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 20:46:17 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
960 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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
Scott, Here is what I've taken from your post:
1. Larry is a twit because he missed the point (which was....?).
2. You want to point out that you are tired of Larry's attitude
3. You want to point out that you are tired of Larry's control over "every
thread that goes beyond 4"
4. You raise your views on Larry's policing actions, but there's not point
in discussing them
It seems that the only reason you are responding to Larry's post is to
further the animosity that exists between the two of you. Now, do you have a
point relevant to the discussion at hand that you would like to make, or are
you going to further traumatize this poor equine corpse?
If you are wanting to constructively contribute to the betterment of LUGNET
through continued discussion of curators as Posting Policemen or US
Trademark law, please add some content sans Larry and I will be willing to
listen. If all you are interested in is baiting Larry or others (and yes, I
went hook, line and sinker) into a pointless counter-productive rant, then
take it to e-mail so that the rest of us are spared the experience. I'm not
interested in sorting out the Scott vs. Larry chaff from the rest of the
Admin wheat.
-Duane
>
>
> >
> > 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 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
