Subject:
|
Re: New Service Packs for 1999..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:08:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1469 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman writes:
> "James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
>
> > If anyone has more effective addresses that they can distribute (without
> > violating stated or implied agreements about the distribution of same) then • by
> > all means, do! Perhaps you can arrange something with Todd to provide for • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > anonymity in posting them, if that's a consideration. Todd?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> If you mean assistance in concealing the identity of a poster who wants to • post
> the name and/or address of a TLG employee, then the answer is No Way; • anonymous
> postings are against the Terms of Use of the lugnet.com newsgroups.
Absolutely! I was unclear. Even disregarding the Terms of Use (which I'm
not), I have personal moral objections to the forwarding of private
information, anonymous or otherwise.
What I had meant to state is that if someone has a public address, list of
public addresses, or private addresses that they have permission to distribute,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and that they have found effective in conveying feedback to TLG, then I would
like to see them.
I suggested the anonimity out of reflex(1), which, upon reflection, is almost
certainly unnecessary in this situation.
> If you mean assistance in forwarding a colleciton of anonymous or • non-anonymous
> postings to someone at TLG, while keeping the TLG employee's identity private,
> then it's possible that something could perhaps be arranged if an appropriate
> TLG employee were to step forward and declare willingness to accept such a
> collection of messages and deliver them to the appropriate person/people at
> TLG. On the other hand, if the most appropriate person/people at TLG really
Neat, I hadn't even thought of that. I'm sure that the AFOL community would be
very responsive and appreciative if TLG or someone at TLG were to do this,
but it strikes me as highly unlikely.
> truly care about what AFOLs have to say in the first place, then I'm sure that
> one way or another, they will find and read the messages in this ng and in • some
> filtered subset of RTL. That is to say, with several thousand TLG employees
> worldwide, wouldn't it be surprsing if there weren't already a few people
> collecting and forwarding posts to managers and co-workers?
Actually, I wouldn't find it surprising at all. I would be surprised if there
are people at TLG who read LUGnet and RTL, possibly even officially, but I very
much doubt that there is much official or un-official redistribution of that
information. I feel this because TLG appears to be very unresponsive to the
AFOL community, and that unresponsiveness (whether real or perceived) would
discourage such communication from climbing up the ranks, although it may well
circulate at a low level.
1:That reflex was developed due to personal experiences relating to less
scrupulous organizations with no qualms about quasi-legal persecution of anyone
who distributes information they don't approve of. Several right-wing
organizations come to mind, not to mention Scientology.
Again, I don't think it applies (even remotely) to TLG, it was just a reflex.
> --Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Service Packs for 1999..
|
| (...) ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ If you mean assistance in concealing the identity of a poster who wants to post the name and/or address of a TLG employee, then the answer is No Way; anonymous postings are against the Terms of Use of the lugnet.com (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
