 | | Enough already
|
| I may be in the minority here, however I am really tired of all the complaints people are having about the post from Brad Justus, concerning the legality of Lego scans. We asked for clarification from LEGO and we got it!! I may not agree with it, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Hear, hear! IMHO, all of this backlash is ridiculous. The LEGO Company is being *extremely* generous in allowing scans of any their copyrighted materials up on websites *at all*[1]. Yet, all some people can do is complain that they aren't (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) materials (...) <snipped to conserve bandwidth> You are certainly not in the minority here. I'm quieter than I used to be, (and I wasn't very loud to begin with.) TLC has done a whole wide world of service to all of us, just by coming up to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message <385ce0d5.267874625@...et.com>... (...) Well put, Todd. After reading all this, including my wife's post, here's my "boiled-down" philosophy: 1) Brad (and his employer, TLG), have begun a dialog with us. Hasn't this been (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Yah Rose! I'll add my support behind everything she said. Three cheers for Rose for the courage to write it! Kevin Loch has done wonders with his site, and his self-imposed restrictions make perfect sense to me. When I read Brad's note, I (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Right. But let's not forget that many of us are FAR more enamored of Lego the PRODUCT than Lego the company. Aside from some recent slips in quality control (colors, mostly) Lego the PRODUCT has never let us down. Lego the COMPANY, though, has (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) I agree with you. No one can disagree with what you said. But why "shoot the messenger"? I prefer to be outwardly optimistic, and reserve cynicism. Just my personality..... (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Well... uh, I don't think I am advocating that, nor have I really seen anyone else DO that. I'm sure Brad is an ok guy. I'd like to meet him some day. Anything I say, good, bad, or otherwise, about Lego the _company_ isn't meant to "shoot" (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) BAD choice of words on my part :>( . Jump to conclusions may be better.... I agree. I am a "show me" person, too. I just think that we need to wait to see TLC ante-up before swamping them with legal talk. Let (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| I have to say, I agree with Todd (and Susan, I presume). It seems to me that there are an awful lot of folks who are doing an awful lot of bellyacheing, and this over VERY minor things. The wealth of online matereial which is, in fact, copyrighted (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) And then Lego, the company, starts talking illegal legalese right at the beginning. It sort of got to me, because, well, I'd hoped those sorts of things were over with. No go, apparently. Note that the posts madde bry Brad the person as (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Don't give in to the dark side, Laura. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) materials (...) they (...) Lego is being generous? I would say they're being practical, having concluded that the ill-will generated and costs involved in pursiring the removal of scans is not worth the perceived benefit. Let's not forget that (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Of course, there's always the possibility that he's a very close relative of "Susan Williams".... :) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) No, not generous. Practical, yes for them. Nice for us.... Possibly? (...) Just need some clarification.... How do you mean that has TLG been disrespectful to us? By the lack of response to our requests? If this is what you mean, I don't see (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| I said what I said, and I stand by it. The fellow (I have not gone back to look up who it was) who took the tack of "Oh, yeah!?! PROVE it!" came across to me as a moron. I do not say that he is one (although I admit that this is a very small (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| ---...--- (...) And you got what you paid for. Bricks. And instructions. Paying the price of ingratitude could mean seeing ALL copyrighted material come off the web. It could happen, and LEGO would be well within their rights under copyright law to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I met Susan a few years ago. She was very nice and, to top it off, quite the hottie. (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) See, this is where you lose me. Completely. The prove it Prove It, PROVE IT! post struck me as amazingly rude. And NOT rude to TLC. To *Todd.* That's who is was being addressed to, no? Todd had taken a stance which he felt (excuse me for (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Dogs shouldn't let friends who are annoyed post annoyed, no? <g> ---...--- (...) "Sturm und drang," I think. Don't have a German distionary, so i can't be sure right now. Rob (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| This is my last word in this thread. God grant I'm not tempted to break that. ---...