 | | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Feel free to provide a cite. I don't have a Lexis ID but the 10 minutes I spent on altavista looking mostly bolstered the opposite view. That's not a definitive proof, mind you, as people are sloppy with words all the time. Till then, and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) For that matter, so are the borders of most any subset of Intellectual Property Law today... --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) That I do understand. I now await the letter/E-mail asking me to cease and decease. James (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) hehehe! (good one Todd!) (...) OK, then here goes. (URL)I have to point out here that "fact" is in direct conflict with the "O" in (...) point taken. (...) No. In my line of work (Military), anything that is _NOT_ classified is free for (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Of course, the issue of posting a link to something is very different from the issue of hosting/publishing that something. (...) Actually, I don't mean to misquote Lar...he said something about a package and a bowtie, but it wasn't about (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Put another way, to use a phrase that Matthew Miller just used, (URL) borders of trade secret law are not only fuzzy and indeterminate and case-by-case, but they are also changing every day. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What you can and can't do is governed by physics, I think. :) What you may and may not do is covered in the T&C of the discussion groups, part of the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement, (URL) tries to be clear, but since life is gray (not black and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Larry -- you use the word "steal" here, and "theft" in your subject. This frames the question in colored terms. In my understanding, violation of intellectual property rights is not theft under the law. (And is unlike material theft in several (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) OK, I am going to TRU this evening, with the list (or at least one set on it) as a private cit, and I will ask about that spicific set...and see if something comes up. This is no more than a humble guess on my part...I mean, I will ask if any (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) happen (...) what (...) I think this guidance is just plain old common sense... if the information was obtained by you in a way that the general public, acting in a lawful manner and complying with all restrictions on behaviour that are in (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Simple. Was the discussion on Lego products? Yes. Was the discussion on allegedly public info? Yes. Therefore, does it belong on LUGNET, and is it within the above and the TOS? Yes. What Jorge did was the digital eq. of looking in a catalog, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I have (and don't worry, I'm not likely to go postal over it!) Forgive me for asking, but I thought the _purpose_ of LUGNET was to: www.lugnet.com/admin/plan do all of the above. The limits on LUGNET are imposed by: (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) translation? If you don't want it to be ready "yesterday" I'll be happy to translate it (give me a day or two) ... CiaoCiaoSergio (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Okie dokie, ya, good point! Now says this: Notice: This is a historical document which outlines site philosophy, motivations, directions, intentions, and so forth. This document does not embody any rules or regulations and should not be (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Wow! I'm nitpicking but I think you may be swinging too far the other way. I would change the second sentence a bit to acknowledge that there IS some bearing and connection, this is a vision (well, not just a vision, a manifesto because it's (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) BTW, James, even without the above notice, I don't even remotely see how you or anyone could misinterpret "To help people share information about LEGO products and LEGO-related resources on the World Wide Web by setting in motion a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I have added a notice to the /admin/plan/ page which reads: Notice: This is a historical document which outlines site philosophy, motivations, directions, intentions, and so forth. This document does not have any bearing on or connection with (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Forgive me, that was rude. What I mean is, slow down, take a breather here. Think things through a bit more. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) You did not say that it was in the T&C, and you did correctly identify its source. However, I did not say or imply that you thought or said or implied that it came from the T&C. What I said is that it has nothing to do with the T&C. It is not (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) UM? Where did I say it was in the T&C, I believe right above it I said _exactly_ where it came from. Is the above accurate? (I hope so), then it is part and parcel of your site mandate. Go to: www.lugnet.com/lego/...ect/?n=522 to see exactly (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) James, Above, as Mike Timm just pointed out, you quoted something which has absolutely nothing to do with the Terms and Conditions here or the Terms of Use Agreement. What you quoted was from a plan document -- a manifesto -- a public (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Translation help wanted
|
|
Hello, Italy! On the www.lugnet.com website, I would like to offer an Italian-language version of the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement document, which currently only exists on the site in English: (2 URLs) there anyone who might volunteer to do an (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Gotta disagree with that one. If it were companies (or individuals, for that matter) who got to decide what their own rights were, we'd all be in trouble. What if they said that "All four-digit numbers are trade secrets. Don't use them."? Of (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No, I'm not implying that. I believe that it's possible that some things related to this might possibly potentially violate some privacy law somewhere, and I believe that it's potentially likely that some things related to this may be (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Todd: I realise that your best answer for this is the first thing you said here- that you aren't a lawyer- but are you really implying that discussing this information- in any way, in any forum- violates the law or infinges on TLC's rights? I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Do you mean why does LUGNET have this policy/requirement as part of the T&C? Because it benefits the community more in the long run to have this requirement in place than not to have it. Or, from a site survivalist point of view, it benefits (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Actually, it is the key question in a court case ongoing in NYC right now...Is a link to a site that contains something illegal if a cease and decease order has been granted? I am refering to DeCSS, and www.2600.com, it makes for interesting (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) That's a question for Brad or LEGO Legal via Brad. I am not a lawyer, so I can't give you legal advice on how not to break the law or how to avoid infringing on the LEGO company's rights. The policy is: Don't infringe on anyone's privacy or (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Is that your policy Todd? Can I talk all of the about the sets that I know about? If we find out about leaked information (from some other site for example), can we talk about that information in other casual conversations on Lugnet? Ben (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Rare items, only 2 days to go...
