Subject:
|
Re: Stick in the mud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:58:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > BTW, I just changed that passage from "...which is not believed to
> > > constitute sponsorship or endorsement..." to "...which does not imply
> > > sponsorship or endorsement..." (i.e., to remove the "not believed to"
> > > portion). When two top LEGO Systems, Inc. attorneys have said in no
> > > uncertain terms that BradJ's donation does not imply sponsorship or
> > > endorsement of LUGNET, that is about as certain as it gets.
> >
> > OK. Let us be 100% clear on this, are you saying that by gifting you this
> > money & by posting here, Brad/TLG is _not_ showing that he supports and
> > approves of what you are doing - and in a small way is _not_ encouraging you
> > to
> > keep up the good work. By giving the money, assuming you have accepted it,
> > LUGNET is now _not_ supported (I do not mean just financially), albeit in a
> > small way, by LEGO?
>
> Are you nit-picking for the hell of it? I'm a language geek myself but I
> think this semantics game you're trying to play is more than just a little
> silly.
>
> If Todd simply told you to shut up and butt out would that make it clear that
> he (and he's the only one that matters, really) doesn't feel like fencing with
> you over a few words?
>
> What _exactly_ is the reason you continue to harp on this, and be more
> specific than just saying you want the statement to be clear. WHY do you want
> it to be clear?
I thought that was clear. The fact that you think I am able to play semantics
means perhaps it is not clear enough. Naturally, is does not have to be clear,
anything other than deliberately misleading may well be OK. I want LUGNET to
grow & get as much new blood a it can, if the messy front page puts even 1
person off, or taints one opinion wrongly - am I so wrong to suggest it should
change?
Scott A
> Why do you want it to be clear to YOUR satisfaction when Todd
> seems to feel it is clear to HIS satisfaction?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) Scott, you're all wet. The stuff you're picking at is perfectly clear to any reasonably clued person. However, if you really really want to be picky, why not pick on THIS (the last page) instead. See the admin > financial > donations page for (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) Are you nit-picking for the hell of it? I'm a language geek myself but I think this semantics game you're trying to play is more than just a little silly. If Todd simply told you to shut up and butt out would that make it clear that he (and (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
85 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
|
|
|
|
