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: 
3247 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 (26 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 (...) (26 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
    

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