To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trains.orgOpen lugnet.trains.org in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / Train Organizations / 1218
1217  |  1219
Subject: 
Re: The formation of an ILTCO
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains.org
Date: 
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:40:07 GMT
Viewed: 
464 times
  
In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
James Brown wrote:
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?

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 summer) see the necessity of calling ourselves 2 things.

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.

Well, that's easy to resolve.  If a member of NALUG doesn't want to participate
in a train show, they don't.  If a member of NALUG only wants to do train
shows, then that's all they participate in.  I don't see why it's such a big
deal, really.

I really think that this should be a purely train club related org, so I don't
think that any ol' LUG should qualify.

Nor do I, but if a LUG does train shows, and doesn't want to bother with the
hassle of two names, why exclude them?

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?

An LTC is a LUG that only does trains.  That's how I think of it.

James



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: The formation of an ILTCO
 
(...) That's a great way of phrasing it. Absolutely -- LTC's are a special case of LUGs. --Todd (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: The formation of an ILTCO
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR