloured LEGO brick boxcar to put on the layout?" First of all, that'd (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I think we're in agreement but it's not coming out clear. My point is why do we need to have a separate group for gay MOCs (not sure what a gay MOC would be). There is pretty much an correct group for pretty much any MOC, including (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) 1999? Five years ago?? You have got to be kidding. Looks like you dug pretty deep for this one, Scott. Why does it seem you're able to so readily present examples such as this against the likes of John, Lar, [insert person you clash with (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) If intolerance is supposed to be a criteria for cancelling posts, most of the homosexualists' posts would also have to be pulled off as well. It's rather hypocritical to be tolerant (read 'approving') of only those people who are tolerant of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) What does this term mean? (...) Just to be clear, cancelling posts without prior request by the author is exceedingly rare here (it has happened one time in the entire history of the site and that was to avoid legal action and was done when (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) If I get you, you're saying that people can only be considered "tolerant" when they are willing to endure any level of abuse from all comers. Is that right? By placing "tolerant" in a position that no human being can reach, you eliminate the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) No, you didn't get it. What I am saying is that YOU tolerate only those that believe the way you do, and anyone who does not agree with you you automatically place into the homophobic, hateful camp, whether they actually are homophobic or they (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) I am in agreement with you as well. It doesn't matter as long as you love building with good old Lego! James, I can tell you why this is an issue with homosexuals. They want to tell other people they are gay because unless they are blatant (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Allow me to politely disagree with this view. I don't think they are seeking any sort of approval - they seem to just wish to avoid disapproval, which is not the same thing. Basically, they just want to post with people who are comfortable (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Bruce wrote: 'They want a place to post with people who are comfortable with what they are.' Bruce, if this is the main reason they want the group, it has nothing to do with Lego - Lego is incidental at best. The primary reason is for them to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Lee: LUGNET newsgroup theory is all about identifying subsets of interest within the community and creating focused discussion groups for those subsets, both LEGO-related and non-LEGO-related; it's about creating and nurturing individual areas (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Since I am (I believe) the one who started using the homophobic term in this thread, let me add that I am happily married, striaght, catholic male. Not that any of that matters, really, but you seem to be saying that the homosexuals here are (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) See Todd Lehman's response as to what Lugnet is. I had reserved my own opinion on the whole subject with the note that Lehman is the arbitrator of what Lugnet is, and knows his own philosophy on it better than I do. (...) And this is merely (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) I agree James, Lugnet is about lego, it is not about race, creed, politics, or sexual orientation. Like it or not, sexual orientation is a controversial subject. Some people on this group strongly disagree with the lifestyle, some strongly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Thank you, Lewis. -Tim (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Alfred: Name-calling like this just isn't helpful. In theory, the word naturally has one clear definition. In reality, everyone has a different definition of what the word means. --Todd (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) Ah! So you're merely incorrect. (...) I think you've confused the sides here. You've described yourself pretty perfectly, as far as I can infer. Chris (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) But here, we can discuss and remain largely civil. Chris (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) Nope, I'm dead-on correct. (...) Again, nope. I described you to a tee. I'm not telling anyone they ought to cancel their posts like you have. I am for the debate if you've read these threads. I'm not in favor of censoring the discussion. (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Correction to my previous post
|
|
(...) I have to apologize to Chris as I misread the nested message and said he posted to ask the person to remove his posts - Scott Arthur did that. So I was wrong to say he called for it. I will say that Chris probably didn't have a problem with (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
