Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:38:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
19 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
> If the majority believe they should be withdrawn by 18:00 GMT tomorrow, I'll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)
I don't think it calls for a vote either.
I think Huw should do as Huw pleases. I like Huw, for as little as I know of
him, and I like the things that Huw does. Huw's heart is in the right place,
and his intentions are certainly a factor here -- and to my knowledge,
intentionality is also a factor in a courtroom as much as proving damages may
be.
Regardless of what others may or may not think, what damage may or may not
have occurred, all Huw did was serve up some free Lego publicity to rabid lego
enthusiasts like himself. Just how wrong can that be? Did Lego lose out
because of this "slightly" forbidden knowledge being leaked? Heck, no! We
are all probably more primed than ever to go blow enormous wads of cash on
this plastic junk! Junk we love, but junk nonetheless -- try selling it to
someone who just doesn't have the Lego bug, to everyone but us its junk. Even
my freaking niece threw away the lego I gave her...and she is old enough to
know better. Classic space and babes too! Others just don't understand...
This is just slightly beginning to feel less like an open forum, and more like
being a guest in someone's house. I don't like being a bad guest in someone
else's home -- but then I am not fond of overbearing hosts either. And in
fairness, they have not overplayed that aspect of things...but it did bear
mentioning. What I find objectionable is the public way in which the matter
is being handled.
If Todd or Suzanne objected to Huw's post, they should have simply removed it
from its currently viewable location -- and they are apparently empowered to
do so. Perhaps they could have done so, and then written privately to Huw as
to WHY they did so. I personally fail to see how Huw's actions in any way
splashes mud upon Todd or Suzanne, however differently they may view it -- but
they could have done as they saw fit regarding Huw's post in any case. I
guess we have to accept that such an act would have been the prerogative of
our happy hosts.
But if Huw's right to swing his arms ends at the tip of someone else's nose --
then I still fail to see where Huw did anything wrong, or why anyone else
should have a say in its correctness save perhaps TLG itself. What are the
damages and who is the damaged party? Are they unable or unwilling to speak
for themselves? Something simple like: "Huw, please remove our secret stuff
from your website -- refusal will result in an injunction and suit for damages
being prosecuted against you..."
If the Pentagon Papers can be published, and Deep Throat can leak matters of
supposed "national security" -- (sorry, some great British equivalent just
doesn't come to mind) -- then I think Huw can get away with publishing this
nonsense to a group for whom TLG can ultimately do no true wrong. And if TLG
comes down hard on Huw for the passion which infuses his love of a certain
companies plastic junk product -- well, then I would finally have a real
reason to disrespect such a corporation and not just the pretend ones that
amuse me so.
What annoys me no end is that I know that Huw ultimately has more love for
this crazy plastic than even the CEO and owner or TLG himself does -- he has
to, he doesn't get it all for free! Why does anyone else, and especially
disinterested (in any legal sense that I can see) parties at that, feel free
to question his actions? And why publicly, of all things? If squabble you
must, then at least do it privately. Leave the man to his love of his chosen
avocation, for crying out loud!
Why exactly are we talking about this again...? This is not exactly in the
same category as disputing which minihead goes best with which torso...
I know that everyone's motives are pure. And I am eternally grateful that at
least we have such a good place for this sort of exchange -- however strange
that exchange is tonight!
My best wishes to all concerned...and I hope I am not getting on anyone's
s**tlist by airing my own views on the subject. That wasn't my purpose at all.
-- Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) That strikes me as odd, because if it were completely private correspondence, then you wind up with something that's viewed after the fact by outsiders (given the magnitude of this) as some kind of clandestine manipulation manoeuvre, which is (...) (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
|
|
|
|
