Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 05:38:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
96 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> > Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I ask you honestly - is there a possibility that you are using the fact that
> > > TLC will most probably not answer you to justify doing something that they
> > > probably wouldn't like and could hurt the community?
> >
> > And I ask YOU honestly, isn't the fact that TLC hasn't said anything
> > about other things on other fan sites taken as implicit permission
> > to do them?
>
> In my opinion? Certainly not! Grudging permission, tolerance maybe. But then it
> is not the charter of pause and brickshelf to contain company secrets.
>
> I really don't understand this "They haven't told us not to, so it's okay"
> attitude!
You don't? OK, we'd better shut down Brickshelf and Lugnet. RIGHT NOW. Because
Richard says that since TLC hasn't told us not to, it's NOT OK, so all of
Kevin/Todd's scans have to go. Take them down. Richard says so.
If you can't see the ridiculousness of your statements at this point, you are
hopeless.
AT NO TIME has TLC said yea or nay on Brickshelf ot Lugnet scans. By your rules,
they shouldn't be there.
KEVIN LOCH - time to shut it down, Richard says so!
TODD LEHMAN - time to shut it down, Richard says so!
Puhleeze!
> TLC may be warming up their lawyers just now, and while they are at it they may
> take action against a few other things that have been bothering them for a
> while too.
Yeah, uh-huh, right, whatever. If they are, I hope they are warming up their
backsides with their FEET, booting those lawyers out the door, because they were
TOO DAMN SLOW for a statement, and it's time to hire new ones.
Or you could take the tack that UNTIL WE HEAR FROM TLC, they obviously don't give a
crap, like reasonable people like Mike Stanley do.
> > As for TLC-AFOL relations, the only relations I see are the AFOLs
> > spending money on TLC's products and having ... none? of their
> > ideas/requests/offers given any consideration at all.
>
> Does your position on this come from your bitterness about your experiences
> with TLC?
Boy, you are a self-righteous b!!!!!!, aren't you. I think his (and others')
positions come from REALITY, unlike your snooty attitude. I think it's time you
took a heavy dose of reality and came down off of whatever else you are on. Just
read back through the archives here on Lugnet, you'll get an eyeful of snubs from
TLC. I personally have never been snubbed, but a consortium I was a member of
seems to have been.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
