 | | Re: IBLTC —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | sebarile-MOBL wrote in message ... (...) (question that got lost in other discussion)... Can this include clubs which don't call themselves LTC's but exhibit layouts at train shows, like VLC? Kevin ---...--- Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | (...) I don't see why not, NELUG, NALUG, and NCLUG members have all expressed interest and all do train shows. I don't see why "LTC" in your name would be a prerequisite of membership. Eric Kingsley (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) I would agree. LTC's are a subset of LUG's (or, rather, a special type of LUG -- rather than being a general LEGO users group, they're tailored toward train stuff and with a serious agenda). So it's a conventional label. --Todd (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I would tend to agree, I suspect Steve's intent was to be inclusionary not exclusionary. But if any of the following are true, I would think that the club may not have a compelling need to belong (other than for informational reasons): - The (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) If this gets off the ground, it seems fairly likely to me that it will either claim to be (or even more likely, be perceived as) speaking for all LEGO train displayers - at which point there is a certain responsibility for the org to give any (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: IBLTC —John Gerlach
|
| | | | (...) That is a question that I've been wrestling with. Someone farther up the thread put forth the idea that the IOLTC would be used for contacts and negotiations with LEGO and LEGO Direct. What sort of negotiations? What would any potential IOLTC (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IBLTC —James Trobaugh
|
| | | | | I dont think the need for the IOLTC would be dealing with LEGO as a group, but more for dealing with show promoters as a group. I think once shows catch on that we are talking with each other and such, then we're in a better position to negotiate (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | (...) All good questions. I guess my answer would be that I "expect" nothing. If something is worked out so that we got some sort of discount then all the better but I expect nothing. (...) I think you answer yourself later on this but here are my (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmm. Well, as a fellow NELUG member, I have to admit that I am rather counter to the idea of a "meta-group" representing NELUG when facing any other organisation, espeically TLC. I am certainly not opposed to seeing some kind of forum where (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) It is to me. I guess I don't expect IOLTC to "represent" NELUG in any formal sense. What I expect IOLTC to be is a forum where we can share experiances, including honorarium fee's from show promoters as well as any "considerations" they have (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, in sub-threads like this one: (URL) seems a lot like IOLTC, IBLTC, or ICLTC (whatever it ends up getting called) is going to be expected to "negotiate" with TLC, etc on behalf of its sub-groups. If that is going to be the case, NELUG (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) I would agree. I things are still in the planning stage so I want to wait it out but I don't think this new organization should or could negotiate flat deal that would satisfy all regional organizaions. I personally only want to do this for (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh no, I know everything is still in the planning stages and just by talking about it NELUG isn't getting tied to anything further down the road... I just meant that *if* this is the way things are going to go, NELUG should discuss it in depth (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) I think we can wait and see on that. If every other group has 2 reps then we should probably have 2 but if one is all that is needed then I am happy to be that one. Eric Kingsley (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IBLTC —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | John Gerlach wrote in message ... (...) layouts (...) assistance? Maybe there are two things getting tangled up together here - the existence, membership and purpose of an IOLTC group, and assistance from Lego negotiated by such group. It seems to (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | |
