 | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) I'll second that. --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) I either lied or changed my mind. You decide. (...) Todd has been known to chance his mind, yes. Until he does, let's agree that by his definition, this was a flog. He said so in (URL) Lehman wrote: (...) Since Todd's definition is pretty much (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
I thought you weren't going to debate this? (...) Granted, but I do get to question the definition and point out where I think it's awry. Which is what I'm doing. (...) And Todd never changes his mind? Seemed to be != is, necessarily. (...) So (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, you aren't the one who gets to define "flog" here. Todd is, and he weighed in and agreed that it seemed to be a flog. So, accept that the post in question was considered to be a flog, and probably shouldn't have been made in the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) It must be a cultural thing - in the UK being called a brag really is an insult. I suppose we are a modest bunch. - nobody likes "the bray of bragging tongues." (...) I doubt a lawyer would advise you to break the law as the rules are "wrong". (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
Thank you, Rose, for taking the time to dig up the links to all of these posts... it was very thoughtful to put them in one place for folks to look at. Before reading the rest of this post, people may actually want to go review them again as my (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
I'd like to kick off a discussion about the current state of the newsgroup structure here -- missing groups, unnecessary, groups, annoyingly or confusingly named groups, etc. The goal of this discussion is to come away with a list of practical (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.announce, lugnet.org, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.loc.us, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) to (...) of (...) is (...) challenged. (...) Oh, Lar. You have had auction posts in Train that were "pseudo" information/auction posts. I personally feel that you toe the line on some of these and thus (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IOLTC the final word!!!!!!!!
|
|
(...) Hmm, thoughts on how to make a simple statement which has the necessary effect... One thought would be to disallow market posts in the "theme" groups. That would leave some holes in other groups, but most of those other groups wouldn't attract (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) It's Lar. ++ is the signature lead in, not part of the name. Thanks. (...) Yes, I am specifically saying that I disagree that it was intended to be such. Everything in it was put there to back up my assertion (boast) that the doodlebug is a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IOLTC the final word!!!!!!!!
|
|
(...) Yup, and I've been promising an update for a long time. Darn everything is a moving target. I don't want to discourage local flogs in .loc groups, but definitely in just about everywhere else. There's a post I've been working on which has some (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) ++Lar, are you saying that you disagree that your post was a flog? It sure read like a flog to me, and only after you called it a brag was I able to see more insight into its purpose and agree that it's more a brag than a flog. But it's also a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Mega-Bloks (Ritvik) is watching
|
|
Just thought I'd pass this along... Someone wrote today and mentioned that they'd recently got a job with Mega Bloks (Ritvik Holdings, Inc.) as a model builder. They were asking if they needed to modify their posting sig to note this fact. I said (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands) !
|
| |
| | Re: Todd - PLEASE update TOS -or- other folks PLEASE read the TOS before reprimanding folks (was Re: over load of wheels)
|
|
(...) I believe they will be changing in that direction, yes. Technically it's not a violation right now but it sure is annoying. Look for an upcoming announcement regarding possible reorg of .market groups. --Todd (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Todd - PLEASE update TOS -or- other folks PLEASE read the TOS before reprimanding folks (was Re: over load of wheels)
|
|
(...) Ok, time for my ongoing rant. Todd, can we PLEASE have an official answer as to whether the TOS are changing to disallow buy-sell-trade posts from non-market groups. I hate to see folks stepping in and reprimanding folks for what is not in (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Was M*ndroid ToSsable from Lugnet? When?
|
|
(...) M*ndroid was probably a much clearer case. Matthew Moulton's case is a lot fuzzier, I think. Maybe tomorrow he wakes up and realizes he was having a bad day, and grows up, and apologizes, and stops posting off-topic in .space. Or maybe not. I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Was M*ndroid ToSsable from Lugnet? When?
|
|
I came on the LEGO scene too late to "enjoy" (sic) the subject contributor's "contributions" (sic) to RTL. My question is this, to people that remember his posts, were they, in and of themselves, sufficient to get him ToSsed from Lugnet, were he to (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: skip filter settings?
|
|
(...) that (...) Me too. (URL) Todd has indicated it would be some rather tricky coding. Just ToS him... ++Lar (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: skip filter settings?
|
|
(...) A lovely and elegant idea. I hope it can be done. JohnG, GMLTC LUGNET member #38 (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...