|
|
(...) Reminder: Don't post auction announcements or updates to .buy-sell-trade -- that's what the .auction newsgroup is for. Please re-read: (URL) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Star Wars LEGO FS
|
|
(...) Kyle, Please take a few moments to review the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement, (URL) you agreed to when you signed up. Specifically, please note that it is not OK to post auction announcements to discussion groups which do not explicitly welcome (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) That's the point I think. Selçuk (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) Might not be important, but it might be interesting. After all, part of having a community is meeting people, right? (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) That's ridiculous. It's not like that at all. It's like meeting someone you don't know at a lego convention, and they give you their card. I've done that. It's got my name and e-mail address on it, it's small, it's convenient, it's an accepted (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) Marc, I don't understand. Should people be ashamed of where they work or what they do? (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) He he! Good one! (...) Why? All quotes or just silly ones? :-) (I trimmed everything except debate from the followups, which I recommend to everyone involved in this to emulate) A good thought provoking quote is a good thing. It's when they (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) Yeah, seems like a fairly simple case of a personal dislike, motivated by I don't know what, but not really important to me. I use the web interface now as well, but if I ever switch back to a news reader I'll have my sig pre-defined for every (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) As an example, section five of the Discussion Group Terms and Conditions states that you won't post defamatory or profane (among other things) messages. If you look at the snippets from your note above, you may find three breaches of this (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) 1. As long as a signature is short (four lines or under is best), it doesn't really matter what the content is, as long as it's not offensive in a way that violates the charter of the newsgroup you are posting to. 2. It may not be important (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I didn't miss it at all. That's what my reply to you was about. I then went on to state another, related point: I believe that short .sigs (regardless of content) are much less annoying than long ones. (...) Even if it's not (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
I really thought about posting a reply earlier, but I decided against it. Here's goes second round. Marc, the problem is your own, over something, that is it really does bother you as much as you say it does, can be simply overlooked by not reading (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) I already said that I really doubt Lugnet would agree with me enough to do anything about it. (...) You're missing my point. I mentioned the part of signature files that really are uneccesary --- posting your job title and position. signature (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) I generally agree with Marc on this one. I don't think there's anything LUGNet can or should do to ban or even discourage this kind of thing, and as freedom of speech has already been mentioned in others' replies, I won't rehash that reasoning (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
This is just petty, IMO. Who really cares? (Besides you, obviously.) So it is another 4 lines on a message, JUST SKIP IT! Here is a quote for you: "Love it or leave it." And as far as the bandwith argument goes - God forbid that each message be one (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) I've read your post a couple of times, and I am frankly baffled. Why does this annoy you so much? It's a couple of lines at the end of a post that are incredibly easy to ignore. (...) Some people post to more places than LUGNET. They may not (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) Well, I use the web interface so currently (unless I get off my duff and find a macro solution) my sig is whatever I feel like typing by hand. But when I was posting via Netscape news, my sig was what I had configured it to be. Since I posted (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) While I don't include my position in posts from work, I do make it clear when I am posting from work. This is because I have my Netscape at work set up with my home e-mail identity, but I don't want to hide the fact that the post is (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) if you've got a proper newsreader, you ought to be able to turn off the display of signatures, assuming people use the proper dash dash space ("-- ") delimiter. that should prevent your being annoyed. (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) Points well taken Richard. There are several ways of looking at my comments. Here is a recent direct email I received from this post and my reply to this poor Canadian: ##### Dave Hylands wrote (me directly): Hi, Marc Cook wrote: > What I (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: This will get someone upset...
|
|
(...) I don't disagree with you, but at the same time I think that people should be allowed to have whatever signature they want. I see it as a form of freedom of expression. I wouldn't want to stop people from posting with their chosen signatures (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | This will get someone upset...
