To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 11445
11444  |  11446
Subject: 
Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.database
Followup-To: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 09:05:39 GMT
Viewed: 
3493 times
  
In lugnet.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > Huw made a mistake,  <snip>
> 
> This is not fair. Nobody sure that it was a mistake rigt now. It's been
> suggested that it MIGHT BE a mistake, since nobody knows anything about the
> (consistent) policy of TLC about vendor catalogs.

Well, let's get something straight here first:

1.  TLC's policy about vendor/retailer catalogs is only half of the issue.
    It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something known as a
    "retailer catalog" (which consumers almost *never* see) is not intended
    for consumers ever to see.

2.  Posting scans of portions of a retailer catalog -- including major leaks
    about upcoming product lines and details -- *before* those product lines
    have been released officially -- is the other half of the issue.

Those are two separate things.

We haven't heard from TLC conclusively on #1, but like I said, it doesn't
take a genius to figure out that it's probably not really a good idea.  On
top of that, if Suzanne says is something like that is wrong, I can be sure
(without any doubt whatsoever in my mind) that it's wrong.


> PS. Todd, Could you please check the message with subject "Update info for
> Lugnet Database Volume V" that I've posted last year to admin.database. If
> it is not appropriate to publish vendors' catalogs, I think we should do
> something more..:-(

OK, I just dug that up,

   http://www.lugnet.com/admin/database/?n=52

and, Hmmm, yes, very good point; we should be extra cautious here, in
retrospect.

Selçuk, to the best of your knowledge, are there photos of any sets there
which:

   - never eventually appeared in a consumer product line, and
   - never were mentioned in published in any LEGO advertising, and
   - contain sensitive LEGO-internal information
?

From the looks of it (looking up about 10 of the sets at random), the answer
looks like 'no' since each image in the DB is a highly-cropped scan showing
simply a photo of the box -- nothing sensitive or secret.  I'll go through
them in more detail tomorrow.  Maybe others can have a look too and see if
there's anything questionable.

Thanks for bringing it up,

--Todd



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
 
----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> (...) This is not fair. Nobody sure that it was a mistake rigt now. It's been suggested that it MIGHT BE a mistake, since nobody knows anything about the (consistent) policy of TLC (...) (27 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)

116 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
    
Active threads in Database

 
LUGNET Guide updates (Sun 8 Nov 2026)
3 hours ago

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR