|
|
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Who would?:) (...) Again, who would? 8) (...) And I'm adding to it!!!...!!! HaHA!!!!!!!! (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Gotta disagree with that one. If it were companies (or individuals, for that matter) who got to decide what their own rights were, we'd all be in trouble. What if they said that "All four-digit numbers are trade secrets. Don't use them."? Of (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out any information that (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) That's great. But it should have been sent to the poster, not you. Or, understanding the desire for a quick response, sent to both. (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) You, he and I can call it what we want. Actions speak louder than words. Scott A (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) A quick tangent: I didn't hear TLC request that anyone cease and desist from discussing this information or anything else. To the best of my knowledge, the sole request was expungement of preexisting posts containing TLC-sensitive information. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Nope. Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the (...) Really? (...) A thread? (...) Secret - TLG would say so, or at least that is what I am told :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| "Scott A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fz1A7r.MI3@lugnet.com... (...) not (...) Very true - imagine this scenario - You want a particular mini-figure, "Timmy", that is only available in a very large, very expensive set this year. (1) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) No, I'm not implying that. I believe that it's possible that some things related to this might possibly potentially violate some privacy law somewhere, and I believe that it's potentially likely that some things related to this may be (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I am not sure if anyone major could change there production runs now. I suppose knowlege at the lower end of the food chain is much more powerful: If I were a toy shop and I knew TLC had an impressive range on the way - I may not buy (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
