 | | 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
|
|
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: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
A fair policy. Thank you for clearing it up. I was concerned that Lego corp would shut down any scans. It is good to know that Lego not only talks end users support but also walks the walk. Thanks from a very grate full user. Jeffey Baldwin User (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Star Wars LEGO Bucket
|
|
Is the rumor of a Star Wars 'Bucket - set number 1886 - at all true? If yes, when? Eugwe Coral (25 years ago, 20-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: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) other (...) current (...) make (...) It appears that I have stirred up quite the hornets nest with this quote, so let me clarify some things. I do not think that such a practice is practical, but it is possible. Those who say that TLC would (...) (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: Cataolgs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) And I suppose that now that you AFOLs have Lego's attention, that you would like them to start ignorring you again because you openly brake the rules that they have set forth?? Like I'm sure many people have said, those were not preview scans, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Cataolgs, Justus and Lego
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote in message ... (...) to (...) started (...) I (...) faith (...) been (...) point. (...) current (...) That's fine. My point was that it's a shame there has to be any restriction at all. Why doesn't Lego get serious about supporting (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) Won't happen. LEGO won't sell to us at a price that would allow us to build our own X-Wing sets (for example) more cheaply than we can buy them from Walmart. Depend on that. They won't have every piece available for sale, and they won't be (...) (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
|
|
(...) 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: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) Exactly why do you see bulk parts sales (and for special, one-in-one-set pieces we're still only talking about maybe a few thousand copies, remember) as being cheap enough for that? I doubt the basic bricks will dip significantly belowe bucket (...) (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: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) God, I certainly hope so. You know, if they'd make for example a lynx-friendly version of your site, they could announce it on slashdot and freshmeat for a hell of a lot of extra traffic. See the recently published study on "the slashdot (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Doesn't webmaster@www.lego.com get read by the right people? Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Nah. Frames are _Evil_. The navigator team should all be shot, hung, drawn, and quartered for <blink>, <img>, and <frameset>. <blink> tag purposely left unclosed for those reading with extremely wonky newsclients. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Correction - it _should_ be. It never is in practice. Java, in my experience, sucks solar masses through bucky tubes. Not to mention it's habit of blue-screening Win9x, and crashing Navigator under linux. And lynx doesn't exactly play well (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
