 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) So you're agreeing, then? Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the very definitions you quote. Do be clearer in future, hmm? (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could, frankly, be just about (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I hate replying to my own posts and quoting dictionaries, today I shall do both: From: (URL) verb [T] to remove parts of (something to be read, seen, or heard) because it is offensive or considered morally wrong, or because it is secret She (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) My apologies. (...) I won't sleep tonight (...) Nope. (...) Perhaps that is the problem. I found no firm legal argument, only opinion. I a seminal post perhaps? (...) I'd agree, what Todd did is more important than what you/he calls it. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) simply (...) would (...) I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony, Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
