Subject:
|
Re: my take on the 2000 leaks controversy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:52:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
433 times
|
| |
|
|
Paul Davidson wrote:
> 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/
> >
> >
The only rules here are todds rules.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: my take on the 2000 leaks controversy
|
| 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.BB7B7A...ail.com... (...) (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
|
|
|
|
