 | | All your Yellow Pod fins ... everywhere?
|
|
In lugnet.build.mecha, Eric Sophie writes: [ whatever ] Since nobody objected to the last excessive cross-post, it happened again. From the terms of use agreement... (...) many newsreader software programs ... like the web interface. The yellow pod (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) Do we need some sort of a 'freshness seal' ?? "best when posted by ccyy/mm/dd" or something? I know, I know, don't tell me. Some of my posts were already expired before I wrote them. (23 years ago, 24-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) All your LEGO are belong to us! ;] KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) Sorry Kyle, I just couldn't resist. Actually, I've been waiting to use that joke for a while. You just got to be the lucky receipient. No harm, right? Matt (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) Yeah, yeah... ;] KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) Offer accepted graciously. (Almost verbatim) (URL) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) Oops...actual typo that! OK, lets make it: Shiri Dori, The Dutchess of Acronym, The Princess of Castle World, Protector of the LUGNET Realm, and All-Around Swell Gal © Nighty-night! (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) That's Dutchess, and you left out Castle World. g'night -Shiri (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) (Yeah, I know that... 8?) ) I think I shall dub thee: *** Shiri Dori, The Duchess of Acronym and All-Around Swell Gal © *** Matt (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) I bet you know this and are just teasing Kyle, but I have to cite something in response to *one* of your posts! (URL) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) Kyle, You might want to check on your newsreader program...it seems to be holding messages you meant to post when the thread was fresh! ;?P Seriously though, Todd is working on stuff...that's as good as it can get, except for fighting the good (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) [snipped lots more] I think the problem here is that no fraud or theft has been committed (note IANAL!). The other regs you quoted implied a similar requirement. *However*, if paid membership were a requirement for posting, and the identity (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
In further addendum to my previous two posts, it has been requested that the relevant codes of law as pertain to identity theft be cited, and referenced on the Federal Trade Commission's web site. I have taken my own personal time to research and (...) (23 years ago, 26-May-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) Specifically, an individual who has been banned for Violations of the TOS, and who continues to post under "stolen" identities. (...) This (violating the communities rules) is excactly why this individual's posting privileges were revoked in (...) (23 years ago, 25-May-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
(...) I don't know what the "blatant identity thefts" were, but: Do the feds _really_ want to hear about usenet posts with spoofed IDs? Not judging by the site that you linked to. Please point out the relevant part that I missed. A little more (...) (23 years ago, 25-May-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Identity Theft
|
|
As an addendum to my prior post, I have copied the relevant portions of the LUGNET TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT (Version 1.0.1, 7 Mar 2000) here. Remember, these are the rules and standards that each and every individual posting to LUGNET agrees to abide (...) (23 years ago, 25-May-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Identity Theft
|
|
To the LUGNET membership, I have seen two blatant cases of identity theft in LUGNET newsgroups today (2001.05.24). This is in direct violation of the sections 'Acknowledgment and Acceptance of Terms of Use (6)' and 'Discussion Group Terms and (...) (23 years ago, 25-May-01, to lugnet.admin.terms) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Hey Todd, terms/charter type question
|
|
(...) I have been polite about it, friendly reminder type of thing, like I said I have off two of these recently for b.s.t. My emailer doesn't support bcc (as far as I know anyways) so that's kind of hard to do directly, if you want I can either (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Hey Todd, terms/charter type question
|
|
(...) No, as long as you're reasonably polite about it, I don't have any problem with you emailing people directly and asking if they could stop. You could also BCC me on the mail if you like. (...) If that's not something you feel comfortable (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Spam spam spam, wonderful spam... (was Re: Fwd: GASOLINE PRICES
|
|
(...) Argh. If the ToS doesn't directly cover plain old spam, it really should, and in no uncertain terms. This is obviously a case of the sender just doing a bulk mail-out, as so fervently requested in the original message; I feel sorry for the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Apr-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Spam spam spam, wonderful spam... (was Re: Fwd: GASOLINE PRICES