|
|
(...) Given this bit of (rather unsurprising) information, is there any chance of enforcing something in the ToS to make this person go away? If not, is there any chance of adding something to the ToS to make it easier to make people like this go (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) [...] (...) LOL! Sorry for the wasted bandwith, but this made me spew Dew all over my wife's iMac! (And it's Strawberry....) as evah, John C. (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) KL (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) Cool! Welcome to LUGNET, the friendliest place on the internet. Just watch out for certain characters who have unrealistic expectations of how fast TLC can change. If one of them challenges you, my advice is to ignore him or her. So, what's a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) Whoops! I meant #15, not #14. (Thanks, Jenn!) (...) You're welcome, and thank you for the quick corrective action. If you could help others become more aware of this, that would be great! --Todd (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) Todd, This is a terrible oversight on my part and I apologize for not having read the Terms of Agreement more clearly. In this and in all future posts, I shall clearly identify myself and my relationship with LEGO. Thank you for pointing out (...) (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) Kiernan, Please re-read the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement[1], specifically point #14 of the Discussion Group Terms and Conditions... You are certainly welcome to post here using a .lego.com address, but your posts must each include your title, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Linking to LUGNET image files?
|
|
(...) That is absolutely correct. I don't mind direct linking to anything on the website. The bandwidth from direct linking is very small compared with the overall traffic. Specifically, the scan library is a community resource so you should feel (...) (24 years ago, 5-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New stock in - Look before I auction it.
|
|
(...) Todd, we seem to have returned to this problem again. We still don't have clear rules which indicate that it is wrong to list "these items available for straight sale for 2-3 weeks before I auction them". It seems to me that this is a (...) (24 years ago, 5-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Linking to LUGNET image files?
|
|
(...) Forget it. Use the images on www.brickset.com . Huw, who runs the site, does not mind as long as you give him mention by linking to his site. He also offers pictures of the figures in most sets so that one can use them too... I do. See here (...) (24 years ago, 5-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New stock in - Look before I auction it.
|
|
I was not trying to advertise my auction. If you look at the site you will see that I have current auctions on which I did not mention. I have got over 100 sets which are listed to sell which is why I put the comment on buy-sell- trade. I will try (...) (24 years ago, 5-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New stock in - Look before I auction it.
|
|
maybe, but the subject line is confusing (now that i re-read it, i see what you're saying, but the first time... not so much) (...) (24 years ago, 4-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New stock in - Look before I auction it.
|
|
I read this as "You have 2-3 weeks before I sell this stuff elsewhere. Get it while you can." Not as an auction announcement. The site does list sets (at least Technic sets) for sale at a specific price. I see this as for-sale. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New stock in - Look before I auction it.
|
|
(...) Alison, Are you trying to sneak an auction announcement into the .buy-sell-trade group or was this just an accidental oversight? Please re-read the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement if you are confused: (URL) please re-read the second sentence of (...) (24 years ago, 4-Oct-00, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Beware more SPAM from Andreas Stabno (Was: KC Masterpieces)
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) For the record, this is not true. The people you see posting using handles are *not* violating the terms of service, which say: (do not) Post using a pseudonym, alias, screen-name, handle, alter-ego, meno, or any other type of (...) (24 years ago, 27-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Linking to LUGNET image files?
|
|
[reposted with typo corrections] (...) If it's from the Partsref, any direct image links to the GIFs are OK (and I think it specifically says that it's OK there and shows how to write the URL). If it's from the sets database, there's a mechanism in (...) (24 years ago, 17-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Linking to LUGNET image files?
