Subject:
|
Re: my take on the 2000 leaks controversy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:08:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
328 times
|
| |
|
|
The rule of thumb as proposed by some appears to be that we should pretend
the 2000 Lego doesn't even exist until 2002 rolls around. ;)
--
Paul Davidson
Jonathan Wilson <wilsonj@xoommail.com> wrote in message
news:385214EE.BB7B7ADA@xoommail.com...
> Here is what I believe to be the rules about posting:
> 1.if it is from a 2000 consumer catalog anywhere in the world it is ok
> 2.if it is on the lego website, accessable from the lego main page
> somehow then it is ok
> 3.if it is on the lego website but not accessable from the main lego
> page somehow (i.e. it is hidden) then it is not ok
> 4.if it is from a vendors catalog then it is not ok
> 5.if it is from another source (e.g. a TRU employee) then it will be
> delt with on a case by case basis.
>
> todd, anything to add/correct?
>
> --
> Jonathan Wilson
> wilsonj@xoommail.com
> http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
>
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | my take on the 2000 leaks controversy
|
| Here is what I believe to be the rules about posting: 1.if it is from a 2000 consumer catalog anywhere in the world it is ok 2.if it is on the lego website, accessable from the lego main page somehow then it is ok 3.if it is on the lego website but (...) (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
