 | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | (...) And I ask YOU honestly, isn't the fact that TLC hasn't said anything about other things on other fan sites taken as implicit permission to do them? What's the difference? I'll be happy to eat crow if some TLC official makes a statement about (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | (...) In my opinion? Certainly not! Grudging permission, tolerance maybe. But then it is not the charter of pause and brickshelf to contain company secrets. I really don't understand this "They haven't told us not to, so it's okay" attitude! (...) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) You don't? OK, we'd better shut down Brickshelf and Lugnet. RIGHT NOW. Because Richard says that since TLC hasn't told us not to, it's NOT OK, so all of Kevin/Todd's scans have to go. Take them down. Richard says so. If you can't see the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You sound pretty sure of that. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | OK, let me clarify - at NO time publicly has TLC stated anything about Brickshelf, and Kevin has repeatedly mentioned he hasn't heard from TLC. Yet by Richard's Holy Rule, since TLC has said nothing about posting instruction scans, and posting them (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Right, not much. And as much as I trust Todd, and I do, I don't accept his opinion as gospel truth about all things related to how TLC/G feels about all issues. Certainly not based on the few haizy references I've seen to "private" (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Inasmuch as I dislike "tooting the horn," I also try not to keep important things like that secret, assuming I am able to say one way or the other. In October of 1997, for example, I did mention that Suzanne and I had had a meeting with two (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) (Just re-reading what I just wrote) Bad wording -- I didn't mean that to sound like a back-handed slap. And I don't mean to demean educated guesses. I just meant that maybe the tone of this message, (URL) a bit strong, given the known facts. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Whoops, darn it, I did it again. I meant this message, (URL) #2743. Sorry. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | Well, the other side of the coin is that YOU, and ONLY you, knew the full details of what they did/did not say was OK. All we have to go on is the Fair Use Policy posted on lego.com. We (the unwashed <g>) won't know any better unless the Policy is (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, if he's wrong then say so. I distinctly remember Kevin on numerous occasions mentioning something to the extent of "well, the less attention we make TLG pay to the scans site the better" - basically, like in the case of the loser selling (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) You call them company secrets. Company secrets that are so important that they're stored in catalogs that many retailers leave on the shelf for customers to see. The thought that, 2 weeks before these hit the shelves (or 2 months, or whatever) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) It comes from lawyers and politicians and owners of corporations. If they don't make a statement a subject, then they've neither blessed it or cursed it, and they have an open field to react to later developments. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Does this imply that your steamy entrails are not nice? Or that your entrails are not nice and steamy? ;-) (for the clue impared) Chris (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
