 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Whoa whoa whoa! Watch what you say, please. For the record, I have *NEVER* censored a message here and never will. Any message I have ever removed has been under one of four cases: 1. Someone is unable to cancel their own message for whatever (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone message (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the LUGNET/TLC (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a 'please (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) Not in Canada they cannot...even my employer cannot. (DND) (...) If the info was not labeled, then too late for it to be labeled afterwards. James Powell (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
