 | | Re: Some model team ideas
|
|
(...) Yes,I agree.Think to an Harley-Davidson,with many chromed bricks...or a red Ducati... (...) Why not Luna Rossa? (...) Yeeeees !I want 16-wide trains!!! (...) so (...) 6 bis. a vintage (doubledeck,why not?) trolley,electric or horse-pulled. (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
Kevin Loch <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message news:Fu03yK.IxJ@lugnet.com... (...) could (...) unless (...) "usually " "significant" To very vague words. To somebody who is new to LUGNet or not aware of this thread, the welcome could be argued as (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
(...) On the contrary, we're very pleased to have received it! In fact, we thanked Brad on the phone a few days earlier when he mentioned it prior to sending it. (...) That part wasn't 100% clear. Here is an excerpt of the letter (I hope Brad (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
(...) Todd is right IMO. "Sponsorship" in the disclaimer means a formal contractual relationship, and usually accompanies significant financial support. Since that is not the case here, the traditional disclaimer is appropriate (and in fact still (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:Fu007I.37x@lugnet.com... (...) to) (...) No mystery - I did not like the tone of it. I thought there may have started some sort of angry debate - so to be on the safe side I scrubbed it. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
(...) That's absolutely correct, Eric. In addition, the amount of the donation ($5,000 USD) is so tiny that it could not even remotely be thought of as sponsorship or financial support unless LEGO sends these sorts of things often and regularly, (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
(...) shortly after I posted my reply...? (...) I don't see any misleading text there (LEGO still does not officially support or endorse LUGNET), but it can't hurt to add some sort of modifying statement after the legal disclaimer (perhaps a link to (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
(...) We hope to change the text on the homepage as soon as we have more information from Brad and his counsel/attorney(s) about exactly what the donation means in his mind. His letter which accompanied the donation mentioned that it was "made with (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
I think I agree with Scott. It's not that I think LUGnet's integrity has been compromised (or anything even close to that), but given the situation I think the disclaimer is inaccurate through omission. [Followup-To .admin.general] (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
(...) From : 1. The American Heritage® Dictionary 2. Cambridge International Dictionary of English Sponsor: 1 One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
(...) Scott, Why do you think this necessary? From what I read of Todd's letter to Brad it seems to me the gift was accepted graciously but with the knowledge that it did not constitute sponsorship or any control over LUGNET itself. If thats the (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
I missed this - and only just found it by chance : (URL) think you may need to update the Homepage - either by removing the misleading text, or by clarifying the matter. I think the latter would me more appropriate. Scott A I hate replying to my own (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Some model team ideas
|
|
(...) Bingo fredrik. That is what I was thinking of, I didnt know lego had already done one. (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:Fqny47.CtG@lugnet.com... (...) conversation (...) to (...) not (...) Todd I think, as you run LUGNET, you are free to take money from more or less however you wish - and do with it as you see (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Some model team ideas
|
|
(...) Mabie something like this: (URL) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Some model team ideas
|
|
(...) 5591 was an aircraft on a trailer with a truck as well. I want just an aircraft, and a big aircraft, either a light plane or a private jet (...) I was accually thinking of those trucks they use in those shows where they have the monster truck (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Some model team ideas
|
|
(...) like 393 & 394 (...) like 4011 or 5521?? (...) like 396?? (...) like 5540 and the afore-mentioned 2556? (...) so than that technic one they did) (...) type light plane, or a small private jet) like 5591? (...) there was 5541 (...) for the (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Some model team ideas
|
|
(...) You mean like this: (URL) suggestions. I've long wondered why Technic gets the same 10 or 12 concepts over and over while Model Team only gets 2 or 3 over and over. :-) Doug (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Some model team ideas
|
|
Here are some model team ideas for TLG, if you are listening: 1.a motorbike 2.a boat (anything goes here, from an oil tanker to a small yaught) Or how about the ultimate lego model, the RMS titanic, complete with a little leonardo di caprio minifig (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
