 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the LUGNET/TLC (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a 'please (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) Not in Canada they cannot...even my employer cannot. (DND) (...) If the info was not labeled, then too late for it to be labeled afterwards. James Powell (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) in (...) returning (...) We're not there, thank goodness, but again, drawing from memory, there have been cases where *every* person who could be reasonably identified as having seen it (a small number, less than 1000) was informed that the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in. Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine -- memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean? (...) Put another way -- (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
