Subject:
|
Re: The formation of an ILTCO
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:29:12 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.netAVOIDSPAM
|
Viewed:
|
415 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote:
> In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
> > While it's true that we could carry on many of these types of
> > discussions in trains.org, I think that eventually we would need to
> > organize further to accomplish some of these goals. As for LUGs vs
> > LTCs, I see this venture as a purely *train layout* organization whose
> > members participate primarily in GATS and NMRA related events. I know
> > that there are LUGs who create other theme displays for show, but I
> > think we should narrow our focus on trains. So I would think that if a
> > LUG isn't *centered* on the trains theme, then they probably wouldn't be
> > interested in this org. OTOH, if there are LTDs in a LUG who want to
> > participate, then I think they should create a separate LTC and begin
> > showing at train show events.
>
> I don't think that the LUG vs LTC thing is really relevant. As a prime
> example, NALUG has done 2 trains shows, intends to do more in the future,
> but has no intention or desire to form a seperate LTC - we're stunningly
> informal as it is, and it would feel pretty silly to most of us, I think, to
> have 2 different names for the same bunch of people.
>
> Even though our "focus" isn't necessarily trains, we do train shows, and
> IMHO, that's enough.
Well, let's talk about this, because there are some gray areas here. If a
club/group are committed to showing at train shows, then why the reticence
using the LTC name form? I don't think it's silly to use both, because perhaps
there are or will be folk in the future who will join the LUG, but not be
interested in participating in the LTC activities. Even if, at this point, the
members are all the same, perhaps it won't be so in the future.
I really think that this should be a purely train club related org, so I don't
think that any ol' LUG should qualify. If we are talking semantics here, then
why don't the LUGs call themselves LTCs? What is the difference between a LUG
and an LTC?
-John
>
>
> James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The formation of an ILTCO
|
| (...) In a nutshell, because while we do trains, it's not *all* we do. (It's just all we've done lately...) And we don't (disclaimer: I'm making an assumption here - I haven't checked with NALUG lately, these are things we bantered around last (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: The formation of an ILTCO
|
| (...) Well I can talk from a NELUG perspective. Personally I see no need for both an LTC and LUG in the area. We get along great just as we are, heck I don't think we have a single "Hard Core" Train head in the group. Actually I see the train shows (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The formation of an ILTCO
|
| (...) I don't think that the LUG vs LTC thing is really relevant. As a prime example, NALUG has done 2 trains shows, intends to do more in the future, but has no intention or desire to form a seperate LTC - we're stunningly informal as it is, and it (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
