 | | Re: IBLTC
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: ICLTC
|
|
...snip... (...) ...more sinpage... Absolutely. Last time I checked this was your site. I guess I'm a little confused by this. Why is what we're getting paid from GATs a secret in the first place? I have to admit that I have no idea what we get from (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: TeenLTC?
|
|
Amy, (...) My point is that there has been no posts or ideas that would organize it. I posted several weeks ago, and no response at all, Amy. No one is dictactor or anything, I was simply trying to get some control over this Kai situation. If you (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: IBLTC
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: ICLTC
|
|
(...) Well I think you have a right to "butt into" any conversation you want. LUGNET is your baby after all. I think anyone suggesting someone should butt out of a conversation on LUGNET is rude and uncalled for. (...) Well that was partially my (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: IBLTC
|
|
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: ICLTC
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) this (...) See Todd's reply. (...) I could have worded this better. I know no-one wants to exclude women from the organisation. What I meant was, why use exclusive language when it's not necessary. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
