 | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) You don't? OK, we'd better shut down Brickshelf and Lugnet. RIGHT NOW. Because Richard says that since TLC hasn't told us not to, it's NOT OK, so all of Kevin/Todd's scans have to go. Take them down. Richard says so. If you can't see the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Oh? - PROVE IT! Quit shoving it down our throats as gospel, and PROVE IT. SHOW us the documents proving these are "secret". Are they limited production/circulation? Yes. Secret? PROVE IT. (...) Um, when did ANYTHING BUT the pics ever creep (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) In my opinion? Certainly not! Grudging permission, tolerance maybe. But then it is not the charter of pause and brickshelf to contain company secrets. I really don't understand this "They haven't told us not to, so it's okay" attitude! (...) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) And I ask YOU honestly, isn't the fact that TLC hasn't said anything about other things on other fan sites taken as implicit permission to do them? What's the difference? I'll be happy to eat crow if some TLC official makes a statement about (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Yes, I see what you mean. I think it's somewhat irrelevant, but I see what you mean. I think one person posting several crappy scans of soon-to-be released sets (and not all this supposed TOP SECRET marketing material that has been alluded to) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
