 | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
| (...) Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers: (URL) [1] Yes, I have permission to republish these comments here. It's part of (...) Thanks for your input. You may be right about it being a bad idea to post feedback comments as (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) In all seriousness, I don't understand your question, mostly because if it were communicated verbally, there would have been emphasis on one word or another to give me a clue what you meant. I'll assume what you meant is: "It's not what *you* (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | copyright, registered, trademark zealotry
|
| I'm still working on the FAQ (check it out if you haven't already at (URL) ) and I've notice that LUGNET(TM) worries about copyrights, registered marks and trademarks a whole lot more than the LEGO Group appears to. I'd appreciate any guidelines on (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My point.
|
| (...) is (...) It is not what you consider to be a flame which is important - do you agree? (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
| (...) I think Mathew made a lot of points; some were quite enlightening, some were pertinent and some I can't agree with one bit. However, as far as I can see it looks like you reacted to his criticism of you more than anything else. This makes you (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
