Subject:
|
Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:48:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
158 times
|
| |
|
|
Selçuk wrote:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
> news:FMEzxF.Au8@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > > Huw made a mistake, <snip>
> > >
> > > This is not fair. Nobody sure that it was a mistake rigt now. It's been
> > > suggested that it MIGHT BE a mistake, since nobody knows anything about • the
> > > (consistent) policy of TLC about vendor catalogs.
> >
> > 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) is not • intended
> > for consumers ever to see.
> >
> > 2. Posting scans of portions of a retailer catalog -- including major • leaks
> > about upcoming product lines and details -- *before* those product • lines
> > have been released officially -- is the other half of the issue.
> >
> > Those are two separate things.
>
> I'm with the second one completely, although it is fun to watch the rumours
> and "spy works" around..:-)
>
> Actually I read all the thread with a feel of "hmm...there is something
> exegerrated unnecessarily" but you're Todd The Man, and I'm Selçuk The
> Ignorant Turk, so it's normal..:-)
>
> > We haven't heard from TLC conclusively on #1, but like I said, it doesn't
> > take a genius to figure out that it's probably not really a good idea. On
>
> I meant the word "probable" here..
>
> > top of that, if Suzanne says is something like that is wrong, I can be • sure
> > (without any doubt whatsoever in my mind) that it's wrong.
>
>
> I don't know Susanne as much, obviously..:-), so I can't be sure as much,
> especially about the way of her saying it at first (considering Huw is not a
> newbie to the community and always contribute positively, with no faults in
> his background as I know of. Anyway, those are all seemingly concluded
> already, so I'm only a late comer..:-)
>
> >
> > > PS. Todd, Could you please check the message with subject "Update info • for
> > > Lugnet Database Volume V" that I've posted last year to admin.database. • If
> > > it is not appropriate to publish vendors' catalogs, I think we should do
> > > something more..:-(
> >
> > OK, I just dug that up,
> >
> > http://www.lugnet.com/admin/database/?n=52
> >
> > and, Hmmm, yes, very good point; we should be extra cautious here, in
> > retrospect.
>
>
> So "Straight #1" goes straight into waste basket..:-) (since I know you are
> genious)
>
> > Selçuk, to the best of your knowledge, are there photos of any sets there
> > which:
> >
> > - never eventually appeared in a consumer product line, and
> > - never were mentioned in published in any LEGO advertising, and
> > - contain sensitive LEGO-internal information
> > ?
>
>
> I cannot remember anything specific to this catalog. It has even no set
> names and prices. Just the set numbers, box pictures, and asterisks on newly
> introduced sets with minimal or no other writing in it. And all of the sets
> has appearings in other catalogs as well. Only thing that I can remember as
> a different thing from the other catalogs is an information page which gives
> number of pieces for each set (quite different for a Euro catalog) and
> number of boxes per parcel (you already have that page).
>
> But I remember an entry for a not released ever set from a vendors catalog.
> Check out set# 6500. This picture was from Huw, too (evil man..:-) and
> suggested for donation to Lugnet database by me..:-)
>
> > From the looks of it (looking up about 10 of the sets at random), the • answer
> > looks like 'no' since each image in the DB is a highly-cropped scan • showing
> > simply a photo of the box -- nothing sensitive or secret. I'll go through
> > them in more detail tomorrow. Maybe others can have a look too and see if
> > there's anything questionable.
> >
> > Thanks for bringing it up,
> >
> > --Todd
So that's why no-one responded to my WTB request for 6500 :)
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
