| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
newsgroup list trimmed
Johannes ‘Jojo’ Koehler chutspe@gmx.net wrote:
| |
For this reason I’d very much like to have a place to meet other devoted
LEGO supporters who also have a weakness for Playmobil to share our
thoughts, to feel understood and not singled out. It would be great if
it was possible to incorporate a newsgroup lugnet.playmobil where we
playmo lovers could swap our ideas and feelings for Playmobil without
|
Does Playmobil produce Lego system-compatible elements? If so, such
discussion would be entirely appropriate in lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands,
and if there is enough interest and traffic in that group, perhaps
creating a more specific subgroup would be appropriate.
|
Are gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people? If so, such
discussions would be entirely appropriate in Lugnet.people, and if there is
enough interest and traffic in that group, perhaps creating a more specific
subgroup would be appropriate.
JOHN
|
precisely! :)
I wonder why no one else can see it?
Also, as Larry had suggested, if the Lavender Brick Society actually existed,
then they should qualify to have a Lugnet forum under the .org heirarchy. I
think this is all Teddy was asking for.
The reason I called everyone homophobic (granted, it was an hyperbole--no one
is actually threatening gay AFOLs, that I have seen) is because I think
people are overreacting to Teddy’s request. Many have assumed there is going
to be some Lugnet.gay discussion group formed, and they want to stop it.
Well, that wasn’t even proposed!
Anyway, I think Teddy’s request is a very healthy thing for the AFOL
community. It means we are really growing. We now represent such a large
slice of our world in general that we are having discussions about LGBT
groups. I think that means we are less of a specific fringe hobbyist group
and are more mainstream. That’s cool to me.
-Alfred
|
Alfred, the problem is that you label people with a negative term that you know
(you admit above) technically do not deserve the label. There is no homophobia
in the posts you are talking about - these people are expressing legitimate
reasons for their positions. You wind up knowingly mischaracterizing people
because they simply show disagreement on an issue. Tactics like this are often
used by people to kill off legitimate debate on issues, and smear one side by
damaging or destroying their character. I don’t necessarily believe this was
your intention, but you should realize that by the way you applied the use of
the term ‘homophobia’ you are equating legitimate disagreement (or non-approval)
with homophobia - and that’s a pretty big leap from what true homophobia is.
I guess in 21st Century America we can’t ever have a legitimate disgreement with
anyone on anything or we’ve all got some kind of phobia.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Geobra Society
|
| (...) precisely! :) I wonder why no one else can see it? Also, as Larry had suggested, if the Lavender Brick Society actually existed, then they should qualify to have a Lugnet forum under the .org heirarchy. I think this is all Teddy was asking (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.people, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
