 | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) which (...) <snip> (...) Sorry I missed the part about being suggestions to TLC. I do still see some problem with #3. I'm not sure what all the ramifications of publishing a private (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) (Replying to my own post) Just to be clear, the above are _suggestions_ to LEGO as to how to handle events like this in the future. They do not represent or define LUGNET site policy. Thus, "within a reasonable amount of time" is up to LEGO to (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) I have some questions and comments on the above: - Is the above sequence to be followed when someone posts or causes to be posted an individuals personal information (such as address - see the VLC meeting location incident for an example)? - (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes: [snip] (...) I think your handling of this has been more than reasonable. [snip] (...) Here's a suggestion: When you are ready to release the 2001 in box catalogs for a given reigon, mail one to me and I'll (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) Tom, you're right -- on all counts. It *is* ages later (in Internet time); but whether you like it or I like it, there are still parts of the world that move in regular old analog clock time (actually, most of the world does). We try not to be (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) James Powell mentioned the bad news already on another thread (or was it another sub-branch of this huge thread?), but it bears repeating here for posterity... Here's a link to the Slashdot story for those who haven't seen it yet: (URL) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: PNLTC Presents a Guinness World Record LEGO Train Track Display
|
|
Well, I would just *have* to throw in another "me, too" to that one. At 40" per box and 48 boxes per case, that is 160 feet per case. I would definitely want to get about that much to make a really good switching yard. Mike Tom Stangl (...) (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: PNLTC Presents a Guinness World Record LEGO Train Track Display
|
|
That's what, 48 or 64 boxes per case? If they'd give us a bulk discount worth looking at, I'd want a case myself. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: PNLTC Presents a Guinness World Record LEGO Train Track Display
|
|
(...) Dear LEGO: How much to buy straight track by the case? ( (URL) ) I'm *sure* the GMLTC would be HAPPY to buy a case or two... JohnG, GMLTC (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.events, lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
So here it is, AGES later (in Internet time), and not one peep out of Brad. On something so important they tapped Todd on the shoulder and requested a removal. Brad, what happened to the idea of COMMUNICATION??? You're slacking BADLY on one of your (...) (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
| |
| | Please lower noise
|
|
"Common" messages really ought not appear under lugnet.lego. There are other groups available for "dear-lego" posts and for discussion about one's personal experiences/opinions. For more information please read the message outlining what's (...) (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 8458 Silver Champion is incredible!
|
|
Whoa, what? Discontinued? Granted I've only ever seen one 8448 in a brick & mortar store and that was months ago, but I assumed it would be in the Shop at Home catalog for the next year at least. I was going to order one in January or so, do I need (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 8458 Silver Champion is incredible!
|
|
(...) Uhh... I just faxed my order for the 8448 to lego S@H US... It was in the spring catalog... Did I make a bo bo? (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 8458 Silver Champion is incredible!
|
|
(...) According to rumor, there were trademark issues with the "Indy Storm" name, so they just decided to pull the entire model. Quite a shame! (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 8458 Silver Champion is incredible!
|
|
(...) Wow hold on a minute! Just because 8457 and 8458 are released does not means 8448 is gone right away. 8445 was gone pretty quick though. I wonder if we will ever see a technic catalogue like the one in 1996... (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Strange pricing: 4222 vs 4288
|
|
In TRU there are two similar "Classic" building sets, 4222 and 4288. 4288 is the "Red Bucket" and 4222 is a box. 4288 contains 400 pcs. and 4222 contains 355 pcs. The part selection in both sets is similar; the notable difference is that 4222 has a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | RE: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) You mean set 5220 "Styling pack" as shown in the second catalogue for 2000 in Australia? It will ONLY be available from: (URL) will 5218, 5219, 5221, and 5222, according to the catalogue. [I'll get the scans of these sets up tonight.] This (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) One such example would be the Y-Wing+TIE set featuring Darth Vader on the box cover. It was the only source for that figure for over a year until the figure sets came out. The number of Y-Wing set sold would be greatly reduced if the figure (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I apoligize for adding to this bandwidth burning, even though I do enjoy a good debate. However, one thing about this bothers me and, for better or worse, I'd just like to throw it out: Will high bidders from the last Auczilla(s) receive their (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No such decision yet. The DeCSS case is in progress right now, and those of us who care about freedom of speech and the web in general sure hope it'll come down the other way. In fact, an important question in that case is whether source code (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) You will have to consult an attorney specializing in Intellectual Property or ask LEGO and trust what they say back. (...) It may be and it may not be. Intellectual Property case law is changing every day. Months ago, it was not illegal to (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Some of us just want to know what _is_ acceptable here, so that we are not subject to arbitrary deletions. For example, if I post the URL of where I have 'the list' (hehehe, making it sound evil!), is that a violation of the LUGNET T&C? How (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Is anyone else finding this discussion a small pain in the "a postiori"? You guys are now revolving in tighter circles than even Justice Scalia normally attempts. AND arguing in TWO languages about the meaning of a particular word (arguing in (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Tiger Prediction
|
|
Attn: Lugnet Readers Lego Futura Lego Direct Mr Brad Justus. Dear Sirs, I fully suppourt the suggestion of a minfing zoo for lego(R) Town in a recent Lugnet posting. The relevant portion of the posting is included after this letter. A zoo in Lego(R) (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.town, lugnet.general, lugnet.adventurers, lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Thanks to those who mailed me. (...) *Sigh* (...) Substantiate this please, if you can. I see this time and time again here. Words are words. They not not suddenly change their meaning when one employs seeks legal advise... they are just the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Let's be clear here, are you asking for someone to mail you a description of the contents (which you've already seen if you've read the thread, but briefly, it's proprietary marketing and pricing information that is the property of TLC), or (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) sway (...) censor's (...) <SNIPPED> So if it is not "censorship", what is it? I missed the posts (e-mails welcome), so I have no real ideal what was in the post. So to me this denial of information, for no solid reason as far as I can see, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Agreed. And thanks for digging up the cyberlaw cite, those were the very cases I was referring to, although I was incorrect in referring to Compuserve as a common carrier, their defense was the library defense. (Believe it or not, I think (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) This is a very interesting read, IMHO: (URL) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) True, that is usually the case. However, according to M-W, to censor is to "[...] suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". "Suppress" certainly has connotations of "before publication", but "delete" doesn't. Anyway. It's not (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Internet Buzz is useful
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Rose Regner writes: <SNIP> (...) More insanely great advice courtesy of Ms. Regner -- advice worth millions no doubt. Sadly, this advice presupposes TLC can actually do something like get its act together. What's personally (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) It depends, could a "reasonable" person find them, if they had "reasonable" knowlage of how it worked? (in other words, if Jorge left his price scanner and I picked it up, and tried looking at _all_ the 71xx series lego, would I have found (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) James, Above, as Mike Timm just pointed out, you quoted something which has absolutely nothing to do with the Terms and Conditions here or the Terms of Use Agreement. What you quoted was from a plan document -- a manifesto -- a public (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Brazenly oversnipping for humorous effect... (...) I Dispute that the T&C say this! In fact I'm pretty sure they say: "All other themes are just scenery or spare parts for Trains!". YCLIU. ++Lar (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I will counter with the info from this post that I made that applies to me, Jorge or anyone else who has "accepted the conditions for posting" here at Lugnet.. see (URL) post referenced is about some Castle set info I had, not anything else (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Internet Buzz is useful
|
|
Maybe Lego should take another look at how secretive they are about releasing new Lego set information. Movie buzz on the internet made The Blair Witch project a success and people we eagerly awaiting the opening day. I think Lego could be more up (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
