| |
In lugnet.general, "Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> writes:
> 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.
>
> You mean like the 1886 SW bucket that never showed up, that MIGHT show up
> now under a 71xx number?
Kinda exactly like that, yeah.[1]
> 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.
Yikes. Wow. Well, I'm going to have to tone down my opinions then, if it
came across that way. More disclaimers needed, or something.
Persuade through logical argument, yes. Bully, no. (I'm speaking for
myself here.)
No, if I were actually trying to "bully" someone into doing or not something
(not that I would), I don't think I'd waste my time making statements that
could be interpreted one way or the other (i.e., an opinion); I'd make
things 100% clear. But I'd have to think I had some serious basis on which
to stand first. Since there was little basis here other than well-
intentioned opinion (in my case), that's what it was and nothing more. In
Suzanne's case, she knows more than I do, so she has her own reasons.
Here again, for the record, is what I wrote in my reply to Huw's original
post. I've added some additional notes below each sentence:
"It's too late now, but beware that retailer catalogues are not intended
for public consumption, especially before stores receive product."
[i.e., (psst, heads-up) it's too late now, but here's something
to be aware of for next time...]
"Many retailers in the U.S. haven't even been given copies of the
year-2000 catalogue yet, probably to minimize the possibilities of leaks
in this emerging Internet age."
[i.e., here's one reason possibly why]
"Although this is great fun and interesting for us all to see, and
privileged information like this may be difficult to keep under one's
hat,"
[i.e., acknowledgement of the thrill of posting such information]
"the publishing and touting of full-page scans of retailer catalogues
does make us look bad as a community."
[i.e., the overall disadvantages may outweigh the overall advantages]
"It may even represent an invasion of the LEGO Company's publicity
rights, as they themselves have not yet officially announced many of
these products."
[i.e., what you've done may potentially get you in trouble
with LEGO if you're not careful]
Do you see anything there that could even remotely be called bullying?
Go back and re-read the other posts I made too. Every single one is a
logical argument one way or another on the issues. No where was it ever
implied that Huw should take down scans or his post, except in one small
spot where Suzanne suggested it from the point of a good-intentioned LEGO
enthusiast with a genuine concern for the delicate relationship between
adults and the LEGO Company.
If that sounds like bullying to anyone, then, man, people are paranoid. Or
else people are taking my and Suzanne's attitudes too seriously. We're just
fans like everyone else -- maybe a little more crazy and "into it" than most
-- but our opinions shouldn't count any more than anyone else's where
off-site information is concerned. On LUGNET, that's a different story, but
that's not what we're talking about. Now if you actually think we were
bullying Huw, and if you think that's bad (I would), then by all means flame
us to a crisp -- don't hold back!
> 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.
All things being equal, I would totally agree.
--Todd
[1] but once again, just for good measure: both the number 1886 and the
name of the set were publicly available information over the phone from US
S@H & C.A. several months ago.
[followups to lugnet.debate -- getting pretty off-topic here -- and there
are too many issues & sub-issues & sub-sub-issues]
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) This _is_ the internet, you know. FWIW, to me it sounded like walking the line. If I were in a more paranoid mood than normal, and if I hadn't had all the previous experience with you that I have, it would easily have sounded like mild (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
