 | | Re: Question for Brad on Bulk Ordering
|
|
(...) Well, immediately after Bulk ordering was anounced , one of us AFOL's, Jason Catena, took great effort in setting up a "I'm looking for"-database. I would like to draw your attention to his "Lego Direct wants page" (See (URL) ), especialy (...) (24 years ago, 26-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for Brad on Bulk Ordering
|
|
(...) snip... This has been my question too. I remember reading about TLG desire to allow us to make our wants known, and a common reference(parts DB) would be required, but I'm not sure I see it in the near future. Gotta keep making noise about it (...) (24 years ago, 26-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> Hi, and thanks for the update news. Of course it is very nice and happy news for most us, but I have a very specific question. Is your plans include Turkey? I would be very happy if you answer that question here or by (...) (24 years ago, 26-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
(...) Here, Here! I find the use of Flash on the site a litle cumbersome. Espcially when a more portable technology such as java/javscript/PHP could be used. Not all Lego(R) users have Wintel PC's! A large number seem to use Linux derivatives as (...) (24 years ago, 26-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
(...) I totally agree with Jonathon Wilson say's. We downunder seem to miss out on many of the goodies Lego has to offer. Not to mention we also have some hefty prices to pay :( (long live the SALES!!!) I'ts unfortunate how postage is the big killer (...) (24 years ago, 26-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
Thank you for the response.... I look forward to the web interface / LEGO S@H orders... But I look forward to more bulk ordering possibilities even more... Gene Weissinger (24 years ago, 26-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
This is good news! Please tell us that the same product line will be available in all countries and that there wont be too much pricing difference between countries, so that us aussies can get lego at prices comparable to what you americans pay. (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
(...) < snipped very welcome news > (...) If perchance you would like to celebrate the grand re-opening by donating some excess LEGO to the NALug Train Show, which is taking place mere days after the blessed event, just LMK. 8-) [ For those who (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
(...) My guess is that it's nothing against you folks, but rather that they've already got a better infrastructure built up in those countries. [ -> .dear-lego, so as to not clutter this newsgroup. ] (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
(...) Brad, this is really good news. I didn't say great news just because I'm italian and third quarter of 2001 are a long time... :-( As you can see in (URL) in Italy (4216 messages, second just to UK and US) there is a great Lego community and I (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
Brad, This is indeed good news. I look forward to seeing the new site. I'm sure all the international customers will be pleased with the expansion of Shop At Home. Best of launch with the new site and thank you for your efforts. Bryan Kinkel "Brad (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | RE: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
Wow, Where did he come from? M (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
(...) I hope that as part of this re-launch/overhaul/whatever the correct buzzword is, you've had a word with the web designers about making the new www.lego.com a little less bloated on Flash, etc- or for my part, I'll still be placing orders by (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO.new is coming
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes: < SNIP > That's great news, Brad!!! Thanks for letting us know! Paul Sinasohn LUGNET #115 (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | LEGO.new is coming
|
|
Well, it's the end of the week. And I did promise. So here's welcome (I hope!) news: On September 11, we will relaunch LEGO.com. As part of this relaunch, we will extend the LEGO Shop At Home service to the Internet. Though we may limit the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.lego.announce, lugnet.announce, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.general) !!
|
| |
| | Question for Brad on Bulk Ordering
|
|
Now that Brad has found his keyboard I would like to ask a question about requests for bulk ordering. The S@H catalog stated that Lego wanted to hear from us as to what parts we would like to see offered in bulk. Where are we suppose to do this? How (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: End of week speculation?
