 | | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) I take sole responsibility. I do not see why anyone is so upset about it - I wrote a respectful request and an explanation, did not back it up with any threat of action. Hindsight is 20/20, and I SHOULD have run it by Steve and Terry before (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) "I'd like to intoduce the Peeron LEGO Guide, a brand new web site, not at all to be confused with the Boger's guide in any way...after all, it's just a name, right? Certainly they won't have a problem with folks being confused about where (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) ...without permission. I'm not sure whether Tobbe asked Tim's permission or not. The initial post was mainly to solicit alternative names for the competition. The email from Tim was included to explain why this was being done. I see no harm in (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) It was done without permission, and I'm only stating that to clarify, not cause its a big deal to me. Tobbe intended no ill by posting it, we worked out that issue privately (and positively). I'm totally cool with him as well - we've actually (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) I'm not upset about your "request", I'm upset that you think that your voice alone speaks for Ldraw. I'm not trying to discard all the work you put into prettying up the site, but there are a lot of people that should get a say in what (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) you missed my point. my point is that Tim doesn't get to assert trademarks of ldraw on his own. nevermind that MOTM isn't LDRAW - your example is off. More like you came out saying "I'm introducing the randome piece of the day!", and me saying (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) And didn't I already come clean and admit my mistake there? And point out where I used the word trademark. I also explained WHAT it was all about - personal, polite request, with a polite response. Big deal. As I said, instead of demonizing (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) !!!...!!! (...) !!!...!!! (...) Did you see a word I wrote up there? Nothing like continuing to badger someone who already admit they were wrong. -Tim (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
There is no doubt for me, that at this point it has turned into a mess. I can't say that I know Tim's methodology or motivations for doing anything. Nor do I believe that he is apt to "Bully" anyone. I do know that having contact with Tim over the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard W. Schamus writes: <mostly staying out> (...) I agree, and it's too bad. Names and who gets to use them and what assertions are made about them (trademarked or not, which org or group, etc.) are always a source of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) As long as Tim Courtney apparently wrote the mail on behalf of LDraw.org, I don't think it is a personal mail. I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring it's content up in a public newsgroup. I would have tended to agree with you, had the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
