 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) You're probably right - my understanding of the times having come from motion picture portrayal :) (1) I would argue that politeness could come from *communities* having to get on to survive in a hostile new environment. As very few of us seem (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) What do you think they will say, bearing in mind that these are secret, not for public use documents? Hearing the phrase "pastel = profit" from a 1993 retailers catalogue may seem funny or harmless. But it makes me dislike the girly LEGO even (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) In some very defined circumstances, it is suspicious - "The company accounts are missing" etc. But that wouldn't be evidence that the company had been up to fraudulent behaviour. This "evidence" is of the sort: "Mummy hasn't told me not to (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Several of "the sets" in the 2000 retailers catalogs are not in the 2000 consumer catalog and won't even be released until mid-year (I think it said July). So it's not true that "the sets" are already arriving at TRU. Some, maybe even most, (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Well, that's not quite the point -- at least not what I was keying in on in what James wrote. James's point was that our not respecting their intellectual property gives them less reason to respect us, rather than more reason, regardless of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
