Subject:
|
Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:16:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1605 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
My post was based only on undisputed comments.
Scott A
|
No -- it is not undisputed that the reason he was banned was a TOS violation. He
broke it, was corrected, and made an earnest attempt to comply. After his
attempt to comply he was banned without recourse.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
| (...) Can you please define what you mean by "earnest"? Are you saying his "earnest attempt" put him inside the ToS? (...) You or I would have deleted the whole of the text and shrugged the matter off. Larry tried to play it smart and it backfired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) The following posts shed light on this: (URL) on these, I don't believe that Larry's correction was earnest, but rather calculating. My guess (yes, it's a guess)is that it was the phrase "Until perpetual stock is implemented," that was the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
131 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
