Subject:
|
Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:47:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Frank Filz writes:
> > If Todd doesn't want to host a clone database,
> > would he consider making his software available for someone else to run
> > a clone database?
>
> AND...
>
> > Of course the side by side question would be would Kevin Loch be willing
> > to host clone instruction scans (which could be limited by how the
> > clones express their "license" to use them)?
>
> How is it that Frank asks perfectly reasonable and polite questions and
> still gets no response?
>
> I, for one, do not see the matter as wholly settled -- nor have I been
> satisfied with the nature of Todd's other AND still rather terse responses,
> nor with the many responses of other persons (some of whom are
> megalomaniacal and delusional to say the least).
>
> As I have already stated, these are fairly reasonable questions and
> certainly not trolls for overreaching responses concerning the correct
> grammatical usage of branded names, etc.
>
> Can't we elevate the level of this thread enough to simply discuss it
> reasonably?
>
> If there are costs involved in adding a clone db to Lugnet, what are those
> costs? If the costs could be covered, could it happen within Lugnet's
> existing structure? If Todd is unwilling to work on such an addition to the
> off-topic clone-brands page, is he willing to provide the keys to the
> kingdom for someone else to do it (as others have been allowed to do for
> other areas of Lugnet, some of which even compete head-on with existing Lego
> products)?
>
> Asserting that those of us that are clone interested should just put our
> money where our collective mouths are and just set up our own "clone site" a
> la Lugnet is fairly childish and unreasonable. It can probably be fairly
> asserted that starting from scratch has to be more expensive than starting
> from Lugnet's existing architecture; AND I will admit that such a service
> would not probably be worth it for anyone involved in terms of luring a
> minimal number of regular participants. Covering the costs of a clone db as
> a "part" of Lugnet is another matter altogether.
>
> Just like RTL before it, Lugnet already exists as a discussion and db forum
> for those interested in plastic construction toys a la legos. It seems
> quite silly to me to not accept this simple fact and try and address the
> whole of the subject and not just the most well-known and branded aspect of it.
>
> And BTW -- yes, everyone else's attitudes are seeming very elitist and
> cliquish to me, especially surrounding this subject. Pretty tedious it is
> too...
>
> -- Richard
Richard,
As much as I, you or anyone else would like or bennefit from such an
expansion of LUGNET, we have have to understand a couple of realities as far
as LUGNET is concerned.
Before I expand on this, allow me to put forth a few disclaimers. I don't
speak for anyone else but myself. Not Todd Lehman, Kevin Loch, or The Lego
Company. My views are my own.
But beyond the obvious dislcaimers, I *know* that Todd set up LUGNET for
LEGO Users. He put in off-topic.clone at the suggestion of many people who
where talking about it with others who didn't want to hear a thing about it.
LUGNET has never had, nor will it more than likely ever have a vested
interest in those competitor brand building systems, be they compatible with
LEGO, or not at all. Also, Kevin Loch set up his instruction server to help
out other Lego Users. He has expressed to me numerous times (humorously)
that using "other" brick could be hazardous to my health. If I want
something placed on WAMALUG's train displays, it had better by pretty well
"pure" and not tainted. I've gotten away with somethings, but not much in
the way of impurities. It is my considered opinion/belief that his
instruction site would not accomidate such an expansion of Non Lego Products
(NLP), now or in the future.
One must also understand that it is possible, and more than likely that
Lugnet and Brickshelf could at some time in the future be absorbed by TLC.
If that vision is true, then Todd Lehman and Kevin Loch have a vested
interest in keeping the NLP impact ratio to a minimum. Sure, they cater to
NLP users, but only in a minimalistic way, and one that does not interfere
with or necessarily impact those who do not find these products worthy of
notice.
So, for Frank, or I or even you, the comments will more than likely ignored
where NLP are concerned. And though I wish it were not so, I understand
their position on the whole thing.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2001 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.wamalug.org &
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
| (...) I have feared this might be true (although I suppose it remains an unknown quantity for the moment). If it were to happen -- I would not likely participate. It's one thing to provide content in these threads as a legos user talking with other (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 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
|
|
|
|
