| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > > [...]
> > > Bottom line: Those retailer catalogues are the intellectual property of • Lego.
> > > If we don't respect them, why the heck should they respect us?
> >
> > YES! YES! Exactly!
>
> By and large, what gives you the impression that they DO respect US?
Not much, but who cares? Using "they don't respect me, so I won't respect
them" is circular and self-defeating.
> I think you guys are blowing this WAY out of proportion, and based
> on the number of regular LUGNET posters and former RTL stalwarts who
> have e-mailed me asking for the scans and took the time to include a
> comment or two, lots of other people do too.
I think it's been blown way out of proportion too, but that doesn't change the
inherent arguement. If it's illegal/immoral/wrong/{harmful to the AFOL
community}/whatever to post those scans, that doesn't change by how much of a
fuss gets made. It's certainly less heated that *some* of the debates get
around here.
The other thing getting blown out of proportion is those pictures. I mean,
holy cow, is this ever a huge fuss over (no disrespect to the scanner
intended) some pretty lousy pictures. If there's any one thing that really
says "this is not meant for public consumption" it's quality of those pictures.
all of this, of course: IMNSHO.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
