 | | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
John Neal wrote in message <385C79AE.8C1BD78D@u...st.net>... (...) current (...) publish (...) John, I think that is a bad idea. It seems to me that Brad typed too fast for his own good. I don't think TLG would like us scanning and sharing current (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) A complete analysis of "limited extracts" as it applies to brickshelf is an extremely complex matter that need not be discussed here. Suffice to say that the site has been in operation for almost 2 years and "limited extracts" has always been (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) I see "limited extracts." What are you seeing? Both of these words would seem to me to have the effect of reducing the scope of what should be published by anyone but LEGO -- and maybe even including old instructional booklets. When I read (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote: <snip> (...) I did. See earlier post. (...) I didn't. (...) Kevin, in light of Brad's latest post, why continue your policy to not publish current instructions? Just wondering. -John (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
Brad Justus wrote: <further clarification> (...) Thanks for the further clarification! I think you'll find most of us to be a lot more willing, even eager, to abide by intent and desire when phrased this way, than to abide by it when phrased in (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
