 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) (leaping out of bed to follow-up on this) Wait a second. The pictures that went in *were* legitimate consumer catalog photos -- from the sheet catalog/brochure someone got in a copy of a Technic set at a store in the UK, and from one other. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I think you would be wasting your time there, Todd. I'm sure that TLC employees would rather spend their time by trying to make more money and by further juniorizing those sets and themes that are still decent rather than spending hours or (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) So that's why no-one responded to my WTB request for 6500 :) -- Jonathan Wilson wilsonj@xoommail.com (URL) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Maybe what we should do is this: I could print a list of all the sets and set numbers we know about, and send that to someone at LEGO, and ask them to send it back with any set numbers crossed out that they felt weren't appropriate to appear (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FMEzxF.Au8@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) intended (...) leaks (...) lines (...) I'm with the second one completely, although it is fun to watch the rumours and "spy works" around..:-) Actually (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Normally, I would agree with that. That's definitely my philosophy too. :) But in this case, let me just say that I have as good a reason to believe what I've heard as any I could ever ask for. I would almost stake my life on this one. I'd (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Flawed reasoning. NOONE is EVER right ALL the time. Until we hear from TLC themselves, assume anything you want, but don't be SURE of that assumption. Is it a good idea? Depends on how you/TLC think people will take the scans. 1 - angry that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Well, let's get something straight here first: 1. TLC's policy about vendor/retailer catalogs is only half of the issue. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something known as a "retailer catalog" (which consumers almost *never* see) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: About this 2000 dealers catalog
|
|
(...) Like I said, I don't know for sure yet. The reason they're very different issues is because one's a copyright infringement on top of a potential publicity rights violation and other is simply a potential publicity rights violation, which it (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: About this 2000 dealers catalog
|
|
(...) Excuse me? So it's alright to release a textual description of something that is supposed to be 'confidential', but not OK to post a graphic of it???? If you are trying to protect TLC's rights by keeping this information from the public, then (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.general)
|
