Subject:
|
Re: Enough already
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:33:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
175 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > magnitude of the leniency that LEGO has shown in recent years. Because of
> > that, I think it's unfortunate that a few sour grapes are able to make such
> > a stink. Inasmuch as it's anyone's full legal right to make a stink and
> > express opinions, I think the result only slows down the chariot.
>
> I certainly hope I'm not being included in this category. Your remarks in
> the quoted message deal mostly with scanned images, which was not my
> concern. I feel the issue of linking is an extremely serious one, and I
> would really resent being called names for bringing it up.
Ditto. If not "keeping quiet" is what takes me out of the
"respectful majority" and makes me a sour grape on issues that
actually ARE important, as opposed to showing just how much of a
bunch of suck-ups we can all be, then sour be I.
Is this what we have to look forward to now that Lego has decided to
end years of arrogant silence to our community? Either keep your
mouth shut (or write glowing praise for their ill-worded
"contrafactual" demands (that were subsequently reiterated as polite
requests, which IS COOL and FINE)) or be labeled a troublemaker?
Sorry, I don't remember agreeing to a "please avoid disagreeing with
Lego reps who may appear here" or "please be sure to keep your mouth
shut if you do disagree with them" rule when I signed on here.
On a sour scale, viewing it from MY perspective, I'd put me
somewhere between Matthew and Jasper on these issues that have been
discussed, but then again, I wouldn't feel the need to label people
that way at all, and I certainly wouldn't want to do it if I were
Todd, with his words carrying the undeniable force of owner/admin.
For the record, though, I think Tony K's post was out of bounds and
probably written in haste without much thought. He wasn't arguing
anything that's defensible and was, in fact, saying things that are
downright wrong. That's a far cry from saying (and even saying over
and over) "no, if you've got it on your webserver with world
readable permissions on it then it isn't legally private".
> I'm glad that Brad has responded in such a positive way; it should allow us
> to get on with things. But this kind of attack on people with legitimate
> concerns doesn't help anything!
Yeah, I'm glad to. And I agree that this "don't pay attention to
the few troublemakers - most GOOD AFOLs are being nice and quiet so
we should respect them" stance is bull.
And yeah, I just got up and I'm a little mad at possibly being
lumped in as a sour grape. I'm even more mad, though, at the
thought that from now on anyone who loudly disagrees with anything
Lego says is going to risk being labeled like this.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I certainly hope I'm not being included in this category. Your remarks in the quoted message deal mostly with scanned images, which was not my concern. I feel the issue of linking is an extremely serious one, and I would really resent being (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