--- (...) So...what...? Since you did not write it, it was not rude? My original post on this topic was not addressed to you. I said, speaking in general to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:385ce0d5.267874...net.com... (...) <snip> (...) with (...) respect (...) <snip> (...) Larry (...) there's a (...) LEGO (...) sense (...) mouths (...) What are you trying to say? Don't you think (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Calling Tom Stangl (or any of us) a moron is over the line. I'd like to note that the MAJORITY of the name-calling within our own community has come from the side of the fence that seems to want to shut people up if they aren't going to just (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) It saddens me that this "backlash" is taking place at this time...as a community made up of many individuals with strong opinions there have always been voices opposed to Lego Company practices, but it's too bad that (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Hmmmm...could be...I see a conspiracy developing...Brad Justus... Brad "Just Us" (as in, "just us playing around...") Brad Just "U.S." (no bulk parts outside of the U.S.) Brad "Justice" (we're finally going to be judged by TLC) Or, how about (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Anagrams. If his full name it "Bradley Justice" we get "rejects audibly" From plain old "Brad Justice" I get "arid subject" BTW : From "the lego group" I get "ghoul protege" Scott A Anagrams from: (URL) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I know it was you, and I certainly didn't try to imply it was Todd saying that, although Todd said some thing that got me riled yesterday. And yes, there is _little_ distinction between calling someone a moron and saying they strike you as a (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I'm probably in the minority here, but guess what? I don't care. I think what Kevin has done with Brickshelf.com is AWESOME. Utterly and completely AWESOME. I applaud his effort 100%. But you know what? For all the scans I've browsed through (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) "The people that matter?"!? What does that phrase mean? How can I tell if I "matter" or not? -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) You matter, but I wasn't talking about you. :) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) No skin off my nose - I know my IQ, and it's well over to the higher end of the scale (and I mean WELL over) ;-) (IQ != common sense, however) I stand by my "PROVE IT" comments. I wanted proof from TLC, and I got it, end of story - until we (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Just stepping in to point out that the scans are invaluable to me and I would be impacted by not having them around. At least, I *would* be if I got off my duff and started turning the 200+ pounds of used, unsorted LEGO back into sets again. I (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) A clearer distinction can be drawn by saying "you are acting like a such and such" as opposed to saying "you *are* a such and such." Similar to the difference between "you are lying" and "you are a liar." By criticizing someone's action or (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Mike Stanley wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, I think we got y'all's point. But I think the real point is: legalities aside, TLC didn't want that material distributed around. Just because one is *able* to get something on this side of a firewall doesn't (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Well, first, *I* didn't write the message you're referring to. I've sometimes quite loudly disagreed with Todd, but I have never been, and don't plan on ever being, rude to him. Second, things DID get a little heated over the last week or two. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Don't worry about it. I'm taking one of the Richard's suggestions and making up words when my natural inclination is to include some profanity - no reason you can't as well. (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Yeah, but it's all the same. :) When I feel the urge to call someone a jackass I don't normally disguise it in roundabout phrasing designed to keep him from wanting to punch me in the face. (...) And you would have won vocab bonus points for (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) You're right. Let's just say that I don't want to be told my access privileges here are revoked if I happen to post a link to a picture that, for whatever reason, wasn't linked to on www.lego.com. That's just one minor thing I could see (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Sturm und Drang. Cool word choice by Rob, IMHO. You don't need a German dictionary, it's in English dictionaries, synonymous with turmoil. It is literally translated as "Storm and Stress" and it comes from a "German literary movement, characterized (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Just another minor point here and I'm really just nitpicking so don't sweat it... (...) True. We've had people who said they were designers, people who related experiences working in a model shop, we sometimes have lurkers from various departments (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Um.... "Busing children...?" "Yes, '"busing" children.' Not 'busting,' 'busing.'" "Oh..... "Never mind!" ---...--- Well, then, sorry about all that. I have GOT to find a better way to decipher all these (convoluted) threads. Todd seemed (to me) to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| I agree totally with Robert...Which brings me, once again, to point out an address EVERYONE should look at. Todd is, in my opinion, trying the best he can to *follow* the words in this website: (URL) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:00:41 GMT, "Robert M. Dye" <robdye@writeme.com> wrote: . (...) They'd be in their rights to demand it. It would not happen. The web simply doesn't work that way. Did you miss the dozens of posts screaming "someone email me the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Sure, when a company tries to stop the dissemination of information on the net, that information usually goes underground. But that's besides the point, in my opinion. I don't want to have to beg people to send me instruction scans by email, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I also hope no one gets kicked off of LUGnet for using "LEGO" as a noun. :) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) from (...) Laura wrote: <major snippage occurrs> (...) them quickly (...) Ditto! -Peter (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I thought shipping was free on all items? Besides, you're only speaking to a clerk behind the phone who doesn't have the power to make a decision on how shipping will cost. By reading less than a half of this thread if I was Brad, I'd be (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Shipping is "free" because it's included in the price of each item. Which is nice when you're ordering one or two things, but when you're ordering 100, it's silly -- you're paying a huge markup, and (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Well, technically it is. But, S@H charges 10% more than retail, so most of us just consider that 10% a shipping cost. Ben Roller (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Depending on location. Here in Hawaii, retail costs are about 10% more than S&H prices. For example, the super street sensation is $149.99 here at TRU. When the 6090 royal knight's castle first came out, it was $159.99. So it actually comes (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Well, nothing is "free". I prefer to think of the shipping as "built-in" which is what it is, really. I guarantee you it costs them FAR less to ship out 20 copies of a service pack in one box to one address than it costs them to ship 20 copies (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Then it shouldn't bother you, although I pity you those prices. It does bother me, though. Most companies cut you a break on price when you order large quantities. Given the "built-in" nature of shipping costs at S@H, it only makes logical (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) If it makes you feel better, you can call them 50 times and order each separately. *grin* (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) us (...) No, not at all :-) What bothers me is how much ebay sellers ask for shipping. This other day, a guy wanted 5 bucks to ship a Message Decoder which only contains 32 pieces. After I politely pointed out to him that a set this size can (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Exactly. (...) thinking (...) acknowledged (...) Agreed, although I suppose my stance is more militaristic than most. (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) material (...) "Poking around hotline servers" Ahh, another practioner of the black art... You know, this is what's so laughable about the whole situation. Uh, HELLO THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE. Copyright laws are a relic from the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:slrn85tp01.3ou....utk.edu... (...) It *should* shock the lady on the phone! There are only a few of us (I would guess) that do this on a regular basis. I ordered 2 of something once... (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Boy do I hear that. Lucky for you, you don't like to hear yourself talk as much as I do, so the temptation won't be as great... :-) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Probably mine as well. (...) I think I see where you're coming from, although your core reasoning here seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Tom was the author of this "prove it" post you're talking about. Todd, however, was not the person (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I'd probably do that, just to spite them. Call's on their dime, not mine. :) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| In lugnet.dear-lego, Mike Stanley writes: <significant snippage> (...) From where I'm sitting, you don't generally come across as abusive. Harsh, yes - abusive no. $0.02 James (URL) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) That might not work - there computer will catch the previous order. Unless you have 50 aliases... (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Well, you could call every couple days and place an order... (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I recently placed an order for 10 of one set, and they felt they had to call me the next day to confirm that I really wanted 10 and not 1 (thinking it was a clerical error). -John (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) For "the lego company" I get: ace them polygon (It's not that hard to follow the instructions!) acme gel typhoon (hmmmm, not sure about this one) copy theme along (surely not! LEGO was here first, wasn't it??) cagey phone molt (not those (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| With the speed of their ordering system some days, calling 30 min later would make it a different box. I've called to add something on, and missed the original order - one time, I called only FIVE minutes later, and the first order was working it's (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Wow! Tom, they must really like you there. I have called a day after I made an order and they said, "Oh we'll just put that in your current order!" That was cool with me at the time, but when it comes to costing them money, I thought it would be (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Please take this to another newsgroup, guys. You're waaay off-topic. --Todd (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Software makers have hardly "given up". Do you know how much money goes from MS to BSA every year? How many millions of warez CDs get confiscated every month? Jasper (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) But for using it as a verb, on the other hand.... Jasper (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message news:386012cd.401859...net.com... (...) HELLO (...) do (...) I look up confiscate from dictionary.com (I didn't know it) and seen that: "Seized and appropriated by the government to the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Heh. The "for the public use" meaning is pretty much gone these days. As far as I know, it pretty much solely means the second definition: "2. To seize by or as if by authority". (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
