 | | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) I'm not a paying member. The quote is exact. It just demonstrates the ignorance of those making the decisions. As a part time bottom of the barrel nothing I still signed a non-disclosure agreement at the time of hire. They are parinoid latly (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) I guess I have to totally agree. Although admittedly I don't see why there's a beef with Larry. I'm not sure he acted inappropriately in any way-- Just those at Lego. (...) Do you think this comes out of your recent color/Maersk debate, and (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) I was directly involved in the Maersk debate with Mr. Nagel, including a post where he accused his employer of lying to the public: (URL) That was the first thing that came to mind when I started reading this thread. At the time, had I known (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) And the point is? I take back nothing that was said. (...) I wasn't trying to keep it a secret however it wasn't up to a Lugnet administrator to violate the TOU and raise it up the flag pole. (...) Having you feel sorry for me is so far down (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) Ken, I don't expect you to, and I do respect that you have your own personal opinions about Lego even if I don't always agree with them. But the point here is that other individuals have participated (speaking as themselves) in Lugnet while (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) This seems a bit misplaced... How did Larry violate the TOU? By bringing up your employment? By correcting the library's wording? By saying that he didn't think you were the one responsible for the wording? For a few grammar and spelling (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) All I know is what I ws told. I said I didn't mention anythiing that wasn't public knowledge and the reply was "That doesn't matter" Ken (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) Technically, the "no baiting/no bickering" policy isn't new, it's been in place for a while, and we treat it as part of the ToS although we acknowledge that the TOU document should be revised to include that material. (...) Bingo. That was (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) I've addressed this complete with quotes from Lugnet polocies and updates. It's not a debate. Ken (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
(...) Yes it is, for I didn't see a violation and, again my interpretation, you mis-applying the TOS does not make it right, so it is up for a debate. But again, that's just my stance. Further, in my opinion, you seem to be very selective as to what (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote: Snipped unnecessary post (...) If your looking for a fight head back to one of the debate forums. Ken (20 years ago, 24-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
I am interested in this legal story. I have heard the same, and I am about to be put in a very odd position by LEGO(r) legal. I would like to hear anything about the companies practices if your able to share them my email is toymuseum@Hotmail.com (...) (17 years ago, 11-Mar-08, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "fired"?
|
|
I'm not sure if this was made public or not-- in fact, I'm not sure this was really confirmed, but suffice to say the word I received was that Ken was NOT fired for being a LUGNET member, or the fact that he posted to LUGNET. That said, I'm not (...) (17 years ago, 11-Mar-08, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
