|
|
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I think that's too simple a dismissal. See my previous post about isolated facts and how they can add up to Really Big Secrets. "this fact by itself doesn't tell you much" is not a valid defense in and of itself. Besides, unless we're in the (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) That's precisely what I'm doing. As long as he's convinced that what he's doing isn't editorial control he's never going to seek legal advice about it, is he? (...) ++Lar (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) So you're agreeing, then? Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the very definitions you quote. Do be clearer in future, hmm? (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could, frankly, be just about (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I hate replying to my own posts and quoting dictionaries, today I shall do both: From: (URL) verb [T] to remove parts of (something to be read, seen, or heard) because it is offensive or considered morally wrong, or because it is secret She (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) My apologies. (...) I won't sleep tonight (...) Nope. (...) Perhaps that is the problem. I found no firm legal argument, only opinion. I a seminal post perhaps? (...) I'd agree, what Todd did is more important than what you/he calls it. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) simply (...) would (...) I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony, Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) What, are you TRYING to annoy me here? You've edited Todd's and my words by trimming away most of the sentence to make it look like I am agreeing with Todd's definition. Gentle readers, do not be fooled by Scott's action here. Scott, I'm (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Legal Comedy (was Re: 2001 Set info)
|
| (...) Hmm. That is the problem with debates like this on LUGNET - no conclusion is ever really drawn. Debates just spawl, dilute and die... A bit of a worry really. Scott A (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | | | Re: Legal Comedy (was Re: 2001 Set info)
|
| LOL! I can picture Dan Aykroyd character Joe Friday from _Dragnet (1987)_ reading this... LOL! (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
|
