Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Dec 1999 22:25:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
25 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
>
> Suzanne D. Rich <suz@media.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:FMADnz.9p6@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.announce, Huw Millington writes:
>
> > Huw,
> >
> > I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your
> > correspondent (name?) neglected their responsibility to inform you that
> > the information passed along to you was meant only for retailers and then
> > only for ordering purposes.
> > The retailer catalog is traditionally a closely guarded item, never meant
> > for public (including competitor) consumption.
> >
> > As a truly good intentioned LEGO enthusiast, I am asking you to remove
> > these illegal scans from internet publication and also ask Todd to delete
> > your previous post. This is in response to my desire to keep the delicate
> > relationship between adult online enthusiasts and the LEGO Company intact.
> > also is protective of smaller retailers and of the LEGO Company itself. I
> > could go into a discussion of why what you have done is against the interest
> > of the company, but I'll save it -- assuming you agree with the above.
> >
> > Please excuse my curt reaction, but I am quite stunned and alarmed.
>
> Looks like I have stirred up a hornet's nest here...
>
> I'll gladly withdraw my post and the scans if the majority feel that I have
> in some way violated TLC's rights. The last thing I want to do is upset
> them, or for that matter, LUGNET.
>
> But I would state:
>
> How does this differ from publishing pictures of early prototypes of Star
> Wars sets? No-one made a fuss when that was done (not by me)
>
> I do not know how my correspondent came to be in posession of the catalogue,
> but I think its safe to say that he was given it, and did not steal it or
> otherwise illegally obtain it.
>
> In 1995 I and another AFOL in the UK were sent 1996 retailers catalogues
> through the post at the beginning of December by a LEGO UK empolyee who we
> struck up a relationship with in r.t.l., so it would not seem to be as
> 'closely guarded' as you think.
>
> I don't believe I have published any trade-secrets that won't be public once
> the European catalogues are published in a few weeks. There's no price
> information or other sensitive stuff there.
>
> If the majority believe they should be withdrawn by 18:00 GMT tomorrow, I'll
> do it, (or ask Todd to if I can't get Outlook to do it)
>
> Huw
Huw,
This does not require a vote. It calls for swift appropriate action. You
know that. Else you wouldn't be keeping all names out of your discussion.
And FYI, I was equally distressed about the SW leaks and every other leak I've
seen or heard anywhere. I just happened to act on this one today. sorry you're
the unlucky one. I don't mean to make an example of you, it's the behavior.
-Suz.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| [snip] (...) I've (...) you're (...) behavior. (...) as I just mentioned in a very very long e-mail, where does the information of the Star Wars bucket 1886 come from? This information is also leaked, copied from retailers information only and so (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| Suzanne D. Rich <suz@media.mit.edu> wrote in message news:FMADnz.9p6@lugnet.com... (...) correspondent (...) purposes. (...) for (...) these (...) It (...) could (...) the (...) Looks like I have stirred up a hornet's nest here... I'll gladly (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
