Subject:
|
Re: How much is enough?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 03:01:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
989 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> 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:
> http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=11894
> which sank without a trace.
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 where Lunget would've arguably been capable of doing
something to help TLC had it chosen to do so. HP I don't think is-- even
though I suppose if set numbers and/or prices (I've seen them mentioned
already) are counted as sensative material, then Lugnet *is* holding
information which TLC could conceivably ask to have removed. The links to
the pictures, though, are another story.
> > But I've never seen the admins act
> > in a manner that actually goes against TLC's wishes.
>
> This is a bit broad, isn't it? That is, TLC isn't monolithic and may well
> have conflicting wishes. Further it may have wishes that haven't been made
> clear. In either of those cases it would be hard to comply and hard to say
> one way or the other whether compliance was achieved... (I agree in spirit
> with what you said but had to nitpick the statement as insufficiently precise)
Fortunately for me, I prefaced it with "I've never seen", which I can
hopefully hide behind should I be wrong :) But yes, insofar as Lego has
mixed wishes, it may be difficult to not act against one of them, even when
acting in favor of a different one.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How much is enough?
|
| (...) 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)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
