To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / *270 (-20)
  Re: Castle Lego for sale!!!
 
(...) It's been a while so I'll repeat my mantra.... <soapbox> Auctions are certainly not allowed outside of lugnet.market.auction (and at least one lugnet.org group), but the rules have not yet changed (unless Todd stealth changed them) to disallow (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Category Two Space Contest Entry: Photon Shuttle
 
(...) Actually, you don't have to include your title if you're posting on your own a personal note, if you don't want to. It's only required by the T&C when you post on behalf of LEGO as an employee or representative of LEGO. (See #15 & #16 in the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.build.contests, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Please don't solicit people that report sales
 
I'm backing out of this discussion because I don't want it to get out of hand. I'm happy that the issue has been raised, Todd has made a simple change discouraging the behavior, and suggestions were made so that I can further discourage the behavior (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Please don't solicit people that report sales
 
(...) I didn't say he was going to, in fact, I read his note. My only point was that there isn't really any need to worry about the T&C becoming more restrictive, for two reasons: First, it's not Lugnet's place to worry about email that may be sent (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Please don't solicit people that report sales
 
(...) Todd isn't going to, though. He is just making a courteous note requesting people not to solicit unless they specify they are willing to [pick up sets or whatever]. -Shiri XFUT .admin.terms (but I hope there isn't too much discussion about (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Sales for 1980's castle and space models
 
Hi, Larry Pieniazek. I always found your name in Lugnet. Last time I had posted this title/subject on Lugnet, Todd has remind me. If I did not make mistake. From this Monday onward, I have stopped to do it. Even if notice for my private sales of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Sales for 1980's castle and space models
 
In lugnet.admin.general, Eng Wee Lean writes: Disclaimer: I ain't the admin here, just some galoob that hangs out here more than he should. What I say ain't definitive, that's for Todd. But I bet I'm mostly right in what I say below, as I am usually (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: So did you wonder about me?
 
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message news:G3oBzE.5yt@lugnet.com... (...) Glad to hear it! (...) actually (...) address. Understandable. (...) Note - you may want to develop a signature with your title at TLC in it, similar to (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Building manual on sale.
 
(...) Todd, Are you going to finalize the change in TOS limiting all market activity to appropriate groups, or finalize that you won't be making the change? I hate to see people keep tripping over the TOS. Everyone else, I strongly suggest you read (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  (canceled)
 
 
  (canceled)
 
 
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) I think you're right -- removing it may be best, and I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. It doesn't get used often, and it would do just as well to give an email link there. As to its purpose/intention, it just happened to be an easy thing to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) I had hoped for a straight yes or no on each point, but never mind. Scott A (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) I think it's a pretty strong implication that when you say "privately" that the contents won't normally be revealed... (...) I'm not sure I agree, actually... Again, it's a pretty strong implication. I think (despite some comments by others (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) What do you think? (...) You could infer that. (...) That would be a stretch. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) I had a look at the feedback page: (URL) Questions: 1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to post feedback? 2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least imply the communication (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Spam alert!
 
(...) my (...) while (...) Unfortunately, such people are unlikely to take any notice of such conditions. And any legal action against them is probably doomed to failure, and will certainly be expensive. The best two solutions are probably: 1. Never (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: Spam alert!
 
(...) That's pretty sick. Is there any way Todd could add a terms of use for the LUGNET website for everyone -- members, non-members who post, and people who neither post nor are members?? That way he could legally forbid email address harvesting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: blowharding (was: Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...)
 
(...) I just noticed that - and I do recall seeing him posting for at least a few weeks here. He's been very respectful up until now, even on things that he has attacked the most today. Strange. ...perhaps he didn't fill a perscription or something (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  Re: blowharding (was: Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...)
 
(...) into (...) <insert voice of moderation> Well, Matthew Moulton has been, IMO and in the apparant majority of opinions, a jerk today. *BUT* If you search back, you'll notice that he's been an infrequent, generally reasonable poster for upwards (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR