 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Not bad at all! I suppose this is as good as it can possibly get. However, this
statement should have been made a bit earlier. How long could it take to come up
with a press release like that? Or was the general idea to let the dust settle a
bit first? :)
The offer to actually buy sets back is rather spectacular, no: unheard of. Just
imagine: YOU could sell your perfectly fine LEGO back to TLG! Sounds ridiculous,
and one could say it drives that customer-satisfaction-thing a bit too far. But
I think TLG (beside trying to be nice) wishes to avoid possible (if unlikely)
legal trouble because of their earlier (and misleading) promis ... err product
information.
To me it also proves that our DOC (Department Of Complainers) here at Lugnet
(and especially the Germans) couldn't have been that wrong on the issue. Let me
tell all you counter-complainers straight away:
WE WERE RIGHT.
I'd also like to point out there's still a pretty unsatisfied customer out here!
Since we are tip-toeing around landmines anyway, let me ask if TLG would also
like to buy back the handful of blueish gray pieces I've trapped in my
quarantine bin? ;)
"Primus" Burkhard
Brick Commander (LEGO & BattleTech)
Official BattleTech & Mechwarrior Fan-Site
http://www.BrickCommander.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> To me it also proves that our DOC (Department Of Complainers) here at Lugnet
> (and especially the Germans) couldn't have been that wrong on the issue. Let me
> tell all you counter-complainers straight away:
>
> WE WERE RIGHT.
I'm not sure that's necessarily a valid conclusion. Another possible conclusion
is that you were wrong, but LEGO is such a good company at heart that they
apologised anyway in the interests of peace and harmony.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
>
> > To me it also proves that our DOC (Department Of Complainers) here at Lugnet
> > (and especially the Germans) couldn't have been that wrong on the issue. Let me
> > tell all you counter-complainers straight away:
> >
> > WE WERE RIGHT.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily a valid conclusion. Another possible conclusion
> is that you were wrong, but LEGO is such a good company at heart that they
> apologised anyway in the interests of peace and harmony.
Larry's statement would be my personal take of the situation, given all the
observable facts, and without knowing exactly what happened behind boardroom
doors.
Dave K
-not that I want this to escalate into a debate.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Larry’s statement would be my personal take of the situation, given all the
observable facts, and without knowing exactly what happened behind boardroom
doors.
|
Me too, but its not really a black and white thing. Customers are customers -
when they are annoyed you do your best to fix them up, whatever the
technicalities of the situation.
When you are surprised by a customer reaction (remember New Coke?) you get to
learn something about your customer and their relationship with your product
that you didn’t know before.
I guess this time, TLG learned a little bit more about “Collectability”. If
there are plenty of returns, it will prove the existence of an adult
collectors market beyond doubt. Then TLG will start thinking about ways of
exploiting it to a greater degree than they have in the past - with both good
and bad effects for us AFOLs.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> > WE WERE RIGHT.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily a valid conclusion. Another possible conclusion
> is that you were wrong, but LEGO is such a good company at heart that they
> apologised anyway in the interests of peace and harmony.
Weisst Du, warum der Teufel seine Grossmutter erschlagen hat? Weil ihr keine
Ausreden mehr eingefallen sind.
;-)
Leg Godt,
René
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
| |
Weisst Du, warum der Teufel seine Grossmutter erschlagen hat? Weil ihr keine
Ausreden mehr eingefallen sind.
|
Google Translation:
Do you know, why the devil killed his grandmother? Because you broke in no
more excuses.
I know something must have gotten lost in the translation, but I still find this
funny even though I don’t have a clue what it means.
jt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, James Trobaugh wrote:
| |
I know something must have gotten lost in the translation, but I still find
this funny even though I don’t have a clue what it means.
jt
|
It also means we could as well debate in German about such issues. Larry
“Goodheart” P. and David “I’ll buy two!” K. will never run out of lame excuses.
;)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, James Trobaugh wrote:
> > I know something must have gotten lost in the translation, but I still find
> > this funny even though I don't have a clue what it means.
> >
> > jt
>
> It also means we could as well debate in German about such issues. Larry
> "Goodheart" P. and David "I'll buy two!" K. will never run out of lame
> excuses. ;)
Larry gets the cool 'Goodheart' nickname whilst I get 'I'll buy two'?
I want a cool nickname!
Dave "The Yellow Dart" K
-that's gotta be at least +5 or +10 right there...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> Larry gets the cool 'Goodheart' nickname whilst I get 'I'll buy two'?
