 | | Re: Naive Sellers (Was Re: 4561 alternates (was: sale at kbkids)
|
|
Just remember, that he doesn't live on Lego alone ;-) Mecanno collectors seem to be pretty diehard, and he lists LOTS of Mecanno. So I'm sure he's doing fine ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Catalog scans - TLC stance
|
|
James Brown: [ LEGO retailer catalogues ] (...) I have seen them in at least two Danish stores. They are definitely not made generally available to the costumers. But on the other hand, they don't appear to be any more secret than that retailers (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Naive Sellers (Was Re: 4561 alternates (was: sale at kbkids)
|
|
(...) Well, time will tell, but I do know one thing from being in a streaky business myself-- you have to strike while the iron is hot. It is times like those when a business is hot that will carry a business through the cool times, and I'd like to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lasik eye surgery
|
|
Scalpel? This is Lasik, the ONLY time a blade gets anywhere near the eye is to shave back the top of the cornea. About the worst that can happen at that point is if the shaved layer isn't even, in which case they lay it back down, call of the (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Naive Sellers (Was Re: 4561 alternates (was: sale at kbkids)
|
|
(...) Emmanuel KNOWS he can charge more. Time after time, he has gotten sets that people have requested, and he has sold them out virtually instantly. He HAS to know he could raise the prices and still sell them out. But he doesn't/hasn't. Again, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lasik eye surgery
|
|
(...) Oh, man, BUT -- isn't it great knowing that the worst thing that could've happened is that you'd only lose one eye if the scalpel slipped? --Todd (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Naive Sellers (Was Re: 4561 alternates (was: sale at kbkids)
|
|
(...) What makes you so sure? Some of his prices are SO far below MV ($38 for a 4547??) that I wonder. You won't question them because you don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth. At what point do you say as a friend, "dude, you need to be (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lasik eye surgery
|
|
(...) I had one eye done June, and am going to try to schedule the other ASAP in Jan (when my Flex Spending account will pay for it with pretax dollars). I have HATED only having one eye done - it made me really hate dealing with a contact lense in (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Lasik eye surgery
|
|
Hey all, I just had Lasik eye surgery for my extreme myopia (I was about -10 diopters, got my first glasses when I was 6 years old, and then wore hard contacts for over 20 years). I imagine there are a lot of other nearsighted folk among the AFOL (...) (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) can the court distinguish between a link which is clearly for the purpose of encouraging people to use a web site which contains copyright infringing material, which the case this court decision is dealing (...) (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Has the world gone mad?!?
|
|
(...) him/her.) Just my opinion, but doing something like this is just as bad as entering a Lego set. We have a contest in my city every year at the Homedays as part of the arts and crafts section. Fortunately for me, all of the homedays contests (...) (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.us.tn.mem, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tn)
|
| |
| | Re: Naive Sellers (Was Re: 4561 alternates (was: sale at kbkids)
|
|
But you know, Emmanuel is a big boy - I'm SURE he knows by now that he can raise prices on some sets without problems, and make more money, but he doesn't. His reasons are his own, I will not question them. Besides, who knows, maybe he's having (...) (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Has the world gone mad?!?
|
|
J G Gregory wrote in message ... (...) him/her.) (...) Well, far better than some reasons people have kids... Frank (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.us.tn.mem, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tn)
|
| |
| | Re: Has the world gone mad?!?
|
|
(...) Ah, not a good reason... --Jack Gregory (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.us.tn.mem, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tn)
|
| |
| | Re: Naive Sellers
|
|
(...) The 4547, for example, sold for $37.50 through S@H. You're saying that he might be in some way restricted to marking it up only 50 cents?! Dubious at best. (...) Ah, deja vu all over again;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Has the world gone mad?!?
