| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> > We still welcome LEGO here -- that has never changed -- it just became
> > apparent yesterday that we would need to reassert and reclarify the
> > boundaries. If LEGO officially has issues with these boundaries, they know
> > how to use the telephone.
>
> I am still missing what happened yesterday, what was it that push you over
> the edge?
This is a little ironic. For years the community tried to get TLC involved
and to participate and now it's trying to keep them out. There has to be a
reason for this which we (the end-users of Lugnet) will most likely never know.
I sort of agree with Todd on the official / non-official stance. If Brad J.
posts under his personal e-mail and says he doesn't like John, his post
should weigh no more than any other post. If he however posts officially
announcing that there will be a new Lego(R) webpage, his post should belong
only in the lego groups. But what if Lego(R) wants to extend their warmth
to the fans (consumers) and post on Lugnet that there are old sets available
for sale at S&H not available to anyone else? Shouldn't that go to
buy-sell-trade? Posting that to the lego groups only would not give the
post enough exposure. Unless that's the intent - maybe Lego(R) should be
paying Lugnet a percentage of their profit if they generate revenue or
attract sales via Lugnet. It wouldn't be fair for Lego(R) to earn income on
Todd's expense by being able to freely advertise in any given group.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
232 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
|
|
|
|
