 | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Might this seem like a form of insider trading? If LEGO has facilitated this process in defiance of its stated ordering limits, then cleary they're at fault. But what if the seller has found a non-publicly-disclosed means of acquiring numerous (...) (21 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Not really, because I support insider trading. All trading is insider trading, actually. (...) Nope. Assuming there's no breach of contract. (...) Nothing. You, however, can do something about it, if you wish. (21 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) That's an interesting assertion, though I'd have to differ. On what do you base it? (...) Hadn't thought about it, honestly. What could I do, if I wished? I can head to Hawaii and give him the frowning of a lifetime. Who's with me!?! Dave! (21 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) On the legal definition of insider trading as it stands, today, in the US. That's the last I'll say about it in this thread, start a new thread if you want. (...) Don't buy from him, every chance you get. Haven't you read the thread? :-) (...) (...) (21 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Nah, not worth it. I think I misread your initial point anyway, and my question was imprecisely worded. (...) Heck, I've already been doing that. I'm glad to support the team! Haven't you read the thread? :-) Only the parts in OT.debate. You (...) (21 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
