| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
> Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FMG645.9Ct@lugnet.com...
> >
> > This "evidence" is of the sort: "Mummy hasn't told me not to stick bananas
> > in the VCR, she probably doesn't really mind."
>
> Oh, Please...No more stretches OK? It's not that sort of evidence, even
> there is not just a bit of similarity. If your brother would have been
> slapped when he tried to insert a cucumber to the VCR or a banana to DVD, he
> would never try to insert a banana to VCR then.
Agreed, so we're still waiting for the first slap? It probably isn't a perfect
analogy, it wasn't meant to be - the original point was that silence isn't
always evidence.
> What was wrong? He published a Lego vendors catalog...He published not
> released set pictures...But we already done both of these in the past, or
> saw both of them done by others, and nobody complained about anything.
Agreed, I don't think what Huw did was more wrong than that. What it has done
is raised the question of whether we should show retailers catalogues - that's
what I'm discussing.
> There
> are vendors' catalog scans in Brickshelf and nothing seems as "secret" in
> any of the vendors' catalogs that are online. There are cropped set pictures
> from vendors' catalogs in Lugnet for a long time. Lugnet even has a set
> picture from a vendors' catalog that has never been released to the market.
Yep, I read that part of the thread too. That doesn't make it right or wrong
either way though.
> We all have seen set pictures from the upcoming range posted over here or
> there for several years. We were discussing on obviously pirated set
> prototype pictures just a month before. I can't remember anybody pointing
> that copyright issues when star wars set prototype pictures are uncovered
> both last and this year. We just discussed pros and cons of the sets
> themselves. I'm not trying to say what Huw had done is right. What I'm
> trying to say is "publishing Lego vendors' catalog scans" is POSSIBLY wrong
> (and still only possibly till TLC says something) and it was NOT OBVIOUS
> FROM THE BEGINNING, if it is really wrong.
I agree that it's not obvious, and acknowledge that we've reached different
conclusions.
> Additionally, it was said immediately "it is wrong" in a harsh way, (it
> should be said that "it could be wrong" and should be in a kind way) and the
> responsible person acted accordingly..SO WHAT?....
I'm discussing the implications of the original event, not the event itself.
> In short, please stop those stupid and irrelevant "I'm the smarter, you
> know" type "blue dog" and "banana in the VCR" stories
They weren't meant that way, only because they easily illustrated the dubious
"They haven't said anything = it's okay" argument.
Richard
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
