| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > No, actually it bolsters MY point which is that not every instance needs to
> > be reminded and that some allowance for error and some allowance for the
> > assertion that if one reminder was issued, (within the thread, or within so
> > many days, or whatever metric I think will satisfy the "you must make a good
> > effort" requirement) that's enough.
Scott (et al.),
First, see this post, in response to a very polite and non-confrontational
questioning of Larry, and the other GoB members, about the whats, whys and
wherefors of establishing , asserting and maintaining a trademark:
http://news.lugnet.com/market/theory/?n=2285
> ...and that bolsters MY point. Unless you are willing honour every single
> trademark you mention here, you are in absolutely no position to chastise
> others for not doing so. Doing so would be sheer hypocrisy. Do you fail to
> see that?
What you fail to see, Scott, is that Larry has been nothing but polite from
the get go about the trademark issue. Your seeming lack of knowledge of, or
willingness to find out more about, the subject at hand is what is keeping
this thread afloat. You are incorrect, Scott, and you need to back down from
this issue.
Larry is well within his rights to continue to claim and assert the GoB
trademark. It is also the decision of Larry and his group when, where, how
often and how strenuously they decide to assert their mark, and their
failing if they choose not to do so in a manner which retains the mark's value.
Further, rather than being Larry, or anyone's, hypocracy in not properly
indicating the trademarks of others, it is the responsibility of those mark
holders to do the same type of assertation on a regular basis, or by
whatever means and schedule they deem fit. Case-in-point: The LEGO®
Company's Fair Play document. They have choosen to publish one document
outlining their legal stance and views, and if it is not followed (like in
instances of the word "LEGO" in a domain name), they may take an active
stance with the violator, and have this guideline to point to. Larry has
choosen to take a more active hand in his continued mark assertation, and
that is his perogative.
> Further, if your were to start honouring trademarks just so you could
> chastise others I'd be a little worried about you.
And in the vein of YET ANOTHER current LUGNET thread about your disruptive
tendancies, your continued sniping and heel nipping at Larry has me a little
worried about you. You need to back away and take a good look at the way you
post at LUGNET, and the tones you take...especially if you value your
involvment here to any extent.
You have many people upset wih you currently, and as we have seen in the
past, a grassroots campaign for administrative action can be very
effective...and I don't feel like seeing another one of those beginning here
again. Not now...not ever.
This thread also does not belong in lugnet.admin.general, as it does not
pertain to the LUGNET™ trdemark, and I am moving it to lugnet.market.theory
where it should have been all along (as Larry stated early on).
Matt
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
