General Discussion : 48779


General / 48779

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Suzanne Rich Green

(...) uh-oh. I feel like I'm watching the dimming embers get poked with a stick. I have a comment, completely of my own opinion; a gut reaction to this coming through my e-mail box. Dan might not like Lar, or enjoy being pressured by him*, but in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) IMHO that has to THE most off base comment I have seen in a very long time. Bricklink does not NEED Larry, not in any way. IMHO a problem member(1) is problem member - I do not care what his name was, or what he has done for the community. You (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton

(...) 1st off, that's not what she said. She said BL needs Lar MORE THAN Lar needs BL. If, on a scale from 1 to 10, Lar needs BL at a 1, then the implication is that BL needs Larry at *least* 1, but probably more. She's not saying that BL will (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) ok, so take off the 'so bad' ;) But still, I do not see WHY Bricklink NEEDS Larry. And am more than curious as to why she thinks it does need him - in any way in any amount. (...) No, I am expressing an opinion, just as she did. I do not think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Jason Spears

(...) If he doesn't explain himself and continues to run his business (1) like a crazed dictator than other users may worry that continued investment in BrickLink is not going to yeild returns. Examples - I've been pondering re-opening my Bricklink (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) I have a lot of respect for Dan and what he does at BL, to call him a "crazed dictator" is silly. (...) ...because Dan saw a simple idea which he invested his time and cash in. Anyone else could have done the same (e.g Todd), but only Dan (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Tim Courtney

(...) Dan deserves quite a bit of thanks for what he's done. However, unlike many sites, BL was created as a business venture rather than a totally benevolent effort. People pay Dan to list their wares, they're buying a service. If Dan knows what's (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) Even when a seller deliberately continues to break the ToS, and as a result potentially disenfranchises buyers? (...) Perhaps somebody should compete? One could argue that BL is too big now, and that a basic "sets only" or "minifig only" (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) In my whole life I have never corresponded with a more ardent proponent of the free market system than Lar, so I'm confident that Lar would assert that Bricklink is not a natural monopoly. As such, if the market will bear a second online bulk (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Another flaw Tim - Dan DOES NOT see Larry as a "good-faith" anything! He proved that in not only his words, but his actions. What you think Larry is, or not is is 100% pointless! You need to understand that. The only person view that matters (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Jason Spears

(...) Ok, that comment might have been over the top, but from my point of view, so was Dan's decision to boot Larry. (...) I'm not debating that BrickLink helped the hobby, I've certainly benefited from it's presence. As for Thanks, I thanked him (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) Look at what has happened. The seller deliberately continued to break the ToS! Given that Dan has a duty to protect buyers; how else could he react? You appear to be suggesting he should have renegotiated the ToS!? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Gregory J. Overkamp

(...) I think its clear to me and everyone else that if there were other names involved in this, there would be no discussion. However, as this thread goes on, there is more and more speculation, name calling, flaming, etc. going on. Since Dave and (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) **snip** We Daves know many stories, some of them true. I suspect that you probably meant Dan in this context, but on behalf of my namesakes I thank you for including us! Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Laswell

(...) And some of them not true, but hilariously funny, nonetheless. (...) Normally I'd probably agree, but in this situation I kinda feel like I've been "included" on a field trip to the local minefield... "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

My post was based only on undisputed comments. Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Tim Courtney

(...) No -- it is not undisputed that the reason he was banned was a TOS violation. He broke it, was corrected, and made an earnest attempt to comply. After his attempt to comply he was banned without recourse. -Tim (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops. —Scott Arthur

(...) Can you please define what you mean by "earnest"? Are you saying his "earnest attempt" put him inside the ToS? (...) You or I would have deleted the whole of the text and shrugged the matter off. Larry tried to play it smart and it backfired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops. —Mark Papenfuss

(...) It does not matter what Tim thinks is inside or outside the ToS. It is not his call to make. Obviously, Dan thought it was not inline with the ToS - and thats really the only view that means anything here - right? Mark P LoB (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops. —Scott Arthur

(...) Given that Tim wants to line Larry up for martyrdom: NO. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Mark, What are you trying to gain by the repetition of this idea? We get it. You think that we don't have a right to an opinion. I happen to disagree. If you're merely pointing out that we don't have the power to change anything over at BL, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops. —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Chris - I have said countless times in the last few days in direct regards to this situation - I am not trying to tell anybody they can not have, or voice thier opinion. But when you base your opinion on false information that some people (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops. —Thomas Stangl

