 | | Re: a public response to Mr. Stangl's comments
|
|
I'm not going to waste my time with your pigheadededness and obvious trolls for attention via email or newsgroups anymore. My last word on it: YOUR exact words "Please excuse my pessimism and possible ignorance in this matter but it seems like a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Sep-00, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
To All, Ugh. OK, I just want to say this, and I won't saything else, I posted this to off.topic.debate as well, for I think we are drifting again into this. I am in my, why do people do this mode, and this guy is a prime example. Shame on TLC for (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) Never underestimate the power one has by irritating a corporation. But I'm not sure what legal rights (definitely not sure re: UK law) he may have in changing his name thusly. "Legoland Windsor" is most likely a trade name, and protected by (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
To All, (...) What a joke. This was an obvious attempt to try to grate a "enormously rich and powerful organization", or to get money out of them. People like this need to do something more productive than to irritate corporations in this fashion. (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Quote: "Legos are for 9 year olds..."
|
|
It was only the one person who made a LEGO-related comment. I think he was just letting off steam like he later said. I suspect the reason no one defended/supported that particular comment (other than me, of course) is because they realized they (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
