Subject:
|
Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:21:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1618 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Look at what has happened. The seller deliberately continued to break the
ToS! Given that Dan has a duty to protect buyers; how else could he react?
You appear to be suggesting he should have renegotiated the ToS!?
|
No ...
|
Yes, read his very words:
“Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording as it’s a ToS
violation. I responded with a suggestion for a different approach.”
Scott A
| |
he was attempting to comply with the ToS and proposed a solution when
he was cut off at the knees.
That’s my belief having read the discussion *and* having spoken with Lar.
I’ll defend him based on the interactions I’ve observed (recent and in the
past) and based on my knowledge of his character and intent. However, its not
best coming from me - Lar should really say his piece about what he was doing
and make his case if he so chooses. From what I understand, he’s unwinding
from being on the road for BrickFest and GenCon so he’s still getting caught
up with all of this nonsense.
-Tim
|
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) No ... he was attempting to comply with the ToS and proposed a solution when he was cut off at the knees. That's my belief having read the discussion *and* having spoken with Lar. I'll defend him based on the interactions I've observed (recent (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
