 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Eric Joslin
|
| | | (...) I'm going to start by saying that I fully understand the Lugnet admins actions in this case. It's far better for the relationship with LEGO to move quickly and do what they request, and *then* follow up to see if it was right or not. But at (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | | From what I've seen of this information leak, it's a case of shutting the gate *after* the horse has bolted. If six million people suddenly knew WW3 was coming, but shouldn't have, because of some government department's stuff-up in transferring the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | I'm not sure where the best place to hang this in the tree is, but here it is. Many people have argued that now that the information about the 2001 sets is openly available, Lugnet should not bow down to TLC's request to remove the information. My (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I don't claim to know all or even many of the details, but I'll bet that no one person "blew it" and that it's the result of poor communication on a number of levels, most likely starting at the level between Target's lawyers and Target's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) Sorry, but here we're going to have to disagree. If Lego and Target have an agreement (which is starting to become apparent), then someone is responsible for the fact that the info got out. If Jorge signed something when he was hired saying (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
