|
|
 | | Re: ICLTC
|
| (...) Well said, Eric! And I couldn't agree more. I was written privately by someone who was concerned that I was butting into a conversation which I had no business butting into. But since it was taking place (in part) in lugnet.org.us.nelug and (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | Re: TeenLTC?
|
| (...) While I'd agree that getting excited isn't A Good Thing, and that "MICHLTC has been gobbled up by Larry Industires" is over-stated, there does seem to be an element of "Let's do this my way" in the Michigan LEGO groups, the few seemingly (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | Re: ICLTC
|
| (...) I think this is one of those cases where the few outway the many... If some people think the name is sexist and stupid (I do as well) then I don't think we should use it. Being traditional doesn't make it right, besides to many people wouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | Re: IBLTC
|
| (...) Not really, I don't think. Names get chosen for whimsical reasons or no reason at all, or to be like other names. (c.f. John Allen's famous Gorre & Dapheted RR, one of the most spectactular pre 1960 layouts, which was named to make a really (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | Re: IBLTC
|
| (...) That thought train sounds like rationalization to me. But it's not my brotherhood so forget my two cents. --Todd [followups to .trains.org] (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
|
