| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, David Laswell wrote:
| |
| |
I could easily argue that this TLC element is based on a design of my own.
|
You could...but I doubt anyone would believe you. I can’t find any mention
of this modification on LUGNET prior to this specific post, so I doubt they
were even aware of it (for that matter, I doubt they are aware of it).
|
See: http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=1850
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:18:47 GM
“I was also carving bricks from the first (see my wings attachment at the page
noted above).”
also:
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=1859
It’s probably mentioned before that time, but those refs will suffice -- not a
year, but at least 3 years, Laswell! I could be wrong, but I see lot’s of things
within these newsgroups that influence what TLC does product-wise. I have every
reason to believe that they not only know about what we do but watch fairly
carefully for product ideas. And why not? It’s free product research.
If they had done nearly exactly the same thing I had done with my
wing-attachment element it might have been legally interesting. But
whatever...it’s not really my big focus in life. It’d more interesting to hear
from those that think they have IP rights in brick configurations or assemblages
(I am not speaking for them but I am thinking that people like Larry P. and Bram
L. think something along those lines -- I actually disagree with that viewpoint,
at least as far as element configurations go). Element design is a separate
matter though -- it is precisely such design infringement that made it possible
for TLC to shut down Tyco Superblocks, or didn’t you know that?
.....................
The rest of what you had to say was just lot’s of empty brand-loyalist reasoning
as far as I can see. And was not complaining about newsgroup charters, but
rather people’s ignorant and exclusionary attitudes. I stated immediately that
a 100% clone item belonged in the clone newsgroup. Why? Because I knew some Lego
sycophant like yourself would whine about it if I hadn’t, and yet here it is
anyway. The rest is just you setting up pointless arguments about brand purity.
You will doubtless claim some kind of newsgroup category geek supremacy over me,
but you lose in the area of inclusiveness. What the charter for the newsgroup
in question actually says is this:
lugnet.announce.moc? Personal announcements of personal creations (“MOC”s). This
is where you can tell everyone about your latest and greatest models, creations,
minifig characters, etc. NOTE: do not post announcements of personal creations
in the main lugnet.announce group.
Do you see anything that expressly forbids an announcment that then has
followups set to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands? I don’t. Dave! Was polite
enough to put it up for discussion. So it’s being discussed! Sorry that we
don’t all agree with you brand purists, but we don’t. Too freaking bad for you,
I guess.
I don’t personally mind people posting clone related material to anywhere on
lugnet, it’s certainly not my job to worry about it. I do occasionally try to
point out the existence of the “off-topic.clone-brands” newsgroup in deference
to you brand loyalist types and for the sake of newbies that don’t know any
better maybe. I usually just make some short remark about where the message
might have been posted in conformity with what most people expect from lugnet
and in terms of the newsgroup hierarchies. But, I don’t think that anyone really
cares either way, esp. if it’s kept to a low roar.
Anyway, I can think of hardly anything else more beneath us than to argue about
brand purity/loyality. And FWIW, I am convinced your views are shortsighted so
you will not be convincing me in any case. You want to divide people into neat
little categories because of brand loyalty, while I want to join people together
because I don’t think brand loyalty or purity is an important issue at all. But
fine, do as pleases you and so will I.
I’ll stick with:
“Lego purists insisting on 100% lego purity from others are idiots.”
I was just tonight better organizing my unique clone elements. I couldn’t be
happier with my utter lack of brand loyalty.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: A serious clone question
|
| (...) You are my hero, Hop-Frog, uniter of the Lugnet community by insulting most of us. As for me, I was only saying I'd rather not see clone elements, but hey, it was YOU who started insulting other people, so I guess it makes you the (...) (21 years ago, 18-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | Re: A serious clone question
|
| (...) Okay, point taken, but I was searching for "Batlord", "Executioner", and "Batlord Executioner" and I got a whole lot of nothing. You'll have to excuse me if I assumed you would have posted something about it by name. (...) I am not one for (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A serious clone question
|
| (...) You made a typo there. It's spelled "s-e-l-e-c-t-i-v-e". Either that or "d-i-s-c-e-r-n-i-n-g", depending on the exact meaning you were shooting for. (...) Really? Have you ever talked to people who customize cars (there are some who only (...) (21 years ago, 18-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
|
66 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
|
|
|
|
