| |
onyx wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
> > OK, OK, the scans are gone.
>
> Personally, I find this entire scene completely repulsive.. I love this site, I
> love this community and I enjoy and appreciate every bit of effort that is put
> into it by everyone (my member dues are in the mail!), I also realize that we
> are basically on your dime, Todd...
>
> But, from an encompassing and objective view of all posts re: this thread, what
> this little maelstrom appears to have been rubs me the wrong way...
> more or less what it has all boiled down to is the two people with the most
> pull here (say what you like, but it *is* todd's server, domain, etc and we all
> know that you can pretty much view todd and suz as "todd and suz", an item)
> bullying Huw into "voluntarily" reversing his actions...
>
> I'm sorry if I'm way out of line here, but I'm one person who will *not* censor
> himself or his actions, and my resolve often strengthens in the face of
> external pressure to modify my behavior... I feel that a member of this
> community was forced to conform to the morality of other individuals...
> personally I don't have a problem with what Huw did... I *do* understand about
> priveledged/confidential information... but I agree with those who stated they
> don't feel any truly "sensitive" information was conveyed in Huw's post/web
> page
>
> I was really upset by Suz's post stating "this isn't an issue for a vote, you
> have to take action now"... basically guilt-tripping Huw into what *she*
> believes is the right thing to do... and because she doesn't see it (or doesn't
> *want* to see it) as an arguable issue, she didn't feel we as a community
> should be polled for a consensus...
>
> I just feel like we all signed up to be a part of a community whose terms of
> use did not state "your words and actions will be monitored and approved of by
> the creator/administrator"... something about the duplicitous nature of saying
> "I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm just telling you that I think you
> know the right thing to do" really rubbed me the wrong way..
>
> And I firmly believe that this issue and its resolution might have been vastly
> different if it were only me (or scott arthur, tamy teed, hell, even the
> lovable johnathan wilson) who posed the idea for Huw to acquiesce
>
> > :(
>
> J
Some facts.
1.Huw does not havethe catolog, he got the pictures from a source, who has not
signed any aggrements tthat they would not publicise the information in the dealers
catalog, there in nothing anywhere that prohibits redistribution of these images...
I can see a point to some of this discussion... for example if TLG later sends an
addendum to the catalog because they have dropped certain sets and us AFOLS have
seen the sets then we will get annoyed and pester TLG as to why the sets have not
appeared.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