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> Interesting. I just did a scan of the ToS for "spam", and then a slightly more careful read, and while "auction spam" is expressly prohibited, just plain old spam isn't, or else I missed it. Item 12 sort of tangentially (...) (23 years ago, 25-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) It may also have been a misreading of this statement: (...) I've got some very mixed feelings about the April Fools jokes. This has been kicked off by the current business with the supposed NGLTC highway cleanup sign. One thing I'm really (...) (24 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Right... so users promise that the info they give about themselves is true, but not that information in particular posts is. Since we're coming up on April, I guess I think that's a good thing! (even though I am convinced I have "sucker" taped (...) (24 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I'm not aware of anything in the TOS/T&C[1] about this either. Alex may be thinking of the news-posting setup form[2], where there is a checkbox that says: "I swear that all the information I am submitting on this page is correct and that I am (...) (24 years ago, 25-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) I agree. In the past I have mailed posters to tell them of their "errors" - it saves all this huff and puff. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) Icky? That's a new one. Well, serves me right for trying to reply to fast. : ) How about "Is bragging offensive to some people? Yes. Does it belong on LUGNET?" Better. FUT to off.topic.fun I guess. Scott "Off to fix the webpage" S. -- Personal (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) Ooh, Scott's sentence structure there is icky. There's some double negatavism going on, but the phrase "does it not belong" is usually intended to mean the same is "is it true that it belongs"... (...) One thing I strongly suggest you also add (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
Todd, (...) Well, that settles that. Thank you Todd for the clarification. Scott S. (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) For the record, I did not say that bragging didn't belong here. (...) First, I have to take it face value; I'm not a mind reader. Lar has stated several times that it was a brag and not a flog. So be it. Second, flogs in theme groups are (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
I watched this with some amusement, and some amazement. First, Larry is a stand up person, whom I have met, and whose creations are worth bragging about, having seen them up close. He does brag, it is part of him, but at the same time, I think he (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes: <snip> I said what I had to say about this. I did not intend this to be a flog. It may be perceived by some as that, but it was intended as boasting, nothing more. I tried to explain in more detail why it (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) Actually, it was a mathamatics/logic expression before it was a programming one. You software nerds are the new kids on the block <grin> James (who will confess he's a hardware nerd - it's like a software nerd, but you don't have to wear a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) != == Not equal to (form "C" el al programming languages) Software nerd (remember a nerd is just a geek with a degree) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) Not equal. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
Uhh - I've been seeing that != in a couple of posts. Would some tech jargon junkie remind me what it means? -- Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa4059f.183521...net.com... (...) was (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
|
(...) As an evolution of the idea, how about something like an "insurance points" system where transgressions earn you points, and time takes them away. I would hate to see someone who was a real jerk as a kid make it to 4th offense, and then come (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) <snip> I'm confused here, I sincerely meant my lead as a thank you to Rose, and I took your "I'll second that" as just that, an agreement and your own thanks as well. What am I missing here? Why would you think anyone would mistake what you (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) (Responding to my own post.) YIKES -- it just occurred to me that what I wrote above might be mistaken as a condemnation of what Rose did. On the contrary, I actually meant it as a _complement_ to Rose. I thanked Rose this morning via private (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
|
(...) I always found (when I did this for a living) that automatically suspending service for a non-response worked wonders. And that was for internet service in general. Waiting 24 hours for a response, then suspending service until a response came (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
|
(...) Ahh. Yes. This is for the annoying kind of stuff and the illegal really bad stuff needs that reservation...thanks. (...) I meant for that to be covered under "requiring a response of acknowledgment of receipt." I guess if someone didn't (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
|
(...) Yes, it's nice & clean. There's only thing I would recommend doing/adding: 1: stressing (somewhere) that these are 'typical' responses & general procedure, but that LUGNET reserves the right to bypass these guidelines in extreme cases. (If, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
|
One thing that the Discussion Group Terms & Conditions here lacks is any predefined list of actions to be taken if someone commits a transgression of the T&C. Here is a proposal... This is not active site policy but instead a proposal for a future (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) agreeing that it was, in addition to being a flog, a brag. IMHO. IOW, brag + flog != flog Not that that makes it any better or worse. Just clarifying what I meant. ^^Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
|
(...) I suppose I wasn't totally clear in what I wrote earlier. Yes, I personally happen to feel that what (not ++, that's not part of his name)Lar wrote was a flog (IMHO), but I also added that I thought it was more brag than flog. To make an (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
