To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.peopleOpen lugnet.people in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 People / 4099
4098  |  4100
Subject: 
Re: Lavender Brick Society
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.org
Date: 
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:47:58 GMT
Viewed: 
6610 times
  
In lugnet.people, Mike Kollross wrote:
   (snippage)
  
I really don’t think Teddy was asking for a group in which to hold explicit sexual discussion.

Of course outside interests have an impact on what you do with your LEGO hobby. I imagine most of the train guys are fans of real trains. I build a lot of medieval stuff because I am into history from that era. Doesn’t it stand to reason that being gay would affect what you build with LEGO?

All that aside, Teddy, why not say it with MOCs? There all sorts of stuff you could do. Dykes on Hoverbikes? Bears of the Caribbean? Or if you have a more personal story to tell or something you want to educate the LUGNET community about, why not tell us with LEGO? I, for one, have no idea who “Miss Tallulah” is or what the “classic invisibility thing” is - but I would be a lot more interested in learning if it involved LEGO.

Anyway, I have no interest in seeing a group dedicated to non-LEGO talk that just happens to be about homosexuality. I am very interested in seeing gay-themed MOCs and gay-themed stories told with LEGO. If a .lavender group would further that goal, I am all for it.

.off-topic removed from FUT as this doesn’t seem off-topic to me.

Marc Nelson Jr.

Just to clarify. I wasn’t suggesting that there would be explicit sexual content just content that is sexual in nature and on a site dedicated to a childs toy it would be inappropriate. I am not trying to vilify Teddy or his suggestion but discussion of an adult nature or of an adult topic would be better served elsewhere. We may be a community of mainly adults but there are kids among us and I think it would be wise to keep that in mind.

Mike

Ruling out explicit sexual images/discussion - what does “content that is sexual in nature” mean? Is this sexual in nature? How about this? What about their gay equivalents?

Marc Nelson Jr.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Lavender Brick Society
 
(snippage) (...) Just to clarify. I wasn't suggesting that there would be explicit sexual content just content that is sexual in nature and on a site dedicated to a childs toy it would be inappropriate. I am not trying to vilify Teddy or his (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.org)

207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR