 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Another flaw Tim - Dan DOES NOT see Larry as a "good-faith" anything! He proved that in not only his words, but his actions. What you think Larry is, or not is is 100% pointless! You need to understand that. The only person view that matters (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) "run his business like a crazed dictator" Where did you pull that from? He banned what he saw to be a problem member. That does NOT make him a crazed dictator. To even imply that is is acting like one is about as wrong as you can possibly get. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Why? It has been said many times why. (URL) as others pointed out this part of the BL ToS: (URL) Breach. -snip- We also reserve the right to terminate your membership and your data and deny you access to any of the site's features at any time (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) If Lar were afforded a second (or third, or whatever) chance to come into compliance and if that chance were not similiarly extended to others who had violated the TOS two (or three, or whatever) times, then Lar would be receiving preferential (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) No -- it is not undisputed that the reason he was banned was a TOS violation. He broke it, was corrected, and made an earnest attempt to comply. After his attempt to comply he was banned without recourse. -Tim (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) No ... he was attempting to comply with the ToS and proposed a solution when he was cut off at the knees. That's my belief having read the discussion *and* having spoken with Lar. I'll defend him based on the interactions I've observed (recent (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) He changed the wording from TOS violation, to non-TOS violation. So why was he banned? -Rob. (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) The issue is *not* that Lar is receiving preferential treatment. The issue as I see it (based on my observation of historical events on BL and conversations with many others who observed same events) that Lar is getting exceptional unfavorable (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I am not sure, but I haven't seen anything from Lar saying that he is mad or thinks he was treated unjust. If he has, I'll have to rethink my position (...) I agree, he was rightfully banned, no argueing there. But on the other hand, the rules (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But the disobedient civilian must accept the price for his disobedience, otherwise it's just posturing like a rhinoceros. In the same way that a journalist should be willing to go to jail to protect his treasonous source, a Bricklink customer (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
