Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:36:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
246 times
|
| |
|
|
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
information, and the government wanted it suppressed even after everyone
plainly knew about it, they'd have one hell of a time covering it up. TLG
should just state what happened, what should have happened, etc. and let us
get on with reaping the benefits of it when it does finally come out,
whether as stated, or changed completely.
If TLG are going to attempt to stop people from discovering information that
should be confidential, because of promotional or special offer value when
it *is* released, then every retail store on the planet Earth that is in any
way connected with a retail distribution system needs a whole new engine
installed. I would bet that someone in TLG stuffed up, and various
department heads would already be under investigation for actions they might
not have been able to take. However, this is all speculation.
What needs to be stated is what happened, and how it was mistakenly released
early. It is undeniably public knowledge, as someone else stated, it's
probably on one of the anonymised (for want of a better word) sites already.
And it needs to be stated soon, so we can get on with waiting for what is
coming soon, and not what might have been coming.
I would imagine that people's hopes have been raised, and in the stroke of a
few keys on a keyboard somewhere, dashed just as fast as they were raised.
And all because of something that was thought of as public knowledge
already, whether it had been or not ...
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
Lorbaat <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message
news:FyyJKK.3I2@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > BTW, I removed the articles in good faith, as requested, with the
> > understanding that they somehow violated TLC's privacy rights. IANAL, so
> > I have to take it in good faith. If it does come to light that there • were
> > no legal grounds for the articles' removal, rest assured that the • articles
> > can be easily restored if needed.
>
> 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 the same time, I can't stress enough how much I think you should
> investigate whether or not this kind of thing is something LEGO can ask • you to
> do or not. I can't imagine that it could be within their rights to demand • you
> do so. I've seen several people refer to this information as "leaked", • and I
> have a real problem with that term. At no point was this information used • in a
> way that violates standard operating procedure for any of the entities
> involved:
>
> LEGO took the names and prices of the sets, and handed them to Target.
>
> Target took the names and prices of the sets, and placed them into the
> computer.
>
> A Target employee, who has a position that enables him by Target's own
> operational procedures to *use* said computer, including giving • information
> from it to customers, discovered the information. He then shared it with • a
> coupe hundred of Target's potential customers.
>
> Now, the information above is accurate as far as Jorge has presented it. • It's
> possible he doesn't actually have the right to look in the computer. It's
> possible that Target blew it and shouldn't have had the information in • *their*
> computer. But if all of the above are true, and LEGO doesn't want it to • be,
> then LEGO needs to change the way they do business, not ask all of us to • "not
> discuss it".
>
> To me, this is just another example of a big company not understanding • that
> the way in which information flows has been irrevocably changed by the
> internet. [1]
>
> eric
>
> 1] I don't say things like this very often. I've been working on the • internet
> for about 5 years now, and frankly the thing bores the living heck out of • me.
> But there are certain truths about its effect on life that have to be • faced up
> to. Is my life actually *better* because I know what Star Wars sets are • going
> to be released in December? No, not really. But without the internet, I
> wouldn't know it.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) 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)
|
33 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
|
|
|
|
