 | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:384F3A51.4FCDDF...faq.com... (...) scans" (...) TLC (...) not for (...) SHOW us (...) Tom, I mean absolutely no offense here (and I've already brought this up in response to another (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Only if you make it an issue. Huw never even mentioned having that info. (...) I'm disturbed that you are disturbed about such a silly marketing slogan. Did you ever think TLC was NOT a for-profit company? (...) Sorry, I guess I should have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Agreed, so we're still waiting for the first slap? It probably isn't a perfect analogy, it wasn't meant to be - the original point was that silence isn't always evidence. (...) Agreed, I don't think what Huw did was more wrong than that. What (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) By the same token, I could ask you to prove that they aren't secret. But with the limited information that we have that would be fruitless. We are in .debate, so I see nothing wrong with trying to discuss this intelligently. My view is that (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMG645.9Ct@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) Oh, Please...No more stretches OK? It's not that sort of evidence, even there is not just a bit of similarity. If your brother would have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
Well, the other side of the coin is that YOU, and ONLY you, knew the full details of what they did/did not say was OK. All we have to go on is the Fair Use Policy posted on lego.com. We (the unwashed <g>) won't know any better unless the Policy is (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Whoops, darn it, I did it again. I meant this message, (URL) #2743. Sorry. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) (Just re-reading what I just wrote) Bad wording -- I didn't mean that to sound like a back-handed slap. And I don't mean to demean educated guesses. I just meant that maybe the tone of this message, (URL) a bit strong, given the known facts. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Inasmuch as I dislike "tooting the horn," I also try not to keep important things like that secret, assuming I am able to say one way or the other. In October of 1997, for example, I did mention that Suzanne and I had had a meeting with two (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) As much as this thread has stirred up some strong feelings (no real anger on my part - hope there isn't on most other peoples') this made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Pssst, hurry up... while they're still quiet. Bring up the cans and 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?)
|
|
(...) Right, not much. And as much as I trust Todd, and I do, I don't accept his opinion as gospel truth about all things related to how TLC/G feels about all issues. Certainly not based on the few haizy references I've seen to "private" (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Well, if he's wrong then say so. I distinctly remember Kevin on numerous occasions mentioning something to the extent of "well, the less attention we make TLG pay to the scans site the better" - basically, like in the case of the loser selling (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) You call them company secrets. Company secrets that are so important that they're stored in catalogs that many retailers leave on the shelf for customers to see. The thought that, 2 weeks before these hit the shelves (or 2 months, or whatever) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
OK, let me clarify - at NO time publicly has TLC stated anything about Brickshelf, and Kevin has repeatedly mentioned he hasn't heard from TLC. Yet by Richard's Holy Rule, since TLC has said nothing about posting instruction scans, and posting them (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) You sound pretty sure of that. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