>
> I want a cool nickname!
Actually Larry is really unhappy about his "cool nickname". He's complaining to
me via email. Sigh. You guys really are tough customers. But that's the way with
complainers - they're sooo hard to satisfy ... :P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > Larry gets the cool 'Goodheart' nickname whilst I get 'I'll buy two'?
> >
> > I want a cool nickname!
Dave, you already have one, from what I hear... :-)
> Actually Larry is really unhappy about his "cool nickname".
Actually I'm not at *all* unhappy with that nickname, I'll wear it proudly.
After all, I *am* "goodhearted", I try to always expect the best from companies
and from people. How sad it must be to go around always expecting the worst.
> He's complaining to me
What I'm *not* very impressed with, and what it was I mailed you about, is
characterising another possible explanation for events as a "lame excuse".
That's really not an accurate characterization, nor is it likely to move the
conversation forward usefully.
> via email.
Because I wanted to keep it off the lists... I'm confused as to why you need to
reply to a private email publicly?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> What I'm *not* very impressed with, and what it was I mailed you about, is
> characterising another possible explanation for events as a "lame excuse".
"Possible"? Oh come on. How about "unlikely"? Or "far-fetched"? Maybe "overly
optimistic"?
While your attitude helps stretching out a debate endlessly, it really isn't
helpful in the end. Please try to be realistic, occasionally at least. Being so
... stubbornly goodhearted can be offensive too. Someone else then believes you
offended his intellect, and on is the flame war!
> > I'm confused as to why you need to
> reply to a private email publicly?
"Confused" is the keyword here. See, Larry, if you check the message tree
carefully you'll find out I actually replied to David "insert cool nickname
here" K.'s message and, while I was on it, just mentioned your little problem in
one line or two, because it fit the topic. Well, not THE topic, which is still
Maersk, but the topic of our little quareling club. I suggest be better quit
here and now before we all get locked up for spamming ;)
However, it's not as if I spilled the beans about something confidential, right?
And please read Mark Jordan's "Press release" again. It's hilariously funny. I'm
still in tears. The funny-false-accent-thing is really old though. I always do
the same when reading David K.s posts aloud. I'd imagine my false canadian
accent is actually quite presentable ... :P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > What I'm *not* very impressed with, and what it was I mailed you about, is
> > characterising another possible explanation for events as a "lame excuse".
>
> "Possible"? Oh come on. How about "unlikely"? Or "far-fetched"? Maybe "overly
> optimistic"?
> While your attitude helps stretching out a debate endlessly, it really isn't
> helpful in the end. Please try to be realistic, occasionally at least. Being so
> ... stubbornly goodhearted can be offensive too. Someone else then believes you
> offended his intellect, and on is the flame war!
>
> > > I'm confused as to why you need to
> > reply to a private email publicly?
>
> "Confused" is the keyword here. See, Larry, if you check the message tree
> carefully you'll find out I actually replied to David "insert cool nickname
> here" K.'s message and, while I was on it, just mentioned your little problem in
> one line or two, because it fit the topic. Well, not THE topic, which is still
> Maersk, but the topic of our little quareling club. I suggest be better quit
> here and now before we all get locked up for spamming ;)
> However, it's not as if I spilled the beans about something confidential, right?
>
> And please read Mark Jordan's "Press release" again. It's hilariously funny. I'm
> still in tears. The funny-false-accent-thing is really old though. I always do
> the same when reading David K.s posts aloud. I'd imagine my false canadian
> accent is actually quite presentable ... :P
Since we are into German quotes, I have one for everyone....
"Der G'schedere gibt nach"
Gary istok
Loosely translated "the smarter one will let it go..."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Since we are into German quotes, I have one for everyone....
>
> "Der G'schedere gibt nach"
>
> Gary istok
>
> Loosely translated "the smarter one will let it go..."
Ops, shows how "G'scheid" I am, I can't even spell it right.
Gary Istok
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Gerhard R. Istok wrote:
> Since we are into German quotes, I have one for everyone....
>
> "Der G'schedere gibt nach"
>
> Loosely translated "the smarter one will let it go..."
Well, by all indications that would be me then.
Damn, you really know how to get me, Gerhard! ;)
Alright then:
Larry, since I couldn't stand another of your dreary emails anyway, I apologize
for having been so particularly nasty.
