 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
