| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Stanley writes:
> [...]
> I know Todd's a good guy, so I guess I can hope that he exercised good
> judgement, but I guess if we were waiting for a more obvious answer to
> the "will Lego have any sort of influence here" we just got it.
Well, you know, the same exact thing would have happened if LEGO had asked
the same thing a year ago. The only difference now is that they're paying
attention, so they notice things like this. And they use e-mail, which
makes things go faster. (Obviously they'd still need someone reading on
weekends if they wanted to catch all leaks.)
There's no doubt in my mind that If I had refused this first formal non-
legal (actually semi-legal) request, that it would not have taken long for
that to turn instead into a full formal legal request.
Thus, the messages were cancelled on the good faith understanding that they
infringed upon TLC's privacy rights (or something) -- Brad will have to
explain exactly what the problem is -- I can't explain it from an official
position.
> Opinions may differ on that, of course, and if Todd says he was acting to
> protect Lego's privacy, I guess I have to believe him, but this sounds a lot
> like grabbing some of the fur off the cat after he's out of the bag and
> trying to shove that back in, realizing the cat is still running around in
> plain site elsewhere.
I wish I hadn't had to, and I agree with basically what you're saying.
BTW, I wasn't acting to protect their privacy per se, I was acting on a
formal request -- just like when someone on the VLC list's private home
address was posted by someone. The person who's rights were infringed
requested that it be deleted, and there was documentation of the request.
I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I don't really have a problem with your reasons for canceling the various posts that began this thread. My problem is that TLC seems to be asking you to replace their clothing when *they* are the ones walking about nude! If they have a problem (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Gotta agree with Eric here. And wow, I guess I either need to spend more time reading various groups again or give up entirely. In fact, I'm a little scared after looking at the little dots view of this thread. Most of what I'm seeing are (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
