Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:24:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
385 times
|
| |
|
|
I quite agree with Lar on the points he relates here (snippage aside). I
myself have a vested interest in Lego marketing directly from TLC, but it
would be absolutely inappropriate for me to make more than just the casual
reference that I make at this moment. And even if it were ok for me to do so
I'm not certain that I would feel comfortable doing that, even if it had a
direct and positive impact on my livelyhood at the moment. Marketing
information should be kept in .Market.buy-sell-trade, and building
techniques that others want to share should be kept in their appropriate
groups. I'm as certain as Lar is that there would be others that would
disagree, but from what I've seen transpire here on Lugnet since it's
inception, it is the appropriate behavior to keep marketing information
where it belongs.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2002 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.geocities.com/legoman34.geo/
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Morton writes:
> > Come on Lar,
> > I think we can all see the difference between posting a message saying XX
> > parts now in my brinklink store, and a link to an image that shows a
> > valuable building technique which also states in the image (and not in the
> > original posting) that the parts are available at his bricklink store.
> >
> > It's just like making a posting about something, which as part of my
> > signature block has a link to my Lego website, which in turn has a link to
> > my bricklink store.
>
> Which is why the original post, which had on topic aspects, got merely a
> ribbing. <snip>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) Which is why the original post, which had on topic aspects, got merely a ribbing. I whould have hoped that Bram was enough of a thought leader to connect the dots (where his purely market relatd followup should go) without an explicit warning. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
