 | | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) This is a little ironic. For years the community tried to get TLC involved and to participate and now it's trying to keep them out. There has to be a reason for this which we (the end-users of Lugnet) will most likely never know. I sort of (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) Not necessarily. If someone in the trains group (for example) feels that something a LEGO employee posted about trains was relevant to a particular train discussion, don't worry -- you'll still hear about it. It's also a lot more genuine buzz (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) (URL) (24 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)
|
|
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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
First, I want to say I may regret replying to this post, I see everybody has left it alone so far - its kinda scary being the one breaking the ice, lol. In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) I personally do not think they would (...) (24 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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 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)
|
|
(...) That explicit statement may have been Mark's straw man rather than a real statement, but I got that implication from things that have been said here. (...) One man's trash is another man's treasure. I didn't see all of those posts as clutter. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
