 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Legal Comedy (was Re: 2001 Set info)
|
|
Dramatis Personae: Our presiding villain -- Todd. The man who is sticking to his TOS and crumpling under threats of bad legal juju. Lover of the brick. Our heroes -- posters of leaked information. More than one and also lovers of the mighty brick. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Even if they have directed it at Target- and all their other retailers- it's ridiculous for them to try and stick the cat back in the bag. What possible purpose does it serve? Why does it benefit them to have people on Lugnet not talk about (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Todd: I realise that your best answer for this is the first thing you said here- that you aren't a lawyer- but are you really implying that discussing this information- in any way, in any forum- violates the law or infinges on TLC's rights? I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) control (...) I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were the legal grounds for the censorship? Scott A (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like. (...) Ding ding ding! Yes! (...) I definitely and without a doubt agree that you do not do that specific thing (whatever you or I call it) here and if anyone is thinking that I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) John, Was that a cleverly timed joke (if so, nice work! :-) or was your content clipped unintentionally by your WebTV browser? Looking at the incoming HTML-form logs, your browser appears to have chopped the text after the "an". Question: When (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I should add one thing here to clarify the context of what I mean. I'm talking of course about the newsgroups above. In contrast, the sets database is a completely different story: editorial control *is* and probably always will be exercised (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial control is being or has ever been exerted. Perhaps we are working from different definitions of the term...? My working definition of "editorial control" is to edit or (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
