 | | 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.
|
|
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)
|
