 | | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) That's absolutely correct, Eric. In addition, the amount of the donation ($5,000 USD) is so tiny that it could not even remotely be thought of as sponsorship or financial support unless LEGO sends these sorts of things often and regularly, (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | (...) Todd is right IMO. "Sponsorship" in the disclaimer means a formal contractual relationship, and usually accompanies significant financial support. Since that is not the case here, the traditional disclaimer is appropriate (and in fact still (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) On the contrary, we're very pleased to have received it! In fact, we thanked Brad on the phone a few days earlier when he mentioned it prior to sending it. (...) That part wasn't 100% clear. Here is an excerpt of the letter (I hope Brad (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | Kevin Loch <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message news:Fu03yK.IxJ@lugnet.com... (...) could (...) unless (...) "usually " "significant" To very vague words. To somebody who is new to LUGNet or not aware of this thread, the welcome could be argued as (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