|
|
G'day Suzanne & Todd, This has probably been asked a million times. I couldn't find any info in the T.O.S. about it. Anyhow, is it okay to link to images on LUGNET, specifically from the sets database, on another website? At present this would be (...) (24 years ago, 17-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | John -- please reply (was: Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego)
|
|
(...) John, I tried writing you a reply by e-mail and it bounced: ===...=== ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <ig88888888@stlnet.com> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mail.postnet.com.: (...) (24 years ago, 15-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: straying off-topic & marmites (was: Re: the best laid plans of mice and men)
|
|
(...) These things always seem to blow up when someone exercises "vigilante justice" (I haven't followed through 100% of this particular instance to say that this one is a case of "vigilante justice" but I'm speaking from a general viewpoint). What (...) (24 years ago, 15-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: straying off-topic & marmites (was: Re: the best laid plans of mice and men)
|
|
(...) I did not mean ridicule anyone or anything. I feel like ridiculing someone right now, but I am too busy... Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: straying off-topic & marmites (was: Re: the best laid plans of mice and men)
|
|
(...) This is a key point - I think Todd covered it. Rules do exist, and they should be respected. However, enforcing them in a "jobs worth" manner just alienates everyone. If we all sifted through each and every post and winged about infractions at (...) (24 years ago, 15-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: straying off-topic & marmites (was: Re: the best laid plans of mice and men)
|
|
Lorbaat wrote: ..... (...) Is there any possibility that the complaint, or the system itself are somehow ridiculous at least a bit (especially when stretched)? Selçuk (24 years ago, 15-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: straying off-topic & marmites (was: Re: the best laid plans of mice and men)
|
|
(...) Eh. I don't know how clearly this came through in my original post, but I really don't think what Scott posted was off-topic enough or sustained enough to complain about. My main point was merely that his reaction was fairly typical of any (...) (24 years ago, 14-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | straying off-topic & marmites (was: Re: the best laid plans of mice and men)
|
|
(...) I don't think Scott named anyone in particular in connection with that label. He may even have been referring to a brief mail that I sent him. (...) I think this is best dropped. I don't think Scott broke any of the T&C, either. The closest (...) (24 years ago, 14-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Want to get free stuff? Electronics, Computers, Software?
|
|
Please don't post this kind of off-topic commercial junk on Lugnet. This goes for Joseph Myers (who posted the same thing on saturday (URL)) too. Not only is it against the terms of service, it's very rude. (...) [url removed] (...) (24 years ago, 29-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) I just read the message of Brad Justus and he wrote: "UK, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, and Austria.". Probably I talked too much as usual and the colon was right... Ciao. Marco. (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) OK, the "o" has been removed. And I also removed your name from the translators list based on what you said in the other message you just recently posted. I think Mario gave a chunk of text for one or two of the paragraphs. Ciao Todd (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) Todd, well... you guessed wrong, the second one is "così come" without both accent and apostrophe. Ciao. Marco. P.S. Just to continue "to split hairs"... isn't it better to remove the "," before ", and Marco Beri". Ok, ok... someone will say (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) Todd, it's ok! It seems that Sergio arrived first as translator, isn't it? Ciao. Marco. P.S. I found just a mistake: in "NON inviare o un messaggio troppe volte" you had to remove the single "o". It's like the English "or" and if you remove (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) OK. Thanks! --Todd (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) The Murphy's laws are right, as usual ... 8-)))) Doesn't matter what is, but a guess is *always* wrong 8-)))) CiaoCiaoSergio (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) Bad guess :-) The former is now fine, but the latter was correct in the first version. It should remain: -> Tutti questi documenti e immagini relative sono fornite così come sono, Ciao Giulio (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) OK, that's fixed. Should it be changed in both places? There was: viene fornito come un sistema di "salvataggio e inoltro" "così comè" and Tutti questi documenti e immagini relative sono fornite così come sono, I took a chance and changed them (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) posted, (...) the (...) It looks great ..... Just two more things: 1) in the double-to-single byte conversion, your editor lost a character: "così comè" should be "così com'è", with the apostrophe character AND the accent on the "e"; 2) The (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) OK, I removed "riinviare" and applied the other corrections that Marco posted, and made the double-byte characters into single-byte characters. Here is the result: (2 URLs) does it look? Ciao Todd (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) Very close, which is close enough. As you say, it's the gray areas that are hard, and sometimes there is no course of action from "here" to "there" that is perfect and doesn't step on SOMEONE's toes. ++Lar (...) That disclaimer applies to me (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) In 99% of cases, I'm sure I have a very good idea. But the 1% left over is gray because it basically says, "don't break the law" (i.e., local laws or whatever laws may apply in whatever circumstance is in question) and "the law" is something (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) Sorry Todd, but I think I'm really missing something. I thought we are not talking about The Law, but The T&C. It is a written document authored by you. So I think that you must have some idea about whether something is against that written (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) Most things, not all things. Not gray-area things. (...) If in doubt, in gray-area cases like bleeding-edge Intellectual Property law, consult an attorney, is about all I can say. --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) Todd, are you sure that "you can't advise us whether something violates T&C or not"? T&C are your own rules, right? If you can't advise about it, who can advise? Selçuk (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Castle Sets Auction (Last Day - NOT eBay)
