|
You mean like the 1886 SW bucket that never showed up, that MIGHT show up now under a
71xx number?
Personally, I'll have to agree with Onyx here - no matter how sugar-coated it was, Todd
and Suz's posts come across to ME (as in they seemed to ME like) as bullying Huw into
taking them down, and that bothers the HELL out of me, as I normally see eye-to-eye
with Todd.
The only reason I think Huw should take them down is if someone shows him a full
catalog with actual legalese as to NOT redistributing the data inside. Otherwise, let
freedom (of information) reign.
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> 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/
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|