(...) I would say that it would be more productive to ask Dan to state his side of the story, rather than try to convince everyone else to shut up. The only way we will get Dan's side of the story is if *Dan speaks up*. If he does not, BL's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops. —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Tom, do me a favor - copy this over, paste in in your word editor, print it up and post it above your monitor: I am not, and have not told anybody to shut up. I have not, and am not telling anybody to not have or voice their opinion. Can you (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Alan Findlay

(...) The following posts shed light on this: (URL) on these, I don't believe that Larry's correction was earnest, but rather calculating. My guess (yes, it's a guess)is that it was the phrase "Until perpetual stock is implemented," that was the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Thomas Stangl

(...) And until Dan speaks up, we'll never know. Personally, *with what I currently have to go on*, Dan's reaction was overblown, and Larry's attempt to meet ToS was earnest. Only Dan can prove that wrong. -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Tim Courtney

(...) No ... he was attempting to comply with the ToS and proposed a solution when he was cut off at the knees. That's my belief having read the discussion *and* having spoken with Lar. I'll defend him based on the interactions I've observed (recent (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, read his very words: "Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording as it's a ToS violation. I responded with a suggestion for a different approach." Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) "run his business like a crazed dictator" Where did you pull that from? He banned what he saw to be a problem member. That does NOT make him a crazed dictator. To even imply that is is acting like one is about as wrong as you can possibly get. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Jason Spears

(...) Well actually, if you bothered to read all the posts, instead of running around shouting from the rooftops about how great Dan is and he can make all the bad decisions he wants, then you might have seen that I recanted on that point already. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) I saw that - and I read and make sure I understand the posts before I reply. Your OTHER points did not match that statment, but I do give you credit for making that statment. And I am not saying how great I think Dan is.. I AM saying he did (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Jason Spears

(...) Thank you. I'm trying to stay civil, although it's hard, some comments that some people are making, seem rather inflammitory. (Note - Trying is not always suceeding.) Clarification - I don't find your above statement inflammitory, it was other (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton

(...) I'm not sure I'd say that it needs him so much as would be better off *with* him than without, particularly if 'without' means bad press. (...) You *are* expressing an opinion, but that wasn't my point there. The "the most off base comment" (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) But do you agree that the statment "The customer is always right" is a good theme to strive for, but not law? Anybody (IMHO) that thinks that that statment is true must have never worked with customers IRL. (...) Who is to say what the right (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton

(...) Oh, I totally agree-- I just don't think Dan tried as hard as he should have in this case. (...) Nobody, really. If Dan thinks the "right way" is to ban everyone whose name gets drawn out of a hat, who's to say that's the "wrong way"? I think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Thomas Stangl

(...) Why? What is so wrong with trying to convince Dan that the action was overblown? If we all gave up an just took what was given to us, that wouldn't say much for us. -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual FAQ Home (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) As a buyer/seller on ebay, Amazon and Bricklink I want the admins to protect me from individuals which don't respect the ToS. If a chap on ebay has a feedback rating of "-2" as a buyer on ebay would you bid on his auctions? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton

(...) Now that's just ridiculous. While I would understand your concern if his TOS violation was in regards to non-payment or non-shipping, let's face it, it wasn't. It was about a particular policy which hadn't been clearly enough spelled out until (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Scott Arthur

(...) down while (...) BL buyer (...) entirely (...) mistakes (...) to protect (...) his TOS (...) it, it (...) enough (...) No. He showed that he thought he could dictate the ToS. I want to be protected from that sort of mind-set. (...) ebay would (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Is there even the slightest shred of evidence for this statement? (...) Are you suggesting that he should pretend contrition even though he did nothing wrong? Chris (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, his own words: "Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording as it's a ToS violation. I responded with a suggestion for a different approach." Later: "...I responded rather tersely, suggesting that the implementation be (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not sure from your writing if you simply don't know what dictate means or if there is some less transparent explanation for your mischaracterization of the events that you accurately quoted. Maybe you can shed some light on this? Chris (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Scott Arthur

(...) Chris, if I'm so wrong, maybe you could tell me what you think. Scott A (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Ross Crawford

