Subject:
|
Re: Do you think there is a market for your MOCs on eBay? Please discuss...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:56:20 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
830 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.market.theory, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Doyle Nelson writes:
> > > In lugnet.market.theory, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > In lugnet.market.theory, Doyle Nelson writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.market.theory, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
>
> > > > > > > Please also note that Guild of Bricksmiths (not "Brick Guild") is a
> > > > > > > trademarked name and should have a TM after it when first mentioned (or
> > > > > > > somewhere on the page)... thanks!
>
> > > > > > Bricksmiths
> > > > > > Bricksmiths
> > > > > > Bricksmiths
> > > > > > Bricksmiths
> > > > > > Bricksmiths
> > > > > > Bricksmiths
> > > > > > Bricksmiths
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So sue me.
>
> > Interesting that you would call it a 'temper tantrum' without even knowing
> > me.
>
> He was echoing the sentiment I expressed, I think. And when you look at your
> initial words (which I left, for reference while snipping all else away) on
> this topic, I think it was a fair sentiment. Stamping your foot and saying
> "so sue me" adds nothing of value to the discussion but certainly showed
> your pique.
>
> We have a trademark we have worked hard to establish. We are in an
> asymmetrical situation, we have to protect that trademark if we want it to
> have value, and we do. The law is clear, to protect it, we have to assert
> that it is a trademark. We don't necessarily have to insist that everyone
> honor it every time, but we have to show a good faith effort of assertion.
> Occasionally reminding people that it is a trademark in the avenue where it
> gets the most publicity is the LEAST we can do. Sorry if that gets up your
> nose but that's just the way it is.
>
> My assertion started with "please", used "should" instead of "must", and
> merely stated facts. It even ended with a "Thanks!". No statements about
> suing anyone or any threats or anything like that. Certainly if you have a
> milder way of making the assertion, I'm open to suggestion.
>
> Please separate that Guild of Bricksmiths(tm) trademark protection effort
> (that we bricksmiths MUST engage in) from any comments about making
> LUGNET(tm) a better place. The two issues have no relationship whatever, no
> matter how some may try to link them.
>
> While some people may well be annoyed that there are people trying to help
> with the effort of making LUGNET a better place, and even a few twits who
> actively undermine it with non constructive sniping every chance they get,
> there are, I suspect a lot more that are glad of it, including many who have
> said so publicly.
You are completely missing the point. You are one of the "twits who actively
undermine it with non constructive sniping". Read Brian's words addressed to
you again (the ones you have deleted):
==+==
My whole point was simply to point out that many of us out here on
Lugnet(tm) ;-) are tired of Larry and his 'know it all attitude' and
personal way of always trying to control EVERY SINGLE thread that goes
beyond 4. This is not the first, and I'm sure, not the last that people are
going to get irritated with Larry. I can recall over a dozen instances
where people, on this site, have complained about Larry and his 'policing of
Lugnet.
==+==
But I, and others, have made our views clear on "policing" before - there is
no real point in doing so again:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=9989
Scott A
>
> FUT admin.general if you want to discuss the larger issue of whether making
> LUGNET a better place is a good thing to do or not. I stand behind my
> efforts to do so and believe I and the others engaged in it (of which there
> are several) have broad support. I just wish more people would do the gentle
> reminding that is needed in that context instead of leaving it to a few. If
> more people did gentle guidance, more often, perhaps it would not be so
> worthy of remark.
>
> If you have more to say about the trademark issue itself, I'm not sure where
> to suggest you FUT.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
83 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
