 | | Re: How much is enough? —Tim Saupé
|
| | | (...) I just wanted to make this clear - I'm not blaming LUGNET. I had just always thought that the admins here had made it clear that they worked towards the best interest of LSI - perhaps I misunderstood though, that is entirely possible. I'm (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: How much is enough? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Well-- yes and no. In this case I don't think there's much the admins can do. In the case of the last leaking scenario, the actual *info* was posted *on* Lugnet-- information that lugnet.com hosts. Hence, since Lugnet had "control" over the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How much is enough? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) For the HP stuff, yes. But for the new train cars, there was a period of a day or two where that was not exactly true. I pointed that out in this post: (URL) sank without a trace. (...) This is a bit broad, isn't it? That is, TLC isn't (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How much is enough? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Acha, yes, that could indeed be similar to the on-Lugnet-leak with the 2000 sets. And had TLC asked Todd to cancel those posts for their using a non-ready set number, I'd bet he'd've done so. But maybe not. Anyway, that indeed would be a case (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
