Subject:
|
Re: For the history books -- LUG & LTC dates of formation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:44:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2737 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.org, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > <snip>
> > > 1999-07-16 NELUG: New England LEGO Users Group (U.S.A.)
> >
> > While 1999-07-16 is the first mention of the name NELUG I think we have
> > decided that 1999-08-10 is probably more appropriate for an anniversary
> > date as that was the date of our first meeting (Ideas coming together).
> > See here.
> > http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/nelug/?n=349
>
> Ah yes -- splendid!
>
> > You are correct with the first mention of the name though so if thats what
> > you want to go with please feel free.
>
> If at all possible, I wanna list what each group feels/defines is its official
> birthdate. Date of first mention is a reasonable approximator, but just that.
> :-)
>
> Here's the updated table:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/org/dates
>
> --Todd
In the spirit of approximating, I offer the following corrections...
Date
Group/Club Name
1985
CWC-CW LEGO Railroad - now GMLTC
"later grew into GMLTC" rather than "now GMLTC"
(?) 1998-09-29
PNLTC: Pacific Northwest LEGO Train Club (U.S.A.)
I don't know the formation date for sure but I am pretty certain that PNLTC
was around when I first started hacking around with LEGO again in late 1997.
Their website has pictures from a show they did in October 1997.
http://www.pnltc.org/Gal_GATS_PDX97.html
and what I tend to think of the "core three", Dan P, Steve B and Ben F, all
were part of the action, with structures built for the show. So they were
around at LEAST that far back, probably farther. IIRC the name and an older no
longer used (double arrow) logo were in existance at the time I first found
them and linked my website to them in december 1997. I still have that logo in
my links, guess I ought to switch.
1999-01-28
GMLTC: Greater Midwest LEGO Train Club (U.S.A.)
I'd change this to something like "the minnesota gang gets prodded into
picking a name" or similar to reflect the informality, because the way it
reads now, it implies this is the formation date. It's not. It's more of a
formalization date than a formation date.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
49 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
|
|
|
|