Let me conclude our business with a (hopefully) final german quote:
"Gut's Nächtle!"
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, James Trobaugh wrote:
> > > I know something must have gotten lost in the translation, but I still find
> > > this funny even though I don't have a clue what it means.
> > >
> > > jt
> >
> > It also means we could as well debate in German about such issues. Larry
> > "Goodheart" P. and David "I'll buy two!" K. will never run out of lame
> > excuses. ;)
>
> Larry gets the cool 'Goodheart' nickname whilst I get 'I'll buy two'?
>
> I want a cool nickname!
Wow, Dave "King of the Sheets", isn't cool? If that's not good enough for you,
wow, you have very high expectations! Personally, that beats some of my
nicknames by a mile, of course, that list is unfit for public consumption.
> Dave "The Yellow Dart" K
> -that's gotta be at least +5 or +10 right there...
Cowdice rolls... +5 + 6.
My roll......... Snake eyes.
(Apparently I'm playing Craps with a 12-sided die, man that screws with the
memorized probability!)
Janey "You can't say that, Red Brick"
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
You can't be Mr. Black. If I let you be Mr. Black, then everybody'll want to
be Mr. Black. So you're Mr. Pink.
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
news:IAzw7G.1uCI@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, James Trobaugh wrote:
> > > I know something must have gotten lost in the translation, but I still
> > > find
> > > this funny even though I don't have a clue what it means.
> > >
> > > jt
> >
> > It also means we could as well debate in German about such issues. Larry
> > "Goodheart" P. and David "I'll buy two!" K. will never run out of lame
> > excuses. ;)
>
> Larry gets the cool 'Goodheart' nickname whilst I get 'I'll buy two'?
>
> I want a cool nickname!
>
> Dave "The Yellow Dart" K
> -that's gotta be at least +5 or +10 right there...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Tony Kilaras wrote:
> You can't be Mr. Black. If I let you be Mr. Black, then everybody'll want to
> be Mr. Black. So you're Mr. Pink.
Umm.... *coughs* Hi guys! :)
Norbert Black
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, James Trobaugh wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
| |
Weisst Du, warum der Teufel seine Grossmutter erschlagen hat? Weil ihr keine
Ausreden mehr eingefallen sind.
|
Google Translation:
Do you know, why the devil killed his grandmother? Because you broke in no
more excuses.
I know something must have gotten lost in the translation, but I still find
this funny even though I don’t have a clue what it means.
jt
|
Translation is:
“Do you know why Old Nick killed his grandma? Because she’s at a loss for
excuses”
It’s a saying in German, but I’m just kidding in this case :-)
Leg Godt!
René
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(snip)
> I'd also like to point out there's still a pretty unsatisfied customer out here!
> Since we are tip-toeing around landmines anyway, let me ask if TLG would also
> like to buy back the handful of blueish gray pieces I've trapped in my
> quarantine bin? ;)
If you don't want it, I'll take that bluish gray brick off your hands... Parts
is parts, so long as it says "LEGO" on the top of the studs...
Scott Lyttle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<snippage>
>
> If you don't want it, I'll take that bluish gray brick off your hands... Parts
> is parts, so long as it says "LEGO" on the top of the studs...
>
> Scott Lyttle
A nice, calm voice of reason. I agree Scott. Pieces is Pieces whatever the
color.
Ben M.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Benjamin Medinets wrote:
> A nice, calm voice of reason. I agree Scott. Pieces is Pieces whatever the
> color.
>
> Ben M.
My thoughts exactly, Ben - way back when I was like 8 or 9 years old.
A friend of mine (same age) was building COLOR-MATCHED cars with my collection
of loose LEGO pieces. I found that rather odd. Why would he do that, I wondered?
After all, pieces are pieces, whatever the color ...
Let's be friends and sing a LEGO song together, shall we?
"Pieces aaaare pieces, so - why should it beeee ..." :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Benjamin Medinets wrote:
>
> > A nice, calm voice of reason. I agree Scott. Pieces is Pieces whatever the
> > color.
> >
> > Ben M.
>
> My thoughts exactly, Ben - way back when I was like 8 or 9 years old.
> A friend of mine (same age) was building COLOR-MATCHED cars with my collection
> of loose LEGO pieces. I found that rather odd. Why would he do that, I wondered?
> After all, pieces are pieces, whatever the color ...
>
> Let's be friends and sing a LEGO song together, shall we?
