 | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | (...) First, yes train folks would be interested. Just as they would be interested if someone had a MetroLiner for sale, that doesn't mean the post should be in .trains . Second, it is purley marketing, the contest is free to join but don't think (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) I have to ask, so what? We want to buy their product, and as long as the groups aren't saturated with marketing (which they aren't), I see no problem. (...) Again...your point is? I don't care if LEGO is about making money, in fact, I want (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) I think Todd explained things pretty well here: (URL) if you want my *personal* reasons to know what "my point" was I will tell you. 1. Time = Money The time I have to dedicate to reading LUGNET is somewhat limited. I am not interested in what (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | (...) A very brief response -- I'm still digesting all this. I agree concerning contests, sale items etc. I think the matter of the Bionicle masks is a little different. Tomas Clark responded to direct questions/speculation from fans. This was (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) So you would prefer to hear about the Fort Legoredo's from some AFOL posting that he just found out that S@H got a bunch in and he just bought them all? What is different from Brad telling us "hey Shop at Home got this pile of nice sets" and a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | Yep, its a me too post. I couldn't have said it better than Frank. I think that stuff like S@H announcements, and the DYA example, suggests a double standard. Unless, I am misunderstanding something... -Tim Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Tim, it is a double standard. OF COURSE it's a double standard. And that's a GOOD THING in this case. Let me elaborate so that you understand. The charter of lugnet.lego.announce includes "LEGO Direct announcements," which means it is free to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —John Hansen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) So we'd love to have Walmart.com start posting here about Lego sets they have available? Or KBKids or Amazon or ZanyBrainy? If anyone would be here for one reason only (i.e., our money) it would be retailers who happen to sell Lego sets. They (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) The difference is collossal. One is a company acting opportunistically to dump obsolete stock and the other is a community of like-minded peers sharing information. Please don't think that anyone is saying that LEGO shouldn't be allowed to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) So do not open the posts, you have every right to pass them over. (...) WHOA! Are you honestly trying to tell us that: A) Lego would not have been able to sell these sets outside of Lugnet? I very much doubt they would have any prob selling (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | | | (...) The only part of LUGNET that has the mandate of opening the lines of communication between LEGO and it's fans is .lego.* So here we have the owner of LUGNET wanting to reinforce this, which is not that far off of a debate about people (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) We seem to be having a very major communications problem here. Obsolete stock is a manufacturing and retail sales term that basically means something that's not in production anymore and is sitting around in the warehouse or shelves taking up (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | (...) But still, they are not trying to sell us anything - and they do not have to try to sell us anything, we buy Lego no matter what. this goes to whats below also. (...) Do you want them to go bankrupt? I know it will never happen - That is the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) As the other Eric posting to this thread, I can say that I certainly don't want LEGO to go away, either! I'm very glad they want to participate in Lugnet, and I'm very happy that they want to announce special deals and sales... but I'm also (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —James Stacey
|
| | | | I'm quite new to the Lugnet community so I'm not up on structure and procedure, (I didn't know Lego were active participents) but this is obviously a topic that has got a lot of people going. would a vote be possible in a case like this where (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | (...) First, welcome to LUGNET!!! We really are a friendly bunch most of the time :-). As for your question I think I would say it is highly unlikely a vote would happen. LUGNET is privately owned by Todd Lehman and Suzanne Rich which means what (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