|
|
(...) Good question! I have been eagerly awaiting it. Personally, I think it's one of two things: 1) More bricks available via bulk ordering 2) Official announcement of the 2001 Star Wars sets. If this one, I hope it comes with pictures of (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Collectible Minifigs
|
|
(...) I expect they would use the "crossbow defense", as there is no notes of any kind on my insert, other than the usual TM stuff. I have the wimpy 1/2 size Canadian Summer 2000 catalog. I called S@H to specifically ask for the full-size catalog, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Picture piracy on lego.com
|
|
(...) I just read the thread - this situation is disgusting. It's bad enough that some scumbag punk (or worse, adult) would steal the photo (and hence the credit for creation) of someone else's model, but for TLC to seemingly regard it as a (...) (24 years ago, 24-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) Brad, I know how launching a new business venture can be very time consuming, and that you have a very full plate. I have been a harsh critic of TLC in the past. But from the beginning I decided to cut you some slack, and have given you and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) Well, I'm fairly certain that it doesn't matter much to Lego (in the short term anyway) if you pay full retail price at Wal-Mart or wait for WM to drop them to 50% off to clear them off the shelf. Wal-Mart paid for the sets up front, so the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) I spend more on new store-bought sets than those old sets on Ebay, but I should explain in detail. I buy the new sets when they are on sale or deep discount. (judging from the shelves, S@H will be offering Town Jr. and Rock Raider sets for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
Thanks for posting the explanation (and I suppose thanks should go to Tom for rattling the proverbial cage). :-) Personally, I didn't have a problem with any of Todd's actions or Lego's, but since my wife often deals with intellectual property (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) I hate to follow myself up, but I thought of something else in this vein: I've spent well over $250 in the past two weeks on Lego. Probably closer to $300. Lego will see none of that money, because it wasn't spent in a store. It was spent on (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) ...WAMALUG 'liberated' a box of cards from The Store and we hand them out at shows and encourage people to tell the cust serv person that 'WAMALUG sent them'. I figure if enuf people do that, the word will get up the chain of command, tho (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) Really. Well, those parts certainly moved fast enough to tell you to contact Todd and ask him to remove it. Those parts also certainly moved fast enough to tell you that there was absolutely legal reasoning behind the "request" when Todd asked (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) Perhaps they can start with something simple like letting the LTCs give out Shop @ Home business cards at train shows? SO many people don't realize that LEGO makes trains - we get comments like that all the time. What I would *really* like to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
"Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message news:FzLt90.25M@lugnet.com... (...) it, (...) time (...) but (...) more (...) Brad, Thanks for this post. I am encouraged by your words, but obviously it doesn't leave me personally, and us (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) demonstrate (...) That [any part in any color] will never happen (at least not with current technology). Well, it could happen if you wanted enough of the part (once they really get this going, it should be possible for someone who is willing (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | RE: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) What about being able to order 'promo sets like the kabaya ones, and any other set available in any market, so you'd be able to get any set in current distribution. Oh, and don't forget the little bit about being available anywhere in the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
Brad Justus wrote: snip.... (...) In a perfect world, the posting would be for a complete parts reference guide AND a way to bulk order any part in any color. Even if it isn't this fall, knowing it's coming would be nice. :) Mark (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes: <snip lots of stuff about communication and 2001 set stuff. I will wait and let your actions speek for themselves before getting more critical than I have been.> (...) As for this I think it is something (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) To anyone who might be jumping in and hearing about this for the first time, the following articles from last week explain that LEGO made a formal legal request: (3 URLs) don't read too much into the light wording Brad used above (such as (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
|
(...) I'd better check on that. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal to publish a private communication, just rude (assuming it doesn't contain any sensitive information, of course). (...) Yes, for CYA reasons and out of respect for the community. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Ooog ooog ooog :) Actually, I believe that Canadian case law is similar to the US on this point. You either exert no control, or you're responsible. <snip> (...) That's _belabour_. Ooog ooog ooog :) Jeff Elliott (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) You'll have to ask TLC -- post to lugnet.lego.direct and see if/how they answer that. Or write via e-mail directly to Brad. I can only speculate that, while they may be annoyed, they may not have any legal grounds for getting upset in the (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Err, oops. That sentence makes no sense. I meant is, if I did that, TLC wouldn't care? If not, why not? The same info from the list could then just end up repackaged and still getting out there. eric (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I'm just a little confused, I guess. A list of (possible) upcoming set names, set numbers, and prices was posted. TLC asked you to remove them. Are you really saying that if I went over to lugnet.space and said "well, I wonder what set number (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) To claify, this distinction was reiterated in DCMA (sorry don't have USs # for it), so is still offerable as protection (witness Napster as a example) James P (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has occurred here) may (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