(...) To be fair, his response was "How about you implement bulk correctly instead? Seems a better solution to me." (according to Dan). That doesn't suggest that ToS be altered, rather that (as Lar saw it) a feature be (re-)implemented correctly. (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I confirm that was the exact wording. Too terse? Yes. Refusing to abide by the ToS? No. Asking that it be altered? No. (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) Do you feel that your intial listing was outside of the ToS? If not, why change it? I find it notable that neither you or Dan have posted your full e-mail exchange. I know from personal experience and the testimonials of others that you (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not clear on what the distinction is; was he not suggesting a change in the way BL operates rather than bring his listing within the ToS? Does that not imply that he wanted the ToS changed? Or do you mean he wanted the wording to remain (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Does "suggesting a change" really seem to you to be the same as "dictating?" Seriously? Maybe you think it's just a matter of spin, but your first (unfounded) claim is simply incorrect (based on all the evidence I have) and your most recent (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops/ —Scott Arthur

(...) OK. Show me your evidence. (...) Indeed, he wanted it his way. He suggested* /dictated* / demanded* / intimated* / decreed* / commanded* / requested* / ordered* that the world should spin just the way he wanted. (*) Delete as appropriate. (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Neb Okla

"Mark P" <mark@landofbricks.com> wrote in message news:I2vxt7.q1p@lugnet.com... (...) I have a real problem with businesses that like to lay down the law without providing a reasonable explanation as to why. A while back I had an issue with my ISP (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Suzanne Rich Green

(...) unfortunately, I don't have time right now to do a big defense of my personal opinion, or read other posts in this thread, but quickly I will spell out for you what it was my brief comment meant: My gut tells me that the Average Joe does NOT (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Suzanne Rich Green

important: FTR, I had/have NO emotional reaction to all this. I only reacted because I see that there may be a big change coming up in the market world, begun by this simple little post. If it wasn't this, I think it could have been some other thing (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Terry Prosper

(...) Do not overestimate the influence of Lar over at BL. He has many detractors there and I'm not sure everyone will be displeased by his store being closed. I myself couldn't care less because I'm not visiting BL more than a couple times a year (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a direct affront to the whole point of an online market facilitator like Bricklink. You seem to be suggesting that anyone with sufficient name-recognition can, with impunity, dictate terms to his service (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Kevin Blocksidge

(...) I think that the point Suz was trying to make is that often Lar is right. When Lar sees a problem, he doesn't stay quiet and live with it. He tried to fix the problem. In this case, he used something like civil disobedience to make a point. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) But the disobedient civilian must accept the price for his disobedience, otherwise it's just posturing like a rhinoceros. In the same way that a journalist should be willing to go to jail to protect his treasonous source, a Bricklink customer (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Kevin Blocksidge

(...) I am not sure, but I haven't seen anything from Lar saying that he is mad or thinks he was treated unjust. If he has, I'll have to rethink my position (...) I agree, he was rightfully banned, no argueing there. But on the other hand, the rules (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Rob Doucette

(...) He changed the wording from TOS violation, to non-TOS violation. So why was he banned? -Rob. (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Why? It has been said many times why. (URL) as others pointed out this part of the BL ToS: (URL) Breach. -snip- We also reserve the right to terminate your membership and your data and deny you access to any of the site's features at any time (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Ray Sanders

(...) Uhhh... has anyone in an official position actually said the revised wording has ceased to be a ToS violation ? IMHO (and IANAL) any attempt to keep a lot active, but not purchaseable, runs afoul of the ToS from two directions... 1) There is a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) Is that not rather ironic given his willingness to enforce the ToS on this site? (...) hmm. Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Kevin Blocksidge

(...) No, not really. Its possible that he believes that the TOS of Lugnet is fair and has no room for improvement at the moment, but that BL has an issue to deal with that might involve changing the TOS. (...) Hmm ? ~Kevin Blocksidge (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) Hmm. So if I think that the LUGNET ToS is unfair and has room for improvement, should I just engage in "something like civil disobedience" to make my point? Think about it. (...) That is your view. But if you search for words like "malicious", (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's your option. However, that's not what Larry was doing. "Think about it." (...) Who are you to say such a thing? Unlike Larry, you contribute virtually nothing to LUGNET and many of us (even people who might agree with you on many (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) Did I say he was? (...) I note you have not disagreed with my point. (...) Interestingly, I stopped posting outside .debate due to the tendency of a certain individual to jump on my posts... Secondly, I very seldom post outside the .debate (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Tim Courtney

