| |
Mike Stanley wrote:
> Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, NO, with the available evidence (i.e. NOTHING said from TLC so far), it
> > > is correct, not wishful thinking.
> >
> > We have ONE point of reasonably solid information in this subject:
> >
> > We have a statement from a TLC employee that they could be FIRED for
> > showing a consumer the retailers catalog.
>
> NO. We have a report from another person that a Lego employee said
> that. I've been told lots of things by store employees, and trust
> me, you shouldn't _always_ believe what someone making low money to
> stand on their feet all days says when it involves doing something
> out of the ordinary on the job.
>
> Now am I saying that the AFOL misunderstood? Heck no. Am I saying
> the Lego employee was less than truthful? Not really.
>
> But "Oh, I can't do that - I'd get in trouble" is a fairly common
> excuse for just about anything that doesn't fit into one's normal
> activities.
>
> So pardon me if I don't accept the word of some part-time young
> person (all the employees *I* saw at the Disney Lego store were
> kids) as absolute gospel when it comes to OFFICIAL Lego policy.
> Does that mean it isn't true? Nope. I think that means we haven't
> really officially heard from TLC on the issue - just like we haven't
> heard from them officially on a LOT of issues that people seem to
> accept as ok.
>
> Oh, and for the record, I keep seeing reference to "well, this set
> number and info were given out to the public over the phone at such
> and such time" with respect to the Star Wars bucket thing. Again,
> not calling that statement untrue, but I'd have to point out that I
> and Larry and Tom S. have ALL gotten S@H reps to tell us things that
> they probably don't tell just everyone - either openly or just in
> casual conversation. So, in my mind, the above might contain just a
> tad bit of convenient rationalization as well. :)
However, if the rep doesn't preface some tidbit with "don't spread this around", or
similar, I try to remember to ASK. I have kept things in confidence many times when
ASKED. It's common courtesy. I'm waiting for TLC to ASK or TELL us what they'd prefer
on this.
> > But there is also a hidden significant item. The two fan sites which
> > stretch the "fair use" clause the most, are also very restrained, and
> > would never consider publishing this information.
> >
> > Think about that. What is the possibility that Brickshelf and Pause are
> > allowed to exist because the editors of those resources have
> > consistently shown restraint, and respect of TLC's intellectual
> > property?
>
> More speculation, I say.
>
> > The way I read TLC's position is that restrained and respectfull use of
> > their intellectual property (which implies not publishing information
> > "too early") wins their respect, and the biggest element of that respect
> > is allowing such use to continue.
>
> Ok, that's how you read it. I read it a little differently. And I,
> for one, don't really think different interpretations of SILENCE is
> a useful measurement of how we should view the actions of some
> AFOL's - some as GOOD and RESPECTFUL and others as BAD and
> DISRESPECTFUL. Think about it - some of us are actually listening
> to the SILENCE and getting from it and some assumptions that "this
> is ok" and "this is not". Sounds like a lot of crystal ball
> nonsense to me.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