|
|
I've noticed a few people like posting their signature files on Lugnet or a "signature" like saluation. I think degree posting a quote, or a link to your lego pages is fine. What I really see as bragging and I feel is really annoying is posting your (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Quick Set
|
|
(...) Yes, absolutely, it would be fine if you did that. --Todd (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Quick Set
|
|
Would it be okay to link to the Quick Set main page from one's personal website? (If this belongs in another group please redirect me) Greg Majewski (URL) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Frank Filz writes: <snip> Remember, trim geek unless you were commenting on signature doohickies! ++Lar (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) in (...) and (...) the (...) a (...) Yes. It was only a matter of time before you came around to my way of thinking :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) and (...) I wholeheartedly agree, and I'm glad someone else is jumping on this bandwagon (I'be been trumpetting this ideal for some time, though I don't think I'm the only one who has trumpetted this). Frank (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) It may be a function of which groups you hang out in, if you mostly hang out in the market groups (not saying you do), you won't see the chiding (my word for the day) that goes on by vigilantes (yesterday's word) as much. We all like to be (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) that the flaming about perceived rules breaking is (...) misplaced auction posts has occurred, but there sure has (...) any group so long as they relate to that groups purpose (...) postings). I have not seen too much of this - but I suppose I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) I like to keep people honest :-) I sincerely hope that the new TOU get resolved pretty soon. It seems to me that the flaming about perceived rules breaking is getting worse (over the past couple months, I (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) weak (...) but these posts were to different groups. I dunno about you, but my MO is to start reading a group that interests me from where I left off, till I reach the end, then dip into another one. Hence, the order posted, if fairly close (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) yet (inserted by Lar) (...) I forgot about that! EXCELLENT point, Frank. Smacks of vigilantism and of enforcing mores that aren't actually in effect (which phenomenon I am quite familiar with, living in Grand Rapids as I do, but I digress). (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) I agree. And conversely, when I want to buy something, it's generally technic, and would rather not wade through the other stuff. (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Ah... hmmm. First, as I tried to hint to you earlier, I don't really think that this post was necessarily nothing but a blatant flog. I did think it raised an interesting point to debate, though, because it would be easy to flog in this manner (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) So would I, especially now that we have the skip-filter in place. I think it would encourage people to post their sales in the proper theme market groups, and would let people looking for a specific theme filter those back *in*. For example, I (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) Also, I assume references to market sites in ones sigs will still be allowed assuming the sig itself is of reasonable size. One thought for Kevin and future posters of something like this, the post would be (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) So how would you "grade" this one? I see it as a big contribution to the theme group and not at all a flog. Eric, I think, sees it rather more like pure flog with little or no redeeming value. Some specific guidance from you, since you're the (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) It hasn't happened yet, no -- partially due to time and partially due to a few borderline examples that happened in April and May which confuse the issue. It's still the intention to adjust the TOU to keep blatant non-auction flogs out of the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) I can see that someone might do this (although I wasn't intending to in this case), and I have mixed feelings about whether or not it would be OK. Including links to sales and auctions in a .sig has always been acceptable, to my understanding. (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) What on earth is this about??? Are you syaing you think he was trying to brak the "rules"? Or are you saying that you _personally_ to not like KW selling his LEGO this way? Scott A (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Well, you do, for one, or you wouldn't be posting. (...) Yup, I did. (...) I didn't tell him he has no right to sell it. In fact, I feel very strongly that he can sell any set he designs that he wants to, as I think I said here: (...) I think (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Eric Joslin writes: --<snip> (...) ship (...) Eric, Who cares? Did you know the more pictures he posts the more people can copy his ideas. If you do not want to buy the boat, don't by the boat. If in the process of designing (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Oh, I see. Nice! It would be cool to have a different size of cannon on deck. (...) No. I just find it striking that one day you posted about how you had the ship for sale in .market.buy-sell-trade, and the next you posted in .pirate about how (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) The non-Lego pieces in it are the custom sails, which I believe many other people use as well. Lego sails just don't fit all sizes of ship. The reference to "brass" cannons (which was only in the description on the sale page, interestingly (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) I didn't say it wasn't. If you can't have afriendly disagreement with someone sometimes, it's hard to call them a friend. (...) Then how do you translate "brass"? I assumed he meant he had tooled them up from brasspiping and made them look (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) We quibble, but hey, quibbling's fun. I did read the advert, thanks. They're built up from "brass" not Brass. In the pics, they look like brickbuilt to me. What I did NOT spot at the time (and which you didn't either, I guess) was that the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