(...) The issue is *not* that Lar is receiving preferential treatment. The issue as I see it (based on my observation of historical events on BL and conversations with many others who observed same events) that Lar is getting exceptional unfavorable (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) If Lar were afforded a second (or third, or whatever) chance to come into compliance and if that chance were not similiarly extended to others who had violated the TOS two (or three, or whatever) times, then Lar would be receiving preferential (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Jason Spears

(...) Just because BrickLink has the right to pull Lar's membership, doesn't mean BrickLink should. It's my opinion that Admin shouldn't have handled this situation this way and I'm letting him know that I think he should have handled it better. And (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) IMO BrickLink *should* pull the membership of any member who, in BrickLink's opinion, violates the TOS, and any second-chances or probationary periods are entirely up to BrickLink. People who enter into contracts of membership explicitly (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Jason Spears

(...) Because it's bad for the stability of Bricklink to revoke membership over minor violations of the TOS. To clarify "minor"; in this case, when the violation of the TOS could be a matter of interpretation. Also I think it is worth pointing out, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) But in joining BrickLink, the member acknowledges that interpretations of the TOS are ultimately up to BrickLink, not the member. The member should certainly attempt to clarify confusing language, but that doesn't mean the member should be (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton

(...) But prudent to what end? Because Larry desperately values his BL store? Or maybe because he wanted to bring the subject to light, aggresively if need be? My guess is that for Larry, it's the principle of the thing, not whether or not his store (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not counting, but I'm aware of a lot of posts which say Dan was correct. I'd also suggest that there will be a lot of BL users who are indifferent to the mess Larry has got himself in. A further group is probably unaware (despite Larry’s (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) And there is a a large group of BL users who simply don't care for what has happened and continue using BL because it is the best platform for buying and selling LEGO. There are few who know Admin (or even Admin's name ;) ), there may (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton

(...) Hey, that's true-- but what you're also not counting are the number of posts that are favoring Larry. And that's my point about bad press. There are people out there who (if things like this continue) who will abandon BL. Heck, on the BL (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) I shall need time to think about that. ;) scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss

(...) But see, you are still acting like it was this ONE event that got him banned. It was not - I thought you understood this. Dan very clearly said that there were problems in his past that factored into it. So he was not banned for this one (in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Orion Pobursky

(...) This is like saying that your driver license should be revoked if you violate even the most insignifcant traffic law or that you should be sentenced to life in prison for jaywalking. -Orion (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) The difference is that Lar accepted the terms of the TOS, and I commend him for stating this explicitly in his recent post. The TOS included the provision for summary action, and BrickLink has taken that action. The revoking of a driver's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Tim Courtney

(...) But the fact the TOS said what it did (summary action) isn't disputed, at least, I don't think. Did Dan have the right to ban Larry? Yes. Was it right for him to ban Larry, given the situation? No. Dan can do whatever the heck he wants with (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) But what are you using as the standard of judgment? I can't think of any justification to judge Dan's actions except in terms of consistent application of the TOS. Has he failed in this regard? I don't think so. Do some people find his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I would like clarification here. Are you asserting that Dan has applied the ToS consistently and fairly? What evidence of that do you have? I have evidence to the contrary. I acknowledge that he doesn't *have* to be consistent and fair, there (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

Larry, You are painting a very dark picture. Without divulging names, can you give us more details on these "previous incidents in the past"? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler

(...) Clarification? Fair enough. I'm referring specifically to Item 8 of the TOS, which states outright that he can terminate access at any time without notice. That's the criterion I'm using, and, as it's written, it contractually grants Dan the (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur

(...) That sounds a little subjective (...) In what way is he paranoid? (...) Now that sounds like paranoia. (...) Now you sound paranoid. (...) Last month I had what I thought was a serious problem; I could not pay my BL fee due to a PAYPAL (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)

Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Suzanne Rich Green

(...) I think you're probably speaking more generally here anyhow, but I haven't really got anything special to say. (...) I just got back from my doctor's appointment and a grad class. Right now all I can think about is how I'd like a world with no (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)