|
|
I saw the same thing and decided enough was enough. I found who was in charge and told them about it. Her reply was that the judges don't know all the sets available currently. I offered to judge the following year and then I told her that if it was (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.us.tn.mem, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tn)
|
| |
| | Re: Naive Sellers
|
|
(...) Unless he is somehow getting them from TLC directly, and has some sort of agreement that he cannot mark them up more than a certain percentage? Or maybe it's a slight mixup, and they're really selling for $380! ;-) John (no, the other one) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) Actually, the whole ten fathoms thing is just a joke. I just did it to further harass already wearied McDonalds employees. Honestly, I don't have a clue how deep a fathom is. The point was to see how much nonsense that they'd put up with. Kind (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) I'd gotten the idea that he was just yanking their chain. Chris (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) Actually, they use founder. McDonald's may use styrofoam containers and throw away 15.7 billion tons of meat a year, but at least they know how to recycle personnel. So why can't the fish be from below 10 fathoms? Would this include fish that (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Thanks! That's the nicest thing anyone's said about me all day! There are a lot of good rules to live by in the members pages but one of my favorites is "be childlike but not childish"... (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMI6p1.DrF@lugnet.com... (...) given (...) people (...) I'd say probably 20 times the average of 20 people with 20 each :-) I'm not sure I've ever seen a grown man look more (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Food WAS: (Re: Your Resumes)
|
|
(...) Hmm, reminds me of when I went to the Pontiac Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan (Where the Pistons used to play and the Lions still do...) and went to the vendor area. Since I worked at the Coffee Beanery at the time, and asked here what kind of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) You know what really confounds them? I've been known to pull up to the speaker and ask them what kind of fish is in the sandwich, because my doctor won't let me eat anything that swims below 10 fathoms. One time I think that they actually got (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) Very true. Not too long ago, I went to a McDonalds, and had to assist the high- school student cashier in counting out my change. I'll have some McMath with that order. (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Food? Was (Re: Your Resumes)
|
|
(...) Well, I am not much for it anymore either, the service and the food leave much to be desired, but when you have my kind of schedule...you learn to handle the Mack Trucks. :0 Scott S. (...) LOL! :) "Hi, my name is Scott, and I'm, I'm..... A (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) I think the question is better phrased as: "How in the world did they get *FISH* mixed up with this fried food-product fillet?" I must be getting on in the years. Every time I eat at Mickey-Dee's, or Burger Fling, or Taco Hell, or Pizza Slut, (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) Sometimes that's hard. Misunderstandings and differing expectations happen all the time and largely it's because of different world-view which is kind of the same as having accepted different implied contracts. I (sort of) keep track of what (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Has the world gone mad?!?
|
|
Steve (the other Demlow Lego brother) helped set up a "construction toys" category for exhibits at our local 4-H fair when he was in high school. I know this was at least a little bit of a problem then, too. I think lack of originality would have (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.us.tn.mem, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tn)
|
| |
| | Re: Has the world gone mad?!?
|
|
A few years ago, the same thing happened in a Swedish LEGO competition. I hated it! --Tobias James J. skrev i meddelandet <37F7BC08.62F5CC0@me...is.edu>... (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.us.tn.mem, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tn)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) I'm curious: Do you consider intellectual property rights to be a subset of property rights, or something totally separate? The original issue, I think, was at least partially about intellectual property rights. --Todd (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) One interesting question is how does one determine that someone has accepted an implied or understood contract? (...) Ok, now how are TLC's intellectual property rights different from the property rights of me for my LEGO collection? Or is the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) Hi Frank, Actually, the reasoning for why your property is safe while I'm in your apartment falls under both my contract and aesthetics categories. When I refer to contracts in a broad sense I don't just mean reams of legalese with hundreds of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) I want to understand your point here better. The above reads to me that you only respect property rights when you have willingly entered into a contract with someone. Is this really true? Do I need to sign a contract with you before I let you (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) Both and also legal. --Todd (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | back to guns (was: Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Right. I wouldn't be an advocate of gun dispersement if my best argument was based on making people polite. Chris (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) What do you mean? There is some evidence for both sides. They do go to the effort to restrict the general consumer flow of information - for whatever reason - so obviously they care at least a little. There are many cited examples of retail (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Does this imply that your steamy entrails are not nice? Or that your entrails are not nice and steamy? ;-) (for the clue impared) Chris (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Catalog scans - TLC stance
|
|
James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in message news:FMHJDI.208@lugnet.com... (...) and I (...) too (...) in (...) that 1 (...) Call me two then. My only vendors catalog, a 1987 one, was from a retailer shelf. Actually, I went into my (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) I stand corrected! :) (...) True, but I'd compare 1 LEGO set to 1 packet of M&Ms, as opposed to 1 LEGO set to 1 M&M. In general of course, I'm not into trains so if I was maybe my perception would be different. Although, if LEGO Direct helps (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) LOL! :) Really? I swore most of those people don't, or at least the blood is not getting up to the brain in a proper fashion. Scott "How in the world can you get a fish sandwich mixed up with a double Quarter Pounder with cheese?" Sanburn (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) Uh, the only thing that *might* prevent you from getting a job at McDonald's or KFC is not having a pulse. -John (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) Or if you are a stuanch vegatarian activist then that might affect your chances of getting a job with macdonalds or KFC. -- Jonathan Wilson wilsonj@xoommail.com (URL) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Your Resumes
|
|
(...) Sure it is. British Tobacco may not want you to work for them if you're an anti smoking activist. Or if your SO works for RJ Reynolds. Or if you jump out of airplanes, it may not be wise to put you on the critical path on a regular basis. (or (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