>
> "Pieces aaaare pieces, so - why should it beeee ..." :)
Great, now I'll have that song and 80's flashback in my mind for the rest of the
day. Who was that group that did that song?
Earlier it was mentioned "Parts is Parts" - that was from a KFC commercial from
about the same time.
-Patrick
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Patrick S. O'Donnell wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> > After all, pieces are pieces, whatever the color ...
> >
> > Let's be friends and sing a LEGO song together, shall we?
> >
> > "Pieces aaaare pieces, so - why should it beeee ..." :)
>
> Great, now I'll have that song and 80's flashback in my mind for the rest of the
> day. Who was that group that did that song?
>
> Earlier it was mentioned "Parts is Parts" - that was from a KFC commercial from
> about the same time.
>
> -Patrick
Depeche Mode is the answer to that trivia question.
Eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Eric Strand wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Patrick S. O'Donnell wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
>
> > > After all, pieces are pieces, whatever the color ...
> > >
> > > Let's be friends and sing a LEGO song together, shall we?
> > >
> > > "Pieces aaaare pieces, so - why should it beeee ..." :)
> >
> > Great, now I'll have that song and 80's flashback in my mind for the rest of the
> > day. Who was that group that did that song?
> >
> > Earlier it was mentioned "Parts is Parts" - that was from a KFC commercial from
> > about the same time.
> >
> > -Patrick
>
> Depeche Mode is the answer to that trivia question.
> Eric
A few more words:
Pieces are pieces so why should it be
Bley and grey should get along so awfully?
...
You know they're different colours and they're different creeds,
but different pieces have different needs
...
Help me understand
What makes a Tan hate another Tan?
Help me understand
...
The original song acknowledged differences in skin tone and culture, asking why
that should lead to hatred. It begs the question "Do we have Lego piece
racism?". Are bleys considered as the new Lego genetic underclass? Has anyone
committed Lego piece ethnic cleansing by eradicating all bley from their
collection? :-)
FUT to .color
Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(snip)
> Earlier it was mentioned "Parts is Parts" - that was from a KFC commercial from
> about the same time.
>
> -Patrick
Actually, it's from an old Wendy's commercial, about the same time as Clara
Peller and "Where's the Beef!"...those commercials were directed by Joel
Sedelmaier, an award winning commercial director. If you ever get a hold of the
old VCR game "commercial crazies", it's got a lot of his old commercials
(Wendy's, Alaska air, PSA air, Federal Express, Subaru, one of the bell
telephone companies, some other ones as well..one of my favorites features an
award winning professor who goes bonkers after reading a life insurance
policy..)
-Scott
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> To me it also proves that our DOC (Department Of Complainers) here at Lugnet
> (and especially the Germans) couldn't have been that wrong on the issue. Let me
> tell all you counter-complainers straight away:
>
> WE WERE RIGHT.
I dunno if it was so much a question of being right or not-- I think the
difference of opinion was "is this a big deal" or not. There was some
disagreement about whether or not they made any "promise" to us that they broke
in re-releasing the Maersk blue again, but I know the contention was that Lego
didn't legally HAVE to do anything. Whether or not they SHOULD was another
matter, as well as whether or not our enthusiasm for the product would diminish
if they didn't.
Personally, I'm glad they apologized and made the offer to buy back Maersk ships
(although if we hear that that offer hurts the company significantly, I'll be a
lot less glad), but I didn't think it was a huge deal if they didn't do
anything.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> > To me it also proves that our DOC (Department Of Complainers) here at Lugnet
> > (and especially the Germans) couldn't have been that wrong on the issue. Let me
> > tell all you counter-complainers straight away:
> >
> > WE WERE RIGHT.
>
> I dunno if it was so much a question of being right or not-- I think the
> difference of opinion was "is this a big deal" or not. There was some
> disagreement about whether or not they made any "promise" to us that they broke
> in re-releasing the Maersk blue again, but I know the contention was that Lego
> didn't legally HAVE to do anything. Whether or not they SHOULD was another
> matter, as well as whether or not our enthusiasm for the product would diminish
> if they didn't.
>
> Personally, I'm glad they apologized and made the offer to buy back Maersk ships
> (although if we hear that that offer hurts the company significantly, I'll be a
> lot less glad), but I didn't think it was a huge deal if they didn't do
> anything.
>
> DaveE
I think its an easy thing to offer to buy back the sets, since absolutely no-one
will be giving them back! :) I sure won't.
-Alfred
| | | | | | |
