 | | 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