|
|
(...) Uhh, when you update bids again, please don't clutter the .castle group with auction noise. Reminder: the .market.auction group is the place for auctions, not the themed discussion groups. Please re-read the Discussion Group Terms and (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) Uh ... er.... but both are understandable by a "standard" italian person with the right meaning ..... that's not "rinviare" 8-)))) (...) Yes .... I agree .... Todd, the word "riinviare" should be simply removed. (...) Usually, a great waste of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) required (...) world (...) ---you may not think that removal is needed, I have removed the list I had posted of prices/sets/descript...s/lego#'s. So, there is nothing offensive/illegal still at that link. James (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
I'd suggest you check out the EFF (eff.org) and the ruling on DMCA, if required consider this my permission to remove posts with links. The internet just got a _lot_ colder. America is now trying to rule the world by lawyers... LS James Powell (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) I would argue that their NON-action as to stating their intent/response/feelings on the 2001 set info would make them lose their right to say SPIT about it anymore. They've had PLENTY of time to respond, and if their lawyers can't draft (...) (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
|
(...) I said that, yes. But you're still misunderstanding what I said. I would recommend that you print it out on paper and sit down and talk about it with a parent or guardian or attorney. (...) No, you can't assume that just because I haven't said (...) (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) Sergio, I know what you mean but nor "reinviare" neither "riinviare" are italian words. In the context probably it's enough to say just "inviare", there is already "troppe volte" to mean repeatedly. Ciao. Marco. P.S. I know, in Italy we call (...) (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) None. This should be "ri-inviare" or "reinviare" .... not "rinviare" .... Marco, its meaning is "to send another copy of the same thing", not "to delay something" 8-)))) The others are fine. Well ... my keyboard is simply too slow for my (...) (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) Here are some typos (at left side there is the mistake) : copire => copiare discussione groups => discussione testuali,come => testuali, come riinviare => rinviare qualunuque => qualunque perte => parte sappresentano => rappresentano (...) (24 years ago, 16-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No, what you're free to do is use some common sense and accept the consequences of your actions, should there be any. I personally don't care what you (or anyone else) posts or doesn't post with regards to this or similar "pre-public" info. I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) stand (...) OK, am I to assume then that _anything_ I read on the web is fair game? I'm going to need a 2nd Geocities account then!---to put stuff like this up on, and link to. (and await nasty legal threatening letters from) (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Give it up - probably won't happen. Why should they do it anyway? If they define a policy to be [---] then they might somehow be bound to that, if for no other reason than PR. If they choose to simply remain silent, which is certainly their (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) (URL) it is... I asked someone of ItLug to check it for typos or other errors, but it should be fine. The standard disclaimer is needed, anyway: IANAL. I think that the legal meaning of the translated agreement is like that of the english one, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Yes, but they could have posted the "request" or "Order" (depending on view) to .Lego.direct. (the one that was sent to Todd that caused him to withdraw the posts from pubilc display) That is what I was meaning. I would hope LSI will put (...) (24 years ago, 13-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Fz2vn5.II9@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) community-driven (...) a (...) of (...) on (...) it (...) hanging on (...) at (...) on (...) loading (...) and (...) was (...) manner (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Give them time. Brad said they are doing an investigation into the incident and will post about it when they have more facts. --Todd (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
James Powell <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote: [stuff i've snipped] [then from larry:] (...) [james' comments on napster snipped] Copyright law is very different from that for trade secrets. This discussion should go to .off-topic.debate -- it's (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Was it? LSI has _NOT_ opted to publicly post what they privately E-mailed to Todd on this issue. So, we are into the land of speculation as to if LSI considered it proprietary. (...) _big_ paintbrush here Lar. What about:hmm, my organ albums? (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Thanks for digging harder than I did, and... you sir, are a gentleman, I appreciate the retraction. Look on the bright side, the base fine appears to be capped at 5e6. Now if we're talking Lira I can cover that. :-) (...) Ya, it is a detriment (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I apologize. My statement is true for copyright law (with which I am much more familiar), but apparently not so for trade secrets. (This is where all of those I Am Not A Lawyer disclaimers come in.) (URL) However, I also find it interesting (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
