Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:31:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2272 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I ask you honestly - is there a possibility that you are using the fact that
> > TLC will most probably not answer you to justify doing something that they
> > probably wouldn't like and could hurt the community?
>
> 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?
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!
> What's the difference? I'll be happy to eat crow if some TLC
> official makes a statement about this, but until then, I'm not going
> to accept anyone else's intepretation of these nice steamy entrails
> over mine.
There is more reason to believe that they wouldn't wish them to be shown to the
public than not. But to repeat something that someone else said - this has been
covered before :)
> > I have no problem with being wrong, it's useful to expect that from time to
> > time. But when I know that I could be wrong I would not risk something like
> > hurting TLC-FOL relations, without good reason - and "Mummy didn't tell me
> > not to paint the dog blue" is not an excuse to do it!
>
> It's an excuse to do other things, though.
http://www.dumblaws.com/mass.shtml
"It is illegal to eat peanuts in church."
A lot of these came from the fact that people chose to flout something that
they shouldn't have. They thought "There isn't anything to stop me doing this",
and the result of their lack of respect is that they did manage to goad a
reaction.
TLC may be warming up their lawyers just now, and while they are at it they may
take action against a few other things that have been bothering them for a
while too.
Publishing company secrets, whether we think they are important or not, crosses
the line between being a fan and showing respect.
> As for TLC-AFOL relations, the only relations I see are the AFOLs
> spending money on TLC's products and having ... none? of their
> ideas/requests/offers given any consideration at all.
Does your position on this come from your bitterness about your experiences
with TLC?
Richard
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
116 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
|
|
|
|