<FMCELH.J2s@lugnet.com> <FMHr07.84s@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) :-) Although I AM an animal around my trains, and I do think they have a life of their own (unlike me... I have no (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMCELH.J2s@lugnet.com... (...) By the way, it's the law of diminishing _marginal_ returns, and all it states is that at _some_ point, additional units of a good will provide (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Catalog scans - TLC stance
|
|
(...) It was said as being common in Europe by a couple of folks, as well as being said to happen in a couple of US TRU's. I will say there's a store I shop in that makes it available to customers, if not for display. But they seem to have several (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Catalog scans - TLC stance
|
|
(...) This has been said a couple of times (that these are frequently displayed in stores), but in the various threads here, I've only seen 1 person state that 1 store has done this. I also have never personally seen one of these catalogues - and (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) Hellooo LEGOnauts, I have to say that a set does consist of unique pieces and the common pieces that make up a model. These can come from any source, such as *the storage box* or the original package. The original box is not necessary for this (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) For the newbies, and those who don't recall trivia well, this was in response to my posing a thought question. Dave's answer was well written, I agreed with it then, and still do. Very worth rereading if you're interested in the zen of sets. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) In terms of collectability, I agree with you completely; I should have been more specific. Here's that aforementioned DejaNews link: (URL) Not to be taken too seriously! Dave! (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
I would say that the status of your having a set or not depends on the purpose of making the claim. For the ultimate in collectibility, every set must be in the condition it arrived at the retailers when first released. For the purposes of having (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) It comes from lawyers and politicians and owners of corporations. If they don't make a statement a subject, then they've neither blessed it or cursed it, and they have an open field to react to later developments. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) In lugnet.technic, Michael Edwards writes: (...) Looks like someone got the first slap! regards lawrence (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on DejaNews). In essence, the "setness" of a set is contained in its unique pieces, such as the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) You _knew_ when you wrote that that _someone_ was going to quote you out of context, didn't you? Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Just to make my voice heard: I agree with you Todd. Our actions should be motivated not by what we can do, but by what is right and by what is morally responsible. Legality is not necessarily a litmus test for legitimacy; I can think of, oh, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Or they don't care. Which is what I think. And I'm more than willing to interpret silence that way, just like we've interpreted their silence on other issues that way. (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) NO. Huw respected Suz's request. There's a big difference. "They" havent' made any such request that I'm aware of. Or if they have, it's been a more general request that several other major fan sites violate every day. (...) If I thought (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that TLG/C DOES respect us "much" or at all? I bet for every instance of an _individual_ Lego employee showing respect for another individual AFOL we can come up with at least one example of a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) However, if the rep doesn't preface some tidbit with "don't spread this around", or similar, I try to remember to ASK. I have kept things in confidence many times when ASKED. It's common courtesy. I'm waiting for TLC to ASK or TELL us what (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure Lugnet and Brickshelf DO still exist because of this. However.... (...) That would be a MAJOR shift from their current Fair Use Policy, and I'd expect them to post such a change on lego.com and put a pointer to it. And until (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Believe it or not, I'm taking the side of TLC here, and you guys aren't. At least in one way. "You guys" are basically assuming TLC is a bunch of clueless morons that haven't seen the furor over this, or have seen it, and are too clueless to know (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message news:FMFtxt.5K6@lugnet.com... [snipped well written, agreeable points throughout] (...) the (...) the (...) This may not be so, Kevin. For this year, Lego has apparently _intentionally_ left (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) It sort-of is. (...) We have no such evidence. (...) It's not obvious to me. (...) here you seem to be asserting that TLG has actually fired employees for this. Who? When? What are you talking about? I agree with Mike three notes down. Chris (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) True, but: 1. I have never seen nor has anyone ever produced anything in _writing_ that indicates that a Vendors catalog is confidential, or privileged information. 2. It is true that they hold them close and don't give them out to everyone. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Here's my quick opinion: TLG has the right to do as they wish with their information, and that includes putting restrictions on how and when (and if) it is made available. TLG doesn't respect us much, if at all, as a corporation now. This whole (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Paranoia reigns king. And there's a lot to be paranoid about. Did I ever mention the $500 worth of magic cards I never received after I paid? Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Reading some of the posts, they are, for the most part, valid arguments, but I don't want to be in a position of such debate. I think the sets have already arrived at TRU, based on what I found out yesterday. How long are we going to wait, really? (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) No. (...) Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it has to be done. Just because something will probably happen no matter what doesn't always mean that it must be enthusiastically endorsed or that it's not worth struggling against. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Lego. (...) Not much, but who cares? Using "they don't respect me, so I won't respect them" is circular and self-defeating. (...) I think it's been blown way out of proportion too, but that doesn't change the inherent arguement. If it's (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) NO. We have a report from another person that a Lego employee said that. I've been told lots of things by store employees, and trust me, you shouldn't _always_ believe what someone making low money to stand on their feet all days says when it (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Which we won't, which ought to (at the VERY least) lead some to believe that TLC is no more concerned about this than they are brickshelf.com Am *I* comparing the two? No. But I think a nice healthy dose of silence on this current issue should (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) By and large, what gives you the impression that they DO respect US? Maybe respect certain individuals who show up at functions and show them how amazing a resource we can be to them, but even then only respect from a random employee or two? (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Gary Istok <gistok@umich.edu> wrote in message news:384E74BE.A847E7...ich.edu... (...) having server (...) 1993 Dealer (...) LEGO Dealer (...) hoot about (...) the USA since (...) Am I correct (...) Brickshelf has several old vendors' catalog (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