<snip> (...) You do not think he is dishonest, you just doubt he is honest? What do you mean? I do not see what your point is? Is there anything wrong even with your worst interpretation of KW intentions? <snip> (...) A thing you'd never do or have (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
You can add "liar" to my list of charms, I guess, but you did ask a decent question.... (...) There are cannons on it built up from brass. Read the advert. (...) I was careful with my wording not to call him out-and-out dishonest. I have never dealt (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Your eyes must be better than mine, or I haven't read the advert as closely as you have.... where are the non Lego pieces? (...) Seems mostly to be made of those 2 ships to me, although I wouldn't quibble about the odd piece here and there (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Actually, I wasn't just talking about his .sig. (...) Yup. It's a neat model that A) Isn't wholly made of Lego pieces, let alone made only of two Armada Flagships (which makes me doubt how honestly he's representing his intentions, when he (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) (1) (...) It may well be an advert. So is everything else that appears in signatures that leads the reader to sites where one has things for sale. But a flog? Hardly. It's a neat model. Did you post to .terms because you think it's a violation (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) bit of a flog for your sale. x-posted and FUT lugnet.admin.terms. eric (24 years ago, 28-Jun-00, to lugnet.pirates, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) be (...) A Detroit sale is EXTREMELY relevant to a loc.ca.on.<windsor> group, and vice versa. it seems like ALL of Windsor either works in SE michigan, works for a car company, and thus goes to SE michigan a lot on business, or just goes there (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
Where are we at on this? It looks like another wave of market posts appearing all over the place is starting. Frank (24 years ago, 13-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Whether (...) Indeed. But the problem with devolving any sort of power to only a limited number of groups is that other groups may also want it - or assume they already have it. Scott A (24 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) No, I said .loc.au was a was logical place, not that it was the right place. By "logical place" I mean that common sense might suggest that posting it there might make perfect sense (if someone was clueless about the T&C). (...) It's always (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Yep. Rule of law and all that. :) (24 years ago, 4-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) BTW - I was rather bemused by this: So even though Mark was "right". He was wrong to break a rule which was wrong even though in doing so he was right? Scott A A more extreme example might be someone wanting to run an auction (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) Oh, dear. Of course they will - that is, if we ALLOW certain market posts in ALL of .loc.us there will be a HUGE amount of market posts. Personally, I think that market posts should be allowed in lower-level .loc groups (eg, .loc.us.ma, or (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) In practice - the unofficial rule-change in .loc.uk allowing some .market posts through concensous, has been quite easy to remember for me - essentially because I've been a part of that group. If you have nothing to do with a locality, then (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) From a technical standpoint, it is a problem. But I think from a practical POV, it might not actually be a problem - if someone contributes to any group then they should have a say, regardless of nationality. If someone wanted to try and mess (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) I thought your first message, which I will paraphrase as "no .market type posts at all in .loc (and other) groups", while at first sounds quite reasonable in an A-R kind of way, completely falls apart when you consider .market.shopping. Many (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
Some thoughts: I don't want to see lugnet.loc.us turn into a jumble of market posts, which could happen if the default was to allow all types of market traffic in the loc groups. One way to handle it is allow the market posts in the loc groups by (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Wow, you nailed it! That's the feeling I'm beginning to get after reading recent messages from PeterC, PaulB, MarkH, ScottA, and others. To posit a question, how much harm would it do if all types of market traffic were allowed in .loc and (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) I agree - while it wouldn't make sense for a group like .loc.us, for the smaller communities, where there is a _sense_of_community_, .market related posts are more welcome as you are most probably dealing with a friend. I've sent space parts (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) people (...) might (...) A good idea. This would well suite posters to loc groups who do not speak English and only want to sell to their "local" area. It would also suit those who list items on ebay.de etc (German Language Ebay). EG: (URL) A (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) A valid suggestion. My only problem with it (and this is my personal view) is that it is creating *another* group which requires monitoring. I'm actually looking at ways to *reduce* the number of groups (possibly because I'm lazy and can't be (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
I understand both Todd and Peter's thoughts, and agree with both... How about creating lugnet.market.loc.xyz groups if a sufficient number of people from that area are interested in a more targeted group. These groups would welcome all market posts (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) .org-based groups (e.g., lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.ca.vlc, etc.): yes with respect to market and related things (but obviously no with respect to issues of strict legalities, etc.); .loc-based and other groups: no. (...) Well, if you (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Todd, I've been musing over this for a while, and this latest incident is a perfect opportunity to raise it with you, and the Lugnet community. Whilst no-one is arguing that Mark has and continues to breach the Lugnet Terms and Conditions, I (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
