 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys
|
| | | (...) One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all means. But, let's look at Ken's very example, which is completely inaccurate to the actual situation. (...) LEGO made no such promise and there was no going back on (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Snipped most of it to focus on one point (...) Note that saying that you think a discussion is over, does anyone have anything NEW to add, is not censorship. If no one adds anything new, asking that people not repeat the same points except LOUDER is (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel
|
| | | | | | (...) Ditto (...) Censorship does come into play when you say "LUGNET doesn't (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did, I'd lock this thread so fast it (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel
|
| | | | (...) I have no need to misinterpert anything. I can read what jake posted on these boards and words mean things. I read what Lego chose to publicly post. (...) They should have found a diffrent way to satisfy Maersk and keep their word to the (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
