 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) some. (...) disclosed (...) Well, not exactly. When a company is seeking damages in a suit due to losses, the level of protection that the information is given is a material factor, but not the entiriety. That is, were TLC to sue Target, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com... (...) What you wrote makes a lot of sence for me, but if this was the case, why did TLC ask Todd to cancel the message and not Target. Note that only Target would be affected if (...) (26 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Uh, kinda... NICK #:^< (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I don't think that matters. Once information is public, any trade secret protection ends. And if Lego wanted trade secret protection in the first place, they should have made sure that Target made its employees know that they have a duty to (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) This is the problem with accepting funds from TLC. Cynics will say that TL is TLC's pocket now, and that this is just a sign of things to come blah blah blah. Although, I very much doubt that is the case. To avoid any fuss in the future it (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I disagree. Well I am adding fuel here, and I'll say that I think you ought to do what Lego asks when it's reasonable to do so, but it is always your "choice" to do or not do something. Even if Lego came over to your house and pulled a gun, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) No. I think it was user error! I went back to try to reproduce it and saw that the "linear all" was purple. Meaning I clicked on linear all when I thought I was getting "nested all" view instead. So never mind. However, consider putting (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
However, In reality LEGO was only doing their usual pre-sale marketing prep... ie: updating retail store databases in preparation for the upcoming December release... This however should be a problem directed at Target abd its handling of said (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) That's how I see it, ya. --Todd (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Except, of course, that TLC wouldn't have had permissions to cancel the articles if they were posted to Usenet. I suppose they could rogue cancel them but they'd get into a real storm if they did that just because of what the articles (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Well, hmm, I guess you have a good point. It depends on who you consider to have done editing when you raise the question of editorial control. For example, I certainly do not think that I exercised any editorial control -- not by any stretch (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Hmmm...that's alarming...that shouldn't be happening. Are you SURE? What's the URL of a thread display, for example, that's not threading properly? I ask because of the way lugnet newsgroup canceling works -- when an article is canceled, it (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I understand that you're acting in good faith and make no accusations against you. However, since this information was apparently available to the public before being posted to LUGnet, I have a hard time seeing how it's not editorial. It's (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) This is so far from editorial control that light from editorial control takes ten million years just to reach here. The reaons were purely _legal_ and by specific request from TLC. Editorial control would be if TLC requested removal of, say, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Prolly. But removing the whole thing is "less" control than excising words but leaving the rest. Or so I seem to recall Prodigy's lawyer telling me about 15 years ago when I first started looking into this topic. And "less" control, especially (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure removing things like this is editorial control, wholesale or not. (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
I just went and looked at the 2001 set info tree and with all the cancels, that tree is dust. The tree view for me showed a bunch of disconnected posts with no hierarchy at all. Is that an inevitable outcome of wholesale cancellation or is there a (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
