 | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
(...) I knew somebody would offer that argument. Sure, Brickshelf depends upon content, but if Brickshelf weren't around, that content would be scattered across the net, unseen by most. "Merely providing the real estate" Are you serious!? That (...) (17 years ago, 22-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
(...) (emphasis added) A slight correction: many of us felt upset because being denied to other people's content. I don't use BrickShelf to store my photos online, I use it to keep track of all the amazing MOCs out there. Are you suggesting I am (...) (17 years ago, 22-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
(...) No. But I'm struggling with the term "betrayed". People felt understandably upset about losing a wonderful resource like Brickshelf, but the only way I could make sense of that word would be in the context in which I spoke. (...) No (...) (17 years ago, 22-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
(...) I'm grateful that brickshelf exists, but I still don't see why that should give him a free pass for pulling a stunt like he did. It's simply bad business practice. If that's how he wants to run his business, that's fine, but I won't be a (...) (17 years ago, 23-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
(...) Maybe the plan was to cause a mass exodus from brickshelf to other services, in order to lower the bandwidth cost and make it manageable. If so, it certainly is likely to work. More power to brickshelf staying alive. It would be sad to see it (...) (17 years ago, 23-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
