| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> <385C70D7.568E345D@voyager.net> <FMzorw.GrH@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > [...]
> > > We are beating a deceased equine here. Todd is wrong about the law. LEGO
> > > is wrong about the law. Insisting makes Todd look foolish, and it makes
> > > LEGO look foolish. But, let them insist all they wish.
> >
> > Uhm, excuse me, exactly what did I saw that was wrong about the law?
> >
> > --Todd
>
> Well I did some digging to find examples but not as much as I could
> have. While I'd love to devote the time some of the rest of you have to
> this topic, I have a house to pack up so it can be marketed. (1) However
> one jumps right out at me, to wit, this post:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/announce/?n=405
>
> Depending on how one construes "WRONGFULLY", (2) it left me with the
> impression, correct or incorrect, that your position was that posting
> links that one found by nosing around on a public server was not merely
> impolite, but actually illegal. That's wrong. It isn't illegal, just
> rude.
>
> But I was quoted out of context. The context here is that I feel it's
> not enough that we all on LUGNET hew to the letter of the law, or even
> to your wishes, but that we must do more. We must behave as responsible
> individuals, worthy of being consulted by decision makers at TLG. That
> does not mean that we chuck common sense out the window when TLG lawyers
> do the usual corporate thing, but it does mean that we should be
> respectful of TLG wishes when it is only common courtesy to do so, and
> that we should be respectful of each other, our ideas, our ideals, our
> sensibilities, and our mores in this community we are building here.
> (which is apropos of another topic brewing here now, that of community
> standards)
>
> That's what is important, not what the letter of the law is or who said
> what, and that was one of the points I was trying to make. The other is
> that this is your (Todd's) sandbox, and as long as you are not actually
> requiring us to do something illegal ourselves, we can either abide by
> the TOS or not be here. (and that is a point I've made time and time
> again, but it bears repeating...) We can try to convince you differently
> but once you say, "enough, my mind is made up on this point, thanks for
> the input", we should stop.
>
> 1 - We are selling our house (and buying one that, among other things,
> is much more suited to LEGO as a hobby, can you say a basement with
> floor to ceiling steel shelving already installed along one wall, 2
> extra block courses, and a 30x40 clear span in the center... the stock
> market has been very good to me lately. (3) )...
>
> 2 - and normally, "wrongfully" is used when speaking in a legal sense.
> Hence my read
>
> 3 - no actually it was all those blue hoppers, so long and thanks for
> all the bricks.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
HERE! HERE! I agree 100%, well put Lar. :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
