 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) in (...) returning (...) We're not there, thank goodness, but again, drawing from memory, there have been cases where *every* person who could be reasonably identified as having seen it (a small number, less than 1000) was informed that the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in. Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine -- memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean? (...) Put another way -- (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) some. (...) disclosed (...) Well, not exactly. When a company is seeking damages in a suit due to losses, the level of protection that the information is given is a material factor, but not the entiriety. That is, were TLC to sue Target, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com... (...) What you wrote makes a lot of sence for me, but if this was the case, why did TLC ask Todd to cancel the message and not Target. Note that only Target would be affected if (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
