Subject:
|
Re: Do you think there is a market for your MOCs on eBay? Please discuss...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:51:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
967 times
|
| |
|
|
Newsgroups: lugnet.admin.general
Path: lugnet
From: "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com>
X-Real-Life-Name: Scott Arthur
Subject: Re: Do you think there is a market for your MOCs on eBay? Please
discuss...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: None
X-Nntp-Gateway: http://www.lugnet.com/news/post/
Message-ID: <GqDw6z.9rq@lugnet.com>
References: <Gpzzqt.1IH@lugnet.com> <Gq1DFs.By1@lugnet.com>
<Gq3w9y.v5@lugnet.com> <Gq4I7E.4oF@lugnet.com> <Gq4z11.Ds8@lugnet.com>
<Gq5urK.8so@lugnet.com> <Gq73wG.7MB@lugnet.com> <GqBK02.AFD@lugnet.com>
<GqC3Lw.424@lugnet.com> <GqCxp5.BDo@lugnet.com>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 4.0; Hotbar
3.0; Q312461)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lugnet.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:11:23 GMT
X-Http-Remote-Addr: 137.195.69.56
Lines: 136
In lugnet.admin.general, Duane Hess writes:
> 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....?)
Read the thread again. Look at Larry’s attempts at policing. Look at his
name calling. Look at his infantile perspective. Do you think that is
constructive? Read Brian’s words again. Is he wrong? Does Brian not care
about Lugnet? Did he not say what he did because he *does* care? Larry
chastises people for being “non constructive”, but was Brian’s very point
not that Larry is being “non constructive”? Community policing does have its
merits, but is must be done with respect… and respect is a two way street.
That is why I suggested curators should take on the role (where they exist).
After all, I’m happy to be lectured on marital fidelity… just not by Bill
Clinton. ;)
> 2. You want to point out that you are tired of Larry's attitude.
I, and others.
> 3. You want to point out that you are tired of Larry's control over "every
> thread that goes beyond 4"
I can live with his high posting level.
> 4. You raise your views on Larry's policing actions, but there's not point
> in discussing them
I agree.
>
> 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?
This may surpsrise you, but I feel no real animosity towards Larry.
>
> 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.
This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. Larry
engages in name calling. But when I point all this out, I get the flack.
Scott A
>
> -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 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
